[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7587-H7607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR DELIBERATIVE REVIEW BY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF 
                 COMMUNICATION FROM INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 525, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 525

       Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall review 
     the communication received on September 9, 1998, from an 
     independent counsel pursuant to section 595(c) of title 28, 
     United States Code, transmitting a determination that 
     substantial and credible information received by the 
     independent counsel in carrying out his responsibilities 
     under chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code, may 
     constitute grounds for an impeachment of the President of the 
     United States, and related matters, to determine whether 
     sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an 
     impeachment inquiry be commenced. Until otherwise ordered by 
     the House, the review by the committee shall be governed by 
     this resolution.
       Sec. 2. The material transmitted to the House by the 
     independent counsel shall be considered as referred to the 
     committee. The portion of such material consisting of 
     approximately 445 pages comprising an introduction, a 
     narrative, and a statement of grounds, shall be printed as a 
     document of the House. The balance of such material shall be 
     deemed to have been received in executive session, but shall 
     be released from the status on September 28, 1998, except as 
     otherwise determined by the committee. Material so released 
     shall immediately be submitted for printing as a document of 
     the House.
       Sec. 3. Additional material compiled by the committee 
     during the review also shall be deemed to have been received 
     in executive session unless it is received in an open session 
     of the committee.
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding clause 2(e) of rule XI, access to 
     executive-session material of the committee relating to the 
     review shall be restricted to members of the committee, and 
     to such employees of the committee as may be designated by 
     the chairman after consultation with the ranking minority 
     member.
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding clause 2(g) of rule XI, each 
     meeting, hearing, or deposition of the committee relating to 
     the review shall be conducted in executive session unless 
     otherwise determined by an affirmative vote of the committee, 
     a majority being present. Such an executive session may be 
     attended only by members of the committee, and by such 
     employees of the committee as may be designated by the 
     chairman after consultation with the ranking minority member.

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
September 10, 1998, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
recognized for 2 hours.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, and pursuant 
to the order of the House of September 10, 1998, I yield 60 minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of 
this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, as we start off, I want to commend the Speaker for his 
statement yesterday from the chair asking that the House conduct itself 
in the highest decorum possible. It was eloquent on your part and was 
concurred in by the Minority Leader Mr. Gephardt. We would remind 
Members of that. We have a copy of that at the desk should Members want 
to refresh their memory.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 525 provides for a deliberative review 
of the House Judiciary Committee of the communication from the 
independent counsel and also provides for the appropriate release of 
that communication.

[[Page H7588]]

  Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for many Members this morning in saying 
that this is a day which we hoped in our careers in public service 
would never come. I came here with you 20 years ago and I certainly, 
and I know you did, hoped such a day would never come.
  There certainly is no joy in bringing forward this kind of a 
resolution. Only a sense of the gravity of our task ahead and our 
mindful and constitutional responsibilities make us do this.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Members and the public are well aware by now, the 
independent counsel delivered a communication to the House of 
Representatives on Wednesday, September 9, and it was pursuant to the 
independent counsel law, which is the law of the land. That law 
requires, in pertinent part, that an independent counsel shall advise 
the House of Representatives, and this is quoting from the law, ``of 
any substantial or credible information'' which the independent counsel 
receives himself or herself, ``which may constitute grounds for an 
impeachment,'' and that is the law of the land.
  Of course, the Constitution vests the sole power of impeachment with 
this House of Representatives in Article I of section 3 of the 
Constitution and the ``sole power to try all impeachments in the 
Senate.''
  Mr. Speaker, this communication from the independent counsel, it 
embarks this institution on a grave and a profound process in uncharted 
waters. In that spirit, the majority and the minority leadership have 
consulted on numerous occasions about this communication, and the 
chairman and ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Rules have discussed proposals for the sensitive handling 
and access to this material.
  It has not been easy to come to an agreement. The resolution before 
us is the product of that bipartisan consultation, but more so, on a 
fair attempt to meet the concerns of all of the Members of this House; 
and we know that on both sides of the aisle we are divided on how to 
handle this issue, and that became very evident during the 4-hour 
hearing that we had last night in the Committee on Rules.
  When this communication arrived at the Capitol, the Speaker 
immediately directed the material to be secured by the Sergeant at 
Arms, and no Members or staff have seen that document. Although there 
are press reports this morning asserting what might be in the 
communication, the House does not know what is contained in these 
documents at this moment, and that is the way that it should be. 
However, it is the understanding of the Committee on Rules that the 
communication does contain the following: 445 pages of a communication 
which is divided into three sections; an introduction, a narrative, and 
so-called ``grounds''; and it is accompanied by another 2,600 pages of 
supporting material that is contained in the appendices which may 
contain telephone records, videotapes, testimony and other sensitive 
material, including the 17 boxes of other supporting information.
  The method of the dissemination and potential restrictions on access 
to this information is set forth in this resolution. The resolution 
provides that the Committee on the Judiciary with the ability to review 
the communications to determine whether grounds exist to recommend to 
the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. The resolution 
provides for an immediate release of approximately 445 pages, again 
comprised of an introduction, a narrative, and a statement of so-called 
``grounds.'' This will be printed as a House document and available to 
the Internet and other Web sites today as soon as technologically 
possible, which will be hopefully about 2 hours after this resolution 
passes the House.
  The balance of the material will be deemed to have been received in 
executive session of the Committee on the Judiciary, but will be 
released from that status by no later than September 28, 1998, and will 
be released piecemeal as the Committee on the Judiciary determines 
relevant. Material released will immediately be printed as a House 
document and available to Members and the public, obvious new 
information, between now and September 28th.
  The resolution further provides that additional material compiled by 
the Committee on the Judiciary during the review period will be deemed 
to have been received in executive session unless, of course, it is 
received in an open session of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
although, Mr. Speaker, access to that executive session material will 
be restricted to Members of the Committee on the Judiciary and such 
employees of the committee as may be designated.
  Finally, the resolution provides that each meeting, hearing or 
deposition of the Committee on the Judiciary will be in executive 
session unless otherwise determined by that committee. That is up to 
their discretion.

                              {time}  0915

  The executive session may be attended only by Committee on the 
Judiciary members and employees of the committee designated by the 
chairman, and 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 people.
  Mr. Speaker, the testimony before the Committee on Rules last night 
indicated that among Members, on the question of access to the material 
and release of it to the public, and this is important to note during 
this beginning part of the debate, that there were Members on the 
Democrat side who raised concerns about releasing the 445-page text 
today, and still other Democrats who raised a parliamentary inquiry on 
Wednesday when the communication was read to the House demanding full 
and complete access.
  There was the senior member of this body, the Dean of this entire 
body, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. John Dingell) who insisted on 
that. Other Members on our side of the aisle insisted on that. Still 
another Democratic member proposed a resolution last night in the 
Committee on Rules requiring full disclosure of the entire 
communication immediately. He at that time wanted us to substitute and 
make that amendment in order, which we did not do.
  This resolution is an adequate middle ground. It recognizes the 
public's right to know, and hence, for Members and their constituents 
to engage in a dialogue about all of this material. It also 
acknowledges the Committee on the Judiciary's proper role of sifting 
through all the material, while placing the burden in favor of more 
release rather than less. It is anticipated that the Committee on the 
Judiciary will require additional procedural or investigative 
authorities to adequately review the communications in the future.
  It is anticipated, therefore, that these authorities be the subject 
of another resolution which will be consulted with the Democrat 
minorities on the two committees over the next 4 or 5 days, and that 
that resolution will be before the House sometime mid-week, and then on 
the floor of the House towards the end of the week, if necessary.
  If this communication from Independent Counsel Starr should form the 
basis for future proceedings, it is important to note that Members will 
need to cast public, to cast recorded, and extremely profound votes in 
the coming weeks and months. Therefore, we should ensure that every 
Member of this House have enough information about the contents of the 
communication to cast informed votes and be equipped to explain those 
votes on this most mighty of constitutional obligations to their 
constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, again, just to clarify, this 
resolution does not authorize or direct an impeachment inquiry. 
Sometimes the press gets this confused, and they are stating that it 
does. 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 historical proper place to examine 
these matters, to review this communication and make a recommendation 
to the House as to whether we should commence an impeachment inquiry. 
That is what this resolution before us today does.
  Mr. Speaker, the constitutional process which may be initiated by 
this review is not about punishment nor is it about personalities. It 
is an effort to protect a constitutional office and to ensure it is not 
besmirched. The safety

[[Page H7589]]

of constitutional government is too precious in this world. We are 
looked at all over this world as the exemplary democracy, and we must 
always keep it that way, so the Framers of our Constitution designed an 
inherently cumbersome process which would require cooperation among 
political parties, and that is what we are here today to do. It is in 
that spirit in which we bring forward this resolution today.
  Again, I would just urge Members to observe the proper decorum as we 
debate this very profound issue over the next 2 hours.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a very, very solemn day for the House of 
Representatives. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution bestows several very 
important responsibilities on the House. All of them have great 
consequence. We have the power to raise taxes, we have the power to 
declare war, we have the sole power of impeachment. Today we find 
ourselves considering a resolution to release portions of the 
Independent Counsel's report.
  Two days ago Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr delivered to this 
Capitol building a 445-page report, several thousands of pages of 
appendices, and 17 boxes of additional materials. No one has seen what 
is in the materials sent up by the Independent Counsel. It is most 
likely to contain Mr. Starr's opinions, transcripts from dozens of 
witnesses, tapes, telephone conversations, and other very, very 
important material.
  Mr. Speaker, once these boxes are opened, innocent people could be 
hurt, reputations could be destroyed, ongoing criminal investigations 
could be jeopardized. Members of the House should begin this process of 
releasing the information and acting on it as soberly and as fairly as 
possible.
  There is general agreement that the 445-page referral is to be made 
to the public as soon as this resolution is adopted. There is no 
problem there. The dispute revolves around what to do with the 
remainder of the supporting materials.
  Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, as to the 445-page referral, including 
an introduction, a narrative, and the statement of grounds, there is 
widespread agreement to make that public today. The concern is on who 
will review the appendices of the 17 boxes of materials to make sure 
that no innocent people are unfairly jeopardized.
  In his letter of transmittal, the Independent Counsel, Ken Starr, 
stated, ``Many of the supporting materials contain information of a 
personal nature that I respectfully urge the House to treat as 
confidential.''
  Mr. Speaker, we were heartened, very heartened, when the Speaker 
reached an agreement with the minority leader, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), on 
how this material would be released.
  According to this bipartisan leadership agreement, the supporting 
materials should be treated as if they had been received in executive 
session and released only to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), for their initial review. The purpose of this restriction was 
to expedite review while at the same time limiting the possibility of 
harmful leaks. Mr. Speaker, I think that was absolutely the right thing 
to do.
  Another important part of the agreement was to limit the content of 
today's resolution to the subject of how the material should be 
released. No mention of authorities to be granted to the Committee on 
the Judiciary would be contained in this resolution.
  That, Mr. Speaker, was the agreement, but last night my colleagues in 
the Committee on Rules changed that deal. They decided to release the 
supporting materials to all 35 Members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and to let the materials sit there not for 10 days, as had 
been agreed upon, but for 17 days. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this 
information will leak out drip by drip, day by day, day after day.
  They also added the section directing the Committee on the Judiciary 
to examine matters beyond the scope of the Independent Counsel's report 
with new depositions and new hearings.
  Mr. Speaker, what is important here is not the details of how we 
release the Independent Counsel report. The issue is that we reached an 
agreement with the Speaker, with the minority leader, with the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. We relied 
upon that agreement. That agreement has been unilaterally altered. Mr. 
Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that if we cannot rely on an 
agreement dealing with this kind of matter, how can we rely on other 
important matters that we are going to face?
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that in the future, when agreements are 
reached, we can rely on all sides to honor those agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, when each of us took office, we put up our right hand 
and we swore to uphold the Constitution. In Article 1, Section 2 of the 
Constitution states that the House of Representatives shall have the 
sole power of impeachment. With that power, Mr. Speaker, as we all 
know, comes a very, very grave responsibility to the American people, 
to the American President, and to the American electoral process. So 
let us fulfill our responsibilities soberly. Let us fulfill our 
responsibilities fairly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me cite from the rules of the House, and my good 
friend, the gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. John Joseph 
Moakley), my ranking member, is more aware of the rules than I am. Let 
me cite 2K(7) of Rule XI.
  It says, ``No evidence or testimony taken in the executive session 
may be released or used in public sessions without the consent of the 
committee,'' by recorded vote. Mr. Speaker, those are the rules of the 
House. Any violation of that rule is subject to ethical discipline.
  Let me further just say that I have served on the steering committee 
of the Republican side of the aisle in appointing Members to committees 
for the last 17 years, as many of the Members there have, the minority 
leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Joe Moakley) and others.
  We choose people to serve on these committees because of their 
professional backgrounds, because of their demeanor and their knowledge 
of law. Every single member of the 35 members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary are entitled to the same information as any one member of 
that committee, and we should keep that in mind.
  As to the dissemination of material, I want to read just briefly a 
section of the resolution before us. It says that, ``Notwithstanding 
clause 2(e) of rule XI, access to executive session material of the 
committee relating to the review shall be restricted to Members of the 
committee and to such employees of the committee as may be designated 
by the chairman, after consultation with the ranking member.''
  That means, yes, under the rules of this House, every member of every 
committee is entitled to anything that is submitted to that committee. 
But in writing the rule the way we did, no one stops the committee and 
stops my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) or my good 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) from appealing to the 
Members on their side of the aisle about letting the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) go 
through the material, sort through it, and then call in the other 
Members. I know our members are going to be more than cooperative, and 
I would assume that the members on the gentleman's side are, too.
  So in effect, we are accomplishing exactly what the Speaker had in 
mind and the minority leader, and certainly this chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who sat through every single one of those meetings 
where we negotiated what we were going to put in this resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am 
not disputing the rules. All I am saying, an agreement was made and an 
agreement was broken. It is not a proper way to start out this hearing.

[[Page H7590]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. I am not going to cite members on the gentleman's side 
of the aisle who were in those meetings. Whenever we left those 
meetings, we always had to go back and discuss with our colleagues, 
whether it be Democrat or the Republican leadership, and I do not like 
the word ``deals'', but there were no agreements made on anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  To Ronald Reagan, my great hero, and to George Bush, the former 
President, I recommended this Member to be appointed to the Supreme 
Court of the United States of America, and I am very proud today that 
they did not take my recommendation at that time, because we need him 
desperately in the position he is in today.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  To my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Joe 
Moakley), let me just add my spin on this situation, to use an unhappy 
word. This has been a moveable feast. The situation has changed from 
hour to hour, as everybody gets their input on how to do this.
  What we are talking about is reserving from immediate distribution 
supporting materials which we have been advised by the Independent 
Counsel contain matters of a private, confidential nature, and there 
may be innocent people involved who do not have a central or even a 
peripheral relationship to the matter in chief. We are simply trying to 
do the decent, responsible thing by checking those over before they are 
released.

                              {time}  0930

  We will release them, but there may be some materials in there that 
we can agree on a bipartisan basis ought not to be released. We do not 
know. But whether the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I do 
it, or whether the entire Committee on the Judiciary does it, I could 
live with either operation.
  Mr. Speaker, I just say it is terribly hard to tell a Member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary that they may not look at certain materials 
that were sent over by the independent counsel.
  So I do not think it is a terribly serious dispute. I hope the 
gentleman does not talk about breaking agreements. As I say, these have 
been fluid all along until we finally got to the Committee on Rules. I 
just hope the gentleman does not feel that there was any violation of 
trust. I do not want to start out that way. The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) and I are not only doing this in a bipartisan way, but in 
a collegial way, and we are going to keep that serious effort going.
  Mr. Speaker, 166 years ago when our country was in its robust 
childhood the great historian Thomas Macauley wrote, and I quote, 
``Laws exist in vain for those who do not have the courage and means to 
defend them.''
  We are here because circumstances and our Constitution have thrust 
upon us an onerous duty, one that requires us to summon the courage and 
the means to defend the rule of law. Do not forget, please, when all 
the distractions and diversions and definitions have been pronounced, 
at the end of it all, we are about one mighty task: to vindicate the 
rule of law.
  We are also met to defend the sacred bond contained in our oath of 
office, the bond that links the Members of Congress, the officials of 
the executive branch and our Federal judges to the people of the United 
States, to those who have given their lives for this country and to the 
American people of the future.
  In taking the solemn oath to defend the Constitution, we have pledged 
a trust that imposes a heavy responsibility. We have pledged a trust to 
those patriots who sleep across the river in Arlington Cemetery and in 
American cemeteries around the world. We have pledged that their 
defense of freedom and the rule of law will not have been in vain.
  Mr. Speaker, may I presume to remind us all of the oath we swore when 
we became Members of Congress. We raised our right arms and we said:

       I do solemnly swear that 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 to 
the truth of what one is saying. We all well know the story of Sir 
Thomas Moore 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 your 
fingers and your soul runs through them and is lost.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe with all my heart that each of us who took 
that oath of office took it seriously and we will conduct ourselves so 
that when this ordeal, and it is an ordeal, is over we will have 
vindicated the rule of law and brought credit to this institution in 
which we are privileged to serve.
  We have also pledged a trust to the Americans of the 21st century. We 
have pledged to hand over to them intact and unsullied the rule of law 
in constitutionally ordered democracy. And we have pledged a trust to 
our fellow Americans, with whom we share this moment in our history, 
our neighbors who have sent us to this Congress, to serve the common 
good through the rule of law.
  Ninty-four years ago in a message to Congress, President Theodore 
Roosevelt defined the principle that must guide our deliberations in 
the days and weeks and months ahead: ``No man is above the law and no 
man is below it, nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him 
to obey it.'' That principle really defines the solemnity of this 
moment.
  We are sometimes too cavalier in our attitude toward the rule of law. 
It is something that we take for granted. Yet we live in a century 
which, in blood and tears, in pain and sorrow, has vindicated the 
contention of the Founders of this Republic and the Framers of its 
Constitution that the rule of law is the only alternative to tyranny or 
to the anarchy that eventually leads to tyranny.
  The long, hard march of humanity toward the promised land of freedom 
has been marked by the constant struggle to vindicate the rule of law 
against the tyranny of power. Whether our reference point is the Ten 
Commandments or the code of Hammurabi, Justinian's Code or the Magna 
Carta, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or the United Nations 
Charter of 1945, in each case humanity has made progress on its journey 
through history when the rule of law has triumphed over privilege or 
power as the arbiter of human affairs and the method to resolve 
conflict.
  The fact that the gradual expansion of the rule of law has invariably 
resulted in human progress is not an accident of history; it is a 
reflection of human nature. For the rule of law is an expression of the 
spiritual nature of the human person created with intelligence and free 
will, a moral agent capable of freedom and capable of ordering freedom 
to the pursuit of goodness, decency, and justice.
  Every member of our committee, indeed every Member of this Congress, 
is a servant of the rule of law which in this instance means we are 
servants of the Constitution of the United States of America.
  To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, none of us is above the 
Constitution, none of us is below the Constitution, and none of us is 
required to ask permission when we require ourselves and all those who 
have also sworn a solemn oath of fidelity to the Constitution to obey 
it.
  Because we are servants of the Constitution, because we too are 
subject to the rule of law it enshrines. No partisanship in the matters 
before us will be worthy of us. Americans pride themselves on living 
under the oldest written constitution in the world continually in 
force. That historic accomplishment simply did not happen. In defense 
of the Constitution, American men and women have sacrificed their lives 
in every corner of the globe.

[[Page H7591]]

  In defense of the Constitution, the American people have made 
enormous sacrifices in time and in treasure.
  In defense of the Constitution, Americans have forgotten they were 
black, brown, yellow or white, that they were Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, 
Orthodox or Protestant, that they were Democrats or Republicans. They 
have remembered that they are Americans, inheritors of a precious 
tradition of the rule of law and trustees of that tradition before the 
eyes of the future.
  The Constitution remains viable not only because the document itself 
is venerable and its provisions wise. The Constitution remains viable 
because the American people continue to affirm and defend the principle 
of the rule of law which animated the document and gave it its moral 
ballast and its moral compass. We, the servants of the people, their 
elected representatives, can do no less.
  Thus, we too are under judgment in these proceedings: the judgment of 
the people, the judgment of history, the judgment of moral law. Let us 
conduct ourselves in this inquiry in such a way as to vindicate the 
rule of law.
  Let us conduct ourselves and this inquiry in such a way as to 
vindicate the Constitution. Let us conduct ourselves and this inquiry 
in such a way as to vindicate the sacrifices of blood and treasure that 
have been made across the centuries to create and defend this last, 
best hope of humanity on Earth, the United States of America.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in the century that 
the question of impeachment has come before this House of 
Representatives. I had the honor of serving on the Committee on the 
Judiciary when the Watergate impeachment question was before the House 
some 25 years ago. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was on 
that committee, and we are fortunate to have his experience to bring us 
to the point where we can be fair in judging the conduct of the 
President of the United States.
  Indeed, we are fortunate to have a person like the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who is respected on both sides of the aisle, who 
is not tempted by politics, but is moved by what is in the best 
interest of the people of the United States, and more importantly, the 
protection of this Constitution which is not just for us, but the 
legacy that we have to leave to our children.
  Mr. Speaker, we now will be wrestling with some serious questions as 
to moral standards, and it is unfortunate that many times people have 
found that they have a lower standard for themselves than they have for 
the President of the United States. But it is abundantly clear that we 
are not here just to determine his personal habits, that is, the 
President of the United States, but we are to respect the fact that he 
has been elected by the people of the United States to serve for 
another 4 years.
  So the question of fairness is what surrounded the Committee on the 
Judiciary under the leadership of Peter Rodino, and it will be that 
question of fairness that we will be judged by, if not day to day, then 
certainly by the November elections.
  We should never forget that he has been the captain of our ship for 2 
years and this journey is supposed to take legally 4 years. During this 
time, we have gone through some perilous economic times. We have gone 
through deficit spending into a balanced budget and indeed a surplus. 
We have gone through a period where more people are working, more 
people are saving, more people are living better.
  So the American people want to make certain that when we judge the 
conduct of the President of the United States, we judge him not by a 
political standard, not by an individual standard, but a standard of 
fairness that takes into consideration that he was not appointed, he 
was not selected, he was elected as President of these United States.
  As we get closer to the November elections, in recognizing just by 
being political animals, there will be a temptation for us to allow our 
politics to get involved with our constitutional responsibilities. It 
will be tragic if this happens. But remember, as we judge the President 
of the United States, the people of the United States will also be 
judging us.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, before a vote on the floor on a Committee 
recommendation to proceed with an impeachment resolution, or upon the 
Committee's failure so to recommend after a reasonable time, any Member 
of the House should be entitled personally to review all executive-
session material. Otherwise, that member would be required to decide on 
the impeachment question, whether yea or nay, without having all the 
information the Independent Counsel deemed relevant to send to the 
House. Today's rule, strictly construed, might not permit that access 
if the Judiciary Committee votes not to permit such access. However, 
this rule will expire in its effect at the end of this session, and no 
one anticipates a vote on the impeachment question before we must pass 
a new rule to govern our proceedings in the next Congress. Until we are 
called upon to make a vote on that fundamental question, I have no 
problem with the Judiciary Committee's exercise of discretion in 
deciding what material, out of concern for innocent third parties, 
should be held in executive session.
  When we pass the rule to govern our later proceedings, however, we 
should take care not to exclude from any Member access to material 
necessary to inform that member's judgment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, in order to equalize the time, we are going 
to reserve our time for a few minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) whether he has any speakers remaining?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of speakers, but we have only 
about 35 minutes or so remaining. I think the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has more than 50 minutes. We would like to equalize the 
time.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has 36\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) 
has 51\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we gather in this Chamber today with a 
solemn responsibility. At its core, that responsibility is to do what 
is right, right by the American people, right by our Constitution, 
right by our country, and right by justice.
  What the President did was wrong. Now the Congress has a report on 
his actions from Prosecutor Starr. I believe the American people have a 
right to see this report. But we must remember these are allegations by 
a prosecutor. By its very nature, it is a one-sided report.
  The American people have a right to see all the facts, and Congress 
has a responsibility to consider all the facts. We have an obligation 
to conduct this process in a manner that is fair, judicious, and 
upholds the principles of our Constitution.
  What we are about to embark upon is a very difficult task. Only a few 
times in our Nation's history has this House had to walk this very 
difficult road. Where should we turn for guidance?
  There have been times in the recent past when we have been asked to 
judge a leader. In the 1970s, Congress had to judge a President. The 
President's lawyers met with the Committee on the Judiciary and had 
access to the evidence for seven full weeks before the information was 
released to the public.
  In the 1980s, Congress investigated the Iran-Contra affair. The 
independent counsel's report was kept under seal for 5 months as 
President Reagan's attorneys prepared his response.
  In 1996, the Committee on Ethics and this House passed judgment on 
our own Speaker. In that case, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrich) was allowed 6 days to review the allegations and prepare a 
response, 6 days.
  In each case, the accused was allowed an opportunity to review the 
allegations in preparing a response to the American people. That is 
only fair. It is common sense. It is what our sense of justice 
dictates. The American people understand that.

[[Page H7592]]

  Just last year, this House revised its own ethics rules to give an 
accused Member 10 days to prepare a response before allegations are 
made public. Why should this House not allow the President a minimal 
time to review the allegations against him before they are posted on 
the Internet, printed in the papers, and put out over our airwaves?
  Earlier this week, the Republican leadership expressed its commitment 
to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. Yet, today, we discover that 
those commitments that were made in the spirit of fairness and 
responsibility have been eroded one by one.
  This resolution is not guided by precedent. It is not guided by a 
proper sense of fairness. The Republican leadership has reneged on its 
commitments. This is a troubling beginning to a process that should 
guide us as we take on the highest constitutional principles.
  But I do believe the American people have a right, the American 
people have a right to see this report. I hope this beginning does not 
portend a widening partisan divide at a time when we must stand 
together and seek the truth and do what is right.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the Republican Party.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I 
really commend the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), chairman, for putting it together.
  I was very much moved by the statements of the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, a gentleman that we all know will do 
an incredible job in keeping this from being a partisan process.
  This resolution starts the process of examining the report of the 
independent counsel. We demean the job, the office and the law of the 
independent counsel when we call him a prosecutor. This counsel is 
charged to exculpate the President as well as to investigate the 
President, not to distort what he finds.
  The President of the United States has had over 8 months knowing what 
is coming in this report. In fact, if he started back in January and 
told the American people the truth, we would not be here today. So he 
has had his spin-meisters and his attack dogs out for 8 months.
  He knows what is in this report, because he probably debriefed 
everybody that appeared before the Grand Jury. The President's spin-
meisters have tried to hold him above the law, the rule of law that the 
chairman was talking about.
  Now he wants 48 hours to be informed before the American people. The 
President is no better than any other American, and every American will 
see this as soon as possible. But we cannot get there until we pass 
this resolution. We could not even give it to the President for 48 
hours unless we passed a resolution saying so. We have to accept the 
report.
  In order to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and the only 
way to uphold the wisdom and the structure and the stability of the 
Constitution as so ably outlined by the chairman is to have the 
American people to have a moral foundation to support that 
Constitution.
  This is a moral crisis, a moral debate that we are about to enter. If 
the President is going to force us to go through this trauma, every one 
of us here must accept that responsibility.
  We must understand that there is an age-old remedy for wrongdoing 
that is exhibited actually by the Constitution. But philosophers, 
religious people as far back as we know man goes has exhibited that 
remedy, and that is contrition, confession, and cleansing. We are at 
the cleansing part.
  Contrition is when you recognize that you have done wrong, humbled 
yourself by knowing that you have done wrong. Confession is when you 
tell the truth about what you have done. The cleansing part is 
accepting the consequences for your actions and being honorable enough 
to accept those consequences rather than the spin, the whole spin, and 
nothing but the spin.
  We are forced to fulfill the cleansing part of the Constitution. I 
think every Member in this House, Democrat and Republican, will rise to 
the level that the oath of office that we took exhibits and honor that 
oath and fulfill our responsibilities to the Constitution of the United 
States.
  This is a wonderful institution. It will rise above everything that 
is going on outside this chamber. It will exhibit what the Constitution 
gives us the responsibility to do.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the conduct of the President over the last 8 
months and before will be judged in this proceeding. What is at issue 
here this morning is not his conduct but the fairness of the resolution 
before us, which is manifestly and grossly unfair.
  It is manifestly unfair because it denies the President the privilege 
we have given to every other person accused, as the gentleman from 
Michigan stated, the ability to see the accusation before it is 
released publicly so he can prepare a response.
  It is grossly unfair because, with respect to the 2,200 pages of 
evidence and the 17 boxes of other evidence, the entire Committee on 
the Judiciary is going to see it, to decide what must be kept 
confidential and protecting privacy of third parties.
  That means 50 people are going to see it. It is going to leak out. 
Those privacy rights are going to be violated. That is ensured by this 
resolution.
  It is grossly unfair because, during the 10 or 20 days that that is 
going to be done, while the world will see salacious details, the 
President will not be allowed to look at those documents. There is no 
reason why he should not. There is no delay entailed.
  But this resolution is doing everything it can to make the 
President's defense as difficult as possible and to make it very likely 
that all the details that the special prosecutor himself says should be 
protected for privacy reasons will leak out, because 50 people in this 
town cannot keep a secret.
  For a practical problem, if 50 people have to have time between now 
and September 28, how is anybody going to look through those 80,000 or 
90,000 pages to decide what should be kept secret? They are not going 
to have time enough with two copies.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the vote we take today to 
release the Starr report without the opportunity for the President to 
review and formulate his simultaneous response is fundamentally unfair.
  The charges alleged in this report are very grave. The admitted 
actions of the President are both serious and sober. But no matter what 
charges are made, the President is entitled to a fundamental fairness 
at every step of the process. This first step, the wholesale release of 
one-sided allegations and evidence to the media and the Internet 
violates that fairness.
  Every person in this chamber understands the ramifications of the 
instantaneous release of harmful information in both our political and 
justice system, the inability of any later considered response getting 
any type of equal attention.
  Surely there can be no harm in giving the President an opportunity to 
review the material before a proper and full public disclosure of the 
Starr report.
  The release of this information may very well be the first step in 
commencing the process of impeachment against an elected President of 
the United States of America. The fairness of that process should be 
preserved at every level. This rule fails to do so.
  The public is clearly entitled to this information, but it is our 
obligation to provide for its responsible release.
  The President must be held accountable both for his admissions of 
wrongdoing and for any proven charges of illegal behavior, but he must 
be accorded the rights and the fairness that this highest of 
constitutional responsibilities requires of each of us.
  The Committee on Rules has failed the first test of our Constitution, 
the test of fundamental fairness.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
just to respond to the previous speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, the Iran-

[[Page H7593]]

Contra independent counsel stated in an in-depth interview that the 
President and his lawyers are, without question, aware, and I am 
quoting, of almost all of the material contained in the 445 pages that 
we will be releasing today.
  He further said that the President's lawyers already have prepared 
their public relations response and have days in which to prepare any 
kind of legal response to any inquiry that the Committee on the 
Judiciary might make.
  I mean, this is obvious to every Member. Every Member of this body 
has a right to this public document, as does the President. If the 
President wants the first hard copy to be printed this afternoon, I am 
sure that the Speaker would be glad to give it to him so he does have 
it in advance.
  No one is going to know what is in here for the next several hours, 
and certainly they will certainly have time to go through it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the remaining time 
for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and myself.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 44\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has 32 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, but I 
am very disappointed by what will not be accomplished today by the 
adoption of this resolution.
  Let me share with my colleagues some of my own observations from the 
6-plus years that I served in this body's Committee on Ethics. There 
are two key ingredients to a successful discharge of our obligations 
that are missing today.
  First, there must be true bipartisan efforts. One side cannot and 
should not dictate to the other. Mr. Speaker, a truly inclusive, 
bipartisan approach will require patience and good negotiating skills, 
for our caucuses are not monolithic. But we must work in a bipartisan 
way, and we are not doing that with this first resolution.

                              {time}  1000

  Second, there must be basic fairness to the person who is accused. 
The person should have had access to the material that we have before 
it is made public. That is a matter of basic fairness. Sure, the 
President will have a response, but he should not have to speculate as 
to what we have. He should have had access to it first so that he is 
not blind-sided by information that may come out later. That is not 
being fair.
  We have a grave responsibility to carry out, and we must develop a 
process that will allow each of us to reach the right conclusions. We 
can do better than how we have started today.
  Mr. Speaker, I have talked to both my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues, and I know that we can successfully carry out our 
obligations. I urge us to do better in the days and weeks ahead.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, 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 on whether we are meeting those standards, whether 
we are yielding fair results, is to look at the historical experience, 
to look at the precedents. Twenty-four years ago this House went 
through a gripping, grueling experience where a Democratic House 
investigated a Republican President. And I think that if we hold the 
procedures adopted at that time as our yardstick for fairness, we will 
be able to measure whether or not we are meeting the bipartisan 
necessity of these procedures.
  I have heard wonderful rhetoric today and yesterday about the need 
for bipartisanship. Regretfully, the behavior embodied in the 
resolution before us falls short of the standard set 24 years ago. It 
is not as good, it is not as fair as what occurred 24 years ago. At 
that time my predecessor in office, and my then boss, Congressman Don 
Edwards, insisted that the President of the United States, Richard 
Nixon, have complete due process; that he have the ability to see all 
of the evidence; that his lawyers have the ability to cross-examine and 
to see everything way before it was revealed.
  In this case we have a rush to put allegations that have been 
compiled over 4 years onto the internet without giving the President 24 
hours to review it. I fear for our country if we cannot do better than 
this.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, 168 years ago a famous author, Alexis de 
Tocqueville wrote, and I quote, ``America is great because America is 
good. And when America ceases to be good, America will cease to be 
great.''
  How true that is. Today's debate is not just about Bill Clinton. It 
is not just about the Presidency. Today's debate is about America's 
greatness. And the founders fully recognized that by setting a much 
loftier and higher standard on the chief executive. They did not write 
high crimes and other felonies. They wrote high crimes and 
misdemeanors. Misdemeanors. A matter of truth and trust.
  The American people must be able to trust the President. From Wall 
Street to Social Security, from Main Street to Moscow, from the United 
Nations to China, the President must be trustworthy. America is great 
because America is good.
  I would have liked to have seen the considerations of the great 
Member the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) taken into 
consideration, but it will not stop me from voting for this resolution.
  I have been here for a number of years, and I want to give 
compliment, after watching the testimony of our great chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and our great ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I have faith in them and faith 
in the Congress.
  America is great because America is good, and we must hold to those 
high standards. I support the resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  As my colleagues know, I am soon to retire, and the Speaker has 
already committed to my replacement. The gentleman from California is 
an outstanding vice chairman of our committee who will do a wonderful 
job as my replacement.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him for his stellar leadership.
  As has been said by most of my colleagues, this is a very solemn time 
and a very difficult time for Democrats and Republicans alike. 
Obviously, for the American people as well. It is very important that 
we be fair, and I am troubled by some of the statements that I have 
heard that are challenging this issue of fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that in 1978 a Democratic Congress passed the 
independent counsel statute. That made major changes since the 
Watergate hearings of 1974. Three times since 1978 that independent 
counsel statute has been passed. Most recently it was reauthorized by a 
Democratic Congress, and it was done when President Clinton was in 
office.
  I think it is important to note that we are complying with the rule 
of law under the independent counsel statute. It says, ``An independent 
counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial 
and credible information which such independent counsel receives that 
may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'' That is exactly what is 
happening here. We are complying with the rule of law.
  We very much want to deal with this in the most bipartisan way 
possible.

[[Page H7594]]

 Last night in the testimony the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) 
said we want to have a bias for openness. And it is very clear, based 
on the number of hits that we had when the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), gave me the privilege 
of announcing the web site of the resolution that we are considering 
today and his opening statement from last night. The gentleman from New 
York has just informed me that we had over 25,000 hits on that.
  We have had Democrats and Republicans say we want this information 
out now. I think many of us are having the phones, I know I am, ring 
and ring and ring saying get this information out now. But, at the same 
time, we are doing our darnedest to ensure that no one is hurt by this 
process. And that is why in executive session, in executive session, 
the full Committee on the Judiciary, based on the request by many 
Democrats and Republicans, will have the opportunity to go through the 
appendices and the supporting information.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent to me that while there is not total 
agreement, there is, in fact, strong bipartisan agreement for what it 
is that we are proceeding to do here during this very difficult and 
challenging time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, we enter a period of great importance for 
our people's House of Representatives and for our country. As has been 
said, next to declaring war, nothing we do here rises to the importance 
of this decision.
  I will vote for this rule today, but I must report that I am 
disappointed in the way we arrived at this rule and in the result. And, 
more importantly, I am disappointed in our initial attempt, which I 
still have faith in, to try to reach bipartisan and nonpartisan 
agreements on how we go through this process.
  The Speaker has said, and I believe his word, that he wants this to 
be nonpartisan. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has said that he 
wants it to be fair and nonpartisan, and I believe his word. But at the 
end of the day yesterday we were told that there were some on the other 
side that could not go along with ideas that I believe many in the 
Republican leadership thought were reasonable ideas.
  Let me say what I think should have been in this rule. First, I 
believe that the President deserved 24 or 48 hours to read these 
allegations and conclusions before it was made public and sent all 
across the Nation and the world. We give Members that courtesy when 
Members are charged with wrongdoing. We have given other Presidents 
that courtesy. And I believe, in all fairness, this President deserves 
that basic fairness. What could possibly be lost by another 24 or 48 
hours before this were made public?
  Secondly, the independent counsel himself told us that there is 
information in parts two and three in this evidence that could be 
highly sensitive and injurious to innocent individuals. Now, I know 
that in the rush to get all this out we can all forget the rights and 
the reputation of innocent individuals. I simply ask all of us to put 
ourselves in the shoes of the people that could be injured by the 
leaking of this information.
  And I would also remind Members that already this morning material is 
being leaked in the media. Details have found their way already into 
the media that supposedly come from this information. Why do I not have 
faith and confidence that we can hold the material that we should hold?
  I take the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) at his word. I 
realize our rules say that we should not give this out if we have been 
charged to not give it out. I pray and hope that all of our Members, 
Democratic and Republican, will live with that admonition and will not 
leak this material out injuring the reputation of innocent people. 
Surely we can rise to this occasion.
  Now, there are many tests ahead. This is the first step of what could 
be a long process. And I guess my lesson from today is that it takes 
all of us, not just some of us, in order to make this process work. 
This is a body of 435 human beings, and we are called on to be better 
than sometimes our natures allow us to be.
  This is a sacred process. This goes to the heart of our democracy. 
This is not a second election. This is not politics. This is not 
spinning. This is not polling. This is not a lynch mob. This is not a 
witch-hunt. This is not trying to find facts to support our already-
reached conclusions. This is a constitutional test.
  Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, said, when speaking of 
impeachment, ``There will always be the greatest danger that the 
decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the 
parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence and guilt.'' We 
are all partisans. We are all in politics. We all believe strongly in 
our views and we all want our views to be realized by this House. But 
that is not what this is about.
  I ask my Members to reach inside themselves in these days ahead, when 
we are tested, as we will be tested, to be nonpartisan, to be fair, to 
be objective.

                              {time}  1015

  And I ask my friend on the other side of the aisle to do the same. I 
will come and I ask our Members to come more than halfway to reach 
nonpartisan agreements, to make this a fair process. I pray that we can 
do this.
  I am in awe of what we do here. I am so proud to be a Member of this 
body, because we stand for democracy and the rule of law that no one is 
above and no one is below. I am in awe of what we achieve here without 
violence. We must do this right. And I beg the Members, every one of 
you, to bring out the best in us to do this right. Our children and our 
grandchildren will know if we did.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for you as the Speaker to address 
the House from the chair. But I am sure I speak for you and we speak 
for the leadership on this side of the aisle in concurring with the 
latter part of the statement by the very distinguished minority leader. 
And let me assure him that we implore of our Members on this side of 
the aisle that they will obey the rules of this House, both morally and 
ethically. And if any of them on this side, as well as that side, leak 
information that is in violation of this House, I will assure you that 
I will use every power I have as chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
and I know you will, as Speaker, to enforce that rule to the highest 
degree to discipline any Member that would leak any information on this 
subject out of executive session.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to very briefly reply to some of the 
criticisms that have been made of this resolution.
  The phrase ``fundamental fairness,'' which of course has a ring to 
it, has been used and contentions are that we have violated fundamental 
fairness by not giving the President an advantage by having him get 
either days ahead of time or hours ahead of time the report. I do not 
think that is a breach of fundamental fairness.
  The time has come for the American people, for the Members of this 
Congress, to get this report. The President will get copy number three. 
He will get it as soon as we get it and as soon as the American people 
get it. He is not caught by surprise. He is the party of the first 
part. He knows what is in the report better than anybody on the planet.
  But to give the spin machine an opportunity to be the first impact on 
the American people before we, the Members, have seen this report is 
not bipartisanship, it is foolishness.
  We are acting as a grand jury. The grand jury does not take the 
object of the grand jury and give them all the evidence in the 
proceedings and say, now you go ahead and make your case. That is not 
the way a grand jury operates. And we are operating as a grand jury.
  Now, I pledge that the very same courtesy that Mr. Nixon had will be 
extended to this President and his staff,

[[Page H7595]]

that he will have his people present during executive sessions that we 
have. We will, under controlled circumstances, want to hear from him 
and his submissions exactly, exactly as Mr. Nixon had, no less and no 
more. I pledge that to you, in the interest of fundamental fairness.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio).
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I did not serve here during the 
Watergate era. But in the 20 years I have been here, I have been 
greatly involved in ethics issues, serving on the Committee on Ethics 
for 8 years and leading on perhaps the most important bill of my 
career, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
  I can only reflect on those years as an era in which partisanship 
increased exponentially, the bitterness that has occurred here, the 
take-no-prisoners mentality that has infected this place. Within the 
last week, two of our colleagues in the majority have been dragged into 
this, unfortunately to their detriment; their private lives spread 
before the public.
  If we are going to succeed in the task that the Founding Fathers have 
given us, we are going to have to overcome this tendency, this 
propensity to make partisanship our watchword here; we are going to 
have to reverse this trend.
  We have had the debate between openness and the rights of the 
individual. It is an age-old one. And we have come down on the side of 
openness, because I think we believe, frankly, that the process will 
not work any other way.
  We are not where we were with President Nixon 25 years ago. The 
Washington Post, NBC, are telling us this morning what is in this 
report. With all due respect to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
and great respect is due, it is not the committee we fear. The 
information is in the public domain, and frankly, the public believes 
they know everything there is to know about this already.
  So I believe we have perhaps a more difficult task than any Congress 
that ever proceeded us when we take up this issue. In an age of all-
news radio, talk shows, and cable news television and the Internet, 
instant review of information is the norm. History is pronounced with 
10 minutes' time, not even 10 years of reflection. So we, as an 
institution, have got to take up this more difficult task in a 
different way.
  I urge my colleagues to go home this weekend, to take a deep breath, 
to insulate themselves from the whims of uninformed public opinion, to 
take seriously their responsibility to listen to both sides--including 
the President when he can get his side out--as well as the prosecutor, 
who obviously has an ax to grind.
  There are people on both sides of the aisle who have already made up 
their minds, but I hope there are not many in this case. I reflect on 
the words of our good friend and former colleague, Peter Rodino, when 
he said, ``We were, in effect, asked to substitute our judgment for the 
judgment of millions of people who had voted overwhelmingly in a 
previous election, and for me it was a really horrible thought to be in 
that position.''
  That was, of course, the man who was said to be inadequate to the 
task of judging President Nixon, who became a national hero as a result 
of the effective job he did as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We 
have got to take the same approach. It is a horrible thought to be in 
this position. But we have got to show objectivity, to put partisanship 
and bitterness behind us, and not be affected by the whims of 
uninformed public opinion.
  We must make this judgment here, keeping in mind that our political 
fate is not as important, individually or as parties, as the way 
history will judge how we take up that responsibility.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will vote no on this, not because I do 
not want it released, but because I believe that the process is unfair 
from the very outset.
  In this morning's paper, before the vote, already the report is out. 
Now, we saw 2 days ago the pomp and circumstance, a great truck rolled 
up here that came from the special prosecutor and was handed to the 
leadership of this House. There are only two places that leak could 
have come from, the first page of the Washington Post. I mean, give me 
some other explanation.
  Secondly, it is unbelievable that after 6 years of investigation, the 
President of the United States cannot be given 1 hour by the Committee 
on Rules last night to review this before it goes public.
  Now, we did not do that to any Member of the House in the Ethics 
Committee. Every Member saw the report before it went public. We did 
not do that to Mr. Nixon.
  My colleagues heard the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) 
talk about what went on 24 years ago with the President of the United 
States. This day feels to me like we are taking a step down the road to 
becoming a political lynch mob. We are in so much hurry to get this 
done so it can be in the Saturday, Sunday news cycle and have our mint 
juleps at 5 o'clock, we are going to find a rope, find a tree, and ask 
a bunch of questions later. It will be too late for fairness.
  We can go back and get another rule, a fair rule that would give the 
opportunity to the President and, secondly, to protect those people 
that even Mr. Starr says needs to be protected, for heaven's sake. He 
did not recommend we rush out here and do this at 100 miles an hour.
  I think that this House is acting way too fast for any kind of 
fairness. Everyone here knows the public is going to get this. I urge 
my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article on page 1 of 
today's Washington Post by Susan Schmidt and Peter Baker.

                       Alleged Deceit Is Outlined

                   (By Susan Schmidt and Peter Baker)

       Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report to the House 
     contends there are 11 possible grounds for impeachment of 
     President Clinton, including allegations that he lied under 
     oath, tampered with witnesses, obstructed justice and abused 
     power to hide his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, according 
     to sources informed about some of its contents.
       The report, delivered to the Capitol on Wednesday and 
     scheduled to be made public today, asserts that Clinton 
     committed perjury during his January deposition in the Paula 
     Jones lawsuit when he denied having sex with Lewinsky and 
     then again during his grand jury testimony last month when he 
     acknowledged a physical relationship wile insisting his 
     previous statements were ``legally accurate,'' the sources 
     said.
       The report, they said, recounts in sometimes lurid detail 
     about a dozen sexual encounters with the former White House 
     intern and outlines evidence of deceit by the president, 
     including lying to aides, knowing they would then give false 
     testimony to Starr's grand jury. The retrieval of 
     presidential gifts from Lewinsky to avoid a subpoena and job 
     assistance provided to her by Clinton associates are 
     portrayed as elements of obstruction of justice, according to 
     the sources.
       Invoking Watergate-era language, Starr also makes the 
     argument that Clinton abused the power of his high office, in 
     part by waging court fights to impede the grand jury 
     investigation, actions that might not be criminal but could 
     be interpreted by Congress as impeachable offenses.
       Details of the first president impeachment report in 24 
     years began to emerge yesterday while an edgy Washington 
     awaited its formal release. As Clinton continued his 
     contrition campaign by apologizing privately to Senate 
     Democrats and Cabinet officers, a high-level presidential 
     delegation to Capitol Hill failed to gain access to Starr's 
     evidence before it becomes public. Congressional Democrats 
     likewise lost a bid for a 48-hour delay of its release and 
     Republican House leaders scheduled a floor vote for this 
     morning on procedures allowing the report to be posted on the 
     Internet by the afternoon.
       The White House was left in the awkward position yesterday 
     of trying to respond to a report it has not examined. Unable 
     to discuss its specific elements, Clinton's personal 
     attorney, David E. Kendall, dismissed the report as a one-
     sided presentation of events. ``The referral by the 
     prosecutors is simply a collection of their contentions, 
     claims and allegations and we look forward for the chance to 
     rebut them,'' Kendall told reporters.
       Others in the Clinton camp were left uncertain how they 
     would fight back once it is released. ``People are just 
     bracing for tomorrow and trying to line people up to at least 
     hold [on] until Kendall and the others have a chance to 
     respond,'' said a White House advisers.
       Despite White House complaints of unfairness, Republican 
     congressional leaders made clear they would proceed with 
     their extraordinary plan of releasing a report that they

[[Page H7596]]

     themselves will not have read before it becomes public.
       ``The report is made to the Congress of the United States 
     and it is the responsibility of the Congress in as even-
     handed a basis as possible to make it available to all 
     interested parties . . . at the same time,'' said House 
     Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.).
       Although it remained under lock and key in a House office 
     building, both sides assume the report will dramatically 
     alter the political dynamics of the eight-month Lewinsky 
     saga. Until now, Clinton has survived politically, aided by a 
     strong economy and resilient poll numbers, but the White 
     House fears that unseemly revelations about the president's 
     sex life could prove especially damaging.
       Partial descriptions emerging yesterday indicated that the 
     report will include graphic accounts of Clinton's sexual 
     activities with Lewinsky, detailing about a dozen encounters 
     in the private study off the Oval Office as well as instances 
     when they engaged in explicit telephone sex.
       On one occasion, according to sources Lewinsky told 
     prosecutors that she and Clinton used a cigar as a prop in a 
     sex act. In another episode likely to capture attention on 
     Capitol Hill, sources said Lewinsky asserted that she 
     participated in a sex act with Clinton while he was on the 
     telephone talking with a member of Congress.
       While the sexual aspects seem likely to be the most 
     sensational parts of the impeachment report, they are 
     intended to rebut Clinton's argument that he did not consider 
     their activities to be ``sexual relations'' as defined by 
     Jones's lawyers during their deposition.
       But seemingly wary of having his investigation be seen 
     strictly as a sex case, Starr emphasized the larger issues of 
     alleged criminal behavior and abuse of power, according to 
     the sources. By stressing the use of the office of president, 
     Starr appears to be trying to counter Clinton defenders who 
     argue that the whole investigation arose out of private 
     behavior in a private lawsuit that was eventually thrown out 
     and had nothing to do with his conduct of the nation's 
     business.
       Even as Starr was sending the report to Congress on 
     Wednesday, he also notified U.S. District Judge Norma 
     Holloway Johnson, who is overseeing the grand jury 
     investigating the Lewinsky matter, and U.S. District Judge 
     Susan Webber Wright, the Little Rock judge who presided over 
     the Jones sexual harassment case and ultimately dismissed the 
     lawsuit. Wright said in a footnote to a ruling last week that 
     she is considering whether the president should be held in 
     contempt for his misleading testimony in the Jones case.
       All told, Starr delivered two 18-box sets of evidence to 
     the House, including raw grand jury transcripts, Linda R. 
     Tripp's secret tapes of conversations with Lewinsky and 
     Lewinsky's Feb. 1 proffer describing what her testimony would 
     be if given immunity from prosecution, a deal that was not 
     arranged until six months later.
       Under the plan approved by the House Rules Committee last 
     night, only the main report would be made public today, while 
     the rest is reviewed by the Judiciary Committee between now 
     and Sept. 28 to determine what is appropriate for release and 
     what should remain secret.
       The main report to be posted on four congressional Web 
     sites today begins with an introduction that explains the 
     relevance of Clinton's actions to the Jones lawsuit and the 
     seriousness of the allegations. It then moves on to a 
     narrative describing the history of the affair that began as 
     Lewinsky, then 22 and an unpaid White House intern, became 
     involved with the president in November 1995 during the 
     federal government shutdown, and how the two tried to conceal 
     it when the Jones lawyers sought their testimony. The final 
     section outlines what Starr contends are possible grounds for 
     impeachment.
       Lawyers on all sides expect the report to fill in gaps in 
     the story line that has emerged in fragments over the last 
     eight months. Among other things likely to become public, 
     according to sources, are a hard-edged exchange between 
     prosecutors and Clinton during his grand jury appearance as 
     they debated the meaning of sex and the heretofore largely 
     unknown details of testimony by key witness Betty Currie, the 
     president's personal secretary, as the investigation wore on.
       The perjury allegations stem from Clinton's description of 
     his relationship with Lewinsky when interviewed under oath on 
     Jan 17. Clinton denied having an affair with her, denied 
     having ``sexual relations'' with her as defined by Jones's 
     lawyers and maintained he did not recall ever being alone 
     with her anywhere in the White House.
       During the same session, he also allowed his lawyer, Robert 
     S. Bennett, to introduce Lewinsky's own Jan. 7 sworn 
     affidavit denying a sexual relationship and Clinton did not 
     correct Bennett when he told Judge Wright that the statement 
     made clear ``there is absolutely no sex of any kind, in any 
     manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.''
       Sevent months later to the day--after Lewinsky recanted and 
     more than 75 other witnesses appeared before the grand jury--
     Clinton sat down with Starr and other prosecutors in the 
     White House and changed his story. During this Aug. 17 
     session transmitted live to the grand jury at the courthouse, 
     Clinton acknowledged having a physical relationship with 
     Lewinsky but said he did not believe the definition of 
     ``sexual relations'' included their activities, arguing that 
     oral sex was not covered.
       After that session and his subsequent televised statement 
     that his previous testimony was ``legally accurate'' if not 
     fully forthcoming, an upset Lewinsky met for two hours 
     privately with Starr's prosecutors and gave them a deposition 
     describing in detail their various sexual activities, 
     including intimate fondling that would be covered by the 
     Jones definition.
       The obstruction-of-justice allegations arise in part from 
     Currie's retrieval of gifts from Lewinsky that had been 
     subpoenaed on the Jones case and from job help provided by 
     Currie, Clinton confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr. and other 
     presidential associates.
       A source familiar with Lewinsky's testimony said yesterday 
     that Clinton gave her a total of 20 gifts, most of them 
     relatively modest items such as a T-shirt and a book of 
     poetry. Concerned about the subpoena, Lewinsky testified that 
     she discussed it with Clinton and that Currie shortly 
     afterward called her and came by her Watergate apartment to 
     pick up the gifts, a sequence of events suggesting the 
     president may have instructed his secretary to get them. 
     But Clinton denied doing so and Currie told the grand jury 
     that she believed Lewinsky called her about the gifts.
       A few new details emerged about Clinton's role in 
     Lewinsky's search for a new job beginning last summer. 
     Clinton tried directly to find work for Lewinsky in summer 
     1997, asking aide Marsha Scott to find a way to move her back 
     from the Pentagon to the White House, long before she was 
     subpoenaed in the Jones case. But Starr presents that in the 
     context of the Jones suit anyway, given that it occurred 
     after the Supreme Court permitted the case to go forward in 
     May 1997 and even as Jones's lawyers were seeking out women 
     sexually linked to the president.
       Jordan, a prominent Washington lawyer who arranged job 
     interviews in New York for Lewinsky at Currie's request, is 
     described in the report as an unwitting participant 
     essentially used by Clinton in his larger effort to placate 
     Lewinsky and thereby influence her Jones case testimony.
       The president's defenders have rejected any illegal purpose 
     in connection with the gifts or the jobs, saying there was no 
     evidence of a direct link to Lewinsky's testimony and 
     accusing Starr of twisting innocent actions involving two 
     people who were close.
       Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the report, 
     however, may be Starr's claim that Clinton abused his office. 
     The argument harkens back to the articles of impeachment 
     drafted against President Richard M. Nixon, who was accused 
     of misusing his power to cover up the Watergate burglary, 
     among other things.
       Under this interpretation, Clinton exploited the authority 
     and resources of the White House by asserting what Starr 
     considered frivolous claims of legal privilege to prevent his 
     aides from appearing before the grand jury and by allowing 
     the Secret Service to mount its own doomed court fight to 
     keep its officers from testifying.
       But Clinton advisers have ridiculed the contention, saying 
     Starr essentially is trying to criminalize the president's 
     attempts to assert his rights in the course of an 
     investigation. While the administration lost battles over 
     attorney-client and executive privileges, Judge Johnson 
     determined that they were properly asserted even though 
     prosecutors' need for evidence overcame the need for 
     confidentiality.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be 
very brief.
  There are two concepts that are at play here: fundamental fairness 
and public relations. Fundamental fairness means they get an 
opportunity to answer the charges, they get a decent full opportunity 
to answer the charges. Public relations means they get a jump on the 
other side and they get the spin machine going.
  They want a public relations advantage, and we are promising them 
fundamental fairness. The President and his people will have every 
opportunity to answer every charge, if there are any charges that 
require answering, in abundance. That is fundamental fairness.
  We are unwilling to give them a public relations advantage any 
greater than the one they have had for the past many months, when Mr. 
Starr could not talk, whereas everyone identifying themselves with the 
White House could talk in abundance.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
point out again in my testimony that I said that when this 
communication arrived at the Capitol the Speaker immediately directed 
the material to be secured by the Sergeant at Arms and no

[[Page H7597]]

Member or staff has seen any part of this.
  I do not think it behooves any Member to come to the floor, come to 
the well, and accuse someone of leaking information. He knows, we all 
know, that it is hearsay and that no one has seen one word, one page, 
of any of these documents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could I say to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), whom I plan to work as closely with for the next several 
months as I can, more closely than we have worked throughout our 
careers, you have stated twice, sir, that the President of the United 
States already knows what is in the report. I reject that. And I am 
trying not to resent it. Because, if he does, he has violated the law 
in that respect.
  You have also said that fundamental fairness should be distinguished 
from public relations spin. Well, we were not spinning anything when 
the ethics rule got a week for the Speaker of the House to respond. We 
were not spinning anything on the committee that I recall you being a 
member of, when President Reagan got ample time to respond.
  So I do not think we should confuse fundamental fairness and public 
relations spin when this President is requesting the very same thing.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois 
rose and said correctly that each of us in this body took a solemn oath 
to defend the Constitution of the United States. A part of that 
Constitution gives us the awesome responsibility of judging the conduct 
of public officers and holding them accountable if they do not meet 
their constitutional responsibilities in carrying out their duties of 
office.
  This proceeding, as we go forth from this day, will be about that 
responsibility. But today's proceedings are not about the President of 
the United States, but about the fairness that this House is going to 
accord in the carrying out of its responsibilities.
  Our citizens expect fairness. America's constitutional system is 
almost unique in its adherence to due process, to giving citizens their 
right to be heard. We should do no less for those whose conduct we have 
the responsibility to oversee.
  This week, I tell my friends, is not a harbinger of fairness to come. 
Without notice, quickly, and to some, surprisingly, with unique timing, 
theatrically, obviously designed for television exposure, a report was 
delivered to this House, creating, I suggest to you, more of a circus 
atmosphere than a judicial, considered atmosphere.
  We have now failed to provide one of the parties with notice as to 
what was going to proceed. I tell my friend from Illinois, whose 
intellect and integrity I have no question of, that if we are in fact 
acting as a grand jury, we would not release information, as no grand 
jury does. We in fact would review that information, consider its 
import, and then, and only then, report our findings.
  That is not to be the case, for we will release this document. Many 
believe that we ought to release it so at least it is seen in whole, 
not in part, through leaks, which surely would happen.
  Mr. Speaker, you have called for nonpartisanship, but all of us know 
that this surely is one of the most partisan Congresses in history. We 
need more, my friends, than rhetorical recognition of fairness. We must 
have substantive adherence and the realization of fairness. Let us do 
our responsibility, as the citizens expect us to do that 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois rose and said 
correctly that each of us in this body took a solemn oath to defend the 
Constitution of the United States. A part of that Constitution gives us 
the awesome responsibility of judging the conduct of public officers 
and holding them accountable it if they do not meet their 
constitutional responsibilities in carrying out their duties of office.
  From this day forward, this proceeding will depend upon that 
responsibility. However, today's proceedings do not relate to the 
President of the United States, rather, they relate to the fairness 
that this House is going to accord in the execution of its 
responsibilities.
  Our citizens expect fairness. America's constitutional system is 
almost unique in its adherence to due process, as it grants citizens 
their right to be heard. We should do no less for those whose conduct 
we have the responsibility to oversee.
  Unfortunately, this week is not a harbinger of fairness to come. 
Surprisingly for some, theatrically for most, a report was delivered to 
this House. It's unique arrival created more of a circus atmosphere 
then one of judicious consideration.
  We have already failed to inform one of the parties involved in this 
matter with proper notice as to what is yet to come. I tell my friend 
from Illinois, whose intellect and integrity I do not question, that we 
were in fact to act as a grand jury, then we would not release 
information. No grand jury does. We would, in fact, review the 
information, consider its import, and then, and only then, report our 
findings.
  That will not be the case here. We will release this report. Many 
believe we ought to release it so at least it is seen in whole, not in 
part as a result of leaks, which surely would happen.
  Mr. Speaker, you have called for non-partisanship. Yet all of us know 
that this surely is one of the most partisan Congresses in history. We 
need more than rhetorical recognition of fairness. We must have the 
substantive realization of fairness. Let us execute our responsibility 
as the American citizens expect and as we are solemnly pledged to do.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I always listen carefully to the gentleman from 
Maryland, and when he says this is the most partisan Congress ever to 
convene, I would have to differ with him. It may be the most 
philosophical. But when you look at the great accomplishments of the 
Contract with America, the welfare reform, those measures passed this 
House with an overwhelmingly majority vote from both political parties. 
Thank you for being so nonpartisan when it really counts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, to 
clarify how we are going to be open and fair today.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the innuendo, I believe it 
is completely factual to say that no Member of the House of 
Representatives has seen the documents. As a matter of fact, we are not 
going to open them until the House votes on this resolution.
  My assumption, having heard the minority leader and others speak, is 
that the resolution will pass. When the resolution passes, the box that 
contains the overview will be opened. The two original copies will then 
be copied, and those two original copies will be presented to the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary. They will be first to receive the 
copies.
  Only after they have received the copies will it then become 
available, when it is electronically possible, on the web sites listed 
here. It is the House web site, the Library of Congress web site, the 
Government Printing Office web site and the Committee on the Judiciary 
through the House web site.
  In addition to that, I would urge my colleagues to look for a ``Dear 
Colleague'' provided to them by the Clerk of the House, which provides 
an intranet capability for Members of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also say that a request for an electronic version 
of the report was requested yesterday in a letter signed by the general 
counsel to the Office of the Speaker and the counsel of the Democratic 
Leader, and I include this letter for the record.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 10, 1998.
     Mr. Robert J. Bittman
     Deputy Independent Counsel, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Bittman: As you know, the Independent Counsel 
     transmitted material to the House of Representatives on 
     September 9, 1998, pursuant to section 595(c) of title 28, 
     United States Code, involving a determination in accordance 
     with his responsibilities under chapter 40 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       We anticipate that the House will consider a resolution 
     authorizing the printing and public dissemination of the 
     portion of such material consisting of approximately 445 
     pages comprising an introduction, a narrative, and a 
     statement of grounds. In order

[[Page H7598]]

     to facilitate the expeditious, electronic dissemination of 
     such material, we hereby request on behalf of the Speaker and 
     Minority Leader that copies of such material be provided to 
     the Clerk of the House in a suitable electronic format (i.e., 
     computer diskette, CD-ROM, etc.).
       We further request that such electronic copies be made 
     available to the Clerk within the timeframe necessary to 
     facilitate electronic dissemination by the Clerk immediately 
     after the House approves the anticipated resolution.
           Sincerely,
     Daniel F.C. Crowley,
       General Counsel, Office of the Speaker.
     Bernard Raimo,
       Counsel, Office of the Democratic Leader.

  I would also like to indicate that when the President's rebuttal 
through his private attorney or any other transmittal is made to the 
Committee on House Oversight, we will, as soon as possible, and if it 
is given to us in electronic form, virtually immediately post on all of 
these web sites on the same page the President's rebuttal.
  Not only will it be fundamental fairness, but it will be an ability 
for those who wish to access this site to take a look at the 
Independent Counsel's report and then, when the President or his 
attorney's report is made available to us in electronic form, it will 
be made available as well.
  I hope Members will appreciate and in fact all Americans appreciate 
that this will be the most widely disseminated, most rapidly available 
public document in the history of the United States.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, for seven of the eleven years that I have served in 
Congress, I have served on the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct or the ethics task force. It is from that perspective that I 
have several questions to ask.
  If indeed what we are talking about here today is the process under 
which the Starr report will be released, why then have the airwaves 
been filled with details of the Starr report for the last 36 hours? It 
has supposedly been under lock and key here. One can only assume the 
leaks are coming from the Independent Counsel's office.
  My second question is to you, Mr. Speaker. Why would you not afford 
the President of the United States the same opportunity you were given 
by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of having almost a 
week's advance notice to review the charges against you, so that you 
could have your response be part of the report? Let me just say, the 
good news about the leaks is that this four-year investigation 
apparently vindicates President Clinton in the conduct of his public 
life, because we are only left with this personal stuff.
  My third question relates to our Founding Fathers. I believe the last 
question is what would our Founding Fathers think of this course we are 
embarking on today? I think they would say it was not for the 
investigation of a President's personal life that we risked our lives, 
our liberty and our sacred honor. I know they would not want us to rush 
to judgment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just answer the last question of my good friend 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in saying there are only 
two bodies who have any idea what is in that report. One is the 
Independent Counsel's office, and the other is the White House. If 
there are leaks, I would assume it was one of those.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman contending that the details 
that the news media is putting out there about the Starr allegations, 
and I remind the gentleman that the Starr report is a list of 
allegations, it is not a statement of fact, and they will be 
unanalyzed, no witnesses cross-examined and the rest, is the Chairman 
of the Committee on Rules alleging that the White House is leaking the 
information that is in the Starr report, which the Speaker has not 
allowed the President any advance viewing of?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am saying it is impossible for any Member 
of Congress to have any idea what is in that report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan, Ms. Kilpatrick.
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to preserve the sanctity of 
this institution, to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution, and for 
the rights of all American people, yes, including the President of the 
United States.
  The resolution before us is unfair. Unfortunately, we give time for 
all criminals, and the President is not a criminal, has not been 
convicted, he has committed his error and I do not condone it. He was 
wrong. It is for this body, those 435 of us elected by the people of 
these United States, to determine whether we shall preserve the 
Constitution and the rights of all of its people.
  It has been mentioned that we are now sitting as a grand jury, and, 
as my friend from Maryland said, no grand jury would leak any 
information publicly on any case, and we know that as we have watched 
our government work, and it has been a good government.
  Why do we now sacrifice our government, when our President of these 
United States, elected by his people, who has done a good job for its 
people, and not allow him to view the report, as we release the report 
on the Internet? The rule does not allow that he, the President of 
these United States, would see that report. And I beg to differ with 
the Chair of the Committee on Rules, the White House has not seen this 
report. They have asked us to give them the opportunity, merely 24 
hours, 48 hours, that they can see it, and, yes, release it to all the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame. We have done it before. We, the 
Members of this Congress, have ten days if we are charged before the 
public is released or the chamber is released the findings. I think it 
is despicable. We must not relegate our responsibility and our duty. 
Let us preserve the Constitution. Let us vote down this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly disappointed that this process 
will begin with a blatant disregard of fairness and bipartisanship. The 
information in this report has to be made public, and that is why I 
will vote for this resolution, but it violates fundamental fairness in 
two respects: First of all, in the refusal on the part of the majority 
to give the President even one hour of prior notice so that they can 
intelligently respond.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, you 
yourself were given five days to respond when your matter was before 
the House. Why is this President not entitled to the same act of grace 
and fairness that you were provided with?
  Secondly, this motion walks away from the agreement reached between 
the leaders of both parties that the backup material would be reviewed 
by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking Democrat 
before it was released in order to protect third parties, as has been 
noted by Mr. Starr. This proposal walks away from that agreement and 
makes that information available to the entire membership of the 
committee. That increases the likelihood of selective partisan leaks by 
some of the most zealously partisan members of that committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I was here during Watergate. I hated it, because it 
bittered up the politics of the entire country, not just toward 
Republicans, but toward all politicians, and we are still suffering 
from that. But the reason in the end that the Congressional process 
worked is because it was seen by the minority, then the Republicans, as 
being fundamentally fair to them procedurally and substantively, and 
that is why many of the Republicans joined in the final verdict in that 
process. This action does not meet that standard.
  I urge the majority not to begin this process by taking unilateral 
actions

[[Page H7599]]

before it begins. Our respect for our responsibility, our reverence for 
this institution, should have produced a fundamentally more fair 
beginning than this.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, early on you and myself and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), and especially the minority leader, had spoken about trying 
to stick to the decorum of the House. We all know it is not under House 
Rule XIV proper to discuss the ethics conduct of Members. I would hope 
that that would not continue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), a former member of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct and a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) and the distinguished chairman, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we see from the remarks today, nobody is particularly 
happy to find themselves here under these circumstances, but we are 
taking our job seriously and doing our constitutional duty.
  Today, we are not going to make a judgment on the merits of the 
independent counsel's report. Everybody needs to understand that. We 
all do here. Instead, we are charged with providing a procedure for 
release of that report that is workable, that is fair, and most 
importantly, that fulfills our obligation to the people we work for, 
the people of the United States of America, our constituents.
  This resolution contains the requisite flexibility to achieve these 
goals, I think, while also providing the American people with the same 
information, and at the same time, as Members of Congress and the 
President. This is truly equal treatment. No one is above the law.
  I do want to stress that this comes after much thoughtful 
deliberation, with no rush to judgment here. My friend, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who sits on the other side of the aisle 
from me, and many other Members on both sides of the aisle, would have 
liked us to make everything available and requested to make it 
available immediately, including the sensitive grand jury material. 
Well, we did not do that on the Committee on Rules.
  Still, other Members wanted nothing released. Well, we did not do 
that, either. I believe it is important that we err on the side of 
providing the American people with more rather than less, empowering 
them to reach their own conclusions as this goes along. In doing so, we 
truly reflect the best strengths of our representative democracy, I 
think, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
  Government in the sunshine does work, as those of us who hold 
elective office in the State of Florida know, where we do have the 
``sunshine law.''
  Americans across the Nation are, in fact, calling for information 
about this matter, and this resolution will provide that information, I 
think, in an appropriate way.
  Some comment has been made about the process in the Ethics Committee. 
As a former member and as a chairman of the task force of that 
committee, I would point out that the rules of the Ethics Committee do 
not necessarily fit the situation at hand. It says, in fact, that if 
there is going to be a report issued on a Member, the respondent has 
admitted to the charges and waives rights for trial proceedings, you 
have a very different circumstance than the type of report material we 
find we have from the independent counsel today.
  We also point out that a respondent has a right to see a draft 10 
days before a subcommittee is to vote, but not 10 days before being 
made public. Those are very important differences, and I think they 
have been somewhat misunderstood in the presentations.
  As for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), I agree totally 
with him. Leaks do frustrate the process, as the gentleman from 
Washington very well knows, and I seriously hope that there are no 
leaks; and I seriously hope, if there are any leaks, that this time the 
Ethics Committee can do its job fairly to deal with such leaks.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the proposed 
rule we are considering. I am here as chair of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and a member of a 
coalition of Members of the House concerned about fairness in this 
process.
  As policymakers, we find ourselves in the difficult position of 
having to formulate rules and procedures to receive a report from the 
Office of the Independent Counsel without statutory laws or rules that 
dictate procedure for carrying out this special work. It is up to the 
Members of this House to construct and implement a fair process.
  The Congressional Black Caucus has made the decision to become the 
fairness cop. We have assigned to ourselves the role of being the best 
advocates we can for ensuring that this process recognizes the rights 
of everyone involved, as we go through the process.
  I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Americans want 
fairness, fundamental fairness. Members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus understand this perhaps better than most. Our struggle for 
fairness, justice and equality, is a responsibility that we have 
accepted for the rest of our lives.
  This resolution reported out of the Committee on Rules is not fair. 
It is one-sided. It is partisan. The Republican chair of that 
committee, the Speaker of the House, and other Republicans are saying, 
oh, we want to be bipartisan, we want a bipartisan operation, we want 
to cooperate with the Democrats.
  In the words of my grandmother, ``I cannot hear what you say. I am 
watching what you do.''
  You rolled over us yesterday, and you are rolling over us today. We 
say without qualification, the President of the United States of 
America deserves the right to review, prior to its release, a copy of 
the report written by the independent counsel, who has spent 4\1/2\ 
years investigating the President, and the last 8 months devoted to the 
Monica Lewinsky matter.
  Our position is not one of unquestioned support for this President. 
We have, and I have, disagreed with him on many occasions. 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 
response.
  To release this report is unconscionable. Do what you did for the 
Speaker, for President Nixon and Oliver North. Give the President 1 
hour, 2 minutes, 1 minute, but be fair.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say a couple of words about fairness and cooperation.
  It is without question, from the calls that we have all had, in the 
communications with each other, that a small minority of Members would 
like to withhold all of the information. Likewise, it is true that a 
very small minority of this body would like to make all of the 
information available. But we will see, by the final vote on this 
resolution, fairness today, in that an overwhelming, vast majority 
believes that we should follow through with the resolution; we should 
make immediate publication of the 445 pages, and then use the good 
wisdom of the Committee on the Judiciary to go through the remainder. I 
think that speaks to cooperation and fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about fairness to the 
American taxpayer that paid for the independent counsel's 
investigation. The American public, to be fair to them, ought to be 
able to see what the independent counsel has sent to Congress, pursuant 
to the independent counsel statute, free from spin doctors, free from 
talking heads, free from media hype. Let them see it in the form that 
it was sent by the independent counsel. I would point out that nobody 
is going to have a 1-minute advantage and a heads-up on this, because 
this will be released simultaneously to the American public, to the

[[Page H7600]]

Congress, and to the President of the United States.
  Now, the 35 of us who are members of the Committee on the Judiciary 
have an awesome constitutional responsibility in discharging our duties 
and evaluating this evidence to see whether or not the President has 
committed an impeachable offense or not. I am not asking for a leg-up 
to start working on this awesome responsibility. I am asking for 
fairness.
  I am asking for an ability to be able to reach my own conclusions, 
free from the advice of people on the outside who have got axes to 
grind, and that is why I think that this resolution is fundamentally 
fair, because it strikes a balance between the openness that the 
American public expects this proceeding to be done, as well as the 
request that Independent Counsel Starr has made to protect certain 
individuals from undue conclusions, who are not involved in this 
process at all.
  This report contains the most important information concerning a 
President that the American people will ever have to consider, and the 
American people ought to be put it into this equation so that they can 
see what the independent counsel has found and they can judge for 
themselves. It is imperative that the Congress conduct the public's 
business in as open a manner as possible.
  The process laid out by the Committee on Rules is eminently fair. 
Congress, the citizens of this country, and President Clinton will 
begin their review process of Independent Counsel Starr's report at the 
same time. With the public dissemination of this material, the American 
people and Members of Congress can come to their individual conclusions 
regarding Mr. Starr's report.
  The resolution charges the Committee on the Judiciary with the 
awesome responsibility of reviewing the full referral by Mr. Starr to 
determine if there are sufficient grounds to recommend to the House 
that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. We are committed to 
conducting an impartial and independent review of the independent 
counsel's investigation and his conclusions, and will reach our own 
conclusions based upon that review, and it will be done in a 
nonpartisan manner.
  After evaluating Mr. Starr's evidence, the Committee on the Judiciary 
has two choices. Either it will find that there is no substantial 
evidence of impeachable activity by the President or it will recommend 
commencing a formal impeachment inquiry. This will be done not on a 
partisan basis, but on the evidence and on the law.
  I support the resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a former district attorney for 21 years 
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, by 3 o'clock today, millions of people 
around the world will be reading the Starr report, and it will be 
persuasive, for any prosecutor has the ability to shape the evidence 
presented to a grand jury. We can claim that these are only 
allegations, that nothing has been proven, but the reality is by 
tonight, minds will be made up and judgments will be rendered, and any 
presumption of innocence will be overwhelmed.
  I agree that the report should be released. That is not the issue. 
The question is when and how.
  After so many months, what possible harm could come from allowing 
counsel for the President to review the report for a day or 2 so that 
both sides of the story can be told at the same time? It is only fair.
  This House went even further to ensure fairness 24 years ago. During 
7 weeks of closed-door hearings, President Nixon's lawyers were even 
allowed to cross-examine witnesses before anything was made public. We 
should respect that precedent, and it is unfortunate that we have not, 
for if the American people are to accept our ultimate conclusion, they 
must have confidence in the fairness of the process. That confidence, 
far more than the fate of a President, is what is at stake here.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state that obedience to criminal 
law and fairness does not recognize special treatment as being 
requested.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Into this House come ordinary men and women, and we are often asked 
to do extraordinary things. We are also asked to put aside politics and 
the desire for self-indulgence. I hope over these weeks we will refer 
more often to our Bibles and the Constitution, the Bibles for 
redemption and fairness and the Constitution for the understanding of 
freedom and justice.
  For the opening of the Constitution said, ``We, the people of the 
United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish 
justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.''

                              {time}  1100

  No, the President is not above the law, the institution of the 
presidency is not above the law, but neither is either below the law. 
There is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty for all of us.
  This House, during this somber process, must not be driven by 
politics. The delivery of 445 pages by the drama of trucks coming onto 
these grounds, without the opportunity of the respondent, which could 
be any American in this Nation, to review such materials to provide a 
simultaneous response, is a political act, it is not justice.
  For any of our Members to suggest that the President already knows 
what a prosecutor, Ken Starr, has done for 4 years with $40 million in 
a document that includes 140 pages of charges, is at best being 
political. The Constitution was not written on the Internet, and this 
process should not be governed by the needs of those who travel the 
cyberspace, it should be governed by fundamental fairness.
  In fact, in this House the Speaker himself, who presides today, was 
given at least 10 days to look at the allegations and charges against 
him. I ask the Speaker, can we be any less fair? Do we not remember 
what happened to the innocent Richard Jewell in the Atlanta bombings? 
This is what could happen if we do not allow the President to review as 
any American the charges brought against him and, as well, to keep the 
many many other documents unexposed until the evidentiary hearings are 
completed.
  This process, Mr. Speaker, is one that will not preserve what the 
American people have created; that is, a perfect union with justice. 
This process could expose and hurt innocent people. This process will 
not preserve this Nation, this Constitution, or the people. We need 
fairness, Mr. Speaker. Let us begin today.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here we are. Alexander Hamilton probably knew 
that someday we would be here at this point.
  He said in the Federalist Papers that, the biggest fear in undergoing 
an impeachment proceeding would be that the ``comparative differences 
of the party would override the real ideals of innocence and guilt.''
  It is important to acknowledge the sobering and somber tasks we are 
about to undertake. Alexander Bickel wrote in 1973, ``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.'' Fundamental fairness then is pivotal in any constitutional 
process seeking to remove the president.
  During this time many issues will have to be resolved. One of them is 
whether or not the President should be allowed to formulate a response 
over the next 48 hours before the Starr report is released to the 
public. The answer of course should be yes. Unfortunately, the rules 
Committee decided not to allow the President to review the report 
before it was released to the American public. When the Founding 
Fathers wrote the Constitution, there was no Internet, no Information 
Superhighway. Even though Mr. Speaker the Congress is a political body, 
this process should not and can not be politicized.
  The independent counsel's report while I am sure is presented with a 
high respect for the seriousness of this issue, it is still only one 
side of the story. The American public should

[[Page H7601]]

have both sides of the story at once. Otherwise, the media will only 
have Starr's version to discuss for the next several days.
  The Watergate impeachment inquiry followed the same precedent. The 
Judiciary Committee received evidence in closed-door hearings for seven 
weeks with the President's lawyer in the same room. This evidence 
included the material reported by the Watergate grand jury. The 
materials received by the Committee were not released to the public 
until the conclusion of the seven-week evidentiary presentation. By 
then, the White House had full knowledge of the material being 
considered by the Committee. Also in Watergate, subpoenas were issued 
jointly by the chairman and ranking member, and if either declined to 
act, by the other acting alone, he could refer the matter to the full 
committee for a vote. Most importantly, it was required that the 
President's lawyer 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 in executive 
session.'' Twenty-four hours advance notice was required, and both the 
Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member were granted access ``at all 
times'' to committee materials.

  I don't think the House should have denied President Clinton the same 
right our members receive when charges are filed against them by the 
House Ethics Committee. For example, Speaker Gingrich was permitted to 
review the charges filed by the Committee before it issued its public 
report. The President should be afforded the same right.
  Also, the Ethics rules require that the subject of any investigation 
to alleged violations will have ``not less than 10 calendar days before 
a scheduled vote'' to review the alleged violations. A copy of ``the 
statement of alleged violations, together with all evidence, is also 
provided to the subject of any House Ethics violations.'' The President 
should not receive any less due process than any Member of Congress.
  We want to do this in a fair and nonpartisan manner. It is true that 
no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. 
However, he should not be below the law. This is not just President 
Clinton, but this is the institution of the Presidency. We must treat 
this process fairly and justly. Integrity must remain in the process. 
This is not a witch hunt, and an election by the American people should 
not be nullified without objective deliberation. It is unfortunate that 
the President will not be given a chance to review this report before 
the Press will on the Internet. Let's put fairness back in the process.
  The American people understand the creation of this perfect union, 
they understand justice--and we must show that we will not let politics 
override justice and the blessings of liberty. The institution of the 
Presidency, Preservation of the rule of law, the survival of this 
nation depends on this.
  Alexander Hamilton in 1775 said the sacred rights of mankind are not 
to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are 
written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the 
hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by 
mortal power.
  This process needs to be fair, it is a somber task. I fear political 
glee over one man's pending doom drives this House now to vote to deny 
the basic constitutional protections to the accused in a timely manner, 
in order that an informed response to the charges be made. I fear pre-
judgment of the issues because this House fears for its survival. I 
however will not give up on fundamental fairness.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, time is so precious, I would just hope that the 
timekeeper would charge us for the time we are on our feet.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, the founders of this extraordinary 
constitutional republic created a system of government that is as 
resilient as it is intent upon being protective of the freedoms of the 
American people. I think we in this moment in history are seeing 
another manifestation of that resiliency and of that fundamental 
greatness of the system that was created by our Founding Fathers.
  I have to respectfully but emphatically reject the accusation that we 
have heard this morning of unfairness that has been hurled at the 
Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules has bent over backwards in 
satisfaction of the guidance that the Speaker and the minority leader 
and the distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
ranking member gave us to be precisely fair.
  How ironic it is that it was from the other side of the aisle that 
the most emphatic and passionate requests were made to us last night to 
instantaneously make public everything in those many boxes that have 
been received and are under lock and key at this moment, and thus could 
not have been leaked and have not been leaked by this House. The other 
side of the aisle most emphatically asked that everything be made 
public today. There were other requests from both sides of the aisle 
that nothing be made public.
  We have bent over backwards to be fair, and we have created a system, 
a rule that is fair, that protects the right of the American people to 
learn the facts, and the right of due and deliberative process for the 
President and all other citizens who may be affected by these 
proceedings that in effect we are authorizing today by this rule and by 
the rule next week that we will be bringing to the floor.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want the allegations in the report 
by Mr. Starr to be made public, but the way that that would be done in 
this resolution is wrong. The burden of that wrong will haunt this 
process throughout.
  This process is controlled by the leadership of this House. It is 
important that the outcome, which could be a grave and heavy outcome, 
be seen as completely and entirely fair and objective by the people of 
this country. This process is being begun in a way that belies all of 
that. It is wrong. It is unfair. There is a pretense to fairness, 
merely the suits and trappings of fairness and objectivity, but not the 
real meat of fairness and objectivity.
  I am convinced that we are embarking on this process in the wrong 
way. This resolution is wrong, and therefore, I must vote in accordance 
with that conviction.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Charles Dickens who, in 
his novel, A Tale of Two Cities, said, ``It was the best of times, it 
was the worst of times.'' That is a fairly accurate assessment of where 
we are right now here in this Chamber.
  Yes, I took the oath of office to defend our Constitution, and I will 
defend the rule of law and not the rule of man, which leads to tyranny. 
Later today we will be voting on the referral and release of the Starr 
report. As we proceed, I think all of us who are here will keep in mind 
how important it is to remain objective, and above all, fair.
  The decisions we will make will have a far-reaching and long-lasting 
impact on our country and on every American, young and old.
  Yes, let us release the report, but let us give our President the 2 
days that he may be able to respond as requested. Let us be fair. There 
is nobody in this Chamber whom I believe can tell me that our President 
is not 100 percent committed to doing the best job he can for our 
Nation. His record on the job as President has proven that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a distinguished member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, many have compared President Clinton's 
problems with Watergate. There are similarities as well as 
distinctions.
  A probable similarity is this: If President Nixon and President 
Clinton had offered sincere apologies in timely fashions, their 
respective problems would likely have been resolved. If, when initially 
confronted, they had responded truthfully in a manner worthy of their 
high office, the severity of their problems likely would have 
diminished: ``American people, I made a mistake. I disappointed you. I 
let you down. I ask your forgiveness.''
  If such requests had been timely extended, forgiveness would likely 
have been forthcoming, because Americans by nature are a forgiving 
people. I am applying hindsight, Mr. Speaker, which

[[Page H7602]]

is nearly always 20/20. But the time for forgiveness may have passed, 
and now this demanding task of resolving the matter is upon this, the 
people's House.
  The success of our Constitution is measured with the courage of those 
in whom it vests powers to carry them out in a just and appropriate 
manner. This resolution will assure that the Committee on the Judiciary 
is able to ascertain what we need to do to accomplish that task.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few instances in this Chamber where 
bipartisanship is required. There are almost no instances where 
fairness is required. Bipartisanship is not even required when we are 
declaring war. As we saw in the way the Gulf War was handled, there 
were divisions among us, and yet we came together.
  But Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship and fairness are necessary in a 
procedure that could overturn a democratic election. We are failing the 
joint test of bipartisanship and fairness this morning on the easiest 
of the issues of this proceeding, access to an accusatory document by 
the accused.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spent my life in the law arguing matters of due 
process, down to including first amendment matters, where I was 
defending the rights of racists to vindicate the right of free speech. 
I can say to the Members that I believe history will ask, what would 
have been lost if the President had been given a day or two to inspect 
documents that accused him? Ten days for Members accused, no day for 
the President of the United States when he is accused.
  We could have regulated how the document would be inspected. We could 
have sequestered those who would inspect it. There are any number of 
conditions, but the notion of no inspection does violate fundamental 
fairness.
  Impeachment is a matter of a process that we make up as we go along. 
Particularly because this Chamber is not controlled by the President's 
party, they should be at pains to bend over backwards on each and every 
element of fairness. They have failed to do so in this proceeding.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding Member 
from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible thing for the Nation to have to go 
through, and not one of us should feel anything but sadness and pain. 
But Congress has a solemn responsibility to undertake this review of 
the report of the independent counsel.
  As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stated earlier 
today, we took an oath on our first day in this Chamber, an oath to 
defend the Constitution of the United States. It is that Constitution 
that places this responsibility upon us. This is a sad day. When I came 
to Congress I would have never believed we would have to consider such 
a resolution during my service here. It is a solemn responsibility.
  But we may not cede our oversight responsibility to watch over the 
government. Every Member of the House, in doing so, would be abdicating 
one of the most important obligations charged us by our Founding 
Fathers.
  Ronald Reagan stated on the 250th anniversary of the birth of 
President George Washington that without President Washington stepping 
forward, our Nation might have failed. He said that George Washington, 
and I quote, ``was a man of deep faith who believed the pillars of 
society were religion, morality, and bonds of brotherhood between 
citizens. He personified a people who knew it was not enough to depend 
on their own courage and goodness. They must also seek help from God, 
their father and preserver.''
  As we begin this process, we must put our trust in the courage and 
judgment of this sober body. We must put our faith in God to lead us 
during this very difficult time. I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution. I asked myself three questions: Is the public's right to 
know paramount to the right of the accused to a fair hearing? My answer 
to that is no. That has always been the answer of our country.
  Is there any precedent for what we are doing? My answer to that is 
no. We gave the defendant McVeigh and the defendant who shot police 
officers in this Chamber more due process than we are extending to the 
President of the United States. We fight to keep from having pretrial 
publicity and information out there, to assure fair trials, and we give 
it up today when we release this report.
  Now, having dug ourselves this hole, can we provide a fair 
determination and fulfill our constitutional responsibility, with the 
public and the press second-guessing every single step and every single 
evaluation? It is like having the press and the public standing and 
saying to every single juror, ``We have already made up our mind. Now 
you go provide a fair trial and a fair process.''

                              {time}  1115

  On all three counts we have failed the system.
  This is a sad day from two perspectives. It is a sad day that we are 
here in the first place, but it is an even sadder day for what we are 
doing to the Constitution and to our obligations under that 
Constitution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I came here to this House at the same time 
as the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. I heard the questions raised so far 
on this proceeding and I watched the Rules Committee last night. Just 
to show how dull things were on television, I watched the Committee on 
Rules on television last night.
  Mr. Speaker, to me, I get the feeling that this is, ``Give him a fair 
trial and then hang him.'' Now, what is the difference in the courtesy 
that we extended Richard Nixon and our distinguished Speaker, and that 
extended to the President of the United States? After all, he 
supposedly speaks for all of us. Fifty percent of the people did not 
vote for Republicans or Democrats. They were split up. Fifty percent of 
the people said, we do not want to vote for anybody.
  This is, in my view, an unfair rule. I hope that I would never have 
to come to this body for defense of my civil rights and to get fairness 
from the Committee on the Judiciary if this rule goes into effect. And 
there are already members of this committee that have made up their 
minds that Clinton has to go.
  Mr. Speaker, to me, this is a facade. It is absolutely ridiculous. It 
is a travesty. And right now I am going to vote against the rule, and I 
would just tell all Members of this House, if they vote against this 
rule, the press releases are already out that they are going to defend 
the President and stand with him and the message will go to their 
districts that they do not want the truth to be seen.
  This is political, and I regret it; and it is one of the reasons that 
I am going to be so glad to be out of here.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to be out of here too, but I am not going to 
be glad about it. It is a great institution, and I am certainly going 
to miss it.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but listen to the last two speakers from 
North Carolina, and others. I wish they had stayed on the floor earlier 
on when the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority 
leader, was here imploring the Members to have proper decorum and to 
cooperate in a bipartisan and nonpartisan basis.
  Mr. Speaker, let me refer to the law. Section 595(c).
  Mr. CONYERS. Regular order. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman on his own 
time?
  The SPEAKER. The time is counted around the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HEFNER. Will the gentleman yield? He mentioned my name.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I did not mention the gentleman's name.
  Mr. HEFNER. I am from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, I will not yield.

[[Page H7603]]

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of 
personal privilege.
  The SPEAKER. A point of Personal privilege is not in order at this 
time. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) controls the floor.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it again. Some complain 
about the President not being given prior notice; I think the arguments 
are unfounded. The Democrats controlled this place in 1978 when this 
initial law was put into place. Nothing in the law, and it is only one 
paragraph here, speaks to giving anyone notice when a report is given 
to this Congress.
  This law has been reauthorized three times, the latest in 1994 when 
this House was again controlled by Democrats. Nothing was in it. Let me 
read it to my colleagues.
  ``Schedule C: Information relating to impeachment. An independent 
counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial 
and credible information which such independent counsel receives.'' It 
goes on to say that they may constitute grounds for an impeachment.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the law. We should have written it in the last 
five times. We did not for reasons.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Chairman Solomon) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The American people paid 
for this report. They have a right to see it immediately without any 
spin.
  With regard to this rule on the Starr report, we need to make the 
report public immediately for these reasons:
  1. Immediate release on the internet will prevent the selective leak 
of information both favorable and unfavorable to the President.
  2. The American people, as taxpayers, have a right to see the report, 
complete and unedited by the media or other sources. This method 
provides access to the report to everyone at the same time. They paid 
for this report. Let us give it to them.
  3. Internet release is the least partisan method of releasing the 
information. No one has any advantage in spinning the information for 
their own purposes.
  4. The report is now property of the House of Representatives, as the 
Constitutionally authorized body to determine whether impeachment is 
warranted. If anyone should be able to review the material, it should 
be the House, and then the President, not the reverse.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first stage of what will be an incredibly 
difficult and delicate challenge to this body. I am saddened by the 
tone of antagonism and mistrust that is already starting to creep into 
the proceedings.
  Perhaps the flaws in this resolution do not equal a violation of 
fundamental fairness. Due process, of course, is different from the 
fairness inherent in due courtesy and due comity. But let me ask my 
colleagues, would there have been any real cost to a better protection 
of the rights of innocent persons to their privacy? I think not.
  Would there have been any real cost to a fuller courtesy to the 
President of the United States, regardless of statutory or precedential 
provisions? I think not.
  Would there have been any real cost to greater comity to the requests 
of the minority in order to assure a fuller sense of nonpartisanship in 
this matter? I think not.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time in our 
country's history, and we must proceed with the utmost care in 
fulfilling our constitutional responsibility, wherever it might take 
us.
  It is altogether fitting that the independent counsel's report be 
made available to the American people, Members of Congress, and the 
President simultaneously. From the outset, this process must be open 
and fair to all, with advantage to none.
  As we go forward, we do so not as partisans, but as fact-finders and 
truth-seekers. And we go forward together, the American people and 
their representatives in Congress, united in our love of country and in 
our desire to seek a wise and just result.
  There is a passage in the scriptures where King Solomon says, ``Give 
therefore thy servant an understanding heart * * *'' That is what is 
needed during this time of our national tribulation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon) the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a sign that hung over my wall when I served as 
U.S. Attorney, and I brought it with me to Washington and it now hangs 
in my office here. It is a quote by Theodore Roosevelt, a former 
President. ``No man is above the law, no man is below the law, nor do 
we seek any man's permission when we seek to make him uphold the law.''
  That is very applicable here today as we discuss the law. I would 
remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who now wail so 
loudly in favor of special dispensation for the President, what law it 
is that we are operating under here and what law we are not operating 
under here.
  Mr. Speaker, we are operating here under the independent counsel 
statute, which provides very specifically for the treatment of 
different reports by an independent counsel. We are not proceeding here 
under the ethics rules. We are not proceeding here under the Federal 
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  The independent counsel statute, which was referred to just recently 
by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and which the minority, when 
they were in the majority, had every opportunity just 5 years ago to 
amend and they did not, provides very simply, very unequivocally, very 
clearly that the independent counsel report that we are talking about 
here, which is not a report to the court, is not a periodic report to 
the Congress; it is a report directly and solely to the Congress and 
not to any other party for purposes of the Congress to consider what 
the independent counsel believes is impeachable evidence, evidence of 
impeachable offenses.
  If, in fact, the minority, which was then in the majority just a few 
years ago, was so concerned about the principle involved here, aside 
from the personalities that now prevail, if they were so concerned 
about providing special dispensation for the President to have advance 
access to that report from the independent counsel, so he could go to 
the American people and spin it and distort it, then they could have 
written it into the statute.
  Mr. Speaker, it is too late now to do that. The statute speaks for 
itself, just as the evidence will speak for itself.
  I support this resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of remarks today, some good and some 
maybe not so good. I would like to come at it from a different 
perspective.
  When I was first elected to this body, I never contemplated the 
possibility that I would have to address the potential of impeachment, 
and I think that many of us feel exactly the same way. But here we are, 
and we all swore to uphold the Constitution. This is what I would like 
to address my remarks to.
  Some have characterized what we may go through as a constitutional 
crisis. I would emphasize that this is not a constitutional crisis. The 
issue that brings us here today, the method of disseminating the 
information in the independent counsel's report, however, may result in 
a crisis. It may result in a crisis of governance. It may result in a 
crisis in the confidence of the people that elected us, but it is not a 
constitutional crisis.
  Our Constitution clearly lays out a process in which we should 
discharge our duty. This is the start of that process.

[[Page H7604]]

  Mr. Speaker, last week before I returned to Washington, D.C., I had 
dinner in my district with a group of Russian professionals. At that 
time, Russia was in the middle of a crisis where there was no prime 
minister and there was a very real threat that the government might be 
dissolved. There clearly was apprehension in this delegation. My 
colleagues should recall that until yesterday, this issue was 
unresolved. Now, that is what I would characterize as a constitutional 
crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, as we go through this process, let us keep in mind that 
this issue is very serious, but it is not a crisis of that fact. I 
would just say that this really demonstrates to me that the Founding 
Fathers, what they wrote in our Constitution does indeed work. The 
burden now is on us.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), another member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, this resolution begins a journey in 
which the path will be treacherous and the conclusion is uncertain. The 
journey should be guided by the Constitution, the law, and our 
conscience.
  This resolution is a step in the right direction on that journey. It 
follows the precedence of the House and it is fair. Would it be more 
fair to withhold the release of the report to Members of this body and 
to the public, in other words to allow the President a head start in 
reviewing the report? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is fair and the chairman of the 
committee has done an outstanding job in working with the minority 
ranking member in order to assure a fair process.
  As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have supreme 
confidence that the committee will provide the President an ample 
opportunity and a fair opportunity to respond. This process should not 
be a stampede to impeachment, but it should be a search for truth and 
justice with an allegiance to the Constitution. That is my commitment. 
That should be our commitment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, first, they mentioned ``the two gentlemen 
from North Carolina,'' and I am one of them. I do not know if I am a 
gentleman, but as far as the decorum of the House, I certainly, if I 
offended anybody, I apologize. I am so sorry if I hurt anybody's 
feelings, delicate feelings in the House.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there is one question that has not been answered. 
By this weekend on all the talk shows, all the things that are in the 
report are going to be on ``Meet the Press'' and ``Face the Nation.'' 
Somebody is leaking this.
  I am not making accusations, but somebody is leaking this and I would 
like to have an explanation and an answer as to where these leaks are 
coming from, because it does not behoove us to just say, well, we have 
them under lock and key here.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the intention of this 
Member was to come here this morning, point out my reservations about 
this rule, this proceeding, and vote for it. But I have been exposed to 
the debate now, and I will not be able to justify my support.
  I am announcing to those Members on my side that I have told I was 
going to support the report, I am not going to vote in the affirmative. 
And I regret it very much because it was important to me that we 
continue the comity that we have worked so hard on.
  Here is why. The independent counsel whom I have lectured to almost 
daily from this well and for whom I have had certain reservations about 
his overzealousness has done the Congress one important service. In his 
only communication that I know of to the Speaker and to the minority 
leader, he said in two sentences something that I think we are not 
following, and I commend it to your attention.
  It is this: ``This referral,'' not report, ``This Referral contains 
confidential material and material protected from disclosure by Rule 
6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.'' That is Starr 
talking to the Congress. Then he went on to say, ``Many of the 
supporting materials contain information of a personal nature that I 
respectfully urge the House to treat as confidential.''
  It was with that understanding that, in the Office of the Speaker and 
with the leaders of this body we entered into an agreement that I 
regretfully have to tell you has been broken. It has been broken. My 
heart has been broken before. Agreements have been broken before.
  But in this instance, we are violating the directions of the 
independent counsel who now, in his fifth year, and I love these 
reports about how the American people are waiting for this. The 
majority of the American people would accept a resolution saying we 
shall never mention this matter again for the rest of all of our 
honorable and distinguished careers. That is what the majority of the 
American people want. Twenty-five thousand people would like to see it 
if it is there.
  But since we are worried about the contents: ``Impeachment Report 
Contends Clinton Lied, Obstructed Justice; Alleged Deceit Is 
Outlined.''
  ``Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report to the House contends 
there are 11 possible grounds for impeachment of President Clinton, 
including allegations that he lied under oath, tampered with witnesses, 
obstructed justice, and abused power to hide his affair with Monica S. 
Lewinsky, according to sources informed about some of its contents.''
  That is in the paper. Yet my colleagues are now urging me to tell our 
Members to release everything, thousands and thousands of pages. 
Explain to me one procedural method. How can 35 Members with at least 
one staffer each go through thousands and thousands of pages of 
documents?
  I ask in the comity that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I 
have pledged to work with, the friendship that the Speaker and I have 
enjoyed over these last 48 hours, that we please move away from this 
course of action. I urge that this resolution be defeated.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, after that eloquent address, it is only 
appropriate that the closing for our side would be the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, not only because he is the Chairman, but 
because he has also, in 24 years, been the Member that has been held 
in, I would say, the highest esteem by all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to close for our side.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would not call for a vote on that last 
statement the gentleman from New York made, but I do thank him for his 
generous remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, fundamental fairness is a phrase that has been bandied 
around here. I did not hear that much when one of the marvelous, 
articulate spokesmen for the administration declared war on Kenneth 
Starr; and that war is still going on, volley after volley on MSNBC, 
CNBC, on and on and on, not to mention other spokesmen for the 
administration, talented issuers of insults and vitriol. There was not 
much due process or fairness there.
  We have congratulated ourselves on saying no man is above the law, 
but this is not a criminal proceeding. There is no legal requirement 
for an answer to a complaint from the White House. We on the Committee 
on the Judiciary are smart enough and of such goodwill that we are 
going to wait and we are going to hear what the President has to say. 
We are going to give it every possible consideration.
  The only requirement for an early copy to the White House is a public 
relations one. We have had the public relations feel for as long as the 
independent counsel has been appointed. By the way, the spin is working 
well here in this room. My colleagues refer to him as the special 
prosecutor, not the independent counsel. He is not a prosecutor on the 
law my colleagues passed, which did not provide for advanced copies to 
objects of investigation, as my colleagues wrote it. So we have a 
public

[[Page H7605]]

relations requirement that I hope my colleagues do not think we are 
fundamentally unfair in not wanting to give special treatment to the 
White House. Equality, not special treatment.
  I do not have to tell my colleagues that these theaters of operations 
have shifted from the White House to the Grand Jury to this chamber. We 
are governed by what we all vote for.
  I can assure my colleagues the only bipartisan thing in this whole 
resolution, after listening to this debate, is the bipartisan demand 
for immediate release of this report. I can tell my colleagues the 
vigor and rigor with which those demands have come from the other side 
is in no way less than the vigor and the rigor of the demands on our 
side.
  We put this to a vote, we know what is going to happen, and we are 
the servants of this body. So there is no way we could change that.
  Due process, fundamental fairness will be observed. I can assure my 
colleagues this whole proceeding will fail, it will fall on its face if 
it is not perceived by the American people to be fair.
  I keenly regret what I have heard this morning, a debate that has 
been really partisan. Bipartisanship cuts two ways, folks. It does not 
mean surrender. It means thoughtful, sincere, honorable consideration 
of differing views and trying to reach an accommodation.
  I pledge myself, even though the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) has changed his mind, I pledge myself to work with him as 
closely as humanly possible so we do have that bipartisan result from 
our efforts.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for this resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this resolution because I 
have grave reservations about the process under this House resolution 
that provides no check for the relevance or veracity of the information 
contained in the Starr report, and which denies the President the 
fairness that the House has afforded its own Members.
  This report is a prosecutor's version of a case, no more and no less. 
It evolves from a grand jury investigation that affords witnesses no 
opportunity for representation by counsel and no rebuttal for 
witnesses. If the accused were a House Member, He would have been 
afforded time to review the report and prepare a response. Our own 
Speaker Gingrich was given five days to read and respond to the Ethics 
report detailing his wrong doing; the Speaker's response was included 
in the document made available to the public by the Ethics Committee. 
Speaker Gingrich forgets that fairness he was afforded as he casts the 
first stone today at the President.
  As we vote today, we do not know where the truth will take us. But we 
must not plunge into McCarthy era demagoguery in which salacious 
slander replaces responsible governing.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, this House has under consideration the 
issue of how best to deal with the report submitted by Independent 
Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. Mr. Starr has spent almost four years 
investigating the president and more recently, the allegations 
surrounding President Clinton and his admitted extramarital 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
  I have been extremely disappointed with the President's behavior. I 
do not believe it is appropriate conduct for the President of the 
United States. However, the issues contained in the Starr Report also 
deal with issues of alleged legal impropriety. Those are the issues 
which should be our focus as we consider our duty under the 
Constitution.
  I will vote today to release portions of the Starr Report to the 
public. I regret that the Republican majority of this House is opposed 
to giving the President an opportunity to read the allegations 
contained in the report before we make them public, because I believe 
that is unfair. We gave House Speaker Newt Gingrich that opportunity 
when allegations against him were being considered by the Congress.
  However, I believe it is important the public have access to certain 
information in the Starr Report. I remain reluctant to make every 
detail--secret grand jury information, classified national security 
documents, or unconfirmed information which may unnecessarily involve 
innocent individuals--available for everyone in the world to read. On 
this matter, the House Judiciary Committee will be responsible for 
further action and recommendations to Congress.
  Before I make any further judgment, I want to read the Starr Report. 
Then, I want to hear the President's response to the allegations made 
in the report. At that time, I will consider the evidence presented to 
me as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and take any action 
I believe appropriate.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, since Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has 
delivered a report to Congress with evidence of possible impeachable 
offenses, the House of Representatives is required by the United States 
Constitution to review this information. Along with the power to 
declare war, the power to draft articles of impeachment is among the 
most solemn and serious powers given to the House by the Constitution.
  The vote today to release the report is not an indictment against the 
president. The House has not voted to impeach the president, nor to 
proceed with an inquiry of impeachment. We have voted to make this 
report available to members of Congress, the President, and the 
American public. We have also voted to give the Judiciary Committee the 
authority to review all of the supporting documents to determine if 
there is evidence that the President has committed impeachable 
offenses.
  Our decision today on how to handle the report is fair. The law 
requires Judge Starr to submit information to Congress if he has found 
credible evidence of impeachable offenses. The President, like the 
Congress, did not get an advance copy. Like any other American, he will 
not receive special treatment, he will receive fair treatment.
  The public has a right to review the report, and innocent parties 
have a right to have their privacy preserved. The Judiciary Committee 
will be the only body with access to the supporting documentation. 
However, by making the report public, the American people will be able 
to decide for themselves what the report says rather than having the 
information filtered through media or government sources.
  For the stability of the country and the preservation of our 
democracy, we must proceed with a spirit of bipartisanship that rises 
above politics and ideological differences. If the Judiciary Committee 
determines that there are impeachable offenses, and forwards its 
findings to the entire House, Members of the House will effectively 
serve as jurors. We must look at the facts in an objective and fair 
manner. We must leave our own personal and political predispositions at 
the door. Our decisions must be made on the evidence and the law.
  Like every other member of the House, I plan to review the report in 
its entirety over the weekend. I urge every American to read the report 
and make their own judgements in a sober, serious manner.
  To make the report more easily accessible to people in Wyoming, I 
want them to know that an electronic copy of the report will be posed 
on the Internet on the following official government sites:
  Library of Congress--THOMAS--http://thomas.loc.gov/icreport.
  Government Printing Office--http://access.gpo.gov/congress/icreport.
  House Committee on Judiciary--http://www.house.gov/judiciary.
  House of Representatives--http://www.house.gov/icreport.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker. I know that all of my colleagues recognize 
the gravity of the situation before us. We must bring to this matter 
every ounce of wisdom and thoughtfulness and nonpartisanship possible.
  The statute authorizing the independent counsel requires that the 
House be notified of any substantial and credible information that may 
be grounds for impeachment. The independent counsel has fulfilled his 
statutory obligation. The House must now fulfill its constitutional 
responsibility to thoroughly review this material.
  It is not the independent counsel who decides what is impeachable. 
That responsibility rests solely with the House. Included in this 
resolution is a requirement that three sections of the report be made 
public as soon as is physically possible. This is appropriate. The 
Democrats on behalf of the President's criminal defense lawyer seek to 
have access to the report prior to its dissemination to the public. 
Obedience to criminal law and fundamental fairness does not recognize 
special treatment as requested by the minority. The law authorizing the 
independent counsel does not authorize an advance copy to the subject 
of the investigation.
  I support the resolution and urge its adoption.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the 
public disclosure of the Starr report, to end questions regarding the 
report's content. The gravity of this historical moment cannot be 
underestimated. Few responsibilities will ever rise to this 
responsibility Congress now confronts. Throughout this difficult 
process, the public will always retain the right to be fully informed. 
The Congress, as well as the President, has such a duty to so inform.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution.
  We all agree that we have a serious responsibility to fulfill our 
Constitutional duty as members of Congress in the matter before us. 
But, it is of utmost importance that we proceed in a spirit of 
fairness.

[[Page H7606]]

  Sadly, it now appears at the very outset that the majority has 
rejected any semblance of fairness in favor of blatant partisanship. To 
refuse to give the President of the United States the basic courtesy of 
reviewing the charges made by the most far-reaching Independent Counsel 
in history is shameful. Is this the America we want for ourselves and 
our children, where individual rights are trampled on to such a degree 
that accusations against a person are posted on the internet before 
they are presented to the accused? I am afraid that this is only the 
beginning of more abuses to come. How can members of this body who have 
loudly insisted that the President resign possibly give him a fair 
hearing? I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Let us reject 
this cheap, partisan approach and instead chart a fair, objective and 
honorable course as we undertake this serious responsibility.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues, who 
more eloquently than I, argue for fairness and decorum in the process 
we are about to embark on.
  This investigation, Mr. Speaker, and therefore this report is a 
document born out of political machinations. It is the result of a more 
than 6 year relentless attack on the President of the United States, 
which many of us believe began because his policies and political 
philosophy favor people of color and the less fortunate in our country, 
as well as because of his economic policies and high favorability with 
the American people.
  I personally do not feel that the full report should be made public. 
No public good would be served, only opposing political interests. 
Additionally, it would further demean the office of the President as 
well as the Congress and further demoralize a public that has said over 
and over again: ``Enough is enough, lets get on with the important 
issues facing this country.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is only fair to grant the request of the President 
and his attorney's for some time to review the report before it is made 
public. Even if the Republican leadership does not think that Bill 
Clinton deserves two days to review the report, then I offer to you 
that the President of the United States--whomever he might be--is due 
at least that amount of respect and consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a sad day for America. It is a sad day, 
not because of what the President has done, or the ensuing media 
feeding frenzy, but because of the willingness of some members of the 
Republican Party and its cohorts of the conservative, so called 
``Christian'' Right, to sacrifice the presidency and the integrity of 
the Congress on the altar of political expediency.
  Let us be decent people and the upstanding representatives the 
American people elected us to be. We must respect the Presidency and 
give the President the time he has requested. We must also do as Judge 
Starr has asked us and protect the confidentiality of the sensitive 
material the report includes. Let us be fair--vote against this unfair 
rule!
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, two days ago, after months of speculation, 
leaks and revelations, the report of the Independent Counsel was 
delivered to the House of Representatives. If this resolution is 
approved this morning, the report will be in the hands of millions of 
people around the globe by three o'clock this afternoon.
  I certainly agree that the report should be released. That is not 
even an issue. It will be released. The only question is when and how 
it should be done. For in exercising the responsibilities that the 
Constitution has thrust upon us, we must be sure that we proceed in a 
manner that observes the principles of fundamental fairness that are at 
the heart of that document.
  Only then will the American people accept the results, whatever they 
may be. Only then will we begin to restore the shaken confidence of the 
Nation in its political institutions.
  In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I consider the resolution before us 
today to be our first test. For in deciding the terms under which the 
highly sensitive material contained in the report should be released to 
the public, we must weigh carefully the benefits of immediate 
disclosure against the damage this might do to the fairness of the 
investigation.
  If the resolution is agreed to, the entire 445 pages of the report 
will be posted on the Internet this very afternoon. Not a page of it 
will have been examined beforehand by any member of the Committee. Not 
one page will have been seen first by the President and his attorneys.
  Some have argued that we should release the report because the 
essence of it has already been leaked to the press and appears in this 
morning's editions. If that is true, it is to be deplored, and the 
Independent Counsel should have to answer for it. But we should not 
endorse the unauthorized disclosure of pieces of the report by 
prematurely releasing the rest of it.
  Some have argued that the President already knows what is in the 
report because he is the subject of it. This argument suggests, at 
best, a poor understanding of what goes into a prosecutor's report.
  Some have argued that we should go ahead and release the report 
because there are still some 2,000 pages of supporting material that 
will not be released without Committee review, and this will be 
sufficient to prevent irreparable harm to lives and reputations. They 
cite Mr. Starr's request that we treat certain information in the 
supporting material as confidential, apparently inferring that the 
information in the report itself does not require such treatment. Yet 
Mr. Starr did not say this. And even if he had, it is for this House to 
determine what information should be disclosed. We should not abdicate 
that responsibility to the Independent Counsel.
  Apart from whatever damage the abrupt disclosure of the report might 
cause to innocent third parties, it will clearly be prejudicial to the 
President's defense. If the Independent Counsel has done his job, the 
case he has constructed will be a persuasive one. Prosecutors have 
enormous power to shape the evidence presented to the grand jury. And--
at least at the federal level--they have no obligation to apprise the 
jurors of exculpatory evidence. The case will seem airtight. Yet until 
the evidence has withstood cross-examination and the allegations have 
been proven, they remain nothing more than allegations.
  Presidents, no less than ordinary citizens, are entitled to the 
presumption of innocence. They are entitled to confront the charges 
against them. Yet, if we adopt this resolution, by the time President 
Clinton is accorded that right, the charges against him will have 
circled the globe many times. They will be all the public reads and 
hears. They will take on a life of their own, and the case will be 
tried, not by Congress, but in the court of public opinion.
  Given these risks, why rush to judgment, Mr. Speaker? After so many 
months, what possible harm can come from allowing the counsel for the 
President a few days to review the report so that they can tell his 
side of the story?
  In the one historical precedent we have to look to, that is precisely 
what was done. Twenty-four years ago, a Republican president was under 
investigation by a Democratic House. President Nixon's lawyers were 
permitted to participate in seven weeks of closed sessions, as the 
Judiciary Committee conducted a confidential review of Judge Sirica's 
grand jury materials prior to their release. The counsel to the 
President was even allowed to cross-examine witnesses before their 
testimony was made public.
  Whatever the differences may be between the current controversy and 
the Watergate affair, President Clinton should receive the same due 
process protections accorded to President Nixon in the course of that 
investigation.
  If the people of the United States are to accept our virdict--
whatever it may be--they must have confidence in the fairness and 
integrity of our deliberations. That--far more than the fate of one 
particular president--is what is at stake.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
resolution.
  I commend the Chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Solomon. Today the 
House embarks upon the first step of a Constitutional process that our 
commitment to the rule of law. Besides declaring war, this is the most 
important duty that the House could undertake. As Chairman Henry Hyde 
has stated, we are about to embark on a judicial inquiry that will 
uphold our ``Viable and Venerable Constitution.''


                         constitutional process

  I must stress that this process is not and should not be about 
politics. Partisan sniping has no place in this process. The entire 
Nation, indeed, the world will be watching the House of Representatives 
and they will be seeing our Constitution on display. Indeed, it is that 
document--the Constitution--that must be our guide in this process, not 
politics.


                          immediate disclosure

  The immediate public release of the 445-page written report is 
essential to this process. Delayed release or partial release or 
incomplete release will lead first to a trickle and then a torrent of 
leaks, rumors and outright false information.
  The American people deserve better than to learn the details of the 
charges against the President through a cynical cycle of spin and re-
spin. Nothing could be more damaging to this process and--I might add--
to the office of the Presidency. For these reasons, I am confident that 
the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee will release 
the supportive documents as soon as possible and no later than 
September 28, 1998, consistent with their legal obligations.


                           president's right

  Now let me touch upon the President's rights in this process. I am 
committed to maintaining a level of fundamental fairness as the House--
and possibly the Senate--move forward with this constitutional process.

[[Page H7607]]

  Does today's release of this 445 referral compromise the President's 
rights or place him at a legal disadvantage? The answer is a clear 
``no.''
  The President and his lawyers will have plenty of time to craft a 
full defense. (Indeed, if there is any person in this Nation who has 
the tools and the ability to defend himself--it is the President of the 
United States.) That is his right. That represents basic fairness.
  It is important to realize that the process that this resolution 
creates will provide the Independent Counsel's Report to this House, 
the President, and the public at essentially the same time. How can 
this not be fair?


                               conclusion

  It is my sincere belief that this process will prove that our 
Constitution works. Today, that process begins and will only end in an 
impeachment if substantial and credible evidence exists for that 
impeachment. Today's action is NOT meant to prejudge the outcome. We 
must uphold the laws of our free society--our republic will be secure.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, in this Nation, and in this Congress, 
we are confronted with a serious constitutional crisis.
  In everyone's interest, Judge Starr's report should be released to 
the public without delay. For months we have listened to rumors and 
leaks. In order for the credibility of this Congress to remain intact, 
we must be armed with truth and the facts. The American people must 
share this confidence, and the only way to accomplish this, is for the 
information contained in Judge Starr's report to be made public. After 
all this time and the related costs, full disclosure is absolutely 
necessary.
  As a Member of Congress, I will fulfill my duty and obligation to 
review this matter in a tradition of bipartisan cooperation already 
reiterated by the Speaker and Mr. Gephardt. Congress will execute its 
duty under the Constitution, but more importantly, continue to work on 
a legislative agenda which assures Americans that our Nation's economy 
will remain strong by virtue of a Balanced Budget and tax cuts. We will 
also continue our work to increase educational opportunities for our 
children, preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, and reform 
health care in America.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 363, 
nays 63, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 425]

                               YEAS--363

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--63

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Engel
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (CA)
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Owens
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barcia
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HINOJOSA and Mr. RODRIGUEZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________