[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.
____________________