[House Prints, 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                       INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REPORT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON RULES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   ON

                              H. RES. 525

 PROVIDING FOR A DELIBERATIVE REVIEW BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
  OF A COMMUNICATION FROM AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, AND FOR THE RELEASE 
                    THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                               __________

                           September 10, 1998

                               __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules

                               ----------

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-586 cc                    WASHINGTON : 1998

_______________________________________________________________________
 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
                                 Office
                          Washington, DC 20402




                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

                GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York, Chairman

DAVID DREIER, California             JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts
PORTER GOSS, Florida                 MARTIN FROST, Texas
JOHN LINDER, Georgia                 TONY P. HALL, Ohio
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio                  LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, New York
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
DOC HASTINGS, Washington
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

                    William D. Crosby, Chief Counsel

                    Daniel J. Keniry, Staff Director

              George C. Crawford, Minority Staff Director

               Bryan H. Roth, Office and Systems Manager

                                 ______

             Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process

                     PORTER GOSS, Florida, Chairman

JOHN LINDER, Georgia                 MARTIN FROST, Texas
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio                  JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts
DOC HASTINGS, Washington
GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York

                          Wendy Selig, Counsel

                Kristi Walseth, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

          Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House

                   DAVID DREIER, California, Chairman

LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida         TONY P. HALL, Ohio
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado              LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, New York
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York

                       Vincent Randazzo, Counsel

                Michael Gessel, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)


                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   Page

                           September 10, 1998

Opening statement of the Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, chairman of 
  the Committee on Rules                                             01
Opening statement of the Hon. John Joseph Moakley, ranking member 
  of the Committee on Rules                                          05
Opening statement of the Hon. David Dreier, vice chairman of the 
  Committee on Rules                                                 06
Opening statement of the Hon. Tony P. Hall, a member of the 
  Committee on Rules [prepared statement p. 07]                      07
Opening statement of the Hon. Porter J. Goss, a member of the 
  Committee on Rules                                                 08
Opening statement of the Hon. Louise M. Slaughter, a member of 
  the Committee on Rules                                             08
Opening statement of the Hon. John Linder, a member of the 
  Committee on Rules [prepared statement p.11]                       09
Opening statement of the Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a member of 
  the Committee on Rules                                             12
Opening statement of the Hon. Scott McInnis, a member of the 
  Committee on Rules                                                 12
Opening statement of the Hon. Doc Hastings , a member of the 
  Committee on Rules                                                 13
Opening statement of the Hon. Sue Myrick , a member of the 
  Committee on Rules                                                 13

Statement of:
    Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Illinois..........................................    14
    Conyers, Hon. John, Jr., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Michigan......................................    82
    Jackson-Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Texas.........................................    99
    Waters, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   105
    Lofgren, Hon. Zoe, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................   108
    Deutsch, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Florida...........................................   112

Additional Information:
    House Committee Report: Constitutional Grounds for 
      Presidential Impeachment...................................    18
    Decorum in the House and in Committees.......................    86
    Congressional Use of Grand Jury Transcripts: Historical 
      Precedents.................................................    98
    H. Res. 525: Providing for a deliberative review by the 
      Committee on the Judiciary of a communication from an 
      independent counsel, and for the release thereof, and for 
      other purposes.............................................   117

                                 (iii)


H.RES. 525, PROVIDING FOR A DELIBERATIVE REVIEW BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE 
 JUDICIARY OF A COMMUNICATION FROM AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND FOR THE 
                RELEASE THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, September 10, 1998

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on Rules,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 5:43 p.m. in Room 
H-313, The Capitol, Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon [chairman of the 
committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Solomon, Dreier, Goss, Linder, 
Diaz-Balart, McInnis, Hastings, Myrick, Moakley, Frost, Hall 
and Slaughter.
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order. The matter 
before the committee today is House Resolution 525, providing 
for a deliberative review by the Committee on the Judiciary of 
a communication from an independent counsel and for the release 
thereof and for other purposes. Before my brief opening 
statement, let me yield to the Vice Chairman, Mr. Dreier and to 
tell you he is a new-generation Congressman, even though he has 
been here for 18 years, and he will tell you how to call this 
up on the Rules Web site.
    Mr. Dreier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For those interested 
in getting a copy of this resolution, it is available at 
www.house.gov/rules/hres525.htm.
    For those who want to have a copy of this brilliant 
statement that the Chairman is about to present, they can go to 
www.house.gov/rules/gbsstate.htm.
    Do you understand all of that, Mr. Chairman?

  STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    The Chairman. That is why I call him the next generation.
    I do have a brief opening statement after which I will 
yield for any statement from Mr. Moakley, and then I will yield 
to any members of the committee for any statement that they 
might have as well.
    Today, ladies and gentlemen, the Rules Committee embarks on 
one of the most unfortunate and difficult tasks that many of us 
have faced in public service, certainly mine in the last 20 
years. The committee must set forth a procedure by which the 
House of Representatives may fulfill its constitutional duties 
under Article 1 of Section 2 of the Constitution, which is the 
sole power of impeachment. This is a responsibility that none 
of us took lightly when we swore to uphold the Constitution of 
the United States, and we do not take it lightly now.
    The framers of the Constitution deliberately designed our 
system of government to make this a constitutional 
responsibility and not a partisan one. To whatever end these 
deliberations may lead us, it is imperative that this Rules 
Committee and ultimately the House of Representatives adopt 
procedures which best allow for a fair, not only bipartisan but 
nonpartisan, determination of the facts involved.
    Yesterday the independent counsel delivered a communication 
to the House of Representatives pursuant to the independent 
counsel law. He was required to do that by law, that law which 
was first enacted in 1978 under different leadership of this 
House, Democrat leadership, and it was reauthorized in three 
instances since then, most recently in 1994. The law requires 
an independent counsel to advise the House of Representatives 
of any substantial or credible information which the 
independent counsel receives which may constitute grounds for 
an impeachment. That is the law. That is the law of the land, 
and the independent counsel was required by that law to submit 
the communication that we are considering here now.
    Without question in some sense we are in uncharted waters. 
There has never been a report from an independent counsel 
detailing possible impeachment offenses by a President. Indeed, 
the independent counsel statute itself was an outgrowth of the 
Watergate era. However, we are guided very much by precedent 
and by history in this matter, as is often the case in the 
House of Representatives. We always try to follow precedent.
    The resolution before us will enable the House, through the 
deliberations of the House Judiciary Committee, to responsibly 
review this important material and to discharge its duty, 
particularly with respect to the availability of the contents 
of this communication to Members of this Congress, to the 
public and to the media.
    It is important that we American people learn the facts 
regarding this matter, and that isn't just Members of Congress, 
that is we, the American people. As directed by the Speaker, no 
one, no Member or congressional staffer, has seen the 
transmission which arrived yesterday, not one page, not one 
word. However, it is the understanding of the Rules Committee 
that the communication contains the following: 445 pages of a 
communication which is divided into an introduction, a 
narrative, and a socalled grounds. Another 2,000 pages of 
supporting material is contained in the appendices, which may 
contain grand jury testimony, telephone records, videotape 
testimony and other sensitive material; and 17 other boxes of 
supporting material.
    The method of dissemination and potential restrictions on 
access to this very, very critical information is outlined in 
the resolution before the Rules Committee today, which as of 
this moment does appear on the Web site for the American people 
to look at.
    The resolution provides the Judiciary Committee with the 
ability to review the communication, to determine whether 
sufficient grounds exist to recommend to this House, and that 
is what they will be charged with, to recommend to this House 
that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. The resolution 
provides for an immediate release of the approximately 445 
pages comprising, again, an introduction, a narrative and a 
statement of so-called grounds. This will be printed as a House 
document, and it will be made available to Members, to the 
press and to the public after House passage on Friday morning.
    Now, there are technical difficulties involved because we 
are waiting for the computerized transmittal document so that 
we can begin to print this immediately after the Congress acts 
on Friday.
    The balance of the material will have been deemed to have 
been received in executive session, but will be released from 
that status on September 23, 1998. That is a much longer time 
than some of us felt was necessary. However, from the very 
persuasive arguments of Mr. Hyde and Mr. Conyers, we have 
extended that time, again trying to be as fair and open as we 
possibly can.
    Again, the balance of the material will have been deemed to 
have been received in executive session and will be released on 
that date unless the Judiciary Committee votes not to release 
portions of it. Materials released will immediately be printed 
as a House document. That means that it will be available to 
all of the Members, to the press, and to the American public.
    As to the receipt by the House of transcripts and other 
records protected by the rules of grand jury secrecy, 
committees of the House have received such information on at 
least five occasions, and this is important to recall, all in 
the context of impeachment actions. These precedents date all 
the way back to 1811, and occured as recently as the 
impeachment of federal judges, I believe, in the late 1980s.
    The resolution further provides that additional material 
compiled by the Judiciary Committee during the review will be 
deemed to have been received in executive session unless it is 
received in an open session of the committee. That is up to you 
gentlemen.
    Also, access to the executive session material will be 
restricted to members of the Judiciary Committee and such 
employees of the committee as may be designated by the Chairman 
after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. 
Conyers.
    Finally, the resolution provides that each meeting, that 
each hearing or deposition of the Judiciary Committee will be 
in executive session unless otherwise determined by the 
committee, and again, that is at your discretion, gentlemen. 
The executive sessions may be attended only by Judiciary 
Committee members, not by other Members of the Congress, and 
employees of the committee designated by the Chairman, again 
after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.
    The resolution before us attempts to strike an appropriate 
balance between House Members' and the public's interest in 
reviewing this material and the need to protect innocent 
persons, and that is very, very important.
    It is anticipated that the Judiciary Committee may require 
additional procedures or investigative authorities to 
adequately review this communication in the future. It is 
anticipated that those authorities will be the subject of 
another resolution before this committee next week, and we will 
again consult with the Ranking Member of this committee and 
with the Ranking Members on your committee, Mr. Hyde, in trying 
to arrive at a resolution that will allow you to do that.
    It is important to note that this resolution does not 
authorize or direct an impeachment inquiry, and I hope that is 
perfectly clear. It is not the beginning of an impeachment 
process in the House of Representatives. It merely provides the 
appropriate parameters for the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
historically proper place to examine these matters, to review 
this communication and to make a recommendation to the House as 
to whether to commence an impeachment inquiry. That is what you 
are being charged with by this resolution.
    If this communication from Independent Counsel Starr should 
form the basis for future proceedings, it is important for the 
Rules Committee to be mindful that Members may need to cast 
public, recorded and extremely profound votes in the coming 
weeks or months. It is our responsibility to ensure that 
Members have enough information about the contents of the 
communication to cast informed votes and explain their 
decisions based on their conscience to their constituents.
    In summation, let me say that Democrats and Republicans 
disagree about many things in this institution, and that is 
probably as it should be, but no one disagrees about the honor 
and the integrity of our great friend Henry Hyde. He is one of 
the most judicious Members of this House of Representatives, 
and I have often said on several occasions, as I said to my 
great hero and yours, Henry, Ronald Reagan, that you would make 
an excellent Supreme Court judge. I am very happy that he did 
not have the opportunity to follow through on that because we 
need you here today, desperately, in this capacity.
    Likewise, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, has 
many years of experience on the Judiciary Committee, including 
service in 1974, which was one of the critical years of this 
Congress. He is extremely knowledgeable. He is tenacious, to 
say the least. I have had encounters with him in the past, and 
he usually wins, and we look forward to his leadership in this 
very important matter.
    This is a very grave day for the House of Representatives. 
It is a solemn time in our Nation. Today we will do what we are 
compelled to do under the Constitution, not because we desire 
it, but because, my friends, it is our duty to do it. In order 
to most judiciously fulfill these Constitutional duties, I 
encourage all Members to approach this sensitive matter with 
the dignity and the decorum that befits the most deliberative 
body in the history of this world of ours.
    Speaker Gingrich spoke of it on the floor. I would 
encourage all Members that they control themselves. I, for one, 
am an emotional person. I have been known to speak out 
sometimes without using proper decorum, and I pledge not to do 
that. We need to treat the Presidency with respect and treat 
this body with respect.
    The Chairman. Having said that, I would yield to my good 
friend, the ranking member Mr. Moakley, for any statement he 
might have.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. Moakley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today it is this 
committee's responsibility to decide how to release the 
information contained in the independent counsel's report to 
the public.
    As we all know, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of information 
contained in these 36 boxes, but none of us know anything about 
what is in those boxes. But our job is to put politics aside 
and decide how to release this information as wisely and as 
fairly as possible.
    Yesterday Speaker Gingrich and Minority Member Gephardt 
agreed that today's hearing would deal only with how to release 
the information. They agreed that questions about which special 
authorities to give the Judiciary Committee would be decided 
next week.
    I am sad to say, and I hope it has been corrected, that the 
early draft resolution that I saw violated that resolution.
    The Chairman. If the gentleman would yield, your 
recommendation was followed, and so the word "ancillary" was 
removed, and most of your concerns were removed, if not all of 
them.
    Mr. Moakley. Well, we have some other concerns. It brings 
up the issue of granting witnesses immunity and compiling 
additional material, as well as depositions, hearings and 
meetings.
    Mr. Hyde. We are not asking for that.
    Mr. Moakley. I know that you are not, but in the original 
draft it was in there.
    Mr. Hyde. Well, it is not anymore. That will be a separate 
rule next week.
    Mr. Moakley. All right.
    Today's hearing, and as Mr. Hyde corrected, is only to 
learn how to release the information, so I would ask my 
colleagues to honor that agreement and stay within that 
question of how to release the report.
    There are ways to make the report public, and today we will 
hear other varying procedures on how to release this 
confidential information that none of us have even seen yet.
    Regardless of whether you think we should release it all at 
once or bit by bit, I would ask as a matter of fairness that 
the President's counsel be given a chance to review the 
materials before they are released to the public.
    Last fall this Congress passed an ethics reform package, as 
you may recall, setting the standards for considering ethics 
charges against Members of Congress. That package allowed 
congressional people accused of ethics violations to hear the 
allegations and to see the evidence 10 days before they are 
made public. I think it is only fair that we allow President 
Clinton the same opportunity that we would give ourselves.
    On a related issue, when the committee meets again next 
week on what authorities should be given to the Judiciary 
Committee, I believe we should look very, very closely to the 
Watergate hearings as a model. The impeachment authority is 
contained in Article 1, Section 2 of our Constitution. It 
states that the House of Representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment. As Democratic Leader Gephardt said, next 
to declaring war, this may be the most important thing that we 
do. There are certain precedents and procedures that must be 
followed, and we should begin this process slowly and soberly.
    So I commend my Chairman and my good friend Gerald Solomon 
for his measured comments, and I urge my colleagues to set 
aside their personal opinions and carry out the 
responsibilities set forth in the Constitution as carefully as 
possible. We swore that we would uphold that Constitution, and 
today we have a grave responsibility, so let us proceed 
reasonably, and let us proceed fairly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moakley.
    The Chairman. On the question of the President receiving 
the 445 pages 48 hours before Members of Congress receive it, 
as you know, there are divided positions in your own party. The 
dean of the House, John Dingell, believes that all of the 
information, not just the 445 pages, should be made public 
immediately at the same time it would be given to the President 
and to you and me.
    Mr. Moakley. Mr. Chairman, I hope you follow Mr. Dingell's 
advice on this like you do on everything else around here.
    The Chairman. Because of that, the information will be made 
available to the public and to the President at the same time.
    You were talking about 445 pages. You are not talking about 
2,000 pages of appendices. You are not talking about 17 boxes. 
The President will get that information at the same time we do. 
And with a battery of lawyers, I am sure that I could go 
through those 445 pages within a period of a very few hours. By 
the time this is disseminated to the press, I think as Larry 
Walsh, the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra affair, said 
on CNN a few minutes ago, they already know what is in the 445 
pages, and they will have a response and be able to review it 
in a short period.
    Now I yield to the Vice Chairman of the committee for any 
statement he might have.

 STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much. Let me congratulate you on 
your statement and the statement of Mr. Moakley and to say that 
there are a number of things that have been indicated already 
that I think do bear repeating.
    As the Chairman said, we are moving into uncharted water. 
We have never gotten to this point on a situation quite like 
this, and this is truly a grave day and a very solemn time for 
the House of Representatives.
    Chairman Hyde made it clear that we are not approaching 
this with a great deal of enthusiasm or glee. This is a 
challenge, and as Mr. Moakley said, it is our constitutional 
duty to do this as responsibly as possible.
    I would also like to say that there has been a tremendous 
level of bipartisanship. It has really been a nonpartisan 
approach. I have heard from many, many Democrats who have been 
insisting that they don't want to face this next weekend 
without having this information as they go home. So both 
Democrats and Republicans alike are desirous of having this 
information out, and many people who have contacted my office 
and have called in on the different news programs have 
indicated that release of as much information as possibly is 
the proper way to go.
    At the same time we do want to protect investigations in 
other areas that may be moving ahead, and we do not want to 
hurt anyone by the release of documents. So I think that the 
445-page report coming forward and being made available online 
tomorrow would be the best approach to take.
    So I think we are doing this as fairly as possible and in 
as nonpartisan a way as possible, and I am hoping that we will 
be able to get this resolved sooner rather than later. Thank 
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. TONY HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 
                       THE STATE OF OHIO

    The Chairman. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you. Today the Rules Committee begins a 
process to examine grounds for impeaching the President. It is 
a somber moment in our history, and as Members of the Congress, 
we are being asked to sit in judgment of the President of the 
United States. This is a time when we must set aside partisan 
concerns. Our actions must be fair, deliberate and in the best 
interests of the American people.
    I urge members of the committee and of the House to be 
open-minded and to weigh all information objectively. Also, we 
must proceed with sensitivity to the President and his family. 
As a man who has served in our Nation's highest office, the 
President deserves the respect.
    Impeachment is an extraordinary and painful process for our 
Nation, and we need to take each step with great caution to 
ensure that all of our actions are necessary and justified for 
the good of the Nation.
    In conclusion, the time will come for us to consider the 
legal questions we are sworn to answer, and this legal process 
should work itself out. However, we as a Congress and as a 
Nation should not rush to judgment. We need to review the 
evidence carefully and thoroughly while remembering that we 
ourselves are not without faults. Thank you.

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Tony P. Hall, a Representative in Congress 
                         From the State of Ohio

    Today, the Rules Committee begins a process to examine grounds for 
impeaching the President. It is a somber moment in our history.
    As Members of Congress, we are being asked to sit in judgement of 
the President of the United States. This is a time when we must set 
aside partisan concerns. Our actions must be fair, deliberate, and in 
the best interests of the American people.
    I urge members of this committee and of the House to be open-minded 
and to weigh all information objectively.
    Also, we must proceed with sensitivity to the President and his 
family. As a man who has served our nation's highest office, the 
President deserves that respect.
    Impeachment is an extraordinary and painful process for our nation. 
We need to take each step with great caution to ensure that all of our 
actions are necessary and justified for the good of the nation.
    The time will come for us to consider the legal questions we are 
sworn to answer. This process will and should work itself out.
    However, we as a Congress and as a nation should not rush to 
judgement. We need to review the evidence carefully and thoroughly 
while remembering that we ourselves are not without faults.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and now we will yield 
to the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida, Mr. Goss.

  STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Goss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 
to associate myself with your remarks and Mr. Dreier's remarks. 
I think they are right on target, along with the sober advice 
that we have just received from Mr. Hall.
    In a representative form of government, it is very 
important to remember the people we represent, and I have no 
problem remembering the people that I represent in the past few 
days because our phone is ringing off the hook.
    The gist of what I am hearing, and I want to share this 
with Mr. Hyde and Mr. Conyers very much, is that as much as can 
be made public without damage to innocent bystanders or damage 
to any further actions that your committee might take or feel 
necessary to take should be made available to the public.
    I come from the Sunshine State. We find doing the business 
in public is a pretty darn good idea, and at least I have 
always seen to adhere to that, and I am sure that you do as 
well. I am convinced that we serve the country well when the 
people know what we are doing, and I think that we need to make 
sure that people understand that in this process there is a way 
to guarantee the public's right to know. It is not just an 
interest, I think it is a right in this matter which is of such 
seriousness.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Now the gentlelady from Rochester, New York.

    STATEMENT OF HON. LOUISE SLAUGHTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Slaughter. Thank you.
    Receiving the report from the independent counsel is the 
first step in an impeachment inquiry which we approach very 
solemnly. The House of Representatives is charged under the 
Constitution with examining these allegations against the 
President as presented by the independent counsel. We will 
determine whether the evidence from the independent counsel 
meets the constitutional impeachment standard of "treason, 
bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It is our 
obligation to examine these allegations in a fair and unbiased 
manner.
    In my 12 years here in the House, we have had votes for 
war, and now we consider the impeachment of a President. Very 
few Members who have served in this House have been confronted 
with either of these responsibilities. I face this duty most 
solemnly. I am completely aware of the obligation that I have 
to represent the people who sent me here, to the best of my 
ability, in accordance with the trust that they invested in me.
    We also have an obligation to the people of the United 
States to undertake this task carefully and judiciously. Our 
system of government is based upon the will of the people. 
Ultimately an impeachment conviction overturns that will as 
expressed in the last election. We begin the process in the 
Rules Committee with the acceptance of the report. Our 
resolution will set the parameters of how this investigation 
will be conducted. It is my hope that the agreement that has 
been made in good faith between the Speaker of the House and 
the Minority Leader will be reflected in this resolution. We 
need to protect the rights of citizens against the release of 
confidential grand jury testimony which could cause them 
ridicule, embarrassment and shame.
    I urge this committee and the full House to act solely on 
the evidence and with no thought of partisan advantage. This is 
far too serious for that. We owe no less to the people that we 
represent and to the President that they elected.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Next let me speak on behalf of the gentlelady 
from Rochester, New York, when I recognize the next Member who 
is from a new economic hub in America, a place called Atlanta, 
Georgia. They have been stealing jobs from New York State, but 
we have a great Governor in New York today called George 
Pataki, who is beginning to steal them back. But I would 
recognize John Linder.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LINDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Mr. Linder. We are delighted to have the jobs, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Congress has a right and a solemn 
responsibility to investigate the executive branch and 
investigate criminal conduct. The Rules Committee is here today 
to pass a resolution to fulfill the oversight obligation from 
the Constitution we took an oath to defend.
    Chief Justice Warren stated that "the power of Congress to 
conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. 
That power is broad." Supreme Court Justice John Harlan 
observed in 1959 that "the scope of the power of inquiry, in 
short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential 
power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution." More 
recently James Hamilton, Watergate committee counsel, argued in 
his book, The Power to Probe, that Congress's oversight 
function "is implicit in our tripartite system of government, 
because without it Congress cannot properly meet its lawmaking 
and informing responsibility."
    We have an oversight responsibility that is supported by 
the Constitution, public law and House rules, and this 
responsibility is an indispensable part of the system of checks 
and balances between the Legislative and the Executive.
    Serious charges have been made against this President and 
this administration. Not one of us wants to be here talking 
about perjury, suborning perjury or obstructing justice, but it 
is our constitutional duty to look into the charges. By ceding 
our oversight responsibility to watch over the government, the 
Committee on Rules and every Member of the House would be 
abdicating one of our most important obligations charged to us 
by our Founding Fathers. We are carrying out our duties as the 
representative branch of government to insure that the 
executive branch does not use the great powers at its disposal 
to undermine justice.
    The Supreme Court warned in Watkins v. United States in 
1957 that it clearly recognized "the dangers to effective and 
honest conduct of government if the Legislature's power to 
probe corruption in the executive branch is unduly hampered."
    I will end by quoting the late Senator Sam Ervin, Chairman 
of the Watergate Committee, who stated that "the Constitution 
and the statutes give Congress a solemn duty to oversee the 
activities of the executive branch. All branches of government 
must fully appreciate the oversight function is a vital tool 
for keeping the Nation free. It is a shield against creeping 
executive imperialism. Congress also has the duty and the right 
to publicize its findings on corruption and maladministration. 
Indeed, fulfilling its responsibility to inform the public 
about the state of the government is one of Congress's most 
significant functions." Under our sworn duty to protect the 
Constitution, it is our obligation to move forward without 
partisanship and with a resolution that allows Congress to get 
to the truth. This is a very sad duty, but it is a duty, and we 
must do it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement is as follows:]


    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.001

    
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Miami, Florida, Mr. Diaz-
Balart.

  STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The founders of this extraordinary constitutional republic 
created a system of government which is as resilient as it is 
protective of the rights of the American people.
    I am proud of the manner in which this Congress has 
conducted itself in the time period since the receipt of this 
report pursuant to a statute from the independent counsel. And 
I am proud, Mr. Chairman, of the way in which this resolution 
has been framed in consultation with the Judiciary Committee, 
the leadership of this House, and both parties representing the 
American people in this House, this resolution and the one next 
week that we will vote on and submit to the full House for its 
consideration that are meant to guarantee fairness for all 
involved in this process, to protect the right of the American 
people to begin to learn the facts in this matter, and to 
protect the right of due and deliberative process for the 
President and all other citizens who may be affected by these 
very solemn proceedings that we are, in effect, today 
authorizing. Thank you.
    The Chairman.Thank you. And now let me yield to the 
gentleman from Grand Junction, Colorado.

 STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT MCINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. McInnis. I have a feeling of excitement today, and that 
is because we are witnessing the system that is working. This 
system by its process, by its own design, allows for the kind 
of problem or challenge that we face. It allows for us to have 
a hearing such as this, that is open to the public so everyone 
can watch, and it allows that we can have a distinguished 
committee which deals with this from both parties. It allows 
us, in my opinion, to have one of the most distinguished 
gentleman not only in the Congress, but in the history of the 
Congress, Mr. Hyde, as the presiding officer.
    I can remember when I first came here, Mr. Hyde, I stood in 
awe when you walked by. I couldn't believe I was a Congressman 
like you were a Congressman.
    And I think also the important thing to remember that is 
refreshing is that we have an opportunity for the Ranking 
Member, who is also a very distinguished gentleman, to guide us 
through this. But while everybody talks, and respectfully so 
and properly so, about the seriousness of the matter, we should 
all be refreshed that this system is working, that our country 
is not on the verge of collapse.
    While we are talking today, you can turn on the TV and see 
what is happening in Russia. The economy is on the verge of 
collapse. When we reach a crisis in this country, we approach 
it in a fair, bipartisan manner, and for that this Constitution 
deserves a compliment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.Thank you. Let me yield to the gentleman from 
Pasco, Washington, Mr. Hastings.

 STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unlike my friend 
from Colorado, I am not sure I am elated to be here. I can say 
when I first ran for this office, I would never have pictured 
myself in this body having to take up this issue. But 
nevertheless, we are here, and we have to fulfill our duties.
    I just want to make one point because it has been said--it 
hasn't been said here, fortunately, but I have heard some of my 
colleagues and media say that we are entering a time of 
constitutional crisis. I want to disagree with that very 
strongly. I would suggest that the potential crisis may be a 
crisis in governance. It may be a potential crisis in the 
confidence of the people that sent us here, but it is not a 
constitutional crisis, and it is for that reason that as I 
serve in this body, I am continually in awe of how smart our 
Founding Fathers were because they have laid out a clearcut 
procedure for us to deal with these issues when they come up in 
order to prevent a constitutional crisis.
    We do not know where this is going to lead, obviously. It 
is going to be very, very difficult for all of us, and I know 
that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee 
will do the best that they can do as the Constitution has laid 
out.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, while I wish that I were not here 
taking this up, we do have that duty, and I will do my best to 
fulfill my obligations under the Constitution.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Washington, and 
now I yield to the gentlelady from Charlotte, North Carolina, 
Mrs. Myrick.

STATEMENT OF HON. SUE MYRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 
                  THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    Mrs. Myrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
congratulate you and Chairman Hyde and Mr. Conyers for your 
fair and bipartisan treatment of this issue. No one has to be 
reminded that this is a solemn duty, and I would like to 
associate myself with your remarks regarding the decorum of 
Congress and encourage everybody to keep that in mind as to how 
we need to conduct ourselves in this solemn time in our 
history.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I thank our first panel for waiting. It was necessary to 
lay out the parameters of the debate for our Rules Committee. 
You have heard the esteem for which we hold the two of you. We 
can recall back in the mid-1970s when your predecessor, Mr. 
Hyde, was a man named Peter Rodino, an outstanding Member from 
New Jersey, and still an outstanding individual.
    There was a Ranking Member, a Republican at the time, 
Congressman Hutchinson from Michigan, and there was a man named 
Hamilton Fish. He was my neighbor. He was a Republican. You all 
served with him, and he was a marvelous individual. He strikes 
me as being similar to the two of you, being fair at all times, 
and we miss him dearly. He is no longer with us, as you know. 
But he

voted for articles of impeachment against his own party, the 
President of his party, and I know that this is extremely 
difficult for all of us, and we wish you Godspeed and courage 
in carrying out your duties.
    Having said that, let me now recognize the very 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry Hyde, for 
whatever remarks he may have.

 STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Hyde. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Conyers and 
I are prepared to yield more time. You have said so many 
wonderful things that we ought to quit while we are ahead. I 
appreciate your extraordinary generosity. Thank you very much.
    I have a prepared statement that I would like to deliver, 
at least a part of it, but before--
    The Chairman. Without objection the entire statement will 
appear in the record.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you.
    Before I do that, I would like to cut to the chase on one 
issue that seems to be in contention. Let me say that Mr. 
Conyers and I are not only working in a bipartisan, nonpartisan 
way, but we are working with collegiality. We both understand 
the solemnity, the gravity, the seriousness of this endeavor, 
this mountain climb that we are beginning. And we understand if 
we do it well, the House of Representatives will be enriched 
and strengthened, and our country will be proud of this 
institution. If we don't do it well, if we fall into partisan 
bickering, we will disgrace this institution, and we are not 
about to do that, God willing. So Mr. Conyers and I are getting 
along very well, and we are going to make every effort to 
continue to do that.
    Now, as to the one issue that there is some concern about, 
we are guided by the letter sent to the Speaker and Mr. 
Gephardt by the independent counsel dated September 9. One of 
the lines in the letter says, "many of the supporting materials 
contain information of a personal nature that I respectfully 
urge the House to treat as confidential."
    Now, the package sent over from the independent counsel is 
a referral. It is one three-ring binder of 445 pages consisting 
of an introduction, 25 pages; a narrative, 280 pages; and a 
statement of grounds or charges, 140 pages. That is the 
document that we propose upon adoption of this resolution to 
disseminate to the public and to the world.
    Also sent over were appendices. Those are six three-ring 
binders of 2,600 pages, which contain information on the Paula 
Jones case, telephone logs and other material. We are informed 
that that is part of what the independent counsel is referring 
to as matters of a personal nature that he respectfully urged 
us to treat as confidential.
    In addition, there is another element called "everything 
else." That consists of grand jury transcripts, audiotapes and 
videotapes. So the appendices and everything else requires some 
sensitivity in dealing with.
    Now, Mr. Conyers and I are mindful that people's 
reputations are at risk here. We think it appropriate and 
decent that we go through the material included in the 
appendices and everything else to winnow out irrelevancies, 
material that does not relate to the core issue and will unduly 
damage innocent people. We have no idea of the bulk, the 
complexity, any of that, but it is our proposal and it is the 
proposal of this resolution to immediately get out to the 
public the introduction, the narrative and the grounds, that is 
445 pages, and then give us some time.
    You have generously given us 2 weeks to review this other 
material. The bias is to release it all. The urge is to release 
it all, but mindful of people's reputations, we pray for the 
flexibility to give us time to review it, inventory it and 
winnow out matters that we think are more harmful than helpful.
    We would like the trust of the body to trust Mr. Conyers 
and myself and our staffs to do the right thing. We are not 
withholding anything from anybody that goes to the grand issue, 
the macro issue here, but we are trying to do it in a decent, 
responsible way.
    Now, how is that review proposed to take place? Mr. Conyers 
and I thought and still think that it would be more expeditious 
if he and I had that responsibility and were permitted to 
designate some of our staff, who, by dividing the labor, can do 
this fairly quickly, make the inventory and make 
recommendations to us. We then report back to you folks and 
tell you what we found and what we propose to do, again with 
our bias, not only our bias, but our directive under this rule, 
to disseminate everything to the people, but try to protect 
innocent people.
    Now, there is a controversy. Other members of the committee 
want to do that, too. They want access. It is very hard for Mr. 
Conyers and me to tell a member of the Judiciary Committee that 
we are going to look at it and you can't, but it is an effort 
of practicality to try to limit the circle of people so that 
privacy may be preserved. I can live with either system, but I 
do prefer, and Mr. Conyers and I both agree, to limit access to 
these things inasmuch as we are mandated to deliver them 
anyway. We will deliver them to the people, but we want to try 
and protect innocent reputations.
    If that is the will of this committee, if that is the will 
of the House, fine. If it is not, and you want the whole 
committee to do that, that is okay, too. I can live with that, 
but I just want to go on record as saying that Mr. Conyers and 
I prefer to have a small, limited group do this quick inventory 
and winnow it out.
    Now, that said, if you will indulge me, I do have a few 
things to say, and I will try to be brief.
    The Chairman. Take as much time as you want.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you. As we all know, this begins a process 
of immense consequence, a process that our Constitution thrusts 
on the House of Representatives. The solemn duty confronting us 
requires that we attain a heroic level of bipartisanship and we 
conduct our deliberations in full, fair and an impartial 
manner. This may prove to be a lofty challenge, but I believe 
the gravity of our responsibilities will overwhelm the petty 
partisanships that infect us all.
    I intend to work closely and have been working closely with 
my Democratic colleagues on the committee, and particularly the 
Ranking Member Mr. Conyers. I want to commend everyone for 
pursuing this matter in such a professional and nonpartisan 
manner, and I want to mention Mr. Gephardt. We have had two 
meetings with him. He has been conciliatory and helpful, as has 
the Speaker. And I think one good aspect of this otherwise 
dreary prospect has been the understanding of the need for us 
to work together, and so far, so good.
    The American people deserve a competent, independent and 
bipartisan review of the independent counsel's referral. They 
have to have confidence. We must be credible. Politics should 
be checked at the door, party affiliation secondary, and 
America's future must become our only concern.
    I will not participate in a political witch hunt. If the 
evidence does not justify a full impeachment investigation, I 
won't recommend one to the House. However, if the evidence does 
justify an inquiry, I will unhesitatingly recommend a further 
inquiry. But in exercising this responsibility, our committee 
will not take at face value the assertions or conclusions of 
any particular party. It is not the responsibility of the 
independent counsel under the statute to declare this 
impeachable or that impeachable. He is to report to us 
activities, actions, elements that may be impeachable, and we 
will make that decision. We understand that.
    We will undertake a full, fair, independent review of the 
evidence, and we will arrive at our own conclusions. In any 
impeachment proceeding, the House does not determine the guilt 
or innocence of the subject. We function like a grand jury. We 
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge an 
executive branch officer with high crimes and misdemeanors. 
Thus, the Senate must try that official on those charges. We 
have not reached that point, and no one should jump to 
conclusions or assume the worst.
    At this stage we don't know what information the 
independent counsel has sent to the House, but given the 
gravity to this situation we must act now. The Rules Committee 
must lead, and I certainly appreciate your willingness to 
address this task expeditiously.
    Our first challenge is to ensure that the American people 
are given what is rightly theirs, information, if there is any, 
that may constitute grounds for impeachment of their duly 
elected President while ensuring that the House's 
constitutional duty to conduct a full, fair and independent 
review is not jeopardized.
    Mr. Chairman, I agree with the considered judgment of 
Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt that the full 
House should authorize the immediate release to the public of 
the introduction, the narrative and the statement or rationale 
of the grounds. This initial release, insofar as practicable, 
would not include raw evidentiary material which might contain 
information about individuals unrelated to this investigation.
    The resolution should grant to the Committee on the 
Judiciary the authority to release this latter material, if 
release is warranted, after the committee has had a chance to 
review this material.
    Because of the importance of the material, the resolution 
should contain a presumption of release and a date certain for 
the Judiciary Committee to report its findings and plans for 
ultimate release.
    This referral belongs to the American people. They have a 
right to know its contents. They have patiently waited as 
rumors and speculation have substituted for fact and 
information. It is time we move this process ahead, and the 
public release of the referral will further this goal.
    Mr. Chairman, we are not yet beginning a full impeachment 
inquiry, but I want to take a moment to address the issue of 
impeachment. Constitutional scholars disagree as to what an 
impeachable offense is, but there are some principles we should 
keep in mind. Peter Rodino, when he was Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee during the Nixon inquiry, and Mr. Conyers 
was privileged to serve on that committee, another great 
argument against term limits, I might say parenthetically, had 
a review of the constitutional impeachment authority, and had a 
very good staff of lawyers do a fine review of it, and I have 
attached that as an appendix to my statement, and so I will not 
read it now.
    The Chairman. Without objection that will appear in the 
record as well.
    [The information follows:]


    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.012
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.020
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.024
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.025
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.026
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.027
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.028
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.029
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.030
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.031
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.032
    
      
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.033
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.034
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.035
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.036
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.037
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.038
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.039
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.040
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.041
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.042
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.043
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.044
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.045
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.046
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.047
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.048
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.049
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.050
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.051
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.052
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.053
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.054
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.055
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.056
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.057
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.058
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.059
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.060
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.061
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.062
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.063
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.064
    
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    A word, if I may, in conclusion about the significance of 
the oath each of us swore to uphold when we became Members of 
Congress. We raised our right arms and said, "I do solemnly 
swear I will support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will 
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this 
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of 
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the 
duties of the office on which I am about to enter so help me 
God."
    Traditionally an oath means a solemn calling on God to 
witness the truth of what you are saying. We all know well the 
story of Sir Thomas More, who was beheaded in the Tower of 
London for refusing to take the oath of supremacy that 
acknowledged Henry VIII as head of the Church of England. In 
the great drama of his life, "A Man for All Seasons", Sir 
Thomas tells his daughter, when you take an oath, you hold your 
soul in your hands, and if you break that oath, you open up 
your fingers, and your soul runs through them and is lost.
    I believe with all my heart that each of us took that oath 
of office seriously, that we will so conduct ourselves that 
when this ordeal is over, we will have vindicated the rule of 
law and brought credit to this institution in which we are so 
privileged to serve.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hyde, for those eloquent 
remarks.
    The Chairman. And now we will go to the other equally 
distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, 
and you may take whatever time you want. Your entire statement 
will appear in the record.

   STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Solomon and members of the 
committee.
    I want to thank Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, for, along with the Speaker at our meeting of 24 
hours ago, it seems like a lot longer than that now, in which I 
was very pleased to hear the Speaker make a couple of 
observations that bear repeating here. He said, I will take 
stringent action against any Member who speaks in an unseemly 
fashion against the President of the United States off or on 
the floor. He didn't say that for the benefit of Democrats or 
the public. He said that because he believed that this should 
be the kind of environment in which the materials of the 
independent counsel be brought to us.
    He also pledged that he realized the value of 
bipartisanship, and that without it any politicization of these 
hearings squander the great mandate that we have in the 
Congress, all of us.
    And so we meet here this evening for the very first test of 
the fairness doctrine that all of us in that meeting yesterday 
morning in the Speaker's office pledged ourselves to. And so I 
want to ask you all to concern yourself with me as to whether 
we are going to meet the fairness test or not.
    Now, there is an initial question that I cannot leave this 
hearing without putting forward, and that is the very simple 
fact that the House of Representatives is not the U.S. Postal 
Service. We are not a delivery system for Kenneth W. Starr. We 
ought not, we cannot, we should not release anything to anybody 
unless we know what it is we are releasing. This cannot be an, 
oops, I am sorry, we didn't know. And so inadvertently in our 
discussions we have now sanctified the first 445 pages that we 
are now going to release to the planet Earth and nobody here 
has any idea of what is contained. We do know that there are 
prosecutorial comments, that there are allegations, that there 
are assertions. Obviously we haven't been 5 years and waiting 
for a report that would not contain these kinds of assertions.
    But as to their validity and accuracy, Mr. Chairman and 
Members, nobody knows. Nobody. We don't know. And so I would 
hope that there may be sympathy within this hearing today to 
recognize that for us to dump the first 445 pages and then tell 
everybody about how carefully we are going to scrutinize the 
other several thousand pages does not comport to the lofty 
goals that we should have, in my view.
    Now, there is one other small detail, and it is probably 
semantical, but this is not the beginning of an impeachment 
inquiry. The Chairman very accurately made it clear. For those 
of you who think we are going into an impeachment inquiry, 
there are several possibilities. One of them is you may be 
profoundly disappointed or relieved that nothing like that ever 
happens because every word, every sentence, every assertion, 
every allegation in all of the thousands of pages, the 17 boxes 
included, are going to be carefully reviewed and scrutinized.
    Now, there is, as likely as any other scenario, a 
possibility that there is nothing that comes within 500 miles 
of an article of impeachment in any of this material. Maybe. We 
don't know.
    And so what the independent counsel has done is his duty 
under the law that was written in the Judiciary Committee that 
he deliver these materials, whatever they may say, whatever 
views he may have, and that is his duty and privilege to send 
them to us.
    It does not indicate that we go--as a matter of fact, there 
has to be a vote in the Judiciary Committee after we inquire 
into this, whether we hold executive sessions or whatever 
methods yet to be determined that we resort to, how we will 
come to a conclusion of what it is we are to do. So I think it 
is very important that that be understood.
    Now, I referred to the dean of the House of Representatives 
in a very personal way. I have known John Dingell and his 
family long before I came to Congress, and I agree that we 
should make--as he does--that we should make all of the 
materials available as immediately as possible. I do not share 
the view that we should not look at anything because Kenneth W. 
Starr, a person with whom I have had from the floor of the 
House many discussions, I have never had the pleasure of 
meeting him, and it may not be unlikely that we may have to 
meet him before these proceedings are through, but he said two 
things in his transmittal letter. One, this is not a report, 
this is a referral. And he said this referral contains 
confidential material and material protected from disclosure by 
rule 6(e) of the Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure.
    He additionally said that many of the supporting materials 
contain information of a personal nature that I respectfully 
urge the House to treat as confidential.
    Ladies and gentlemen, what he has told us is that we have 
to review everything to make sure that we observe the 
conditions that he has set when he sent the letter of 
transmittal. That is not my theory, that is his statement. And 
I think that if there is any way we can review the fact of 
getting out the 445 pages, every Member and every one of the 
270 million people in America have waited into the fifth year 
for this report. Now, can somebody explain to me what danger 
will befall a Member of Congress if we adhere to what the 
independent counsel himself has told us to do, that we review 
the 445 pages? We are not looking to excise anything. We can 
look at those in less than a 24-hour-day period, and hopefully 
there is nothing objectionable. I am not looking for reasons to 
delete or excise, but I have the same concerns that have been 
so skillfully and eloquently articulated by Chairman Henry 
Hyde.
    So I am urging that we do two things: That we consider the 
agreements that we have made already between the Speaker and 
the Minority Leader and the Chairman and the Ranking Member; 
that we appreciate that as this rule is written, we are not 
comporting to the agreements that have already been entered 
into. I am sorry, I wish I could say it in some other way.
    This--if we start off with a broken promise, I can tell you 
quite frankly what I fear. I would like the first vote that we 
have on this subject to be as bipartisan as possible. That is 
my hope. I want to support the rule. I want it to be on record. 
If we decide that the President of the United States is not to 
receive the 10-day rule to find out what's going on before 
everyone, then he doesn't even get the 2-day rule, and now we 
have had them asking for a 1-hour rule. They--I mean what are 
we here for?
    I urge my colleagues, with the greatest sincerity that I 
have, as equal to the statements that you have all made about 
your recognition of the gravity of this matter, but to tell the 
President of the United States that he can find out what the 
charges are on the Internet seems to me to forget the--I don't 
call it generosity that was given to the Speaker of the House 
before the Ethics Committee in which he got 7 days to respond. 
We give this to everybody as a matter of courtesy. I can't tell 
my constituents that want to know what happened that the 
President doesn't need to know, he can read it the same time 
you read it.
    I think this is a breach of fairness, and I would hope that 
you would consider it in the spirit in which I'm sharing it 
with you. The fact of the matter is that fundamental fairness 
is the guide to what we are going to be doing here.
    Now fairness isn't something that is just good and moral 
and decent. Fairness also leads to a wider understanding of the 
issues that are before us. After all, we are going to hear the 
other side, and they are entitled to hear the other side.
    And so I think that this problem can be resolved. I hope 
that it is resolved so that the Members here that have been 
proud to indicate this as an example of the system working will 
help us lead to the fairness that will make the system work. 
Because if the first vote is not bipartisan, I think it sends a 
signal that is not what we desire. It doesn't say that we're 
shot or--I don't predict dire consequences.
    But I think that the history of the beginning of this, 
Chairman Solomon, and you served here for a couple decades, 
this is a historic moment for those Members who may not be 
serving any longer. And I would like to say as many good things 
about you and your career, as you have benefited us with your 
kindness and your confidence as we appear here today, and I 
thank you for the time very much.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you, John Conyers, and thank you, 
Henry Hyde, for your very professional testimony, but more than 
that your sincere testimony, and we know it comes from both 
your hearts.
    Let me just respond briefly. You both spoke of decorum in 
the House and the committees. You both spoke of Speaker 
Gingrich's statement on the floor of the House urging and 
demanding, as a matter of fact, Members show proper decorum and 
proper respect for the presidency.
    In light of that, I had prepared an additional statement 
which I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record--
without objection, it will be--which sets forth many of the 
things that have been said where Members' words were taken 
down, going all the way back to the year 1811, as examples of 
what you cannot say. And then it cites some of the things that 
were upheld by the Chair that could be said, and we would make 
that available for the record.
    [The information follows:]


    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.065
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.066

    
    The Chairman. We want to assure both of you that we 
certainly will be consulting with you, as I said during my 
opening statement, with you, both majority and minority, and as 
well as the Rules Committee, majority and minority, as we 
develop the second resolution which probably will come on the 
floor some time next week.
    You spoke, John, of the concern about other members of the 
Judiciary Committee having access to material and suggesting, 
as did Henry Hyde, that it be confined to just the two of you, 
and we could do that, we could consider that. But we have 
differences of opinion in both political parties in doing that.
    We have Members who feel that if they are going to make a 
conclusion, ratify your conclusion of whether to go forward or 
whether not to go forward, they--and when I say they, more than 
40 Democrats have come to me, John Dingell being one. I think 
we had a Member, Peter Deutsch sitting here from Florida, who 
will testify a little bit later that he wants an amendment to 
our resolution that would require that the entire communication 
received, and including all appendices and related material, be 
made available immediately.
    What we are trying to do is to reach a bipartisan 
compromise, which you have spoken to, so that we can please as 
many Members as we can so that when we go to the floor it will 
truly be a bipartisan resolution. And I believe that from the 
concessions that I personally have made, Members on both sides 
of the aisle have made, some as recently as an hour ago when we 
removed terms like "ancillary" from the resolution, we have 
tried to cooperate in every way possible to make it a truly 
bipartisan resolution, and I believe it will pass 
overwhelmingly on the floor with very few dissenting votes.
    The reason I would not hesitate to make it available to 
other members of your committee is that they are proud, 
distinguished Members on both sides of the aisle. I have had 
the privilege for the last 15 or 16 years of serving on the 
Steering Committee of the Republican Party in choosing members 
to serve on committees, and we do so the same as the Democratic 
Party does. I think Martin Frost has served on a similar 
committee on your side, and we choose Members because of their 
background, because of their qualifications and because of 
their talents to serve on these committees.
    I see Bobby Scott from Newport News in the back, a 
distinguished lawyer, was chosen by your party, just for an 
example. I see Amo Houghton, who was a very distinguished 
business leader before he came to this Congress, and I 
personally nominated him and was successful in placing him on 
the Ways and Means Committee because he probably is the most 
knowledgeable person in the entire Congress. So we do not 
hesitate to make that information available to your members of 
your committee in order that they can make the same kind of 
decisions that allowed you to come to your conclusion.
    And by the same token, I just have to say in closing that 
all of the 435 Members feel very strongly that they should be 
able to have the same information available to them that caused 
you as members of the Judiciary Committee to draw your 
conclusion. To give them less puts them at a disadvantage on 
being able to cast an informed vote.
    And that is why you are charged in this resolution to make 
available the maximum amount of information that is being given 
to you exclusively and not made available to the public, and we 
know of your concerns, which are our concerns, about innocent 
people. We know that there are ongoing criminal investigations, 
perhaps. All of these things have to be scrutinized by you, and 
we feel for you in knowing that is a difficult job.
    But I personally will take your recommendations into 
consideration when you come back and you ask to have certain 
information expunged. We will go along with your 
recommendations because of the great respect we have for you 
two gentlemen and your committee.
    So I want you to know that as we process this resolution 
today, and I deeply appreciate your testimony.
    Mr. Moakley of Boston, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Moakley. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, and I would like to address this to Chairman 
Hyde and to Mr. Conyers: It is my understanding that the 
Speaker and the Minority Leader, along with you and Mr. Conyers 
and others, had an agreement that the Chairman and the Ranking 
Member would go through this material before they decided 
whether it was relevant or not, before they would expose it to 
the rest of the Judiciary Committee.
    Am I correct?
    The Chairman. No.
    Mr. Hyde. I don't want to say it was an agreement. That was 
my understanding of how--how it would work. That has been a 
moveable feast, and discussions have gone on to which I was not 
a party and I don't think John was, between Mr. Gephardt and 
Mr. Gingrich, and I don't know what they came up with.
    The advantage of having Mr. Conyers and myself and our 
designated staff is one of expedition, one of minimizing the 
opportunities for leaks. I know that sounds hyperbolic about 
members of our committee and I don't like to say that, but the 
more people in the loop, the more opportunities for 
unintentional leaks. But I can live with the other provision. I 
just--
    Mr. Moakley. Mr. Hyde, I know what you can live with but I 
thought the agreement last night was what I just stated.
    Mr. Hyde. I don't gainsay that, but maybe it was.
    Mr. Moakley. You were there.
    Mr. Hyde. Well, sure, I was there.
    The Chairman. He was there for most of the meeting--for all 
of the meeting.
    Mr. Moakley. All right; do you agree?
    The Chairman. No. As a matter of fact, I don't like to 
speak for other Members especially--
    Mr. Moakley. No, I just want your opinion.
    The Chairman. --Other Members of the other party. But I 
just have to say that Mr. Gephardt, when he left the meeting, 
said that he could not agree to anything at that point because 
he had to go back and he had to talk to members from both 
opinions on the Judiciary Committee and members of the 
leadership, and no decision was made. But I was in that 
conversation all during the meeting and I can tell you that no 
decision was made.
    Mr. Frost. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Moakley. Glad to yield.
    Mr. Frost. As the gentleman knows, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts was not able to be present last night because he 
had to be in Massachusetts to attend a funeral. I was there on 
his behalf. The people in the room were the Speaker, the 
Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, the two gentlemen at this 
table, myself and Mr. Solomon.
    The Speaker at that meeting said that this was what he was 
proposing. Mr. Gephardt went back to the members of the 
Judiciary Committee. Mr. Gephardt had to leave town today to 
attend his son's wedding. When he--when he left town--when he 
left town it was Mr. Gephardt's understanding that the 
agreement was as described by Mr. Hyde; that the two Members at 
the table would review the documents, not the entire committee.
    The Speaker appeared on television at noon today. I watched 
his appearance, and the Speaker said at noon today that it 
would be the two gentlemen who would review the material, not 
the entire committee.
    Some time after that the majority on this committee changed 
the agreement between the Speaker and the Minority Leader. It 
is very important that we act in a bipartisan manner. The two 
gentlemen at the table have attempted to do so, Mr. Gephardt 
has attempted to do so, I believe the Speaker was attempting to 
do so, but for some reason unexplained the majority on this 
committee has changed the agreement made between Mr. Gephardt 
and the Speaker.
    The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield at that point?
    Mr. Moakley. I yield.
    The Chairman. I would just have to differ with my very good 
friend, Mr. Martin Frost of Texas. The fact is that there is 
divided opinion on this in both parties. You are going to hear 
testimony, again, from my good friend Peter Deutsch who will 
return in a moment, a Democrat who disagrees with that and who 
thinks we ought to make all the information available 
immediately. We are trying to arrive at a bipartisan agreement 
that will receive the strongest vote possible, as I alluded to 
before, and I believe that it will.
    Now if you want to test this, you know first of all, and 
this is confusing to perhaps the listening audience, but we are 
not considering a rule here today, we are considering a 
privileged resolution. We will go to the floor not with a rule 
but with a privileged resolution, and we do so under existing 
rules of the House.
    The privileged resolution is not amendable when you take it 
to the floor, and therefore any change that we were to make up 
here would have to be with a vote of this-- a majority vote of 
this committee would then take that amendment to the floor and 
have it ratified separately on the floor. We will not do that. 
We will take this resolution to the floor.
    Should the opposition party want to make a change, they 
could attempt to defeat the previous question to try to offer 
an amendment. And if you want to test this on the floor to see 
if your party, if they agree with you, fine, and we certainly 
would not hesitate to have you do that.
    Mr. Moakley. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for informing the 
people what the procedure is, and we agree. And we don't want 
to test anything. I just want to get my own mind, my feeling-- 
my information was that we had an agreement, and if we don't 
have that agreement any longer-- of course I know if it comes 
to a vote up here, we lose, but I thought this was the 
agreement that was entered into.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Moakley, let me point out to you why that 
agreement was entered into repeatedly by the Speaker, the 
leaders and myself and the Chairman. It is because you cannot 
talk about excising material, if that need arises, with 35 
Members of Congress. I don't care how much integrity they have. 
This is a simple administrative procedure.
    It is tough enough. We have already worked out what happens 
if we disagree, and the agreement was we would take it to the 
Speaker for resolution. We wouldn't even subject the committee 
to what could be rancorous votes.
    So it is not that the Chairman and I are trying to devise 
ways to get more work and have more responsibility and be 
eligible for more criticism. It is just the simplest way to 
proceed.
    Mr. Moakley. I understand exactly what the purpose of the 
agreement was, and that is why I am making it here today, 
because I know that if we have to do this by an amendment 
before this committee, of course it is a 9 to 4 vote against 
us. But I am just trying to uphold the will of the Speaker as I 
heard it and as I assumed it was.
    The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Moakley. I think Mr. Hyde--
    Mr. Hyde. Might I just make this quick suggestion?
    It is very important that we have a pre-release review of 
the supporting material if we are to protect innocent people. 
Now what we are arguing about is the makeup of the reviewers. 
Whether it is Mr. Conyers and myself and our designated staff-- 
I don't propose to put blue jeans on and stay there for 2 weeks 
going through cartons, but I would have staff help. That is why 
we hired them, that is why they get those big bucks. But the 
dispute is whether 35 members of the committee would have equal 
access and we would stumble over each other trying to do this, 
or whether we do it effectively and efficiently, and at the end 
of that period release everything and make everything available 
to the other Members.
    Now what will pass the floor? Maybe Mr. Deutsch's remarks, 
which would have Mr. Dingell's support, Mr. Pombo's support. I 
could name several who want to go that route, and we lose the-- 
entirely the pre-release review. That would be the worst 
scenario. So maybe we debate it on the floor and whoever wins, 
wins. But we don't want to lose the pre-release review if we 
want to be responsible in protecting--
    Mr. Moakley. Yes, I yield, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, I am just going to have to object to 
all of you talking about an agreement. There has been no 
agreement. And, again, I don't like to put words in other 
people's mouths, but Mr. Gephardt near the end of the meeting 
was of the opinion that the majority of his party was in favor 
of the Deutsch approach, which was to release all of the 
information. You all sat there, you heard him say that. And 
that is why a little while after that he said, "Well, there is 
no agreement, we'll have to go talk to our Members." And that 
is why we have proceeded as we have.
    I can assure you that from all of the Democratic Members 
that have contacted this office and all of the Republicans, a 
majority of the Republicans who would like to make all of this 
information available immediately, we just cannot do that 
because of the very reasons that you have stated. And by the 
same token, Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker is of the opinion that 
you two, being the type of individuals you are, will influence 
the Members of your party and they will take your advice as far 
as information that is going to be released or not released. 
And that is why we have you gentleman where you are today and 
we hold you in that great respect.
    Mr. Dreier.
    Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    If I could just make a brief comment on this: in your 
opening statement, Henry, you talked about a bias for openness, 
and we really should pursue that. As every member of this 
committee praised you as Chairman, we know how influential you 
are, and we are convinced that you would clearly be able to 
ensure--go ahead.
    Mr. Hyde. This is known as the perfumed ice pick.
    Mr. Dreier. Henry, you used to always teach me to smile as 
you stick the needle in, as you used to put it. Right. Yes, you 
taught me this.
    So I am convinced, as one of your protegees, Henry, that 
you obviously will be able to prevail on those Members. And 
then of course, as was said by the Chairman in his opening 
remarks, we are in uncharted waters here, and it seems to me 
that your bias for openness is obviously the route for us to 
take.
    The Chairman. Mr. Frost.
    Mr. Frost. Mr. Solomon, I am very concerned because at the 
beginning of this proceeding today everyone talked about 
bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is essential if we are to have a 
fair proceeding and a proceeding that is accepted by the 
American public.
    The Speaker at noon today on CNN announced that an 
agreement had been made and that the two gentlemen at this 
table would be reviewing the documents. The Minority Leader, 
Mr. Gephardt, left town with that understanding, that that was 
the agreement. The majority on this committee has taken it upon 
itself to supersede the agreement between Mr. Gephardt and the 
Speaker. That is a terrible way to start this proceeding. We 
must act in a bipartisan manner.
    Henry Hyde is an extraordinarily honorable man and it was 
very clear that Chairman Hyde prefers, though is not insisting, 
that the agreement--that we execute the agreement as made by 
the two leaders and that he and Mr. Conyers have the 
opportunity to review this material. For some reason the 
majority on this committee does not want to see that happen.
    And I would plead with my colleagues on this committee on 
the other side that this must be a bipartisan proceeding. We 
had an agreement between the leaders of the two parties, 
between Minority Leader Gephardt and Speaker Gingrich, and we 
should not reverse that agreement in this proceeding this 
evening.
    The Chairman. Mr. Frost, let me just respond by saying that 
you know very well that if we were to go beyond precedent of 
the past and we were to give these two gentleman the special 
authority to review that information and not other members of 
the committee, I can assure you that there would be criticism 
similar to what transpired not more than 2 hours ago up in the 
press gallery over here, when there were two different members 
of your party saying that the committee was about to restrict 
other members.
    Now I could assure you if we went along with what you are 
requesting, sure, it would please Mr. Conyers, it would please 
Mr. Hyde perhaps, but it would not please a number of your 
committee members who would attack us as being unfair to the 
minority. We are just not going to do that. We are going to 
leave it open to every member of that committee and trust their 
judgment.
    Mr. Frost. Mr. Solomon, I would respond that there is no 
precedent in this particular area for how you proceed. This is 
not a question of adhering to some past precedent. This is a 
question of using judgment and acting in a bipartisan manner.
    The leaders of the two parties in this House speak for 
their parties and reached an agreement, and now we would seek 
to reverse that agreement and that is a bad idea.
    Mr. Hyde. If I may just say this--
    The Chairman. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. --I am entirely sympathetic with your point of 
view, and of course I am sympathetic with my point of view. The 
last thing we want to do is to lose the pre-release review. We 
could lose it if there is a concern that our way is too 
restrictive and so the other Members--now there are some other 
members of the Judiciary here. You might ask them their 
sentiments. But it is a matter of the votes on the floor, 
really, in the last analysis, and Mr. Solomon is concerned I 
think that we could lose the whole thing to a Mr. Deutsch 
amendment, and that is the worst result in terms of protecting 
innocent people.
    So we ought to consider that. I don't think anybody is 
trying to stiff anybody. We are trying to pragmatically work 
this thing through for the best for everyone.
    The Chairman. And I sort of resent the inference that 
someone is being stiffed.
    Mr. Goss.
    Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, I didn't have anything further to 
say on this, except I think that there may be some mistake and 
some miscommunication on what it was that was going to be 
reviewed. As a member of the majority of this committee it has 
always been my understanding that the executive part of it 
would be released to the public, their right to know, at the 
time the resolution was passed.
    Mr. Frost. No question about that.
    Mr. Goss. That is fine. Then it is just the other stuff, 
and then the only issue is whether it is going to be Mr. Hyde 
and Mr. Conyers or whether it is going to be Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
Conyers, augmented, and how we are going to deal with it next 
week.
    Mr. Frost. If the gentleman will yield, that is in this 
resolution.
    Mr. Goss. I don't think it is that critical of a point. I 
mean, whether it is going to be Mr. Hyde and Mr. Conyers or Mr. 
Hyde, Mr. Conyers, augmented, I don't think matters. I trust it 
either way. What I am concerned about is the public's right to 
know.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. As material becomes available immediately, all of 
the material, so every Member then is going to get access to it 
and--
    Mr. Goss. Absolutely.
    Mr. Frost. Starting Friday, starting tomorrow, prior to 
this committee meeting next week.
    Mr. Hyde. We lose the advantage of us getting to look at it 
and--
    Mr. Conyers. Well, we will be in effect violating the 
admonition of Kenneth W. Starr. I never thought I would quote 
him to the committee, but, I mean, he was careful and prudent 
enough to tell us that these materials contain 6(e) information 
and information that may be prejudicial to innocent parties. 
That is why he wrote the cover letter. He didn't need to tell 
us outside of that there was 17 boxes. We counted them as 
they--or actually 36.
    But this just in: The chief of staff of the minority of the 
Judiciary Committee was in the room with the Minority Leader, 
who called the Speaker after he went on CNN and voiced his 
agreement.
    Now if we are up against a ruling, an amendment of some 
Member that we could lose the pre-release review altogether, 
ladies and gentlemen, we have just slipped down the slippery 
slope. And I mean we are done for if we are going to vote to 
throw everything-- thousands and thousands of pages and boxes--
    The Chairman. I agree with the gentleman.
    Mr. Conyers. Yes. I thank you.
    The Chairman. Mr. Linder.
    Mr. Linder. My only comment is that I really believe from 
people I have talked with that everyone wants access to this, 
and I think a vote on the floor, if we closed it too much, we 
would lose. I really believe we would lose that. And I think 
the prudent thing to do is make it as available as possible.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, in the same manner in which 
in this committee there is extraordinary deference to you, sir, 
and your opinions, I am extraordinarily confident, Mr. Dreier 
made that point previously, that there will be the due 
deference to the two leaders of the Judiciary Committee.
    And so I am confident that the format that is being 
proposed in the resolution is the appropriate one, and note 
that there is an apparent discrepancy or has been--there has 
been a miscommunication with regard to the actual extent of a 
final agreement on that particular point. So I think, Mr. 
Chairman, that the resolution that you are proposing at this 
point is the appropriate one.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Rochester, New York.
    Ms. Slaughter. Mr. Chairman, this greatly distresses me. I 
was not at the meetings, but I certainly talked to people who 
were, who indicate to me that this agreement was made in good 
faith. And I don't think it bodes well for the process if we 
can't even get out of the Rules Committee with a resolution 
that does not break the agreement that was made in good faith 
by the leaders of the two parties of the House.
    And I am astonished by proposals to immediately release all 
the supplementary materials. Surely, we can wait until 
September 28 and make some decision then on what needs to be 
done. But I am astonished that we don't even feel that it is 
necessary to protect the rights of people that Kenneth Starr, 
who I didn't think was so protective of rights in the first 
place, wants us to protect.
    If we don't even go that far, then I think the Congress of 
the United States has reached an extraordinarily new low. We 
started off here with all the good words of bipartisanship, 
good intention and the seriousness of what we might do: 
overturning the last election when people in this country 
choose their President. But now I am very much embarrassed that 
we can't even allow these two men, with whom we have all said 
we have extraordinary faith, and their designees, to take their 
preliminary look at these records. As Mr. Conyers pointed out 
more than once, we have waited almost 5 years; 2 weeks surely 
can't hurt us.
    The Chairman. Well, you know we may have debated this a 
little too long but I will tell you something. If these two 
gentleman and their selected staff are going to be able to look 
at that information, I see absolutely no reason why other 
members of the Judiciary Committee that are Members of the 
United States House of Representatives should not have the same 
opportunity as a staff person.
    Mr. McInnis.
    Mr. McInnis. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. At the 
beginning, as we all went around and made our introductory 
remarks, we heard the warm words of fairness and 
bipartisanship, and I think those words are very proper. But 
what concerns me about the expression of these words is if 
someone doesn't get their way, all of a sudden it is no longer 
fair, all of a sudden it is no longer bipartisan.
    At some point we have to make a decision, at some point 
somebody has to be the boss. To my dear colleague Ms. 
Slaughter--you are not protecting the rights of the 
constituents when their elected representatives, the people who 
were elected here, are not allowed the privilege of going in 
and seeing this report.
    Ms. Slaughter. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. McInnis. Not yet.
    With all due respect, I think it is critical. Every Member 
at this committee has said this is the most serious duty or 
obligation we have probably had. You had the war to vote on, as 
well. We need to be fully informed, and on that basis these 
Members should have access in these documents to the extent 
possible, should be open to the public, and then I would yield.
    Ms. Slaughter. If you would yield to me, please.
    Mr. McInnis. I just did.
    Ms. Slaughter. Because perhaps I did not make myself as 
clear as I should have.
    In no way are we implying that everybody in the country is 
not going to know what is in this report. What we are talking 
about is a different situation, and that is to protect the 
privacy of innocent persons, at the request of the Independent 
Counsel. This is something that decency requires that we do. We 
trust these two gentleman here and their staffs to excise 
material that would cause embarrassment or shame on people that 
are innocent in this and do not need to have their lives be 
dragged out on the Internet. They want 2 weeks to do that, Mr. 
McInnis. Frankly, if you were in there, I would stand as 
squarely as I am right now for the right for your privacy to be 
protected.
    Mr. McInnis. And I am reclaiming my time.
    Ms. Slaughter. Surely I would ask you to understand that 
what Mr. Starr has said is not unreasonable.
    Mr. McInnis. Reclaiming my time, the members of this 
committee have a very special charge. That special charge does 
not rest with the Chairman and the Ranking Member, although 
certainly they lead the rest of the committee. That entire 
committee is charged with this special responsibility, and 
everybody on that committee ought to have complete access to 
those documents to make the determination that you have just 
spoken of.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hastings.
    Mrs. Myrick.
    Mr. Dreier. Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment very 
briefly on this: the resolution does state that this is to be 
done in executive session, and I know that there is this 
concern about information getting out that could damage 
Members. But the fact that this is done in executive session, 
again with the very strong leadership of these two gentlemen, I 
am convinced that they can prevail on these Members.
    And I know we have all been getting a great deal of 
pressure from other members of the Judiciary Committee who do 
want to be part of this process. We are simply reflecting those 
views of those duly elected Members.
    The Chairman. Gentlemen, we--again, I just want to repeat 
in fact that you are going to have an awesome responsibility on 
your shoulders in reviewing the information that we are not--
that we are not making readily available to the American 
public, namely the 2,600 pages in the appendices and the other 
supporting material.
    And again, we would charge you with making sure that you 
are going to make available all of the information that does 
not deal with individual human beings, that does not deal with 
the 6(e) testimonies that you were talking about, John, and 
does not infringe on continuing criminal investigations. We 
would hope that you would, as the resolution says, make that 
information available to other members of your committee and 
then to the entire Congress.
    We want to thank you very much for your appearing before 
us. We have the greatest trust and respect of both of you, and 
we know that you will do an outstanding job for a very 
difficult assignment. And we thank you for coming. Thank you 
very much.
    The next order of business is to consider testimony by Ms. 
Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas. Is Ms. Lee--is here? And the 
Honorable Maxine Waters from California. Are you here together?
    Separately, all right.
    Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, while Ms. Lee is coming to the 
table, may I ask that we include in the record the 
congressional use of grand jury transcripts, historical 
precedents which I have here, which I would like to see 
included in the record, which might help a little bit on the 
confusion about what exactly we are going to review and how it 
is going to--
    The Chairman. Without objection, it will appear in the 
record.
    [The information follows:]


    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.067
    
    The Chairman. And Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, did you have 
anyone else you wanted to bring to the table with you, or are 
you here alone?
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. No, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Again, Ms. Lee, we want to welcome you to the 
committee. Your entire statement will appear in the record, as 
other Members have testified, without objection. And you may 
proceed.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and 
first of all I thank you for your patience, which will probably 
be tested in the days and weeks to come. I think the 
complimentary words that were said were quite appropriate, and 
let me say how proud I am as a member of the Judiciary 
Committee to be able to serve with Chairman Hyde and certainly 
Ranking Member Conyers, who I guess claims a special privilege 
of having served on that very august body in 1974.
    You made an interesting point earlier in our discussion in 
commenting on Chairman Rodino by mentioning the fact that he 
did an outstanding job, and if you go through the transcripts 
or the media comments, he was viewed as a very ordinary person.
    The Chairman. In the beginning.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. In the beginning, and wound up of course 
as a very extraordinarily person.
    Today I had a call from a local media outlet and they said, 
"A colleague of yours has seen the report." I was able very 
confidently to say, "I know they have not because the House has 
received it in a very secure and confidential manner, and in 
fact we will be discussing its distribution today." I felt good 
about that because that emphasized the direction in which we 
are going.
    And I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to acknowledge 
the sobering and somber task we are about to undertake. Might I 
refer you to just a few words from Alexander Bickel, who 
commented in 1973, referring to Watergate: "In the presidency 
is embodied the continuity and indestructibility of the state. 
It is not possible for the government to function without a 
President, and the Constitution contemplates and provides for 
uninterrupted continuity in office."
    You are right. We have not reached any question about 
procedures. We are here talking about distribution. But I would 
like to refer us to the Watergate proceedings because we have 
alluded to it as being one that we can all be proud of.
    Certainly allegations dealing with breaking and entering 
and paying hush money are a concern to everyone, but I think 
those on the committee handled themselves with great dignity 
and respect. We might recall that the minority, which was the 
Republican Party at that time, even suggested in their debate, 
and Peter Rodino allowed them to debate it, that frankly we 
should not proceed or that we should ultimately make a decision 
if we view that a crime was committed but also that it had an 
impact on the governmental system.
    So I think what I am trying to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, is 
this whole question that there will always be disagreement. 
People come from different perspectives. This is a political 
body, I hope not driven by politics because we have a serious 
job to do.
    I say that not in a condescending manner or in trying to in 
any way suggest that the colleagues of mine who speak 
passionately do not have the right to do so. But this committee 
is a gateway, frankly, and you can offer a rule that respects 
the fact that we may not be able in this time to be driven by 
politics.
    Someone earlier said, as you were citing the web page and 
the dot coms, that we live in a highly technological society. I 
would only say to you, again with respect, that the 
Constitution was not written on the Internet, and that although 
we are in a different era we may bode well by the fact that our 
Founding Fathers were very careful in respecting the 
institution of government, the three branches of government, 
the need for a stable government, and certainly not in a kingly 
or queenly way the very high office of the President of the 
United States.
    With that then, Mr. Chairman, I think it is imperative that 
the President have the opportunity to formulate a response. I 
think it is imperative that the President has a right, now it 
is being suggested of the 2-day or 48-hour period, and I 
believe the American people would fully understand that we were 
not being political but we were being right.
    Let me add, if I might, that as I proceed, and very briefly 
I will cite the Watergate proceedings recognizing that we are 
not at the stage of making rules, but I frankly believe that we 
are wrongly directed in releasing the 445 pages. The 
Independent Counsel's report, while I am sure it is presented 
in a high or with a high degree of respect for the 
responsibility that the Independent Counsel has, is still only 
one side of the story. Albeit that we have heard so many 
comments by the media, the American public should have the 
right to hear both sides of the story. With that in mind, if we 
are to go the route of releasing the documents, and I have 
indicated my personal perspective on it and I will share why, I 
believe that the 48 hours, the 2 days, is imperative.
    The Watergate impeachment inquiry followed the same 
precedent. The Judiciary Committee received evidence in closed-
door hearings for 7 weeks with the President's lawyer in the 
same room; again, under the majority of the Democrats and with 
the minority the Republicans, working, I would like to say, in 
a nonpartisan manner. This evidence included the material 
reported by the Watergate grand jury.
    And we have those concerns, those of us who have either 
practiced before grand juries or dealt with these issues. The 
materials received by the committee, Mr. Chairman, were not 
released to the public until the conclusion, conclusion of the 
7-week evidentiary presentation. By then the White House had 
full knowledge of the material being considered by the 
committee.
    Also in the Watergate proceeding subpoenas were issued 
jointly by the Chairman and Ranking Member, and if either 
declined to act, by the other acting alone; except that if 
either declined to act, he or she--well, in this instance two 
he's--would refer the matter to the full committee for a vote. 
More importantly, the President's lawyer was required to be 
provided with copies of all materials presented to the 
committee, invited to attend presentations of evidence and to 
submit additional suggestions for witnesses to be interviewed 
or materials to be reviewed and to respond to evidentiary 
presentations.
    The rules further provided that the President and his 
counsel shall be invited to attend all hearings, including any 
held under executive session. Twenty-four hours advance notice 
was required, and both the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member were granted access to all times--at all times with 
committee materials.
    I lay that groundwork recognizing that we have not yet 
defined or established the rules under which we may proceed, 
and also that we have not moved to the point of an impeachment 
inquiry. We are receiving a report.
    The Chairman. Would you repeat the first part of that 
again, because you make a very cogent point that your committee 
has not yet met to lay out the parameters of their own 
investigation.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That is correct, I understand that, but I 
am using that as a backdrop for my advocacy that the President 
have 48 hours to be able to review the 445 pages. And in fact I 
have already made my personal comment that I am very concerned 
about the release of these documents to the public in any 
event, because I think the public would understand that because 
of the somberness and the importance of the responsibility that 
we have, that it would not be covering up; it would be to have 
this particular task that we have to be maintained with the 
greatest of integrity.
    I want to add a couple of other points, Mr. Chairman, if I 
can. I have said here that I would like to see us think along 
the lines of the Watergate proceedings because I don't think 
that the House wants to deny the President--and I would like us 
to separate the President, President Clinton, from the 
institution of the presidency--the same right that has been and 
continues to be enjoyed by our own Members, who receive 
information when charges are filed against them by the House 
Ethics Committee.
    For example, the Speaker was permitted to review the 
charges filed by the committee before it issued its public 
report. The President, the institution of the presidency, 
should be afforded the same right.
    Also the Ethics rules require that the subject of any 
investigation will have not less than 10 calendar days before a 
scheduled vote to review alleged violations and a copy of the 
statement of the alleged violations that the committee intends 
to adopt, together with all evidence it intends to use to prove 
these charges. The President, again the institution of the 
presidency, should not receive any less due process than any 
Member of Congress.
    It is clearly important that we respect the fact that our 
own Independent Counsel has acknowledged the potentiality of 
damaging materials against private or independent or individual 
citizens that we could find in the 2,000 pages and the 17 boxes 
and the appendices.
    Frankly, with all due respect to my colleagues and anyone 
who comes to this committee to offer an amendment, it is this 
committee that can carve out the vote or the resolution that we 
will vote on tomorrow. Frankly, I believe we are doing 
absolutely the wrong thing, even if we provided an opportunity 
to vote on an amendment that asks for the entire outlay of 
documentation to be presented to the American public.
    It is not the intent to deny the American public the full 
understanding and appreciation of the workings of the 
Constitution, of this House. It is our job; it is our oath of 
office. But I will say to you it will not be the American 
people. It will be the rehashing and the recounting and the 
questioning and the challenges and the charges, over and over 
again, by the constitutionally protected press. And I have no 
intent to accuse or to make accusations against the integrity 
of the press. What I do say is it will not really be the 
American people, it will be the rehashing, over and over again, 
of documentation that will not be under the full light of this 
Congress.
    Let me mention as well, Mr. Chairman, as I come to a close, 
you have section 2 here that indicates with regard to the 
balance of the material, the balance of the material will be 
deemed to have been received in executive session but will be 
released on September 28, 1998 unless the Judiciary Committee 
votes not to release it. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would offer 
to say that the materials would not be released until the full 
evidentiary proceedings have been completed.
    I would also say that it is confusing, because in section 4 
it provides that access to the executive session material will 
be restricted to members of the committee and such employees of 
the committee as may be designated by the Chairman after 
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.
    Does that mean that the documentation that is released 
September 28, 1998 will be accessible only by these 
individuals, or if it is released then it is for everyone to 
see? Is it that you have noted in this section 2 that it will 
be received in executive session but it will be released if 
voted upon to release it, meaning the Judiciary Committee?
    If they vote upon it, does that break the executive 
committee receipt or the status of executive committee, and 
then it is therefore released and access becomes public? Or 
does it mean that it is released, but for Members and others to 
get it out or get the actual original documents in their hand? 
They are, by section 4, restricted to members of the committee 
and such employees of the committee as may be designated by the 
Chairman of-- after consultation.
    I think it is-- at least there seems to be some conflict in 
my mind as to how we will be interpreting it. And I think we 
will be cleaner, we would be fairer, we would be highlighting 
the fundamental fairness of what we are here to do by not 
looking at the President as the President, President William 
Jefferson Clinton and all that may be surrounding that, but as 
the institution of the presidency.
    The Chairman. As a President.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. That is correct, as the institution of the 
presidency and not as the particular set of facts that are 
before us.
    I would offer to say with that we would be able to proceed 
in the nonpartisan way that I think that we should, and we 
would emphasize more than we would ever know that this Congress 
is committed, each and every one of us, and I challenge no one 
committed to the oath of office that they have taken, and that 
in the ultimate end of this process we will all have done what 
we were sworn to do and we will have upheld the Constitution of 
the United States of America.
    I think that is our ultimate responsibility, Mr. Chairman, 
not to be driven by the politics of the day, by the platitudes 
of openness, by the right of the American people to see. We are 
in a proceeding that is in every way impinging and infringing 
upon the institution of government.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me 
this time.
    The Chairman. Well, Ms. Jackson-Lee, I have to concur with 
almost everything you have said because you are right.
    Let me just confirm again that nothing in this resolution 
or a future resolution which we may take up on midweek of next 
week will prevent the Judiciary Committee from hearing from the 
President's attorneys or attorney--Mr. Kendall. And I would 
hope that when you adopt your committee rules in your 
committee, the same as any committee would under regular rules 
of the House, that you would certainly take that into 
consideration. And I am quite sure that Congressman Hyde would 
agree with what you have just stated.
    You and Ms. Waters and Ms. Lofgren and others are 
distinguished members of one of the very key committees of this 
Congress, and you were chosen for reasons by your party. It 
would seem to me that you have been arguing that you should 
have the same access to the material as any other member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
    Now we get to the point of whether or not this information 
will be released to the public. We are in a new era of openness 
in this Congress, as demanded by the American people, and 
because of that we are going to make available all of the 
material that does not infringe on three categories, those 
three categories being, again, innocent people that might be 
involved, the--again, those areas in 6(e), in the proceedings 
by the grand jury, and in criminal proceedings that may be 
ongoing. And we want to leave that up to your good judgment, 
you, the members of that committee, and hopefully that is the 
way it will work out.
    And I guess I just have to ask you, you are one of the most 
due diligent members of this Congress because you appear before 
this committee many times, quite often on varied subjects. You 
do your homework, and you certainly are knowledgeable, and in 
my opinion you are qualified and deserve to have this same 
information available to you that any other member of that 
Judiciary Committee does, and I am trying to see to that.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. If I might on that, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. You may respond.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. I think that what we have exhibited here 
obviously is a tone that we would like this whole entire time 
of proceedings to proceed in. And I appreciate your comments, 
and certainly as a member of the Judiciary Committee would want 
to have the fullest opportunity.
    I do respect my Chairman and Ranking Member for the process 
which they designed on the 17 boxes and 2,000 pages. I frankly 
do respect them. I do believe that I could take the challenge 
up of reviewing the documents, albeit, as Chairman Hyde said, 
it would be an unsightly and possibly unpleasant task.
    But I do support the concept which they have argued because 
again my premise here today, and where we might slightly 
disagree, is that I don't agree with the rendering of the 445 
pages. But if that does occur, I certainly argue vigorously, 
and as I said I use the Watergate proceedings as a backdrop, 
not to argue rules but to say that those materials were not 
even released until the completion of evidentiary hearings.
    I will then take it to the next step and say that I am 
concerned about the 17 boxes, 2,000 pages and the appendices, 
because even with the fineness of detailed review, I am fearful 
that those documents and the release of them will infringe upon 
the fairest of review by the Judiciary Committee. Because if 
you have an implosion inside the committee by pressures from 
those who interpret whatever they may be reading in some 
manner, and they begin to do the political surge of, "You must 
do this," then it is my fear that unlike Chairman Rodino and 
the nonpartisan work of that committee which saw some 
Republicans vote for but certainly saw some Republicans hold 
their ground on their belief that their President, or the 
President, a President, did not deserve impeachment, I am 
fearful that what we argue on behalf of the American people as 
what will be fair, which would in turn or which would 
ultimately be, Mr. Chairman, unfair because it will be driven 
totally by politics and politics only. And my concession to the 
superhighway would be, I would be more than happy to have the 
fullest exposure on the Internet subsequent to the completion 
of our work.
    Might I, Mr. Chairman, in terms of just refreshing my 
memory, I thought maybe someone on the committee knows that 
even now there is some debate or discussion on the Nixon tapes, 
some of those tapes that were engaged. And so the American 
people have certainly been around a situation when we have 
withheld documentation, which has not injured, one, the 
viability of the Constitution, the process of government, or 
the freedom that the American people expect.
    I only say, Mr. Chairman, that I probably disagree that we 
should even be releasing it at this point, because I fear being 
driven by the political atmosphere that we really need to be 
free of, not that we are not representing politics, but we need 
to be free of it to make a right decision.
    The Chairman. And you do understand that in this resolution 
where we are trying to follow precedent, that we would allow 
the Judiciary Committee to do exactly as the Watergate 
committee did, the Judiciary Committee did back in 1974, and 
that is to withhold information from the rest of the Members of 
Congress and the American people. We allow that in this 
resolution.
    Mr. Moakley, did you have a statement or--
    Mr. Moakley. The only thing, where our learned colleague 
referred to the Watergate, isn't so much of that information 
that was garnered through the grand jury and the Watergate 
still undistributed? It is still held in secrecy?
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. That is correct, and I--the counsel at 
that time was a Special Prosecutor, and the ultimate finisher 
of the work was Leon Jaworski. And having associated myself 
with his firm in Texas, Fulbright and Jaworski, I know full 
well the high order of which he thought his charge was, and 
that was not secrecy to destroy the process but secrecy to 
protect freedom and the process. And so those documents were 
retained.
    Mr. Moakley. And didn't the committee work in a very 
nonpartisan manner, in that if the minority member or the 
ranking member, either wanted to issue a subpoena, they could 
do it individually.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. That is correct. There was the opportunity 
for the fullest expression, and of course most if not all those 
hearings were in executive session, and that worked very well 
for providing that kind of openness.
    Mr. Moakley. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to see how 
times have changed, and I guess I am getting old, but since we 
announced at the beginning of our hearing, when Mr. Dreier made 
the announcement about our web page, it has been accessed over 
10,000 times in less than 2 hours. Can you imagine that? That 
is mind-boggling to me.
    Mr. Linder.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    I beg your pardon, my good friend from Rochester?
    Mr. Hastings.
    Mrs. Myrick.
    As always, we are always glad to have you come before us, 
and your testimony is always enlightening, Ms. Lee, and we 
appreciate it.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and 
we will probably see each other throughout this process. I 
thank you for your kindness.
    The Chairman. The next scheduled witness is the Honorable 
Maxine Waters. I understand now that she has asked to have Ms. 
Zoe Lofgren of California join her, since you both are members 
of the Judiciary Committee. You are welcome to proceed, Ms. 
Waters, you first. Your entire statements will appear in the 
record without objection.

 STATEMENT OF HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 
of this Rules Committee.
    I am here as chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, 
as a member of the Judiciary Committee, and as a member of a 
coalition of concerned Members of this House who have joined 
together to do everything that we can to ensure fairness in 
this process.
    As public policymakers, we all find ourselves in the 
difficult position of having to formulate rules and procedures 
to receive and proceed with the referral from the Office of the 
Independent Counsel without statutory laws or rules that 
dictate procedure for carrying out this very special work of 
the Judiciary Committee, the work of review and determination 
to refer or not to refer to the Senate for impeachment 
purposes.
    There are those who will review this report with great 
political interest because of the pending elections in 
November. There are those who propose that we model the 
handling of the referral after the Watergate hearings. Others 
will simply see this as an opportunity to create mass confusion 
and distraction from the issues of the day.
    The Congressional Black Caucus has made the decision to 
become the fairness cop. We have assigned to ourselves the role 
of being the best advocate that we can for ensuring that this 
process recognizes the rights of everyone involved as we go 
through the process.
    We say, Mr. Chairman and Members, without qualification, 
that the President of the United States of America deserves the 
right to review, prior to the release, of a copy of the report 
that has been written by the independent counsel, who has spent 
4-1/2 years investigating the President, with the last 8 months 
devoted to the Monica Lewinsky matter.
    Because this is a constitutional issue, we must be 
steadfast about handling this with great care, and to ask that 
the President of the United States of America be given adequate 
time to review the report is fair and just. It is a simple 
request that any American would respect.
    Even in a court of law, it is a basic right for a defendant 
to know what they have been accused of and to be given the 
opportunity for preparation, and it is not unusual for the 
lawyers to ask for time to prepare a response, and more time if 
they need it. A release of this report or any portion of this 
report or referral, however you want to refer to it, to the 
press on the Internet without an opportunity for the accused to 
review the charges is unconscionable and quite unreasonable. 
Americans want fairness first.
    Members of the Congressional Black Caucus understand this 
perhaps better than most. We continue even today in our 
struggle for justice and equality as we are confronted with the 
criminal justice system that is still fraught with too many 
abuses. From the time we were considered three-fifths of a 
human being under slavery, we have fought for the right to be 
represented by counsel. We have fought against abusive police, 
who have tried us in the streets with guns and billy clubs 
rather than give us our day in court. It is this kind of 
history which forces us to say this process must be fair.
    Mr. Chairman and Members, I would like to draw to your 
attention the struggle that we recently had on the floor of 
Congress when the left and the right joined because there was a 
Member who had been abused in the process. This Member happened 
to be on the Republican side of the aisle, but this so-called 
liberal African American Member of Congress took the floor in 
defense of that Member, and we said that our own Justice 
Department must be put in check, and I voted to include in that 
the independent counsel, because again, I come from a people 
and a history that knows what it means to be denied the right 
to have your day in court, the right to be represented by 
counsel, the right to have a voice. And because of that, I come 
here and I make a plea to you as Members of Congress to give 
the President of the United States a period of time.
    I am not going to ask that it be 2 days or 10 days, because 
I think you are smart enough, and you have enough integrity, 
and you do want to have a procedure that will be viewed as fair 
by the American people. There are some members of my caucus who 
said, don't even try, they have made up their minds. I have 
argued with them that I believe that the members of this 
committee on both sides of the aisle still have their minds 
open to how we can work not only in a bipartisan way, but in a 
fair way. And I make that plea without any shame and without 
any reservations that you give the President of the United 
States a period of time, as long as you like, as short as you 
like, but a period of time to respond before making the 445 
pages public.
    If I had my way, Mr. Chairman and Members, I would make 
sure that the President and Judiciary Committee have ample time 
to review the report and its appendices prior to release to the 
public. I would certainly delay the release of the appendices 
for a limited time until the Judiciary Committee has wrapped up 
its work.
    The Judiciary Committee members are duly elected to work in 
the best interests of the American people. We know that the 
independent counsel has conceded that there are some sensitive 
materials in this report. As such, we must remember to be fair. 
The chips can fall where they may, but we must remember to 
enter this with fairness and proceed at all times with 
fairness.
    In conclusion, the Congressional Black Caucus respectfully 
asks that you give the President this opportunity to review and 
respond to the charges against him, and we further ask that 
this process operate again in complete fairness. We therefore 
agree with the proposal to have Chairman Hyde and Congressman 
Conyers review the appendices prior to release to the public.
    Now, it is very interesting that we have been in this 
discussion today about whether or not the Judiciary members 
will have right to access rather than just the Ranking Member 
and the Chair, and of course I come down on the side basically 
of all of us being able to review this material, but think 
about this. There is a discrepancy that rests in this room 
today about what was so-called agreed upon between the Chair 
and the Ranking Member and the Speaker, and it seems to me if 
we want to get off on a good foot, if we want to start this 
right, we will demonstrate right here and now our ability to do 
that.
    As I understand it, this agreement was made, but also with 
the caveat that Judiciary members have the right to review and 
examine the material under controlled circumstances and 
conditions. If that is the case, that is a compromise that 
allows for both sides basically to realize what it would like 
to realize, that we have these two leaders who will have an 
opportunity to review and come to the Judiciary Committee with 
recommendations. At the same time you don't close out the right 
of Members to see this material under controlled conditions.
    And if we are going to really put our actions where our 
mouths are, we are not going to leave here with that 
misunderstanding today and just take the opportunity to use 
whatever majority power we have to decide one way or the other. 
I think you can work this out so we can have what I consider to 
be fairness in the process.
    In closing let me say that I am worried about agreements 
that are made even between the Ranking Member and the Chair, 
the Minority Leader and the Majority, the Speaker. I am worried 
about that because, again, most of the members of this 
committee are talking about openness in one shape, form or 
fashion or another. And when we get too many agreements being 
made behind closed doors, then we don't have the opportunity to 
talk this thing through and to have the input from all sides.
    I heard today my own Ranking Member say that there was an 
agreement that if they didn't agree, they would go to the 
Speaker, and the Speaker would decide. I don't like that. I 
don't like that. And I think I am not going to like a lot of 
what will be conceded without the ability for us to have some 
debate and some input.
    Having said all of that, again, I hope that you will take 
to heart what I am trying to share with you about my experience 
as an African American fighting for fairness, justice and 
equality in the criminal justice system, and I want you to know 
that the right and the left are slowly coming together on this 
issue.
    When you look at our House, and you look at the arguments 
that were made about Ruby Ridge and Waco, and you look at the 
arguments that have been made for many years about how African 
Americans have been treated in the system, what you are ending 
up with is the fact that people from both sides of the aisle 
and from different spectrums are coming together saying you had 
better watch the criminal justice system, and that includes the 
Justice Department and all, as it exercises power. And when you 
see it abused, any time, any place anywhere, you better put it 
in check, because it is somebody today, but it is you tomorrow.
    Thank you very much for your patience and for listening to 
what I wished to share.
    I have worked in cooperation with my colleague from the 
Judiciary Committee today to further attempt to do everything 
that we can to address this question of fairness and to get the 
input of other Members of not only our Judiciary Committee, but 
our caucus to try and impress upon you that this is the 
reigning issue of the day, will we be fair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Waters. As usual you are very 
eloquent in your presentation, and we appreciate that.
    The Chairman. Now we will go to Ms. Lofgren.

  STATEMENT OF HON. ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Under our Constitution the House of Representatives has the 
sole power of impeachment. This is perhaps our single most 
serious responsibility short of a declaration of war. Given the 
gravity and magnitude of this undertaking, only a fair and 
bipartisan approach to this question will ensure that truth is 
discovered, honest judgments rendered and the constitutional 
requirement observed.
    Our best yardstick is our historical experience. We must 
compare the procedures used today with what Congress did a 
generation ago when a Republican President was investigated by 
a Democratic House. The proposal to release the independent 
counsel report, 445 pages of allegations, and to publish it on 
the Internet without bipartisan review falls short of this 
standard.
    In 1974, the report from the special prosecutor, Leon 
Jaworski, and the grand jury material were kept confidential so 
the House Judiciary Committee could sift through them 
thoroughly. The proposal to release the independent counsel 
report without giving the President's counsel the opportunity 
to see the report falls short of this standard.
    In 1974, the President and his lawyers were permitted to 
see the evidence and to cross-examine witnesses over weeks of 
closed sessions. Discussions that the Judiciary Committee be 
permitted to act using procedures not as fair as those used in 
1974 cannot meet the standard.
    The proceedings in 1974 were conducted in a manner that 
ensured a fully bipartisan process by providing, for example, 
that subpoenas be issued upon joint agreement, or if agreement 
could not be reached, by either Majority or the Minority acting 
separately. Proposals that would provide for committee action 
on the sole authority of the Republican Majority without 
sharing the decision-making as was done in 1974 falls short of 
the 1974 yardstick of fairness.
    Because of the thorough deliberative procedures used during 
the Watergate proceedings, the ultimate result was not only 
fair, but was perceived to be fair. This is the standard by 
which we, too, will be judged. If we fail to follow this 
example, we will abdicate the solemn duty that the Constitution 
entrusts to us and to us alone. If we fall short of the 
yardstick of fairness, the American people will correctly see 
the cause as partisanship. The damage done will be to our 
country and to our system of government.
    This statement is agreed to by myself and several Members 
of the House, including my colleagues Ms. Waters, Ms. Sheila 
Jackson-Lee, Mr. Bobby Scott, a member of the committee, as 
well as Ms. Slaughter. There are other signatories, including 
people who helped draft the statement, so we will have some of 
their names tomorrow.
    I would like to note in reviewing this resolution some 
additional concerns. I note in section 4 and 5 that action is 
proposed to be taken by the Chairman after consultation with 
the Ranking Member, and I would contrast that with H.Res. 803 
approved by the House of Representatives February 1, 1974, 
wherein on the second page, line 9, the authority of the 
committee is exercised by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the 
other acting alone. Either shall have the right to refer 
decisions to the committee and so forth.
    What is proposed here is actually a decision made by the 
Republicans without equal authority by the Minority. It is far 
short of what this Congress did in 1974. It is insufficiently 
bipartisan and will lead to unwise results for this country.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and we would repeat the 
accolades that we had for Ms. Waters as well.
    The Chairman. Let me respond briefly on the fairness issue.
    You do understand that if the Rules Committee should not 
act at all, in other words if the Congress, the House of 
Representatives, were to receive a report from a President, 
from the General Accounting Office, from the Joint Economic 
Committee, from the Justice Department, or from an independent 
counsel without this committee acting, the procedure would be, 
that is if we were to not present to this House of 
Representatives tomorrow a preferential resolution to set the 
parameters of what information will be made public, under the 
rules of the House every word, every page, every grand jury 
procedure, testimony, every videotape, audiotape, everything in 
all 17 of those boxes would automatically become a public 
document and be available to the media and to the public. It 
would be a public document. That is the rule of the House.
    In an act of fairness, because we understand much of your 
testimony where there are innocent people involved, where there 
is testimony that might be explicitly sexual that I would not 
want my granddaughter to see or read about in the paper, that 
information should be withheld if it is not pertinent, and we 
are doing everything we can to make sure that that doesn't 
happen, and I hope you understand that that is the normal 
procedure, the normal rules of the House.
    Speaker Gingrich has been criticized by some, a very, very 
small number, for having the Rules Committee become involved, 
but that is exactly what would happen if we did not present a 
resolution to the Congress tomorrow.
    Now, on the question of whether or not the Chairman and the 
Ranking Member will only have access in the beginning, we have 
polled our Republican Members, and they are going to abide by 
the wishes of Chairman Hyde, and that means that Chairman Hyde 
is going to be able to look at that information.
    Now, Mr. Conyers is equally respected on his side of the 
aisle. You are members of the Judiciary Committee, and I assume 
that you and other Members are going to allow Mr. Conyers to 
look at that information and then pass it on to you for your 
final judgment. That is what was done in Watergate, and that is 
what we are doing here, but we do not intend to deprive other 
members of the committee from having the final say on whether 
or not that information is going to be withheld, and you all 
should--if I were a member of that committee, I would insist 
that I have that right representing 600,000 people in the 
Hudson Valley of the State of New York.
    Now, concerning the President's ability to receive the 
information 24 or 48 hours earlier, Lawrence Walsh of Boston, 
Massachusetts, who was the Iran-Contra independent counsel, 
stated clearly earlier today that the President's attorneys 
already know substantially the information that is contained in 
the 445 pages, and, therefore, in his opinion, they have 
already prepared their public relations response. As far as 
their legal response, that will not come for many days until 
they are called before your committee. In his infinite wisdom, 
and I didn't agree with him on the Iran-Contra procedures, but 
he believes that has already been taken care of by the 
President's attorneys, and I believe that as well.
    Therefore, we appreciate your testimony, and I would yield 
to Mr. Moakley, perhaps, for any comment that he has.
    Mr. Moakley. No questions.
    The Chairman. Any questions from my side of the aisle or 
the Democrats?
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. I would only point out, and perhaps Ms. Lofgren 
mentioned this when I was out of the room, she brings a wealth 
of experience to this because she served on the staff of the 
committee in 1974 during Watergate.
    The Chairman. Right. The point is well taken.
    Mr. Goss?
    Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, just further to your point that you 
made about Mr. Walsh, his counsel and his advice on this matter 
that the White House has a heads-up, I have seen the White 
House lawyer on national television making a statement about 
this material, saying there is nothing of substance in the 
material, and they have already started the public relations 
program out at the White House. I believe other Members have 
seen that, too.
    Mr. Moakley. Did you also see Mr. Gingrich say that he 
agreed with Mr. Hyde on how this should be used in the 
Judiciary Committee?
    Mr. Goss. I did not happen to see Mr. Gingrich. I do know 
there is some legitimate confusion about the difference between 
the boxes and the 445-page report, but I dare say that the 
President of the United States knows a whole lot more about 
what is in that report than any Member of Congress.
    The Chairman. I recognize Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. I think adopting the procedures established in 
1974 that were fair have more to do with us than the 
Presidency. If we cannot assure this country that we will be as 
bipartisan, that we will yield as much authority to the 
Minority, if we will give as much right to the President as was 
done in 1974, then we are already starting off on the wrong 
foot. This is about us, and if we fall short of the yardstick 
of fairness, I worry a great deal about our country's future.
    The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren and Ms. Waters, let me say that I 
concur with your observations, and let me tell you that we have 
done everything in our power trying to reach a compromise to 
make sure that we try to follow precedent. As you know, there 
were rumors, and in earlier drafts the Judiciary Committee, the 
Republicans, were asking for special powers for the Chairman, 
Mr. Hyde, on contempt citations that would, in effect, in my 
opinion, have allowed the Judiciary Committee to take action 
which would have resulted in an American citizen or citizens 
being locked up without an action of this House of 
Representatives.
    I flatly put my foot down on allowing that to happen, and 
it is not happening, and there are many, many other examples 
along the way, because we want to be absolutely fair, and above 
all else we do not want to infringe on one single right of any 
American citizen. So your points are well taken, and we are 
going to try to make it come true.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important for 
us to leave here with the clear understanding about what this 
committee understands about the ability of the Ranking Member 
and the Chairman to make recommendations about that which is to 
be excluded from those boxes and those over 2,000 or so pages.
    It seems to me that on the one hand you are saying that the 
Judiciary Committee members are being excluded, when my 
understanding is that they will be able to see information 
under controlled conditions, and we will be able to vote on the 
recommendations of those. Is that your understanding?
    The Chairman. That is absolutely right.
    Ms. Waters. I think that should be made clear.
    The Chairman. The language in the resolution is going to 
make the information available to all of you Members. However, 
there is nothing in the resolution that is going to prevent Mr. 
Hyde from getting the agreement of other Republicans to take 
his advice on what he is going to piece out and show in the 
individual boxes. There is nothing to prevent Mr. Conyers from 
doing the same thing, and I would hope that would be the case.
    But you as individual Members will have the final say over 
what is going to be expunged. That will be up to you and a vote 
of your committee, and that is the way that it should be.
    Ms. Waters. That is what I think is fair. And if we have 
the ability and we want to take the time and put in the effort 
to do the review so we can have the input, make recommendations 
to our Ranking Member, et cetera, et cetera, so we can 
influence the outcome, then I think--
    The Chairman. That is exactly our intent in this 
resolution, that you have the final say on what is going to be 
expunged, and it would be left up to you, and that is the way 
that it should be.
    All right, we have heard from all of the Members. We 
appreciate your coming. We have one more witness to testify. It 
is the honorable and respected Mr. Peter Deutsch from south 
Florida. Your entire statement will appear in the record 
without objection.


 STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Deutsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having 
the opportunity to close the testimony. And I particularly 
appreciate Mr. Goss being in the room for my presentation, 
because in the opening comments I think Mr. Goss's statement 
was one that I could not have made any better. And I am also 
happy that Mr. Diaz-Balart is here as well. All three of us are 
from Florida, where we pride ourselves in government as really 
literally being the Sunshine State, and all of you will be at 
some point in your lives from Florida.
    But really on a very serious note, we have had a long 
tradition of open government, and we take it very, very 
seriously. We believe it has been incredibly successful. 
Sometimes it is a little bit ugly, and sometimes it is painful, 
and sometimes elected officials don't like it, but I think it 
works, and it works very well.
    And I think that as we are deliberating as a collective 
body, and as you are deliberating as a committee this evening, 
I really hope that you heed these words and you heed Mr. Goss's 
comments also that we are the public servants. This is the 
public's House. There is nothing to be afraid of the public 
knowing what is going on. I think it is critical and it is 
imperative that the public know what is going on; not just that 
this meeting be open, as it is, obviously, but that we avoid 
executive sessions at all times unless for specific, almost 
national security reasons.
    I have spoken with the staff of this committee today, and I 
have sat through the last several hours of hearings. I have sat 
through the comments of the Chairman of this committee and the 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I want us to stop and 
reflect. We have talked about some of the problems that could 
occur by release of information. We have talked about 
potentially innocent people or sexual material or irrelevant 
material.
    I will tell you that if it was worth investigating, it is 
worth the public knowing, and it is worth the public making 
that determination, because sometimes what might seem as 
innocent individual comment--and there has been discussion what 
happens in the Linda Tripp tapes if there is a discussion about 
20 other people who have no relevancy to the primary issues at 
hand. It might have credibility as to the two people on the 
tape. Essentially we are making a judgment, or Mr. Hyde or Mr. 
Conyers will be making that judgment. They really should not be 
making that judgment.
    Again, yes, there are some innocent people on these tapes, 
but I ask you all to reflect about this, and very seriously, 
what are we doing here. What are we talking about. We are 
talking about the President of the United States of America. We 
are talking about the most powerful person on the planet. He is 
not just President of the United States, he is President of the 
world. And yes, there is some cost in terms of releasing all of 
the information immediately, but I think the benefit in terms 
of this process and in terms of our country far outweighs that 
cost. I don't think it is a close call.
    Unfortunately those not from Florida, your experience with 
open government might not be as much as those of us from 
Florida, but I hope that you do reflect in terms of what it 
should mean and what it can mean.
    I will also tell you that just the integrity of this 
process for the American people, this is clearly a disturbing 
time in America. I don't think that there is a person in this 
country that really wants us to be here this evening. I know 
none of us want to be here this evening discussing this, but 
the reality is that we are where we are. It truly is critical 
at this point in time that we have integrity in this process. 
What better way to have integrity in this process than to 
literally bring the public as part of this process, not to be 
voyeurs, but to show in a literal sense that we have nothing to 
hide, that the cards fall where they may, the President has 
nothing to hide.
    There is nothing we can do more to build integrity in this 
process than to keep this process literally an open process. I 
implore you to take that very much to heart that that is an 
option that you have, and I am offering an alternative 
resolution that hopefully you will take up very seriously.
    I will also add in terms of this whole process as it has 
developed and the specifics as to how it might impede, we are 
setting up a system where some material that was acquired 
clearly will not be--hopefully if the resolution as proposed by 
the Chairman is adopted, there is some information not 
available to the President's counsel in his own defense, 
whatever that might be, and if we really want a fair process 
from that standpoint, that is a mistake.
    So again, I would urge my colleagues to support the 
resolution and to make all of the material available to the 
American people immediately.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Deutsch, and let me, first of 
all, just preface my remarks about you and thank you for 
joining me in Jerusalem on the West Bank. We had some very 
interesting and informative meetings. You took the time to join 
us when you were on vacation, I believe, and we appreciate 
that.
    Having said that, let me say that I would have to disagree 
with you, although I agree with your philosophy. This is a 
preferential resolution which will be going to the floor. It is 
unamendable. Therefore, we would have to change this resolution 
and put only yours on the floor, and we can't do that.
    However, there will be the opportunity to defeat the 
previous question. I believe that there will be Members on both 
sides, substantial Members, who feel the way that you do. 
Although your side, the Democratic side in the minority, 
normally controls the defeat of the previous question, the 
right to make the argument against it, and then, should you 
defeat it, have the right to offer your amendment, that 
opportunity might be there. And I would just tell you even 
though we will not--I believe we will not honor your request 
here tonight, we understand where you are coming from, and we 
will see what happens on the floor tomorrow.
    Any questions to my right?
    Any questions to my left?
    Mr. Goss first.
    Mr. Goss. Thank you.
    I want to thank Mr. Deutsch for his kind comments. I do 
believe very firmly in the public's right to know, and I think 
that is what is at stake here. But I also understand that this 
has been a very difficult process to get to this point, and I 
think we have worked it out the best that we can. I feel that 
we have gone about it the way that it will have to go forward.
    Mr. Deutsch. And I appreciate what Mr. Goss is saying.
    I have a concern, though, that really this is not far 
enough, just the concerns about where the report is, and I know 
that you share that. And you sit literally in a different place 
than I sit in this committee room, and I know that as Florida 
grows, and as more Members of Congress are from Florida, we 
will work on that.
    The Chairman. I want to assure you I will never move back 
to Florida. I will be an Adirondacker all my life.
    Ms. Slaughter. Here, here.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I also wanted to thank Mr. Deutsch for his 
hard work and for coming before us with this product, but I 
think Mr. Goss has very succinctly pointed to the reasons why, 
in my view as well, the resolution, Mr. Chairman, that the 
committee is proposing, that you have worked so hard on and 
have led the effort in bringing forth, is the correct approach. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. Mr. McInnis from Colorado.
    Mr. McInnis. Thank you. I appreciate what you say, but one 
of the other things that shocked the country was the bombing of 
the Olympics. And before the government had substantial and 
credible evidence, they released the name of Richard Jewell. 
They destroyed that man. They then had to retract everything 
because they didn't have the evidence.
    The 445 pages are drawn from these 2,000 source documents, 
and to be drawn from those it is my conclusion they had to have 
substantial and credible evidence. So I completely support your 
philosophy on the first 445 pages because they are drawn from 
substantial and credible evidence, but before you disclose the 
2,000 pages of documents, I think it is appropriate to say, 
this is just somebody's name that they threw in there. It came 
out in the deposition tape. There is no credible evidence. 
There is no substantial evidence tying this individual to this, 
and why is that individual's name coming up?
    We speak of the rights of this great country, it almost 
sounds like they preempt the right of an individual. I think it 
is exactly the opposite. I don't want another Richard Jewell on 
our hands as a result of releasing those 2,000 documents where 
the independent counsel did not find substantial and credible 
evidence to move it from the source documents to the 445-page 
report.
    Mr. Deutsch. I think we need to remind ourselves, because 
it appears that at this point that the Chairman's resolution 
will be adopted and the procedure that he is proposing will be 
followed tomorrow morning, and for that the 445-page document 
will be available. I agree with you completely, it is 
interpretation of those source documents, and I would remind 
people that it is also an interpretation of someone who has 
clearly shown for the last 5 years that he has almost a Captain 
Ahab approach of getting Bill Clinton. And maybe that is the 
role that advocates should be playing, but I think we need to 
remind ourselves that source documents lead to different 
conclusions. And I think your comments, if not really 
supporting my position, are not opposed to my position because 
I think particularly in this case, if we are only giving out 
the report, in fact it is almost by definition almost a 
requirement to include the source documents so people can look 
at those source documents and might come up with totally 
differing conclusions than Mr. Starr came up with from those 
things.
    I also want to respond to Richard Jewell. That is an 
unfortunate, tragic situation. But I will tell you we are 
weighing values, and we have talked about the concern of 
hurting innocents.
    I just go back very quickly to what we are doing here this 
evening and over the next several days and several weeks. We 
are talking about the President of the United States, of 
setting aside an election for the first time in this Nation's 
history, the oldest democracy in the history of the world. We 
are not talking about unsubstantial things.
    I will tell you that there is a very, very, very paradigm 
value of our society and our government, and I think by our 
actions and your resolution, I think you were jeopardizing it 
to some extent.
    The Chairman. Peter, thank you.
    If there are no further questions of the witness, we thank 
you for coming, and as always, you have made yourself very 
clear.
    Gentlemen, we will stand in a 30-second recess, and then we 
will take up the resolution.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. The committee will come back to order.
    The committee will now proceed in the markup of the 
resolution.
    The measure before the committee is House Resolution 525 
providing for a deliberative review by the Committee on the 
Judiciary of a communication from the independent counsel and 
for the release thereof and for other purposes.
    The resolution was introduced earlier today and appears on 
the Web site of the Rules Committee. We have already received 
over 10,000 accesses to it, Mr. Dreier, so I would say that 
there is extreme interest by the American people.
    The committee has just completed the hearing on the 
measure, and without objection the resolution is considered as 
read.
    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.068
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.069
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0863.070
    
    The Chairman. And without objection, the resolution will be 
considered for the purposes of amendment under the 5-minute 
rule.
    Are there any amendments to this resolution?
    Mr. Moakley. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Moakley?
    Mr. Moakley. I have a substitute to H.Res. 525. I move the 
committee report a resolution that would make in order as a 
base text the substitute resolution in lieu of the text of 
H.Res. 525 which is currently before us. This substitute 
reflects the agreement that was reached by the Republican and 
Democratic leaders last night regarding the release and review 
of the independent counsel documents. It provides for the 
immediate release of the initial 445 pages. It provides that 
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary 
Committee shall review the remaining material to determine 
which are appropriate for public release by September 20 and 
which are of a personal nature and should remain confidential. 
Mr. Chairman, it also allows the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee to issue interim 
committee rules of procedure regarding the material submitted 
by the independent counsel.
    That is the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, Mr. Moakley, I believe you had returned 
during the interchange with Maxine Waters and with Zoe Lofgren.
    Mr. Moakley. I didn't leave, Mr. Chairman. I was here the 
whole time.
    The Chairman. Now you have your coat on. I thought you had 
gone outside.
    As you know in the interchange we had, there is nothing in 
this resolution that will prevent the Chairman and the Ranking 
Member, with agreement from their respective members from their 
party on the Judiciary Committee, from allowing the two of them 
to filter this information, as this is one of the major 
provisions of your substitute.
    I have been satisfied by talking with the Republican 
members of the Judiciary Committee that they will abide by the 
wishes of Henry Hyde, and I assume that the Democrat members 
will abide by the wishes of the Ranking Member, Mr. John 
Conyers, as well. However, I do not think that it would be 
prudent of this body to shut out the very professional, 
qualified members of the Judiciary Committee from having a say 
in this matter, and in my opinion, your substitute resolution 
would do just that. And, therefore, I would argue that we would 
defeat your resolution, but I respect your interest.
    If there is no further discussion, all those in favor of 
the Moakley amendment will say aye.
    All those opposed, nay.
    The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Moakley. Roll call, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. A roll call is requested. The clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Dreier.
    Mr. Dreier. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Dreier votes no.
    Mr. Goss.
    Mr. Goss. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goss votes no.
    Mr. Linder.
    Mr. Linder. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Linder votes no.
    Ms. Pryce.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes no.
    Mr. McInnis.
    Mr. McInnis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McInnis votes no.
    Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. Hastings. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick.
    Mrs. Myrick. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Moakley.
    Mr. Moakley. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moakley votes yes.
    Mr. Frost.
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes yes.
    Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Ms. Slaughter.
    Ms. Slaughter. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Slaughter votes yes.
    Chairman Solomon.
    The Chairman. I respectfully vote no, even though I hate to 
vote against my Ranking Member.
    The clerk will announce the results.
    The Clerk. Four yeas and eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to the resolution?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hall of Ohio.
    Mr. Hall. I have an amendment to the resolution, and I move 
that the committee report the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the Judiciary Committee Ranking Member 
Mr. Conyers in lieu of the text of House Resolution 525.
    This substitute provides that the 445-page report submitted 
by the independent counsel to the House shall be released to 
the President on Friday, September 11, and to the Members and 
the public on Sunday, September 13. This will give the 
President a period of 48 hours to review the report before the 
public release.
    I think this is fair. I think this is reasonable, since 
under the rules of the House, any Member facing ethics charges, 
has 10 days to review all evidence. So I think this is very 
relevant to what we have done in the past. I think it is only 
fair to give the President a chance to review this for a couple 
of days, and I offer the amendment.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hall, your amendment to link the ethics 
rules of the House with the United States Constitution and 
existing laws of the land I don't think is very well taken, 
although I don't question your sincerity in doing it. We have 
rules of ethics that we agree to operate under. It is an 
entirely different story. These are not rules that the American 
people have to live under. It is rules that we as Members of 
Congress live under.
    By the same token, when a committee of jurisdiction, such 
as the Judiciary Committee, considers this kind of information, 
it is done in executive session. And if any Member leaks any of 
it, it is in violation of the House rules, and they stand 
subject to being censured by our ethics committee. Therefore, I 
have no worry that any Member would go ahead and leak this 
information.
    We have made the arguments about the President receiving 
the information 48 hours in advance. I share former independent 
counsel Lawrence Walsh's reasoning that the President already 
has that information, and before he has to file a legal 
document with the Justice Department, with the Judiciary, that 
they will have ample time to do it; and, therefore, I would 
argue against your resolution.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, he does not have the written 
information to look at it. He has been investigated for a 
number of years now at the cost of about $40 million. For us in 
the Congress not to give him a couple of days--not even a few 
hours--to review what the Starr report says I think is 
extremely unfair.
    When we go back and look at Watergate--when that inquiry on 
the articles of impeachment came to the Congress, I remember 
reading that Peter Rodino bent over backwards to be fair. In 
fact, he was so fair that he was criticized by the members of 
the Democratic Party, but it turned out that he did the right 
thing by being extremely bipartisan. He gave subpoena powers to 
the Minority party at that time.
    We want to be fair to the President. This is the third time 
in the history of the country that a President has been 
investigated for potential misdeeds relative to--and hopefully 
it doesn't get that far--to articles of impeachment. For us to 
give the President a couple of days to look at all of the 
material which has been gathered at a cost of $40 million, I 
think it is fair and reasonable, and I don't think that we are 
doing the right thing if we don't pass this amendment.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hall, in my opinion, and I have been very 
careful to listen to Members from both sides of the aisle, a 
majority of this Congress does not agree with you. A majority 
of the Congress believes that they ought to receive the 
material first and certainly no later than any other 
individual, including the President of the United States, and 
we are not going to jeopardize this resolution. Since it has to 
go one way or the other to the floor, we must pass a bipartisan 
resolution that is going to be overwhelmingly accepted by this 
body tomorrow.
    Mr. Hall. You just spoke about the argument I brought up 
regarding Members of Congress and ethics charges. They have 10 
days to review ethics charges. You are not even giving the 
President of the United States 1 hour.
    The Chairman. The President of the United States will have 
a good 1 hour. He will have access to the first hard copy that 
is made tomorrow. Certainly by the time the rest of us Members 
get it, it is going to be 2, 3 or 4 hours later, and I will 
probably miss my plane until I receive it.
    Is there any further discussion? If not, the Chair will put 
the question on the amendment by Mr. Hall. All those in favor 
say aye.
    All those opposed, nay.
    The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Hall. Roll call.
    The Chairman. A roll call is requested. The clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Dreier.
    Mr. Dreier. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Dreier votes no.
    Mr. Goss.
    Mr. Goss. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goss votes no.
    Mr. Linder.
    Mr. Linder. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Linder votes no.
    Ms. Pryce.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes no.
    Mr. McInnis.
    Mr. McInnis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McInnis votes no.
    Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. Hastings. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick.
    Mrs. Myrick. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Moakley.
    Mr. Moakley. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moakley votes yes.
    Mr. Frost.
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes yes.
    Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Ms. Slaughter.
    Ms. Slaughter. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Slaughter votes yes.
    Chairman Solomon.
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Solomon votes no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will announce the results.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to the resolution?
    If not, without objection the previous question is ordered 
on the resolution. The question is on agreeing to House 
Resolution 525 and favorably reporting the resolution to the 
House. All those in favor will say aye.
    All those opposed, nay.
    The resolution is agreed to. House Resolution 525 is agreed 
to, and the resolution is favorably reported to the House, and 
without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the 
table.
    Mr. Moakley. Mr. Chairman, please note my dissenting views 
in the report.
    The Chairman. Yes. We will be filing later this evening the 
report, and we will make sure that the dissenting views are 
attached to it and made a part of the report.
    The Chair would like to file the report this evening, and 
now that we have the additional Minority views, we will 
hopefully be able to do that in a timely manner.
    I might point out that since this is a preferential 
resolution and we are bound by the rules of the House, it is 
unamendable on the floor of the House, and it requires only 1 
hour of debate.
    It would be my intention when I file the report in a few 
hours or minutes, I would make a unanimous consent request to 
extend the debate time for 2 hours. That is the only way we can 
do it. We cannot do it up here, and I would assume that there 
would be no objection from any member of this committee.
    Mr. Moakley. No objection.
    The Chairman. Very good.
    Gentlemen, we want to thank you. It was a very informative 
debate. We certainly were collegial, and we certainly did it 
with comity, and I want to commend all of you for your 
participation, and the committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 8:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                   - 
