[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10096-H10119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1400
   AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER 
   SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON 
                CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, to my Republican friends, sincerely, Gerald 
Ford has said that we must take the path back to dignity. I want that 
to weigh on the Members' hearts for this next hour, because more is at 
stake than the President's fate.
  ``Moving with dispatch,'' Gerald Ford said, ``the House Judiciary 
Committee should be able to conclude a preliminary inquiry into 
possible grounds for impeachment before the end of the year.''
  I think that we can do it. Our resolution calls for it. I have talked 
incessantly in private meetings with the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) toward this end, and I hope that all of us will commit 
ourselves to that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want Members to know that in my view, the 
American people have a deep sense of right and wrong, of fairness and 
privacy. I believe that the Kenneth W. Starr investigation may have 
offended those sensibilities. Who are we in the Congress? What is it 
that we stand for?
  Do we want to have prosecutors with unlimited powers, accountable to 
no one, who will spend a million dollars investigating a person's sex 
life, is that the precedent we are setting, who then haul them before 
grand juries, every person that they have known of the opposite sex, 
every person that they had contact with, and then record and release 
videos to the public of the grand jury questioning the most private 
aspects of one's personal life?
  Please, I beg the Members not to denigrate this very important 
process in Article II, Section 4.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Barney Frank), a senior member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, someone inaccurately, well-
intended but inaccurately, said the Democrats were agreeing there 
should be an inquiry. No, let me define what we say. We accept the fact 
that the statutorily designated Independent Counsel sent us a referral, 
and we are obligated to look at it.
  But what our resolution says is, let us first look at what he has 
alleged, and assuming that it is true, decide whether or not those 
things are impeachable. There is a very real question. If we look at 
the dismissal of the charge that Richard Nixon did not pay his income 
tax because it was a personal matter, that would suggest some of these 
are not impeachable.
  If we get to the question of lying, in fact, both the Speaker and I 
have been reprimanded by this House for lying before official 
proceedings. That has not kept either of us from continuing to do our 
duty to our best possible. We will have to look at whether or not these 
are impeachable issues. But the question is, do we look at those, or do 
we look at a whole lot of other things.
  I think my Republican colleagues fear that there is not enough in 
those accusations to meet the impeachment standard. That is why they 
refuse and refuse and refuse to limit it, to get into not just a 
fishing expedition, but the deep sea fishing expedition of Whitewater 
and the other matters.

[[Page H10097]]

  Scope affects time. It is because they are holding out the hope that 
something will turn up after 4 years about Whitewater and the FBI files 
and the travel office and all of these other accusations that have to 
date proven to be dry holes for those trying to get Bill Clinton, they 
want to not limit the time because they need to keep it open.
  Here is what that means in terms of time. Under our resolution, which 
calls for a December 31 deadline, we would begin work right away, on 
our time. This Congress is about to adjourn, and on our time, which 
would otherwise be not dealing with the public's business, we are ready 
to get into it.
  Under their resolution, let me make it very clear to the Members, 
they have no real plans to do anything during October. We have read 
about that. They are not going to start until after the election. They 
are not going to start until 2 months after we got Kenneth Starr's 
report, because they think it will not play out well in the election, 
so vote for their resolution, and Members will find that the American 
people's time will be taken up again next year.
  We are ready to do it now on our time and get it out of the way. They 
are asking us to give them a mandate to stretch it out, wait until 
after the election, and let it dominate next year, to our detriment, 
just as it has so far.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, first, in entering this debate, I consider it 
a great personal privilege to be allowed to follow two men for whom I 
have such profound respect, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  I want to say, as a Republican, that as we begin this procedure, I 
start with the presumption that the President is deemed innocent of any 
allegation of wrongdoing unless and until the contrary is shown. Every 
reasonable inference that can be given to the President must be given 
to the President.
  It is unfortunate that some of today's rhetoric would suggest that 
this resolution seeks nothing more than to have a carte blanche 
opportunity for Congress to inquire into the President's personal 
lifestyle. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, it is our 
purpose, it is our legal obligation, to review any president's 
potentially constitutional misconduct within the framework of the 
Constitution and the rule of law.
  When serious and credible allegations have been raised against any 
president, the Constitution obliges us to determine whether such 
conduct violated that President's obligation to faithfully execute the 
law. We must make this determination, or else forever sacrifice our 
heritage that no person is above the law.
  This Congress must decide whether we as a Nation will turn a blind 
eye to allegations respecting both the subversion of the courts and the 
search for truth. Mr. Speaker, I fear for my country when conduct such 
as perjury and obstruction of justice is no longer viewed with 
opprobrium, but instead is viewed as a sign of legal finesse or 
personal sophistication.
  This House has an obligation to embrace the words of one of our 
predecessors, Abraham Lincoln, who called on every American lover of 
liberty not to violate the rule of law nor show toleration for those 
who do.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between knowing the truth and 
doing the truth. We have an obligation to both, and we have that 
obligation, despite whatever personal or political discomfort it might 
bring. For as Justice Holmes once said, ``If justice requires the truth 
to be known, the difficulty in knowing it is no excuse to try.''
  Let our body be faithful to this search, and in doing so, we will be 
faithful both to our Founders and to our heirs.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield the balance of our time 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dave Bonior) to close debate on our 
side.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized 
for 3 and three-quarters minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we gather today to make a serious decision. 
What the President did is wrong. He should be held accountable. Today 
we have an obligation to proceed in a manner that is fair, that upholds 
our constitutional duties, and allows us to get this matter over with 
so we can get on with the business of the American people.
  Unfortunately, the Republican proposal meets none of these standards. 
It is unfair, it is unlimited, and it prolongs this process 
indefinitely. Under the Republican plan, Congress will spend the next 2 
years mired in hearings, tangled in testimony, and grinding its gears 
in partisan stalemate. Today is just another example of that 
partisanship, that unbridled partisanship.
  There are 435 Members that serve in this body, more on the floor 
today than I have seen in a long time, representing each about a half a 
million people. What has happened in this proceeding today? Two hours 
of debate, 2 hours, with Members having to go and beg for 20 seconds to 
talk to their constituency about one of the most important votes they 
will ever have to cast.
  As the Speaker just said a few minutes ago, this is one of the most 
important debates that we will have. Why are hundreds of Members of 
this body being denied the opportunity to express themselves? This is a 
charade of justice. The American people, through this truncated debate, 
are being railroaded. Today's proceedings are a hit and run.
  The Republican leadership's long-term strategy is very, very clear: 
Drag this thing out week after week, month after month, and yes, year 
after year, not for the good of the country, but for their own partisan 
advantage. The Democratic amendment guarantees that any inquiry will be 
fair, that it will be limited, and that we will complete our work by 
the end of the year.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people already have had all the sordid 
details they need, more than they ever wanted. Do we really want 2 more 
years of Monica Lewinsky, 2 more years of Linda Tripp, 2 more years of 
parents having to mute their TV sets so they can watch the 6 o'clock 
news? We in this Chamber have the power to stop this daily mudslide 
into the Nation's living rooms.
  If the Republicans spend 2 years dragging this investigation out, 
when will they deal with education? If they spend 2 years dragging this 
investigation out, when will they deal with HMO reform? If they spend 2 
years dragging this investigation out, when will they strengthen social 
security?
  I urge my colleagues, let us put a limit, a limit on this 
investigation. Let us end it this year, this year. Let us get back to 
working for our children and our families and for our communities.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
resolution.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me first express my affection and 
respect for my chairman, the Gentleman from Illinois, If Mr. Hyde says 
he hopes to complete this inquiry by the end of the year, I know he 
will do all he can to make good on that promise.
  But if we adopt this resolution, the chairman's good intentions will 
not be enough to prevent this inquiry from consuming not only the 
remainder of this year but most of next year as well.
  Nine days ago, I joined with Mr. Berman, Mr. Graham and Mr. 
Hutchinson in a bipartisan letter asking Chairman Hyde and our ranking 
member, Mr. Conyers, to contact the Independent Counsel--before we 
begin an inquiry--to ask him whether he plans to send us any additional 
referrals.
  They wrote to Judge Start on October 2, and I wish to inform the 
House that last night we received his reply. He said, and I quote, ``I 
can confirm at this time that matters continue to be under active 
investigation and review by this Office. Consequently, I cannot 
foreclose the possibility of providing the House of Representatives 
with additional [referrals].''
  There you have it, Mr. Speaker. Despite the fact that both Mr. Hyde 
and Mr. Conyers had urged the Independent Counsel to complete his work 
before transmitting any referral to the House, what he has given us in 
essentially an interim report.
  As the Starr investigation enters its fifth year, we face the 
prospect that we will begin our inquiry only to receive additional 
referrals in midstream. Under this open-ended resolution, each 
subsequent referral will become

[[Page H10098]]

part of an ever-expanding ripple of allegations. With no end in sight.
  That is not a process, Mr. Speaker. It's a blank check. And I believe 
it's more than the American people will stand for.
  They do not want us traumatizing the country and paralyzing the 
government for another year when we don't even know whether there is 
``probable cause'' to begin an inquiry. And they don't want us 
abdicating our constitutional responsibility to an unelected prosecutor 
and accepting his referral on faith.
  If we do that--if all a President's adversaries have to do to start 
an impeachment proceeding is secure the appointment of an Independent 
Counsel and await his referral--then we will have turned the 
Independent Counsel Act into a political weapon with an automatic 
trigger--a weapon aimed at every future President.
  What the people want is a process that is fair. A process that is 
focused. And a process that will put this sad episode behind us with 
all deliberate speed.
  The Majority resolution does not meet those standards. Our 
alternative does. It provides for the Judiciary Committee to determine 
first whether any of the allegations would amount to impeachable 
offenses if proven. Only if the answer to that question is ``yes'' 
would we proceed to inquire into whether those allegations are true. 
The entire process would end by December 31--the target date chosen by 
Chairman Hyde himself--unless the committee asks for additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a fair and responsible way to do our job. It is 
also the only way to ensure that when that job is done, the American 
people will embrace our conclusions, whatever they may be.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated repeatedly over the 
past weeks and months, President Clinton's conduct in having an 
improper relationship with Monica Lewinsky and not being truthful about 
it was wrong, plain and simple, and it has left me profoundly 
disappointed.
  I believe the House Judiciary Committee should begin an inquiry into 
whether the report of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on these 
matters presents facts that warrant impeachment of President Clinton. 
The debate today in the House is not about whether to proceed with an 
impeachment inquiry. It is about how to proceed.
  Because this is only the third time in our history that Congress has 
taken the step of initiating an impeachment inquiry against a 
President, it is vitally important that we proceed in a fair, 
deliberate and timely manner. We must always remember that our Founding 
Fathers did not intend the impeachment process to be an exercise in 
partisan wrangling to be pursued when the legislative and executive 
branches are controlled by different political parties. Instead, our 
Constitution establishes impeachment as a solemn and extraordinary 
removal process triggered only when grounds of ``treason, bribery or 
other high crimes and misdemeanors'' are established against a 
President.
  It is critical to establish appropriate ground rules for this 
extremely rare and constitutionally significant proceeding. A proper 
inquiry must focus squarely on the matters raised by the Starr report, 
evaluate the constitutional standard for impeachment, weigh the 
sufficiency of the evidence, and reach a recommendation on the question 
of impeachment by the end of this year.
  As our Nation's history has shown, an ongoing impeachment inquiry is 
incredibly disruptive to the normal functioning of our government. It 
is therefore imperative that the process be concluded as quickly as can 
reasonably be accomplished. North Dakotans and all Americans believe 
that we must return to the urgent policy matters before us--
strengthening the quality of our schools, preserving Social Security, 
and assisting our family farmers.
  The inquiry process advanced by the majority on the House Judiciary 
Committee is fatally flawed because it lacks focus, a careful process, 
and a clear end point. While an appropriate inquiry should proceed, a 
drawn out procedure designed to prolong scandal and achieve political 
advantage must not. I will vote today against the majority's inquiry 
resolution and instead to amend the inquiry process so that this very 
important constitutional proceeding is fair and expeditious, allowing 
all of us to return to the people's business.
  Mrs. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my trepidation 
over the potentially ominous precedent that the impending impeachment 
proceeding may lay out for the annals of our nation's history. In 
expressing my concern, I cannot ignore the history which has placed 
this important resolution before this august body. My unease arises 
because it seems that after years of investigating White Watergate, 
Travelgate, Filegate and other events, the linchpin of the Independent 
Counsel's case are charges of perjury which emanate from a private 
lawsuit funded predominantly by the most conservative, political 
enemies of the President.
  While there is no question that the President's conduct was 
reprehensible, I take great pause in the facts which have compelled the 
leader of the free world before the American corpus and bared him 
virtually raw. I take great pause in what this means to the office of 
the President and, for that matter, any other leader in American 
society who chooses public policy contradictory to powerful opponents.
  While many here today speak to the ``rule of law'' they neglect 
another American ideal which frames the rule of law. A bulwark of the 
American psyche is our embrace of the principle of fairness. It is the 
spirit of fairness that gave birth to the bedrock principle of American 
jurisprudence that the punishment must be proportional to the offense. 
It is with these principles in mind, that I suggest to my dear 
colleagues, that as we vote today in the people's house, and as this 
process moves forward, we must use all due deliberation to ensure 
fairness, and that any punishment meted out fit closely with the 
President's transgressions.
  Now the nation and we here in Congress must turn our attention to 
whether or not to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. And more 
importantly, we must focus on how we should proceed with an impeachment 
inquiry. In reviewing the proposals before Congress today, I state my 
support for the Democratic Amendment. The Democratic Amendment is 
focused, fair, expeditious and deliberate. By requiring the 
consideration of a constitutional standard for impeachment, and a fair 
comparison of the allegations in the context of the well deliberated 
standard, the Democratic Amendment will allow the Congress to resolve 
this terrible blight on our nation's history expeditiously and 
decisively. The Democratic Amendment sets forth clear goals both for 
the scope and length of this investigation so as to prevent the further 
agony of dragging the country through a long and intrusive fishing 
expedition.
  It is my fervent belief that the inappropriate actions of President 
Clinton do not rise to the standard of high crimes, treason, bribery or 
misdemeanors envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It is my 
sworn duty to protect the Presidency, and not the President. As such, 
it is my conclusion and the conclusion of most reasonable American 
citizens, that the last two elections must not be usurped by Congress. 
I cannot support a broad-based, infinite inquiry on the alleged actions 
of the President.
  In summation, I will not support the further abuse of taxpayer 
dollars. I will not support a potentially unending fishing expedition 
based on facts that are no longer under dispute. I will not support 
this blatant pillage of the rights of all Americans. I will not support 
the Republican resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry upon our 
President. It is time for Members of Congress to stand up and protect 
our Constitution and reject this onerous precedent.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is whether to 
look forward or look away.
  After reading the referral Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr 
presented to the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998, and 
reviewing the materials made available to us since then, I believe 
there is enough information to continue on with an inquiry into the 
impeachment of the President.
  Our colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee have already approved 
this resolution and believe a further investigation into the 
allegations against the President is appropriate. A vote in favor of 
this resolution by the full House will enable the House Judiciary 
Committee to proceed with their Constitutional obligations to conduct 
this investigation and make the necessary recommendations concerning 
the impeachment of the President.
  I vote in favor of moving the process forward.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart and a clear conscience, 
I rise today to support the resolution commencing an impeachment 
inquiry into the President of the United States.
  Congress and the American people are faced with a dilemma. On one 
hand, we are aware of admitted wrongdoings by the leader of our nation 
and on the other hand, we are faced with what I feel is overzealous and 
partisan conduct of the Independent Counsel. Both are wrong. We cannot 
and must not compromise our principles because of their lack of 
principles. We deserve a process which is independent of these two 
forces, so we can work responsibly on our duties as outlined by the 
Constitution.
  My decision to vote in this manner was reached after self-examination 
and painstaking reflection on my own deeply held beliefs. This process 
is not one that I enter, nor should be entered into lightly and hope 
that we can work to make this inquiry progress smoothly and without 
partisanship, which has become all too commonplace in the House. 
Lately, I have been concerned over the overt partisan tone on both 
sides of the aisle. We cannot continue to view this process through 
politicians' eyes,

[[Page H10099]]

which have the tendency to become jaded by an individual's political 
beliefs. We cannot be cavalier and must be conscientious. As we 
continue this process, we must strive to be not only bi-partisan, but 
non-partisan because the framers of our Constitution and the people of 
our nation deserve nothing less.
  We must remain focused on the true meaning of this action today. This 
vote is not a vote for impeachment nor does it authorize the removal of 
the leader of our nation from his post. This step today is taken so 
Congress can study if the admitted transgressions of the President 
warrant an official action or indictment by this chamber.
  It is my sincere belief that this inquiry is the proper forum in 
which the House of Representatives can undertake its solemn 
responsibility of deliberating if any of the President's actions rise 
to the level of impeachment. I desire nothing more than to have a quick 
and resolute end to this distressing situation. I believe that ignoring 
the President's situation will force our nation to endure this pain 
even longer. I feel an inquiry serves as the best avenue for the 
President to provide his defense and for Congress to reach the 
deliberative end for which our nations yearns.
  My preference would be to limit this inquiry, by setting a deadline 
and imposing limits on what the inquiry would cover. These parameters 
were offered by the Democrats and I support these reasonable efforts. I 
had hoped the Democratic alternative would be the roadmap that Congress 
would take for this inquiry. To my dismay, this effort failed. I 
support the underlying resolution.
  As I have said, today's vote is not a vote to impeach the President. 
In fact, based on the knowledge I have today, I would not support an 
impeachment of the President. I have serious misgivings about the 
President's actions and am disappointed with the extremely poor choices 
he made.
  Each session, Members of Congress face a great number of votes. Some 
of these votes are merely procedural while others are more weighty 
relating to crucial issues affecting the welfare of our nation. All of 
these votes, seem to pale in comparison to the vote we cast today. 
Barring a vote on the declaration of war, I believe this is one of the 
most important votes we are called to make. I am guided by my strong 
beliefs and distinct desire to move on with this inquiry and come to a 
thoughtful, quick and appropriate resolution.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, We stand at a solemn moment in our nation's 
history. Today, the House votes on a recommendation from the Judiciary 
Committee to proceed with a fair and judicious inquiry into the charges 
contained in the report from the Independent Counsel. Like most of the 
people on Illinois' 14th Congressional District, I am very sad about 
this whole situation, and I am concerned that the President's actions 
have harmed not only his own reputation, but the trust and confidence 
that people have in the Presidency.
  We live in a dangerous world. And our economy, while good, is 
threatened by problems from abroad. In these times, we need leadership 
that people can trust if our democracy is to work. Confidence in 
government is built upon trust. Despite all the media hype and 
sensationalism, I believe the Judiciary Committee must calmly and 
professionally do its work and uncover the truth, because that is the 
only way we can put this matter behind us. Sweeping the matter under 
the rug just won't work but that would be a disservice to the American 
people. We must stand up for the Constitution and the laws of our land.
  Today, I will vote to allow the inquiry to begin so we can move 
quickly to uncover the truth. Every member of the Judiciary Committee, 
Republican and Democrat, voted for an investigation; they only 
disagreed on whether it should be artificially limited. The Committee 
must be free to follow all of the facts until they find the truth. I 
prefer not to set an arbitrary deadline because it will encourage those 
who do not want to get to the truth to run out the clock. Watergate 
Chairman Peter Rodino understood that, and that's why he rejected a 
time limit when Republicans sought one during the Watergate Hearings. I 
am satisfied with Chairman Hyde's commitment to try and get this matter 
resolved by the end of the year.
  Much as we wish we could just jump to an end result, the Founding 
Fathers were wise in establishing a balanced and deliberative process. 
It is the only path to the truth--the lifeblood of our justice system 
and of our democracy. Today, we begin a process to uphold the rule of 
law and help the nation heal.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the resolution of inquiry as 
reported by the Judiciary Committee. I do so based on the concerns 
expressed in the Minority's dissenting views, and for the additional 
reasons set forth below.


                                   I

  On September 9, 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr referred 
information to the House that he alleged may constitute grounds for 
impeaching the President. In the 30 days that have elapsed since our 
receipt of that referral, neither the Judiciary Committee nor any other 
congressional committee has conducted even a preliminary independent 
review of the allegations it contains.
  In the absence of such a review, we have no basis for knowing whether 
there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry--other than the 
assertion of the Independent Counsel himself that his information is 
``substantial and credible'' and ``may constitute grounds for 
impeachment.''
  I believe that our failure to conduct so much as a cursory 
examination before launching an impeachment proceeding is an abdication 
of our responsibility under Article II of the Constitution of the 
United States. By delegating that responsibility to the Independent 
Counsel, we sanction an encroachment upon the Executive Branch that 
could upset the delicate equilibrium among the three branches of 
government that is our chief protection against tyranny. In so doing, 
we fulfill the prophecy of Justice Scalia, whose dissent in Morrison v. 
Olson (487 U.S. 654, 697 (1988)) foretold with uncanny accuracy the 
situation that confronts us.


                                   II

  The danger perceived by Justice Scalia flows from the nature of the 
prosecutorial function itself. He quoted a famous passage from an 
address by Justice Jackson, which described the enormous power that 
comes with ``prosecutorial discretion'':

       What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to 
     select the cases . . . in which the offense is most flagrant, 
     the public harm, the greatest, and the proof the most 
     certain. . . . If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his 
     case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein 
     is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will 
     pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases 
     that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a 
     great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance 
     of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the 
     part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question 
     of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for 
     the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the 
     man and then searching the law books, or putting 
     investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in 
     this realm--in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he 
     dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of 
     unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the 
     greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is 
     here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real 
     crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant 
     or governing group, being attached to the wrong political 
     views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of 
     the prosecutor himself. Morrison, 487 U.S. 654, 728 
     (Scalia, J., dissenting), quoting Robert Jackson, The 
     Federal Prosecutor, Address Delivered at the Second Annual 
     Conference of United States Attorneys (April 1, 1940).

  The tendency toward prosecutorial abuse is held in check through the 
mechanism of political accountability. When federal prosecutors 
overreach, ultimate responsibility rests with the president who 
appointed them. But the Independent Counsel is subject to no such 
constraints. He is appointed, not by the president or any other elected 
official, but by a panel of judges with life tenure. If the judges 
select a prosecutor who is antagonistic to the administration, ``there 
is no remedy for that, not even a political one.'' 487 U.S. 654, 730 
(Scalia, J., dissenting). Nor is there a political remedy (short of 
removal for cause) when the Independent Counsel perpetuates an 
investigation that should be brought to an end:

       What would normally be regarded as a technical violation 
     (there are no rules defining such things), may in his or her 
     small world assume the proportions of an indictable offense. 
     What would normally be regarded as an investigation that has 
     reached the level of pursuing such picayune matters that it 
     should be concluded, may to him or her be an investigation 
     that ought to go on for another year. 487 U.S. 654, 732 
     (Scalia, J., dissenting).

  Under the Independent Counsel Act, there is no political remedy at 
any point--unless and until the Independent Counsel refers allegations 
of impeachable offenses to the House of Representatives under section 
595(c) At that point, the statute gives way to the ultimate political 
remedy: the impeachment power entrusted to the House of Representatives 
under Article II of the Constitution.


                                  iii

  Section 595(c) of the Independent Counsel Act provides that:

       An independent counsel shall advise the House of 
     Representatives of any substantial and credible information 
     which such independent counsel receives, in carrying out the 
     independent counsel's responsibilities under this chapter, 
     that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. 28 U.S.C. 
     595(c).

  The statute is silent as to what the House is to do once it receives 
this information. But under Article II, it is the House--and not the 
Independent Counsel--which is charged with the determination of whether 
and how to conduct an impeachment inquiry. He is not our

[[Page H10100]]

agent, and we cannot allow his judgments to be substituted for our own. 
Nor can we delegate to him our constitutional responsibilities.
  Never in our history--until today--has the House sought to proceed 
with a presidential impeachment inquiry based solely on the raw 
allegations of a single prosecutor. The dangers of our doing so have 
been ably described by Judge Bork, who has written that:

       It is time we abandoned the myth of the need for an 
     independent counsel and faced the reality of what that 
     institution has too often become. We must also face another 
     reality. A culture of irresponsibility has grown up around 
     the independent-counsel law. Congress, the press, and regular 
     prosecutors have found it too easy to wait for the 
     appointment of an independent counsel and then to rely upon 
     him rather than pursue their own constitutional and ethical 
     obligations. Robert H. Bork, Poetic Injustice, National 
     Review, February 23, 1998, at 45, 46 (emphasis added)

  We must not fall prey to that temptation. For when impeachment is 
contemplated, the only check against overzealous prosecution is the 
House of Representatives. That is why--whatever the merits of the 
specific allegations contained in the Starr referral--we cannot simply 
take them on faith. Before we embark on impeachment proceedings that 
will further traumatize the nation and distract us from the people's 
business, we have a duty to determine for ourselves whether there is 
``probable cause'' that warrants a full-blown inquiry. And we have not 
done that.


                                   IV

  What will happen if we fail in this duty? We will turn the 
Independent Counsel Act into a political weapon with an automatic 
trigger--a weapon aimed at every future president.
  In Morrison, Justice Scalia predicted that the Act would lead to 
encroachments upon the Executive Branch that could destabilize the 
constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of 
government. He cited the debilitating effects upon the presidency of a 
sustained and virtually unlimited investigation, the leverage it would 
give to the Congress in intergovernmental disputes, and the other 
negative pressures that would be brought to bear upon the decision 
making process.
  Whether these ill-effects warrant the abolition or modification of 
the Independent Counsel Act is a matter which the House will consider 
in due course. For the present, we should at least do nothing to 
exacerbate the problem. Most of all, we must be sure we do not carry it 
to its logical conclusion by approving an impeachment inquiry based 
solely on the Independent Counsel's allegations. If all a president's 
political adversaries must do to launch an impeachment proceeding is 
secure the appointment of an Independent Counsel and await his 
referral, we could do permanent injury to the presidency and our system 
of government itself.


                                   V

  If the House approves this resolution, it will not be the first time 
in the course of this unfortunate episode that it has abdicated its 
responsibility to ensure due process and conduct an independent review. 
It did so when it rushed to release Mr. Starr's narrative within hours 
of its receipt, before either the Judiciary Committee or the 
President's counsel had any opportunity to examine it. It also did so 
when the committee released 7,000 pages of secret grand jury testimony 
and other documents hand-picked by the Independent Counsel--putting at 
risk the rights of the accused, jeopardizing future prosecutions, and 
subverting the grand jury system itself by allowing it to be misused 
for political purposes.
  These actions stand in stark contrast to the process used during the 
last impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House--the Watergate 
investigation of 1974. In that year, the Judiciary Committee spent 
weeks behind closed doors, poring over evidence gathered from a wide 
variety of sources--including the Ervin Committee and Judge Sirica's 
grand jury report, as well as the report of the Watergate Special 
Prosecutor. All before a single document was released. Witnesses were 
examined and cross-examined by the President's own counsel. 
Confidential material, including secret grand jury testimony, was never 
made public. In fact, nearly a generation later it remains under seal. 
The Rodino committee managed to transcend partisanship at a critical 
moment in our national life, and set a standard of fairness that earned 
it the lasting respect of the American people.
  Today the Majority makes much of the claim that their resolution 
adopts the language that was used during the Watergate hearings. While 
it may be the same language, it is not the same process. Too much 
damage has been done in the weeks leading up to this vote for the 
Majority to claim with credibility that it is honoring the Watergate 
precedent. But it is not too late for us to learn from the mistakes of 
the last three weeks. If we adopt a fair, thoughtful, focused and 
bipartisan process, I am confident that the American people will honor 
our efforts and embrace our conclusions, whatever they may be.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I support the Resolution before us 
today. The bottom line question is: Should we investigate the 
allegations that have been made against the President. As someone has 
said, ``Do we look further or do we look away.'' To fulfill the oath 
that each of us took, I believe that we must look further.
  Some may try to change the subject by quibbling with the parameters 
of the inquiry or the lack of a time limit. Those are details--if not 
excuses--which do not change the fundamental question. The only 
precedent of modern times, the Watergate inquiry, is being followed.
  Others seem to have concluded that even if all of the charges are 
true, it doesn't matter; they do not constitute an impeachable offense. 
Those Members are wrong. Perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of 
power do matter--by anyone--and especially by the one person charged in 
the Constitution with executing the laws of the land.
  We must fulfill our oath to the Constitution that we have sworn to 
``support and defend.'' We cannot stick our heads in the sand and wish 
this unpleasant duty away. We cannot pass along our responsibility to 
polls, the media, or the other body. We have to try to do what is 
right, wherever that may take us, even if some of the facts are 
distasteful.
  But, we must also remember that our response to these facts will help 
determine what kind of nation we will be in the future. Young people--
and even those not so young--are watching. They are learning lessons--
lessons about telling the truth, lessons about selfish, reckless 
behavior, lessons about self-discipline and responsibility. They are 
watching to see if we really mean what we say, whether actions really 
do have consequences. We can teach them good, constructive lessons, or 
we can teach them lessons of another kind.
  How we all handle this episode--what we say about it and what we do 
about it--will affect how much trust people are willing to give their 
elected representatives and the institutions which have navigated us 
through more than 200 years of often treacherous waters. Even more 
importantly, however, how we handle this episode will affect the values 
and moral character of a whole generation of Americans.
  There are important decisions to be made in Washington over the 
coming weeks, but there are even more important decisions to be made 
around the kitchen table in every American home. I pray we all make the 
right decisions.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment. Only twice before 
in the history of our great Republic have we stood at the brink of such 
dramatic action concerning a sitting President. The burden upon us as 
Members of this House is great, and one that I do not take lightly. I 
know a majority of our colleagues feel the same way. The eyes of the 
nation are on us as we perform this duty with the best interests of our 
democracy at heart.
  I rise today to urge bipartisan support of an impeachment inquiry 
into the very serious allegation of felony criminal conduct by the 
President of the United States. Our oath of office requires no less.
  It has become clear over the last several months that the President 
lied under oath in the Paula Jones case, lied under oath to the grand 
jury, and after taking an oath to the nation--an oath in which he swore 
to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the law--he lied to 
the American people.
  Our American government--our systems of laws--is based on truth. We 
all rely on our leaders to respect and uphold that system. The 
President of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in 
our country, and when the chief law enforcement officer shows utter 
disregard for the truth and such little respect for the judicial 
process, it is no less than an assault on the rule of law. Congress 
cannot stand idly by. We have a prescribed Constitutional duty, as the 
people's representatives. The founding fathers charged us with the 
first step in this most solemn process. We do not sit in judgment 
today. Instead we are here to ensure that the President is held 
accountable for his actions in order to protect the dignity of the 
office he holds.
  Equality is another principle fundamental to our nation, and one that 
Americans hold dear. Every person should be equal before the law. If 
any other American citizen lied in a civil deposition, as the President 
did--lied to a grand jury, as the President did--or refused to answer 
grand juror questions without asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege, as 
the President did--that citizen would be prosecuted, and that citizen 
would face certain punishment, including possible imprisonment. Should 
such

[[Page H10101]]

offenses be acceptable in a President? The answer is no.
  But there are larger issues here than just narrow legal questions of 
perjury or obstruction of justice, Mr. Speaker. A President does not 
merely watch over the daily operations of the federal government. He is 
our leader, using his moral authority to guide our nation. A President 
has singular power to influence our history, set our agenda, and to 
send our sons and daughters into harm's way. There is a sacred trust 
which exists between the President of the United States and the people. 
When Bill Clinton made the decision to repeatedly lie and mislead the 
American people, he violated that trust and broke that faith. I believe 
he can no longer effectively lead our country or perform the duties 
expected of his office with that trust shattered. Long before we 
reached the point we are at today, the point of moving forward with an 
impeachment of the President, I joined many of my colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle in suggesting that Bill Clinton should do the 
honorable thing and resign. He could have ended this painful episode at 
the beginning of this year by telling the truth. But he made the 
decision to prolong this ordeal and continue to obfuscate, hiding 
behind veiled lies while parsing legal definitions. Seven months after 
shaking a finger at the American people and spending millions of 
taxpayer dollars in his defense, finally he begrudgingly admitted his 
lies.

  Bill Clinton's dependence on strained, anguished legalisms continues 
to force the American people down the path of impeachment. The choice 
our President has left us with is clear: We can proceed with our 
Constitutionally mandated duty and move forward with this impeachment 
inquiry, or we can knowingly let dishonest, perjurious--possibly 
felonious--behavior slide in the highest office in our nation.
  This resolution is the right course of action for the House to take 
today. It lays out a procedure that is fair and just, both to the 
President and to the members of his party here in the House. Now is not 
the time for partisanship. Some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have put forth their own resolution which would force any 
inquiry into an artificial time constraint, encouraging partisan 
stalling and bickering. We need to move ahead in a bipartisan, 
statesmen-like manner in this most grave of responsibilities. Chairman 
Hyde and the members of his Judiciary Committee have given us the 
vehicle to do that. I congratulate them on their hard work and 
evenhandedness. The American people and the Congress have been given 
unprecedented access to the facts, regardless of their political 
import, and now we must act on those facts.
  It is with a heavy heart and a deep sense of responsibility to my 
office and to my constituents that I vote in favor of this resolution 
today.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, with a commitment to the principles of 
the rule of law which makes this country the beacon of hope throughout 
the world, I cast my vote in favor of the resolution to undertake an 
impeachment inquiry of the conduct of the President of the United 
States. As a Representative in Congress, I can do no less in fulfilling 
my trust responsibility to the Constitution and to all who have 
preceded me in defending the Constitution from erosions of the rule of 
law.
  The impeachment inquiry is necessary to determine the facts 
surrounding the public conduct of the President, including allegations 
of lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. The 
supporting evidence is clearly sufficient to warrant further 
investigation. Without further investigation, we would be ignoring the 
charges and clear preliminary evidence without cause or reason. The 
truth should be our only guide, and only a thorough investigation can 
produce the truth. Those who seek to avoid a thorough investigation are 
really seeking to avoid the truth.
  These allegations of lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and 
conspiracy are not about private conduct, but instead about public 
conduct in our courts of law. Our courts of law and our legal system is 
the bedrock of our democracy and of our system of individual rights. 
Lying under oath in a legal proceeding undermines the rights of all 
citizens, who must rely upon the courts to protect their rights. If 
lying under oath in our courts is ignored or classified as ``minor'', 
then we have jeopardized the rights of everyone who seek redress in our 
courts. Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are ancient crimes 
of great weight because they shield other offenses, blocking the light 
of truth in human affairs. They are a dagger in the heart of our legal 
system and our democracy; they cannot and should not be tolerated.
  We all know that ``a right without a remedy is not a right''. If we 
allow, ignore, or encourage lying and obstruction of justice in our 
legal system, then the rights promised in our laws are hollow. Our laws 
promise a remedy against sexual harassment, but if we say that ``lying 
about sex in court'' is acceptable or expected, then we have made our 
sexual harassment laws nothing more than a false promise, a fraud upon 
our society, upon our legal system, and upon women.
  The Office of the Presidency is due great respect, but the President 
(whoever may hold the office) is a citizen with the same duty to follow 
the law as all other citizens. The world marvels that our President is 
not above the law, and my vote today helps ensure that this rule 
continues.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 581 to 
begin an inquiry to determine whether to impeach the President. Mr. 
Speaker this is a historic day in the House. It is also a sad and 
solemn day. It is with great regret and respect that the House 
considers this resolution before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the plight of our friends across the 
aisle. Yes that's right they have my sympathy and my understanding. 
Twenty-five years ago when the Watergate facts became public, 
Republicans initially opposed efforts to move forward with impeachment 
proceedings against President Nixon. It took some time, but after 
examining the facts and laying aside partisan allegiances, Republicans 
came forward for the good of the country and joined with House 
Democrats to support the House proceedings regarding President Nixon 
and Watergate. That took courage, open mindedness, a sense of duty to 
the people those Members of Congress represented, and an understanding 
of the oath of office each one of them, and each one of us, has taken. 
It was the same oath taken by the President. It was an oath taken with 
our hands on the Bible and sworn before God.
  Today, our colleagues across the aisle face the same issues we 
Republicans did twenty-five years ago. I think our colleagues are wrong 
to oppose this resolution and wrong to attack the investigation and 
findings turned over to the House. But I understand their opposition. I 
have hope that, in time, after examining all the facts, evidence and 
allegations regarding President Clinton, they too will, for the good of 
the country, join us in moving forward with these proceedings to 
determine whether the President's action warrant removal from office. 
It is our constitutional duty to move forward today just like it was 
twenty-five years ago.
  For those of my Democrat colleagues who support this resolution I say 
thank you. I look forward to working in a bipartisan matter to further 
investigate the charges against President Clinton and recommend a 
course of action for our colleagues in the other body. For those of my 
Democrat colleagues who oppose this resolution, I ask them to put aside 
politics. This issue is too important and too grave to proceed without 
you. I believe, in time, they too will understand the need to move 
forward and work together in a true bipartisan matter for the good of 
our country.
  I urge my colleagues, support House Resolution 581. The American 
people deserve no less, and our responsibilities as Members of Congress 
preclude us from no less.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today we confront one of our most solemn 
responsibilities as Members of Congress, that of the question of 
impeachment of a President of the United States. In doing so, we 
consider embarking upon a task of the gravest consequence in democracy: 
the removal of the elected leader of our Nation by other than electoral 
process. We have considered this course on only two other occasions in 
the 209 year history of our Constitution and Government. It is plain 
that we should proceed judiciously and fairly in carrying out this 
duty.
  Today's vote is how we should undertake this task. There are two 
proposals: The Republican proposal suggests that we authorize the 
Judiciary Committee to pursue an open ended investigation, consider all 
things that the Committee majority deems relevant for such time as that 
inquiry might take.
  The Democratic proposal provides for the Judiciary Committee to 
pursue an analysis of the facts referred by the Independent Counsel and 
the law and to make such recommendations to the House as it deems 
appropriate after such review.
  I shall vote for the Democratic proposal and against the Republican 
one. My constituents should know why.
  First, I believe the President's conduct and public representations 
merit the disdain and deep disappointment, and, yes, even anger, of the 
American people. Having said that, I believe we must act according to 
the Constitution, the facts, and with a view to the precedents of 
history and the precedents we will establish for the future.
  In many ways the situation that confronts us is unique. This matter 
comes to us from the Office of Independent Counsel after four and one-
half years of extensive investigation, at a cost of over forty million 
dollars. In addition the House and Senate have themselves spent over 
ten million dollars and thousands of hours on hearings, depositions, 
investigation, and consideration of allegations against the President 
and his administration.
  I believe the Republican proposal to undertake additional 
investigation and hearings is

[[Page H10102]]

not only unnecessary and redundant, it is also not in the best 
interests of our Country. I have stated before that I think this is the 
conclusion of the American public. Whatever action they favor, I 
believe they strongly support a prompt resolution so that whatever the 
outcome we can again focus on a public agenda reflecting the concerns, 
aspirations, and realities of our people's lives and our Country's in 
the international community. To do otherwise will jeopardize our future 
both in the short and long term. We must not continue to mire our 
public discourse in muck, ridicule, and nationally demeaning debate.
  Secondly, I am convinced that we must decide whether the allegations 
contained in the referral from the Office of Independent Counsel, even 
if true, constitute impeachable offenses. It is clear that there is 
disagreement on that question among legal scholars.
  The Republican resolution is clearly focused on procedures for 
further investigation and fact finding rather than a consideration of 
the information, allegations and conclusions referred by the 
Independent Counsel. It is difficult for me not to conclude that this 
is simply intended to prolong this matter for another year or two for 
political rather than Constitutional reasons. From circus-like delivery 
of the Counsel's report to the Congress the purpose of which, as quite 
obviously, to heighten public frenzy and expectation; to the almost 
immediate release of a salacious report designed, in my opinion, for 
sensationalism and to add to the debasement of the President, to the 
subsequent release of volumes of raw material for consumption by the 
public; to two days consideration weeks before a national election with 
the gag procedures imposed upon debate of the two alternatives, it is 
impossible to view these deliberations as either fair or judicious. 
Such action ill serves our Constitution or our Country. It is, I sadly 
lament, nevertheless, consistent with the totally partisan tenor of the 
leadership of this Congress.
  The alternative resolution I will support provides that the Judiciary 
Committee will review the evidence referred to it and either recommend 
to the House to impeach, to impose such sanctions as it deems warranted 
or to take no further action. The Committee is directed to do so prior 
to December 31, 1998--a time frame deemed possible by the Chairman. 
Furthermore, if the Committee finds that it is unable to accomplish its 
work in the time frame provided it may ask the House for more time.
  Neither this President nor any other can carry out the duties 
required of him by the Constitution and laws of this Nation while under 
constant investigation and attack. The American people understand that, 
which is why they want this matter brought to a close.
  Our decisions should not be made based upon poll or plebiscite. But, 
I am convinced the people are absolutely correct in their judgment that 
we must conclude this tragic chapter in our Nation's history quickly 
before it demeans us further and debilitates us more.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic 
alternative and against the Republican resolution. This is not a vote 
about whether there will be an inquiry. Rather it is a vote about how 
it will be done.
  Obviously, this is a somber day in our nation's history. Today, we 
officially embark on a journey that only two Congresses before us 
have--that of an impeachment inquiry. On a matter of such import it is 
critical that this body act in a responsible manner, not in a partisan 
manner. We must rise above politics. It is critical that our vote be 
dictated by conscience and by the rule of law--not by party.
  Even the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Linder, seemed to recognize the 
great harm that we can do by reducing the serious matter of impeachment 
of a President to mere politics. He stated in an interview last month, 
``If all Starr has is what we've seen, I don't think the public is 
ready for impeachment. I have said all along that one party cannot 
impeach the other party's president.''
  The Constitution grants us an awesome responsibility and I believe 
our Founding Fathers would be deeply disappointed to know that some 
among us would turn that responsibility into a political game. 
Alexander Hamilton fought for a high standard for impeachment of a 
President. He understood the inherently political nature of allowing 
such an issue to be decided by a legislative body. In fact, he warned 
that ``there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will 
be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the 
real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
  In 1974, this body voted 410 to 4 in favor of a resolution similar to 
that being offered by the Republicans today. That action was clearly a 
bipartisan decision. According to the report by the Judiciary Committee 
staff at that time, ``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential 
Impeachment,'' the action was not ``intended to obstruct or weaken the 
presidency. It was supported by members firmly committed to the need 
for a strong presidency and a healthy executive branch of our 
government.'' We clearly do not have a near unanimous decision today. 
While I would never question the motives of any of my colleagues, I am 
concerned that the motives of some in 1998 are not as pure as the 
motives of this body in 1974.
  A review of the debate of our Founding Fathers reveals their concern 
over the potential for capricious use of the impeachment power. It 
becomes clear after a review of history that the Founding Fathers 
intended that an impeachable offense was an offense against the United 
States. There was a clear difference between public service and private 
conduct. They did not want Congress to have the unlimited right to 
decide who is President. They believed that only in the most extreme 
cases should the Congress undo an election of the American people.
  Eight previous Presidents--John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Grover 
Cleveland, Herbert Hoover, Harry S. Truman, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald W. 
Reagan, and George H.W. Bush--have had proposed articles of impeachment 
filed against them in the House of Representatives. The charges have 
fallen into two broad categories--behavior considered to be offensive, 
but not necessarily illegal; and acts that violate statutory or 
constitutional law. Only one of those presidents was impeached and the 
second resigned before the House could vote to impeach. In both 
instances, a clear crime was alleged to have been committed against the 
State.
  After a review of the intent of the framers and of various 
impeachment resolutions that have been filed, it is clear that, with 
the possible exception of the charge of ``shameless 
duplicity, equivocation, and falsehood with his late Cabinet and 
Congress'' against President Tyler, the charges leveled against 
President Clinton to date do not come close to any of the charges 
brought against other Presidents--even those in which no impeachment 
resolution was given serious consideration. While other impeachment 
charges have dealt almost exclusively with alleged crimes against the 
state and therefore interfered with the Presidential duties, the 
charges against President Clinton allege actions that did not interfere 
with his Presidential duties.

  Because of the nature of the charges against President Clinton, the 
investigation should be disposed of as quickly as possible. The 
Democratic resolution lays out specific time frames in order to fully 
and fairly conduct an inquiry and, if appropriate, to act upon the 
referral from the Independent Counsel in a manner that ensures the 
faithful discharge of the constitutional duty of Congress and concludes 
the inquiry at the earliest possible time.
  To date, I believe this matter has significantly disrupted the 
progress of the Congress. It would be irresponsible for us not to limit 
the scope of the investigation and the time in which we conduct this 
investigation. We must get back to the business of the people as soon 
as possible and stop allowing this matter to paralyze the country. The 
working families of America need our help and they need it now. We have 
done nothing to ensure that home health agencies are able to continue 
their business into next year. There is no managed care reform. There 
is no legislation to reduce class size and modernize schools. There has 
been no action on funding the IMF and rescuing the world economy. My 
constituents did not elect me to participate in endless investigations. 
They elected me to take care of the business of the people.
  Mr. Speaker, we must carefully consider the matter at hand today and 
ask ourselves, ``How can we best proceed in this matter to prevent the 
fears of our Founding Fathers from coming true?'' I submit to you that 
the most responsible course of action is to impose upon ourselves the 
deadlines provided in the Democratic alternative. Only swift and 
deliberate action can meet the standards of Hamilton. There should be 
no reason why we cannot meet these deadlines and return to the business 
of the people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is not just the 
conduct of the President. The overriding issue is how this committee 
will fulfill its own responsibilities at a moment of extraordinary 
constitutional significance.
  Three weeks ago, the Independent Counsel referred information to 
Congress that he alleged may constitute grounds for impeaching the 
President.
  But it is not the Independent Counsel who is charged by the 
Constitution to determine whether to initiate impeachment proceedings. 
That is our mandate. He is not our agent, and we cannot allow his 
judgments to be substituted for our own.
  I am profoundly disturbed at the thought that this committee would 
base its determination solely on the Starr referral.
  Never before in our history has the House proceeded with a 
presidential impeachment inquiry premised exclusively on the raw 
allegations of a single prosecutor. Let alone a prosecutor whose 
excessive zeal has shaken the confidence of fair-minded Americans in 
our system of justice.

[[Page H10103]]

  It is the committee's responsibility to conduct our own preliminary 
investigation to determine whether the information from the Independent 
Counsel is sufficient to warrant a full-blown investigation. And we 
have not done that.
  If we abdicate that responsibility, we will turn the Independent 
Counsel Statute into a political weapon with an automatic trigger--
aimed at every future president. And in the process, we will have 
turned the United States Congress into a rubber stamp.
  Just as we did when we rushed to release Mr. Starr's narrative within 
hours of its receipt, before either this committee or the President's 
counsel had any opportunity to examine it.
  Just as we did when we released 7,000 pages of secret grand jury 
testimony and other documents hand-picked by the Independent Counsel--
subverting the grand jury system itself by allowing it to be misused 
for a political purpose.
  Just as we are about to do again: by launching in inquiry when no 
member of Congress even now, has had sufficient time to read, much less 
analyze, these materials. Not to mention the 50,000 pages we have not 
released.
  For all I know, there may be grounds for an inquiry. But before the 
committee authorizes proceedings that will further traumatize the 
nation and distract us from the people's business, we must satisfy 
ourselves that there is ``probable cause'' to recommend an inquiry.
  That is precisely what the House instructed us to do on September 10. 
The chairman of the Rules Committee himself anticipated that we might 
return the following week to seek ``additional procedural or 
investigative authorities to adequately review this communication.''
  Yet the committee never sought those additional authorities. 
Apparently we had no intention of reviewing the communication.
  That is the difference between the two resolutions before us today. 
The Majority version permits no independent assessment by the 
committee, and asks us instead to accept the referral purely on faith.
  Our alternative ensure that there is a process--one that is orderly, 
deliberative and expeditious--for determining whether the referral is a 
sound basis for an inquiry.
  The Majority has made much of the claim that their resolution adopts 
the same process--indeed, the very language--that was used during the 
Watergate hearings of 24 years ago.
  It may be the same language. But it is not the same process.
  In 1974, the Judiciary Committee spent weeks behind closed doors, 
poring over evidence gathered from a wide variety of sources--including 
the Ervin Committee and Judge Sirica's grand jury report, as well as 
the report of the Watergate Special Prosecutor. All before a single 
document was released. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined by 
the President's own counsel. Confidential material, including secret 
grand jury testimony, as never made public. In fact, nearly a 
generation later it remains under seal.
  It is too late now to claim that we are honoring the Watergate 
precedent. The damage is done. But is not too late for us to learn from 
the mistakes of the last three weeks. If we adopt a fair, thoughtful, 
bipartisan process, I am confident the American people will embrace our 
conclusions, whatever they may be.
  If the Majority chooses to do otherwise, it certainly has the votes 
to prevail. Just as the Democratic majority had the votes in 1974. But 
the Rodino committee recognized the overriding importance of 
transcending partisanship. And it earned the respect of the American 
people.
  It is our challenge to ensure that history is as kind to the work of 
this committee.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, the vote today is not a vote for or against 
impeachment. It is not a vote on whether to proceed with the 
investigation. It is a vote on how to proceed. It is a vote to 
determine the parameters of the Judiciary Committee's investigation. 
The Republican proposal wants an investigation which is open-ended, 
without time limits and not limited to the Starr report. The Democratic 
alternative focuses the scope of the inquiry to the matter actually 
before the House in the referral by Mr. Starr. The independent counsel 
at this time has leveled very specific charges, and these are the ones 
that should be investigated. The Democratic resolution would first 
determine if these charges constitute grounds for impeachment. If that 
determination is reached, a focused inquiry will follow, and this 
Congress would then get to vote on the Committee's final 
recommendation. This is a fair process.
  I will make my final decision regarding the President's actions after 
the deliberations of the Judiciary Committee are finished. I hope my 
colleagues all do the same. Based on the President's admitted behavior, 
I have strongly condemned his actions and believe he must experience 
the consequences of his behavior. Whether those consequences rise to 
the level of impeachment cannot be determined until the Committee 
investigation is finished, and I believe the Democratic alternative 
which I support is the most focused, fair, and expeditious way for the 
Committee to proceed.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican resolution calling for further interminable, open-ended, 
partisan investigation of the President of the United States. My 
constituents share my outrage at the attacks on President Clinton, and 
many--more than on any other issue in my eight years in this House--
have called, written, and emailed me to share their views on the course 
Congress should take in this matter.
  As many of my colleagues on both sides have said, the duty imposed on 
the House by allegations of Presidential treason, bribery, or other 
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is very grave. Faced with such 
allegations, the House must carry out its responsibility in the 
fairest, most non-partisan manner possible. This is vital to preserving 
the integrity of a Constitutional process, and we owe it to the 
President and to the American people.
  Having said that, I, and my constituents, believe that this process, 
based on these allegations, has been unfair and partisan, that the 
offenses alleged against the President are not impeachable, and that 
the House Republican leadership should end the investigation and try to 
do as much of the people's business as is possible in the few days left 
before Congress adjourns for the year.
  On September 11, I voted against immediate release of the Starr 
report. Basic fairness, like that extended to you, Mr. Speaker during 
the Ethics Committee investigation into your dealings, would have given 
the President the chance to review the allegations against him and to 
respond. After all, the Independent Counsel and his lawyers have spent 
more than four years and over $40 million focusing all their attention 
on finding wrongdoing by the President. And the grand jury process, 
which led to the report, is supposed to present only the prosecutor's 
version of the facts, not the accused's.
  And no-one in Congress reviewed the Starr referral before it was 
dumped into print and onto the Internet, even though innocent people's 
reputations were damaged by it, and much of the material was so 
salacious that our children shouldn't have such easy access to it. Nor 
was there any apparent reason to release the additional material other 
than to further humiliate the President.
  I believe it would be a bad precedent and a big mistake to remove the 
President, whom the people elected twice and whose performance in 
office the people still support, over a private consensual 
relationship. We must understand, as my constituents clearly do, that 
liberty and privacy are tightly linked, and that the more we permit 
intrusion into and exposure of the private lives of our people, even 
our Presidents, the more we jeopardize our liberty.
  I believe the House should not proceed with any further investigation 
and should instead get on with the unfinished business of America. 
Therefore, I will vote against both resolutions, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the responsibilities 
placed on Congress by the Constitution, I support House Resolution 581 
to authorize the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry to determine 
whether the actions of the President of the United States require 
articles of impeachment to be filed against him.
  It is a sad and somber moment for the Congress and for the country. 
No one should take any joy in the fact that Congress must examine these 
issues. The House Judiciary Committee should now conduct its 
investigation in a fair and expeditious manner. The President should be 
afforded every opportunity to address each point in the inquiry. There 
should be no rush to judgement, but there should also be no effort to 
delay or obstruct the legitimate examination of evidence and witnesses. 
I do not support an endless investigation, but a short, artificial time 
limit would encourage delays in responding to legitimate questions that 
must be answered.
  It is important to emphasize that this is an inquiry. No 
determination has been made on the fate of the President. We should 
have an expeditious and open process in effort to complete this 
unfortunate, but necessary task as quickly as possible. When the 
inquiry is complete, the House should make a fair determination based 
on the facts, the law, and on what is in the best interest of our 
Nation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my deep dismay at the President's 
personal conduct and his misleading the American people. We need a 
process that appropriately punishes the President without unduly 
punishing our nation. Today's debate is not about whether there will be 
an impeachment inquiry, but about how the impeachment inquiry should 
proceed and for how long.
  The House should approve an impeachment inquiry today that refers the 
allegations contained within the Starr Report to the Judiciary

[[Page H10104]]

Committee to determine if they constitute impeachable offenses in a 
manner that assures an early conclusion and is clearly defined as to 
its scope. The Hyde proposal meets none of these criteria.
  I agree with President Gerald Ford who recently wrote that ``the 
Judiciary Committee should be able to conclude a preliminary inquiry 
into possible grounds for impeachment before the end of the year.''
  The impeachment inquiry we approve today should be focused and 
clearly defined as to its scope. The Hyde proposal is neither focused 
nor clearly defined and places no limit on how long the investigation 
can go on.
  I believe the impeachment inquiry proposal that will be offered by 
Mr. Boucher meets appropriate standards and the interests of the 
American people. The Hyde proposal does not.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the serious business 
before us--the resolution authorizing the House Judiciary Committee to 
undertake an impeachment inquiry into the admitted and alleged misdeeds 
of President Clinton.
  We all know that President Clinton did something wrong. He had an 
affair and he lied about it. He admitted that to the nation in August. 
I was sorely disappointed by his misbehavior. His actions are to be 
condemned.
  The question that Congress must address in the coming weeks and 
months, however, is whether his misdeeds merit impeachment. That means 
that we must sort out what he did, what his intentions were, and 
whether his actions constituted impeachable conduct.
  The first step--and only the first step--in this process was the 
submission of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's referral to Congress 
last month. The last sections of the referral documents were released 
to the public last week, and at this point Americans have had enough 
time to begin to digest the contents of the Independent Counsel's 
report.
  Congress now has the responsibility of weighing the Independent 
Counsel's charges objectively and determining whether to proceed with 
the next step in the impeachment process, which consists of an 
impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee.
  I believe that given the seriousness of the charges, an impeachment 
inquiry is appropriate. The Starr Report is clearly not objective, but 
we must remember that it is not supposed to be objective. A grand jury 
proceeding is supposed to make the most compelling case possible for 
prosecution. The House should now review the Independent Counsel's 
referral, allow the President to present his side of the story, and 
require testimony from any other source that it deems necessary. 
Consequently, I support legislation authorizing the House Judiciary 
Committee to undertake an impeachment inquiry.
  I am concerned, however, that an open-ended inquiry with the 
authority to re-visit every allegation made against President Clinton 
over the last 25 years would be excessive. Many of these charges have 
been investigated extensively--by Congressional committees, the Justice 
Department, and the Independent Counsel's office.
  Consequently, I will vote today for the Democratic alternative to 
this resolution, which would authorize an impeachment inquiry but limit 
its scope to the Independent Counsel's referral. If, as I suspect, that 
alternative is rejected, I will vote against the resolution. I want to 
make clear, however, that I support an inquiry. I will vote against the 
resolution because I believe that an inquiry should focus on the 
charges set forth in the Independent Counsel's referral. It shouldn't 
be an open-ended, partisan fishing expedition.
  Impeachment of a president is one of the most serious actions that 
the House of Representatives can take. I know that my colleagues all 
appreciate the gravity of what we are about to do. I urge my colleagues 
to act with the country's long-term interests in mind. Thank you.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 581, a 
resolution to open an inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee to 
determine whether substantial evidence exists to recommend the 
impeachment of the President of the United States.
  When taking his oath of office, President Clinton vowed to 
``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.'' Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report outlines eleven 
potentially impeachable offenses against President Clinton suggesting 
he did not honor his oath. An investigation into these allegations is 
necessary to determine if there is substantial evidence to prove that 
President Clinton did, in fact, commit these crimes and to determine if 
these offenses warrant impeachment. Contrary to some opinions, this 
impeachment inquiry is not an attempt to disgrace the President but an 
honest effort to discover the truth.
  I endorse this impeachment inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. Like 
all Americans, I hope it can proceed fairly and conclude expeditiously. 
Just as Clinton took an oath of office when being sworn in as President 
of the United States, I also took an oath of office as a Member of 
Congress to uphold the laws of the land. For that reason, I support H. 
Res. 581--a vote for truth and justice.
  Mr. PASCRELL, of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I cast my vote for 
the proposal offered by Representative Rick Boucher for an impeachment 
inquiry. I firmly believe that this is the best course of action for 
our country. The Hyde proposal, in an effort to advance a political 
agenda, would allow this inquiry to go on indefinitely. But the 
American people deserve to have closure on this matter as soon as 
possible.
  Alexander Hamilton, over 200 years ago, warned our great nation of 
the divisive nature of unfair inquiries. Our proposal would allow us to 
uphold our Constitutional responsibilities, namely to determine whether 
these charges made against the President are true and if true, they 
mandate the President's impeachment.
  We have a duty to our constituents to get back to work on the many 
issues that affect our nation's families. That is why I, and everyone 
in this room, was sent here in the first place. The deadline our 
proposal imposes would grant ample time to review the Starr Report, 
make these difficult decisions, and re-focus our energies on other 
vital matters. My fear of the Hyde proposal is based solely on its open 
ended nature and the financial toll another lengthy investigation will 
place upon us.
  Make no mistake, I think the President's admitted behavior is 
indefensible and that this matter has done great harm to our country 
and the office of the President. But, we need to move on and bring 
closure to this issue. I will not allow the House Leadership to bring 
down the institution in which I so proudly serve. And I will do my best 
to insure that the decisions made best serve our Constitution and our 
nation. No individual and no party is privy to virtue.''
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate, I will 
offer a motion to recommit the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois to the Committee on the Judiciary with the instruction that 
the Committee immediately report to the House the resolution in the 
form of our Democratic alternative.
  While we would have preferred that Democrats have a normal 
opportunity to present our resolution as a amendment, the procedure 
being used by the House today does not make a Democratic amendment in 
order. The motion to recommit with instructions, however, offers an 
opportunity for adoption by the House of our alternative.
  The Democratic amendment is a resolution for a full and complete 
review by the Judiciary Committee of the material referred to the House 
by the Office of the Independent Counsel. The Republican resolution 
also provides for that review. The difference between the Democratic 
and Republican alternatives is only over the scope of the review, the 
time that the review will take, and the requirement in our Democratic 
alternative that there be a recognition of the historical 
Constitutional standard for impeachment.
  The public interest requires that a fair and deliberate inquiry 
occur. Our resolution would assure that it does.
  But the public interest also requires an appropriate boundary on the 
scope of the inquiry. It should not become an invitation for a free 
ranging fishing expedition, subjecting to a formal impeachment inquiry 
matters that are not before the Congress today. The potential for such 
a venture should be strictly limited by the resolution of inquiry. Our 
proposal contains those appropriate limits. It would subject to the 
inquiry the material presented to us by the Office of the Independent 
Counsel which is the only material before us at the present time.
  The public interest also requires that the matter be brought to 
conclusion at the earliest possible time that is consistent with a 
complete and through review.
  The country has already undergone substantial trauma. If the 
Committee carries its work beyond the time reasonably needed for a 
complete resolution of the matter now before us the injury to the 
nation will only deepen.
  We should be thorough, but we should be prompt. Given that the facts 
of this matter are generally well known, and given that there are only 
a handful of witnesses whose testimony is relevant, all of whom have 
already undergone grand jury scrutiny, there is no reason to prolong 
the Committee's work into next year. A careful and thorough review can 
be accomplished between now and the end of this year. Our resolution so 
provides.
  Our resolution requires that the Committee hold hearings on the 
Constitutional standard for impeachment which has evolved over two 
centuries and which was recognized most recently by the Committee and 
by the House in 1974.
  Our substitute then directs the Committee to compare the facts stated 
in the referral to the Constitutional standard and determine which if 
any of them rise to the standard.

[[Page H10105]]

  Any of the facts stated in the referral which pass that initial test 
would then become the subject of a formal inquiry and investigation 
following which the Committee could reach its conclusion. It could 
recommend articles of impeachment, alternative sanctions or a no action 
option.
  Under our resolution the committee will begin its work on October 12 
and conclude all proceedings, including the consideration of 
recommendations in December. The House could then complete its 
consideration of any recommendations the Committee may make by the last 
week in December.
  This approach is fair. It's in the public interest, and it is what 
the American public expects.
  It gives deference to the Constitutional standard for impeachment 
recognized by the House in its 1974 report. It offers ample time to 
consider carefully, any of the allegations which rise to the 
Constitutional standard.
  It assures that the entire matter will be resolved promptly and that 
the Nation is not distracted by a prolonged inquiry which is clearly 
not justified by the material presented in the referral.
  It presents a framework that will enable the Committee and the House 
of Representatives to discharge their Constitutional obligations in a 
manner which is both thorough and expeditious.
  I urge approval of the Democratic plan as rules of proceeding which 
are well tailored to the challenge before us.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for our country. I take 
no pleasure in today's proceedings, or the events which have brought us 
to this point. I have been entrusted by the people of my district to 
exercise my judgment in this matter, and I take seriously their 
confidence in me to use my best judgment and to carry out my 
Constitutional responsibilities in a somber and thoughtful manner.
  We are a nation of law. In conformity with our Constitutional 
obligation to oversee the Executive Branch of government, Congress 
passed an independent counsel law, which was signed by President 
Clinton. The independent counsel appointed pursuant to that law to 
investigate allegations of illegal conduct within the Executive Branch 
has, pursuant to that law, forwarded to the Judiciary Committee his 
report detailing possible impeachable offenses committee by President 
Clinton.
  In forwarding to the full House a resolution regarding an inquiry of 
impeachment, all members of the Judiciary Committee voted for an 
inquiry; they differed only on the inquiry's time and scope. Regardless 
of whichever resolution we pass today, the authorization to conduct an 
inquiry will expire at the end of this Congress.
  Some have suggested that we simply censure President Clinton for his 
conduct and move on. However, there is no Constitutional provision for 
censuring a president, and we do not have a censure resolution before 
us today. While some have pointed to former President Ford's suggestion 
that the President be censure, they fail to take note of his view that 
such a censure would follow a presumptive finding by a Judiciary 
Committee inquiry that the President has not committed impeachable 
offenses.
  We must follow the course set out in the law and the Constitution. It 
is our duty and responsibility to determine through an inquiry whether 
or not impeachable offenses were committed. I have every expectation 
that the House will conduct this inquiry as expeditiously as possible 
so that the country may achieve closure and move on.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers whether the 
information sent to the Congress for consideration in the Independent 
Counsel Report warrants the start of an impeachment inquiry by the 
House.
  The President has admitted that he had an extramarital affair and 
then lied about it. No one disputes that fact. The President's conduct, 
while reprehensible, was a betrayal of his vows to his wife but not his 
oath of office. His actions were personal in nature. If his lies to 
cover up his conduct amount to perjury, he can and should be held 
accountable through our judicial system.
  Our founding fathers had something quite different in mind when they 
drafted the Constitutional language on impeachment, a political remedy 
for tyrannical acts. The Federalist papers shed some light on that. 
George Mason said that the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' 
refer to presidential actions that are great and dangerous offenses or 
attempts to subvert the government. Alexander Hamilton, in the 
Federalist paper 65, wrote that impeachable offenses relate chiefly to 
injustices done immediately to society. Ben Franklin spoke of 
impeachment as an alternative to assassination.
  When this House voted to proceed with an inquiry to impeach President 
Nixon in 1974, the offenses in the impeachment resolution contained 
serious abuses of official power: President Nixon used government 
agencies to carry out his personal and political vendettas against 
citizens. Not included in the list of impeachable offenses for 
President Nixon was his deliberate backdating of a tax document and his 
false filing under oath of IRS returns by which he sought to fabricate 
a huge, tax deduction. That conduct was felonious but determined not to 
be an impeachable offense in 1974 because it did not threaten our form 
of government; it was personal, reprehensible conduct.
  I will cast my vote against the Hyde resolution. It leads us into an 
impeachment inquiry without focus or time limitation.
  I will support the Democratic motion to recommit because we need to 
resolve the issue of impeachment this year and then move on with the 
business of governing. We have serious work to do to resolve the 
solvency of the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds; we have 
children in need of heath care and quality child care; our schools are 
overcrowed. The needs of real people will not be addressed until we 
bring closure of this issue.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I am the junior member of this House. The 
one who, arguably, comes to this decision with the cleanest slate, the 
least experience, and a perspective formed largely outside of these 
halls.
  This morning, as we began our business, every member of this body 
gathered, faced the flag and repeated the same pledge that school 
children from Long Island to Los Angeles, from Seattle to Saratoga 
recited this morning. ``I pledge allegiance * * *'' With our hands over 
our hearts, we told the country and each other than we are one nation, 
under God, with liberty and justice for all. Liberty and justice for 
all.
  The meaning of justice in a free society governed by a constitution 
is what has been on my mind in the last weeks. I have read the 
Independent Counsel's report and much of the supporting information 
which he has transmitted to us. Like my colleagues from both parties on 
the Judiciary Committee, I have come to the conclusion that we have 
been presented with substantial and credible evidence concerning the 
President of the United States that may constitute grounds for 
impeachment. We must do our duty and fully and fairly investigate these 
matters.
  I have reached this conclusion with a profound sense of sadness. 
America is a great nation, and we are not less great because we are 
governed by fallible men and women. Indeed, our founding fathers knew 
well our failings, and led us to rely not upon the rule of men, but 
upon the rule of law. That is what is at stake here today--equal 
justice under the law.
  I am reminded of the symbol of justice in America. Justice holding 
the scales is not blind because she looks away or because she will not 
see. Justice is blind so that every citizen, regardless of race or 
creed or station in life, will be treated equally under the law. That 
includes the President of the United States. It is a powerful symbol. 
And today, it is one we must live up to.
  We are not called upon today to vote on articles of impeachment. We 
are only voting on whether to proceed, or to look away.
  We are a nation ruled by laws. It is up to us to keep it that way.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I favor further inquiry by the 
Judiciary Committee. The issue before us today is straightforward: Do 
the allegations of possible impeachable offense merit further 
investigation? Anyone who answers ``no'' and asserts that there should 
be no further review has a very high burden to meet. I think that the 
Judiciary Committee's careful, fair and expeditious review of all of 
the facts in light of the relevant law is precisely the Constitutional 
duty required of us by our oath of office. I also think that such a 
review is the duty we owe the American people.
  Congress has received substantial and credible evidence that the 
President of the United States repeatedly violated the criminal laws of 
this country. I believe it would be a dereliction of duty of the 
highest order for us to decide today that no further review is needed. 
After meeting with Chairman Hyde, I am convinced that we will move 
forward fairly, quickly and in a bipartisan manner. I am also troubled 
by reports that the White House is pressuring Democrats to vote against 
this inquiry.
  My office has received over a thousand calls and letters in the past 
month on this scandal. Additionally, my web page also gives 
constituents an opportunity to express their views. Eighty percent of 
the people who have contacted me have urged me to move forward with 
this investigation.
  Despite much of the rhetoric, today's final vote only answers one 
question: Should we investigate the allegations or forget it? Those who 
vote against the resolution are, in fact, saying that we should just 
ignore all the allegations against the President and have no further 
inquiry.
  I have not decided whether President Clinton has technically 
committed impeachable offenses. However, I have called for President 
Clinton's resignation. Whether his actions rise to the level of `high 
Crimes and Misdemeanors' is still to be determined. The point is that

[[Page H10106]]

we need to investigate the actions of the President and we need to get 
this situation behind us as quickly as possible, hopefully by the end 
of the year.
  Today's vote marks only the third time in American history that the 
House has opened an inquiry into possible impeachment of a President. 
It is a serious vote for all of us, possibly one of the most important 
votes I will take. I have made the decision to vote yes because I truly 
believe to do otherwise would not be in the best interest of our 
country's future.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, our former colleague from 
Oklahoma, Mickey Edwards, has gone from service in the House of 
Representatives to a very distinguished career teaching at the Kennedy 
School of Government at Harvard. He has combined this with a role as a 
thoughtful commentator on public affairs. Mr. Edwards is as those who 
served with him know a very thoughtful conservative, and I disagree 
with him on many policy issues. Indeed, I disagree with his assessment 
of the policy impact of the Clinton administration, in foreign policy 
and elsewhere, which is included in this article. But on the whole it 
seems to me an extremely thoughtful essay that sheds a good deal of 
light on the difficult task we face in the coming weeks and months in 
dealing with the Independent Counsel's investigation of the President.
  Both because of the thoughtful nature of this work, and because of 
Mr. Edwards credentials as one of the most intellectually honest of our 
political commentators, I ask this his thoughtful essay from the Boston 
Herald be printed here.

                  Starr Elects to Topple 1996 Election

       This is what we know:
       First, that the president has committed adultery and is 
     accused of lying about it before a grand jury. Second, and 
     even more disturbing, we know that we now have in the United 
     States a prosecutor to whom our civil liberties are an 
     inconvenience.
       As a conservative, I have dedicated my adult life to 
     opposing the spread of statist power. I have feared, and 
     fought against, the intrusions of Big Brother into the 
     private lives of American citizens. That is why I am 
     disturbed by Bill Clinton but frightened by Kenneth Starr.
       Here is the situation: The Constitution grants to the 
     people, through their representatives, the power to remove a 
     president who is guilty of criminal behavior. It is a 
     discretionary power; it has been delegated to a political 
     branch of government and the decision is intended to be based 
     on political as well as legal considerations.
       Bill Clinton has twice been elected president. Many of the 
     facts we know about his patterns of behavior were known 
     before the people placed him in office. Perhaps citizens have 
     learned more about the president's tendencies, about his 
     behavior, but if there is any surprise it is about the extent 
     of that behavior, not about its existence.
       Because we know all this, the questions that matter most 
     are not whether we should be appalled by the behavior of this 
     president, but about how reluctant we should be to overturn 
     the results of an election, and, second, the extent to which 
     we should sanction the activities of an extra-constitutional 
     inquisitor whose activities threaten not merely our 
     sensibilities but our civil liberties as well.
       I am not among the president's defenders. For his 
     indiscretions and lies, he alone is responsible. Even had his 
     activities been less unsavory, he would still be judged by 
     history to be a president of modest accomplishment. His 
     ineptitude in foreign policy alone would doom him to the 
     ranks of mediocrity. But--this is a big distinction--even 
     though I might wish Mr. Clinton had never been elected, he 
     was; he defeated a sitting president and a prominent senator. 
     His election was not a fluke; it was a decision.
       Prudence dictates caution in removing from office a man or 
     woman whom the people have placed there. A president's 
     activities may be so heinous that he must be removed at any 
     cost, but in a democratic society, the overturning of an 
     election must rest on more than shocked sensibility. What Mr. 
     Clinton has lied about is an adulterous affair. If he is 
     found to have lied to the grand jury, his actions may be oath 
     reprehensible and illegal. But there is a question of 
     context: what he lied about was whether he carried on a 
     consensual sexual relationship. It may be enough to make one 
     gap; it is not enough to overturn the will of the people that 
     he should be the president.
       This brings us to a more serious matter. When Richard Nixon 
     was our president, a Democratic Congress, asserting that a 
     Republican Justice Department could not be trusted to act in 
     the public interest, circumvented the existing governmental 
     structure by creating a special prosecutor (the title is 
     ``independent counsel,'' but as Kenneth Starr has 
     demonstrated, it is an office with the power to function in a 
     disturbingly aggressive manner).
       We should all be concerned about the danger inherent in 
     giving the state the ability to trample underfoot the rights 
     of a citizen on behalf of some presumed ``greater good.'' 
     There are ``greater goods,'' those common national interests 
     that sometimes transcend narrower individual interests, but 
     even in the pursuit of such common interests the civil rights 
     of citizens must be preserved.
       Kenneth Starr has no such sensibility. He began with a 
     mandate to consider such matters as the possible misuse of 
     secret FBI files, but from that starting point, he ended up 
     in Bill Clinton's bedroom (or, in this case, his Oval 
     Office). He intimidated witnesses. He looked into what books 
     his witnesses read and what movies they watched. He subjected 
     the public to the kind of voyeurism he has publicly 
     criticized. (If he felt the need to illustrate what Mr. 
     Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did, to prove that Mr. Clinton 
     had lied, one example would have been sufficient; even that 
     would not have been necessary if one assumes members of 
     Congress can decide for themselves what does, and does not, 
     constitute ``sex.'')
       Bill Clinton may be an embarrassment, but the Congress 
     should not overturn a national election simply because a 
     president lied about matters about which he should have never 
     been questioned. And whatever Mr. Clinton's flaws, the real 
     danger here is not Mr. Clinton's flaws, the real danger here 
     is not Mr. Clinton's immaturity but Mr. Starr's casual 
     disregard for those considerations which protect the citizen 
     against the excessive intrusions of the state.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is only the third time since the 
founding of our Nation that the House of Representatives has seriously 
considered impeaching the President of the United States. Consequently, 
I have deliberated extensively over the upcoming vote. Having reached a 
decision, there is little doubt in my mind that the Judiciary Committee 
of the House of Representatives should conduct a limited, clearly 
defined inquiry into whether President Bill Clinton should be 
impeached. The alternative, a broad-based impeachment investigation 
with no time limits is unnecessary, unwarranted, and potentially 
harmful to our Nation.
  Removing the President from office would invalidate the election of 
Bill Clinton by the American people. The standard for impeachment must 
be set high for Congress to revoke decisions made by the people at the 
ballot box. The authority to impeach is an awesome power which, if 
misused, threatens the foundation of American democracy.
  There is probably no individual in history who has been investigated 
more than President Clinton. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his 
predecessor have taken more than four years, spent almost $45 million, 
and employed 60 attorneys, investigators, and other staff to examine 
President Clinton's activities for evidence of wrongdoing. In addition, 
more than half a dozen House and Senate committees have investigated 
potential abuses by President Clinton and the First Lady--including 
many of the same subjects the Independent Counsel investigated--at 
additional expense to taxpayers.
  I have read the report by Independent Counsel Starr and seen some of 
the evidence produced by the other investigations. I have strong doubts 
that they justify impeaching the President, or starting a new, lengthy 
investigation. The U.S. Constitution permits the Congress to remove the 
President upon conviction of ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes 
and misdemeanors.'' President Clinton's actions are unbecoming to the 
office of the President and thoroughly offensive to the American people 
and to me. But they are not impeachable offenses.
  The impeachment process is filled with potential dangers for America. 
With the near-collapse of the economies of Russia and several Asian 
countries, the world is on the verge of an international economic 
crisis. Military action may be necessary to stem the genocide in 
Kosovo. The threat of terrorism against U.S. citizens and interests 
abroad has never been greater. The impeachment process will weaken the 
President and hurt our Nation's ability to deal with international 
problems. Our military and economic risk increases the longer it drags 
on.
  A long impeachment process will further distract the attention of 
Congress from more important issues, such as health care, education, 
tax reform, protecting Social Security, and reducing hunger and 
poverty. We should be dealing with these problems, not conducting 
endless investigations. An open-ended inquiry could cost millions of 
dollars--money which could be spent more productively. We are becoming 
a government that sees as its principal mission the investigation of 
its officers and citizens. Such a government does not serve the people.

  Our task is to make the best decision--one that will bring the 
President to justice and spare the American people from further pain. 
This vote is not about whether President Clinton will be punished. I 
believe the President should be punished for his misconduct. We must 
send a clear and unambiguous signal that this type of behavior is not 
acceptable. But let's not punish the entire Nation by going forward 
with an unlimited investigation. If, after a limited investigation, new 
and unexpected impeachable offenses are discovered, then that avenue 
should be pursued vigorously. But if that does not happen, the House 
should consider the recent suggestion of former President Gerald Ford 
that we publicly rebuke President Clinton. More than any other living

[[Page H10107]]

American, Mr. Ford knows the pain and public divisiveness an 
impeachment process imposes on our country and its citizens.
  If we vote for an unlimited investigation, when will it end? We have 
the assurance of well-meaning House leaders that it can be wrapped up 
by the end of the year. But if that is the goal, why not put it in this 
resolution? The Judiciary Committee took five months to write articles 
of impeachment against former President Nixon. The case against 
President Clinton, which already has become more partisan and 
controversial, probably will take longer. If we proceed with an 
unlimited investigation, we are likely to see our newspapers and 
airwaves filled with still more stories about Monica Lewinsky, 
Whitewater, and alleged White House scandals from now until the end of 
the 106th Congress in the year 2001.
  I recognize that my own constituents are deeply divided on this 
issue. Daily I have been receiving thoughtful and passionate telephone 
calls, letters, and e-mails from residents of Dayton and Montgomery 
County, Ohio, which I am privileged to represent. After listening to 
both sides, I have concluded that another investigation by the House of 
Representatives is not warranted by the evidence, nor is it likely to 
find anything that has been missed already by investigators. An open-
ended inquiry will just be a waste of taxpayers' money and a drain on 
the Nation. Therefore, I will not vote for another endless round of 
hearings, depositions, and testimony that serve no purpose.
  The alternative I support calls for the Judiciary Committee to begin 
an impeachment investigation that will finish no later than December 
31, 1998, and will be confined in scope to the charges forwarded to the 
House by the Independent Counsel. This approach does not rule out 
additional investigations if new, credible information is presented by 
the Independent Counsel or any other source.
  President Clinton has shamed himself and the office of the President, 
a blot that will stain his record in history. The question is now 
whether we will shame the House of Representatives by letting this 
trauma linger on endlessly and drag our Nation down.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote is really about setting limits. The 
Independent Counsel has conducted an unlimited investigation with 
unlimited time and money. The House of Representatives has given 
virtually unlimited public access to the documents and evidence he 
produced. Now, the House is about to authorize another unlimited 
investigation. I'm willing to say there should be limits. We as a 
Congress and a Nation have too many other important things to do. It is 
time for members of the House to put some limits on this process and 
get on with fulfilling the many other responsibilities we have to the 
American people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, on September 18, 1998, the House Judiciary 
Committee voted to release to the public several volumes of supporting 
material received from the Independent Counsel nine days ago, including 
grand jury transcripts and the President's videotaped testimony.
  In my judgment, the headlong rush to publicize secret grand jury 
testimony not only endangers the rights of the individuals involved in 
this particular case, but also undermines the integrity of one of the 
cornerstones of our system of justice--the grand jury system itself.
  Unfortunately, the readiness of the majority to ignore these perils 
also calls into question the fundamental fairness of our own 
proceedings.


                          the pace accelerates

  On September 9, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr sent the House of 
Representatives a 445-page report, together with some 2,000 pages of 
supporting materials, telephone records, videotaped testimony and other 
sensitive material, as well as 17 boxes of other information.
  Within 48 hours, the House had voted to release the report and give 
the Judiciary Committee until September 28 to decide whether any of the 
remaining material should be kept confidential. While I agreed that we 
should release the report, I opposed our doing so before either the 
President's attorneys or members of the Committee had been given even a 
minimal opportunity to review it.
  That vote was seven days ago. Since then, the breakneck pace has only 
accelerated. Today, we were asked to vote--10 days ahead of schedule--
on whether to release what may well be the most sensitive materials of 
all--the grand jury transcripts, together with the videotape of the 
President's testimony.
  Those of us who serve on the Committee had been doing our best to 
review these materials so that we would be in a position to evaluate 
whether or not they ought to be released. I cannot speak for other 
members, but I have been as diligent as possible, and had managed by 
this morning to get through--at most--some 30 percent of this material.
  How can anyone make a considered judgment under such circumstances? 
How can we properly weigh the benefits of immediate disclosure against 
the harm it might cause? I have done my utmost not to prejudge the 
outcome of this investigation. I am prepared to follow the facts 
wherever they lead. But if the American people are to accept the 
eventual result of our deliberations, they must be satisfied that our 
proceedings have been thorough, disciplined, methodical and fair.
  I seriously doubt that an objective observer looking back on these 
past nine days could characterize our proceedings in that manner. The 
process continues to careen forward--without a roadmap--a dizzying 
pace.


                          fundamental fairness

  One portion of the Independent Counsel's report that I made sure to 
read--not once, but twice--was Mr. Starr's transmittal letter, which 
cautioned that these supporting materials contain ``confidential 
material and material protected from disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure'' (the rule that provides for the 
secrecy of grand jury records).
  The implication of that warning is that the public disclosure of 
protected grand jury material could do serious and irrevocable harm--
not only to the President, but to the many other individuals caught up 
in the vast web of the Starr investigation, including innocent third-
parties, witnesses, and other potential targets of ongoing (and future) 
investigations.
  In the United States, those accused of criminal wrongdoing are 
presumed innocent--be they presidents or ordinary citizens. Yet if raw, 
unproven allegations are disclosed to the public before they can be 
challenged, the ``presumption of innocence'' loses all meaning. Minds 
are made up, judgments rendered, and the chance for a fair 
determination of the facts is lost.
  That is one reason why federal grand jury testimony--whether in 
printed or in audio-visual form--is explicitly shielded from public 
disclosure under Rule 6(e).
  But grand jury secrecy also serves the interests of the prosecution, 
by encouraging witnesses to come forward and ensuring that prejudicial 
material will not poison the jury pool and make it impossible to hold a 
fair trial. This is especially important when the targets and potential 
targets of an investigation are public figures.
  The pre-indictment release of secret testimony compromises both 
objectives--trampling on the rights of the accused and jeopardizing 
subsequent indictments. Beyond this, it calls into serious question the 
fairness and integrity of the grand jury system itself.


                      ``laundering'' the evidence

  Through its action today, the Judiciary Committee has engaged in an 
abuse of the grand jury process that has enabled it to accomplish 
indirectly what the Independent Counsel was prohibited from doing 
directly.
  The Independent Counsel has developed his case by using the grand 
jury to compel testimony from various witnesses. Although the grand 
jury voted to subpoena the President, the videotaped testimony was 
ultimately obtained under a negotiated agreement, under which the 
Independent Counsel agreed to treat the testimony as secret grand jury 
proceedings pursuant to Rule 6(e). It was solely on this basis that the 
President consented to testify.
  The Independent Counsel subsequently receive permission from the 
court to release the videotape, together with the other grand jury 
material, to the Congress. But the court order did not authorize its 
further release to the public or the press.
  By releasing that testimony to the public, we are--in effect--
laundering the evidence so as to nullify the express agreement under 
which it was obtained. This is an abuse of the grand jury that can only 
damage the public's faith in that institution and impair its ability to 
perform its essential role.
  And what are the benefits that justify these evils? We are told only 
that the public has a ``right to know''--an interest in the case that 
entitle sit to the information. Some have even suggested that that 
interest is a financial one--that the public ``paid'' for this material 
and is entitled to it.
  To this, one can only respond that the public pays for the grand jury 
testimony in every case. The public has an interest in every case--
especially where the case involves high officials or other celebrities. 
We accommodate that interest by requiring that trials be held in open 
court. But the public is no more entitled to secret grand jury 
testimony than it is to classified intelligence. Not even when the case 
is concluded, let alone while it is still going on.
  In an ordinary criminal trial, grand jury testimony is disclosed 
under Rule 6(e) only under certain specific circumstances. For example, 
criminal defendants are entitled to see grand jury proceedings in order 
to cross-examine witnesses or challenge their credibility on the basis 
of prior inconsistent statements.
  On the other hand, the public release of material of this nature 
would violate not only Rule 6(e), but Department of Justice guidelines, 
court precedents and ethical rules binding on prosecutors in every 
jurisdiction in this country. A party found to have disclosed the 
material would be subject to sanctions, and the material itself would 
be excludable in court. The

[[Page H10108]]

court might even grant a defendant's motion to dismiss the case for 
prejudice.


                          Looking to Precedent

  This is certainly not an ordinary case. But neither is it so 
exceptional as to justify our riding roughshod over precedent and due 
process.
  In the one historical precedent that is closest to the present 
situation, due process was scrupulously observed. Twenty-four years 
ago, a Republican president was under investigation by a Democratic 
House.
  The Judiciary Committee spent seven weeks in closed session, 
reviewing judge Sirica's grand jury materials prior to their release. 
President Nixon's lawyers were permitted not only to participate in 
these sessions, but to cross-examine witnesses before their testimony 
was made public.

  While there are obviously major differences between the current 
controversy and the Watergate affair, President Clinton is entitled to 
the same due process protections afforded President Nixon in the course 
of that investigation.
  In fact, the case for preserving the confidentiality of the evidence 
is even stronger here than it was in the Watergate case. Mr. Starr's 
grant jury has made no findings whatsoever with respect to the 
evidence. The material we have consists merely of selected portions of 
what the persecutor put before the grand jury, together with his 
interpretation of that material. The jurors were never asked whether 
they thought that the video tape--or any other testimony--provided 
credible evidence of perjury or other wrongdoing. Having used the grant 
jury as a tool to gather information, the Independent Counsel bypassed 
it as a fact-finding body.
  That is his prerogative. But the Judiciary Committee has a duty to 
see that the material provided to us is handled appropriately. If we 
act carelessly, and in haste, we will not only cripple this President, 
but will do lasting harm to the values and institutions we hold most 
dear.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker I would like to enter into the record a 
General Accounting Office report: Executive Office of the President, 
Procedures for Acquiring Access and to and Safeguarding Intelligence 
Information
  This report is a significant and impressive audit performed by the 
National Security and International Affairs Division of the GAO. It 
builds on the work previously requested by Chairman Goss and will be 
the foundation for further oversight by the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence.
  The President's stewardship in protecting the National Security of 
the United States of America is his highest responsibility. There is no 
higher calling. I believe that this report raises significant questions 
that should be addressed.

       GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of 
                            Representatives

 Executive Office of the President--Procedures for Acquiring Access to 
               and Safeguarding Intelligence Information

         U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and 
           International Affairs Division,
                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1998.
     Hon. Gerald B. H. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This report responds to your request of 
     November 6, 1997, asking us to determine whether the 
     Executive Office of the President (EOP) has established 
     procedures for (1) acquiring personnel access to classified 
     intelligence information, specifically Sensitive 
     Compartmented Information (SCI), and (2) safeguarding such 
     information. You asked that our review include the following 
     offices for which the EOP Security Office provides security 
     support: White House Office, Office of Policy Development, 
     Office of the Vice President, National Security Council, 
     President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy, Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
     and Office of Administration.


                               background

       SCI refers to classified information concerning or derived 
     from intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes 
     requiring exclusive handling within formal access control 
     established by the Director of Central Intelligence. The 
     Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is responsible for 
     adjudicating and granting all EOP requests for SCI access. 
     According to the EOP Security Office, between January 1993 
     and May 1998, the CIA granted about 840 EOP employees 
     access to SCI.
       Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security 
     Information, prescribes a uniform system for classifying, 
     safeguarding, and declassifying national security information 
     and requires agency heads to promulgate procedures to ensure 
     that the policies established by the order are properly 
     implemented, ensure that classified material is properly 
     safeguarded, and establish and maintain a security self-
     inspection program of their classified activities.
       The order also gives the Director, Information Security 
     Oversight Office (an organization under the National Archives 
     and Records Administration), the authority to conduct on-site 
     security inspections of EOP's and other executive branch 
     agencies' classified programs. Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular Number A-123, Management Accountability and 
     Control, emphasizes the importance of having clearly 
     documented and readily available procedures as a means to 
     ensure that programs achieve their intended results.
       Director of Central Intelligence Directive 1/14, Personnel 
     Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for 
     Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information, lays out the 
     governmentwide eligibility standards and procedures for 
     access to SCI by all U.S. citizens, including government 
     civilian and military personnel, contractors, and employees 
     of contractors. The directive requires (1) the employing 
     agency to determine that the individual has a need to know; 
     \1\ (2) the cognizant Senior Official of the Intelligence 
     Community to review the individual's background investigation 
     and reach a favorable suitability determination; and (3) the 
     individual, once approved by the Senior Official of the 
     Intelligence Community for SCI access, to sign a SCI 
     nondisclosure agreement.\2\ Additional guidance concerning 
     SCI eligibility is contained in Executive Order 12968,\3\ the 
     U.S. Security Policy Board investigative standards and 
     adjudicative guidelines implementing Executive Order 
     12968,\4\ and Director of Central Intelligence Directive 1/
     19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Governmentwide standards and procedures for safeguarding 
     SCI material are contained in Director of Central 
     Intelligence Directive 1/19, Security Policy for Sensitive 
     Compartmented Information and Security Policy Manual.
       The EOP Security Office is part of the Office of 
     Administration. The Director of the Office of Administration 
     reports to the Assistant to the President for Management and 
     Administration. The EOP Security Officer is responsible for 
     formulating and directing the execution of security policy, 
     reviewing and evaluating EOP security programs, and 
     conducting security indoctrinations and debriefings for 
     agencies of the EOP. Additionally, each of the nine EOP 
     offices we reviewed has a security officer who is responsible 
     for that specific office's security program.
       As discussed with your office, we reviewed EOP procedures 
     but did not verify whether the procedures were followed in 
     granting SCI access to EOP employees, review EOP physical 
     security practices for safeguarding classified material, 
     conduct classified document control and accountability 
     inspections, or perform other control tests of classified 
     material over which the EOP has custody. (See pages 8 and 9 
     for a description of our scope and methodology.)


  eop-wide procedures for acquiring SCI access should be more specific

       The EOP Security Officer told us that, for the period 
     January 1993 until June 1996, (1) he could not find any EOP-
     wide procedures for acquiring access to SCI for the White 
     House Office, the Office of Policy Development, the Office of 
     the Vice President, the National Security Council, and the 
     President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board for which the 
     former White House Security Office \5\ provided security 
     support and (2) there were no EOP-wide procedures for 
     acquiring access to SCI for the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, the Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative, the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy, and the Office of Administration for which the EOP 
     Security Office provides security support. He added that 
     there had been no written procedures for acquiring SCI 
     access within the EOP since he became the EOP Security 
     Officer in 1986. In contrast, we noted that two of the 
     nine EOP offices we reviewed issued office-specific 
     procedures that make reference to acquiring access to 
     SCI--the Office of Science and Technology Policy in July 
     1996 and the Office of the Vice President in February 
     1997.
       According to the EOP Security Officer, draft EOP-wide 
     written procedures for acquiring access to SCI were completed 
     in June 1996, at the time the White House and EOP Security 
     Offices merged. These draft procedures, entitled Security 
     Procedures for the EOP Security Office, were not finalized 
     until March 1998. While the procedures discuss the issuance 
     of EOP building passes, they do not describe in detail the 
     procedures EOP offices must follow to acquire SCI access; the 
     roles and responsibilities of the EOP Security Office, 
     security staffs of the individual EOP offices, and the CIA 
     and others in the process; or the forms and essential 
     documentation required before the CIA can adjudicate a 
     request for SCI access. Moreover, the procedures do not 
     address the practices that National Security Council security 
     personnel follow to acquire SCI access for their personnel. 
     For example, unlike the process for acquiring SCI access in 
     the other eight EOP offices were reviewed, National Security 
     Council security personnel (rather than the personnel in the 
     EOP Security Office) conduct the employee pre-employment 
     security interview; deal directly with the CIA to request SCI 
     access; and, once the CIA approves an employee for access, 
     conduct the SCI security indoctrination and oversee the 
     individual's signing of the SCI nondisclosure agreement.
       Director of Central Intelligence Directives 1/14 and 1/19 
     require that access to SCI be controlled under the strictest 
     application of

[[Page H10109]]

     the need-to-know principle and in accordance with applicable 
     personnel security standards and procedures. In exceptional 
     cases, the Senior Official of the Intelligence Community or 
     his designee (the CIA in the case of EOP employees) may, when 
     it is in the national interest, authorize an individual 
     access to SCI prior to completion of the individual's 
     security background investigation.
       At least since July 1996, according to the National 
     Security Council's security officer, his office has granted 
     temporary SCI access to government employees and individuals 
     from private industry and academia--before completion of the 
     individual's security background investigation and without 
     notifying the CIA. He added, however, that this practice has 
     occurred only on rare occasions to meet urgent needs. He said 
     that this practice was also followed prior to July 1996 but 
     that no records exist documenting the number of instances and 
     the parties the National Security Council may have granted 
     temporary SCI access to prior to this date. CIA officials 
     responsible for adjudicating and granting EOP requests for 
     SCI access told us that the CIA did not know about the 
     National Security Council's practice of granting temporary 
     SCI access until our review.
       A senior EOP official told us that from July 1996 through 
     July 1998, the National Security Council security officer 
     granted 35 temporary SCI clearances. This official also added 
     that, after recent consultations with the CIA, the National 
     Security Council decided in August 1998 to refer temporary 
     SCI clearance determinations to the CIA.


    eop has not established procedures for safeguarding sci material

       The EOP-wide security procedures issued in March 1998 do 
     not set forth security practices EOP offices are to allow in 
     safeguarding classified information. In contrast, the Office 
     of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of the Vice 
     President had issued office-specific security procedures that 
     deal with safeguarding SCI material. The Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy procedures, issued in July 1996, were 
     very comprehensive. They require that new employees be 
     thoroughly briefed on their security responsibilities, advise 
     staff on their responsibilities for implementing the security 
     aspects of Executive Order 12958, and provide staff specific 
     guidance on document accountability and other safeguard 
     practices involving classified information. The remaining 
     seven EOP offices that did not have office-specific 
     procedures for safeguarding SCI and other classified 
     information stated that they rely on Director of Central 
     Intelligence Directive 1/19 for direction on such matters.


       eop has not established a security self-inspection program

       Executive Order 12958 requires the head of agencies that 
     handle classified information to establish and maintain a 
     security self-inspection program. The order contains 
     guidelines (which agency security personnel may use in 
     conducting such inspections) on reviewing relevant security 
     directives and classified material access and control records 
     and procedures, monitoring agency adherence to established 
     safeguard standards, assessing compliance with controls for 
     access to classified information, verifying whether agency 
     special access programs provide for the conduct of internal 
     oversight, and assessing whether controls to prevent 
     unauthorized access to classified information are effective. 
     Neither the EOP Security Office nor the security staff of the 
     nine EOP offices we reviewed have conducted security self-
     inspections as described in the order.
       EOP officials pointed out that security personnel routinely 
     conduct daily desk, safe, and other security checks to ensure 
     that SCI and other classified information is properly 
     safeguarded. These same officials also emphasized the 
     importance and security value in having within each EOP 
     office experienced security staff responsible for 
     safeguarding classified information. While these EOP 
     security practices are important, the security self-
     inspection program as described in Executive Order 12958 
     provides for a review of security procedures and an 
     assessment of security controls beyond EOP daily security 
     practices.


   information security oversight office has not conducted security 
                     inspections of eop activities

       Executive Order 12958 gives the Director, Information 
     Security Oversight Office, authority to conduct on-site 
     reviews of each agency's classified programs. The Director of 
     the Information Security Oversight Office said his office has 
     never conducted an on-site security inspection of EOP 
     classified programs. He cited a lack of sufficient personnel 
     as the reason for not doing so and added that primary 
     responsibility for oversight should rest internally with the 
     EOP and other government agencies having custody of 
     classified material.
       The Director's concern with having adequate inspection 
     staff and his view on the primacy of internal oversight do 
     not diminish the need for an objective and systematic 
     examination of EOP classified programs by an independent 
     party. An independent assessment of EOP security practices by 
     the Information Security Oversight Office could have brought 
     to light the security concerns raised in this report.


                            recommendations

       To improve EOP security practices, we recommend that the 
     Assistant to the President for Management and Administration 
     direct the EOP Security Officer to revise the March 1998 
     Security Procedures for the EOP Security Office to include 
     comprehensive guidance on the procedures EOP offices must 
     follow in (1) acquiring SCI access for its employees and (2) 
     safeguarding SCI material and establish and maintain a self-
     inspection program of EOP classified programs, including SCI 
     in accordance with provisions in Executive Order 12958.
       We recommend further that, to properly provide for external 
     oversight, the Director, Information Security Oversight 
     Office, develop and implement a plan for conducting periodic 
     on-site security inspections of EOP classified programs.


                   Agency Comments and our Evaluation

       We provided the EOP, the Information Security Oversight 
     Office, and the CIA a copy of the draft report for their 
     review and comment. The EOP and the Information Security 
     Oversight Office provided written comments which are 
     reprinted in their entirety as appendices I and II 
     respectively. The CIA did not provide comments.
       In responding for the EOP, the Assistant to the President 
     for Management and Administration stated that our report 
     creates a false impression that the security procedures the 
     EOP employ are lax and inconsistent with established 
     standards. This official added that the procedures for 
     regulating personnel access to classified information are 
     Executive Order 12968 and applicable Security Policy Board 
     guidelines and Executive Order 12968 and Executive Order 
     12958 for safeguarding such information. The Assistant to the 
     President also stated that the report suggests that the EOP 
     operated in a vacuum because the EOP written security 
     procedures implementing Executive Order 12968 were not issued 
     until March 1998. The official noted that EOP carefully 
     followed the President's executive orders, Security Policy 
     Board guidelines and applicable Director of Central 
     Intelligence Directives during this time period. While EOP 
     disagreed with the basis for our recommendations, the 
     Assistant to the President stated that EOP plans to 
     supplement its security procedures with additional guidance.
       We agree that the executive orders, Security Policy Board 
     guidelines, and applicable Director of Central Intelligence 
     Directives clearly lay out governmentwide standards and 
     procedures for access to and safeguarding of SCI. However, 
     they are not a substitute for local operating procedures that 
     provide agency personnel guidance on how to implement the 
     governmentwide procedures. We believe that EOP plans to issue 
     supplemental guidance could strengthen existing procedures.
       The Assistant to the President also stated that it is not 
     accurate to say that the EOP has not conducted security self-
     inspections. This official stated that our draft report 
     acknowledges that ``security personnel conduct daily desk, 
     safe, and other security checks to ensure that SCI and other 
     classified material is properly safeguarded.'' The Assistant 
     to the President is correct to point out the importance of 
     daily physical security checks as a effective means to help 
     ensure that classified material is properly safeguarded. 
     However, such self-inspection practices are not meant to 
     substitute for a security self-inspection program as 
     described in Executive Order 12958. Self-inspections as 
     discussed in the order are much broader in scope than routine 
     daily safe checks. The order's guidelines discuss reviewing 
     relevant security directives and classified material access 
     and control records and procedures, monitoring agency 
     adherence to established safeguard standards, assessing 
     compliance with controls for access to classified 
     information, verifying whether agency special access 
     programs (such as SCI) provide for the conduct of internal 
     oversight, and assessing whether controls to prevent 
     unauthorized access to classified information are 
     effective. Our report recommends that the EOP establish a 
     self-inspection program.
       In commenting on our recommendation, the Assistant to the 
     President said that to enhance EOP security practices, the 
     skilled assistance of the EOP Security Office staff are being 
     made available to all EOP organizations to coordinate and 
     assist where appropriate in agency efforts to enhance self-
     inspection. We believe EOP security practices would be 
     enhanced if this action were part of a security self-
     inspection program as described in Executive Order 12958.
       The Director, Information Security Oversight Office noted 
     that our report addresses important elements of the SCI 
     program in place within the EOP and provides helpful insights 
     for the security community as a whole. The Director believes 
     that we overemphasize the need to create EOP specific 
     procedures for handling SCI programs. He observed that the 
     Director of Central Intelligence has issued governmentwide 
     procedures on these matters and that for the EOP to prepare 
     local procedures would result in unnecessary additional rules 
     and expenditure of resources and could result in local 
     procedures contrary to Director of Central Intelligence 
     Directives. As we discussed above, we agree that the 
     executive orders, Security Policy Board guidelines, and 
     applicable Director of Central Intelligence Directives 
     clearly lay out governmentwide standards and procedures for 
     access to and safeguarding of SCI. However, they are not a 
     substitute for local operating procedures that provide agency 
     personnel guidance on how to implement the governmentwide 
     procedures.
       The Director agreed that his office needs to conduct on-
     site security inspections and

[[Page H10110]]

     hopes to begin the inspections during fiscal year 1999. The 
     Director also noted that the primary focus of the inspections 
     would be classification management and not inspections of the 
     SCI program.


                         SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

       To identify EOP procedures for acquiring access to SCI and 
     safeguarding such information, we met with EOP officials 
     responsible for security program management and discussed 
     their programs. We obtained and reviewed pertinent documents 
     concerning EOP procedures for acquiring SCI access and 
     safeguarding such information.
       In addition, we obtained and reviewed various executive 
     orders, Director of Central Intelligence Directives, and 
     other documents pertaining to acquiring access to and 
     safeguarding SCI material. We also discussed U.S. 
     government security policies pertinent to our review with 
     officials of the Information Security Oversight Office and 
     the U.S. Security Policy Board. Additionally, we met with 
     officials of the CIA responsible for adjudicating and 
     granting EOP employees SCI access and discussed the CIA 
     procedures for determining whether an individual meets 
     Director of Central Intelligence Directive eligibility 
     standards.
       As discussed with your office, we did not verify whether 
     proper procedures were following in granting SCI access to 
     the approximately 840 EOP employees identified by the EOP 
     Security Officer. Also, we did not review EOP physical 
     security practices for safeguarding SCI and other classified 
     material, conduct classified document control and 
     accountability inspections, or perform other control tests of 
     SCI material over which the EOP has custody.
       We performed our review from January 1998 until August 1998 
     in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
     standards.
       At your request, we plan no further distribution of this 
     report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we 
     will provide copies to appropriate congressional committees; 
     the Chief of Staff to the President; the Assistant to the 
     President for Management and Administration; the Director, 
     Information Security Oversight Office; the Director of 
     Central Intelligence; Central Intelligence Agency; the U.S. 
     Security Policy Board; the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget; and other interested parties.
       Please contact me at (202) 512-3504 if you or your staff 
     have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors 
     to this report were Gary K. Weeter, Assistant Director, and 
     Tim F. Stone, Evaluator-in-Charge.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    Richard Davis,
                             Director, National Security Analysis.


                               footnotes

     1 The ``need-to-know'' principle is a 
     determination made by an authorized holder of classified 
     information that a prospective recipient requires access to 
     specific classified information in order to perform a lawful 
     and authorized function. The prospective recipient shall 
     possess an appropriate security clearance and access approval 
     in accordance with Director of Central Intelligence Directive 
     1/14.
     2 The SCI nondisclosure agreement establishes 
     explicit obligations on the government and the individual to 
     protect SCI.
     3 Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified 
     Information, (Aug. 2, 1995).
     4 U.S. Security Policy Board, Adjudicative 
     Guidelines for Determining Eligiblity for Access to 
     Classified Information, Investigative Standards for 
     Background Investigations for Access to Classified 
     Information, and Investigative Standards for Temporary 
     Eligiblity for Access (Mar. 24, 1997).
     5 The White House Security Office was abolished on 
     June 19, 1996. On this date, the EOP Security Office assumed 
     responsibility for security support for the EOP offices 
     previously supported by the White House Security Office.

Appendix I--Comments from the Assistant to the President for Management 
                           and Administration


                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, September 23, 1998.
     Mr. Richard Davis,
     Director, National Security Analysis National Security and 
         International Affairs Division, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Davis: We are writing in response to your 
     September 11, 1998 letter and draft report for the Executive 
     Office of the President (EOP), Procedures for Acquiring 
     Access to and Safeguarding Intelligence Information. 
     Unfortunately, the GAO report creates the false impression 
     that the security procedures employed at the EOP are lax and 
     inconsistent with established standards. Nothing could be 
     further from the truth. In fact, as the evidence provided to 
     the GAO makes abundantly clear, EOP security officials are 
     experienced professionals who have executed their 
     responsibilities diligently and with great attention to 
     detail.
       The GAO report also implies that these experienced 
     professionals have not fulfilled their obligations under the 
     law. This is completely unsupported by any reading of the 
     facts. The extensive information provided by the EOP to the 
     GAO auditors plainly demonstrates that the EOP has 
     conscientiously abided by security precautions.
       The EOP has made available to the GAO audit team reviewing 
     EOP security procedures key personnel and relevant documents. 
     In fact, the General Counsel of the Office of Administration 
     and the EOP Security Office Chief have personally devoted a 
     substantial number of hours to facilitate the GAO's audit. 
     Numerous other EOP officials have also devoted significant 
     amounts of time to assist the GAO auditors.
       After the submission of hundreds of pages of documentation, 
     more than ten meetings with the GAO auditors and more than 
     ten individual interviews with EOP entities, the report still 
     contains errors and statements that generate mis-impressions. 
     It is our hope that the GAO will make the appropriate 
     corrections to the report prior to its submission to the 
     Congress.
       In short, the EOP has established procedures for regulating 
     personnel access to classified information; also, the EOP has 
     a rigorous program, administered by career professional 
     security officers, to safeguard classified information. The 
     procedures in question are contained in E.O. 12968 and 
     applicable Security Policy Board (SPB) guidelines. The 
     safeguards in question are also contained E.O. 12958.
       The report suggests that the EOP, and its constituent 
     entities, operated in a vacuum because the EOP written 
     security procedures implementing E.O. 12968 were not issued 
     until March 1998. In fact, the EOP carefully followed the 
     authoritative guidance set forth in the President's Executive 
     Orders, SPB guidelines, and applicable Director of Central 
     Intelligence Directives (DCI/Ds) throughout this time period. 
     The President's Executive Orders are the cornerstones of the 
     EOP's security programs and provide the basis for the 
     adjudication of access to classified information, with or 
     without subsequent guidelines. The EOP has found that the 
     Executive Orders and SPB guidelines provide clear guidance 
     that has been implemented with care in order to safeguard 
     classified information and regulate access to it.
       With respect to the draft report's comments relating to 
     temporary SCI clearances, during the period July 1996 through 
     July 1998, the NSC Security Officer, a professional career 
     security officer on detail, granted 35 temporary SCI 
     clearances subject to issuance by the CIA of a final SCI 
     clearance. Before considering issuance of a temporary SCI 
     clearance, the Security Officer conducted a thorough review 
     of available background information from the completed SF-86, 
     obtained the results of the FBI name check, and received a 
     progress report from the FBI when the background check was 
     substantially completed. Only if this careful examination 
     revealed no derogatory information would a temporary 
     clearance be granted. Although this process has been 
     implemented successfully with no adverse indications, the NSC 
     decided in August 1998, after consultations with CIA 
     Headquarters personnel and with a view towards simplifying 
     this process, to refer temporary SCI clearance determinations 
     to CIA Headquarters.
       The headline for the section of the draft report on self-
     inspections--EOP HAS NOT CONDUCTED SECURITY SELF-
     INSPECTIONS--is simply not accurate. Indeed, the draft report 
     acknowledges that ``security personnel conduct daily desk, 
     safe, and other security checks to ensure that SCI and other 
     classified material is properly safeguarded.'' The EOP 
     operates consistently with the self-inspection guidelines 
     issued by the Information Security Oversight Office pursuant 
     to E.O. 12958 for safeguarding classified information, which 
     is the primary focus of this draft report.
       The GAO report includes three recommendations. One of the 
     three recommendations included in the GAO report is that the 
     EOP ``initiate a self inspection program.'' As we have stated 
     and supported on numerous occasions to the GAO auditors, our 
     current self-inspection practices are effective. 
     Nevertheless, we are continuing our efforts to enhance EOP 
     security practices. We have made available to all EOP 
     organizations the skilled assistance of our EOP security 
     office staff to coordinate and assist where appropriate in 
     agency efforts to enhance self-inspection.
       The GAO also recommends that we revise the Security 
     Procedures for the EOP Security Office to include 
     ``comprehensive guidance'' on ``acquiring SCI access'' and 
     ``properly safeguarding SCI material,'' In fact, the EOP 
     Security Procedures do include comprehensive guidance. As we 
     pointed out to the GAO auditors on several occasions, 
     paragraph 10 (c) of the Security Procedures incorporates by 
     reference guidance for obtaining SCI access. Although we 
     disagree with the basis for the GAO recommendation, we have 
     initiated an effort to supplement the Security Procedures 
     with additional guidance.
       Finally, the draft report recommends that the Information 
     Security Oversight Office conduct periodic on-site reviews of 
     the EOP security process. We stand ready to work with the 
     ISOO in any such undertaking.
       We would like to request a meeting with the GAO auditors to 
     discuss the issues raised in this letter in addition to other 
     technical corrections to the GAO report. If there is anything 
     that I or any member of my staff, can do to be of assistance, 
     please feel free to contact Mark Lindsay (202) 456-3880.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Virginia M. Apuzzo,
         Assistant to the President for Management and 
           Administration.


                              gao comment

       The following is our comment to the Assistant to the 
     President for Management and Administration's letter dated 
     September 23, 1998.
       1. A representative of the EOP told us that the errors 
     referred, for example, to statements in GAO's draft report 
     that the EOP does not conduct self-inspections and that the 
     EOP lacks written procedures.

[[Page H10111]]

  Appendix II--Comments From the Information Security Oversight Office

         Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives 
           and Records Administration,
                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1998.
     Subject comments on General Accounting Office (GAO) report 
         ``Executive Office of the President: Procedures for 
         Acquiring Access to and Safeguarding Intelligence 
         Information''.
     Mr. Richard Davis,
     Director, National Security Analysis, National Security and 
         International Affairs Division, U.S. General Accounting 
         Office, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Davis: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on 
     the subject draft GAO report. It addresses important elements 
     of the Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) program in 
     place within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and 
     provides helpful insights for the security community as a 
     whole. The conclusions drawn in three areas of the report 
     prompt the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) to 
     offer the following comments.
       (1) ISOO believes the draft report overemphasizes the 
     issuance of individual office and agency procedures for 
     handling SCI. While Executive Order 12958 prescribes a 
     uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and 
     declassifying national security information, the Director of 
     Central Intelligence (DCI) prescribes the augmentation of 
     those procedures for SCI, both under the Executive order and 
     the DCI's statutory authorities. As noted in the report, the 
     DCI has issued Government-wide standards and procedures for 
     access to SCI and for safeguarding SCI with Director of 
     Central Intelligence Directives (DCIDs) 1/14 and 1/19, 
     respectively.
       Most executive branch agencies rely upon the DCIDs 
     exclusively as their security procedures documents for SCI. 
     Rather than generating others. Requiring agencies to generate 
     additional procedures documents for SCI would result in 
     unnecessary additional rules and expenditure of resources, 
     and could result in procedures contrary to the DCIDs, 
     particularly, if the DCI does not review and approve them. 
     Ensuring that EOP offices and executive branch agencies have 
     ready access to the DCIDs could alleviate concerns about the 
     need for detailed procedures in each office and agency.
       (2) Several factors have prevented ISOO from conducting 
     compliance inspections for the past several years. These 
     include the drafting and implementing of E.O. 12958, with its 
     increased functions for ISOO. At the same time, the size of 
     ISOO's staff has decreased by one-third to the point where 
     its total professional and clerical staff numbers 10 people. 
     Nevertheless, we agree that ISOO needs to be conducting 
     inspections and we hope to do so during fiscal year 1999.
       Your report suggests, however, that ISOO's inspections 
     would cover SCI as it relates both to the issuance of SCI 
     clearances and the safeguarding of SCI information. These 
     areas would never be the primary or even secondary focus of 
     ISOO's compliance inspections. First, ISOO does not have any 
     jurisdiction over the personnel security (clearance) system. 
     Second, ISOO's primary concern in classification management 
     would not ordinarily focus on the SCI program. In other 
     words, external oversight of the EOP's SCI programs would 
     only coincidentally result from increased ISOO inspections.
       (3) Finally, your report raises concerns about the granting 
     of interim clearances for SCI access at the National Security 
     Council (NSC). While we share the report's concerns about the 
     possibility for abuse in this area, we also recognize and 
     understand the NCS's responsibilities to the President. With 
     respect to information generated by the Intelligence 
     Community, having appropriately cleared individuals on the 
     job in a timely manner is essential. Because the SCI program 
     is so large and widely dispersed across the government, ISOO 
     understands the NSC's need to have the ability to grant 
     interim clearances, under specific conditions, so that 
     individuals can perform their duties. Property managing and 
     controlling how these interim clearances are granted would be 
     an important element of oversight. Your report suggests that 
     the DCI is addressing this issue with the NSC.
       Please call me on 202-219-5250 if you have any questions 
     concerning our comments on your draft report. Again, we 
     appreciate the opportunity to comment.
           Sincerely,


                                             Steven Garfinkel.

                                                         Director.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in adamant opposition to this 
resolution and to the travesty of justice we are witnessing here today. 
From the time the voters of America put this President in office six 
years ago, his enemies have led a frenzied crusade to reverse the 
results of the electoral process and to subvert the will of the 
American people.
  They have stopped at nothing. What began as an investigation into an 
investment the President and First Lady made in Arkansas well over a 
decade ago has mushroomed into a frantic search to find something--
anything--to bring this presidency down. The free-ranging, unbridled 
hunt for damaging information about the President has resulted in the 
expenditure of millions of tax dollars; it has featured the doctoring 
of tapes by Republicans; a so-called ``Independent'' Counsel whose 
office resorts to bullying, threats and intimidation; a mad rush to put 
the report of the Counsel on the internet without giving the President 
the basic right to review the charges against him; the release of the 
President's videotaped grand jury testimony again with total disregard 
to his rights, and now the push to expand the inquiry into areas which 
have already been thoroughly investigated.
  Do we really want to turn this nation into a police state where 
enemies of the President, in pursuit of a political agenda, have the 
power to restrict individual freedoms and intimidate citizens?
  The vast majority of my constituents have told me they are ready to 
forgive the President for making a mistake in his personal conduct. It 
is time to move on to the pressing issues facing our nation--education, 
health care reform, protection of social security, and continued 
economic growth. I urge my colleagues to put a stop to this partisan, 
out-of-control vendetta and to take care of the real business of the 
American people.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today is a solemn day. The 
Congress has considered an impeachment inquiry only two other times in 
our Nation's history. It is not a task that we take lightly.
  I believe it is our constitutional duty to begin an impeachment 
inquiry based on the evidence delivered to the Judiciary Committee by 
Judge Starr.
  I believe that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, 
has been committed to a fair and judicious process, and we will 
continue to follow his lead.
  Article 2, section 1 of our Constitution contains the oath of office 
that the President must take before entering office. It states: ``I do 
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of 
the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, 
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
  This body voted today to investigate whether the President has broken 
this oath by committing perjury and obstructing justice.
  I, too, took an oath to uphold the Constitution when I entered the 
military and I have taken that oath as a State representative and as a 
U.S. Congressman. Each time, I took it as a serious obligation.
  The American people deserve answers to the many questions about the 
conduct of this President and today we have begun the process of 
finding those answers.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to support 
the resolution calling for an impeachment inquiry against the 
President, William Jefferson Clinton.
  While the actions and evidence that have led us here today are 
deplorable, the action we are taking here today as a result is noble. 
It is in the finest tradition of our democracy that the process of 
impeachment begins.
  We have heard much discussion today of the Constitution. We heard 
quotes from James Madison and the Federalist Papers. All that is 
certainly important in this debate. But our constituents have a voice 
in this process too, and I received a letter from one last week that I 
think puts all this in perspective. It's from a 6-year old boy in 
Jacksonville, Florida.
  He writes, ``Someday in my mind I hope we get a better President. I 
want to have a President that tells the truth. Even I think I could be 
a better President than this man.''
  There was a day when our children aspired to be President. Now, the 
children in my district aspire to be better than the President.
  The Judiciary Committee, and this House, are about to begin a mission 
for the truth. But as we undertake the official process that is laid 
out in the Constitution, I hope we will also begin the process of 
healing our nation.
  They said the truth is a liberating thing. It is only through a 
successful search for the truth that our nation can liberate itself 
from this scandal. To sweep it under the rug, would be to leave it to 
fester under the fiber of our democracy and to eat away at the rule of 
law.
  Yes, we all want to put this behind us, but, as the Constitution 
requires, and our conscience dictates, we must proceed with this 
inquiry to do that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the House Judiciary Committee's recommendation to open an 
impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Clinton.
  I certainly understand the desire of all Americans, myself included, 
to be done with this matter and to return our attention to many serious 
issues that confront our country at home and abroad. And let me say 
quite frankly, I, like many of my colleagues, resent the fact that the 
President's actions have brought us to this Constitutional crisis. 
Given the serious charges leveled against the President including 
testifying falsely under oath, obstruction of justice, and witness 
tampering among others, I believe this inquiry is warranted.
  Our inquiry has everything to do with the President's ability to lead 
our country. He is

[[Page H10112]]

our Commander-in-Chief, as well as the chief architect of American 
foreign policy and our domestic welfare. The President symbolizes to 
our nation and the rest of the world what it is to be an American. For 
these very reasons we need to be certain of the President's conduct, 
and whether his wrongdoing warrants penalty. Our President must command 
the moral authority to lead this great nation, especially in the 
critical times of crisis. And whether it be an issue of national 
security, or as a role model for our children, our nation cannot afford 
to question the President's decisions or doubt his sincerity, which 
many of us do now. We may disagree politically, but every American must 
be convinced the President's leadership decisions are genuine. I for 
one, want more from my President than feigned anger and forced 
contrition. I want the truth that this inquiry seeks.
  As recommended by the Judiciary Committee, the process by which this 
inquiry will be undertaken is the very same model used in the Watergate 
impeachment inquiry. While the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee did 
not support this particular model, I think it is important to note that 
they did support an inquiry, albeit a more limited one with a fixed 
timeframe for consideration.
  There is no more serious obligation given to us under the 
Constitution than to uphold the rule of law and protect the integrity 
of the highest offices of our government. The charges against President 
Clinton cannot simply be ignored. We have a process for resolving them 
as prescribed by the Constitution and the House will not proceed in a 
Constitionally sound and orderly fashion and do so as expeditiously as 
possible.
  The seriousness of Congress' duty to consider this issue is best 
stated by Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino of New Jersey in 
1974, who said during the impeachment hearings of President Nixon, ``we 
cannot turn away, out of partisanship or convenience, from problems 
that are now our responsibility, our inescapable responsibility to 
consider. It would be a violation of our own public trust if we, as the 
people's representatives, chose not to inquire, not to consult, not 
even to deliberate.''
  Mr. Speaker, the President has already admitted to violating the 
public's trust by lying to the American people, his family, supporters 
and Cabinet. We cannot let it happen again. It is our duty to restore 
that trust in the Presidency by approaching this inquiry with a 
commitment to fairness, and an unshakable dedication to seek the truth.
  If it is proven the President of the United States lied under oath, 
obstructed justice and urged others to do the same, he has forsaken the 
oath he took when he became our President. Under those circumstances, 
removal from office is no longer a question. But to come to that 
conclusion, this Congress and the American people must be satisfied by 
the fairness and thoroughness of our deliberations.
  As the House proceeds, I like all Members, must reserve final 
judgment on the appropriate action until all the evidence is carefully 
reviewed and judiciously weighed.
  So today, I say let us begin. Let us open the impeachment inquiry of 
President Clinton.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, whether this House votes today 
for the Democratic alternative, which I prefer, or the resolution that 
was reported from the House Judiciary Committee, which I will vote for 
when the alternative fails, this much is clear:
  The guiding purpose of this inquiry must be to obtain the truth. We 
must conduct this inquiry in order to give the President the 
opportunity to acquit himself. And we must conduct this inquiry in a 
manner that brings honor to this institution, and that keeps faith with 
the Constitution that we are sworn to uphold.
  I don't know, Mr. Speaker, what the outcome of the Committee's 
inquiry will be. I share the hope that I think all fair-minded 
Americans hold that the President will emerge from this process 
exonerated and able to renew his effective service. The Congress will 
carry a heavy burden to show that the President has conducted 
impeachable offenses, and that the results of two elections should be 
overturned.
  But I do know that if we fail to move forward today, we will not be 
serving the best interests of the President, or, much more importantly, 
of our nation.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart but a clear conscience, I 
will vote today to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to proceed 
with a formal inquiry that could lead to the impeachment of President 
Clinton.
  The President's personal indiscretions, which he himself has 
essentially acknowledged, are not at issue. What is at issue are 
allegations of perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury, and obstruction 
of justice, both in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones sexual 
harassment lawsuit and in sworn testimony before a federal grand jury. 
Judge Starr has suggested that there are eleven instances in which 
there is substantial and credible evidence of perjury, subornation of 
perjury and obstruction of justice. The Judiciary Committee has 
suggested there may be as many as fifteen separate charges that warrant 
investigation. These are serious charges; the underlying behavior which 
may have led to these charges is important, but not central to the 
charges themselves. If proven true, these charges could constitute 
grounds for the President's impeachment and removal from office. In the 
meantime, Congress bears the burden of proof and the President is 
entitled to a presumption of innocence.
  While I have not supported President Clinton politically in his 
election campaigns, I have always tried to work with him and his 
Administration in a bipartisan manner and for the good of the country. 
I hope we can all put aside partisanship, maintain the proper decorum 
and avoid a rush to judgment. Removing a President from office is the 
most serious step any Congress can ever take since it sets aside the 
decision made by the voters. It has never happened before in 220 years 
of our history, and it must never be done lightly.
  However, ours is a nation governed by the rule of law, not the rule 
of men. No person may be above the law, including--or perhaps 
especially--the Chief Executive of our country. Congress must carry out 
its constitutional responsibilities in a fair and dignified manner. As 
a potential ``grand juror'' who may be required to vote on Articles of 
Impeachment, I will maintain the highest degree of objectivity and 
consider fairly all the evidence ultimately gathered by the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my Colleagues to 
vote in favor of proceedings to further investigate President Clinton 
on the charges brought against him.
  Our entire system of law is based on a sound understanding that we 
must live by truth. Today we are casting a vote that defines every 
principal of which our Constitution was written; truth, justice, and 
equality.
  This is not a vote for or against Bill Clinton. This is a vote for 
the truth. We must allow justice to be fairly served. I took an oath to 
defend the Constitution and ensure that no person is above the law, 
even if that person is the President. This is not a choice, it is a 
duty.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for America. No one enjoys this. The 
President of the United States stands accused of committing serious 
felonies. Congress must fulfill its duty to fully investigate these 
charges, not just for the sake of reaching the truth, but for the sake 
of our country.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members of Congress, the decision of the 
Republicans to limit the debate on this important resolution and to 
decide whether or not this body will move an inquiry to impeach 
President Clinton, is a continuation of the partisan, unfair, and 
inconsiderate actions that have dictated the management of this 
impeachment crisis ever since Independent Counsel Ken Starr dumped his 
referral in the laps of this Congress and the public.
  This continuous, shameless, and reckless disregard for the 
Constitution and basic civil rights cannot be tolerated by the citizens 
of this country. This is a sad and painful day for all of us. The least 
we could do is handle this matter with dignity and fairness for 
everyone involved. Four-and-one-half years and $40 million later, 
unnecessary subpoenas of uninvolved individuals, Mr. Starr's close 
relationships with groups and individuals with demonstrated hatred for 
the President taints the Independent Counsel's investigation. This 
Congress does not need a protracted, open-ended witch-hunt, 
intimidation, embarrassment and harassment. The tawdry and trashy pages 
of hearsay, accusations, gossip, and stupid telephone chatter do not 
meet the standards of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.''
  The President's actions in this matter are disappointing and 
unacceptable, BUT NOT IMPEACHABLE! Mr. Schippers, the General Counsel 
for the Majority on the House Judiciary Committee, extended the 
allegations in search of something--anything that may meet the 
constitutional standards for impeachment. However, even the extended 
and added allegations do not comport with the Constitutional standard 
for impeachment.
  It is time to move on! Reprimand or condemn the President--but let us 
move on! These grossly unfair procedures will only tear this Congress 
and this nation apart. I ask my colleagues to vote down this open 
ended, unfair resolution presented today by the majority. It does not 
deserve the support of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have 
constantly warned this body about the dangers of a prosecutor run 
amuck. The Congressional Black Caucus has warned about the abuse of 
power by the Majority. We ask you to listen to us and we remind you of 
the history of our people who have struggled against injustice and 
unfairness.
  Let us not march backwards. Let's be wise enough to move forward and 
spend our precious time working on the issues of education, health 
care, senior citizens issues, children's issues, and justice and 
opportunity for all Americans.

[[Page H10113]]

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House 
Resolution #581, the Republican Impeachment Inquiry Resolution, in 
favor of the Alternative offered today. I cannot condone the behavior 
of the President; his actions have been profoundly disappointing to the 
country. But, I believe that the investigation of whether or not his 
conduct should be the subject of impeachment is one that must be 
concluded quickly and responsibly.
  The resolution offered today will start an inquiry that is open-ended 
and not limited in any fashion, not even to the Referral by Independent 
Counsel Kenneth Starr. This inquiry has the potential to last many 
months, if not years, and into the next Congress. The American people 
have urged this House to come to a conclusion, and the resolution 
offered today ignores this plea. Instead of coming to a concise and 
thoughtful resolution, the Republican party has instead brought forth a 
plan that is illogical, without direction, and indefinite in length and 
scope.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to heed the call of the American public and 
resolve this painful conflict as soon as possible. The basic tenent 
that we should focus on is do the facts brought to us by Independent 
Counsel Kenneth Starr demand impeachment? If we assume that Kenneth 
Starr is a competent attorney, and the evidence brought forth is fact, 
then we should get on with the business of examining that evidence in 
the light of the Constitution and what our founding fathers deemed 
impeachable.
  I believe that the only way that we, as a body, can properly do this 
is by focusing the scope of the inquiry to the matter actually before 
us in the Referral from the Independent Counsel. This is precisely what 
the offered Alternative does. It would produce a proceeding that is 
fair, and one that would open with a consideration of the 
constitutional standard for impeachment. Once these standards are 
determined, the facts of the case would be examined and held in 
comparison.
  Congress needs to return its focus and attention back to the business 
of the nation. This process should not stand between the problems 
facing this country and our ambition to solve them. There are many 
issues--such as saving Social Security, passing a Patient's Bill of 
Rights, saving our environment for future generations, and ensuring 
that all children attending school are given the tools to succeed--that 
are floundering by the wayside as we continue to focus our energies on 
this drawn out process. I believe that the only way we can return to 
work on these imperative issues is by bringing an expeditious 
conclusion to the inquiry by the end of the year.
  An inquiry that is deliberate, grounded in the Constitution, and 
removed from partisan politics is the only way that we can bring this 
country the resolution that it craves. In the House of Representatives 
there is a process in place to deal with matters of presidential 
improprieties. As a Member of congress, I believe in this process and 
the importance of adhering to the appropriate steps. The charges 
against the President are serious, and they deserve serious 
consideration. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Alternative to the 
Impeachment Inquiry Resolution because it is focused, fair, 
expeditious, and deliberate.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res. 581, the 
Republican resolution to begin impeachment proceedings regarding the 
President of the United States. People have stated overwhelmingly, in a 
loud, clear and unified voice, that the Congress must not proceed with 
a long, open-ended, and partisan impeachment proceeding.
  I have not, nor will I condone the President's behavior. He was 
wrong, and he should never had lied about his relationship with Monica 
Lewinsky.
  Nevertheless, the prosecutor's investigation and the Congress' 
discussions and hearings about the President's behavior have been 
unfair from the start. As a result, I oppose the continuation of 
independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation--which has been a 
four-year, partisan effort to discredit the President--as well as any 
related investigations and inquiries. It should be noted that, despite 
the length of the investigation and the intense scrutiny of the 
President and his friends, Prosecutor Starr and the Republicans have 
come up largely empty-handed, except with regard to the President's 
behavior in the Monica Lewinsky matter. When the Starr investigation 
produced a now-infamous and, at times, pornographic report, I voted 
against the release of the Starr report because I felt the material to 
be unfair and inappropriate, and because the President and his lawyers 
did not have a chance to review the report before it was released to 
the public on the internet, and in all of the newspapers.
  And so today, I oppose the Republican resolution to begin 
Presidential impeachment hearings: I strongly oppose any form of 
impeachment inquiry because I firmly believe that lying about a sexual 
affair does not constitute an impeachable offense, and because the 
investigation and the hearings are yet another political effort to 
undermine the President.
  The allegations against the President do not constitute high crimes 
and misdemeanors. They certainly are not comparable to high crimes and 
misdemeanors like treason or bribery. Even more, the resolution creates 
a political circus on the national stage, with no limitations in scope 
and length, no controls, no definitions, and no justice. And worse 
still, the process itself is an attempt to overthrow our Democratic 
agenda; in other words, we are witnessing an attempted coup d'etat.
  Today is a sad day for the country. We can only hope now that, 
despite the past weeks and months, the Congress will proceed quickly 
with an investigation that is fair and, especially, limited in scope 
and length. The American people have stated that we must move quickly 
and get on with the work we were elected to do. The real immorality and 
scandal in this country is that, because of this partisan process, we 
have not been able to do the important work of preserving social 
security, protecting our environment, educating our children, or 
ensuring health care reform.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
House Resolution 581, the impeachment inquiry resolution being 
considered today by the House of Representatives.
  On a matter of procedure, I find it very disturbing that as the House 
is considering an impeachment inquiry resolution, under one of the most 
important powers the House has, I was not afforded an opportunity to 
speak before the House during the debate. There is no question of the 
importance of the power of the House to send articles of impeachment to 
the Senate. Given the importance of this decision, there should have 
been adequate time provided for Members to debate the issue. That I 
must submit my statement for the record and not be given the 
opportunity to address my colleagues in person and my constituents via 
television speaks to the willingness of the majority to give this topic 
fair consideration.
  I have read the independent counsel's report to the House of 
Representatives and found the conduct described by the allegations to 
be offensive and not what I expect from a President of the United 
States. However, I do not believe the conduct described, even if 
completely accurate, warrants impeachment. I nonetheless feel the House 
of Representatives needs to address the issue promptly.
  Our country will not be well served by months of antagonistic debate, 
and I urge my colleagues to address the issue in a forthright manner. I 
am saddened by the President's conduct; his actions were totally 
inappropriate and should not be condoned.
  Extensive news coverage of discussions on impeachment have made it 
more difficult to address important national issues which need our 
attention. The independent counsel has spent over $40 million in 
investigating the President and has provided the House with tens of 
thousands of pages of materials. Much of the investigative work has 
been done and the facts are known.
  We have the opportunity today to authorize an impeachment inquiry 
limited only by the voluminous records submitted to us and by the time 
constraints placed on our term of service by the U.S. constitution. 
Given the extensive investigation already conducted at taxpayer 
expense, the House now has a duty to act in a responsible manner, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic motion to recommit the 
resolution to the Judiciary Committee with instructions.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the President's personal behavior was morally 
wrong and deeply disappointing, but this investigation has gone too far 
and is hurting the country, our families and our children. Congress is 
getting nothing done and has now embarked on an open-ended fishing 
expedition. We should hold the President accountable for his personal 
conduct, but then we should get back to the work that American families 
care about.
  Today, I am voting for a fair, focused and expeditious inquiry into 
the Kenneth Starr impeachment report. The process I support is 
specifically designed to focus on the Independent Counsel's report and 
any other referrals from Kenneth Starr. It would also ensure that this 
matter would be behind us by the end of the year, the end of this 
Congress.
  The Republican impeachment inquiry is designed to produce an 
investigation without an end--to drag it out until the presidential 
election in November 2000, two years from now.
  The stark difference between the two approaches is clear.
  The Democratic amendment is reasonably focused. The Republican 
resolution is unlimited. The Democratic amendment is fair. It requires 
an initial determination regarding the standard for impeachment and the 
sufficiency of the evidence to meet that standard. The Republican 
proposal is arbitrary--it requires no preliminary determinations 
whatsoever. The Democratic amendment is expeditious. The Republican 
resolution is endless. And, finally, the Democratic amendment is 
deliberate. It is

[[Page H10114]]

logical and removes partisanship from the process. The Republican 
resolution is totally political and reckless in nature.
  Americans, by a large majority, are clearly saying they want the 
Congress to get back to issues like improving public education, 
protecting our social security system, guaranteeing patients' rights to 
quality health care, curbing teenage smoking, and reforming the way 
campaigns are financed.
  We must get back to these critical issues, and we should do it as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
expressing my concern about the allegation made by Kenneth Starr 
against the President of the United States. We are faced with an 
historical vote on whether to proceed with impeachment proceedings 
against the President.
  While there is no doubt that the allegations against the President 
are serious, it is extremely necessary to examine them in a timely 
manner. The House Judiciary Committee should investigate the 
allegations, but should avoid extending the process beyond this 
Congress since stretching the time frame does not do justice to the 
President, unnecessarily drags the country through a painful process, 
and opens up the body to criticism that we are stretching this process 
out solely for political reasons.
  Furthermore, this impeachment inquiry should be limited to the 
charges made by the independent counsel in his current report to the 
Congress. An open-ended inquiry, as proposed by the majority, is little 
more than a fishing expedition meant to dredge up more problems if they 
exist. As we all know, Kenneth Starr began this investigation about 
four and a half years ago with the Whitewater allegations, then moved 
on to the misuses of the FBI files, the firing of people in the Travel 
Office, the Paula Jones lawsuit and finally to the Monica Lewinsky 
matter. The Starr investigation over these years involved large amounts 
of time and money, and Starr's fishing expedition has resulted with his 
report to the Congress which is the subject of the resolution before us 
today.
  As we embark on this journey, let us not forget that our predecessors 
have been down this path before. Over the course of American history, 
the House of Representatives has deliberated and in fact has impeached 
15 individuals, including a President, 12 judges, a Senator, and a 
cabinet member. The process for impeachment, established by the 
Constitution of the United States, is a serious and wrenching one. It 
takes its toll on each and every one of us, as we undergo the 
accusation and finally the conviction procedures. President Andrew 
Johnson, the only President to have been impeached, was charged in 1867 
with 11 articles of impeachment. President Johnson lost his case before 
the House; however, the Senate voted only three impeachment articles 
but failed to convict President Johnson by a razor-thin margin of one 
vote. Of the 15 individuals who were impeached by the House, only seven 
were convicted by the Senate. I raise this point only to stress the 
seriousness of the impeachment process and that we not turn the pending 
resolution on its head without equally serious debate on the merits of 
this case against President Clinton.

  As a former teacher, I cannot resist the temptation of referring to 
the federalist papers in order to give us some insights as we decide on 
some form of sanction against the President. In the Federalist Paper, 
Number One, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1787, he reminded us that 
in a great national discussion of whether the nation should adopt or 
reject the constitution, and I quote: ``A torrent of angry and 
malignant passions will be let loose.'' Hamilton warned us about ``the 
stale bait for popularity at the expense of public good.'' And finally, 
Hamilton noted: ``. . . it will be equally forgotten, that the vigor of 
Government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the 
contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can 
never be separated.'' I believe that we can learn from these lessons as 
we contemplate our constitutional responsibility to handle the Starr 
allegations.
  I urge my colleagues to heed the words of Alexander Hamilton, that we 
use caution as we proceed with this inquiry, and above all, that we be 
fair to all parties involved. Let us support the reasonable and 
reasoned Boucher proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, the people of Guam elected me to work on the pressing 
issues which affect their daily lives, like educational opportunities, 
access to quality health care, as well as access to employment and 
economic opportunities. We have serious worldwide economic difficulties 
in Asia which demand our attention.
  We should investigate these charges, but we should be mindful of our 
responsibilities. Let's rise above partisanship as we deliberate on the 
difficult discourse pending before the Congress, let's conclude this 
inquiry expeditiously, and let's meet the challenge of improving the 
lives of the people who elected us to represent them in the United 
States Congress.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the 
President's improper relationship was immoral and inexcusable. His 
actions represent a tremendous lapse of judgement which deeply troubles 
me and which has caused immense pain for his family and our entire 
Nation. Compounding these actions, the president clearly misled the 
American people--an act which has further torn the already tattered 
bonds of trust between citizens and elected officials. This is perhaps 
the highest price we will all pay for the self-centered actions of one 
man.
  Over the past months, our Nation has struggled to make sense of this 
scandal, to find a fitting punishment for the President's actions, and 
to move forward with important matters facing our country. While many 
Americans would simply like this whole issue to be dropped, we as 
Members of this House have a Constitutional duty to fulfill. Therefore, 
today's debate is not about whether we should move forward with an 
inquiry. Sadly, after a thorough review of the Referral from the 
Independent Council, I believe that the allegations of potentially 
impeachable offenses compels us to do so. The question instead is how 
we should move forward to ensure that we conduct an inquiry that is 
fair, timely, and focused and which minimizes the potential risks to 
our country as a whole.
  The structure of the inquiry is integral to preserving the integrity 
of the process. No one will be served by a process that is perceived as 
simply a partisan attempt to undo the results of the last election. 
That is why I wrote a letter to our distinguished colleague, Chairman 
Henry Hyde, which sought to forge a bi-partisan commitment to a focused 
impartial inquiry. At this point I would like to submit this letter for 
the Record.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC October 7, 1998.
       Dear Chairman Hyde: You have repeatedly expressed your 
     desire to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry into whether 
     the House should impeach the President. I know that you want 
     and need bipartisan support for your motion to proceed with 
     inquiry to substantiate the creditability of the inquiry.
       Based on my review of the Referral from the Independent 
     Council and the evidence released by your Committee, I 
     believe that the House should continue with a more thorough 
     inquiry as to the matters raised in the Referral. Therefore, 
     I support your decision to proceed with a formal inquiry as 
     to those matters. Mindful of the enormous cost to our nation 
     and of the potential impact on the stability of our federal 
     government, I nevertheless support an inquiry because I 
     believe that the Referral raises serious allegations that 
     must be further investigated as to the facts and carefully 
     considered in view of the constitutional standards for 
     impeachment. I further believe that we should finish this 
     inquiry as soon as possible in order to minimize these 
     potential hazards to our nation and I will support you in 
     your commitment to try to conclude the inquiry before the end 
     of this year.
       However, I am deeply troubled by the comments of House 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey that a 
     formal inquiry as to the matters raised in the Referral 
     should be expanded to include the allegations against the 
     President based on the Whitewater matter investigated by the 
     Independent Council and possible allegations surrounding the 
     White House Travel Office and FBI files. I believe the 
     decision of the Independent Counsel not to include any of 
     these matters in his Referral after his lengthy and 
     exhaustive investigation reflects his view that no 
     substantial and credible basis exists to justify considering 
     impeachment based on any of these matters. Therefore, I 
     conclude that it would be irresponsible to include any of 
     these matters in the formal inquiry. Broadening the scope 
     would serve no useful purpose, significantly expand the 
     duration of the inquiry to the detriment of our nation, and 
     undermine the essential integrity of the process.
       I am writing to urge you to clearly unequivocally, and 
     publicly commit not to expand the formal inquiry to include 
     matters other than those raised in the Referral without first 
     obtaining majority approval of the Members of the House 
     voting to expand the scope on the basis that substantial and 
     credible evidence exists as to these matters. With this 
     commitment on your part, I, and I believe other like-minded 
     Democrats, will join you in voting for a motion to proceed 
     with a formal inquiry as to the matters raised in the 
     Referral. Without such a commitment, I cannot, in good 
     conscience, support a formal inquiry likely to include 
     Whitewater and other matter already reviewed and apparently 
     resolve by the Independent Counsel.
       Thank you in advance for addressing these concerns.
           Yours Truly,
                                                        Jim Davis.
  While some may consider today's vote as simply an inevitable step in 
this ongoing investigation, I firmly believe that each step down the 
path towards removing a duly-elected President from office must be 
measured and deliberate. As I stated in my letter to Chairman Hyde, 
absent a clear commitment to limit the scope of the inquiry to the 
Referral of the Independent Counsel, I am deeply concerned

[[Page H10115]]

that it will devolve into a drawn-out, partisan investigation searching 
for possible impeachable offenses rather than an expedited, fair 
investigation examining the allegations presented to this body of 
possibly impeachable offenses.
  For these reasons I rise in support of an impeachment inquiry as 
embodies in the Motion to Recommit and in opposition to the base 
resolution which is dangerously open-ended. Having consulted with 
Constitutional scholars, listened to the comments of my constituents, 
and search my conscience, I believe this is the course which best 
serves the interests of our Nation.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, today's proceeding is of such 
great historical importance, that it should be approached with a deep 
and abiding respect for the Congress, the Constitution and the 
Presidency.
  We had the opportunity to develop a fair and responsible process that 
would protect not only the dignity of office of the Presidency, but 
create a precedent worth following. But the Republican majority has 
squandered it and by doing so has set in motion a process that is too 
much about partisanship and not enough about statesmanship.
  It is more about election year defeat of political opponents than it 
is about what is right, just or fair.
  The Republican proposal offers no limits on how long this partisan 
inquiry will go on, nor on how long Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr 
can drag up issues that he has had four years to bring to this House. 
Sadly there has been no willingness to limit the duration or scope of 
this resolution.
  The Republican proposal moves ahead with an impeachment inquiry 
before the Judiciary Committee has even conducted a review of the facts 
and determined whether those facts constitute substantial and credible 
evidence. It lowers the threshold for which a President can be harassed 
and persecuted to the point of distraction from his Constitutional 
duties.
  From now on, any Congress dissatisfied with the policies of a 
particular Administration or the personal behavior of any President, 
could simply conduct an ongoing, costly, and distracting inquiry 
designed to dilute the authority of the President.
  But after the election when rationale behavior returns and cooler 
head can prevail, I urge us to forge a way to rise above the nasty 
politics that have clouded this body.
  I will not be one of those of you who return to the next Congress. I 
leave hear after 20 years with my self respect in tact. I have reached 
across the lines within my own party and when necessary across the 
aisle to the other party to get things done for this country and make 
this House work.
  I have fought partisan battles; I have stood my ground on issues that 
matter to my district. The American people expect that. But they also 
expect each of us to rise above the base political instincts that drive 
such a wedge through this House.
  In the months ahead, we must find a way, my friends, to do what is 
right for America. Find a way to return this House to the people 
through a respect for law, for fairness and due process. In the end, we 
must do better than we will do today.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would commend and ask his 
colleagues to consider carefully the following editorial from the 
October 8, 1998, edition of the Omaha World Herald, entitled ``A Broad 
Inquiry the Better Course.''

              [From the Omaha World Herald, Oct. 8, 1998]

                   A Broad Inquiry the Better Course

       The fate of William Jefferson Clinton is not the only 
     concern that the Kenneth Starr investigation has raised for 
     Congress and the nation. There is also the matter of dealing 
     with Clinton's misbehavior in a way that demonstrates respect 
     for the rule of law.
       Democrats have tried to narrow the impeachment inquiry. 
     Abbe Lowell, counsel for the Democrats on the House Judiciary 
     Committee, contends that any case for impeaching Clinton 
     consists of one basic allegation: ``The president was engaged 
     in an improper relationship which he did not want 
     disclosed.''
       The position is designed to minimize Clinton's deceptions 
     by casting them in effect as little white lies. If the 
     Democrats could convince the House and the nation that ``it 
     was just sex,'' Clinton's chances of avoiding impeachment 
     might be greater.
       The approach of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee 
     had much more to commend it. They voted to recommend to the 
     full House an open-ended inquiry, possibly into allegations 
     unconnected to the Lewinsky affair. Presumably, the broader 
     inquiry might include the firing of the travel office staff, 
     the illegal possession by the White House of FBI files, the 
     finding of a job for Webb Hubbell, the mysterious 
     disappearance and reappearance of billing records and even 
     illegal campaign fund raising, even though it was not part of 
     Starr's mandate.
       The Republicans' main concern is not the sex, but the lying 
     under oath about it, the memory lapses about it, the 
     exploitation of government employees to cover it up. David 
     Schippers, a lifelong Democrat who is counsel for the 
     Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, explained why 
     Americans ought to be concerned. Clinton took the position 
     that the Paula Jones lawsuit was bogus, Schippers noted. But 
     the law gives a defendant no right to combat a bogus lawsuit 
     by lying under oath.
       ``The principle that every witness in every case must tell 
     the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is the 
     foundation of the American system of justice, which is the 
     envy of every civilized nation,'' he said. ``The sanctity of 
     the oath taken by a witness is the most essential bulwark of 
     the truth-seeking function of a trial, which is the American 
     method of ascertaining the facts.''
       Schippers said that if lying under oath is tolerated, ``the 
     integrity of this country's entire judicial process is 
     fatally compromised and that process will inevitably 
     collapse.'' He said the individual circumstances of the case 
     didn't matter. ``It is the oath itself that is sacred and 
     must be enforced,'' he said.
       Americans ought to consider the consequences of letting the 
     president's lying go unpunished. This isn't just that lovable 
     rascal, the Comeback Kid, trying to escape another jam. This 
     is the president of the United States defying one of the most 
     important principles of the legal system: that the truth must 
     be told when a person is under oath.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, the vote today on an impeachment inquiry 
requires each of us to do our best to address without partisanship a 
matter laced with partisanship. It calls on each of us to set aside the 
passions of the moment, to be patriots, to act in the long-term 
interests of the American democracy, to uphold the Constitution. I pray 
for the wisdom to do so.
  President Clinton has committed serious offenses against the American 
people, against the dignity of the office of the President, against the 
truth, and, probably, against the law.
  How does the House of Representatives meet its constitutional 
responsibility in this grave matter today?
  We are at an early stage of these proceedings, but we already have a 
fairly clear picture of the facts. To consider rejecting an impeachment 
inquiry at this early stage, we are obliged to construe the facts 
against the President and then test the facts against reasonable 
constitutional standards for impeachment. That's what I've attempted to 
do.
  It's proper, given the gravity of the remedy of impeachment of a 
President, to set the standard for impeachable behavior at a comparable 
level of gravity. The level of proof of that behavior should be set 
commensurately high. And, finally, given the extraordinary nature of 
the impeachment remedy, there should be a substantial burden placed on 
proponents to justify its use. In other words, when in doubt, don't.
  As to the question of what is an impeachable offense, it is evident 
from the Constitution, and from the writings and commentaries at the 
time, that abuse of office is the crux of the matter. Such an offense 
must involve serious injury or threat of serious injury to the 
Republic, on account of the actions of the President in the conduct of 
his office, or at least seriously undermining his ability to conduct 
himself in office.
  It's unclear where to draw the limits of conduct to be treated as 
private for purposes of impeachment. But it is clear that the Framers 
did not intend everything a President does to be viewed as public or 
official. In my view, the conduct of President Clinton in this case 
originated in the private sphere and then was drawn into the public 
sphere. That happened largely because of the extraordinary use of a 
grand jury by the independent counsel, elevating or transforming the 
private to the public. The grand jury and that transformation are a 
device and a result not available in the case of any regular citizen, 
and available here only because the case involved the President.
  Therefore, after careful review of the provisions of the 
Constitution, the writings and debate of the Framers, the precedents in 
prior impeachments, and the analysis of constitutional scholars, I have 
concluded that impeachment is not warranted in this case. The assumed 
offenses simply do not undermine the State in the way or to the degree 
required to constitute impeachable offenses.

  It is possible that Mr. Starr may come forward with new information 
about other conduct by the President which will change my conclusion 
about impeachment. However, it strikes me as somewhat suspect that he 
waited until the eve of today's vote to suggest that there's more to 
come.
  Today's vote has to be based on what is known, and reasonably to be 
inferred from what is known, today. On that basis, for the reasons I've 
stated, I conclude that proceeding further with an impeachment inquiry 
would serve no useful purpose because the conduct of the President--
deplorable as it was--does not warrant impeachment.

[[Page H10116]]

  The President's behavior, however, does warrant punishment. The good 
order of the Republic and a proper respect for the law demand that he 
be held to account and receive appropriate punishment.
  While the President might well be advised to leave office 
voluntarily, it would be a profound mistake to use the impeachment 
power to remove the President from office involuntarily. Absent a 
resignation, and rejecting impeachment, other alternatives exist. 
Although none is perfect, they would be preferable to impeachment. A 
formal censure of the President, delivered in person before a joint 
session of Congress, together with a significant monetary penalty, 
would be serious punishment. To vindicate the rule of law, the 
President would remain liable to prosecution after leaving office, if 
warranted by evidence of criminal conduct--the same sort of prosecution 
any citizen might face for similar conduct.
  My conclusion that punishment but not impeachment is the right course 
is also affected by an understanding of impeachment's enormous costs to 
the country. Those costs would be paid first in terms of political 
divisiveness, prolonged distraction from critical national and 
international problems, and a waste of the most precious resources of 
the democracy--time and trust. Later, the cost would come due in the 
harmful precedent we'll have set and its damage to proper 
constitutional standards and order. Those costs are excessive.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is recognized for 
4 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the gentleman feels he is 
shortchanged in the debate. As the gentleman knows, under the rule and 
under the Rodino format, they were entitled to 1 hour. We doubled that. 
I did not think that was fair, but we could have gone on and on, and 
much of the same thing said over and over again. It would be too much 
for me to expect appreciation for doubling the time, but the hostility?
  Let me suggest to Members who think this is going on like Tennyson's 
brook, just on and on and on, the 20th amendment to the Constitution 
says that ``Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and 
such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of January.''

                              {time}  1415

  We are out of business at the end of the year. Our money runs out. 
And if we are to continue, if there is anything to continue, we would 
have to reconstitute ourselves.
  I do not want this to go one day longer than it has to. Believe me, 
this is very painful and I want it ended. We are not going to go on and 
on and on. But Mr. Rodino faced up to the problem of time limits and 
here is what he said. And why do you reject Mr. Rodino time and again 
in all of these issues? He is our model. He is the one we are 
following. And here is what he said:

       . . . the chairman recognizes, as the committee does, that 
     to be locked in to such a date would be totally irresponsible 
     and unwise; the committee would be in no position to state at 
     this time whether our inquiry would be completed, would be 
     thorough, so that we could make a fair and responsible 
     judgment.

  We are not flying by the seat of our pants. We are riding on Pete 
Rodino's shoulders. That is why we can see so far.
  As far as standards are concerned, something that you have repeatedly 
brought up, let me quote from the wonderful report by the Rodino 
committee concerning the Nixon impeachment on the question of 
standards. Listen to Mr. Rodino:

       Similarly, the House does not engage in abstract advisory 
     or hypothetical debates about the precise nature of conduct 
     that calls for the exercise of its constitutional powers; 
     rather, it must await full development of the facts and 
     understanding of the events to which those facts relate.

  That is what we want to do, develop the facts through an inquiry. On 
with Mr. Rodino:

       This memorandum offers no fixed standards for determining 
     whether grounds for impeachment exist. The framers did not 
     write a fixed standard. Instead, they adopted from English 
     history a standard sufficiently general and flexible to meet 
     future circumstances and events . . .

  Thus spake Peter Rodino, and that is our model for this adventure, 
this excursion, this journey that we are on.
  Now, look, this is not about sexual misconduct any more than 
Watergate was about a third-rate burglary. It was about the reaction of 
the Chief Executive to that event. Nixon covered it up and got in the 
direst of trouble.
  The problem with the Clinton situation, President Clinton's 
situation, is a reaction which we believe and we want to find out, and 
if we do not get the information we will reject it, caused him to lie 
under oath. Now, lying under oath is either important or it is not. If 
some people can lie under oath and others cannot, let us find out. If 
some subjects are ``lie-able'' that is, you can lie about them, and 
others are not, let us fine tune our jurisprudence that way. But if the 
same law applies to everybody equally, that is the American tradition, 
and that is what we are looking at.
  This has not anything to do with sex. It has a lot to do with 
suborning perjury, tampering with witnesses, obstructing justice, and 
perjury, all of which impact on our Constitution and on our system of 
justice and the kind of country we are.
  The President of the United States is the trustee of the Nation's 
conscience. We are entitled to explore fairly, fully, and expeditiously 
the circumstances that have been alleged to compromise that position. 
We will do it quickly, we will do it fairly. We want to get this behind 
us and behind the country and move on.
  But it is our duty, it is an onerous, miserable, rotten duty, but we 
have to do it or we break faith with the people who sent us here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Boucher

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Boucher moves to recommit House Resolution 581 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instruction to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike the first section and insert the following:
       That (a)(1) The House of Representatives authorizes and 
     instructs the Committee on the Judiciary (in this Resolution 
     referred to as the ``Committee'') to take the following steps 
     within the time indicated in order, fully and fairly, to 
     conduct an inquiry and, if appropriate, to act upon the 
     Referral from the Independent Counsel (in this Resolution 
     referred to as ``the Referral'') in a manner which ensures 
     the faithful discharge of the Constitutional duty of the 
     Congress and concludes the inquiry at the earliest possible 
     time, and, consistent with chapter 40 of title 28, United 
     States Code, to consider any subsequent referral made by the 
     Independent Counsel under section 595(c) of such title 28.
       (2) The Committee shall thoroughly and comprehensively 
     review the constitutional standard for impeachment and 
     determine if the facts presented in the Referral, if assumed 
     to be true, could constitute grounds for the impeachment of 
     the President.
       (b) If the Committee determines that the facts stated in 
     the Referral, if assumed to be true, could constitute grounds 
     for impeachment, the Committee shall investigate fully and 
     completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of 
     Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to 
     impeach the President.
       (c) If the Committee finds that there are not sufficient 
     grounds to impeach the President, it shall then be in order 
     for the Committee to consider recommending to the House of 
     Representatives alternative sanctions.
       (d) Following the conclusion of its inquiry, the Committee 
     shall consider any recommendation it may commend to the 
     House, including--
       (1) one or more articles of impeachment;
       (2) alternative sanctions; or
       (3) no action.

     The Committee shall make such a recommendation sufficiently 
     in advance of December 31, 1998, so that the House of 
     Representatives may consider such recommendations as the 
     Committee may make by that date.
       (e) If the Committee is unable to complete its assignment 
     within the time frame set out in subsection (d), a report to 
     the House of Representatives may be made by the Committee 
     requesting an extension of time.


[[Page H10117]]


  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit that I am pleased to offer this 
afternoon is well tailored to the challenge that we have before us. It 
offers a framework for a full and a fair review by the House Committee 
on the Judiciary and a full and a fair review by the House of 
Representatives.
  It assures that we give deference to the historical constitutional 
standard for impeachment, which has evolved to this House over two 
centuries. It assures ample time to consider carefully any of the facts 
that are contained in the referral sent to us by the Office of 
Independent Counsel, which rise to that constitutional standard.
  It assures that the entire matter will be resolved promptly and that 
the Nation is not distracted by a prolonged inquiry.
  Some Members, Mr. Speaker, would prefer that there be no review. Some 
would have us investigate, for more than a year, a wide range of 
matters. The resolution that we are offering through this motion to 
recommit steers a middle course, a careful review limited to the 
materials that are now before us.
  With the rules we offer, the House will discharge its constitutional 
obligations in a manner that is both thorough and expeditious. I urge 
the approval of this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit will correct several 
of the most egregious problems with this resolution. If the amendment 
is not accepted, we will be voting for an inquiry that cannot end. So 
long as people send allegations to the committee, the committee will 
inquire and go on and on and on.
  The amendment establishes a reasoned approach by which we would 
consider the allegations before us and come to a conclusion. This 
amendment would add focus to the deliberations because some of the 
Starr allegations are not worth inquiring into. In fact, the Republican 
counsel found some of the allegations so flimsy that he did not even 
mention them during his presentation to our committee, and many 
constitutional scholars have already expressed the view that none of 
the allegations amount to impeachable offenses and the question is not 
even close.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. A vote for this 
amendment is not necessarily a vote for an inquiry, because some who 
are for an inquiry and others who are against any inquiry all agree 
that if we are going to have an inquiry, it ought to be fair.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the democratic leader.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is almost a month to the day that we 
stood here and debated whether or not to release the materials that Ken 
Starr had sent to the Congress, and I tried to say at that time that 
this was a time of utmost importance, to us as a House of 
Representatives and to all of us as a people.
  I said then and I repeat today that we are engaged now in what I 
believe to be a sacred process. We are considering whether or not to 
ultimately, if we get that far, overturn an election voted on by 
millions of Americans to decide who should be the chief executive 
officer of this country.
  The last time we did this, Barbara Jordan, who I think really became 
the conscience of the period, said this, she said, ``Common sense would 
be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons.''
  Congress has a lot to do. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the 
face of such overwhelming problems.
  She said, ``So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, 
because the task before us is big.''
  I said the other day that this is a time to be bigger than we really 
are. We are all human. We all make mistakes. We all give in to 
pettiness and pride. We all give in to doing things wrong, for the 
wrong reasons. But this is a time when our Constitution and our people 
asked each of us to reach inside of ourselves, to be bigger and better 
than we really are.
  In my view, we should not have two resolutions, or a resolution and 
an amendment out here today. I believe if we had succeeded in what we 
should be doing, we would have one resolution, agreed to by all 435 
Members today.
  The question is not whether to have an inquiry. The question today is 
what kind of inquiry will this be?
  Our amendment is simple, and I think it is common sense. First, it 
says it must be focused. We operate under a statute that we passed from 
the independent counsel that said there could be referrals from the 
independent counsel on possible issues of impeachment, and we should 
take that up, and that is before us.
  Our resolution says stick with those referrals. We listened to the 
complaints of the other side and we said, well, maybe there will be 
more referrals. So we have amended the language and we say if there are 
more referrals, we will deal with them as we should under the statute.
  Second, it must be fair. The last time we had Watergate, the 
committee spent a good deal of time considering the standards and the 
history of impeachment so that all the members of the committee and on 
the floor would understand the historic process that we are involved 
in. None of us do this often. We do not think about this very often, so 
it is vital and important that we all know what it is we are doing and 
whether or not the facts that are out there rise as a prima facie case. 
That has not been done in this case.
  Third time, we say let us get it over by December 31, before the new 
Congress comes into session. Why do we say that? We say that because we 
believe deeply that for the good of the country and the good of our 
people, this must be done by the end of this year, before there is a 
new Congress.
  Why do we say that? We say it because we live in a dangerous world. 
The world economy is in a shambles. Our own economy is threatened. 
Issues like education and health care and economics need to be on the 
front burner of this Congress. That is what we must be working on.
  If we stay here for 3, 6, 9, 12 months, 2 years in suspended 
animation while we go over every charge that is out there, we will hurt 
our country and our people and our children.

                              {time}  1430

  Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has said, and I believe 
him, that we should do this by the end of the year. But he also said 
New Year's promises sometimes get broken.
  The gentleman from Illinois has said that we should not be on a 
fishing expedition, but others in the party, I have heard even leaders 
in the party, the Republican Party, say, well, we have to look at 
Travelgate, and we have to look at Filegate, and we have to look at 
campaign finance, and we have to look at the Chinese rocket sales.
  And they say it again.
  I really have thought a lot about this. I have really thought a lot 
about it. I have tried to think to myself, what is our problem, and I 
think I have identified it. Our problem is we do not trust one another.
  The majority says that if they use our language, that we are not 
going to do what we say we are going to do; that we are going to drag 
it out; that we are going to try to frustrate the purpose of having 
this inquiry. And all I say is, we have put our words and our actions 
to follow that belief. We have said if there are other referrals, we 
will take them up. We have said that if we get to the end of the year 
and we need more time, that the majority can come to the floor and more 
time will be granted. The Republicans run the House.
  But when we see the majority's resolution, we do not see trust. 
Because the words that we are looking for; that we are going to try to 
get this over by the end of the year; that we are going to try to stick 
with these referrals and not go into everything under the sun and drag 
it out for 2 years, and it will

[[Page H10118]]

be a 2-year political fishing expedition, those words are not there.
  Finally, let me say this. We are all profoundly hurt by what the 
President has done. He has deeply disappointed the American people and 
he has let us all down. But this investigation must be ended fairly and 
quickly. It has hurt our Nation and it has hurt our children. We must 
not compound the hurt.
  I have asked every Democratic Member in these last days, I have asked 
every Member to search their heart and their conscience and to vote for 
what in their heart and their mind and their conscience they think is 
right. And I come to the floor today to ask every Republican Member to 
do the same.
  This should not be a party vote today. This should be the attempt of 
every one of us, humble human beings, who come to this majestic place, 
where we settle our differences peacefully and not with violence, to 
say that I am voting for what in my heart and my mind is the best for 
the country and the best for the American people.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady).
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  As we consider the motion to recommit, I would ask that the Members 
of the House on both sides of the aisle step back and consider the fact 
that what is proposed in the motion to recommit is without any 
precedent. There is no case in the 200-year history of the impeachment 
process in this country in which a process similar to the process which 
is proposed here has been followed. None at all. And I believe that is 
something that we should take very seriously.
  I believe we also have to be aware that if we adopt the motion to 
recommit, we are setting a precedent today, and I believe it would be a 
terrible precedent, that would be fraught with the potential for harm 
stretching far into the future of our country.
  Now, consider the process that this motion sets up: First, we are 
required to assume the truth of allegations, which the President and 
his lawyers vigorously deny. I do not think that is the right thing to 
do. We should find out what the truth is.
  But while we are following this process, we put aside the weighing 
and the balancing of the facts and the judging of the credibility of 
witnesses. Having put aside our duty to weigh the facts and find the 
truth, we are then called on to make a solemn determination concerning 
whether impeachable offenses, committed in the assumed facts, which are 
denied by the President, are at some later point determined to be true.
  This simply does not make sense. It will only cause delay. It has 
never been done before and it should not be done now.
  I would ask the Members of the House to reject this contrived, ill-
conceived procedure in the motion to recommit. We need to follow the 
precedent established in 1974, the precedent that the gentleman from 
Missouri has asked us to follow. We should support the resolution 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the question before us in this motion to recommit is 
whether we should make ourselves slaves to the clock or attempt to find 
out the truth. And let there be no mistake about it, nobody's conduct 
is under investigation here but that of the President of the United 
States. And if he had not committed those things that the allegations 
have sent forth to us by the Independent Counsel, we would not be faced 
with discharging our awesome constitutional responsibilities.
  This should not be a race against the clock. And do not take my word 
for it, take the word of a respected senior Democratic Member on the 
other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Lee Hamilton), 
who said yesterday, ``I have had a lot of experience with 
investigations. Time limits create large incentives for delay.'' Do not 
give anybody an incentive to delay and string this out by establishing 
an arbitrary time limit.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have said that this 
will be a never-ending investigation. They have not read the twentieth 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The 105th Congress 
goes out of business on January 3, 1999. This resolution expires with 
the 105th Congress and would have to be renewed by a vote of the House 
on the opening day of the 106th Congress. So all of the arguments over 
here have been about just 3 days. I think that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), in following the Rodino precedent, and just almost 
adopting the Rodino resolution word for word, has done the right thing.
  February 6, 1974, was the last time this House of Representatives had 
to do the sacred duty of commencing an impeachment inquiry. The 
gentleman from Illinois has patterned this resolution after the 
resolution introduced by Chairman Peter Rodino of New Jersey. There was 
bipartisanship on the Republican side of the aisle in commencing an 
impeachment inquiry along exactly the same lines against a Republican 
President. That vote was 404 to 4. I would ask my Democratic friends to 
be as bipartisan today as the Republicans were back in 1974 by 
rejecting the motion to recommit and joining with us to discharge our 
constitutional duty.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on 
the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 198, 
nays 236, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 497]

                               YEAS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--236

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox

[[Page H10119]]


     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Pryce (OH)
       

                              {time}  1455

  Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 176, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 498]

                               AYES--258

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Pryce (OH)
       

                              {time}  1512

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________