[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.
____________________