[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10083-H10096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H10083]]

House of Representatives

   AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER 
   SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON 
                CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              (Continued)

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  (Ms. DeGETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, historians note that those who are in the 
middle of history often do not themselves recognize it. Today should 
not be about polls. Today should not be about the upcoming November 
election, and even today should not be about the serious matter of 
sexual misconduct. But with all due respect to my friends, that is 
exactly what today is all about.
  This is only the third time in the history of this country that we 
are talking about opening impeachment proceedings against our 
President, and I am shocked at how many people, including some in this 
chamber, take this serious matter so lightly, even gleefully. We are 
witnessing a stampede to justice, my friends, and like so many 
stampedes, when the trail dust settles, we will leave chaos and we will 
leave ruin.
  This is a time for statesmanship. Each one of us must independently 
assess the best direction for this House and this country, and I will 
say it is not an open ended, never ending, witch-hunt without any 
limits. We need to carefully consider the Starr report. We need to set 
a guideline and then we need to move forward with the serious, serious 
business of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the House is about to decide whether to exercise one of 
the most grave constitutional steps within our power: hearings 
concerning the impeachment of the President. This is the most serious 
decision we can make, next to a declaration of war. It is legislative, 
moral, and civic duty to caution the House to carefully weigh this 
dangerous, perhaps necessary step.
  Like so many of you, my political conscience was formed during the 
Watergate scandal and I applauded the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. 
versus Nixon that the President ``is not above the law.'' The 
President, whoever he or she may be, is not above the law.
  But my political conscience was also informed by reading ``Profiles 
in Courage,'' where John Kennedy, who well-knew the passions that 
govern partisan political discourse, discussed the failed attempt to 
impeach President Andrew Johnson. Johnson was saved from impeachment by 
the courageous actions of several senators who withstood the deep and 
intense partisan public hatred of a president attempting to unite a 
divided country. Most historians would agree that the impeachment of 
Johnson would have been a constitutional, economic, and political 
catastrophe. In fact, the partisan bickering, motivated by the hope of 
political advantage, was a dark, shameful moment in American history 
which affected the national agenda for decades afterwards; a moment we 
may soon repeat if we do not learn from our history.
  This is the time to ask what actions will best serve our country. 
Hasty decisions in a mob-mentality will not serve the interests of our 
constituents. Frankly, I have heard little about the long-term 
consequences of an impeachment hearing, especially if we ultimately 
decide not to impeach the President. The Watergate scandal undermined 
the institutional authority of our political system for a generation. 
Therefore, we must carefully weight what we do now, because it will 
have consequences for at least a generation to come. Yes, we have a 
President who has lied to you and me and the American public. I'm, not 
happy about that; I am angry and outraged. He deserves our scorn and 
our condemnation. But we cannot impeach him because of our anger. That 
would turn our constitutional democracy into a parliamentary system. I 
am sure my colleagues do not want to subvert the constitution in that 
way.

  What we must determine is this: does his conduct constitute a ``high 
crime'' or a ``misdemeanor''? There is a reasonable doubt about that, 
and reasonable people can differ on the answer.
  Because ours is a legislative, not judicial, judgment, exercised as 
part of our legislative function, we must also determine if impeachment 
is in the best interests of the country.
  Historians note that those who are in the middle of history often do 
not realize it. Today, we are not talking about polls--or even 
elections--or even the sexual misconduct of our President. After all, 
this will be only the third time in history we consider impeachment of 
a sitting President. But that's what this debate is really about. I am 
shocked at how many people, including some in this Chamber, take this 
serious matter so lightly, even gleefully. We are witnessing a stampede 
to judgment. And like many stampedes, when the trail-dust settles we 
may leave chaos and ruin. This is a time for statesmanship. Each of us 
must independently assess the best direction for the House and for the 
country. That is why we should vote for a thoughtful process that will 
establish whether evidence exists to even open an inquiry before we 
begin a wide-ranging witch hunt with heavy heart and a keen recognition 
of history, and with reluctant support for this forum.
  The American people, the world community, and future historians will 
judge us as we judge the President. I this House, at this moment, we 
must rise above passion and partisanship. We must be wise and equal to 
the public trust.
  I ask my colleagues for a full debate on the resolution to open 
impeachment proceedings. We need more than one hour for discussion. 
Because of the gravity of this vote, we owe it to the American people 
to have a fully informed, careful, responsible discussion.
  I also ask for our best judgment. I believe that the process that 
allows us to have more prudent decision-making is the Democratic 
alternative. Before we can move forward in recommending articles of 
impeachment, the Judiciary Committee should determine the standards for 
defining impeachable offenses. That would be extremely helpful and fair 
in our evaluation of this issue. With this information,

[[Page H10084]]

we would be in a better position to discuss impeachment.
  And I ask for a narrow scope. Impeachment hearings should examine 
specific, clearly stated, concrete charges. We need to give the Special 
Prosecutor's report complete consideration, especially after spending 
$40 million to gather this information. I was not elected to Congress 
to waste the taxpayers' time and money in political chicanery. I was 
not elected to engage in a witch-hunt. The discussion must be on-point, 
specific to the matter-at-hand, relevant, and substantive.
  This is the time for prudent judgment, for far-sighted decision-
making, for fairness, and for justice. We cannot let our unharnessed 
passions nor our political greed sway us from acting in the country's 
best interests. We stand at a singular moment in history. Our actions 
will forever change the culture and political environment of our 
country. If we do not act with complete fairness, impartiality, and 
good judgment, we will certainly be harshly judged by our constituents, 
by the world community, and by history for our impatient folly. I ask 
my colleagues to demand a fair, just, and realistic process by which we 
examine these serious, dangerous, and historic charges against the 
President.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I have?
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 20\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 20 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and will 
submit my remarks for the Record.
  I intend to vote for the Judiciary Committee's recommendation that 
would begin the inquiry for impeachment. The President of the United 
States needs the trust and confidence of the American people. When the 
President does not have credibility, the country is at risk.
  Currently only one in five Americans say they have confidence in the 
President's credibility and truthfulness. The American people deserve a 
speedy resolution of this crisis-in-confidence. The President deserves 
the opportunity to restore his credibility by having the opportunity to 
explain his side of what seems to be perjury and obstruction of justice 
both in a civil case and before a federal grand jury.
  It is my hope that this inquiry will meet the demands of the 
Constitution and be resolved with all deliberate speed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do their duty under the 
Constitution and take this step toward a conclusion of this national 
challenge.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Ganske).
  (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, we have not always agreed on certain 
policies. I can think of a health care issue that we disagreed on. But 
I certainly do not think it is fair for the Speaker of the House to be 
accused of perjury in this debate today.
  I think that I have some bipartisan credentials, so I want to say to 
Members on both sides of the aisle that the Republican resolution 
follows the same model that was followed in 1974. A time limit was 
recognized then, and it is recognized now, as a way to obstruct and 
delay. We must listen to our consciences. And if we do, I think we can 
all agree with Chairman Peter Rodino in 1974 and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) today, a time limit is not the way to go on this 
resolution.
  Yes, I am tired of hearing about the President's indiscretions, and I 
have had a hard time explaining this to my 10-year-old son. And it will 
be a stressful time for us. But when I think about the stressful times 
that our country has gone through in the American Revolution, the Civil 
War, the two world wars, the Great Depression, I think it would be a 
shame for us to shirk our duty.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the only former sheriff in the House.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the prosecutor has asked us to indict the 
President of the United States on 11 counts. All 11 counts involve an 
intern. In the video, in 4 hours of questioning, the prosecutor did not 
ask the President one time about FBI files, about the travel office, 
about Vincent Foster, or about Whitewater. In 4 hours, basically the 
prosecutor asked what did the President do with an intern, when did the 
President know that he did it, and did he lie about it.
  I am not minimizing the gravity of this, my colleagues, but this does 
not rise to the level of Watergate. Now, let us be honest about that.
  This prosecutor is required by law to submit all evidence to the 
House, which is a Grand Jury. I must assume that he has. But I would 
also say to the leaders of both parties, if he has not, he should be 
compelled today to deliver every piece of evidence he has on any 
pending investigation. That is our duty.
  I am going to support an inquiry today, but I am not going to support 
an extended soap opera, my colleagues. And I will say this: What the 
Congress of the United States, the House, has before us today is an 11-
count indictment. We should be able to act on the predicate of that 
substance by the end of our terms. Kenneth Starr submitted it to the 
105th Congress, not to a future Congress.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Steve Buyer), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time. I have listened to part of the debate, and I have to agree with 
the gentlewoman from Colorado that I am disappointed in the conduct of 
some of my colleagues here today. How people can be here on this House 
floor cheering or applauding, as though they have somehow scored 
political points, is very disappointing to me. I think that part of 
that noise is about a clamor against the judicial process and their 
actions define themselves.
  Actually, this kind of reminds me of a story about Abe Lincoln that I 
will share with my colleagues. Let me tell this little story.
  Abe Lincoln, in one of his many famous debates, was debating a person 
known to be very shallow in substance because he did not really have 
the facts on his side. He always tried to make up for his lack of 
substance by making a lot of noise. Sure enough, the debate began with 
his opponent using plenty of noise, increasing the volume of his voice 
and the emotion in the delivery and the intensity of the tone. Abe 
began, in reply, with this story:
  He said: There was a man and woman that were walking back to town. It 
was at night, through a dense forest. It was extremely dark, and a 
storm, with plenty of thunder and lightning, was all around them. The 
lightning was not enough for them to see, and the thunder caused 
confusion and made it difficult for them to see. And they got scared, 
because they were not sure they were going to be able to make it back 
to town. So they fell upon their knees and they prayed. And they said, 
God, may we have a little less noise and a little more light.
  What we find here at the moment is a lot of noise, but I, for one, 
will enjoin in the prayer for a little more light. Our job here is to 
seek the light of the truth, because the truth matters.
  And let us not confuse ourselves with what is happening here today. 
Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, are saying to America: We have 
a credible and substantive referral from an independent prosecutor, and 
we must take the next step toward the inquiry of impeachment. There may 
be a disagreement, there may be a debate about the scope or the 
limitation on times, but those are details. The facts will sort 
themselves out. If the facts find that the President should be 
exonerated, then we should do so because we follow the truth. If it 
shows otherwise, then we should proceed with the next step.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Debbie Stabenow).
  (Ms. STABENOW asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, today we make a critically important 
decision affecting the lives of every single one of the people we 
represent: Men and women, young and old, working hard every day, who 
care about their families. They want us to deal with the

[[Page H10085]]

President's irresponsible behavior and lack of truthfulness in a fair 
and responsible manner, and they want us to do so as quickly as 
possible so that we can return to the important issues that affect 
their families.
  They also want us to rise above partisan self-interest and do what is 
best for the country, not Democrats, not Republicans, but as Americans. 
I am deeply concerned that this Congress will not meet this test today.
  We have two proposals in front of us. The issue is not whether or not 
to proceed, it is how to proceed. One proposal gives us the opportunity 
to come together in a bipartisan way, vote to begin an inquiry on the 
issues raised by the Starr report, and bring this inquiry to a 
conclusion this year. The Republican alternative is an open-ended, 
unchecked process that could continue throughout the next Congress, 
with no requirement to limit the issues formally presented by the 
special prosecutor.
  In all good conscience, I cannot support this process. It is not in 
the best interest of our country. It is not in the best interest of the 
families I represent to put our country in suspended animation for 
months and months when we have the ability here to bring this to a 
conclusion this year. I believe the American people deserve no less.
  We must address this crisis fairly and responsibly and get back to 
the people's business. I implore my Republican colleagues to join us, 
to join with America in a process we can truly be proud of.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a valued member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in a short while this House will vote on 
whether or not to begin an impeachment inquiry against the President of 
the United States. A very serious matter. We will have a vote that 
will, I think, result in a substantial majority of the Members voting 
to proceed unhindered by artificial time constraints that simply 
subject the body to political gamesmanship of delay rather than 
expedition of the process. We will vote to allow ourselves to look at 
other credible evidence of impeachable offenses from other credible 
sources, if those come before the body.
  We should not engage in a fishing expedition, but we should exercise 
our constitutional responsibility in a full and open way, the same way 
we have always exercised that responsibility for every other 
impeachment inquiry in more than 200 years of American history. And we 
should do it in the way suggested by our former colleague, 
Representative Barbara Jordan, who said at another time, ``It is 
reason, not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our 
debate and guide our decision.''
  The charges against the President include perjury, witness tampering 
and obstruction of justice. These are serious charges, charges that 
cannot be wiped away with a mere wink and a nod, an apology, or 
someone's interpretation of the latest opinion poll. The standard that 
we follow, and the standard we teach our children, is that no person is 
above the law, including the President of the United States.
  Amid the intense glare of the moment, we must keep in mind that what 
the House is considering today is not impeachment or articles of 
impeachment, nor is it about matters for which the President has 
apologized. Rather, the House must decide, in light of the documented 
allegations of serious crimes committed by the President, all of which 
the President has repeatedly denied, whether we should take the next 
step in the constitutional process by fully and completely 
investigating whether the charges are well-founded.
  I urge my colleagues to take that step because it is the right thing 
to do. We must follow the truth wherever it leads.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Lloyd Doggett), a former member of his State's Supreme 
Court.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the real question here today is not whether 
to begin an inquiry, but whether it will ever end. Whitewater, 
Travelgate, Filegate. It is really Rabbit Trail Gate that I am 
concerned about. We do not need Ken Starr squared in this chamber. The 
only way to force this Congress to get back to the real concerns of 
American families, like tax reform and Social Security reform, is to 
bring this matter to a prompt conclusion.
  As a former Supreme Court Justice, I will not defend the 
indefensible, but, by golly, there is a way to punish the lying without 
punishing the American people, who have clearly had enough of this and 
then some.
  I believe that the standard that we apply should be no higher and no 
lower than we would apply to ourselves and that we have applied to the 
Speaker of the House in this very chamber. The Democratic amendment 
assures that that will happen. Without it, there is no assurance of a 
bipartisan pursuit of justice, of fairness, and an ultimate answer to 
the American people on this issue, and then getting back to business on 
their issues.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we walk out the door to my 
right, in the middle on the minority side, and go left, we will come to 
a large marble staircase. And at the top of that staircase is a large 
painting, a painting by Howard Chandler Christie entitled, ``The 
Signing. The Constitution of the United States.'' And in the center of 
that portrait is Ben Franklin. It is reported that he walked out of the 
Constitutional Convention and a woman approached him and said, ``What 
kind of government have you given us, Mr. Franklin?'' And his response 
was: ``A republic, if you can keep it.''
  The challenge before us today is: Can we keep it? Because a republic 
is a Nation that is guided by the rule of law. Not the whims of a 
dictator or a majority that can trample on the rights of a minority, 
but the rule of law.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution. I, like 
everyone in this chamber, would like to get this process behind us. The 
best way to do that is to support this resolution. It is the right 
thing to do, it is the right way for us to keep the republic, as 
Franklin asked us to do.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, a former member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) is no longer with 
us on the committee, but we still appreciate his legal insights. I 
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. The President's conduct in this matter was deeply disappointing 
to Americans. All of us have traveled down that path. There is no 
question of that. This House will proceed with an inquiry. That road we 
have also begun to travel. There is no question of that. But how we 
travel down that road is still subject to intense questioning. The 
majority would take us down this road that would offer no end in sight, 
that omits the rules of the road for its conduct, in essence open-
ended, without conclusion.
  After more than 4 years, $50 million in taxpayer funds, we should 
give the American people a clear, defined and transparent process. It 
is not if we will proceed, it is how we will proceed. Today is the 8th 
of October. We are now 8 days into the new fiscal year without a 
budget. Tomorrow, the 9th of October, at midnight, we will have to shut 
down this government unless this Congress passes a budget. And yet for 
the American people we offer nothing, no clear, defined, transparent 
process. They deserve more.
  Let us go to our destination and get there with Godspeed. We have 
work to do for seniors, for children and for working Americans. We must 
do it in a transparent, balanced and fair way.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), a very valuable member of the committee.
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the simple gesture of raising one's hand 
accompanied by an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing 
but the truth, this gesture takes place hundreds of

[[Page H10086]]

times a day in every courthouse in the land. It is preceded by an oath 
that is taken by the judge to dispense justice, by the jurors to find 
the truth, by the bailiffs, by the clerk of court, by the sheriff, by 
the attorneys, the officers of the court. And when a witness mounts the 
witness stand pledging to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and 
does not, but commits perjury, then the entire process comes tumbling 
down.
  The very core of the justice system on which we rely for justice for 
our families, for our churches, on our institutions, for the individual 
rights of every citizen of our country, all of that depends on that 
oath that is administered and followed, hopefully, by the witness who 
takes that stand.
  We cannot afford to trivialize the possibility of perjury nor devalue 
its part in our democracy. That is why we must go forward with this 
impeachment inquiry to determine whether the statements given under 
oath amount to perjury, number one, and whether that perjury, no matter 
what the subject matter is, is an impeachable offense. This is not 
about sex. This is not about lying about sex. It is, rather, when under 
oath does one lie about sex.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, very, very few people have argued their 
cases in the United States Supreme Court. Eleanor Holmes Norton, our 
delegate from the District of Columbia, has. I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed astonishing confusion in this House 
and in the Judiciary Committee concerning the requirements for 
impeachment. If these very issues were before a court of law, there 
might be wide disagreement on the facts, but everyone would know what 
the law is. In an impeachment proceeding, the law is the standard the 
House sets. We move today, Mr. Speaker, not by any standard, but by the 
seat of our pants. We are a constitutional democracy, not a 
parliamentary republic. A vote of no confidence in Great Britain 
requires no standard, but calls forth a new election. A vote for an 
impeachment inquiry in the United States requires a high standard, 
because it could nullify an election.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's misconduct may warrant an inquiry, but 
neither he nor any other American deserves an inquisition.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I come before you today to 
support this resolution. I come not as a Republican, not as a New 
Yorker, but as a person who loves this great country and all its ideals 
and principles it represents.
  Earlier today one of my colleagues said that this would be the most 
divisive issue since the Vietnam War. While he may believe that to be 
true, I take strong exception with that, and I will tell my colleagues 
why. Men and women were sent overseas like every other war and military 
conflict since our Nation's birth to defend the rule of law, the 
notions of personal freedom and individual liberty. And in the case 
before us today, we are asking a simple question: Did the President of 
the United States violate any of those rules of law that we cherish and 
that so many men and women have died for and are willing to die for at 
every point around the globe?
  I do not want to be here today, like so many of my colleagues, but 
the generations of Americans yet unborn must look back on this day and 
this matter and this situation and see this as our finest hour, 
upholding what our Founding Fathers and every generation since has 
looked for and yearned for, the notion of freedom, the notion of 
liberty, the notion of the rule of law, and that each American cherish 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Reluctantly, I am here; I 
proudly, though, support this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) who came to this body at the same time as I did, a 
distinguished lawyer in her own right.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have been beseeched today on both sides 
of the aisle to follow the rule of law, to follow the Constitution. I 
ask each of you here to understand that the seat of which you occupy in 
this august Chamber has a constitutional limit which expires on January 
3. What right have we to extend this investigation beyond our term of 
office? That is all that we are saying on this side of the aisle. There 
must be a limit. This investigation must end by the end of the year.
  We also ask you to follow those points that have been raised by the 
Ken Starr report, extended no further, limited to that. We also say 
that under the Constitution, we have to know what the rules are, 
exactly what is the standard of conduct which is impeachable. The 
Constitution says impeachable requires a definition of high crimes and 
misdemeanors and talks about treason and bribery.
  The Judiciary Committee has not had 1 day of hearings to help this 
country or this Congress to understand what constitutes an impeachable 
offense, so how can we vote today on an inquiry which has no standards, 
no rules of conduct, no time limit?
  The President's shameful conduct has brought humiliation to the 
Presidency, to his family, and to this nation. He has demeaned himself 
and the office to which he was elected. His conduct cannot be dismissed 
as a private matter. When he took office he took an oath, as we did, to 
uphold the law. Probably more important than that oath, is the role the 
President has as the moral and ethical leader of our country. What will 
our children think about their President? How will we answer their 
questions?
  In that backdrop this House has now the constitutional duty to judge 
the facts and to make a determination whether ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' amounting to treason and bribery have been committed.
  Despite assurances by the Republican leadership that they would be 
fair in setting the rules for this inquiry I have concluded that their 
interests are primarily partisan.
  They have the votes to do whatever they wish. Ultimately the American 
people will be the judge of whether they were fair.
  I, like most of my constituents who have called and written, would 
prefer that this matter be disposed of quickly. They are disgusted by 
the incessant media hype regarding the sexual details and just want it 
to be over and done with. They want to spare their children from having 
to hear over and over again all the lurid details of the sexual 
conduct. They want the jokes to cease. The quickest way would be by 
censure without going through a prolonged inquiry. Under this process 
we would assume all the narrative facts as described in the Starr 
report to be true and decree a punishment short of impeachment. It 
would be a public reprimand. It could also be a fine and forfeiture of 
pay or pension. Some of these were among the punishments leveled on the 
Speaker at the beginning of this Congress.

  We have had many discussions among minority members and it seemed to 
me that censure was the right course of action. I regret that it could 
not be what we are discussing today.
  The Republican majority have the votes to carry this forward to an 
inquiry. They want an open ended inquiry. Most of the public wants no 
inquiry. The public wants an end to this sordid matter. The public 
wants us to get back to the business of the nation.
  The Democratic minority has suggested that if there must be an 
inquiry it be limited to the narrative contained in the Starr report 
and that the inquiry conclude at the end of this 105th Congress. This 
is a reasonable request. Why should newly elected members of the House 
be bound by an inquiry which they neither voted for nor participated 
in? The next Congress, the 106th, if the inquiry goes forward into 
1999, has to elect a new Judiciary Committee and for all we know it may 
have many new members. The limitation to an inquiry by this Congress is 
both logical and practical and certainly is in keeping with the 
sentiment felt across this land that they want an end to this emotional 
debacle.
  All that is before this House is the Starr report. This is all that 
this House and this Judiciary Committee ought to be considering. There 
is no justification to add other items to this impeachment inquiry. 
Kenneth Starr has been investigating Whitewater for the past four years 
at the cost of over $40 million and has filed no report with the House. 
What could the Judiciary Committee accomplish that Starr has

[[Page H10087]]

failed to do? Filegate, Travelgate, and Chinagate are all under 
investigation or have been. There is no need to raise these to the 
level of impeachment.
  If we must be saddled with an inquiry, it must be limited to the 
report of Kenneth Starr. The Democratic proposal is both fair, and 
reasonable. It should be accepted.
  I shall vote against the Republican version because it leaves open 
the scope of this inquiry and allows it to go beyond the end of this 
Congress.
  Furthermore, in my view the real debate we should be having in this 
House is what constitutes a ``high crime and misdemeanor'' within the 
meaning of the Constitution. Do the facts of this case, even if all 
true, warrant an impeachment? Are there judicial precedents? Unless and 
until we arrive to this determination, the rest of the inquiry is 
merely to sort out the sordid details, without even understanding 
whether even if true they mount to an impeachable offense.

  Many of my constituents demand that I say whether I am for or against 
impeachment of this President. That's like asking whether I am ready to 
drop to guillotine without knowing whether a capital offense deserving 
death has been committed.
  Our system of justice is difficult to understand. For instance OJ 
Simpson was found ``not guilty'' of murder because guilt had to be 
found ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' Yet in civil court where ``the 
preponderance of evidence'' rule is the guide OJ was found liable under 
the same facts.
  Here the Constitution sets the narrow parameters of what an 
impeachable offense is. We must stick to that determination. First we 
have to agree what an impeachable offense is. Then we have to decide 
whether the facts at hand come up to that level of definition.
  I am the jury and the judge. Even if the were pending before my court 
a motion to dismiss this case I would still have to decide what an 
impeachable offense was and whether the facts reached this definition. 
If it did not, I would dismiss the case.
  It's the rule of law that guides my decision toady. We must heed our 
constitutional duty. What we do will long endure.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we are on the threshold of a very simple 
decision here, a simple decision to decide whether to look at and 
investigate the Starr report. Now, both parties in this House agree 
that we should investigate. The Democrats want to limit the scope and 
the time. But we want to follow the precedents established by 
Watergate.
  No prior impeachment investigation has ever been limited in the 
United States or England in the last 600 years because of time and 
scope. If there is a precedent that you can cite today, please tell us. 
Why do we have to go forward like this? Because man believes he is 
above the law. In fact, Louis XIV said, ``I am the State.'' The king 
expressed the essence of the doctrine of unlimited power.
  In 1825, Daniel Webster in his Bunker Hill Monument oration talked 
about unlimited power, love of power and ``long supported by the excess 
and abuse of it are yielding in our age to other opinions.'' What are 
those opinions? The Constitution.
  So, my friends, we are at a threshold. Under our Constitution, the 
role of the House and our duty to the American people is to act simply 
as a grand jury in reference to the impeachment charges presented. To 
paraphrase Thomas More ``A Man for All Seasons'', when he said:
  ``The laws of this country are the great barriers that protect the 
citizens from the winds of evil and tyranny. If we permit one of those 
laws to fall, who will be able to stand in the winds that follow?''
  How eloquent. How truthful. We must do the right thing and move 
forward with an investigative inquiry of impeachment without 
restrictions.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with all apologies to my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle, without objection from the chairman of the 
committee, I would like to call on three of my colleagues for 20 
seconds each consecutively: I would call on the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel), the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), and the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) for that amount of time, if 
that is permissible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic that I have 20 seconds. 
The Republican majority wants to give us no time limit on an 
impeachment inquiry which will turn into an open-ended fishing 
expedition, but I have 20 seconds here. They want to severely limit the 
amount of debate here amongst our colleagues.
  The American people are smart. They want this politically motivated 
witch-hunt to end. It is no coincidence that Mr. Starr brought his 
report 7 weeks before a national election.
  Let us stop the politics. Let us really talk about bipartisanship. 
Why can we not have adequate time to debate this important thing to the 
Nation?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, perhaps a second 
and a half.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for giving me 
this full 20 seconds to address the American people.
  It is unfair, it is unconstitutional, and it is unfortunate that we 
are here today. The highest office in this country, not protecting the 
Constitution, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I came here with Chairman Hyde, and we came 
here 24 years ago. I was hoping that I would get more than 20 seconds 
on this, the most important vote I have cast since I have been here. 
But the thing that bothers me in this whole process, and I will be 
leaving this august body which I love, is the hatred and the venom that 
this has engendered over the past year. You look at the talking heads 
on television, in the newscasts. There are people that are absolutely 
livid.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize three more 
persons in the same time frame as before: The gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Meek), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank this Congress. I 
love you very much. But it is very apparent that from the very 
beginning you have not wanted William Jefferson Clinton as your 
President.

                              {time}  1315

  My colleagues have gotten on a path to do it, and they are on their 
way.
  The American people are watching. They know this process is unfair. 
And wherever something is unfair, there is an old saying that goodness 
and justice shall prevail.
  So I say if my colleagues keep going, their time will come.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address this situation 
that the House of Representatives and, indeed, the country face today. 
I rise in support of the motion by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) to substitute the motion by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) and to have an inquiry, but to have a focused inquiry, and one 
that has an expeditious end to it so that the Congress, which has an 
obligation to do the people's business, moves forward as quickly as 
possible and as fairly as possible. And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, 
I want to ensure that we are actively working to address the priorities 
of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the situation that the House of 
Representatives, and indeed, face today.
  Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has presented the House of 
Representatives with a referral and supporting documentation containing 
``substantial and credible information that President Clinton committed 
acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'' It is now the 
duty of the House to determine whether or not to move forward with an 
impeachment ``inquiry,'' and if so, what the scope of such an inquiry 
should be.

[[Page H10088]]

  This is an important matter. What President Clinton did was wrong, 
and he must be punished appropriately. However, instead of rushing to 
judgment, I believe we should pause to consider the long-term 
implications of our actions. I hope that the actions of this House will 
stand the test of time. I am concerned that they may not.
  Today, I will support an inquiry that is limited in scope to the 
matters contained in the Independent Counsel's referral. (Should Mr. 
Starr refer additional matters, I would consider expanding the scope of 
the inquiry to include those matters at that time.) I do not believe 
that a wide-ranging resolution that will result in a re-examination of 
unrelated issues is in the best interest of our nation. The American 
people have rightly demanded that this matter be settled expeditiously, 
and there is no reason that cannot happen.
  The House must define what constitutes an impeachable offense and 
determine whether or not the facts before us met that definition. The 
potential impeachment and removal from office of a popularly elected 
President is a very serious matter. We must carefully consider the 
President's conduct, and determine whether or not it rises to the level 
of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' As we go forward, I believe that 
we should explore whether another punishment, such as censure or 
rebuke, might be more appropriate to these circumstances. Above all, we 
must conduct our inquiry in a fair and deliberate manner that is worthy 
of the seriousness of the situation and that will not set precedents 
that will weaken the Office of the Presidency in the future.
  Again, I support moving forward with a focused inquiry. I would 
encourage every member--Republican and Democrat--to support a focused 
inquiry that can bring this difficult situation to a close.
  But I also want to recognize there are many other important matters 
facing our nation. Each week as I travel throughout Maine, I 
consistently hear from people that they are tired of reading about the 
Starr investigation. They want to talk about Social Security, 
education, health care and other issues that affect their day to day 
lives. The Congress has an obligation to do the people's business. I 
want to move this process forward as quickly and as fairly as possible. 
Most importantly, I want to ensure that we are actively working to 
address the priorities of the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner.)
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, it is this Congress that is subverting the 
constitution by trivializing the impeachment process. Ken Starr has 
been 4 years and $40 million investigating every part of the 
President's life, and we are going to embark on an open-ended 
investigation while the world economy is collapsing, the health care 
system needs reform, our own finance system is corrupt, and we will be 
talking for months about who touched who where.
  The continued investigation of the President is nothing more than a 
cover-up for the failure of a do-nothing Congress to address the real 
issues facing the American people.
  I am voting ``no'' on opening an impeachment inquiry.
  Impeachment is the gravest of offenses. In the view of the framers of 
our Constitution, impeachment is reserved for those who undermine the 
fundamental political and Constitutional structure of our nation. While 
President Clinton's behavior was both reckless and indefensible, it is 
not impeachable. It is this Congress that is subverting the 
Constitution by trivializing the impeachment process.
  Ken Starr has already spent four years and $40 million investigating 
every aspect of the President's public and private life. It is 
irresponsible for this Congress to continue an open-ended investigation 
for who knows how long. The world economy is collapsing, our health 
care system needs major reform, our whole campaign finance system is 
corrupt--and we will be talking for months about who touched who where!
  This continued investigation of the President is nothing more than a 
``coverup'' for the failure of a do-nothing Congress to address the 
real issues facing the American people.
  We must bring closure to this sorry chapter in our history as quickly 
as possible--so we as a nation can move on to deal with our domestic 
and international problems. To that end, I would urge the Congress to 
immediately censure the President--and begin the process of healing the 
breach of trust that engulfs us now.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant, but strong support of 
the resolution offered by the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  It is disappointing to see this debate degenerate into a cacophony of 
cat calls.
  Honest people can have honest disagreements. But I take strong 
exception, Mr. Speaker, to the notion that somehow this is 
unconstitutional. Quite the contrary. This follows the Constitution.
  Incumbent upon every Member of this House today is the most important 
responsibility short of the responsibility of a declaration of war 
because we have to begin the process to determine the fitness for 
office of our Chief Executive.
  There is no reason to let this degenerate into cat calls or into the 
spin cycle. Let us follow the Constitution, let us follow the 
procedures laid down by those who have gone before, let us not confuse 
the issue, trying to superimpose ethics rules of this House on the 
constitutional process. Vote for the inquiry of impeachment.
  Mr. CONYERS. With apologies again to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield 20 seconds each to gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
MEEKS).
  (Mr. MEEKS of New York asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, this resolution does not allow us 
to even set standards. When we do not have standards, what we become is 
a modern-day kangaroo court.
  I was arrested myself the other day, and when I was arrested for the 
immoral practices of the Supreme Court in hiring minority law clerks, I 
knew that I had a right to a speedy trial. I knew the elements of the 
crime that were against me. That is not here.
  Dr. King once said that a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to 
justice everywhere.
  My fellow Americans, this is not about just justice for President 
Clinton. This is about justice for all of the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly my saddest day as a Member 
of this body.
  As my colleagues know, we have heard a lot of protests so far, and 
the protest that there is no politics here. Well, know something? 
People are protesting that protest a little too much. It is not 
believable.
  The reality is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
they cannot just impeach Bill Clinton, but the truth is they can 
impeach a ham sandwich. That is the reality of the situation, and the 
American people understand it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 40 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are strong beliefs 
on this issue on both sides. I believe strongly that many of the 
Republicans think and believe that this is about perjury and think it 
is about lying, and I think Democrats think that this is about a sexual 
affair. And in truth: in some ways both are right.
  The question before us is whether or not we believe as a people and 
as a Congress that these issues rise to a impeachable offense.
  President Clinton did wrong. He admitted it, he said he was sorry, he 
asked for our forgiveness. Let us give him our forgiveness, let him run 
this country, let us talk about the issues that are important to the 
people of this country: providing health care and education, making 
certain that we have a fair country, a just country, a country that 
looks out for the poor.
  That is the challenge before the American people.
  That is the challenge before the Congress.
  Let us meet that challenge and put this inquiry behind us, behind the 
American people.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is not about impeachment. 
Today's vote is about the search for truth. This is a vote that our 
grandchildren will ask us about many years

[[Page H10089]]

from now when our constituents have long forgotten us, many years from 
now when our terms of office have been behind us for many years. They 
will look up and say:
  ``Why did you vote the way you did?"
  Mr. Speaker, I think most Members are going to rise to this occasion 
and not vote by the polls, not vote by the parties and certainly not by 
the personalities, but vote for a higher reason: that question of does 
truth matter? What is right? What is wrong? Are we a Nation of laws? 
And do we want to affirm and uphold these laws? Do we see that as our 
constitutional oath of office?
  I believe that when the gavel is sounded, most of us, Democrats and 
Republicans, will affirm that we do uphold the values, that we will 
move towards the search for truth, not happily jumping into it, but 
soberly upholding our constitutional oaths of office.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a series of unanimous consent 
requests to revise and extend remarks, and I yield such time as they 
may consume to: the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Mcarthy), the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green), the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse), the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have been denied the 
opportunity to join this most important constitutional debate, and I 
rise to announce my intention to vote against an open-ended inquiry 
that is bad for our families and bad for this country.


                      Announcement By The Speaker

  The SPEAKER. The Chair wishes to announce that the Chair is prepared 
to recognize normal unanimous consent requests within the normal 
framework or the Chair will cut off all unanimous consent requests.
  (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution, in support of a fair process of inquiry.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
motion to recommit House Resolution 581 so that the measure may be 
amended to provide a swift, fair, judicious resolution to the inquiry 
of whether the referral of the Independent counsel constitutes an 
impeachable offense by our President.
  The debate to day is not about whether to proceed with an impeachment 
inquiry. It is about how we should proceed. I support a responsible 
inquiry that will focus on the 15 findings contained in over 10,000 
pages and documents provided to the Congress and the American people. 
Our inquiry should begin with a determination of what standard 
constitutes an impeachable offense, and an examination of the 
sufficiency of the evidence. If more evidence is needed, we can expand 
the inquiry. We must be sure the findings constitute impeachment.
  For too long the attention of the Congress has not been focused on 
the needs of the American people: reforming our health care system, 
achieving quality education, making Social Security solvent, and 
restoring soundness to our global economy which faces the possibility 
of a serious recession in light of a world economic downturn. For the 
sake of the country we should complete this inquiry by the end of the 
year, so that we can get back to the business of the American people.
  I approach this vote with a deep respect for the Constitution, the 
Presidency, and the Congress. It is a serious act to overturn an 
election. I am profoundly disturbed and disappointed by what the 
President has done. Impeachment is meant not to punish a President but 
to protect the Nation and its citizens against the abuse of power. Our 
actions today are more important than any one individual. This vote 
speaks to the essence of our democracy and the premises of our Founding 
Fathers. The inquiry must go forward expeditiously and free from 
partisanship.
  I am committed to exercising sound judgment in the best interest of 
the citizens of my district and this great Nation.
  (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
resolution and in support of fairness, the Constitution and America.
  That's not rain outside Mr. Speaker, today the Angels are crying.
  Today will be a historic day, but what kind of history will we be 
making?
  If the vote goes as it is projected to and the resolution from the 
Judiciary Committee is passed in its present form, then Mr. Speaker, 
today the elected representatives of the people will in doing so defy 
the people, ignore their pleas that enough is enough, and instead vote 
to proceed with an ignominious impeachment inquiry that is based solely 
on partisan politics and not in or on our common interest or that of 
the state.
  In doing so, given the nature of the charges which do not come even 
close to meeting the standards for impeachment, and having refused to 
limit the scope or the time, or proceed in a fair manner, it is clear 
Mr. Speaker that the intent is to destroy President Clinton, and the 
Democratic chances for victory in November. It clearly has nothing to 
do with protecting the state.
  My colleagues, I rise to say to you that what you are proposing to do 
will probably not destroy Bill Clinton although it may affect the 
election outcome, but what it will do is destroy the institution of the 
Presidency for future generations, it will undermine the Constitution 
that is there to protect the least of us, it will destabilize the 
economy that so many have benefitted from, it will weaken our military 
efforts abroad, and it will damage the integrity of this House.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Angels are crying today.
  Mr. Speaker, all that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus 
asked for was fairness. That was not agreed to because it would have 
dictated that there be no inquiry at all. The Democratic caucus, 
knowing that a motion to proceed with the inquiry would pass, then 
asked for a legitimate, fair and focused process. This too is today 
being denied, Mr. Speaker, and in doing so it is the request of the 
American people that is being denied.
  Today history will be made, let us proceed fairly and vote on the 
dictates of conscience not politics. Otherwise, I assure you, Mr. 
Speaker we will all regret that this day ever dawned.
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this very unfair 
resolution and in support of a fair resolution, the Democrat 
alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, today, as we consider this Impeachment Inquiry 
Resolution, each must ask the question, what does the Constitution 
require of us?
  Impeachment of a President is really a greater punishment of the 
people. When we impeach a President, we frustrate the will of the 
people. That is why we must consider this matter with great care and 
probe deeply within our own conscience.
  That is why we must have standards. In the sixty impeachment 
proceedings since 1789, no Congress has ever impeached a President. Two 
Presidents have faced impeachment, Andrew Johnson, 1868, and Richard 
Nixon in 1974. Johnson was acquitted. Nixon resigned before trial.
  The Constitution sets out what constitutes an ``Impeachable 
Offense'', as ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.'' We must ask ourselves, do we believe this President has 
committed ``treason,'' or any offense like treason?
  Treason, attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government, or 
betraying the government into the hands of a foreign power? We must ask 
ourselves, can it be said that this President committed ``bribery,'' 
attempting to influence the behavior of a public official?
  Neither the Starr Report nor the Shippers Charges, list treason or 
bribery among the claimed offenses. So, what does ``Other high crimes 
and misdemeanors,'' mean?
  We must not substitute our personal view of an impeachable offense 
for the Constitution's definition. And, what of the people's business? 
What of education, health care, small farmers, the global economy, and 
Social Security? Each must ask, in seeking to do our duty with this 
matter, have we done our duty for the people? When this day closes, 
each must ask, have I moved this Nation forward? Have I met my 
appointed task? Have I carried out my responsibility? Have I done the 
deeds for which I am obliged?
  (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

[[Page H10090]]

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to any impeachment 
inquiry, and hopefully we will move forward though in a fair and speedy 
process.
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution 
believing that in the national interest, in the national interest, that 
we have a brief and concise hearing.
  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
unfair resolution.
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
undemocratic, unconstitutional resolution.
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair 
Republican resolution and in favor of the fair Democratic alternative.
  (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unequivocal opposition 
to this unfair practice.
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the Hyde resolution and in favor of the Democratic amendment.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to the Hyde 
resolution and in support of the Democratic alternative.
  As a woman and a Democrat, I am embarrassed by the President's 
conduct. What he did was wrong.
  The very idea of considering impeaching a duly-elected President and 
removing him from office is one of the most serious and weighty tasks 
of the U.S. Congress. Since the Independent Counsel's report was 
delivered to the steps of Capitol Hill, I have thoroughly and carefully 
reviewed the allegations. But since that day, I have also seen 
important constitutional questions answered with partisanship, 
compromise destroyed by politics, and legal discussions replaced by 
political attacks. The Republican leadership has allowed desire for 
political gain to distort this investigation, with little regard for 
the harm done to American families.
  The mudslinging and dirt digging has gone too far and lasted too 
long. It has hurt our country, damaged this Congress, and harmed our 
families. We should be focusing on education, Social Security, and 
health care. Our nation cannot endure an inquiry that goes on month 
after month with no direction and no end in sight. Before we jump in 
head first, we need an exit strategy.
  That is why I will vote against the Republican resolution. With no 
limits and no guidelines, the Republican resolution gives the majority 
party carte-blanche to do still more dirt digging, more snooping, and 
more probing into personal lives and intimate details. Quite simply, 
the Republican investigation risks careening out-of-control and 
dragging our kids and our families down with it.
  I will vote for the Democratic alternative proposal because it is 
fair, focused, and finite. While it does allow Congress to expand its 
investigation should new facts come to light, it first defines an 
impeachable offense, specifies the scope of the investigation, and 
establishes a concrete time frame. Without these guidelines and the 
time limit, we will never be able to get this ordeal behind us.
  (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this pre-Halloween 
witch-hunt.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this impeachment 
inquiry resolution. We have lost our senses in this Congress! This 
proposed inquiry is the result of a well-planned witch hunt. For years 
the nation has been forced to live with daily news articles aimed at 
discrediting the President and the First Lady. The nation is weary and 
the world is in crisis! We must end this insanity now!
  Our Constitution is at stake; our democratic system is at stake. Will 
the Congress overturn the will of the people in electing our President? 
The report to the Congress on this matter is not about high crimes or 
misdemeanors against the United States of America--the only grounds for 
impeachment.
  We do not need to waste more time on this issue. Every year 1 million 
more people lose health care and our education system is collapsing. 
This leadership refuses to address the important issues of working 
people, children, and the nation's oppressed. I urge my colleagues to 
end this nightmare now!
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. In view of the partisan, arbitrary and capricious 
limitation of time, I rise in opposition to the Republican proposal 
that limits time but does not limit scope.
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House of 
Representatives today is not whether the President's behavior should be 
condoned, nor is it whether the House should proceed with an inquiry to 
determine if this behavior amounts to an impeachable offense. I believe 
that the President's behavior was wrong and indefensible, and I believe 
an inquiry is necessary. The question before us today is what form this 
inquiry should take. Should it be an open-ended process as provided in 
the underlying motion H. Res. 581 that allows the Judiciary Committee 
to investigate anything it wants for as long as it wants, as this 
resolution would authorize, or should the inquiry be limited in scope 
to the allegations contained in the Independent Counsel's referral and 
brought to resolution by the end of the year, as the Boucher motion to 
recommit would do?
  Today, I am voting for the motion to recommit because I believe the 
House should fully and fairly investigate this matter, but also bring 
it to a conclusion so we can move on and address the critical 
challenges facing our nation, including the most serious international 
economic crisis in half a century. If the motion to recommit were 
adopted, we could immediately begin with an in-depth inquiry into the 
referral of the Independent Counsel. The nation cannot afford, and the 
American people do not want, an open-ended, boundless, limitless 
inquiry as contained in the Hyde resolution that would consume all the 
time and energy of our nation's leaders. How long will this resolution 
go on? One year, two years? I fear the Congress will get little, if 
anything, done if we reject the Boucher motion and adopt the Hyde 
motion, as underscored by the recent track record of inaction on the 
budget, the Patients Bill of Rights, recapitalization of the 
International Monetary Fund, and other critical issues. My constituents 
tell me that they want this matter resolved quickly and fairly, and 
that is what I am voting to do today.
  The resolution I am voting for today fulfills the House's obligations 
under the Constitution and the Independent Counsel law. It establishes 
a process by which the Judiciary Committee would first thoroughly and 
comprehensively review the constitutional standard for impeachment of 
the President. If the Committee determined that the Independent 
Counsel's referral could constitute grounds for impeachment, the 
Committee would then move to an inquiry stage in which it would fully 
and completely determine whether to recommend to the House that grounds 
exist for the House to exercise its constitutional power to impeach the 
President. If the Committee did not recommend impeachment to the House, 
this resolution would allow the Judiciary Committee to consider 
alternative sanctions or to recommend no action at all. It is also 
important to note that this resolution, while limiting the scope of the 
current inquiry to the Independent Counsel's referral, recognizes that 
the House would have to consider--as required under the Independent 
Counsel statute--any additional referral subsequently forwarded by the 
Office of the Independent Counsel. In short, this resolution neither 
forecloses a broader inquiry should one be warranted, not does it 
presume that one may be needed, as the majority's resolution would do.
  That said, I believe it is terribly important, given the 
circumstances, that Congress should seek to determine whether there is 
serious injury to the system of Government. But this does not mean that 
we should have an open ended inquisition. The alternative resolution 
does not preclude investigating other matters when they are referred. 
It only means that for now, we should investigate what Judge Starr has 
referred to the Congress and proceed expeditiously and, above all, 
fairly.
  Mr. Speaker, we should remember that the Framers of the Constitution 
did not see impeachment as punishment. Impeachment is a vehicle by 
which to remove a threat to the nation's laws and to restore its 
political and legal health. We cannot let our collective anger get in 
the way of our official duties to the nation. If it is our anger that 
we want to express, we have several options and we can debate those at 
a later date. But we have a very serious

[[Page H10091]]

and terribly important duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, not 
only from foreign enemies, but from our own destructive impulses as 
well.
  Before we proceed with this inquiry, we should determine what, in 
fact, constitutes an impeachable offense. Determining what are 
impeachable offenses will help the Congress to expedite this inquiry. 
Also, if evidence exists that warrants impeachment, we will be able to 
build the strongest case possible against the President. No President, 
today or in the future, should be impeached on accusations that amount 
to death by a thousand cuts. Rather, he should be impeached on the most 
serious, most tragic misconduct against the state.
  The consequences of wringing our collective hands over this issue for 
the remainder of the Clinton Presidency are enormous and dire. First, 
the international financial crisis that has ravaged economies in Asia, 
Russia, and South America is slowly making its way to our borders. This 
crisis has produced consequences not seen in 65 years, since the Great 
Depression: deflation, mass unemployment, and currency devaluations. We 
should be working to fix the problems associated with unregulated 
capital markets. Second, there are a host of foreign policy challenges 
that we are not addressing as a result of our attention to this issue--
in Kosovo, the Middle East, North Korea, and Iraq.
  Above all, whatever action we take must stand the test of time. 
History will not shine brightly on the 105th Congress if we are wrong 
about how we proceed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
support the alternative motion, to authorize an immediate inquiry by 
the Judiciary Committee into the Starr referral and report back its 
findings and recommended actions no later than December 31, 1998 so 
that we may put this sordid chapter of American History behind us and 
continue to move the nation forward.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with apologies to 
recognize my colleagues on this side for 20 seconds each: The son of 
our friend Harold Ford, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford, Jr.), 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleague on that side of the aisle 
do not like our President. Some of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle may not like the Speaker. Some of my colleagues on that side of 
the aisle may not like other colleagues of theirs, and those on this 
side the same.
  But that does not give us the grounds to launch an impeachment 
inquiry. Let us do the fair thing, I say to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde). Let us do the right thing.
  We all want an inquiry. We all think it is the fair thing to do. But 
put some time limits, some scope limits. Do the right thing for 
America. We did it for the Speaker. Do it for this President
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I think that we all should understand that 
the American public are not just going to be mere spectators in this 
masquerade, since we are getting close to Halloween, I guess we want to 
get there earlier, of a legitimate inquiry.
  This Congress has conducted dozens upon dozens of investigations of 
Bill Clinton and his administration. Not one of them would any 
objective person say has been fair or nonpartisan, and this will not 
be. But if we got to impeach this President or force him from office, 
there will be economic consequences for the American people. Let them 
in on this big secret that they will not just be spectators if we carry 
on with this charade.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary was asked on 
September 11 to review the communication received on September 9 to 
determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House 
that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. We did not ask to go beyond 
what was in that report, but this is what the other party seeks to do.
  We asked them to define the standard of what was an impeachable 
offense and measure against that what was in that report, and they have 
not done that on the committee. This was to be done before we got here 
today. We now need a fair process, Mr. Speaker. Let us hope we can get 
on with that type of process.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the open ended investigation 
and support a limited one.
  Mr. Speaker, the overturning of an election in a democracy should not 
be taken lightly. Our country's history in presidential impeachment 
inquiries is limited due to the seriousness of overturning an election.
  The President's conduct cannot be defended, and I have not done so. 
Like most Americans, I believed the President last January when he 
misled and lied to us. I was disappointed with the President's behavior 
and I will not defend his actions.
  The House Judiciary Committee has recommended the beginning of an 
inquiry into impeachment of the President. This resolution is not 
limited in scope or time. The Independent Counsel's office has 
submitted one report based on the Lewinsky allegations while the 
Judiciary Committee, on a partisan vote, wants an inquiry that is 
broad-based and not limited in time. We should provide limits to any 
inquiry that potentially will overturn an election.
  One of our founding fathers, George Mason, said that the phrase 
``high crimes and misdemeanors refers to presidential actions that are 
great and dangerous offenses, or attempts to subvert the 
Constitution.'' Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper Number 65, 
wrote that ``Impeachable offenses relate chiefly to injuries done 
immediately to society itself.'' An impeachment should only be 
undertaken for serious abuse of official power or a serious breach of 
official duties. The impeachment process should never be used as a 
legislative vote of no confidence on the President's conduct or 
policies.
  This week I had the opportunity to listen to many constitutional 
scholars. Attached is a letter from some of them that provides the 
basis to oppose an unlimited inquiry.
                                                  October 2, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Did President Clinton commit ``high 
     Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for which he may properly be 
     impeached? We, the undersigned professors of law, believe 
     that the misconduct alleged in the Independent Counsel's 
     report does not cross that threshold.
       We write neither as Democrats nor as Republicans. Some of 
     us believe that the President has acted disgracefully, some 
     that the Independent Counsel has. This letter has nothing to 
     do with any such judgments. Rather, it expresses the one 
     judgment on which we all agree: that the Independent 
     Counsel's report does not make a case for presidential 
     impeachment.
       No existing judicial precedents bind Congress's 
     determination of the meaning of ``high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors.'' But it is clear that Members of Congress 
     would violate their constitutional responsibilities if they 
     sought to impeach and remove the President merely for conduct 
     of which they disapproved.
       The President's independence from Congress is fundamental 
     to the American structure of government. It is essential to 
     the separation of powers. It is essential to the President's 
     ability to discharge such constitutional duties as vetoing 
     legislation that he considers contrary to the nation's 
     interests. And it is essential to governance whenever the 
     White House belongs to a party different from that which 
     controls the Capitol. The lower the threshold for 
     impeachment, the weaker the President. If the President could 
     be removed for any conduct of which Congress disapproved, 
     this fundamental element of our democracy--the President's 
     independence from Congress--would be destroyed.
       It is not enough, therefore, that Congress strongly 
     disapprove of the President's conduct. Under the 
     Constitution, the President cannot be impeached unless he has 
     committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors.''
       Some of the charges laid out in the Independent Counsel's 
     report fall so far short of this high standard that they 
     strain good sense: for example, the charge that the President 
     repeatedly declined to testify voluntarily or pressed a 
     debatable privilege claim that was later judicially rejected. 
     These ``offenses'' are not remotely impeachable. With 
     respect, however, to other allegations, the report requires 
     careful consideration of the kind of misconduct that renders 
     a President constitutionally unfit to remain in office.
       Neither history nor legal definitions provide a precise 
     list of high crimes and misdemeanors. Reasonable people have 
     differed in interpreting these words. We believe that the 
     proper interpretation of the Impeachment Clause must begin by 
     recognizing treason and bribery as core or paradigmatic 
     instances, from which the meaning of ``other high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors'' is to be extrapolated. The constitutional 
     standard for

[[Page H10092]]

     impeachment would be very different if, instead of treason 
     and bribery, different offenses had been specified. The 
     clause does not read, ``Arson, Larceny, or other high Crimes 
     and Misdemeanors,'' implying that any significant crime might 
     be an impeachable offense. Nor does it read, ``misleading the 
     People, Breach of Campaign Promises, or other high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors,'' implying that any serious violation of public 
     confidence might be impeachable. Nor does it read, 
     ``Adultery, Fornication, or other high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors,'' implying that any conduct deemed to reveal 
     serious moral lapses might be an impeachable offense.
       When a President commits treason, he exercises his 
     executive powers, or uses information obtained by virtue of 
     his executive powers, deliberately to aid an enemy. When a 
     President is bribed, he exercises or offers to exercise his 
     executive powers in exchange for corrupt gain. Both acts 
     involve the criminal exercise of presidential powers, 
     converting those awful powers into an instrument either of 
     enemy interests or of purely personal gain. We believe that 
     the critical, distinctive feature of treason and bribery is 
     grossly derelict exercise of official power (or, in the case 
     of bribery to obtain or retain office, gross criminality in 
     the pursuit of official power). Nonindictable conduct might 
     rise to this level. For example, a President might be 
     properly impeached if, as a result of drunkenness, he 
     recklessly and repeatedly misused executive authority.
       The misconduct of which the President is accused does not 
     involve the derelict exercise of executive powers. Most of 
     this misconduct does not involve the exercise of executive 
     powers at all. If the President committed perjury regarding 
     his sexual conduct, this perjury involved no exercise of 
     presidential power as such. If he concealed evidence, this 
     misdeed too involved no exercise of executive authority. By 
     contrast, if he sought wrongfully to place someone in a job 
     at the Pentagon, or lied to subordinates hoping they would 
     repeat his false statements, these acts could have involved a 
     wrongful use of presidential influence, but we cannot believe 
     that the President's alleged conduct of this nature amounts 
     to the grossly derelict exercise of executive power 
     sufficient for impeachment.
       Perjury and obstructing justice can without doubt be 
     impeachable offenses. A President who corruptly used the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation to obstruct an investigation 
     would have criminally exercised his presidential powers. 
     Moreover, covering up a crime furthers or aids the underlying 
     crime. Thus a President who committed perjury to cover up his 
     subordinates' criminal exercise of executive authority would 
     also have committed an impeachable offense. But if the 
     underlying offense were adultery, calling the President to 
     testify could not create an offense justifying impeachment 
     where there was none before.
       It goes without saying that lying under oath is a serious 
     offense. But even if the House of Representatives had the 
     constitutional authority to impeach for any instance of 
     perjury or obstruction of justice, a responsible House would 
     not exercise this awesome power on the facts alleged in this 
     case. The House's power to impeach, like a prosecutor's power 
     to indict, is discretionary. This power must be exercised not 
     for partisan advantage, but only when circumstances genuinely 
     justify the enormous price the nation will pay in governance 
     and stature if its President is put through a long, public, 
     voyeuristic trial. The American people understand this price. 
     They demonstrate the political wisdom that has held the 
     Constitution in place for two centuries when, even after the 
     publication of Mr. Starr's report, with all its extraordinary 
     revelations, they oppose impeachment for the offenses alleged 
     therein.
       We do not say that a ``private'' crime could never be so 
     heinous as to warrant impeachment. Thus Congress might 
     responsibly determine that a President who had committed 
     murder must be in prison, not in office. An individual who by 
     the law of the land cannot be permitted to remain at large, 
     need not be permitted to remain President. But if certain 
     crimes demand immediate removal of a President from office 
     because of their unspeakable heinousness, the offenses 
     alleged against the President in the Independent Counsel's 
     referral are not among them. Short of heinous criminality, 
     impeachment demands convincing evidence of grossly derelict 
     exercise of official authority. In our judgment, Mr. Starr's 
     report contains no such evidence.
           Sincerely,
       Jed Rubenfeld, Professor of Law, Yale University.
       Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political 
     Science, Yale University.
       Akhil Reed Amar, Southmayd Professor of Law, Yale 
     University.
       Susan Bloch, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law 
     Center.
       Paul D. Carrington, Harry R. Chadwick Sr. Professor of Law, 
     Duke University School of Law.
       John Hart Ely, Richard A. Hausler Professor of Law, 
     University of Miami School of Law.
       Susan Estrich, Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and 
     Political Science, University of Southern California.
       John E. Nowak, David C. Baum Professor of Law, University 
     of Illinois College of Law.
       Judith Resnik, Arthur L. Liman Professor, Yale Law School.
       Christopher Schroeder, Professor of Law, Duke University 
     School of Law.
       Suzanne Sherry, Earl R. Larson Professor of Law, University 
     of Minnesota Law School.
       Geoffrey R. Stone, Harry Kalven, Jr. Dist. Serv. Professor 
     & Provost, University of Chicago Law School.
       Laurence H. Tribe, Tyler Professor of Constitution Law, 
     Harvard University Law School.
       Note: Institutional affiliations for purposes of 
     identification only.

  I urge a yes vote for a limited and specific inquiry and a no vote on 
the open-ended, partisan Judiciary Committee inquiry. Our nation is 
more important than an individual or political party.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 8\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), then I yield 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), then I yield 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), our deputy whip of the House, if 
you please.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the people of the United 
States are wise and fair. They understand that the President's conduct, 
the President's lies, the President's behavior was wrong and immoral 
and reprehensible. But they are wise.
  I want to appeal to my colleagues as a woman, as a mother, as a 
grandmother, and as a lawmaker, let us have a formal rebuke of this 
behavior, but then let us move forward in this House, because I want to 
make it very clear that we believe it is immoral not to be rebuilding 
our schools, not to be taking care of our children, not it be focusing 
on health care, and not to preserve Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has the 
toughest job on the face of the earth. We cannot indefinitely keep this 
open and keep it going into next year. The economy is at stake; we know 
that. The economy is unraveling now; we know that. How can we neglect 
it?
  We also know there are a lot of regional and ethnic problems in this 
world. We need to focus on that. We do not need to be preoccupied with 
Monica or anything else. We need to get on with the business at hand. 
Let us move forward.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we should be standing here 
debating the future of Social Security. We should be standing here 
debating health care. We should be standing here debating education for 
our children and how we can protect the environment.
  Instead, we are participating in a political charade. Republicans 
want to do what they could not do in an election, defeat Bill Clinton. 
I have news for my colleagues, the American people are watching. Beware 
the wrath of the American people, Mr. Speaker, beware.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I am going to start with a personal story. 
People constantly ask me where do I get the strength to be a Member of 
Congress at this difficult time in my life. I have to tell my 
colleagues that the strength boils down to a day in Lake Tahoe still. I 
had to kneel down before my two children, Chesare and Chianna, and tell 
them about the death of their father. While they looked at me, it was 
through their eyes that they gave me the strength that I needed to go 
on and do the right thing.
  I think it is now the time that we, perhaps, look at all of our 
children's eyes. Look at their eyes for the strength that we need to go 
forward and to do the right thing.
  This is about the truth, and it is about the Constitution. But the 
Constitution is based upon truth. I think all of this perhaps is 
nothing more than the noise of we are being dragged and kicking our way 
to the truth. That is what it is about is the truth.
  I do believe that once we get to the truth, all of this will 
converge, Democrats, Republicans, the spin in fact,

[[Page H10093]]

polling data, and reality. It will all converge. When we have that, 
perhaps this will end up being nothing more than the sound that is made 
when a leader falls off of his pedestal. Perhaps it will be a lot more 
than that.
  But I say the only way we can get to this quickly is to vote for the 
Committee on the Judiciary resolution and put this work behind us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in the beginning I want to make two things 
clear. First I do not defend the President's actions in the Lewinsky 
matter. He says they are wrong, I agree. Second, the matter of the 
impeachment process must be conducted in a manner which is fair, 
expeditious, and completely open.
  Do these proceedings offered us in the Republican proposal meet these 
tests? Clearly, No.
  In less than one hour Democrats are supposed to be able to discuss 
questions which rank in Constitutional importance with the declaration 
of war--the impeachment of a President and setting aside a presidential 
election, in which the people chose their President is before us.
  We function under a gag rule. We are denied opportunity for the 
people to have this matter properly discussed in their Congress.
  In one hour Minority members are to discuss a great Constitutional 
question, impeachment of a President--unlimited time to be spent on an 
investigation, unlimited personnel to be deployed, no limits as to 
money to be spent, no limits on the breadth and sweep of the 
investigation. All to be done under a gag rule!
  At issue here is not whether the House will convene an impeachment 
proceeding. Before us is whether it will be fair, open and expeditious.
  We have the referral of Mr. Starr. In that document he says he has 
put forward all information then available to justify impeachment.
  I note Mr. Starr has spent over four years, forty million dollars, 
the time of scores and possibly hundreds of Federal law enforcement 
officers and other government employees and the full authority of the 
Federal Government.
  I also note that another prior Special Prosecutor, Starr's 
predecessor, spent two years and $20 million, and found no wrong doing.
  Mr. Starr, then, finds, after prodigious effort and expenditure of 
funds, the substance reported in his referral.
  There he finds nothing now, except improper sexual activity, on which 
he reports in extensive, and in nauseating detail.
  I insisted that all this be published in full, since it is 
regrettably the people's business.
  If you listen to the people, they are telling you they want the 
matter brought to a speedy end.
  It can be ended speedily, and it should be. It will not take more 
than until year's end to go thoroughly into the full of Mr. Starr's 
referral, in whatever detail the Judiciary Committee wishes.
  If they find more, or wish to inquire further, the Judiciary 
Committee can return and with proper request procure such additional 
authority as they require to carry out their function. No one will 
gainsay them.
  I have supported this inquiry until now. I believe such inquiry 
should go forward, properly.
  I do not however believe we should have an unlimited inquiry, without 
constraints, and with an unlimited budget.
  The Republican resolution authorizes a partisan witch hunt, not a 
responsible inquiry.
  Vote against the partisan Republican resolution, vote for the 
Minority's resolution for a proper inquiry. It is fair, expeditious and 
open.
  The people are watching.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of and encourage 
bipartisan support of both the motion to recommit and final passage.
  In spite of the countless words which already have been spoken and 
written about the vote before us today, I feel compelled to clarify 
what this vote is and what it is not.
  First, this is not a vote about guilt or innocence, primarily of 
President Clinton or, as some have recommended, of Kenneth Starr. While 
Members cannot be expected to be void of personal opinion, I believe 
those who already have made public declarations of guilt or innocence 
in this case have been both premature and negligent in their 
constitutional responsibilities.
  Second, this is not a vote about punishment or the specific 
punishment of impeachment. Unfortunately, the media frenzy about this 
action has confused many citizens who believe the House is voting today 
for or against impeachment. We are not. At this point, it is entirely 
unpredictable what the ultimate outcome of this process will be. What 
is clear is that the Constitutional standard of impeachable offenses is 
a high and serious one.
  Third, this vote is not about the election coming up in less than 
four weeks. I have been amused by reporters quizzing me in the past 
week about the degree to which political concerns enter into my votes 
today. I would like to know how they think any vote has a political 
advantage in a District, such as mine, which is split right down the 
middle on each question of impeachment, resignation, censure or 
discontinued all action. No, my votes today are not about politics and 
reelection.
  What we are voting on is of the highest, most serious nature. We must 
cast votes which can stand through time, votes which we can defend 
today, next week, next year, and for the rest of our lives. Every 
member must not only feel free to vote his or her conscience, as has 
been mentioned several times today, but they must feel obligated to do 
so.
  For me, that means doing all that I can to create an environment of 
fairness, justice, and stability for our Country. That is why I am 
supporting the motions which allow us to move forward toward those 
goals.
  While my constituents have differing opinions about what should 
happen next in this process, they are united in one desire: to have 
this unfortunate episode moved out of the present preoccupation and 
into past history. I believe that as a Nation we will not be able to 
move on to other pressing issues until we have properly cleared the 
air, until Constitutional scholars have dissected and debated the 
Constitutional questions, until Members have been given a chance to 
evaluate the merits of various responses, and until the public has 
confidence that fairness and justice has been served.
  I am proud of my party for working together to construct a motion 
which addresses concerns I had about the earlier motion. The scope has 
been expanded to permit additional referrals from the Independent 
Counsel, a critical amendment in my opinion. Second, while accepting 
the reasonable end-of-the-year time goal already suggested by Chairman 
Hyde, the Democratic motion also acknowledges the limitations of one 
Congress mandating behavior by a subsequent Congress. Further, the 
motion expressly states that if the Judiciary Committee is unable to 
complete its assignment within this time frame, a report requesting an 
extension of time will be in order. Thus, there is no arbitrary time 
limit included in this motion.
  But knowing that as the minority party this motion is unlikely to 
prevail today, I am also prepared to vote for the base motion which can 
pass and allow our Nation to progress to the next necessary step of the 
process which will allow healing to begin. This resolution provides the 
Judiciary Committee with a great deal of authority but a great deal of 
responsibility as well.
  I offer my vote in good faith, taking the gentleman from Illinois, 
Chairman Hyde, at his word. By doing so as a minority Member, I believe 
that I can serve to help keep this process honest. Having shown my good 
faith by this vote, I also stand alert to object loudly if the process 
is then abused with partisan gamesmanship. Such abuse, by either side, 
has no place in this matter.
  I support both of the motions before us today and encourage my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to recommit, and I am 
opposed to the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate and the decision to move ahead with an 
inquiry of impeachment is a decision that we must address and which has 
taken four long weeks to make its way to the House Floor. Personally, I 
am deeply saddened by the President's conduct, but it is time for us to 
get on with the task. Looking into the details of the President's 
personal life is not an issue with which Congress should need to be 
involved. This is a view that many of our constituents share. We have 
heard and read too much on this matter. We know what we need to know, 
perhaps even more than we should know with regards to some details. It 
is time to move forward as expeditiously as possible so that we can 
return to the business of our nation and the people's concerns.
  While we debate this resolution and move forward with an inquiry, 
other pressing matters that affect the everyday lives of our 
constituents go unanswered. Today, at this late date, the federal 
government is operating without a

[[Page H10094]]

budget; funding legislation for most government agencies and programs 
remains in a Congressional gridlock; the President's initiative to 
improve our children's education by lowering classroom size is ignored; 
the tobacco settlement is blocked by special interests; and there is no 
time to address the growing health care crisis, the expulsion of 
hundreds of thousands of seniors from HMOs, and the HMOs' continued 
high handed policies that short change consumers and dictate to doctor 
and patient alike. About the only issues that the House seems to have 
time for are more investigations of the President and election year 
posturing for special interest tax breaks and anti-environmental 
riders. It is time for this House to move forward and address the 
issues that matter, helping the American people to help themselves.
  I support the Democratic alternative to conduct the inquiry. This 
Democratic alternative limits the scope of the inquiry to the report 
submitted by Mr. Starr and establishes a workable time frame, requiring 
Committee action to be completed by the end of December. The Office of 
Independent Counsel (OIC) issued a report on September 11 with specific 
allegations. We are compelled to review this report and the supporting 
documentation to determine their validity. What we must not do is to 
adapt a resolution of inquiry which will hand over the O.I.C. the 
ability to superimpose the Starr agenda of continual referrals upon 
this House essentially subventing the Legislative Branch controlling 
the work and agenda of Congress to their end, the people's house 
controlled

  This Democratic alternative is a sound and fair framework which sets 
out an orderly process to assess whether the allegations meet the test 
of the Constitution first, and then and only then to proceed to 
determine the validity of such allegations.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are divided about what steps should 
be taken on this matter. Some have called for the impeachment of the 
President, others favor censure, while still others believe that the 
President's personal life should not be the concern of Congress or the 
OIC. Regardless of their views, however, the American people want this 
issue resolved and put behind us as quickly as possible. The Democratic 
alternative best meets that goal by establishing the proper scope and 
time frame to being this matter to a deliberate and orderly conclusion.
  Consideration of any impeachment resolution or inquiry is a serious 
matter. It is a Constitutional responsibility which I take very 
seriously. However, acting responsibly should not be equated with an 
open-ended, unfocused inquiry. The information that supposedly 
justifies this inquiry has been submitted by the OIC and is already 
available to the Committee and to the House. Requiring the Judiciary 
Committee to act by the end of November is a responsible time frame 
which allows more than enough time to consider the charges and to make 
a final recommendation. If new information comes to light or more time 
is required, that request could be accommodated at that point in time.
  Any inquiry should be focused solely on the matters already submitted 
by Independent Counsel Starr. Mr. Starr and his staff had over 4\1/2\ 
years and $44 million to investigate virtually every aspect of the 
President's life and to track down every rumor in Washington, D.C., 
Arkansas and who knows where else. The result of that exhaustive 
investigation is the Independent Counsel's report and the boxes and 
boxes of information that he has submitted to the House. The 
extraordinary report, which repeatedly and redundantly outlines the 
allegations in vivid detail, has been publicly available for a month 
and spread across the land.
  This report should be the sum and substance of our focus. The OIC 
report is where the matter should end and not be the opening for an 
impeachment inquiry that rehashes every House investigation and every 
rumor spread over the past six years of the President's term. In 
itself, the OIC report justifies this limitation. If after nearly five 
years and $45 million, the OIC did not forward the information to the 
House, it should not now be raised. Nor should Mr. Starr put this 
nation through endless impeachment inquiries and debate with each new 
focus or chapter in his investigation, stringing this matter out even 
further. Starr has had an opportunity to put his best case forward to 
Congress and the American people this September. The Starr Report, in 
all its explicit detail, was regrettably made public without Congress 
even screening the material and without giving the President an 
opportunity to respond. It is now time for Congress to act and with 
such action the Starr investigation of the President should come to a 
close. The American people want and deserve a break from this constant 
drum beat of investigations and leaks. This Congressional House, the 
People's Body, should get back to the business which the people sent us 
to address.

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the claim today of nonpartisan conduct is 
laudable but actions speak louder than words. This resolution leads 
this House down a path of partisan inquiry and hearings, no limits on 
the topics or scope, no time or date to complete. Good intentions and 
claims of good faith should be backed up with text and within context.
  Justice delayed is justice denied and this House has a responsibility 
to make a decision, but today the rule of law is being abused and 
twisted to serve as a Republican spring board to persecute not pursue 
facts and conclude, but rather partisan advantage. Certainly this 
inquiry need not be conducted this way. Fairness, focus, deliberation 
and expeditious action ought to be our goal and guide, to get to work 
and get on with it, not to dribble out and follow every rumor over the 
next year. The House should demand that the Starr report and 
allegations put up their best case now or shut down this five year 
inquisitionlike process. The formula we have in this motion is 
proposition to make no decision, it makes me wonder whether the 
President's accusers have the courage of their conviction to actually 
vote for a process that will lead to a result or just procrastinate and 
duck the issue waiting.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
  (Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am against the open-
ended high resolution.
  Today I will vote for the Democratic alternative because it will 
allow us an orderly and efficient process for evaluating the Starr 
Report. I will vote against the Republican proposal because it will 
provide the opposite--a lengthy, time-consuming, open-ended 
investigation that I do not think is in the best interest of the 
country.
  All of us--members of this House and the public in general--know, 
basically, the facts of this situation. We understand what has 
happened, we may know, frankly, even more than we might wish. We have 
an obligation to consider the facts and to handle the issue. Dealing 
with the information already before us and coming to a conclusion by 
the end of this year seems completely reasonable to me.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  (Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
never-ending impeachment inquiry resolution.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I, without pleasure, rise today in support 
of the resolution.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 581.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  (Mr. FARR of California addressed the House. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the majority 
resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote to start the formal 
inquiry into whether President Clinton should be impeached. The 
President's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was shameful, 
humiliating, and immoral, and his lying to the American people was 
deplorable and reprehensible. His

[[Page H10095]]

dishonesty created a breach of trust between the President and the 
American people, which I believe calls into question his ability to be 
an effective leader.
  The President's alleged actions in trying to conceal the Monica 
Lewinsky affair may constitute an obstruction of justice. In addition, 
his deposition in the Paula Jones case, along with his testimony before 
the federal grand jury, may be construed as perjury.
  There is enough evidence before us now that cannot be ignored. As 
Americans, we owe it to our constitutional government to move ahead 
with a full scale investigation that will ultimately be judged by the 
American people. We may be weary of this entire affair, but we have a 
responsibility to do our job as the Founding Fathers would have wanted 
us to. Laws may be broken and to ignore such possible transgressions is 
a crime against our constitution. This matter should be fully 
investigated by Congress and the American people.
  There is no doubt this is a serious matter and a very difficult 
decision that should not be based on politics. This rises above 
partisan politics. This is about doing the right thing for our 
Republic.
  For these reasons, I believe a thorough and complete investigation 
not limited by time and scope should be entered into by the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  (Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, the House today undertakes one of the most 
serious deliberations facing this Congress--whether to proceed with a 
process to impeach President Clinton. The report issued to this 
Congress by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr--and the thousands of 
pages of additional documents containing related information--have 
provided Members of Congress with an opportunity to review the actions 
taken by the President and make an initial judgment.
  There is information in the Starr Report that is very disturbing. I 
am greatly disappointed in the President's behavior and his affair with 
Monica Lewinsky. He has misled the American people by at first denying 
the affair and then admitting his transgressions. He has misled his 
family and the people who work for him by having them defend his 
denials. He has brought tremendous shame on the Presidency and the 
White House.
  As disappointed as I am with President Clinton, I am also 
disappointed and disturbed by the conduct of the Independent Counsel, 
Kenneth Starr. I believe his investigation has produced leaks to the 
media which under our grand jury secrecy laws are illegal. I believe 
his investigators have intimidated witnesses and used questionable 
tactics to obtain information. Finally, his report is replete with 
salacious and unnecessary information that have disgusted the American 
people. I believe much of his investigation has been aimed only at 
embarrassing and weakening the President.
  The question facing this Congress is whether the President's affairs 
with Monica Lewinsky merits his impeachment. The Independent Counsel 
has spent almost five years and $50 million investigating the 
President. He has included what he believes to be the most serious 
allegations in his report; I have read this report: I have read the 
rebuttal of the White House and I have examined other relevant 
information sent to Congress by Kenneth Starr.
  I have come to the judgment that the House should proceed with an 
impeachment inquiry but within a specific, limited amount of time. The 
Judiciary Committee has before it the product of the Independent 
Counsel. The Members of the Committee can finish their work and come to 
a judgment by the end of this year. If it means the Members of the 
House have to come back after Election Day to vote on a resolution of 
impeachment, then that is our duty.
  I intend to vote for such a motion today on the House floor, and 
against the Hyde Resolution offered by the Republican Majority. The 
Republicans have crafted a resolution which includes no time limits, no 
boundaries, no scope. If their resolution is passed, we are looking at 
months and perhaps years of further investigation. In their partisan 
attempt to embarrass the President and make this an election issue, 
they have refused to allow an alternative to their resolution and 
permit only two hours of debate. It is an insult to our democratic 
process. Mr. Speaker, this investigation will become more partisan and 
political as time goes on.
  There is much at stake as we consider this inquiry. We are facing a 
global fiscal crisis, a potential conflict in Central Europe involving 
Serbia and Albania, and continued problems here at home. The world is 
anticipating the leadership only America can provide. Are we prepared 
to squander the political prowess and leadership of the United States 
of America to further investigate the President's extramarital affair? 
Will millions of American continue to live in poverty and without 
health insurance as Congress wastes millions on more Lewinsky hearings?
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring this investigation to a close. The 
American people want us to weigh the evidence presented in the Starr 
Report, allow the Judiciary Committee to go ahead and make a judgment 
by the end of the year, and recommend a decision to the full House. The 
House should then vote and get this matter behind us, so we can turn as 
a nation to address those other issues which are calling out for our 
focused leadership. That is why I intend to vote to reject the open-
ended Republican resolution, and for the motion to set specific time 
limits and scope so we as a nation can bring this matter to an end.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
offered by Mr. Hyde to begin an inquiry into allegations against the 
President of the United States. This decision does not come easily, but 
I believe that it is in the best interest of our nation. It is time to 
bring closure to this painful time in our history by conducting an 
open, fair and bipartisan inquiry to determine the facts in this case. 
Passage of the resolution will put in place a process to resolve this 
matter and allow Congress to move on and deal with the more pressing 
issues of the Country.
  I am not entirely pleased with the resolution we have before us. I 
would like to see some time limits placed on the hearing so this matter 
does not drag out for an extended period of time. That is why I also 
support the Democratic amendment which places reasonable time limits on 
the process while allowing for an extension of the inquiry if new 
information is presented or it becomes clear that more time is needed 
to conduct a thorough hearing. There comes a time, however, when we 
must rely on the promises of members who are leading this effort. 
Chairman Hyde has promised that he will make every effort to finish 
this inquiry before the end of this year. Chairman Hyde is a man of 
great integrity and I am placing my trust in him and his commitment to 
conduct this inquiry in a fair, non-partisan and quick manner.
  With passage of this resolution, we are embarking upon a very 
important Constitutional exercise that has seldom been used before. 
This is one of the greatest Constitutional responsibilities that 
members of Congress face. We must determine whether the conduct of the 
President rises to the level to justify removal from office and the 
paralyzation of our country for an extended period of time.
  As a former prosecutor, I've placed my faith and trust in the law and 
the due process of law. We have a process in our Constitution which 
allow the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry about allegations 
which may rise to an impeachable offense. I am willing to give the 
majority party, at this time, the benefit of the doubt that they can 
conduct this inquiry in a fair, quick and non-partisan manner. I 
believe that if we are going to have any credible closure to this 
investigation, it has to happen in a bipartisan manner.
  My hope is based on the fact that when we begin this extremely 
important Constitutional responsibility, all members will make 
decisions based on what they feel are in the best interests of this 
country and for future generations rather than short term partisan 
gain. That is what the American people expect us to do.
  The American people will decide the fate of this President, and, 
ultimately, they will be the judge and jury of the process we are about 
to embark upon. The authors of the Constitution placed the power of 
impeachment in the House of Representatives because it is the 
``people's House''. Members of Congress must have the support of the 
public before we take action to overturn a national election.
  I support this resolution with the confidence that Chairman Hyde will 
keep to his promise of conducting a fair, non-partisan and quick 
inquiry. Not only is the integrity and credibility of the Presidency at 
stake, but so is the integrity and credibility of the U.S. Congress. In 
the final analysis, our children and grandchildren will know, years 
from now, whether we did our Constitution and this great nation proud.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)

[[Page H10096]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object that all Members of the House 
were not given enough time to speak.

                          ____________________