[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9669-H9674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady of Texas). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, rising behind my very able 
colleague, I would be remiss in not joining him in saying that this is 
an issue of great concern. It is a bipartisan issue. It warrants the 
attention of the Nation and of this Congress, and it warrants a 
collaborative effort between the executive and the legislative branch.
  It is for that very reason that I thought it was almost imperative 
that, 1 day after the proceedings in the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, I come to the floor to discuss these issues that now seem to 
take the majority of the time, of the thought and analysis and the 
conscience of America. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise as an American, and I 
speak on the issue of constitutional impeachment.
  I am an American who happens to be a member of the House Committee on 
the Judiciary and, as well, a Democrat. But as I speak about 
constitutional impeachment, I hope that those who may engage in this 
debate or listen to this debate will not be thwarted by the fact that I 
serve on this Nation's House Committee on the Judiciary, may not be 
thwarted by the fact that I am a Democrat, may not label my remarks 
because I am an African American or because I am a woman.

                              {time}  1930

  Frankly I welcome agreement and disagreement. But I would hope in 
this hour we would be able to get away from what has been the 
characterization of this debate over the last couple of weeks, 
partisan, full of labels and misinformation.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is a constitutional discussion. Because of 
that, I would like to begin by reading actually from the Constitution. 
First of all, I think we can all agree that the Declaration of 
Independence which declared us independent was actually the promise and 
the Constitution, working through a very difficult process, was the 
fulfillment.
  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.

  Frankly, this, I think, captured the document we now call the 
Constitution, for obviously writing in 1775 and before, we know that 
now in 1998 those pages would be parched. But frankly Alexander 
Hamilton wanted to ensure that these rights would be sacred, that they 
would last until time was no more. He wrote and he joined others in 
collaborating and writing and debating and speaking to the Constitution 
so that it would be a living document. Frankly, as I have said from the 
very beginning of this process, the President of the United States, who 
also can claim the Constitution, is neither above nor beneath the law. 
The Constitution specifically points to us the people. You are not 
included because you are an elected official or excluded.
  And so its beginning preamble says, ``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 to ourselves 
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the 
United States of America.''
  This is a living document. It is for and by the people. Most of all, 
I think the Founding Fathers coming from places foreign to us that they 
felt were despotic, domineering, overwhelming, they wanted a country 
that fully respected equality. They particularly emphasized the need 
for the three branches of government. They wanted a strong executive 
but also the judiciary and the legislative. And in this discussion and 
in this constitutional impeachment discussion, I remind my colleagues 
in their debate and tone, let us not incite the American people. Let us 
not create hysteria. Let us not draw upon the tragedy and the 
unfortunate events in Philadelphia, where people lifted up in essence 
physically against each other. We do that, you know, in our words and 
how we define this.
  So first of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to elaborate on 
how we got here. First of all, we understand we have got a 
Constitution. In the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, they established a 
provision dealing with the removal of the President and Vice President 
of the United States and other civil officers. In Article 2, Section 4, 
it reads very simply, ``The President, Vice President and all civil 
officers of the United States shall be removed from office on 
impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high 
crimes and misdemeanors.'' Let me emphasize ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors.'' Different from the time that we are in today, our 
Founding Fathers knew that the word ``high'' meant very serious, very 
high, very important, very troubling, very difficult. They did not want 
us to entertain frivolous concerns, because they were particularly 
concerned about us understanding the value of preserving this sovereign 
Nation. And so as the debate has been played out in the eye of the 
American public, there are those who would claim impeachable offenses 
for the President's allegations, or alleged lying to the American 
people. I say alleged, for some would listen and say, ``That's already 
a given,'' because the House Judiciary Committee's work has not been 
done; but yes, it is well recognized that the President's behavior was 
reprehensible. The President has admitted an untruth and admitted 
improper relations.
  Mr. Speaker, even with that, the challenge for those of us who are 
given this high calling is frankly to abide by the Constitution and not 
to presume. Now, I can say tonight that from the minimal work and the 
minimal documentation, I am very uncomfortable with even believing that 
there is any premise for reaching the level of this unconstitutional 
allegations or unconstitutional effort, if you will, to proceed against 
the President for offenses that may not rise to the level of 
constitutional offenses.
  Let me clarify what I said, for I would never want to suggest that we 
have reached an unconstitutional level at this point. But if we follow 
through in the mode in which we are now proceeding, I would think the 
Founding Fathers would say that we are acting unconstitutionally, 
because we are rushing to judgment on offenses that on their face 
clearly do not appear to be constitutionally based as offenses that 
would warrant a constitutional impeachment.
  Martin Luther King, whom I call a legal scholar, trained legally, if 
you will, in fighting injustices, not one that had a law degree, but 
certainly received his scholarship from being on the front line in 
fighting against injustice, said in his letter from a Birmingham jail, 
which many of us are familiar with, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to 
justice everywhere. Whatever affects one directly affects all 
indirectly.''
  So it is important for me to share with the American public how we 
got to where we are today. Frankly, we are operating or operated under 
H. Res. 525. This was a resolution that came to the floor of the House 
September 11, 1998. It came after my appearance and several others who 
appeared in the Rules Committee on September 10, 1998 and argued 
vigorously that if we were to proceed, suggesting that we should move 
under Article 2, Section 4, we should move with a very fine standard in 
the backdrop, and that was that of the Watergate proceedings; chaired 
by Chairman Rodino, then the Democrats in the minority, then a 
Republican President, and, of course, Republicans in the minority on 
that committee. But even with that backdrop, Chairman Rodino, and 
history paints him well, provided a very fair and evenhanded process. 
Debating, yes. A difference of opinion, yes. Political in some sense, 
yes. But remember, now, in contrast to where we are today, on October 
6, 1998, there had been a Senate Watergate proceedings under Sam Ervin, 
there had been at least 3 months of review of the materials that had 
been laid out before the public eye

[[Page H9670]]

through those proceedings, even before the House Judiciary Committee 
considered this thing called inquiry. And so I argued September 10 not 
as a Democrat, not as a member of the House Judiciary Committee already 
predisposed, not as a defender of President William Jefferson Clinton. 
More importantly, I think, I hope that I was defending at that time or 
at least proceeding to comment both constitutionally and as an 
American. I argued that fairness dictated that we follow a very good 
track record, and that was a track record of the Watergate proceedings 
which moved into executive session and reviewed the documentation that 
might have been presented then by the special prosecutor and allowed 
the President's counsel to review, and argued vigorously that we were 
making a very serious mistake by opening the door to dissemination of 
materials of which no one had reviewed.

  Frankly, the arguments were not wholly listened to, and a resolution 
came out of the Rules Committee that moved to the House on September 
11, 1998. But listen to the language of this rule that would have still 
given us an opportunity to follow appropriately very evenhanded 
procedures that were utilized during the Watergate proceedings. H.Res. 
525 reads in part, Section 2:

       The material transmitted to the House by the Independent 
     Counsel shall be considered as referred to the Committee. 
     That is the House Judiciary 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. 
     Materials so released shall immediately be submitted for 
     printing as a document of the House.

  Let me point the Speaker to a very salient point. This material was 
deemed received in executive session and the authority was given over 
to the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, to carefully, 
deliberatively and constitutionally to review this material and 
determine what the appropriate procedures might have been; trust given 
to representatives of both Republicans and Democrats, representatives 
of the American people, representatives of both sides of the aisle, 
trust invested in them as members of the House Judiciary Committee to 
appropriately review this material and, therefore, give its best 
judgment to the House as to how it should proceed. Unfortunately, our 
colleagues, Republican colleagues in that committee chose not to follow 
what I thought was constitutionally grounded in the very fine 
proceedings that were offered as a backdrop and as a study or a place 
of study, the Watergate proceedings, and then did nothing for a period 
of days but meet to release. Out of that came the hysteria and what now 
is a challenge to these constitutional proceedings.
  The argument made by my Republican friends was that the people's 
right to know, America's right to know, and tragically I agreed with my 
earlier stance, continue to agree with that, was absolutely the wrong 
premise, for the premise was based upon more of the people's right to 
know and not the reflection of the somberness of the responsibility 
that the Founding Fathers gave this that you do not go easily into the 
day to impeach the President of the United States. This is not a 
discussion about the Democratic President or the Republican President. 
It is a discussion about the Presidency of the United States of 
America, one again where the Founding Fathers refused to take lightly. 
In fact as they defined high crimes and misdemeanors, they refused to 
accept the definition of maladministration, something that was done by 
the President, and I will get into that further, that you did not like 
or you did like.
  So when we voted on September 11, and I voted enthusiastically 
against the release of these documents, including the 445 pages, we in 
essence gave authority to the House Judiciary Committee not to do as I 
believe we should have been doing, which is to deliberate, to study and 
to review and to move carefully into a process that may result in a 
very considered vote on an impeachment inquiry. But what we did is to 
throw into a House Judiciary Committee that seemed hell-bent, if you 
will, on releasing documents with minimal review. Yes, the staff has 
indicated that they have reviewed every single piece of paper. Review 
may be taken in a more general term. They have touched it, they have 
looked at it. Frankly, I would take great issue in that, Mr. Speaker, 
because I believe if people of good will had been able to review 
extensively all of the documents that were released, they would not 
have released such salacious, pornographic materials not for the Nation 
to see but for the world to see.
  So our first error was to ignore the rule of this House, a rule that 
I had hoped would have, more than not, sent these materials totally in 
executive session and asked us to carry on our deliberative work, but 
the rule that was passed did actually send the materials in executive 
session and gave to the authority of the Judiciary Committee the right 
to distribute these materials and, of course, our Republican majority 
decided that it was more important to flutter and clutter the American 
airwaves, the international airwaves and to create mass hysteria around 
allegations by this Office of Independent Counsel, allegations rather 
than referrals.

                              {time}  1945

  Let me go to the next unfortunate circumstance that provides, I 
think, difficulty in the referral by the Office of Independent Counsel. 
We must realize that during Watergate there was no such Office of 
Independent Counsel. It was called a special prosecutor. A man that I 
have great respect for was that special prosecutor.
  Certainly we all are aware or remember the midnight massacre. Well 
Leon Jaworski came after that, a special prosecutor, a Texan, a great 
American, a man who upheld and believed in the integrity and the 
ethical premise of the law. He did his job, and out of his work came 
enormous or a number of prosecutions or indictments. His grand jury in 
fact actually performed, and he presented to the House Committee on the 
Judiciary not a list of allegations and an indictable document or a 
document that was to be considered an indictment; he frankly present to 
the House Judiciary Committee facts and materials of which they had the 
responsibility to review and to assess.
  Let me tell you what came about through this independent counsel, Mr. 
Starr. He did not receive or nor did he attempt to receive judicial 
assent, such as it was, sought by the independent counsel prior to 
sending the referral to Congress and to do anything to assure fairness.
  The contrast to the Watergate experience could not be more striking. 
In that earlier case it will be recalled the Watergate special 
prosecution force did not send to Congress an argumentative or 
inflammatory document, but rather a simple road map which merely 
summarized and identified the location of relevant evidence. Moreover, 
this document was submitted for review by Judge Sirica, the supervising 
judge of the grand jury before it was sent to the House of 
Representatives. Counsel for President Nixon was given notice and an 
opportunity to be heard before the report was sent to Congress.
  This is not an attempt for cover-up. This is an attempt to appreciate 
the basic fairness upon which we operate and the constitutional premise 
of due process.
  Judge Sirica carefully reviewed the report explicitly finding that it 
constituted a fair summary of the grand jury's evidence. It draws no 
accusatory conclusions, it contains no recommendations, advice or 
statements that infringe on the prerogatives of other branches of 
government.
  My friends, this is extremely, extremely important because the OIC, 
the Office of Independent Counsel, is not the judiciary, it is not the 
legislative branch. In fact, it is not the executive. It is almost a 
fourth arm of government and bears extensive review itself. It is a 
frightening element of which this Congress should surely review for its 
fairness and its properness.
  It renders no moral or social judgment. I am continuing to read from 
Judge Sirica's report. The report is a simple and straightforward 
compilation of information gathered by the grand jury and no more. The 
special prosecutor has obviously taken care to assure that its report 
contains no objectionable features and has throughout acted in the 
interests of fairness.
  In this case, on the other hand, the independent counsel went not to 
the

[[Page H9671]]

supervising grand jury judge, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, but 
rather to the special division for the purpose of appointing 
independent counsels of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia which had appointed him independent counsel almost 
exactly 4 years earlier. There was no notice for the President, no 
opportunity for counsel to be heard on the propriety or fairness of any 
referral to Congress, nor did the independent counsel submit a report 
for the special division to review if it had been so, if had been so 
inclined. Instead, the independent counsel sought and received a blank 
check from the special division to include in its referral which would 
not be drafted and submitted to Congress until 2 months later all grand 
jury material that the independent counsel deems necessary to comply 
with the requirements of Section 595.
  Against this back drop it is critical that the Committee on the 
Judiciary develop standards that would warrant us understanding what 
impeachable offenses are, and so against a very evenhanded back drop 
that the Watergate special prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski, participated in, 
going to the court, allowing Mr. Nixon's counsel to review, making sure 
that there was an evenhanded review, having the judge give credence and 
approval to the approach, we had a completely contrary perspective or a 
contrary approach used by Mr. Starr.
  This strikes at the very premise of constitutionality and the basis 
upon which I frankly think that we should proceed.
  So what we had was a document presented to us, 445 pages, a document 
full of allegations, an indictment document, and, by the way, a grand 
jury that still remains open, that has not acted in any sense, that has 
not indicted or not in any event made any statements about this other 
than to have witnesses come forward as it relates in particular to the 
incidents with Monica Lewinsky.
  Let me share with you why I think that the backdrop or the Watergate 
is a standard that could be utilized. As I proceed, you will have my 
admit or concede the point that the Republicans now argue, that they 
are following the Watergate model. But you will also hear me counter 
that it may be a little too late at this time, too late and certainly 
not timely for what we needed to have been doing early on.
  In the committee's report, the staff report dated February 1974, it 
was very clear what the staff perceived and how the Committee on the 
Judiciary would operate. Although staff at that time provided insight, 
certainly they did not have the final word. But I think this language 
is very helpful to us as we think about how we should proceed here and 
how we can get back on the right track.
  Delicate issues of basic constitutional law are involved, the staff 
said. Those issues cannot be defined in detail in advance of a full 
investigation of the facts. The Supreme Court of the United States does 
not reach out in the abstract to rule on the constitutionality of 
statutes or of conduct. Cases must be brought and adjudicated on 
particular facts in terms of the Constitution.
  Similarly, now the staff has suggesting as the House committee in 
1974 was about to proceed, the House does not engage in abstract, 
advisory or hypothetical debates about the precise nature of conduct 
that calls for the exercise of its constitutional powers. Rather it 
must await full development of the facts and the understanding of the 
events to which those facts relate.
  My friends and Mr. Speaker, before we can even understand the facts, 
before we can make any sense out of Mr. Starr's referral, these matters 
were thrown to the American people. There were no discussions on 
establishing standards and matching those standards with the facts. 
Rather it was to create hysteria, and here we had a model and an 
example of which we could very carefully study so as not to create 
incidences where American is rising up against American and conclusions 
are being made primarily because they have found no leadership in this 
Congress.

  Interestingly enough, our own Speaker, Newt Gingrich, was charged 
with lying, and he appeared and had the opportunity to go before the 
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. That committee 
provided the Speaker with the opportunity to review those materials, to 
have counsel, to be engaged, and yet their final solution to date is 
still sealed. Although a fine was assessed, we have yet to throw to the 
public those documents that provided evidence of this Speaker lying, 
and in fact this speaker was reelected to the position of Speaker.
  So all I am asking for, Mr. Speaker, is simple fairness, and frankly 
let me share with you why it is necessary to have fairness. Among the 
weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and this is going back to 
the impeachment remedy as discovered or designed by those individuals 
who were coming together in the early part of this Nation who wanted to 
strengthen and ensure that this country lasted. Might I try to put a 
better light on this by getting my glasses to read it more clearly?
  Among the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and I draw 
again from Federalist Papers, but I am citing the February 1974 
Watergate staff report, Page 8; among the weaknesses of the Articles of 
Confederation apparent to the delegates for the constitutional 
convention was that they provided for a purely legislative form of 
government whose ministers were subservient to Congress. One of the 
first decisions of the delegates was that their new plan would include 
a separate executive, judiciary and legislature. However the framers 
sought to avoid the creation of a too powerful executive. The 
revolution had been fought against the tyranny of a king and his 
counsel, and the framers sought to build in safeguards against 
executive abuse and usurpation of power. They explicitly rejected a 
plural executive despite arguments that they were creating the fetus of 
a monarchy because a single person would give the most responsibility 
to the office. For the same reason they rejected proposals for a 
counsel of advice or privy counsel to the executive.
  Frankly our Founding Fathers were wise enough to strike a good 
balance. In striking a good balance they were clearly fearful of giving 
too much authority to any one branch because they did not want to see 
one branch topple the other branch. Here lies the foundation of why we 
must be extremely concerned about where we are with this impeachment 
process.
  We cannot go immediately, Mr. Speaker, to jump to the conclusion that 
this President or a President should be impeached.
  I said earlier, and I say it again. I have not determined and I see 
no basis, in spite of the counsel for the Republican presenting a very 
lengthy presentation yesterday in the committee, that we have 
impeachable offenses. One of the reasons why we cannot conclude there, 
and I have concluded to the extent of what we have done so far that 
there are none, is because this committee refuses to acknowledge the 
importance of determining constitutional standards before we vote on an 
impeachment inquiry.
  Yesterday Mr. Schippers presented us with a document. Certainly I 
know that he worked very hard on this document, but added other 
offenses based upon staff's review of the material. In fact, Mr. 
Schippers presented to us new allegations that for me provide great 
discomfort because he is alleging conspiracy, conspiracy between the 
President and Miss Lewinsky, and I might say that in looking at the 
contacts of which he bases his premise on, I am baffled why we would 
have leaked to conspiracy with a minimal of contact and no evidence of 
the two parties now mentioned in a conspiracy that would have not shown 
any basis of conspiracy or coming together.
  But what that adds, Mr. Speaker, is another criminal element. I am 
not sure if the basis or the reason for Mr. Schippers doing so is 
because he saw severe weaknesses in the presentation already presented 
by Mr. Starr.
  But you know all of this would have been avoided if our committee 
under the House Res. 525 had taken those words in executive session and 
proceeded to deliberate and review materials and through that process 
come to the House and said we are still reviewing materials and in fact 
we now want to proceed and define the Constitutional standards so that, 
as we would come out to the public, we would have been able to match 
allegations, if that was the case, with Constitutional standards. But 
yet we found ourselves

[[Page H9672]]

in the committee yesterday listening to presentations by counsel only; 
no witnesses, Mr. Speaker; coming to a conclusion that we are at a 
point for an impeachment inquiry.
  I simply say, Mr. Speaker, we had leaked and spoken before we had 
thought, and as well we had made determinations before we could even 
rise to the occasion of being able to explain to the American people 
that we were constitutionally sound.
  I see the ranking member has come, and before I yield to him let me 
share with those who frankly have maybe come to a conclusion in the 
direction that the President should be impeached to understand our 
frustration and hopefully see this not as a defense of one man, but how 
somber and sacred this responsibility is. We cannot even entertain the 
concerns about saving Social Security or dealing with the lack of 
preparedness that our Joint Chiefs have come to this Congress and said 
that they are concerned about, very troubling issues that impact 
national security, because we have leaked into a process a dangerous 
process Mr. Speaker, without rhyme or reason and guidance.

                              {time}  2000

  I cannot express the level of my frustration when Democrats who were 
Americans and are still Americans today gave that committee every 
opportunity to pull back and to not go in or move this engine in the 
manner in which it is going so that we can deal in a very somber 
manner, constitutionally sound, with the issues at hand.
  Let me share with my colleagues as well additional readings from our 
early Founding Fathers, but might I just cite this as on page 24 of the 
staff report. There are a lot of people who said lying and perjury. But 
our Founding Fathers again, and others who have studied this issue, 
frankly, understood impeachment, and they understood the elements of 
it, or at least they understood what they thought they wanted to ensure 
the sanctity of this sovereign nation.
  It reads, ``Impeachment and the criminal law serve fundamentally 
different purposes. Impeachment is the first step in a remedial 
process, removal from office, and possible disqualification from 
holding future office. The purpose of impeachment is not personal 
punishment.''
  Can I say that again, Mr. Speaker, because there are people who are 
upset with the behavior of the President of the United States. Can I 
say something, Mr. Speaker, so am I. So are my colleagues. I do not 
want to speak for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my 
esteemed ranking member. I have great respect for him. But I would not 
even imagine that he would counter what he has heard about people's 
disappointment and outrage.
  But, frankly, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of impeachment is not personal 
punishment. Its function is primarily to maintain constitutional 
government. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that 
impeachment is no substitute for the ordinary process of criminal law 
since it specifies that impeachment does not immunize the officer from 
criminal liability for his wrongdoing.
  I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my very 
esteemed ranking member who had the challenge, if you will, of serving 
on the 1974 Watergate committee. I think that he will share with us 
that he was not a wallflower. He was not one who did not view the 
proceedings vigorously, but more importantly, that he came to the 
conclusion that Mr. Nixon should be impeached.
  I do not think that anyone who was on that committee would shy away 
from whatever their viewpoint may have been. But, frankly, I think that 
we can stand here in all honesty and say that the real crux of what we 
are now challenged to do in 1998 is not a pay back for 1974. This is 
not ``I got you'' or ``I will get you.'' This is not a circumstance 
where we could very well say, ``I have waited all these years to get me 
a Democratic President.''
  For I hope that there was no one on that committee, Mr. Speaker, my 
ranking member, included, that had a ``get you'' mentality after they 
finished the evenhanded process using the Constitution.
  That is the only thing that we are asking today. For I can tell my 
colleagues, as a younger person in 1974, might I claim very young 
person, my heart was troubled. Fear rolls up. I did not know whether 
this country's sovereignty would be maintained. Even then I claimed to 
be a Democrat.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is not a time that we can cover ourselves from 
politics that are extremely partisan.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the esteemed gentleman from 
Detroit, Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, who has taught me the value of removing 
myself from partisan politics and the real crux of this matter, which 
is the constitutionality of this process and the preservation of a 
nation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and felt compelled to come to the floor to join 
in this tremendously useful discussion that she is having with our 
colleagues about this very awesome event that is under consideration, 
the investigation of a sitting President of the United States, and how 
the Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over this 
matter, should deal with it.
  I must say that her discussion was compelling, and it is as thorough 
as she always is found to be as we work through the complex matters 
that confront the Committee on the Judiciary. There have been many, but 
none as towering as the one that we are burdened with at this moment.
  So I say to the gentlewoman that I enjoy her discussions, and I am 
pleased to join in with a comment or two. I do not have any particular 
purpose but to share this discussion with her.
  But it seems from a initial point of view that the American people 
are of a nearly singular accord to move this question away from the 
Congress and, as a matter of fact, out of their sight and hearing at 
the earliest possible moment.
  Overwhelmingly, people have asked me, written me, called me, stopped 
me on the streets and said, please get rid of this matter. I explain to 
them that it is the objective of most of us here, and I include 
Republican colleagues in this, who are very concerned that we dispose 
of this as rapidly as possible and yet keep order.
  So the question that originally confronts us is, how do we do that? 
Well, one way that we do not do it is to dump, I have lost track of how 
many, tens of thousands of pages of material from the independent 
counsel on to the American people and in the public, not to the 
Congress, in particular, and this is very much contrary to the 1974 
Watergate impeachment inquiry, not to the attorneys representing the 
President of the United States who is being investigated so that he 
might prepare a decent response, but to the American people.
  If there is a logic for this, I have not heard it yet. It escapes me 
as to why these tens of thousands of pages of salacious material that 
quite frankly border on the obscene, which the independent counsel has 
gratuitously sought to put into the public domain, in other words, 
through the government at taxpayers' expense, we have now had the most 
pornographic government document ever printed in the 209 years of our 
existence.
  The question to Mr. Starr is why? The answer is that the Speaker of 
the House chose, upon receiving them, to make them public. For what 
purpose, I do not know. There are many suggestions that there may have 
been political motivation.
  But the point of the fact is that we now have many citizens, many 
parents, and even young people themselves saying why did they do it? 
What are they trying to prove? What does this have to do with any 
inquiry on the Congress, much less an impeachment inquiry by giving all 
of this material to the public, and, incidentally, not giving one page 
to the President of the United States or his representatives.
  So the referral that has been referred to and the releases that have 
come afterward, and we just made some more this week, another several 
thousand pages, all have to do with the relationship of the President 
with one other person.
  In the fifth year of his investigation, which we are still not sure 
if it is concluded or not, and to that end, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) and I jointly sent a letter to him asking him in 
effect, for goodness sakes, if

[[Page H9673]]

there are any other materials, you could not be holding them back at 
this date in your fifth year. This is not a game. This is not a poker 
escapade. This is not casino or roulette wheel.

  If you had dozens of attorneys and investigators and members of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation working, and you come up with nothing, 
nothing on Whitewater, nothing on Filegate, nothing on Travelgate, 
nothing on China, nothing on campaign finances, nothing about Vince 
Foster's suicide, only the President and one person, we must presume, 
contrary to the Speaker of the House, that that is all they have.
  I have never heard of members of the bar releasing something that is 
second or third importance and not saying that they had something more 
significant. So it is only reasonable for us to assume that this is it. 
But if this is not it, would the Office of the Independent Counsel be 
polite enough to let the Members of Congress know that that is the 
case. I am sorry to report that, to this moment, we have not had a 
response from our letter.
  Now, the question of why the Speaker chose to do it this way is after 
the horse has left the barn. He did it. People resent it. Now they want 
to know what it is the Committee on the Judiciary is going to do now 
that, according to the independent counsel statute, Mr. Starr has 
referred the matter to the Speaker who has, in turn, referred it to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  So yesterday we met to discuss what it is we should do, the Committee 
on the Judiciary, on a vote, in which all of the Republicans voted to 
move forward on a resolution recommending an inquiry that is glaringly 
deficient in one major aspect. The resolution does not call for a 
threshold decision to be made that describes what the grounds and 
standards for impeachment should be, and this is still left to be 
determined.
  In other words, as the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) noted during the committee, and I quote him, 
``The majority party has an obligation to recognize that high crimes 
and misdemeanors has a meaning. It was not just carelessly flung into 
the Constitution. And at Article II Section 4, it is described that an 
impeachment proceeding is an appropriate act for the President, the 
Vice President, and other certain high officials when there is involved 
treason, embezzlement, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Well, 
not even Mr. Barr has suggested that treason is involved.

                              {time}  2015

  No one has suggested that embezzlement is involved. So the question 
that gripped our full committee is, are there other high crimes and 
misdemeanors?
  Now, note the Founding Fathers' phrasing: Treason, embezzlement, and 
other high crimes and misdemeanors. So treason is a high crime and 
misdemeanor, embezzlement is a high crime and misdemeanor. But they 
said there are others.
  Well, the threshold question, if we look at the Starr referral, is 
marital infidelity, if there is any, a high crime and misdemeanor. Is 
personal misconduct that does not deal with the violations of the 
office or the abuse of the powers of the President, is that a high 
crime and misdemeanor?
  Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have commissioned our attorneys on the 
Committee on the Judiciary to find out not only in American 
jurisprudence, and we have only had 13 cases of impeachment, most of 
them were with judges, and there were none that ever included or 
involved themselves with marital infidelity, personal conduct, or 
sexual relations of any kind, none of them; so the question is, perhaps 
in the English common law out of which this whole notion of impeachment 
came, maybe there is something there. We find nothing there. In other 
words, just as a common sense threshold inquiry, I say to my 
colleagues, there is nothing within the report of our distinguished 
former Judge Kenneth W. Starr that even touches within the parameters 
of Article 2, Section 4.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman is making such an enormously important point, and the reason 
why that point is so important is because as the gentleman will recall 
yesterday in committee, and the gentleman eloquently challenged in a 
constitutional manner Mr. Shipper's presentation, for it was a 
recounting, of course, of the report of Mr. Starr, Mr. Shipper being 
the counsel for the Republicans, to be able to make such a report, and 
as I said, to leap from that point to conclusions when there had not 
been any intervening definition of constitutional offenses that would 
warrant impeachment, and I cite for the gentleman issues that the 
Republicans' counsel seemed to emphasize: Lying and conspiracy.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady of Texas). The gentlewoman will 
suspend.
  The Chair will remind Members to abstain from language that is 
personally offensive toward the President, including references to 
various types of unethical behavior and references to alleged criminal 
conduct.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman well knows, 
these issues that were being discussed, there was contravening 
documentation which was not presented in the report given. I think 
those speak, in particular, to whether or not we have been able to look 
at this matter in fullness. We have just noted that we cannot even 
discuss these matters on the floor of the House out of respect for the 
executive. Frankly, tragically, these matters were spread across the 
land, but the executive had no ability to respond.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, this begins 
to further outline the travesty. Every young person with a computer in 
his house has now seen the very things that the Speaker at this moment 
precludes us from discussing because they are pure allegations and they 
are, in effect, untested. There have never been any cross-examination 
of who may have alleged them. Mr. Starr has never been before the 
committee. We do not know where or how he got them. And yet, while they 
are common fare for citizens and young people, this material has now 
been served up by the Republicans in this body to everybody in America.
  I know that one 2-year-old has asked his father, who is Monica 
Lewinsky? Mr. Speaker, 2 years old. I know another teacher who has been 
asked by a third grader, teacher, what is an orgasm? This is offensive 
to parents, teachers, mature people who realize that this being put on 
the Internet has absolutely no salutary purpose.
  By the way, I was reminded recently from a call from Memphis, 
Tennessee from a person in the music industry that these are the same 
people, I say to the gentlewoman, that have criticized rap artists for 
their obscenity and for their profanity, and now, they have outdone 
them tenfold by spreading thousands of pages of salacious, obscene, 
pornographic material, for no purpose. This is not the Committee on the 
Judiciary's finding, these are merely allegations which were not even 
necessary to support whatever conclusions the Office of Independent 
Counsel came to.
  Mr. Speaker, I go back to an observation by our friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Berman) who said that whatever the Rules of 
Procedure are that we adopt, our first order of business should be to 
resolve, if the events and allegations portrayed in the Starr report, 
rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
  Now, not only do lawyers and constitutional authorities agree, but 
common sense and American citizens would think that we would take that 
simple precaution before we rush to vote out and recommend to this 
House, which will vote on Friday of this week, an inquiry of 
impeachment without ever having one instruction about what is this 
great constitutional language, high crimes and misdemeanors, the only 
thing in which these allegations can apply. Is perjury an impeachable 
offense? Well, I am not sure. Is lying an impeachable offense? I doubt 
it seriously. Fortunately, Members of Congress are not subject to 
impeachment proceedings, or the whole legislative branch of government 
could be brought to a standstill, possibly. Is concealing a personal 
affair an impeachable act?


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will kindly suspend, again, 
the Chair reminds Members to abstain from references to various types 
of unethical behavior and alleged criminal conduct.
  The gentleman is recognized.

[[Page H9674]]

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully point out that I did not 
attribute that to the President of the United States.
  Now, we have the report. The Starr report is not only a matter of 
public record, it is a matter of congressional notice.
  I am a little bit at a loss as to why I cannot refer to what is in 
the government report that probably the gentleman voted for to have 
released, and now is telling me and suggesting that there is something 
inappropriate about me discussing it on the floor of the House.
  We are not the children of America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will suspend, the Chair 
would remind the Members that the House rules regarding proper decorum 
in debate were announced to the House earlier on September 10. Both the 
Speaker and the minority leader, in concurrence, supported this 
announcement. It said:

       When an impeachment matter is not pending on the floor, a 
     Member who feels a need to dwell on personal factual bases 
     underlying the rationale in which he might question the 
     fitness or competence of an incumbent president must do so in 
     other forums, while conforming his or her remarks in debate 
     to the more rigorous standard of decorum that must prevail in 
     this Chamber.

  With that understanding, the Chair will recognize the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire respectfully of the Speaker, 
may we refer to the Starr report referred to the Congress of the United 
States?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In general terms, yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. In general terms, yes. And may we quote from the Starr 
report referred to the House of Representatives?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Sir, depending upon the exact verbiage being 
referenced, yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in other words, we can talk about it in the 
Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Starr can dump it into the public 
domain; but on the floor of the Congress it is not discussable because 
of what? I am sorry, I do not follow the distinguished Speaker's logic.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will suspend, the 
difference is what the specific reference is, and whether an 
impeachment resolution is actually pending. The House rules regarding 
proper debate are well established and cooperation is expected of all 
Members.
  The gentleman may continue.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the Speaker, and I will not talk about the Starr 
report anymore, because nobody knows what is in the Starr report; 
nobody knows about how disgusting it has been to many Americans; nobody 
knows what the allegations are, and we do not want to talk about it in 
advance for any reason.
  So I, with great reluctance, return the balance of time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas and thank her very much for her important 
contribution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary very much, as I notice his very eloquent 
recounting of where we are. I see my good friend from New York on the 
floor of the House. I am hoping that we will be able to conclude this 
within a few more minutes.
  But let me just speak to where we are as we started out 
constitutionally. I argued the case that we are attempting to frame 
this in a constitutional manner. The gentleman has made a very valid 
point. If any distinction can be made, what we are talking about is 
one, we have alleged facts, but we have no constitutional standards. On 
Friday or Thursday, we will present to this House a resolution by a 
chairman who has already said, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
that he too would like to see this end before January 1999, but yet, 
the resolution will now be an open-ended, anything-goes, Whitewater, 
Filegate, Travelgate, allegations against Mr. Foster, as well as the 
Monica Lewinsky-Gate, and no definitive time in which we would finish.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the gentlewoman that 
the Speaker of the House has said just the opposite. He has said that 
this might go into the millennium. In other words, he has no intentions 
of working with the Committee on the Judiciary to bring this to a 
reasonable close within the end of the year. I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding yet again.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we look at that point, and 
the gentleman is very right, we are faced with the dismal lacking of 
presentation by constitutional scholars who have said to us that high 
crimes and misdemeanors denote for the Founding Fathers the critical 
element of injury to the State. It was public and not private.
  So we are leaping now to the floor of the House on Thursday to 
present an impeachment inquiry vote, quite contrary to Watergate, by 
doing so with no limitations and, of course, on the issues of a private 
incident.
  I understand the Speaker is gaveling me. Might I turn to my good 
colleague, because we have much to say to conclude.

                          ____________________