Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 154 (Friday, December 18, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 154 (Friday, December 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11774-H11870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--IMPEACHING WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the
Judiciary, I call up a privileged Resolution (H. Res. 611) impeaching
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high
crimes and misdemeanors, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 611

Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors,
and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited
to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States of America, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
(1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in
sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal
civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to
questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning
conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.
(2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore
under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal
civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that
oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to
questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the
nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate
Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's
involvement and participation in the civil rights action
brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the
testimony of that employee.
In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.

Article III

In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed,
and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that
end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and
agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought
against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or
scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to execute a sworn
affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious,
false and misleading.
(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false
and misleading testimony if and when called to testify
personally in that proceeding.
(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a
scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him.
(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing
through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson
Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job
assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action
brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the
truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a
time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have
been harmful to him.
(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and
misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an
affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by
the judge. Such false and misleading statements were
subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication
to that judge.
(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of
events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought
against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to
potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of

[[Page H11775]]

those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by
William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to
the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and
misleading information.
In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.

Article IV

Using the powers and influence of the office of President
of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office
of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional
duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has
engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his
high office, impaired the due and proper administration of
justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened
the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking
purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as
President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to
respond to certain written requests for admission and
willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn
statements in response to certain written requests for
admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment
inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States. William Jefferson Clinton, in
refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious,
false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions
and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of
impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of
Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the
integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The resolution constitutes a
question of the privileges of the House and may be considered at this
time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to read an announcement
to all Members.
Today the House will embark on a resolution of impeachment of the
President of the United States. The Chair would take this occasion to
make an announcement regarding proper decorum during debate in the
House during the pendency of the impeachment resolution.
As the Speaker announced, with the concurrence of the minority
leader, on September 10, 1998, during the pendency of proceedings in an
impeachment as the pending business on the floor of the House, remarks
in debate may include references to personal misconduct on the part of
the President.
While limited references in debate to the personal conduct of the
President are allowed, the stricture against personally offensive
references is not totally disabled. To the contrary, this exception to
the general rule against engaging in personality, admitting references
to personal conduct when that conduct is the very question under
consideration by the House, is not limited. The point was well stated
on July 31, 1979, in the analogous circumstances of a disciplinary
resolution involving a sitting Member:
While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate, clause 1
of rule 14 still prohibits the use of language which is personally
abusive.
This is recorded in the Deschler-Brown Procedure in the House of
Representatives in chapter 12, at section 2.11.
While the impeachment matter is pending on the floor, the Chair would
remind Members that although the personal conduct of the President is
at issue, the rules prohibit Members from engaging in generally
personal abusive language toward the President and, also, from engaging
in comparisons to personal conduct of sitting Members of either House
of Congress.

{time} 0945

The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of the Members in
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings
of the House.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is recognized for 1 hour.

General Leave

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the
resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during
consideration of House Resolution 611, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion except: First, debate on the resolution shall be
extended, and I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that I
have 4 hours here, but that is certainly negotiable and I would welcome
any suggestions the gentleman might have on time, but for purposes of
this unanimous consent request I ask that the debate be extended to 4
hours equally divided at the outset and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and seoncd,
one motion to recommit with or without instructions, which, if
including instructions, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. BONIOR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for his request, although I do not thank him that much. The
gentleman has just handed to us on our side of the aisle the request
that he has just read, and we have just looked at it, and we have a
number of concerns with it, and if I might proceed for just a second,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enumerate our concerns and then yield, if
I could, to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers), for any comments that he might have?
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned obviously because we do not believe we
should be here today while our men and women are fighting abroad, and
we have expressed that in the first motion of the day with respect to
adjournment. We do not believe this is a proper time to be debating
removing the Commander in Chief while thousands of men and women are
fighting abroad.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks for 4 hours of debate. I
have just done the math briefly here. That comes out less than 30
seconds per Member. We do not think that is a reasonable amount of time
for Members of this body to express themselves in perhaps one of the
most important issues that they will face in their lifetime.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, it runs, this time problem that the gentleman
has raised, the 4 hours, runs to the fairness issue, and we note that
in the unanimous consent request there is nothing here to give the
American people a chance to see this Congress vote on the option that
they would like to see that would bring this country together: the
option of censure.
Much of my argument, our argument, goes to the question of fairness,
and we will have grave, grave concerns about agreeing to this request
based on the arguments that have just been made.
Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate my
concurrence in the position raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior), but is there any reason why the chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), could not wait for 2 days before proceeding with
this very serious undertaking, until at least our brave soldiers may be
out of harm's way before we proceed?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is
yielding to me for an answer for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), I would like to say, first of all on the time, that the 4
hours I said, that is negotiable; I would not expect

[[Page H11776]]

to limit it to 4 hours. Limit it to some reasonable sum. We offered a
lot of hours last night that our colleagues rejected.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be fair, and on the time I ask my
colleagues for their suggestions.
As to holding this for a couple of more days, that is a decision that
our conference has made. We felt the quicker we could go ahead, the
more we could show the world our democracy works.
Mr. BONIOR. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary half of the time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), and during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is moved, I
intend to vote against it so that I may be recognized to control time
under the hour rule in order to continue debate on House Resolution
611.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues of the People's House, I wish to
talk about the rule of law.
After months of argument, hours of debate, there is no need for
further complexity. The question before this House is rather simple. It
is not a question of sex. Sexual misconduct and adultery are private
acts and are none of Congress' business. It is not even a question of
lying about sex. The matter before the House is a question of lying
under oath. This is a public act, not a private act. This is called
perjury. The matter before the House is a question of the willful,
premeditated, deliberate corruption of the Nation's system of justice.
Perjury and obstruction of justice cannot be reconciled with the Office
of the President of the United States.
The personal fate of the President is not the issue. The political
fate of his party is not the issue. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is
not the issue. The issue is perjury, lying under oath. The issue is
obstruction of justice, which the President has sworn the most solemn
oath to uphold. That oath constituted a compact between the President
and the American people. That compact has been broken. The people's
trust has been betrayed. The Nation's chief executive has shown himself
unwilling or incapable of enforcing its laws, for he has corrupted the
rule of law by his perjury and his obstruction of justice.
Mr. Speaker, that and nothing other than that is the issue before
this House.
We have heard ceaselessly that even if the President is guilty of the
charges in the Starr referral, they do not rise to the level of an
impeachable offense. Well, just what is an impeachable offense? One
authority, Professor Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School
of Law, said, and I quote:
``Impeachable offenses are those which demonstrate a fundamental
betrayal of public trust; they suggest the federal official has
deliberately failed in his duty to uphold the Constitution and laws he
was sworn to enforce.''
So, Mr. Speaker, we must decide if a President, the chief law
enforcement officer of the land, the person who appoints the Attorney
General, the person who nominates every Federal judge, the person who
nominates to the Supreme Court and the only person with a
constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed, can lie under oath repeatedly and maintain it is not a breach
of trust sufficient for impeachment.
The President is the trustee of the Nation's conscience, and so are
we here today.
There have been many explosions in our committee hearings on the
respective role of the House and the Senate. Under the Constitution,
the House accuses and the Senate adjudicates. True, the formula
language of our articles recites the ultimate goal of removal from
office, but this language does not trump the Constitution, which
defines the separate functions, the different functions of the House
and the Senate. Our Founding Fathers did not want the body that accuses
to be the same one that renders final judgment, and they set up an
additional safeguard of a two-thirds vote for removal.
So, despite protests, our job is to decide if there is enough
evidence to submit to the Senate for a trial. That is what the
Constitution says no matter what the President's defenders say.
When Ben Franklin, on September 18, 1787 told Mrs. Powel that the
Founders and Framers had given us a Republic ``if you can keep it,''
perhaps he anticipated a future time when bedrock principles of our
democracy would be mortally threatened as the Rule of Law stands in the
line of fire today. Nothing I can think of more clearly illustrates
that America is a continuing experiment, never finished, that our
democracy is always a work in progress than this debate today, for we
sit here with the power to shape and reconfigure the charter of our
freedom just as the Founders and Framers did. We can strengthen our
Constitution by giving it content and meaning, or we can weaken and
wound it by tolerating and thus encouraging lies under oath and evasion
and breaches of trust on the part of our chief executive.
The President's defenders in this House have rarely denied the facts
of this matter. They have not seriously challenged the contention of
the independent counsel that the President did not tell the truth in
two sworn testimonies. They have not seriously attempted to discredit
the facts brought before the committee by the independent counsel. They
have admitted, in effect, he did it.
But then they have argued that this does not rise to the level of an
impeachable offense. This is the ``so what'' defense whereby the Chief
Executive, the successor to George Washington, can cheapen the oath,
and it really does not matter. They suggest that to impeach the
President is to reverse the result of a national election as though
Senator Dole would become President. They propose novel remedies, like
a Congressional censure that may appease some constituents and
certainly mollify the press, but in my judgment betray lack of
seriousness about the Constitution, the separation of powers and the
carefully balanced relationship of checks and balances between Congress
and the President that was wisely crafted by the framers. A resolution
of censure, to mean anything, must punish, if only to tarnish his
reputation, but we have no authority under the Constitution to punish
the President. It is called separation of powers.
As my colleagues know, we have been attacked for not producing fact
witnesses, but this is the first impeachment inquiry in history with
the Office of Independent Counsel in place, and their referral to us
consisted of 60,000 pages of sworn testimony grand jury transcripts,
depositions, statements, affidavits, video and audio tapes. We had the
facts, and we had them under oath. We had Ms. Lewinsky's heavily
corroborated testimony under a grant of immunity that would be revoked
if she lied; we accepted that and so did they, else why did they not
call any others whose credibility they questioned as their own
witnesses? Now there was so little dispute on the facts they called no
fact witnesses and have even based a resolution of censure on the same
facts.
Let us be clear. The vote that all of us are asked to cast is in the
final analysis a vote on the rule of law.
Now the rule of law is one of the great achievements of our
civilization, for the alternative is the rule of raw power. We here
today are the heirs of 3,000 years of history in which humanity slowly,
painfully, and at great cost evolved a form of politics in which law,
not brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies.

{time} 1000

We are the heirs of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law, a moral
code for a free people, who, having been liberated from bondage, saw in
law a means to avoid falling back into the habits of slaves.
We are the heirs of Roman law, the first legal system by which
peoples of different cultures, languages, races and religions came to
live together in a form of political community.
We are the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the free men of England
began to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal absolutism.

[[Page H11777]]

We are the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development, in
which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as
the means for governing a society of free men and women.
We are the heirs of 1776, and of an epic moment in human affairs when
the Founders of this Republic pledged their lives, their fortunes and
their sacred honors, think of that, sacred honor, to the defense of the
rule of law.
We are the heirs of a hard-fought war between the states, which
vindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning
others.
We are the heirs of the 20th Century's great struggles against
totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense costs
against the worst tyrannies in human history.
The phrase ``rule of law'' is no pious aspiration from a civics
textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the
arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the
safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live
our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while
strengthening the common good.
The rule of law is like a three-legged stool. One leg is an honest
judge, the second leg is an ethical bar, and the third is an
enforceable oath. All three are indispensable to avoid political
collapse.
In 1838, Abraham Lincoln celebrated the rule of law before the Young
Men's Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, and linked it to the
perpetuation of American liberties and American political institutions.
Listen to Lincoln, from 1838:
``Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to
his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in
the least particular the laws of the country; and never to tolerate
their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to
support the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the
Constitution and laws, let every American pledge his life, his property
and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law is
to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his
own and his children's liberty. Let reference for the laws be breathed
by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap,
let it be taught in the schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it
be written in primers, spelling books and almanacs. Let it be preached
from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in the
courts of justice.'' So said Lincoln.
My colleagues, we have been sent here to strengthen and defend the
rule of law; not to weaken it, not to attenuate it, not to disfigure
it. This is not a question of perfection; it is a question of
foundations. This is not a matter of setting the bar too high; it is a
matter of securing the basic structure of our freedom, which is the
rule of law.
No man or woman, no matter how highly placed, no matter how effective
a communicator, no matter how gifted a manipulator of opinion or winner
of votes, can be above the law in a democracy. That is not a council of
perfection; that is a rock bottom, irreducible principle of our public
life.
There is no avoiding the issue before us, much as I wish we could. We
are, in one way or another, establishing the parameters of permissible
presidential conduct. In creating a presidential system, the framers
invested that office with extraordinary powers. If those powers are not
exercised within the boundaries of the rule of law, if the President
breaks the law by perjury and obstructs justice by willfully corrupting
the legal system, that president must be removed from office. We cannot
have one law for the ruler and another law for the ruled.
This was, once, broadly understood in our land. If that understanding
is lost or if it becomes seriously eroded, the American democratic
experiment and the freedom it guarantees is in jeopardy. That, and not
the faith of one man, or one political party or one electoral cycle, is
what we are being asked to vote on today.
In casting our votes, we should look not simply to ourselves, but to
the past and to the future. Let us look back to Bunker Hill, to Concord
and Lexington. Let us look across the river to Arlington Cemetery,
where American heroes who gave their lives for the sake of the rule of
law lie buried, and let us not betray their memory. Let us look to the
future, to the children of today who are the presidents and members of
Congress of the next century, and let us not crush their hope that they
too will inherit a law-governed society.
Let us declare, unmistakably, that perjury and obstruction of justice
disqualify a man from retaining the presidency of the United States.
There is a mountain of details which are assembled in a coherent
mosaic in the committee report. It reads like a novel, only it is
nonfiction, it really happened, and the corruption is compelling. Read
the report and be convinced.
What we are telling you today are not the ravings are some vindictive
political crusade, but a reaffirmation of a set of values that are
tarnished and dim these days, but it is given to us to restore them so
our Founding Fathers would be proud.
Listen, it is your country. The President is our flag-bearer. He
stands out in front of our people, and the flag is falling. Catch the
falling flag as we keep our appointment with history.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is our plan to recognize our leadership,
and then our members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and then the
rest of our distinguished membership on this side.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is taking place on the
wrong day, and we are doing it in the wrong way. I am disappointed and
I am saddened by the actions of the majority, in both the timing and in
the method that we are considering the most important act that the
Constitution asks us to perform. The actions of the majority, in my
view, show a lack of common sense and decency, and is not befitting of
our beloved House.
As I said yesterday, when our young soldiers, men and women, are in
harm's way, we should not be debating and considering and talking about
removing our Commander in Chief. If we believed that this would go on
for days and days, I could understand the decision to go forward today.
I do not believe it will go on for days and days, and I believe that we
send the wrong message to Saddam Hussein, to the British, to the
Chinese and to the Russians, to be on the floor of this House today,
when we could be here Sunday or Monday or Tuesday.
I guess I am worried also that some of us do not want to be
inconvenienced. Our young people are inconvenienced today who are in
the Persian Gulf. They are being shot at, and they stand in danger, and
with all my heart I believe the least we could do is postpone this
debate to a different day. But I know I have lost that debate and the
decision has been made. We are here.
Let me address the way this is being done. But before I do that, I
want to say something else. The events of the last days sadden me. We
are now at the height of a cycle of the politics of negative attacks,
character assassination, personal smears, of good people, decent
people, worthy people. It is no wonder to me and to you that the people
of our country today are cynical and indifferent and apathetic about
our government and about our country. The politics of smear and slash
and burn must end.
This House and this country must be based on certain basic values:
Respect, trust, fairness, forgiveness. We can take an important step
today back to the politics of respect and trust and fairness and
forgiveness.
Let me talk about the way we are doing this and how that can be that
first step. We have articles of impeachment on the floor of this House.
This is the most radical act that is called for in our Constitution.
In this debate, we are being denied a vote as an alternative to
impeachment for censure and condemnation of our President for the
wrongful acts that we believe have been performed.
We all say that this is a vote of conscience. You get to vote your
vote of conscience, and I respect that right. All we are asking for is
that we get to vote our conscience. And it is not just our conscience,
it is the conscience of millions of Americans who share this view.

[[Page H11778]]

I know what you say. You say that the Constitution does not allow
this vote of censure. Constitutional scholars in the hundreds, some of
the most respected, conservative constitutional scholars have opined in
the days before, in the committee and through articles and through
speeches, that, in their view, the Constitution does allow this vote;
that the Constitution is silent on this question of what else we can
do; that the Constitution in no way prevents us from doing this.
What do I conclude? I can only conclude that you do not want our
Members to have this choice. I can only conclude that some are afraid
of this vote. I can only conclude that this may be about winning a
vote, not about high-minded ideals.

{time} 1015

Let me, if I can, go back to the values: Respect, fairness, trust,
forgiveness. We need to begin in the way we do this to practice a
different kind of politics. We need to stand today as a unified body,
Republicans and Democrats, liberals, moderates, conservatives,
rejecting raw, naked partisanship, and putting in its place a politics
of trust and respect and decency, and values. We need to turn away from
extremism and inquisition and return to a sense of moderation in our
political system.
We are considering articles of impeachment that allege an abuse of
power. We have an obligation not to abuse our power.
We need to turn back. We have another chance. The chance is still
there, before our Nation and our democracy have become unalterably and
permanently degraded and lowered. The great Judge Learned Hand once
said that no court can save a society so riven that the spirit of
moderation is gone. Today, I believe the majority is pursuing a path of
immoderation, disregarding even a consideration of the wishes of a vast
majority of the American people regarding penalizing this President
with censure and not impeachment.
In the Book of Isaiah in the Bible it was said, ``Judgment is turned
away backward and justice stands far off.'' I ask the majority one last
time to reconsider what you are doing. We are deeply offended, in all
sincerity, from my heart; we are deeply offended by the unfairness of
this process. You are asking us to consider the most important act the
Constitution calls on us to do.
We are considering overturning the free choice and vote of over
almost 50 million Americans. We are considering the most radical act
our Constitution allows. We are considering changing the balance of
power and the proportionality of the branches of our government. You
are doing this in a way that denies millions of Americans the trust and
respect for our views that we afford to you, and that we feel we
deserve in our Constitution guarantees. In your effort to uphold the
Constitution, you are trampling the Constitution.
In Lincoln's Gettysburg Address he prayed this prayer, that this
Nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that this government of
the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from this
earth. I pray today that you will open up this people's house and let
the people's voice come in and let fairness reign. Thank you.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is not easy. In fact, it is difficult, it is
unpleasant, and we would all just as soon the responsibility go aside.
As our Founding Fathers warned, this is an issue that divides us and
stirs the passions of the great people of this country. I know my
fellow Arkansans are divided on the issue of impeachment, and for these
reasons it is argued that we should find an easier way out of this
present trouble, that we should put it off, we should turn aside. But
as we all know, the easy way is not always the right way.
The difficult path is to follow the Constitution, but that is the
oath that we all took in this Chamber, and I have faith that the path
James Madison marked will lead us out of these woods.
Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution that has been offered. I will
focus my attention on Article I. This article charges that on August
17, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided false testimony to the
Federal grand jury. The first article is perjury before the grand jury.
There are 3 questions: What are the facts, what is the law, and is it
impeachable under the Constitution?
The facts are that a Federal civil rights lawsuit was filed by
another citizen of the United States against the President. The Supreme
Court said that lawsuit could proceed. In January of 1998, a deposition
was taken, and the committee found that the President, despite being
told by the judge to answer the questions, lied under oath in order to
protect himself from that lawsuit. At that point, a criminal
investigation was begun with the approval of the United States Attorney
General, and as a result of that investigation, President Clinton
agreed to testify before the Federal grand jury investigating these
allegations.
Prior to his testimony, we all recall that there was a uniform
warning across this land by his aides, by the public: Mr. President,
whatever you do, do not lie to the grand jury. In fact, Alan
Dershowitz, an ardent defender of the President said, he must tell the
truth, whatever the truth may be. If he perjures himself, he could very
well be impeached.
Dick Morris warned him that the people would forgive a personal
misconduct, but they could not forgive perjury or obstruction of
justice. Despite these warnings, the committee found that the President
went before the grand jury, took an oath to tell the truth, and then
intentionally provided false statements to the grand jury of citizens
charged with a heavy responsibility.
The article specifically charges the President lied about his
relationship with a subordinate employee. He provided false statements
about the truthfulness of his prior testimony. He falsely testified
about statements made by his attorney in the previous lawsuit. False
statements were made about his efforts to corruptly influence the
testimony of witnesses. And so there were perjurious statements that
were given.
But what is the law? Title 18 of the United States Code makes it a
felony for any citizen to willfully provide false statements to the
grand jury. Now, I agree this is not a criminal case, but it
illustrates that these are not lies to inquiring minds at the country
club, but they are to the grand jury of the United States. The
President certainly understood the gravity of his testimony and the
expectation of truthfulness.
At the beginning of his testimony, he was asked if he understood that
he had to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
and that if you are to lie or to intentionally mislead the grand jury,
you could be prosecuted for perjury of obstruction of justice, and the
answer was, I understand. But is it impeachable? The answer is yes.
Alexander Hamilton talked about harm that is done to society itself.
Justice Story talked about great injuries to the State, and I believe
that the damage to the State and to the integrity of government occurs
when those in high office violate a court oath and a constitutional
oath to faithfully execute the laws.
The facts establish a pattern of false statements, deceit and
obstruction, and by committing these actions, the President moved
beyond the private arena of protecting personal embarrassing conduct
and his actions began to conceal, mislead and falsify; invaded the very
heart and soul of that which makes this Nation unique in the world, the
right of any citizen to pursue justice equally.
The conduct obstructed our judicial system and at that point that
became an issue, not a personal concern, but of national consequence.
The preamble to our Constitution, in the second purpose says, it is to
establish justice. It is not for the President or his lawyers to
determine who can or cannot seek justice, and if the President lied
under oath in a Federal civil rights case, that he took it upon himself
to deny the right of a fellow American, in this case a fellow Arkansan,
equal access to seek relief in the courts.
The President's lawyers have declared such a lie to be a small one,
of small consequence, and therefore, not impeachable. But I cannot see
how denying the rights of a fellow citizen could be considered a small
consequence.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support Article I, and this
resolution.

[[Page H11779]]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip of the
Congress.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak, the men and women of
America's Armed Forces are engaged in battle. Halfway around the world
on ships at sea, in the skies over Baghdad, they are risking their
lives for us. But even as millions of Americans across our country are
hoping for a quick end to this conflict, even as we are praying for the
safety of our sons and daughters, my Republican colleagues are obsessed
with a different target. They are determined to impeach the Commander
in Chief of America's Armed Forces, the President of the United States.
Even as the bombs are falling on Baghdad, they are trying to force him
from office.
What kind of signal does this send our troops, our allies, the
American people, the world? I find it quite incredible that we are even
here today having this debate. To force an impeachment vote is to
completely ignore the will of the American people.

{time} 1030

The people of this country support the President, just as they have
supported him through two elections and throughout his presidency. He
is doing the job they elected him to do. It is a grave mistake to rush
forward with impeachment like a runaway train heading for a cliff. Why
can we not just pause for a second? Why can we not stop right here and
come to our senses?
The American people have made it very clear they oppose impeachment.
They are looking for another solution, a just solution, a solution that
condemns the President's wrongdoing yet enables America to put this
sorry spectacle behind us and get on with the country's business; a
solution that brings us together as a Nation, not one that divides us.
Censure, this is the one option the Republican leadership refuses to
consider. They will not even let us vote on it. President Ford supports
censure, Senator Dole supports censure, Members on both sides of the
aisle support censure. I dare say if it was made in order, it would
pass. Yet the Republican leadership in this House is so angry, so
obsessed, so self-righteous, that they are refusing us a true vote of
conscience.
This is wrong, it is unfair, it is unjust. At a time when events in
the world and challenges at home demand that we stand united, censure
is the one solution that can bring us together.
To my colleagues across the aisle, I say, let go of your obsession.
Listen to the American people. Stop hijacking the Constitution. We
should not be having this debate now while our troops are in battle.
But if, if they insist on ramming this matter through at any cost, give
us the opportunity, give the country the opportunity, to express
themselves on censure.
If Members cannot set aside partisan politics until our troops are
safe, at least, at the very least, let us have a clean vote of
conscience, and let us bring America together once again.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the decision we are faced with today is of
singular importance. We are being asked to overturn the results of a
presidential election under a procedure that is fundamentally unfair,
and at a time that is contrary to the strategic national interests of
the United States.
There are three issues involved here today: the unfairness of this
proceeding, the timing of this action, and the merits of whether or not
to impeach the President.
Let us start with the fundamental unfairness of this proceeding. The
Republicans have denied the House the opportunity to vote on censuring
the President, even though a clear majority of the American public
believes the President should be censured for his conduct but not
removed from office. Leading members of the Republican Party, former
President Gerald Ford, former Senator Bob Dole, have urged the censure
option, but we are being denied the opportunity to even consider it
today. There is no fairness on this floor today.
Second, the Republican majority, by starting this proceeding today,
while we are engaged in military action against Saddam Hussein, sends
entirely the wrong message to Saddam and to the rest of the world. We
have a great bipartisan tradition of supporting the Commander in Chief
and supporting our soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the time of war.
That tradition is being shattered today by a partisan majority.
Seven years ago I joined 86 of our colleagues, of our Democratic
colleagues, in supporting a Republican President, George Bush, when he
initiated military action against Saddam Hussein. I disagreed with
President Bush on a variety of matters, but I felt it was important to
show national unity against Saddam.
By starting this proceeding against President Clinton today, we are
sending the ultimate mixed message to Saddam about our national
resolve. We may be encouraging him to resist longer by our actions in
the midst of war. Starting this proceeding today may wind up costing
American lives.
The majority may well have blood on its hands by starting this
proceeding today. We certainly could have waited until Monday to pursue
this proceeding, giving our military time to pursue its mission.
That brings me to the question of the merits. The Republican majority
is trivializing the U.S. Constitution and setting a terrible precedent
by pressing for impeachment on these particular grounds. What Clinton
did was wrong, but it does not rise to the level of an impeachable
offense.
If we make every Member of this House rumored to have been involved
in an affair subject to a $40 million special prosecutor, and then hold
them accountable for any misstatement of fact, we may be faced with a
number of empty seats in this Chamber. We should reserve impeachment
for those rare instances that undermine our form of government and
threaten the essence of democracy. It should not be used as a club by a
partisan majority that dislikes the particular president.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is set upon an unfair, false
choice. This historic decision should be a moment above all political
maneuvering. Instead, it is riddled with unfairness, sloppy procedure,
and mean-spirited partisanship.
From the 4-year, $40 million investigation which could only turn up a
private, consensual affair, the airing and publishing of the tawdry
Starr report and Lewinsky tapes where all of our children could hear
and read every sexual detail, the failure of the President's accusers
to spell out which of his words were allegedly perjurious, the unfair
denial of the censure option here today, to trying to impeach the
Commander in Chief with troops in harm's way, this process is a
travesty. Where is their sense of fairness?
Somewhere along the way, some in this House forgot that Bill Clinton
is our President, not their personal enemy. The Constitution is not a
license to destroy a president because one does not like him.
I believe the President's actions were reprehensible and worthy of
condemnation, but the clearest, most appropriate way to send a message
about this President's behavior is censure. That is what our best legal
scholars say, that is what the American public says. If the Republican
leadership would allow us the freedom to vote our conscience, that
would be the option.
A censure would put an indelible scar upon the President's place in
history, something we all know this President cares about deeply. It is
a tough, just, and appropriate punishment. It would not absolve the
President of any future indictment and prosecution of alleged perjury.
Impeachment, however, should not be used as a form of super censure.
Far from upholding the rule of law, a vote for impeachment under these
circumstances weakens and undermines the rule of law, turning our
Constitution into an unfair political tool.
Former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary Peter Rodino said
to me, ``We voted to impeach Richard Nixon because of the irreparable
harm he had done and threatened to do to the rights, liberties, and
privileges of American citizens using the CIA, the FBI, the IRS,
illegally wiretapping and auditing United States citizens. But we

[[Page H11780]]

would not have impeached Nixon alone for lying.''
Yes, let us censure the President for his misconduct, let us send a
message to our children that these actions are wrong, but let us not
unfairly use the Constitution as a way to send that message.
I warn my colleagues that they will reap the bitter harvest of the
unfair partisan seeds they sow today. The constitutional provision for
impeachment is a way to protect our government and our citizens, not
another weapon in the political arsenal. Monica Lewinsky is not
Watergate. Let he who has no sin in this Chamber cast the first vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Barney Frank), a senior member from Massachusetts on
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this House is launched on a
historically tragic case of selective moralizing. By the history of
this country, the appropriate response to lying about a consensual
sexual affair would be censure.
When Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense was indicted for perjury by
an Independent Counsel and pardoned by George Bush, Members on that
side applauded the action. When Speaker Gingrich was found to have been
inaccurate 13 times in an official proceeding to the House Ethics
Committee, he was reprimanded and simultaneously reelected Speaker with
the overwhelming vote of Members on that side. That is why we believe
censure is appropriate.
The American people also believe censure is appropriate. Let me agree
with those who say that simply because a large number of the voters
believe something, we are not obligated to vote for it. I welcome this
assertion that we have an obligation not always to follow public
opinion.
But while we have the right not to vote for something just because
there is overwhelming public support, in a democracy, we have no right
not to vote on it. We have a right to stand up honestly and say, I
disagree with censure. Members have no right to hide behind a partisan
leadership and not take a position.
The public has a right, on this overwhelmingly important issue, to
have the preferred option that the public supports voted on. That is
the abdication of democracy. It is not that Members have to support
what the public wants, but Members cannot hide from it in a democracy.
Why will Members not take a position on censure? If they have the
votes to defeat it, they should not use partisan pressure and threats
to keep it from being voted on. Do not deny to the American public a
recorded vote on their notion of what ought to be done, particularly
since Members' own behavior in the case of Caspar Weinberger, in the
case of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich), clearly makes
it understandable that censure and not impeachment is relevant.
The final point is this: Members on the other side understand that
people think throwing someone out of office is too harsh. We have a
stunningly illogical game going on. First, to get votes for impeachment
from people who know that the public doesn't want it, they downgrade
impeachment. Impeachment is not throwing the President out of office,
the chairman says; impeachment does not end the process, it simply
sends it to the Senate.
But what have they already begun to do? They plan, having degraded
impeachment and claimed it is no definitive judgment, once they get a
partisan vote for an impeachment, where the bar has been lowered, then
to say, that is the basis for resignation. First, impeachment will be
insignificant, it will simply be the beginning of the process. But
having used their partisan power and the power of the right wing in the
country to get an impeachment through after they have dumbed it down in
significance, they will turn around and use the fact that they got that
impeachment as a club to try to drive the President from office. First
impeachment will simply be very little, and then it will be an enormous
amount.
Members cannot, de facto, amend the Constitution by that distortion
of impeachment, and then use it to try to drive a President out of
office when they know that is an inappropriate sanction for his
behavior.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. How much time was charged to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for the speech of the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Gephardt)?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will say this, because other
Members have inquired about this. The Chair has in the past had a
standing policy during important debates to allow for the highest
ranking party-elected Members of the House, the Speaker, the majority
leader, the minority leader, and the minority whip, additional time
during the time they are making important statements.
The answer to the gentleman's question is that while the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) took 12 minutes to make his remarks, the
Chair extended the time to him as a courtesy, as has traditonally been
done on both sides of the aisle.

{time} 1045

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the hindsight of history will be harsh on
this Congress and this unfair process. For some to speak of their vote
of conscience today, even as they deny others a deep vote of
conscience, is in itself unconscionable. A process whose goal was to
emulate the Watergate legacy sadly will leave a legacy more akin to the
impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
In the name of the Constitution, Article II, this process trampled on
the Constitution, Articles II and VI. In the name of the rule of law,
this process ignored the fundamental principles of due process and
fairness that formed the foundation of that rule of law. In the name of
no person is above the law, this process forgot that no citizen should
be treated below the law. In the name of justice, this process ignored
the pillar of justice that in our Nation every citizen is innocent
until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. In the name of
America, this process raised the ugly debate of who is a real American.
History will surely judge this process as a combination of Kafka, To
Kill a Mockingbird and Keystone Kops.
Mr. Speaker, if the Golden Rule were to be our guide, who among us,
who among us, Democrat or Republican in this House, would want to be a
defendant in the case where the rules of law and fairness were ignored,
where secret grand jury testimony against us was released to the world,
where there was not one direct witness, where your defense attorney was
limited to one hour of cross-examining your chief accuser, where your
attorney was forced to give your final defense even before one charge
had been formally presented against you, where the charges of perjury
against you were finally presented at the 11th hour and failed the test
of decency which statements were allegedly perjurious. Surely no Member
of this House would want to be judged by that process. We should not
judge this President by that process.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose these articles of
impeachment. I oppose this action with every fiber of my body because
it is an affront to our Constitution and our democracy.
In my short tenure in the House of Representatives, I can recall no
other action that has so jeopardized the historic obligations that we
are sworn to uphold. For me, this is no longer about the President's
actions. They were repugnant, embarrassing and immoral. But this is not
a constitutional forum for judging such behavior and exacting
punishment. The President's family, the American people and maybe even
the courts may eventually speak to his errors.
We might have given voice to our views in the form of a censure
resolution, but this House leadership chose not to allow any but the
most draconian actions, impeachment. It is wrong

[[Page H11781]]

and it is unfair. It denies the American people their right to
representative democracy.
We have the constitutional authority to remove a President only when
he or she crosses the line into treason, bribery and high crimes
against the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin spoke of impeachment as an
alternative to assassination. Today this body is contemplating a
constitutional assassination, driven by a naked partisanship, almost
without lawful and civil bounds. The Republican majority is moving to
impeach an elected President of the United States. Thwarting the
public's will, they do so even as the President commands our troops in
battle against Iraq and even as he seeks to perform his constitutional
responsibility with the support of the overwhelming majority of the
American people.
This debate amidst those bombs more than anything else symbolizes the
madness that has inflamed the partisan fires on the other side of the
aisle.
This is a moment for boundaries and not license. This is a moment to
allow history to have its sway. This is a moment to allow Madison,
Jefferson, Franklin and Washington to be heard in this Chamber above
the partisan din. If that spirit were to prevail, I have no doubt that
the provocateurs would be stilled and our Constitution preserved. The
American people, not the politicians, would have the final say, as the
Founders intended.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, there are some Members in this
Chamber that seem to have forgotten history. We were at war in Vietnam
when the hearings on the impeachment of President Nixon occurred. That
was because of the serious offenses that were alleged against President
Nixon. Today we are proceeding because of the serious offenses alleged
against President Clinton.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, a loud lament has been heard about some
deprivation of the right to vote one's conscience. But that is exactly
why we are here today. All of us in the ultimate must vote the ultimate
sense of conscience. That is what this process is all about. We are
facing indeed our moment of truth.
Now, the moment of truth for the President of the United States first
faced him in December of 1997. It faced him in the nature of a legal
document, legal in interrogatories that were forwarded to him in
pursuit by the Paula Jones attorneys of discovery proceedings in their
case, a document laid before the President to be attested to under oath
to answer certain questions. The President faced his moment of truth
right there and then, the first item in the legal proceedings that have
become the hallmark of these proceedings, and there under oath
testified falsely.
At that moment, he began the chain of events that led a month later
to his appearance before the deposition lawyers and judge and, further
down the line, to the grand jury in August of that year. But here is
the important difference that Members must take into account as they
evaluate the evidence.
The evidence is that when he signed these interrogatories, this first
moment of truth to which I allude, there was no parsing of definitions.
There was no argument among the lawyers about meanings and definitions.
There was no judge interpolating the opinion of the court into the
argument of the lawyers. There was no parsing or mixing or evasion of
types of definitions and words. This was a straight interrogatory to
which the President of the United States added perjurious and false
answers.
In a single moment in the Oval Office or wherever he executed this
set of interrogatories, he began the long chain of falsehoods that have
led us to our moment of truth here today.
We must exercise that conscience to which all the Members have
alluded and recognize that when the President faced this moment of
truth in countless occasions, each time he swept it away and caused
himself the difficulty that he brings to our Chamber here today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
(Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I might add that I want to again honor the
Constitution by what we do today. I think we all share that. And while
the polls seem to show one thing, they also seem to show that many
people would like this President to resign, in fact a majority of the
people polled. But we cannot govern this country by polls. We have to
be responsible today. It is not our job to create or invent solutions
beyond the authority of this House. We must match our power with the
authority that the Constitution gives us.
In light of that, I want to speak briefly and add on to what the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) has said about Article II of
the impeachment articles. It is clear there is compelling testimony
that in addition to the interrogatories that were answered under oath
by this President, falsely, there was also testimony given that was
false in the deposition that was taken after those interrogatories. On
numerous occasions the President lied under oath, and there is
compelling evidence that this occurred. And specifically when his
attorney brought up the false affidavit of Monica Lewinsky and said
that the sexual relationship term referred to meant that there was no
sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form, the President sat
silently, knowing that this false affidavit was being put into this
sexual harassment lawsuit. He said that he was not paying attention.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde), has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me the time.
In its 1974 Watergate inquiry, the House Committee on the Judiciary
conducted an exhaustive examination of the constitutional history of
the impeachment power. Then on a broad bipartisan basis, the committee
adopted a report which eloquently states the constitutional standard
for use by the House of Representatives of its impeachment power.
In the committee's words, only that presidential misconduct which is
seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of the
constitutional duties of the office of the presidency will justify
impeachment.
The facts now before the House, which arise from a personal
relationship and the efforts to conceal it, simply do not meet that
standard. While the President's conduct was reprehensible, it did not
threaten the Nation. It did not undermine the constitutional form and
principles of our government. It did not disable the proper functioning
of the constitutional duties of the presidential office. These facts
simply do not meet the standard.
To misuse of impeachment power in this case, as some are now prepared
to do, will create a national horror. The divisions on this subject
which now exist within our society will harden and deepen. A rift and a
divide will occur. There will be a polarization. The President and the
Congress will be diverted from their urgent national business while
prolonged proceedings take place in the Senate.
There will be a lowering of the standard for future impeachments with
an inherent weakening of the presidential office. There will probably
be instability in the financial markets with adverse effects for the
economy.
These harms are unnecessary. The President's conduct was deplorable,
but it was not impeachable.
The House today should censure the President for bringing dishonor on
the

[[Page H11782]]

presidential office. That path will bring closure and a restoration of
national dignity.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, our friend from Illinois spoke reverently
of Bunker Hill and Arlington Cemetery. We find ourselves in a debate to
impeach a Commander in Chief of the successors to those brave patriots
of Bunker Hill and all who served since then. Today we should have our
men and our women who stand in harm's way in the Persian Gulf in our
thoughts and in our prayers rather than trying to politically
decapitate their Commander in Chief.

{time} 1100

What is a few days? Why the rush to judgment? Our being here reflects
a lack of respect for all in uniform as well as their families. If
there were such an attempt by my party to remove President Bush during
the Persian Gulf conflict, I would have opposed it with all of my
being.
We must look at the proceeding today and seek the guidance of our
Constitution. We must do so without emotion, for the more emotion, the
less reason.
The framers of the United States Constitution knew that in an extreme
case there will be a need to remove or overturn a popular election.
They also knew that they must not make impeachment easy or routine. To
maintain separation of powers, they set the bar of impeachment high and
limited the grounds to impeachment. Initially, the framers made the
great crimes of treason and bribery the only offenses worthy of
impeachment. Later, at the Constitutional Convention, the standard was
broadened to include ``other high crimes and misdemeanors.''
I studied the phrase carefully. The word ``other'' is important
because I believe it is crucial to our deliberations on impeachment. I
have concluded that the correct legal interpretation and the intent of
the framers of that document is that the general phrase ``other high
crimes and misdemeanors'' must be limited to the kinds of class or
things within the specific words ``treason'' and ``bribery.''
As members of the House of Representatives, it is our duty to measure
the President's actions against this high Constitutional standard,
without regard to political party or partisan influence. We should not
establish a new Constitutional standard which lowers the threshold for
ousting a sitting President. I have concluded that even if we concede
that all of the allegations in the Judiciary Report are true, President
Clinton's actions do not constitute impeachable offenses under the
Constitution. There is just no evidence that permitting him to stay on
would cause great or serious harm to our system of government.
The impeachment proceedings which took place in 1974 can provide us
with a useful precedent. In that investigation, the House Judiciary
Committee discovered persuasive evidence that President Nixon was
criminally liable for tax fraud. However, the Committee, with a
Democratic majority, voted 26-12 not to impeach President Nixon for tax
fraud because it did not involve official conduct or abuse of
Presidential powers. Rather, the Committee limited its impeachment
articles to those actions by President Nixon which affected our rights,
our liberties, and our privileges, and which if permitted to go on
would have seriously harmed our Constitutional system.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), one of our leadership members.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I come before you to speak for the
principle of democracy, the doctrine of fairness, and the spirit of
forgiveness.
America is sick. Her heart is heavy. Her soul is aching. And her
spirit is low. Today our Nation stands at a crossroads, at the
intersection of participatory democracy and the politics of personal
destruction.
Today, my colleagues, we must choose, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
wrote, between community and chaos. We must choose the course of
partisan destruction or national reconciliation. We will, in our
lifetime, never cast a more important vote. The spirit of history is
upon us and the future of the republic before us.
Our obligation as citizens of the state are as old as human history
and as fresh as the morning dew, to right wrong, do justice and love
mercy. Our Constitution, that sacred document, is a covenant, a
contract between the Government and those who are governed.
We must not, we cannot ignore the will of the people. Almost 50
million people elected Bill Clinton as our President in spite of his
problems, his shortcomings and his failings. They, the people, elected
Bill Clinton President of the United States and they want him to remain
the President of the United States.
And yet some, some even in this Chamber, have never accepted the
verdict of the people. They have never accepted Bill Clinton as their
President. Instead they embarked on a crusade of personal destruction.
Our Constitution was never intended to be used as a hammer to destroy
our political enemies. Some of our colleagues have been too quick to
pick up the hammer of impeachment and swing it with reckless abandon.
So bent are they on the destruction of this President that they would
knock down the very pillars which support our constitutional system.
What President Clinton did was wrong. About that there can be no
mistake. There is no disagreement, no debate. But how, how, my
colleagues, should we respond? How we respond, how we act says as much
about us and our character as it does about his. Let he that has no sin
cast the first stone. Who among us has not sinned?
What the President did was wrong, but it simply does not rise to the
height or sink to the depths of an impeachment offense. I know it, my
colleagues know it and, most importantly, the American people know it.
Will we write a chapter or be consigned to a footnote. The spirit of
history is upon us. Let us do what is right, let us do what is just and
love mercy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 5 minutes remaining and has the right to close.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is in the Constitution to protect
our Nation from a president who is subverting our constitutional form
of government. Our authority to impeach is limited in the Constitution
to findings of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.
We know, from our hearings, that treason, bribery, or other high
crimes or misdemeanors does not cover all felonies. In fact, it does
not even cover a half-million-dollar income tax fraud. That is the rule
of law. We cannot act unless there is treason, bribery, or similar
offenses. And so, that is why historians and constitutional scholars
have said that these allegations, even if they were true, do not
constitute impeachable offenses; and that is why one historian warned
that history will hunt down those who knowingly violate the
Constitution when they vote for impeachment.
That would be the case even if the allegations were true. But support
of the new, low standard for impeachment comes by way of contradictory,
double hearsay, and dubious inferences, without a single witness.
In Watergate and every other prior impeachment, we heard witnesses.
In this case, the accused has not even had an opportunity to cross-
examine witnesses. In fact, the accused has never been told the
specifics of the charges against him. There is a reason why the
specifics are not mentioned and that is because the so-called
perjurious statements constitute such immaterial minutiae that the
supporters of impeachment resort to titles of offenses such as perjury,
without stating what the perjurious statements are.
Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that we would attempt to overturn a
national democratic election on these flimsy allegations on the very
day that our young men and women are risking their lives to protect our
democratic form of government.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this body, we are
confronted with an overzealous and non-

[[Page H11783]]

independent counsel report combined with a totally politicized process
in the committee with party line votes on nearly every issue. And so, I
want to remind my colleagues that I am witnessing the most tragic event
of my career in the Congress, in effect a Republican coup d'etat, in
process.
We are using the most powerful institutional tool available to this
body, impeachment, in a highly partisan manner. Impeachment was
designed to rid this Nation of traitors and tyrants, not attempts to
cover up extramarital affairs. This resolution trivializes our most
important tool to maintain democracy. It downgrades the impeachment
power into a partisan weapon that can be used with future presidents.
Perhaps, hopefully, we may never ever use impeachment again after this
experience.
Now, I am personally outraged that we would decapitate the Commander
in Chief at a time when we are at war abroad. Republicans sacrifice the
national security by doing so. To be spending time of this House to
smear our Commander in Chief when brave men and women are risking their
lives for their country shocks the conscience. The failure by the
Republican majority to allow a censure alternative shows again the
perversely partisan process this is.
I have been a Member here for some time and I cannot recall a single
occasion when the Democrats denied the Republicans the ability to offer
an alternative on a matter as momentous as this.
Our Nation has been pushed to the edge of a constitutional cliff. We
are about to inflict permanent damage on our Constitution, on our
President, on the Nation and ourselves. We should not be here today.
And history will not look kindly on the partisan passions that have
brought us to this point.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the time of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) expired in this hour?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the impeachment
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, in September when the Rules Committee brought a
resolution to the floor to provide for the appropriate handling and
release of the Independent Counsel report, I stated that many of us
hoped such a day would never come in our careers in public life. These
last few months have been difficult and profound for the House of
Representatives, and certainly for the Nation.
It is my sincere hope, despite the unfortunate nature of the subject
matter, that we will make the Founding Fathers proud by solemnly
addressing our constitutional obligation today.
If the meaning of an oath has been minimized at all in America, at
least we can courageously abide by our constitutional oaths here in
this Chamber today.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Judiciary Committee for their
diligent service to the House, and to the Nation, in this difficult
time.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the resolution impeaching President
Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors.
I find the case presented by the Judiciary Committee in its report
devastating and I am compelled, after studying the case, to support
these articles of impeachment.
The evidence presented demonstrates the President committed perjury
both in a deposition before a Federal judge in a sexual harassment
lawsuit and in grand jury testimony.
I am astounded at the methodical and calculating manner in which this
perjury was conducted. The President obstructed justice and interfered
with the machinery of our judicial system, and he committed perjury
before the Congress in response to the Judiciary Committee's inquiries
under oath.
Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming, it is remarkably detailed,
and it is corroborated at key points. It has also not been rebutted, in
any meaningful way, by the President or his attorneys.
The President's conduct could be considered reckless for any
government official or chief executive officer of a corporation, but it
is truly tragic--for the office and the Nation--when that illegal
conduct was committed by the President of the United States.
Perjury is a felony, Mr. Speaker, and it is an offense which demands
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, the rule of law, and our adherence to the rule of law,
have made us the great Nation that we are today.
What kind of example do we set for the future if we do not impeach
the chief law enforcement officer of the land, who happens to be an
attorney, because of this type of behavior in office?
If we countenance this misconduct, what are we to say to the American
citizens currently serving Federal prison sentences for perjury?
How are we to answer our children when they ask us ``If the President
can lie and get away with it, why can't I?''
The argument has been advanced in recent days that impeachment is
disruptive to the Nation; it will result in chaos in the financial
markets, and the economy will crumble. The work of government will
somehow cease.
Mr. Speaker, this is the greatest representative body in the world.
The Members of this institution can attest, based on their close
interaction with their constituents, that America is strong.
America is healthy and robust and prosperous in spite of the
misconduct of the President.
This notion of a world thrown into turmoil due to impeachment is
completely false.
We are a resilient people, and we have endured depression and world
wars in this century and a vicious civil war in the century before.
After defeating fascism and communism in this bloody 20th century,
are we to believe that we simply cannot survive without Bill Clinton?
We should remember that we are all just temporary occupants of these
offices.
The Constitution was here long before we were and it will be here
long after.
Why discard our historic notion of the rule of law, a notion which
differentiates us from much of the world around us, for one man?
The man in question clings to the trappings of his powerful office,
and cloaks himself in its symbols and icons, but adheres to none of the
principles of the men who served in it before him.
Why is any one man worth the sacrifice of the office which we hold
with such great esteem? this impeachment vote by the House and trial in
the Senate is intended to protect constitutional government--it is not
intended to punish the President for his crimes.
Rather, it is designed to protect the office--our office--from
further harm by its temporary occupant.
I will vote to impeach President Clinton, and vindicate the rule of
law.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Members of the House, today our Constitution stands in harm's way.
The rule of law in America is under fire, the rule of law about which
our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), spoke so
eloquently just a few short moments ago, the rule of law which finds
its highest and best embodiment in the absolute, the unshakeable right
each one of us has to walk in a courtroom and demand the righting of a
wrong.
As President John F. Kennedy so eloquently put it, ``Americans are
free to disagree with the law but not to disobey it. For a government
of laws and not of men, no man however prominent and powerful, no mob
however unruly or boisterous is entitled to defy a court of law. If
this country should ever reach the point where any man or group of men,
by force or threat of force, could long defy the commands of our courts
and our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt, no judge
would be sure of his writ, and no citizen would be safe from its
neighbors.'' This, Mr. Speaker, is the fundamental American right which
President William Jefferson Clinton tried to deny a fellow citizen.
How did he do it? I direct the attention of every Member of this body
to the report of the Committee on the Judiciary to accompany H. Res.
611. I direct their specific attention to Article III, which lays out a
case of obstruction of justice. Despite the fact that in the ears of a
lay person obstruction might conjure up a massive frontal assault, in
the word of law, and I know this as a former United States attorney who
directed the prosecution of a Republican member of this body for
obstructing justice before a grand jury, obstruction of justice is much
more insidious, much more implied, much quieter, but nonetheless
destructive of the rule of law in this country.

[[Page H11784]]

What is obstruction and what was the pattern of obstruction in this
case? I respectfully direct the attention of each Member of this body
to the United States Criminal Code, title 18, to those several
provisions which set forth the principle that no man, no citizen of
this land, no visitor to this land shall tamper with witnesses, seek to
hide witnesses, seek to hide evidence in a case, or seek to change,
modify, or prevent testimony.
Yet there is in this report and in the accompanying 60,000 pages of
evidence to which Chairman Hyde alluded, evidence of a clear pattern of
obstruction of justice, in violation of title 18 of the United States
Code, by this President; such things as making statements to his
secretary after he gave sworn testimony in an effort, a very clear
effort, with no other purpose than to influence the testimony of his
secretary, who most assuredly would have been and was called as a grand
jury witness, evidence such as the President calling and directing one
of the most powerful attorneys in this city, Mr. Vernon Jordan, after
it was found out that Monica Lewinsky would indeed be and had been
subpoenaed as a witness to appear before the court and directed that
she be found a job.

{time} 1115

Evidence such as the President, the Commander in Chief, as we have
heard today, picking up a telephone at 2 a.m. in the morning, not by
coincidence the very day that he found out that Ms. Lewinsky was indeed
a named witness and would be a witness in the court case of Paula Jones
and going over with her to reaffirm in her mind the stories, the cover
stories, that they indeed had agreed to if just this calamity would
befall them.
These, I submit to every Member of this House, are obstruction. They
are indeed a frontal assault on our Constitution.
We have here today in Article III alone three legs of a stool, if I
could borrow an analogy from the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary. We have the Constitution, we have the United States Criminal
Code as violated by this President, and we have the evidence. They
support a vote for Article III of impeachment of William Jefferson
Clinton for obstructing justice in America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to be recognized under the
hour rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary one-half hour to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers). All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum).
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is moved, I
intend to vote against it so that I may be recognized to control under
the hour rule time in order to continue the debate on House Resolution
611.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the argument
that our military forces are fighting. Do my colleagues know what they
are fighting for? They are fighting to uphold the Constitution and the
oath that we took and they took.
As my colleagues know, when the President stands before God, puts his
hand on the Bible and takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and
lawfully carry out the duties of his office, he is promising to put the
people and the Nation before his own interests. I believe the President
violated the laws and beliefs he swore to uphold instead of following
the law, respecting American people's values and honoring his office.
He chose to lie, cover up and evade the truth. His actions have made a
mockery of the people who fought for this country and are fighting for
this Nation today, the Constitution and the laws we live under, and
because of the President's actions Congress must act as dictated by the
Constitution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. The gentleman has some familiarity with our military
service. Did he serve in the Vietnam War?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, sir, and the Korean one, if we want to
call it.
Mr. HYDE. And the Korean War.
How much time did the gentleman spend in the prison camp in Hanoi or
in Vietnam?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Nearly 7 years, sir.
Mr. HYDE. Seven years in a POW camp?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, sir.
Mr. HYDE. In solitary?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, sir; 3 years of that.
Mr. HYDE. Well, I think the gentleman from Texas is qualified to talk
about military service.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Well, I want to tell my colleagues that our
military fighting men want the Congress to carry on their
constitutional responsibility every day. That is why we are here.
As my colleagues know, maybe we ought to be debating right after this
issue how we support our military and give them more arms and more
people to make sure they can win that battle. We cannot sacrifice what
is right to do, what is easy.
As my colleagues know, when I was a POW, we did some things that were
tough to do. This is a tough thing to do, but it is the right thing to
do, and I suggest we continue with this impeachment process.
Mr. Speaker, the duty of the President of the United States is to
preserve, protect and defend our Constitution. For over two hundred
years we have sent our fathers, brothers, sons, mothers and daughters
to war to do just that.
Many of them never returned. They gave their lives for a better
America. They believed that America is greater than one person, one
life.
They gave their lives to ensure that America and our Constitution
remain safe and that our way of life would not perish.
They knew--with death--came honor, trust, loyalty and respect. They
knew their death meant freedom to the millions of Americans who would
come after them. Many of those who died were my friends.
I spent 29 years in the Air Force, fought in two wars and was a
prisoner of war for nearly 7 years in Vietnam.
I love this great nation. And I would defend it again because America
and our ideals are worth dying for.
When I left Vietnam there was an inscription scrawled on one of the
prison walls which read: ``freedom has a taste to those who fought and
almost died that the protected will never know.''
The President is the one person who must hold these words and actions
in the highest regard.
The President is our moral leader. His picture hangs in classrooms
throughout America. The President is our symbol of freedom. The
President is the Commander in Chief, the chief law enforcement officer,
and the leader of the free world.
When the President stands before God, puts his hand on the Bible and
takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and lawfully carry out the
duties of his office--he is promising to put the people and the Nation
before his own interests.
I believe this President violated the laws and the beliefs he swore
to uphold. Instead of following the law, respecting the American
people's values and honoring his office, he chose to lie, cover up and
evade the truth.
His actions have made a mockery of the people who fought for this
country, the Constitution and the laws we live under.
It is clear from the evidence that this President committed perjury.
It is clear from the evidence that this President obstructed justice.
It is clear from the evidence that this President abused the power of
his office.
He systematically used his office and staff to protect his own
personal interests. Instead of truth and forgiveness he hid behind
legalistic jargon.
And now, because of the President's actions, Congress must act as
dictated by the Constitution.
We cannot sacrifice what is right to do what is easy.
During those awful years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, there were
many times that I and my fellow prisoners could have taken the ``easy''
way out.
We could have told the enemy our military secrets, or we could have
betrayed one another. That would have been the ``easiest''

[[Page H11785]]

thing to do to stop the daily torture we endured. If we had just given
up a few military secrets or betrayed a fellow soldier, we could have
avoided starvation, been released much earlier, and not missed all
those years of our lives with our families and children. But we never
did. Even through all the daily torture, beatings and starvation, we
never once considered taking the ``easy'' way out. and now we must
endure these hardships, uphold our Constitution and protect America.
When we, in Congress, raised our right hands and took our oaths of
office, we promised to make the difficult decisions.
We have come to the end of a very long and winding road. Long and
winding--not because of anything Congress has done, but rather because
President Clinton has walked us down it by his own actions.
The President has diminished his office in the eyes of the Nation,
and more dangerously, in the eyes of the world.
The President is the chief law enforcement official of this country.
If you lose respect for him, you lose respect for the law.
I would just say, again, to the American people, that this is not a
choice about doing what is easy. This is a choice between what is right
and what is wrong under our Constitution and the rule of law.
Let's be clear: the President lied to us. He pointed his finger at
us, looked us in the eye and lied to us, over and over again.
We must make a stand and say--we are a nation of laws and no one is
above the law.
So, I will vote to impeach the President. The Constitution demands it
and the country deserves no less.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Schumer), a distinguished member of the Committee on
the Judiciary and Senator elect.
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, these are my last moments as a Member of
the House that I honor and that I love, but this is a bittersweet day
for me because a pall hangs over this House. Unless a miracle occurs,
we will take one of the most serious and rare actions that this body
can assume and impeach the President against the overwhelming will of
the American people. Voting against these articles will be my last act.
Since September I have said what the President did was reprehensible
and should be punished. I also argued that lying about an extramarital
affair, even under oath, does not rise to the level of high crimes and
misdemeanors as spelled out in the Constitution and that the proper
punishment is censure, not impeachment.
But today, Mr. Speaker, my last day in the House that I cherish, I
ask myself what has brought us to this day? It would be easy for
Democrats to lay the blame on a narrow band of right wing zealots out
to destroy Bill Clinton. It would be convenient for Republicans to lay
the blame squarely at the feet of the President for his behavior. But
this goes much deeper than that.
What began 25 years ago with Watergate as a solemn and necessary
process to force a President to adhere to the rule of law has grown
beyond our control so that now we are routinely using criminal
accusations and scandal to win the political battles and ideological
differences we cannot settle at the ballot box. It has been used with
reckless abandon by both parties, Democrats and Republicans, and we are
now at a point where we risk, deeply risk, wounding the Nation we all
love.
We cannot disagree, it seems; we cannot forcefully advocate for our
positions, without trying to criminalize or at least dishonor our
adversaries over matters having nothing to do with public trust. And it
is hurting our country, it is marginalizing and polarizing this
Congress.
I want to be clear. I am not pointing fingers at Republicans. The
Democrats investigated John Tower for allegations not too dissimilar
from allegations against the President. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrich) led the investigation which brought down Speaker Wright, and
Speaker Gingrich was investigated and brought down as well. The ledger
between the two parties is pretty much even.
Today we are upping the ante. The President could be removed from
office over a matter that most Americans feel does not come close to
the level of high crimes and misdemeanors as written in our
Constitution. I expect history will show that we have lowered the bar
on impeachment so much we have broken the seal on this extreme penalty
so cavalierly that it will be used as a routine tool to fight political
battles. My fear is that when a Republican wins the White House
Democrats will demand payback.
Mr. Speaker, in Greek mythology, in the Oresteia, a trilogy of
ancient Greek plays by Aeschylus, the warring factions of the House of
Atreus trapped themselves in an escalating chain of revenge.
* * * such that Atreus serves his brother a pie that contained his
brother's own murdered children. It was the end of what was once a
noble family. A noble House.
Let us not become a House of Atreus. Let us reject the instinct for
revenge and embrace instead a greater sense of justice for the sake of
our Republic.
That is why I leave the institution that I cherish and respect with a
heavy heart. I know we are better than what we have shown.
But I fear that the road that we are on will lead us to ruin. It is
time to get off.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who served in
Vietnam and was recommended for the Medal of Honor.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had served on the Committee on
National Security in authorization. I now serve on the Subcommittee on
National Security of the Committee on Appropriations, and I want to
tell my colleagues, every single member on those two committees, I have
the greatest respect for what they try to do to bolster our military
and our men and women. And my colleagues, some of them say, ``Why not
wait? Why can't we wait just a few days?''
The President of the United States last night deployed ground troops
to Iraq. Just imagine, just imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein
goes into Kuwait again, and the turmoil and the loss of lives, and
think about how difficult it would be to bring up a resolution like
this if we waited.
There has been talk about Ramadan. Well, there is another religious
holiday: Christmas. Think about how hard it would be to bring up this
resolution.
If this goes beyond January 6 into a next Congress, then we have a
constitutional problem. And the public, they want this over. I agree
they want it over, and that is why we are proceeding on, to get it
over. We would have to start this process all over again. The public
does not want that I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) or
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); they want it done.
As a matter of fact, talk about polls; in the Washington Post poll
they talked about if this article goes through, almost 60 percent of
the American people would ask the President to resign. It is not for
the President. It is because they do not want this thing to go on, and
we are going to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I have a tape here. I would love to play it for the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) sometime. It is 18 SAMs (surface-
to-air missiles), SA-2s, going off in pairs over Vietnam.
When we talk about at a time like this, our troops are fighting. Not
once did I ever worry about what was going on in Congress. I worried
about the strike mission, about where the SAMs were, where the triple A
(anti-aircraft artillery) was, about getting back to my carrier alive.
They do not care what is going on here. They want this over, too.
That is not a factor in this. Our men and women are fighting and dying.
I have got a friend named Bug Roach. He was flying a 25-year-old
aircraft, an A-4 Skyhawk. His engine quit over Whiskey 291. It is a
training area in the Pacific, west of San Diego. When he tried to
eject, his seat did not work. Do my colleagues have any idea what it is
like to talk to his family?
Do not cut defense any more. If my colleagues want to support our
troops, do not cut defense, with the Progressive Caucus that wants to
cut it an additional 50 percent. Bolster our troops.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page H11786]]

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the precedents show and the Nation's leading
scholars and historians overwhelmingly agree that impeachment is
reserved under the Constitution only for abuses of presidential power
that undermine the structure of functioning of government or of
constitutional liberty. It is not intended as a punishment for crimes
but as a protection against the President who would abuse his powers to
make himself a tyrant. That is why Benjamin Franklin called impeachment
a substitute for assassination.
We are told that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery, a per
se impeachable offense, but bribery goes to the heart of the
President's conduct of his constitutional duties. It converts his
loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the Republic to
promoting some other interest.

{time} 1130

Perjury is a serious crime and, if provable, should be prosecuted in
a court of law. But it may or may not involve the President's duties
and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury
regarding sex, is not a great and dangerous offense against the Nation.
It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten
our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense.
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the
voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from
office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional
liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an
overwhelming consensus of the American people.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment
supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another.
Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our
politics for years to come, and will call into question the very
legitimacy of our political institutions.
The American people have heard the allegations against the President,
and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. They elected President
Clinton, they still support him. We have no right to overturn the
considered judgment of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, the case against the President has not been made. There
is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the
allegations, even if proven true, do not rise to the level of
impeachable offenses.
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job. The same people
who today tell us we must impeach the President for lying under oath,
almost to a person voted last year to reelect the Speaker who had just
admitted lying to Congress in an official proceeding.
The American people are watching, and they will not forget. You may
have the votes, you may have the muscle, but you do not have the
legitimacy of a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative.
This partisan coup d'etat will go down in infamy in the history of this
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, today, for only the second time in our nation's history,
this House meets to consider articles of impeachment against a
President of the United States. This is a momentous occasion, and I
would hope that, despite the sharp partisan tone which has marked this
debate, we can approach it with a sober sense of the historic
importance of this matter.
I believe that we need to get back to basics--the Constitution and
what the impeachment power conferred on the Congress requires of us.
Article II, section 4 of the Constitution says that a President ``shall
be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' We have received
testimony from some of the nation's leading legal scholars and
historians who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are
abuses of Presidential power that undermine the structure or
functioning of government, or constitutional liberty.
Benjamin Franklin called impeachment a ``substitute for
assassination.'' It is, in fact, a peaceful procedure for protecting
the nation from despots by providing a constitutional means for
removing a President who would misuse his presidential power to make
himself a tyrant or otherwise undermine our constitutional form of
government. To impeach a President, it must be that serious.
The history of the language is also clear. At the Constitutional
Convention, the Committee on Style, which was not authorized to make
any substantive changes, dropped the words ``against the United
States'' after the words ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' because it
was understood that only high crimes and misdemeanors against the
system of government would be impeachable--that the words ``against the
United States'' were redundant and unnecessary.
History and the precedents alike show that impeachment is not a
punishment for crimes, but a means to protect the constitutional
system, and it was certainly not meant to be a means to punish a
President for personal wrongdoing not related to his office. Some of
our Republican colleagues have made much of the fact that some of the
Democrats on this Committee in 1974 voted in favor of an article of
impeachment relating to President Nixon's alleged perjury on his tax
returns, but the plain fact is that a bipartisan vote of that
Committee--something we have not yet had in this process on any
substantive question--rejected that article. That's the historical
record, and it was largely based on the belief that an impeachable
offense must be an abuse of Presidential power, a ``great and dangerous
offense against the Nation,'' not perjury on a private matter.
We are told that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery, a per
se impeachable offense. But bribery goes to the heart of the
President's conduct of his constitutional duties--it converts his
loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the Republic to
promoting some other interest. Perjury is a serious crime--and, if
provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may, or may
not, involve the President's duties and performance in office. Perjury
on a private matter--perjury regarding sex--is not a ``great and
dangerous offense against the Nation.'' It is not an abuse of uniquely
Presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is
not an impeachable offense.
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the
voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an
election and remove a President from office except to defend our very
system of government on our constitutional liberties against a dire
threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the
American people and of their Representatives in Congress on its
absolute necessity. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment,
or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political
parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will lack
legitimacy, will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics
for years to come, and will call into question the legitimacy of our
political institutions. The American people have heard all the
allegations against the President and they overwhelmingly oppose
impeaching him. The people elected President Clinton. They still
support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of
the American people.
There are clearly some members of the Republican majority who have
never accepted the results of the 1992 or 1996 elections, and who
apparently have chosen to ignore the message of last month's election,
but in a democracy, it is the people who rule, not political elites--
and not members of political elites who were repudiated at the last
election. Some members of the House may think the people have chosen
badly, but it is the people's choice and we must respect it absent a
threat to our democracy that would justify overturning the repeated
expression of their will at the ballot box. Members of Congress have no
right to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent
that compelling case.
the Judiciary Committee also received testimony from some outstanding
former prosecutors, including the former Republican Governor of
Massachusetts, William Weld, who headed up the Criminal Division of
Ronald Reagan's Justice Department, who compellingly explained why all
the loose talk about perjury and obstruction of justice would not hold
up in a real prosecutor's office--that the evidence we have been given
would never support a criminal prosecution in a real court of law.
For those who demand that the President prove his innocence, without
his accusers having to provide his guilt or even to state clearly the
charges, the Judiciary Committee received answers from the President's
Counsel, Mr. Ruff, and from the Committee's Minority Counsel, Mr.
Lowell this morning, in which they meticulously pointed out, using Mr.
Starr's own work, how the charges were not supported, and were indeed
contradicted, by the evidence Mr. Starr's own office had assembled. In
fact, Mr. Starr has stated in his referral to Congress, that his own
``star witness'' is not credible, except when her uncorroborated
testimony conflicts with the President's, and then it proves his
perjury.
We have received sanctimonious lectures from the other side about the
`'rule of law,'' but the law does not permit perjury to be proved by
the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Nor does the law recognize
as corroboration the fact that the witness made the same

[[Page H11787]]

statement to several different people. You may choose to believe that
the President was disingenuous, that he was not particularly helpful to
Paula Jones' lawyers when they asked him intentionally vague questions,
or that he is a bum, but that does not make him guilty of perjury.
This House is not a grand jury. To impeach the President would
subject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would
paralyze the government for many months while the problems of Social
Security, Medicare, a deteriorating world economy, and all our foreign
concerns festered without proper attention. We cannot simply punt the
duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere ``probable
cause'' that an impeachable offense may have been committed. To do so
would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of
impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses.
They rely solely on the findings of an ``independent'' counsel who has
repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include exculpatory
evidence, and consistently misstated the law. We must not be a rubber
stamp for Kenneth Starr. We have been entrusted with this grave and
dangerous duty by the American people, by the Constitution and by
history. We must exercise that duty responsibly. At a bare minimum,
that means the President's accusers must go beyond hearsay and
innuendo, and beyond demands that the President prove his innocence of
vague and changing charges. They must provide clear and convincing
evidence of specific impeachable conduct. This they have failed to do.
If you believe the President's admission to the grand jury and to the
nation of an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and
his apologies to the nation, were not abject enough, that is not a
reason for impeachment. Contrition is a remedy for sin, and is
certainly appropriate here. But while insufficiency of contrition may
leave the soul still scarred, unexpiated sin proves no crimes and
justifies no impeachment.
Some say that if we do not impeach the President, we treat him as if
he is above the law.
Is the President above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the
criminal law--to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like
any other citizen, whether or not he is impeached. And if the
Republican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third
President in U.S. history, and the first since 1848, to be censured by
the Congress
But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as
a punishment for a President.
The case is not there--there is far from sufficient evidence to
support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven, do not
rise to the level of impeachable offenses. We should not dignify these
articles of impeachment by sending them to the Senate. To do so would
be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this House to the
condemnation of history for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job, the same people
who today tell us we must impeach the President for lying under oath,
almost to a person, voted last year to re-elect a Speaker who had just
admitted lying to Congress in an official proceeding about abuse of the
Tax Laws for particular purposes. The American people are watching, and
they won't forget. You may have the votes, you may have the muscle, but
you lack the legitimacy of a national consensus and the Constitution.
This partisan coup d'etat will go down in the history of this nation in
infamy.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield six minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, a comment and a perspective from my point of
view. Thus far the debate in this House I believe has brought honor to
the House and is serving the American people well. Some of the rhetoric
I disagree with, but that is what a debate is all about. I choose now
to not use rhetoric, but to talk about the facts.
I will talk to you about Article IV, abuse of power, and the offenses
against this institution, the Congress, by the President of the United
States. It is the one article that is very similar to the Watergate
impeachment of President Nixon. Article IV is very similar to Article
III in the Nixon case, and I will talk about that just in a moment, but
first a quick summary from my perspective of what brought us here.
What brought us here is not partisanship, but the conduct of one man
who happened to be the President, who happened to be elected by the
people and given the most solemn responsibility in the Nation, to be
the chief law enforcement officer of the land, and he failed miserably
in that responsibility and he deserves to be impeached based on what he
did, not what I think about him, not how I voted, but what he did.
Article I, grand jury perjury. Mr. Speaker, remember the context in
which the perjury occurred. The President several months before had
given false testimony in a deposition. The President was begged by
members of both parties in the House and Senate, ``Mr. President, do
not go into the grand jury and lie again. Do not give false or
misleading or perjurious testimony again, because you put your
presidency at stake; you do a disservice to this country.''
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, based on the facts, not based on my
feelings, based on overwhelming facts, the President of the United
States chose in August, months after being warned not to do it, he
chose to lie to a Federal grand jury. He abused the 23 citizens who
were trying very hard to get it right. He abused the Federal court
system. It was his fault, and no one else's.
Mr. Speaker, any President of the United States, regardless of party,
that goes to a Federal grand jury in the future, let it be said by as
many Members of the House that can say it, you are subject to being
impeached if you do that.
Article II, who is the injured party? Consensual sex, this is colored
by sex, but there is a moment in time, Mr. Speaker, where the
allegations about sex were anything but consensual.
The day the President gave deposition testimony in the Paula Jones
case, the allegations were far from consensual. They were rude and
crude. He was put under oath, he was asked questions with a Federal
judge sitting in front of him, and the injured party was Paula Jones,
because he chose to lie in a sexual harassment suit. That is
nonconsensual sex, the topic. He chose to deny a citizen their fair day
in court. The President turned the justice system upside down on many
occasions for his personal gain, and that is why we are here today.
Article III, the President of the United States, while being in a
litigation matter against an average, everyday citizen, chose to go to
witnesses and try to get them to lie and provide false testimony, chose
to go and plant stories about witnesses that were false, that were
malicious. The President of the United States tried to cheat a litigant
out of a fair day and trial. Let it be said that at anytime, anywhere,
regardless of party, in the future if you do that as president, you are
subject to being impeached.
Article IV, who is the injured party? We are the injured party. Here
is what happened in Article IV. This House by House Resolution 581, 360
votes, I believe, authorized the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire
into the allegations against the President. Mr. Speaker, we can that.
Part of that inquiry, what we chose to do was submit questions to the
President to flesh out the facts. Eighty-one questions were sent to
flesh out the facts in this case by Chairman Hyde, and the President
was asked under oath to give answers to those questions as part of our
inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the President lied in January to injure
Paula Jones, he lied to the Federal grand jury to injure the Federal
court system in this case, and I think the facts are overwhelming that
he gave false, misleading and perjurious testimony to the Congress as
part of our inquiry.
Let me tell you how that is similar to the Nixon case. Article III of
impeachment against Richard Nixon, the article was based on the idea
that Richard Nixon as president failed to comply with subpoenas of
Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide
oversight of the President. When asked for information, Richard Nixon
chose not to comply, and the Congress back in that time said, ``You are
taking impeachment away from us. You are becoming the judge and jury.
It is not your job to tell us what we need; it is your job to comply
with the things we need to provide oversight over you.''
The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that
he was subject to impeachment, because he took the power from Congress
over the impeachment process away from Congress and he became the judge
and jury; and the day that William Jefferson Clinton failed to provide
truthful testimony to the Congress of the

[[Page H11788]]

United States is the day that he chose to determine the course of
impeachment. He usurped our power, he abused his authority, he gave
false information. That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is the same as giving no
information at all. Actually, I think it is worse.
So I believe these articles will stand the test of time, they will
stand a factual scrutiny that has to be done, and the only way to avoid
impeachment is to leave your common sense at the door, defy the way the
world works and ignore the facts and talk about something else.
We are the victim of Article IV. If you believe he committed grand
jury perjury, I think it would be incumbent upon you to find him guilty
of Article IV, because the underlying conduct that led to perjury in
the grand jury was reasserted in the 81 questions, and he gave the same
false, misleading, unbelievable answers. William Jefferson Clinton's
impeachment is based on what he did, and no one else.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield three minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), perhaps our newest member on
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day. It is a sad day for our democracy. I
cannot defend President Clinton's actions. He failed to tell the truth
and he failed to cooperate. He must be held accountable. And although I
cannot defend President Clinton's actions, I can and must defend our
Constitution. Our Constitution does not allow us, no, it does not allow
you, to remove a President from office because you cannot stand him.
That is not an unfair allegation. It is not an unfair allegation,
because the vast majority of the people voting for impeachment today
voted to reelect our Speaker, even though he had submitted information,
false information, to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of
this House, the judicial branch of this House. Even though the Speaker
had submitted false information to the judicial branch of this House,
the majority of people here voted to reelect him as Speaker.
It is not an unfair allegation, because when the Secretary of Defense
under President Bush was duly indicted by a Federal grand jury for
perjury and he was pardoned by the President of the United States,
George Bush, the silence on this side of the aisle was deafening. There
were no claims from this side of the aisle that this was injustice.
There were no claims that somehow our military would be damaged. There
were no claims that somehow the pillars of democracy were damaged by
perjury by the Secretary of Defense.
There is one difference, and only one difference, between the false
allegations submitted by Speaker Gingrich and the perjury allegations
against the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United
States, and that difference is he is a Democrat. He is a Democrat, and
so we are going to go after him.
I feel bad for this institution today, because I think it is acting
unfairly. I trust that every member there is voting his or her
conscience. I will give you that, because I trust the conscience of
this institution.
But what is happening today is the conscience of this institution is
being strangled. It is being strangled for the cause of raw partisan
politics.
Every person here today knows that the American people believe the
President should be held accountable. Every person here today knows
that the appropriate remedy lies within this institution.
We can do it. We disagree, and there is an honest disagreement as to
whether impeachment is the appropriate remedy or censure is the
appropriate remedy, but it is the ultimate unfairness to deny Members
on this side of the aisle and Members on that side of the aisle the
right to vote their conscience for censure.
If we believe in the conscience of this institution, let us let the
conscience of the institution display itself.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Canady).
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point
that has just been made concerning the conduct of the Speaker of the
House. It is inaccurate to compare the situation involving the Speaker
of the House with a case that is now before us. It is admitted that the
Speaker submitted inaccurate information, there is no question that
that was admitted. But the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
did not find that the Speaker was guilty of intentionally submitting
false information. That was a finding that was not made.
In the case before us, there is a critical distinction. In the case
before us, there is overwhelming evidence that the President of the
United States willfully, time after time after time, lied under oath.
It is a very, very different case than the submission of inaccurate
information by the Speaker.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) brought up
the issue of censure to this House, and I would like to address it at
this time. While I appreciate the intentions of the supporters of
censure, I, nonetheless, urge Members to oppose it, because it is a
fraud and assault upon the Constitution.
Censure is not an authorized alternative to impeachment. Congress has
the express constitutional authority to censure its own Members for
misconduct, but there is no expressed authority in the Constitution for
Congress to censure the President. Impeachment is the only power in the
Constitution granted to Congress to address presidential misconduct and
dereliction in his executive duties.
The Founding Fathers set high standards for impeachment, and by also
providing that conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to
remove the President from office, the ensured impeachment would not
become a method for Congress to harass executive or judicial officials.
A censure resolution would fly in the face of the separation of
powers doctrine. Congress cannot make it up as we go along.
Constitutional scholar Gary McDowell stated, ``Impeachment is the only
power granted by the Constitution to Congress to deal with errant
executives. Had the founders intended some other means of punishment to
be available to your branch they would have said so, as Chief Justice
Marshall once said, `in plain and intelligible language.' That they did
not do so should be your only guide in this grave and sensitive
matter.''

{time} 1145

The temptation to do anything possible to avoid exercising the awful
constitutional power of impeachment is obvious and is understandably
great. But such a temptation to take the easy way out by assuming a
power not granted should be shunned by this House. And should President
Clinton, as a result of bad advice or political pressure, agree to such
unconstitutional punishment as censure by this House, that would be a
breach of his constitutional obligations and his oath of office, as
great as anything else for which he has been accused of by the
Committee on the Judiciary. The great office he is privileged to hold
deserves his protection against any ill-considered censorious assault
from Congress.
President Andrew Jackson, one of our distinguished Presidents who is
known as the Father of the Democrat Party, was censured by the Senate
and after the election the Senate then expunged the censure.
President Jackson's words shed great light on our challenge today
even though they were penned over 150 years ago. President Jackson
wrote that the very idea of censure is a ``subversion'' of the powers
of government and ``destructive of the checks and safeguards'' of
governmental power. President Jackson rightfully claimed that censure
was ``wholly unauthorized by the Constitution'' and is a ``derogation
of the entire spirit.''
The framers of the Constitution purposely avoided granting the
legislature power to impose nonjudicial punishments. Such bills are
condemned in the Constitution because they represent a legislative
encroachment on the powers of the judiciary. It is called a bill of
attainder. It pronounces the guilt upon a party without any forms or
the safeguards of a trial.

[[Page H11789]]

An integral part of the censure debate in the Committee on the
Judiciary was whether the purpose of the censure that was offered was
to punish the President. In answer to my questions on the intent, one
of the authors, Mr. Boucher of Virginia, stated that it is not our
purpose to have findings of guilt, it is not our purpose to punish the
President. However, a close examination of the wording of the censure
resolution appears that the explicit and the implicit purpose would be
to shame the President, to voice disdain for his actions, which
undermine the integrity of the Office of the President, to reprove his
dubious, if not criminal acts, i.e., to punish.
The censure resolution offered in the Committee on the Judiciary uses
such words and phrases as, ``The President egregiously failed,'' he
``violated the trust of the American people,'' he ``lessened their
esteem,'' he ``dishonored his office,'' he ``made false statements,
reprehensible conduct, wrongfully took steps to delay the discovery of
the truth,'' and then therefore cites that he ``fully deserves the
censure and condemnation of the American people.''
Mr. Speaker, these words and phrases are not remedial. On the
contrary, the intent is to shame and condemn the President's misconduct
and impugn his reputation and is, therefore, a prohibited bill of
attainder. It is unconstitutional in its form, and the idea is clearly
in violation of a bill of attainder.
Now, some Members of Congress are arguing that censuring the
President is a better idea because it is ``what the American people
want.'' I believe the American people want their elected officials to
honor their oath, defend the Constitution in accordance with the laws
of this Nation. Further, the American people want their elected
representatives to take a stand on matters of national importance, such
as the integrity of our judicial system and for Members of the House
and the Senate to exercise their judgment in matters of statecraft
based upon their intellect, not their emotions of the moment.
The facts and evidence in this case are overwhelming; the allegations
are grave. Censure is not an alternative to impeachment.
While I appreciate the intentions of the supporters of censure, I
nonetheless must oppose it because it is a fraud and an assault upon
the Constitution. Censure is not an authorized alternative to
impeachment.
Congress has the expressed Constitutional authority to censure its
own members for misconduct. But, there is no expressed authority in the
Constitution for the Congress to censure the President.
Impeachment is the only power in the Constitution granted to Congress
to address presidential misconduct and dereliction of his executive
duties. The Founding Fathers set high standards for impeachment by
providing that conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, to
remove the President from office. They insured impeachment would not
become a method for Congress to harass executive or judicial officials.
A censure resolution would fly in the face of the separation of powers
doctrine. Congress cannot make it up as we go.
Constitutional scholar Gary McDowell testified:

Impeachment is the only power granted by the Constitution
to the Congress to deal with errant executives. Had the
Founders intended some other means of punishment to be
available to your branch they would have said so, as Chief
Justice Marshall once said, ``in plain and intelligible
language.'' That they did not do so should be your only guide
in this grave and sensitive matter.
The temptation to do anything possible to avoid exercising
the awful constitutional power of impeachment is obviously
and understandably great. But such a temptation to take the
easy way out by assuming a power not granted should be
shunned. And should President Clinton, as a result of bad
advice or political pressure, agree to such an
unconstitutional punishment as a censure (by the House), that
would be a breach of his constitutional obligations as great
as anything else of which he has been accused. The great
office he is privileged to hold deserves his protection
against any ill-considered censorious assault from Congress.

President Andrew Jackson, one of our distinguished presidents who is
known as a father to the Democrat Party, was censured by the Senate and
after the next election, the Senate then expunged the censure.
President Jackson's words shed great light on our challenge today
even though they were penned over 150 years ago. President Jackson
wrote that the very idea of censure is a ``subversion'' of the powers
of government and ``destructive of the checks and safeguards'' of
governmental power. President Jackson rightly claimed that censure was
``wholly unauthorized by the Constitution'' and is a ``derogation of
its entire spirit.''

The Framers of the Constitution purposely avoided granting the
legislature the power to impose nonjudicial punishment. Such bills are
condemned in the Constitution because they represent ``legislative
encroachment on the powers of the judiciary.'' A bill of attainder
``pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of the forms or
safeguards of trial.''
An integral part of the censure debate in Committee was whether the
purpose of censure is to punish the President. In answers to my
questions regarding the intent one of the authors, Mr. Boucher of
Virginia, stated: ``It is not our purpose to have findings of guilt. It
is not our intent to punish the President.''
However, a close examination of the wording of the censure resolution
appears that the explicit and implicit purpose would be to shame the
President, to voice disdain for his actions which undermine the
integrity of the office of the President, to reprove his dubious if not
criminal acts . . . to punish.
The censure resolution offered in the Judiciary Committee used such
words and phrases as ``egregiously failed,'' ``violated the trust of
the American people,'' ``lessened their esteem,'' ``dishonored the
office,'' ``made false statements,'' ``reprehensible conduct,''
``wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth,'' and ``fully
deserves the censure and condemnation.'' The use of these words and
phrases is not remedial, on the contrary, the intent is to shame and
condemn the President's misconduct and impugn his reputation. It is a
prohibited bill of attainder and therefore unconstitutional.
Some Members of Congress argue that censoring the President is a
better idea than impeachment because that ``is what the American people
want.'' But I believe the American people want their elected officials
to honor their oath, defend the Constitution, and act under and in
accordance with the laws of their Nation. Further, the American people
want their elected representatives to take a stand on matters of
national importance, such as the integrity of our justice system, and
for Members of Congress and the Senate to exercise judgment in matters
of statecraft based on their intellect, not the emotions of the moment.
The facts and evidence in this case are overwhelming; the allegations
are grave. Impeachment is the only power granted to the House to deal
with the President's alleged criminal misconduct.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today's historic and tragic vote is not about
whether any of us condone the private behavior of the President. It is,
however, about whether we are committed to uphold the Constitution, the
touchstone of our freedom and the articulation of the genius of our
democratic government's separation of powers and adherence to the
democratic transfer of power.
Nor is this vote about whether the President of the United States is
above the law. He is not. Indeed, as has been amply demonstrated over
the past 6 years, even the President, as must each of his fellow
citizens, must respond to the demands of the law.
Moreover, it is clear that upon leaving office, the President could
be held accountable in a court of law if charges were to be brought
against him alleging the wrongdoing of which the Committee on the
Judiciary Republicans have accused him of today.
Nor, as some claim, is this vote about process or simply moving this
weighty matter from our calendar to that of the United States Senate: A
Pontius Pilate-like act, presumably designed to rationalize the
profoundly precedent-setting action that this House now contemplates.
Nor do I for one second believe that this vote is about setting a
marker for the young on what conduct will be sanctioned or allowed to
stand. Our Nation and our sustaining values will survive one man's
failings. But our democracy will be threatened if we destroy the due
process and high standard that the Founding Fathers established over 2
centuries ago.
The process that the majority has pursued in this matter has been
partisan, driven, I believe, by animus, and exceedingly unfair. Like so
many other acts of these last two Congresses, it has been unworthy of
our duty and of our responsibility.
At the beginning of this Congress, after almost 30 years of House
precedent, the Committee on House Oversight moved to allow a case to go
forward to remove the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), who
had been

[[Page H11790]]

elected by the people of California to this body. They spent over $1
million to do so on the expressed theory that they were simply moving
the process forward. It was my contention then that there was no case
at the outset, and it was the irrefutable conclusion that there was no
case at the end.
Later on, because the President defied them in 1995, they shut down
the government. They threatened to do so again this year, if the
President defied them. Today they seek to substitute, in my opinion,
their judgment for the will of the American people and remove their
nemesis from the position to which the American people, over their
objection, elected him. If I believed that the conduct of this
President had threatened our Nation's security or undermined the
operation of our government, or put at risk the principles of our
democracy, I would vote to impeach.
But I am absolutely convinced of the opposite. I have said that the
President's conduct has defamed himself and his Presidency. But it has
not amounted to treason. It is not a case of bribery. And, as so many
scholars of all political and philosophical stripes have testified, it
does not amount to high crimes and misdemeanors endangering our freedom
or our democracy.
The President may well be accountable on another day.
But, today, I clearly see it as my duty, consistent with the oath
that each of us took to preserve and protect the Constitution, and to
the stability of our democracy for generations to come to reject and
oppose these articles of impeachment. And, I shall, therefore, vote
``no'' on each of them.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rogan).
(Mr. ROGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, I observe a bit of irony in the fact that our friends on the
other side now are so quick to hurl charges of ``shutting down the
government'' today, yet they ask us to shut down both the government
and our constitutional process that obligates us to proceed.
The gentleman from South Carolina a few minutes ago was absolutely
right. It is both false and unfair to characterize these articles of
impeachment as relating solely to consensual sex. That is not the case.
Lawyers did not just show up one day and begin to question the
President's personal lifestyle. The President was a defendant in a
civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit, and just like every other
defendant in those types of cases around the country, he was ordered by
a Federal judge supervising that case to answer under oath questions
relating to his pattern of conduct as both governor and President with
respect to female subordinate employees. That is the context in which
the questions were asked, and that is the context in which perjurious
answers were given.
Now, in a desperate last-ditch attempt to insulate this President
from any constitutional accountability for his conduct, his defenders
are forced to trivialize felony perjury. How trivial is perjury to the
person who loses a child custody case or goes to prison because
perjured testimony was offered as a truth in a court of law? What is
the impact on our system of justice when perjury is marginalized or
excused for embarrassment, inconvenience, or to insulate one's self as
was done here in a sexual harassment case?
Listen to the words of the United States Supreme Court on the subject
of perjury: ``In this constitutional process of securing a witness'
testimony, perjury simply has no place whatsoever. Perjured testimony
is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial
proceedings. Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal
act, punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal
conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it.''
Mr. Speaker, our Supreme Court characterizes perjured testimony not
as trivial conduct, but as criminal conduct.
This Congress must decide whether we will turn a blind eye to
allegations respecting the subversion of the courts, the search for
truth, and the perjurious abuse of a young woman in a sexual harassment
lawsuit.
If we allow perjury to be viewed as a sign of legal finesse, we will
be responsible for setting the standard that any future President may
lie under oath for any personal convenience and may do it without
regard to constitutional consequences. Under this perversion of the
law, any President may commit perjury for reasons of self-interest and
thereby trample his constitutional obligation to ensure that our laws
are faithfully executed. The Congress must not insulate from
constitutional accountability those who repeatedly violate their sacred
oath.
The evidence against the President on this score is overwhelming, and
so too is Congress's constitutional obligation. We must keep faith with
our founders' dream that a Nation could rise and be sustained where no
person is above the law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 9 minutes remaining,
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a distinguished member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the House's role
in this dreadful process, the words I want to leave with my colleagues
are those of history. Here is how one prominent historian describes the
impeachment of Andrew Johnson: ``The impeachment was a great act of
ill-directed passion, and was supported by little else. It was rather
like an immense balloon filled with foul air, the most noisome elements
of which were those most active.''
I am sick at heart today, for I fear that the words used to describe
the Johnson impeachment will come to characterize what this House is
about to do. Impeachment based not on reason, but on rancor.
Yet it is not history's verdict alone that I fear. I also fear how
our actions will shape history. Will the House now have license to
engage in free-wheeling speculation about how a President's private
wrongs bear upon his or her capacity to govern, and then to pursue the
removal of those whom it deems unfit? If so, I fear for the very
concept that Presidents are to be chosen directly by the people, not by
the legislature.
Will the vote over whether or not to impeach the President of the
United States now display the same degree of partisan division that our
votes on school vouchers and environmental riders have?

{time} 1200

If so, I fear that generations to come will view impeachment to be of
no greater gravity than those lesser issues.
Will censure now be derided as unconstitutional? If so, I fear that
that precedent will gag the House when it desires to express its formal
opinion on another subject on another day.
Will an Independent Counsel's fact-finding be the sole record upon
which the House votes to impeach a president? If so, I fear for future
presidents of either party whose tenure in office might be threatened
by the sort of overreaching that we have all accused independent
counsels at one time or another.
Will we now compel the ship of State in one direction while the
rudder of popular opinion clearly points in the opposite direction? If
so, I fear for the notion that consensus among the public counts for
something when this House takes up the gravest of matters of State.
I fear for our Republic on this dreadful day. I fear for America
today.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 10 seconds to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), the respected retiring
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. HEFNER. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the
24 years that I have spent in this House has been the greatest
experience of my life. The last vote that I will be called upon to cast
in this House is the most troubling vote that I have made in the 24
years that I have been in this House.
It bothers me about the venom and the hatred, and the comraderie that
is nonexistent in this House anymore.

[[Page H11791]]

Hate is a terrible thing. Hate is a cancer that eats at us. It shows
in our face, it shows in our walk, and it is something you cannot treat
with chemotherapy, you cannot treat it with any drugs. You have to
treat it with compassion and love.
President Clinton is my friend, but the notion is that President
Clinton has to go, because the word is, we have to get this done. There
is no doubt about it, the President has to go. On the Committee on the
Judiciary, I watched hours after hours of the Committee on the
Judiciary. The members said the President has shown no contrition. He
shows no contrition.
I do not know if Members saw the moment when the President of the
United States stepped out from the meeting with the ministers at the
White House. It was not a call thing, it was an annual thing that they
have.
He stood before the entire world, before the microphones and the
television cameras that were carried all over the world, and he stood
by himself and said, I have sinned. The most powerful man on the face
of the earth stood bare before the world and said, I have sinned, and I
ask forgiveness from anyone that I have caused pain to. I ask
forgiveness from Ms. Lewinsky.
I talked with him on two occasions after he made that statement. The
man is contrite. I do not judge that he has had a talk with his maker,
but I have tried to talk with the news media to express another
opinion, and nobody wants to hear that.
If we turn on the newscasts, they start off either with the President
saying, I never had sex with that woman, I never had sex with that
woman, or hugging Ms. Lewinsky. I have yet to see one newscast where
anywhere in it, or starting with it, that shows the President of the
United States showing contrition; where he says, I have sinned, and I
ask God's forgiveness. I have sinned, and I ask forgiveness for anybody
that I have caused pain to. For those of us who believe in contrition
and forgiveness, it is very important to us.
I think that this is wrong. There is no reason, there is no reason
that has been explained to me, or to this House, why we cannot have a
vote on censure; no reason. Vote to give us a vote to censure the
President, not condemn him and do away with him.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the most senior Member of the
House.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, what the President did was wrong, and what
we are doing today is equally wrong. The process before us is unfair.
The rights of the minority to offer necessary amendments or proper
motions to recommit are being disregarded by the majority. It is an
exercise of abuse of power by the majority on the rights of the
minority.
We are taking here and creating a rule of law which does not exist.
The rule of law says that we should exercise our proper conscience and
do what is right. It says we should impeach the President if he has
done that which is wrong, and which rises to the level of an
impeachable offense.
Clearly, this is not an impeachable offense, because impeachable
offenses were defined to mean great and dangerous offenses by George
Mason, not ordinary offenses. They were attempts to, and again in the
words of one of the Framers, subvert the Constitution. They constituted
acts which were a danger to the office, a danger to the society, a
danger to the Nation, a danger to the people.
Clearly that is not so. The President's behavior, as I said, is
wrong; tawdry. The best thing that could be said, it is not a great
event but it is a very small and small-minded set of events. This
behavior should not initiate the impeachment processes.
There are a lot of points that need to be made today. They have
historical and constitutional importance. Impeachment is for matters
that involve a threat to the Nation, the Constitution, and the office.
Impeachment is a constitutional act of the House, referring to the
Senate a finding of most serious misbehavior, as discussed above, which
initiates a trial in the Senate, possibly resulting in removal from
office of the person impeached.
Impeachment is primarily a political process. It is not a judicial or
a legislative act. Impeachment participates in the character of an
indictment by the grand jury, but impeachment is different and imposes
different responsibilities on Members of the House.
Impeachment does not involve criminal consequences. It simply
initiates a process to decide whether the officeholder shall continue
in office or be removed. Impeachment is not a bar to subsequent
criminal process, including indictment, trial, conviction, and
punishment. While the President, under the Constitution, cannot be
tried or indicted while in office, he may be subject and is subject to
full process of the law upon leaving his office.
Mr. Starr, if he finds the events require indictment or action in a
criminal court, may clearly take that action. I urge my colleagues to
permit us to vote on something which is important, and that is censure.
That is what the people want. That is what we should be doing today.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment in
the House, as . . . ``The President . . . shall be removed from Office
on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
The Framers of the Constitution, in the words of George Mason, one of
the leaders of the Constitutional Convention, found impeachable
offenses to mean ``great and dangerous offenses'' and ``attempts to
subvert the Constitution.'' In other words, they meant no ordinary
offenses, but they referred to acts attacking the security of the
Nation, the primacy of the Constitution, or the basic functions and
well being of the office involved. They felt the behavior should be so
inconsistent with the responsibilities of the office that the people
required removal of the office holder for their well being, the proper
conduct of the office, and the welfare of the Nation.
While the behavior which could trigger the impeachment process can be
criminal, and although the actions may be criminal in character, it
need not necessarily be so.
There are a number of points to be made which have constitutional and
historical importance:
(1) Impeachment is for matters involving behavior which constitutes a
threat to the office, the Constitution, and the Nation.
(2) Impeachment is a Constitutional act of the House referring to the
Senate a finding of most serious misbehavior, as discussed above, which
initiates a trial in the Senate possibly resulting in removal from
office of the person impeached.
(3) Impeachment is primarily a political process, not a judicial or
legislative act.
(4) Impeachment participates in the character of an indictment by a
grand jury. But impeachment is different and imposes different
responsibility on members of the House.
(5) Impeachment does not involve criminal consequences. It simply
initiates a process to decide whether an office holder shall continue
in office or be removed.
(6) Impeachment is not a bar to subsequent criminal process,
including indictment, trial, conviction, and punishment. While the
President may not, under the Constitution, be indicted or subject to
criminal process while holding office, he may be subject to the full
process of criminal law for misbehavior immediately upon his leaving
office.
Parenthetically, Mr. Starr said in the Judiciary Committee
impeachment hearings that there is no bar to such action in the case of
the President, including the running of the sundry applicable statutes
of limitations.
(7) The Founding Fathers, and Framers of the Constitution, tried to
make impeachment difficult. They especially feared constraints on the
institutional power of the President or impairment of the office, or
loss of balance between the branches of government. They especially
feared efforts by one party controlling the legislative branch to
remove the President of a different persuasion.
The Framers of the Constitution were much concerned that the
legislative branch not be empowered to easily upset an election where
the people spoke and selected their President.
Under these principles then, it becomes plain the question before us
is whether the behavior of the President, although clearly wrong, rises
to the level of an impeachable offense or offenses.
I find that the offenses do not rise to the level of impeachable
offenses.
The actions of the President are wrong, arrogantly stupid, and
possibly involve criminal misbehavior.
The last question, criminal misbehavior, can and should be addressed
in the appropriate time and fashion.
My friend, Mr. Hyde, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has made it
plain in statements on this matter that an impeachment effort not
supported by the people will not succeed. I agree.

[[Page H11792]]

We should not lightly set aside an election where the people freely
chose their President. We owe it to the Founders, and to the future, to
not impair the separation of powers, or the necessary and proper power,
as well as the freedom, of the Presidency. We owe it to the people of
the United States not to cavalierly set aside their choice of
Presidents.
Lastly, I remind all that the President was elected, not once but
twice, and by significant majorities.

Listen to the people. This is a political process. It was expected by
the Framers of the Constitution that this same political process would
function as such. Politics and political process requires involvement
of the people and that we who hold this responsibility listen carefully
and respectfully to their wishes.
Listen to the people of America. They do not believe impeachment is a
proper remedy for President Clinton's misbehavior. The people do not
approve of Mr. Clinton's behavior, but they do not believe that the
President's action rises to the level of impeachable offenses. They
find no basis for us to take such action.
My Republican colleagues disregard the Constitution. They fabricate a
rule of law which neither exists here, nor imposes on this House the
action they would require. Rather, the rule of law requires us to
exercise one of our highest and most important Constitutional
responsibilities, deciding on whether to impeach the President with the
utmost attention to the Constitution as defined for us by the Founding
Fathers.
We are not acting here as a mere grand jury. We are exercising a
Constitutional trust and duty of the highest order. We are deciding
whether there is enough grave wrongdoing to meet the test of ``high
crimes and misdemeanors.'' This requires intelligence, attention, and
discretion.
We are now deciding whether to precipitate a Constitutional crisis.
We are deciding whether to create a great public controversy where the
people will be divided by a process they do not want to go forward. We
must now decide whether to put at risk the powers of the Presidency,
not the well being a Bill Clinton.
All this is set against the wishes of the people who have spoken to
us with clarity.
To my colleagues, I say, listen to the people. Look at your
responsibilities, exercise your wide and necessary discretion, carry
out your duty in voting no.
For the reasons above, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no
on the impeachment of President Clinton.
It is the right thing to do.
To my Republican colleagues and their leadership, I add, give us a
process that is fair, that enables us to act with dispatch on matters
the people want us to address.
The people want some action condemning the behavior of Bill Clinton.
In a word they want censure of Bill Clinton for his serious
misbehavior.
A careful but improper rewriting of both the Constitution and of the
rules of the House by my Republican colleagues denies the people their
right to have the Congress respond to their will.
Censure is a worthwhile and proper response by the House here to the
situation and the will of the people. It is also possible under both
the rules of the House and the Constitution. There are abundant
precedents that Presidents have been censured before without any
question of Constitutionality or anything else. President probably will
be censured again.
Censure is a fair, proper, and a legal exercise of the power of the
House. It does what the people want. It vindicates both the law and the
feelings of the people. That cannot be said of the impeachment of Bill
Clinton proposed by the republicans under a gag rule.
To the Republicans and their leadership, I say your behavior is
unfair. It does you great discredit. It does not permit the House to
choose among the most appropriate actions to be used here.
My colleagues, do what is right--allow a vote on impeachment, but
allow, also, a vote on censure. Given a proper choice, the House can
act properly and carry out both our Constitutional responsibilities and
our duty to the people.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further
consideration of House Resolution 611, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion except: (1) debate on the resolution for a period
not to extend beyond 10 p.m. tonight, equally divided at the outset and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary, and one further hour of debate on Saturday, December
19, 1998, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) after such first
period of debate, a motion to adjourn; and (3) one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions, which, if including instructions, shall
be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
During consideration of a resolution appointing and authorizing
managers for the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for a division of the question, except 10
minutes of debate on the resolution, equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
When the House adjourns on Friday, December 18, 1998, it adjourns to
meet at 9 a.m. on Saturday, December 19.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I shall not
object. I want to indicate the cooperation and concurrence of this side
with the proposal, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), the chairman, for the cooperation in both our staffs working
this out.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and I
thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, was all that taken out of my time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It was not taken out of the gentleman's
time, and the gentleman may proceed for 4 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the notion
of censure.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers), by mutual agreement, I would demand a division of the
question by article.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is divisible and will be
divided for the vote by Article.
Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will yield, I would tell him, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) may proceed on his 4 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about censure. I
think it is important to follow the constitutional and historical
precedents of the House of Representatives in that censure is not an
alternative.
We need look back in 1974, which was the last time the entire issue
of impeaching the President of the United States came up. I would like
to quote from the book, How the Good Guys Finally Won, Notes from an
Impeachment Summer, by Jimmy Breslin, published by Ballantine Books in
1975.
This book quoted our former distinguished Speaker, Thomas O'Neill
from Massachusetts, as follows:

O'Neill went down the hall, picking his way through the
tourists, to attend the meeting at which John Rhodes, the
Republican leader of the House, gave it one last try for
Nixon.
Rhodes said he wanted the impeachment resolution
recommitted with instructions that there should be a vote on
censuring the President. ``I am bitterly opposed to that,''
O'Neill said. ``But you wouldn't be opposed to us having a
vote on censure, would you?'' Rhodes asked. ``Yes, I would,''
O'Neill said.

I think that my friends on the other side of the aisle should listen
to their former Speaker one last time, because on this one, he is
right.
Mr. Speaker, today we enter the final stage of the impeachment
process. For those of us who serve on the Committee on the Judiciary,
this has been a difficult and exhausting time. We have

[[Page H11793]]

reviewed 18 boxes of evidence. We have heard the Independent Counsel
present his case. Constitutional and legal scholars have provided
opinions and historical perspectives. The President's lawyers have made
their case in his defense, and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman
Hyde) offered them 30 hours in which to do so. They did not use it all.
After examining and weighing all of this evidence and testimony, I
believe that the President lied under oath, obstructed justice, and
abused the power of his office by providing false statements to
Congress in response to questions submitted by the Committee on the
Judiciary.

{time} 1215

On Wednesday of last week, I asked the President's very able
attorney, Charles Ruff, a very simple question, did the President lie.
Mr. Ruff could easily have said no. Instead, he split legal hairs, and
that sealed my decision to support impeaching President Clinton.
Mr. Speaker, most Americans are repelled by the President's actions.
The toughest questions I have had to answer have come from parents who
agonize over how to explain the President's behavior to their children.
Every parent tries to teach their children the difference between right
and wrong, to always tell the truth and, when they make mistakes, to
take responsibility and face the consequences of their actions.
President Clinton's actions every step of the way have been contrary to
those values. But being a bad example is not grounds for impeachment.
Undermining the rule of law is. Frustrating the courts' ability to
administer justice turns private misconduct into an attack upon the
ability of one of the three branches of our government to impartially
administer justice. This is a direct attack upon the rule of law in our
country and a very public wrong that directly impacts the
constitutional workings of our government.
Mr. Speaker, impeachment is not a tool to paralyze democracy.
Instead, it is the only constitutional mechanism available to protect
democracy when its institutions are threatened by a President's
actions.
Today, based upon the evidence that the President lied, obstructed
justice and abused power in an effort to prevent the courts from
administering justice under law, I rise in favor of impeaching William
Jefferson Clinton. I take no joy in this decision but I make no
apologies either.
America will emerge from this dark period of our history a stronger
Nation because we have demonstrated once again the resiliency of our
democracy and the supremacy of our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank our
American troops who are now fighting for our liberty. The Declaration
of Independence is the promise of that liberty and the Constitution is
the fulfillment.
So today it is was with great humility and somberness that I rise on
the floor of this House in strong opposition against the articles of
impeachment and express my support for censure. Impeachment, Mr.
Speaker, is final, it is nonappealable. And the Constitution is the
only arbiter of that process.
Article II, section 4 is clear. Impeachment is for treason, bribery
and other high crimes and misdemeanors. This President did not commit
impeachable offenses under our Constitution, and today with such a vote
these chambers will become the incinerator of the Constitution. There
is no fairness in this process. There is no justice and there is no
dignity.
The charges in these articles of impeachment are meritless and not
proven. Perjurious remarks have not been proven. Misleading, evasive
statements are not perjurious, per the rule of law of the United States
Supreme Court under Bronston. Abuse of power has not been proven.
Monica Lewinsky said the President did not ask her to lie. And
obstruction of justice has not been proven because the President did
answer the 81 questions sent to him by the Judiciary Committee.
In light of the revelations of the last 24 hours, I believe not one
of us in these chambers, not one Member would ask for the resignation
of a Member so charged. But as a woman, adultery is adultery.
Nevertheless, the majority is recklessly attempting to make impeachable
offenses purely private acts, in direct attack on the Framers' intent
that impeachment was for great and dangerous offenses against the
Constitution.
How do we heal this Nation? How do we find uncommon courage? The
majority must allow us to vote on a freestanding censure resolution,
constitutionally allowed, that acknowledges that the President was
morally wrong, misled the American people and that the President, upon
leaving office, will be subject to civil and criminal penalties. To do
more lays the shredding of this Constitution at our feet.
Today with the vote for the articles of impeachment, we will use the
ultimate weapon, we will use the ultimate political death blow, the
removal from office of this duly-elected President for acts not against
the Constitution or the government. Our censure resolution does not
violate the Constitution. It is not a bill of attainder. It does not
restrain the property or the liberty of the President. It is
constitutionally sound.
Finally this day sunset falls on this House. And as we see it fall,
today our vote leads us into the darkness of a vile attack on the
Constitution. We leave here today void and empty because our President
will have been toppled against the will of the people of the United
States.
Mr. President, if you can hear me, do not resign. This is not a
parliamentarian form of government.
Mr. Speaker, I say, to my colleagues you can heal our Nation. Rise
and vote for censure. Do the just and right thing, for it is written,
Mr. Speaker, judge not and ye shall not be judged. Condemn not and ye
shall not be condemned. Forgive and ye shall be forgiven.
Vote for a censure resolution and end these unseemly proceedings
against our President and the Constitution. Our Nation deserves no
less!
It is written in Luke 6:37, ``Judge not, and ye shall not be judged:
condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be
forgiven.''
Mr. Speaker, with great humility and somberness, I rise today in
strong opposition against the Articles of Impeachment and express my
support for a censure resolution.
However, before we even begin this debate on the merits let me say
that we are engaging in this discussion while our American troops are
in harm's way in the Persian Gulf. This is the worst time to have this
discussion. We are talking about impeaching our President, our
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while he has authorized troops
to engage Saddam Hussein.
My colleagues are not correct in stating that American Troops were in
Vietnam during a debate in these chambers on the Impeachment of a
President that did not occur in 1974. No such debate took place.
American men and women are fighting to uphold the Constitution and they
expect nothing less from this body. It is imperative that we uphold and
follow the Constitutional process for impeachment. Anything less would
be dishonorable.
The Constitution, Article II, section 4, requires removal of the
President from office on ``Impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The Framers of our
Constitution considered ``high crimes and misdemeanors as political
crimes against the state. The critical element of injury in an
impeachable offense was injury to the state. This element of injury to
the commonwealth was the historical criterion for distinguishing a
``high'' crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one. Impeachment is
directed for ``great misdemeanors against the public.''
The purpose of Impeachment is to curb breaches and abuses of the
public trust. The Framers realized that impeachment is final and non-
appealable.
At the time of the Constitution's construction, the Framers were
concerned with assuring individual freedom and avoiding governmental
tyranny. Their intent was to create a viable government with sufficient
power to fulfill its given responsibilities. As a result, the
separation of powers doctrine was instituted to prevent unfettered
authority in a single branch of government. Accordingly, each branch is
vested with the power to check and balance the others.
Our debate is about the future of the Presidency, the Constitutional
process required for the removal of a president and the importance of
bi-partisan cooperation. I think every American, Republican or
Democrat, or Independent,

[[Page H11794]]

should be concerned about the Articles of Impeachment and whether the
allegations contained therein, rise to a level that would justify
impeachment.
There is no concrete evidence to substantiate the allegation that
President Clinton encouraged a witness to execute a false affidavit. No
one should be hailed before a tribunal to answer allegations that are
not supported by substantial and credible evidence or threatened with a
potential prosecution for perjury because of the questioner's
deficiency.
During the Watergate hearings, Mr. St. Clair, the President's
attorney, stated in closing summation that ``a President cannot be
impeached by piling inference upon inference.''
The Articles of Impeachment drafted against President Clinton do not
comport with fundamental fairness nor substantial notions of procedural
due process because the alleged perjurious statements lack specificity;
an independent collaborating witness and materiality. The President is
neither above nor beneath the law. The Constitutional safeguards
contained in the Sixth Amendment govern these proceedings.
Monica Lewinsky's Grand Jury testimony clearly refutes an allegation
that President Clinton encouraged her to give perjurious, false and
misleading testimony: ``[N]either the President nor Mr. Jordan asked or
encouraged me to lie.'' This statement by Ms. Lewinsky was made in her
February 1, 1998, proffer to Office of the Independent Counsel. Let's
take a moment to examine the correlation between the President's
relationship with Lewinsky and the allegations put forth by Paula
Jones. President Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was consensual
but morally wrong.
On the other hand, Ms. Jones was alleging sexual harassment.
Lewinsky's relationship with President Clinton was a tangential
collateral issue that was not relevant. Therefore, the probability of
its admittance during the Jones trial was unlikely because it would not
have ``any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to determination of the Jones action more probable.''
It is axiomatic, that perjury requires a (1) volitional act on the
part of the declarant (2) about a material matter in the case. Perjury
is a specific intent crime. It requires that the declarant willfully
and contrary to such oath subscribe to a material matter which the
declarant does not believe to be true. More importantly, because
perjury requires a specific intent on the part of the declarant, the
law provides several defenses to perjury.
Truth is a defense to perjury. A defendant can not be prosecuted for
perjury, if he truly believes that he ``spoke the truth'' when asked a
question under oath. The defendant would not be guilty of perjury
because although his testimony is freely and voluntarily given; he does
not manifest the requisite mental state necessary for perjury, a
specific intent crime. Restated, perjury requires that the defendant
(1) set-out to deceive and (2) know that statement's he utters are
untrue.
Another defense to perjury is materiality. The declarant's statement
must be material to the matter before the tribunal. The third defense
to perjury arises where the questioner's interrogatories are drafted in
a manner that invites ambiguity. In the landmark case of Bronston v.
United States, the United States Supreme Court stated:

It is the responsibility of the lawyer to probe * * * if a
witness evades, it is the lawyer's responsibility to
recognize the evasion and to bring the witness back to the
mark, to flush out the whole truth with the tools of
adversary examination * * * A potential prosecution for
perjury is not the primary safeguard against errant
testimony.

Under our adversarial system of jurisprudence, a defendant is not
required to assist a plaintiff in bringing her suit to trial nor is a
defendant required under the rules of civil procedure to volunteer
specific information that the plaintiff has not requested. This is our
system of jurisprudence that we have utilized for over two hundred
years. This really is adhering to the rule of law and the right to due
process.
The President's actions were wrong and reprehensible but not
impeachable because his conduct did not injure the state as required by
the framers. Impeachment is a remedy of last resort, it is the atomic
bomb of partisan politics.
In the Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described
impeachment as a mechanism to reach: ``[T]he misconduct of public men
and abuse or violation of some public trust. Impeachable offenses are
political, as they relate to injuries done immediately to society
itself.
The Framers never intended impeachment or the threat of impeachment
to serve as a device for denouncing the President for private
misbehavior or for transforming the United States into a parliamentary
form of government in which Congress can vote ``no confidence'' in an
executive whose behavior it dislikes. The President is elected by
the people of the United States and it is not the prerogative nor duty
of the House of Representatives to undo that election because of
partisan politics.

The records of the Constitutional Convention confirm that the Framers
did not intend the President to serve at the ``pleasure of the
Senate.'' In fact, it was suggested by Mr. Pinkney of South Carolina, a
Framer of the Constitution, that ``if the President opposes a favorite
law, the two Houses will combine against him, and under the influence
of heat and faction throw him out of office.''
Hence, if we follow Mr. Pinkney's theory to its logical conclusion, a
president could be removed for any transgression, however remote in
time, which the Senate may decide in its discretion warrants removal
from office. This unbridled authority could establish an atmosphere
that manufactures impeachable offenses where they do not exist. We
should consider Mr. Pinkney's words as we tread these dangerous waters.
Therefore, it is essential that we utilize every constitutional
safeguard to prevent the truth from being ``twisted by knaves to make a
trap for fools.'' On February 8, 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter
to James Madison about the impeachment of Senator Blount, stating, ``I
see nothing in the mode of proceeding by impeachment but the most
formidable weapon for the purposes of [a] dominant faction that ever
was contrived. It would be the most effectual one of getting rid of any
man whom they consider as dangerous to their views * * * impeachment
has been an engine more of passion than of justice.''
The Constitution imposes a grave and serious responsibility on
Congress to protect its fabric and integrity. It would have been a
dereliction of duty if I failed to investigate the allegations
contained in the Starr Report before I begin dealing with what has been
called ``delicate issues of basic constitutional law.''
Imagine a justice system where a prosecutor can present charges to a
grand jury, obtains an indictment and then proceeds to trial. During
the trial, the prosecutor calls himself as a witness, to testify about
the defendant's prior bad acts and his rationale for charging the
defendant. While testifying, he admits that individually and
collectively, the charges are insufficient to meet the standard of
crime, but he believes the defendant has engaged in a pattern of abuse
to obstruct justice.
Certainly, if this incident occurred in our home town, we would be
outraged at the waste of financial resources. We would call for this
prosecutor to end this charade, immediately because his conduct and
abusive tactics would emasculate the system he is attempting to
protect.
Independent Counsel Starr violated District of Columbia Rules of
Professional Conduct Rule 3.7, entitled ``Lawyer as witness'' which
provides a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the
lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness and Virginia Code of
Professional Responsibility DR5-102, entitled ``Withdrawal as counsel
when the lawyer becomes a witness'' when he testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee.
Nowhere in the history of this Country's system of jurisprudence has
a prosecutor had the ability to take the witness stand to ``vouch for
the credibility'' of evidence presented during trial, to do so would be
a miscarriage of justice. Likewise, allowing Independent Counsel Starr
to testify for two hours ``about a pattern to obstruct justice''
eviscerates the purpose of the Independent Counsel Act.
Further, Sam Dash, Mr. Starr's ethics advisor resigned in opposition
to Mr. Starr's inappropriate appearance before the House Judiciary
Committee.
Section 595(c) authorizes the Office of the Independent Counsel to
submit a referral to Congress to guarantee that its findings would not
be thwarted by internal sources within that individual's branch of
government. This concept is consistent with the separation of powers
doctrine was instituted to prevent unfettered authority in a single
branch of government. Accordingly, each branch is vested with the power
to check and balance the others.
This Act was designed to provide a mechanism to prevent inherent
conflicts of interest which could arise where the Executive branch of
government must supervise or conduct an investigation of an individual
associated with its office.
On October 8, 1998, the House passed H. Res. 581, which expressly
authorized the committee to report: ``such resolutions, articles of
impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.'' Over the
past two months, the Judiciary Committee has heard testimony from
several witnesses about ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' and
alternatives to impeachment. Censure is a viable alternative to
impeachment that will quickly and judiciously resolve this national
issue.
Censure is neither a substitute for a federal pardon nor is it a
cover-up. Therefore, the President is still subject to civil and
criminal punishment for any alleged crimes he may have committed by the
court system after he leaves office. The United States Constitution
does not prohibit Censure.
Several critics continue to suggest that censure is unconstitutional
because there is no constitutional provision that expressly authorizes
censure. This rationale is flawed and

[[Page H11795]]

without merit. If we follow this line of reasoning to its logical
conclusion: postal stamps, social security, and public education are
unconstitutional because there is no explicit reference to these
programs in the Constitution.
Furthermore, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from acting
because of its silence. Many powers and individual rights not expressly
stated in the Constitution have been recognized by this body politic.
For example, the right to privacy, the right to bodily integrity and
the Executive power of removal. Our Constitution is a ``living and
breathing'' document that requires continuous interpretation by the
Supreme Court to address the problems facing our Nation.
Further, there is an historical precedent for a censure resolution. A
censure resolution was considered against President Nixon during the
Watergate investigation because of the allegations involving his abuse
of Presidential authority and misuse of the Justice Department. Richard
Nixon resigned from office. In 1834, the United States Senate censured
President Andrew Jackson because of actions interpreted as contravening
the rule of law. More importantly, censure would not violate the
Constitution's substantive restraints against the use of federal power.
Censure is a sensible historically proven solution for addressing the
President's disturbing behavior. It is time for America to move
forward; it is time to put this unsettling controversy and divisiveness
aside; it is time for the business of the American people to take first
priority. It would benefit the entire country if the President could
return to focusing on the issues at hand, as opposed to this scandal.
The time to close this dishonorable chapter in our Country's history
has come.
There are millions of Americans who want their voices heard on a
censure resolution. It is our obligation, as their duly elected
representatives, to ensure that their views be heard.
Censure is a window of opportunity for this body politic to display a
bi-partisan atmosphere during these alarming moments. We must exhibit a
united front for our Nation and our troops. It is time for national
unity.
In all things that are purely political we can be as separate as the
fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to the mutual
progress of America and democracy.
It is imperative that we bring this chapter to a close in a
reasonable judicious and equitable manner. It is time to move forward;
it is time to focus our energy on securing our shores from foreign
enemies.
The Bible, Ecclesiastes Chapter 3, Verses 1 through 8 states, ``[T]o
every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the
heaven: a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; *
* * a time to love, and a time of peace.'' At the end of day, we should
move forward, prepare for tomorrow and America's business.
I will vote ``No'' on these Articles of Impeachment; for to vote
``yes''-does subvert the Constitution! I still hold hope for the
opportunity to vote for a Censure Resolution which will break this
partisan divide and appropriately rebuke and reprimand the President,
and finally by our collective good judgment--Heal this nation.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all
Members to address their comments to the Chair.
The Chair will recognize managers from the Committee on the Judiciary
on either side of the aisle, endeavoring to maintain equality between
the two sides in the consumption of time available and at the
prescribed hour will determine where we are and then we will move on
from there.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bliley).
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
This is a sad day, sad day for this country. We should not have to be
here. Had the President done what he should have done, we would not be
here, and admitted wrongdoing right from the start.
We have heard said in this body, Mr. Speaker, that this is different
from Watergate, but really, is it? In Watergate, the President lied to
the American people. This President lied to the American people. In
Watergate, the President did not commit perjury. This President, in my
opinion and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people of
this country, did commit perjury.
Either we are a Nation of laws or we are a Nation of men. If we are a
Nation of laws, then the highest and the lowest are subject to the same
law. There is no preferential treatment, and we and our Constitution
grant none.
The President, in my opinion, obstructed justice. He attempted to
cover up. To say this is just about sex is to say that Watergate was
just about a third-rate burglary. Nothing is further from the truth.
This President sought to cover up a crime. And if we allow this to
stand without the ultimate punishment which is afforded the
Constitution, which charges us as the people's body to make, we have
not done our duty and history will so remember.
I would like to quote and paraphrase in closing the words of our
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). He said
earlier in the proceedings, 25 years ago, we had Watergate and the
American people today think that Congress reached the right decision. I
hope that 25 years from this day, people will think that we made the
right decision.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
(Ms. DeGETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution
states that the President shall be removed from office on impeachment
for and conviction of treason or bribery or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.
We have heard a lot today and in the past weeks about the rule of
law, but that is not the standard for impeachment. We are all sworn to
uphold the rule of law, and there is still a remedy in this situation
for the President's action under the rule of law: Criminal prosecution.
The President lied to us, but this vote is neither about absolution
or punishment. The only question we face is whether the President's
actions, regardless of how wrong or potentially criminal, rise to the
standard our constitutional forefathers set for us.
We have been told by the majority of constitutional scholars that the
President's actions do not fall within the meaning of high crimes or
misdemeanors but yet we persist. We have divided this House with
partisan politics, sewing mistrust and exposing the darkness in our own
hearts. It started with the first vote of the 105th Congress to censure
the Speaker, and it has continued to this day to the vote to impeach
the President.
With all of the lost opportunities in between, it is no wonder we are
losing the public's trust. After today, when the impeachment frenzy
subsides, we will survey the damage to our own political system, we
will have unnecessarily crippled the presidency for a generation to
come. We will have wantonly weakened this House of Representatives
reaching a new low in partisan rancor. We will have substantially
subverted the Constitution which was designed to reflect the will of
the people in a republic, not to promote a political party in what is
slipping towards a parliamentary system.
We will intentionally have ignored the business of the American
people both at home and abroad, and we will have changed the political
climate where decency, privacy and civility have been sacrificed on the
altar of political greed, cynicism and shame.
This vote is unworthy of our institution. We will pay for it in the
years to come. We will undermine the ability of the next generation of
American Presidents to lead us through the enormous challenges that
face the 21st century, just as we did after the last impeachment of a
President over 100 years ago.
While this President must answer for his actions, history will judge
us for our actions, too. As legislators, as representatives and as
citizens, we have an enormous responsibility, and I fear that we are on
the brink of disgracing the public's trust.
I urge Members to vote against impeachment on principle, mindful of
our oath of office, understanding our duty to our constituents, to the
Constitution and to the future.

{time} 1230

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rogan).
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Some of our friends on the other side have indicated that perjury is
not an

[[Page H11796]]

impeachable offense under the Constitution. I remind them of the
testimony of the former Democratic attorney general of the United
States, Griffin Bell, who came before the House Judiciary Committee.
General Bell referred to the legal authorities relied upon by our
founders, such as Blackstone, in drafting the Constitution.
General Bell testified that Blackstone identified a series of crimes
that were called ``crimes against justice,'' and those crimes included
perjury. General Bell concluded, ``I am of the opinion, my conclusion,
is that those crimes are high crimes within the meaning of the
impeachment clause.''
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Gallegly), a member of the committee.
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very trying time for all
of us, for the President, and for the country. But there are few things
more important than standing up for the Constitution of the United
States and for the rule of law.
There are three points I will make this morning in support of the
articles of impeachment. First, I am a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. And based on months of review, it is clear to me that
President Clinton repeatedly lied under oath, intentionally and
willfully, during a civil deposition and before the Federal grand jury.
He also attacked the integrity of Congress by lying under oath in
response to the 81 questions submitted by the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Our legal system, which protects the rights and liberties of all
citizens, is dependent on telling the truth, telling the truth under
oath. The President is our chief law enforcement officer and our chief
magistrate. When he lies under oath, he undermines the integrity of our
judicial system and threatens the right and liberties of every one of
us.
Second, lying under oath after swearing before God and country to
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is, and my
fellow members I believe I know what ``is'' is, is an impeachable
offense.
Our legal system is dependent on people telling the truth, telling
the truth under oath. Lying under oath undermines the rule of law. By
lying under oath, President Clinton has also violated his presidential
oath of office.
Third, this is not about sex. It is about the rule of law. It is
about lying under oath before a Federal judge and a Federal grand jury.
Every citizen must obey the law, period. A society without laws is
anarchy. Societies that ignore their laws are condemned to violence and
chaos. We must state directly and strongly that the integrity of the
judicial branch must not be violated. We must make it clear that all
Americans are equal under the law.
After much painful soul searching, I have reached the conclusion that
impeaching the President for repeatedly and willfully lying under oath
is necessary to protect the rule of law which is the foundation of our
republic.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is on the verge of a tragic
mistake that will reverberate for centuries and alter the course of
American history.
Impeachment is not the ultimate censure. Impeachment is devastating.
Impeachment is enduring. Impeachment is momentous. If we dumb-down
impeachment and make it easier for future Congresses to impeach
presidents, we will forever weaken the institution of the presidency.
The Founding Fathers knew this. They could have said a president
could be impeached for any crime, but they chose to designate crimes
only of the gravity of treason and bribery. To impeach for anything
less than the highest of crimes is a distortion of the Constitution and
hands a tremendous weapon to our present and future enemies who will
point to a weakened president and ultimately a weakened nation.
That is why the Founding Fathers knew that low crimes should wait,
that the strength of our national leader, the sovereignty of our Nation
trump all but the gravest of charges, those which subvert our
government.
If my colleagues have even the slightest doubt as to whether this
President's actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors,
then they do a tremendous disservice to our Nation and to our standing
in the world if they vote to impeach.
So do not think for one moment that this is a free vote, that the
Senate is the real player in the impeachment drama. We have the power
to stop this travesty, to pull the curtain on this theater of the
absurd.
This impeachment vote is bigger than Bill Clinton. It is bigger than
all of us. I implore my colleagues, do not weaken the presidency in an
effort to punish this President. This is about that delicate balance of
power that is the bedrock of our democracy. It is about due process and
fairness. It is about safeguarding our privacy and curtailing the
intrusiveness of government. It is about nothing less than our
humanity.
What have we become when we impeach a president over an extramarital
affair and the lies to conceal it, when we lose all sense of
proportion? What have we become when we enter a new era of sexual
McCarthyism, when the boundaries of people's private lives are no
longer respected? Have we no sense of decency? What have we become when
our partisan warring does not stop at the water's edge but spills over
and bestows upon Saddam Hussein the hope of a divided America? What
have we become? I fear, our own worst enemies.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell).
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I have been here since the debate began,
and no speaker has refuted the facts. The facts are that the President
did not tell the truth under oath on August 17 and on other occasions,
but specifically on August 17.
Let me address why that matters so much and why that rises to the
level of high crimes and misdemeanors. The August 17 incident does rise
to that level because it undermines my ability to trust this President
whenever he says anything to me or to anyone else, if it is in his
interest not to tell the truth. And that is what takes this conduct
above the level of a common violation of law and to the level of a high
crime and misdemeanor, because it incapacitates him from effectively
serving as our President.
He raised his hand, he promised to God he would tell the truth. He
had his attorney by his side. He had seven months' advance notice. He
could have interrupted the August 17 proceedings at any moment. The
reason that humanity might allow us to understand the President's not
telling the truth earlier in January, namely to hide the truth from his
wife and daughter, no longer was the case in August. He had already
told them the truth. And having taken the oath to God and having seven
months' advance notice, and having the right to stop the proceedings if
it was difficult, and, unlike any other American citizen, having his
attorney by his side if a question required the advice of counsel, this
President chose not to tell the truth. I cannot trust him again.
Today we are engaged in war in the Persian Gulf. I was assured by
Secretary Cohen and by the Director of our Central Intelligence Agency
that the timing was justified. Those two are honorable men. And because
of their testimony, I believe the timing was justified. But I do not
believe it was justified on the basis of what President Clinton has
said, because I can no longer believe him. If it is in his interest not
to tell the truth, he will not tell the truth.
Now, there are some who say that I should not draw that conclusion
because this merely dealt with sex; and so, perhaps, I should only
doubt the President's ability to tell the truth in the future--even if
he is looking me in the eye, even if he has sworn to God to tell the
truth--because he will only fail to tell the truth if it deals about
sex.
I cannot tell you how deeply that wounds me, because of the
importance I have always attached throughout my public career to the
fair and equal treatment of women. And to say that it only deals with
sex is to denigrate, to

[[Page H11797]]

put at a lower level, the seriousness of the offense felt by virtually
every woman in our society at least once in her working career.
Sexual harassment is not just about sex, and to say that sexual
harassment and denying the truth to a plaintiff in a sexual harassment
case is somehow less important is to denigrate the harm that women in
America feel every day when they go into the workplace and they are
treated less because they are women. No, sexual harassment is not less
than any other offense.
The President raised his hand, promised to God to tell the truth, and
did not. On behalf of my five sisters and my wife, I cannot say that
sexual harassment makes this less. On behalf of my own oath to God, I
cannot look the other way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just wanted to respond briefly to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Wexler), who preceded my colleague, who argued that we were lowering
the bar from impeachment by submitting articles of impeachment on
perjury.
I do not believe we are lowering the bar. In fact, I have no problem
in setting a standard for future presidents in official court
proceedings that would jeopardize their office for repeated intentional
acts of perjury. That is what we are doing, is maintaining a standard.
On the other side of the coin, if we fail to act, then we are
lowering the standard of conduct that we expect from the chief
executive officer of our land not to commit perjury in official
proceedings.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a distinguished member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is about one thing, the
sanctity of the Constitution of the United States.
The Founding Fathers were clear. They created a strong presidency
where the executive was elected for 4-year terms. They did not want a
parliamentary system where the Congress could remove the people's
choice unless the President's conduct had threatened the very stability
of the country.
The founders specifically rejected proposals to allow impeaching the
President for poor character or for morally bad behavior. They said it
clearly. The President can only be impeached for treason, bribery, or
other high crimes or misdemeanors against the state.
This high bar for presidential impeachment has served our country
well for 210 years, so well in fact that only one president in our
Nation's history has ever been impeached by this House. Now, driven by
their hatred and loathing of Bill Clinton and his policies, the
Republican Party is about to take our constitutional balance of powers
and permanently and irreparably and forever damage it.
The constitutional punishment of impeachment was not meant to
substitute for the punishment of the civil and criminal courts.
Impeachment was meant to address presidential behavior that threatened
the republic so gravely as to require the removal of the President in
the middle of his or her term.
We can all agree that the President's acts, lying to the American
people and having an affair in the White House with an intern, were
reprehensible. The President should be censured for his wrongful
action. But violations of these kinds of civil or criminal laws should
be handled like any other Americans, in the civil and criminal courts.
The first three words of the Constitution are, ``we the people.'' And
in this case the views of the people are well-known, censure the
President but do not impeach him. But we cannot. The Republican Party
will not let America's elected representatives either vote for or even
debate censuring the President. It is a blatant abuse of the Republican
Party's majority power in the Congress.
This Republican juggernaut, driven by the right wing of their party
and aided and abetted by the so-called Republican moderates, will
forever damage the constitutional balance of power in America.

{time} 1245

Every future President will be looking over his or her shoulder
wondering if future Congresses do not like the President's veto of a
controversial bill or do not like the President's policies or
lifestyles, will that future Congress controlled by a different
political party appoint a special prosecutor and spend $40 million in 4
years investigating that President's private life. If this Congress
impeaches the President on these grounds, today will go down as one of
the saddest days in American history for our country, for our Congress
and for the institution of the American presidency.
I beg the Republican majority, the one that the people put in power
and that the people can remove from power, censure our President for
his wrongful conduct, let the civil and criminal courts punish any of
those offenses, but do not damage our Constitution by impeaching the
President on these grounds.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to one of the comments the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) just made about the level to
which it has to be for before we impeach a president of the United
States. It certainly does not have to be presidential powers only. If
the President of the United States committed murder, if he committed a
lot of other crimes, it seems to me that those would be perfectly
impeachable, and if we are talking about perjury which rises to the
virtual level of bribery, in fact under the Federal sentencing
guidelines has a greater amount of sentencing in our court system, a
higher level of it than bribery, which is, as my colleagues know,
treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, it seems
abundantly clear that perjury is impeachable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to respond to the previous
speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
While admonishing the trial court to be sensitive to demands on the
President's time, the U.S. Supreme Court recently unanimously ruled
that he had the same obligations as every other citizen in the Nation's
courts. Testifying truthfully under oath is one of those obligations.
The President maintains he did this. I believe beyond a reasonable
doubt that he repeatedly committed perjury.
I do not believe our President should be held to a lower standard of
accountability than other citizens who perjure themselves.
If anything, he should be held to a higher standard because of the
trust proposed in his office and because he is the chief law
enforcement officer in a Nation whose very foundation is the rule of
law. Other Federal officials, including three judges, in the last dozen
years have faced removal from office after committing perjury. So
should our President.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will vote to refer articles of impeachment
to the Senate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black
Caucus and distinguished member of the House Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, how must our American soldiers feel to have
their Commander in Chief under attack while they are engaged in battle?
They have the right to feel betrayed and undermined. Today we are here
in the people's House debating the partisan impeachment of the
President of the United States of America while the Commander in Chief
is managing a crisis and asking world leaders for support.
This is indeed a Republican coup d'etat.
Mr. Speaker, Americans all, the Republicans will couch this extremist
radical anarchy and pious language which distorts the Constitution and
the rule of law. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the real targets, and the
Republicans are the vehicles being used by the right wing Christian
Coalition extremists to direct and control our culture. The rule of law
has been violated

[[Page H11798]]

in denying the President notice of charges, by the abuse of power in
the collecting of so-called evidence and the denial of the presumption
of innocence.
President Clinton is not guilty of the trumped up charges presented
in these four articles of impeachment. Yes, Bill Clinton is guilty of
certain indiscretions in his private life. However, he did not commit
high crimes and misdemeanors. Rather the President is guilty of being a
populist leader who opened up government and access to the poor, to
minorities, to women and to the working class. President Bill Clinton
is guilty of not being owned by the good ole southern boys or the good
ole eastern establishment. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is guilty of
being smart enough to outmaneuver the Republicans in the budget
negotiations, electoral politics and the development and implementation
of the people's agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I am an African American woman. I am accustomed to
having to fight and struggle for fairness and justice. Ken Starr, I
know and recognize abuse of power when I see it; he is guilty. However,
I am greatly disappointed in the raw, unmasked, unbridled hatred and
meanness that drives this impeachment coup d'etat, the unapologetic
disregard for the voice of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my Republican friends what they do here today
will long be remembered and recorded in history as one of the most
despicable actions ever taken by the Congress of the United States of
America. I dare the Republicans of this House to allow themselves to
move just one inch and give me and my colleagues the opportunity to
vote for an alternative. I dare them to be fair. I dare them to allow
us to vote for censure.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Bono), a member of the committee.
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of
impeachment. I want to speak about this difficult issue not only to my
colleagues but also to the American people. Although there is much
disagreement on this issue, most Americans agree that we must resolve
this matter as soon as possible. I strongly believe that our troops
overseas must be reassured that the business of our Nation will not be
interrupted by the actions of a tyrant who will not heed the will of
the international community despite the clear and convincing evidence
that the President of the United States committed perjury before a
grand jury, before a Federal grand jury, lied to the American people.
The decision was not an easy one for me or, in my belief, any of my
Committee on the Judiciary colleagues. Yet I firmly believe that we
would not be fulfilling our oaths of office as United States
Representatives if we do not follow our duty as stated in the
Constitution.
We need to be realistic about what is at the heart of this vote. The
central issue is whether the President is above the law and whether
sexual harassment in civil rights laws remain viable in effective
protections for all Americans. Despite record numbers of women working
to support their families, women are all too vulnerable in our society
to sexual harassment. If Congress turns a blind eye to the President's
behavior, then we are turning our back to those victims of sexual
harassment.
Every person, including Paula Jones, is entitled to certain rights
under our Constitution. This includes truthful testimony from all
parties, and that is why we are here, because the President thought he
could provide untruthful testimony to obscure the truth first in his
deposition in the Jones case and later in his testimony before a
Federal grand jury.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is not above the law.
I am deeply disappointed that the President failed to uphold the public
sacred trust and his own oath of office, but I am also saddened by the
need for this Congress to arrive at this moment. As we debate this
issue some will argue that impeachment is too harsh a punishment or too
inconvenient for our Nation; however, it is the only appropriate remedy
given to us by the framers of our Constitution.
As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I must say a final
word in recognition of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde). I know that no one could have given the President a fairer
hearing.
So I appeal to every American to look deep into their conscience and
weigh the consequences for our system of justice if we allow the
President of the United States to commit felony acts and not be held
accountable for his actions.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio), a departing member of our leadership.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final moment in my
20-year career here in this House I love so much, and it is by far the
saddest one. I am sad that a reckless President and a Republican
Congress driven by blind animus for him have brought us to this moment
in history. This is a moment where legalisms reign over human
understanding and acknowledgment that we are all sinners before our
Lord, and it is even more unfortunate that this debate takes place when
our troops are in harm's way.
My instinct is to stand here and plead with my colleagues to consider
the ramifications of what we will do, but I fear this vote is a forgone
conclusion. Sadly it seems to have more to do with our political
affiliations and loyalties than anything else, and it must be said that
what we do here today is to some degree driven by revenge.
Some of my colleagues obsess about Slick Willie in the same way that
those on my side of the aisle used to about Tricky Dick. Robert Bork,
Clarence Thomas, Jim Wright, on and on; we do each other in in personal
terms. Each one of us has been given a most precious gift, the right to
represent some 600,000 American citizens in the House of
Representatives, and yet when it comes time to be here for them we seem
to lose track of the fundamental issues of our times and instead focus
far too much on petty and partisan battles. This vote and this time
will either unite us and show the country that we are above
partisanship and legalistic word games, or it will lay the foundation,
I believe, for a growing permanent divide in this Nation where there is
a left and a right while those in the center, the great majority of our
people, do not seem to matter.
It is much more difficult to govern here now, to do what is right for
this country at this time, to look not to legalisms and parsed
interpretations so valued on all sides, but to place the actions of our
President in the proper context, to censure those actions without
undeniably and irrevocably harming our democracy by lowering the
threshold of impeachment. But we will not allow that vote here today.
Many here have suggested that this is not about sex. That is a very
convenient decision for some to make. If it is not about sex, then we
might think it is less hypocritical to sit here in judgment of this
President.
I might add this Nation and its people have suffered greatly from the
partisan battles that have only grown stronger in recent years. Jerry
Ford, upon assuming the presidency after Watergate, said our long
national nightmare is now over, and when resigning his speakership Jim
Wright called upon his colleagues to end what he called mindless
cannibalism. But today we find our nightmares continue and political
cannibalism thrives and grows stronger. Sadly it was the late Vince
Foster who recognized in Washington peoples' lives are destroyed for
sport.
I ask my friends to put aside the partisanship, the legalisms and,
yes, the late hypocrisy. The American people deserve a clean slate for
the next Congress to build upon and renew its trust and public
confidence. This is our chance. Let us unite this country with a vote
against impeachment today and put an end to this open-ended and
mindless process of destroying the lives of good and decent people who,
yes, are flawed and all too human.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady).
(Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, some Americans are not watching
these proceedings. Instead in hushed courtrooms across this country
families slashed apart by violent crime and innocent people wrongly
accused are staring intently at a witness stand, and they are praying.
For many their best

[[Page H11799]]

hope, perhaps their only hope, for justice depends upon that witness
telling the truth, the full truth, under oath. Truth does matter, and
if it is no longer the duty of the President to tell the truth under
sworn oath, can we require it of any American? The answer is no which
is why justice, hope and the Constitution demand that today we vote
``yes.''
After carefully studying all the facts, there is strong and
sufficient evidence to warrant a trial in the United States Senate. I
intend to vote ``yes'' on each of the four articles of impeachment of
the President that were forwarded by the House Judiciary Committee.
In making this decision, I upheld my constitutional responsibility to
act as a fair and thoughtful juror. I weighed the evidence against the
charges and cast my vote without regard to polls, party or conjecture
about any future presidential race.
I am sad for the Nation because none of this needed to occur. It is
only the second time in our Nation's history that a vote to impeach the
President of the United States has taken place on the floor of the
House of Representatives. Unfortunately, this pain could have been
prevented had the President simply conducted himself decently and
within the law as do most Americans.
It is the duty of the President to tell the whole truth under sworn
oath, as it is for every American. This truth is no less than the
foundation of our justice system, as important as the constitutional
rights of the accused.
If the President is held to be above the law, the ultimate and
predictable consequence is that achieving justice in America's legal
system will become significantly more difficult. The necessity for the
truth is reflected by the appropriately severe punishment for those who
willfully refuse to provide it--which is up to five years imprisonment
for each Federal violation.
Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who
make and discharge them. To its credit, America continues to strive to
preserve equality under the law as a self-evident truth. It is
essential to the common consent of citizens who must abide by these
laws.
I am proud to represent the impressive new George Bush Presidential
Library and Museum which is located on the Texas A&M University campus
in College Station, Texas. Engraved on the southern exterior wall of
the library, engraved high enough to catch the late afternoon Brazos
Valley sun each day, is an appropriate quote from our former President
whom I deeply admire and respect.
It is from his 1991 inaugural presidential address, and I take
inspiration from it as I deliberated on this matter: ``Let future
generations understand the burdens and blessings of freedom. Let them
say we stood where duty required us to stand.''
Duty requires us to stand here today. The burdens of freedom demand
we uphold the Constitution regardless how tiring, how distasteful, how
difficult.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), a departing member of our leadership.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose
these articles of impeachment, and I do it secure in the knowledge that
this is the right decision. This is the last issue I will address after
17 years in this body, after thousands of votes, only a very few of
which I regret, and I do not want to regret this incredibly important
vote. That is why I have taken it so seriously.
When John Quincy Adams after his term as President of the United
States ran and won a seat in this House, he was criticized by his
friends because this was ``beneath'' his status as former President. He
explained it is always the highest honor to serve in the House of the
People.
Mr. Speaker, no honor will rain on this House today if we vote to
impeach. Let us be honest with ourselves: A vote to impeach on the
basis of the vexing materials assembled by the Office of the
Independent Counsel is a vote to lower, dramatically and unalterably,
the bar to future impeachments.
Until now, the House has very much held a high standard for
impeachment, keeping with the Constitution dictum that impeachment be
reserved exclusively for high crimes and misdemeanors.
There is so much discussion now about what is a high crime. Let us
think about what was not. Remember President Reagan and Iran-Contra?
Four laws, serious laws, broken; remember Harry Truman, taking over the
steel mills, sending troops into Korea without letting the Congress
telling him it was okay; Herbert Hoover and what happened there with
the Federal Reserve funds.
But there was no impeachment, Mr. Speaker, because, as serious as
these allegations appeared at the time, impeachment never became a
serious proposition. Collectively, our predecessors in this body
understood fully both the necessity of impeachment as the ultimate
bulwark against the potential tyranny of the executive, but also the
very real threat impeachment presents to the structure of our
government if improperly or too readily used. Impeachment was the means
of last resort.
Mr. Speaker, we should not vote to impeach today because it is
neither necessary nor in step with precedent. Voting to impeach today
is to participate in an assault on the institution of the presidency
and our delicate system of checks and balances.
I will vote ``no'' on all articles of impeachment for the sake of our
posterity, and I urge my colleagues to do this today, for the future of
the country, for the future of the United States of America.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, if the President of the United States simply committed
adultery, then that indeed is a matter that should be reserved to his
family. If, on the other hand, the President of the United States
committed perjury or other illegal acts, then that matter must
necessarily be reserved to this Congress.
I agree that the private failings of a public man deserve neither
debate nor reprimand from this body, and yet public misconduct
committed by that same official deserves punishment of the fullest
measure.
Based upon my solemn review of the evidence and historical
precedents, I am firmly convinced beyond a doubt that William Jefferson
Clinton used every conceivable means available to him, including
perjury and obstruction, to defeat the legal rights of another citizen
who claimed she had been wronged and who sought redress from our
justice system, and, in that way, the President's private indignities
became indignities against the Constitution by which we are governed.
Our third branch of government has rightly said no individual is
above the law, no single citizen can determine or judge the merits of
another case, save those clothed with the cloak of judicial
interpretation, and yet the President, under penalty of perjury, bore
false witness under oath, and Ms. Jones' rights to due process were
violated.
That result, Mr. Speaker, is bad enough in itself, but I believe it
reached constitutional proportions when the denial of a civil rights of
another citizen is directed by the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, what we say here today will be but paragraphs, perhaps
even footnotes, in the pages of history yet to be written by those to
come. What we do here will be indelibly imprinted upon the American
tradition.
Let not this House grant a pardon to the President for his criminal
offenses. Let not history look back on this day and say there, on that
date, America surrendered the rule of law. There can be no presidential
executive privilege to lie under oath.
Regrettably, my oath of office, my sacred honor, requires from me a
vote of ``aye'' on the resolution before this House.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party in this House has made
a tragic decision for the Nation and a decision that will permanently
damage our constitutional democracy.
The President of the United States had a sexual affair. That was
wrong. Then, like many others who misbehave sexually, he tried to hide
the affair. That was wrong too. But then the greater wrong occurred.
The majority decided to give into the worst within themselves, their
abiding hatred of this President. The majority has decided to discard
our history, to damage our Constitution and to threaten our future to
get the President, all the while pompously pronouncing they are doing
the opposite.

[[Page H11800]]

When the Founders wrote our Constitution, they provided for the rare
remedy of impeachment that the Legislative Branch could utilize if the
elected President should engage in conduct that would threaten our
constitutional government. Only once in our 211 years has Congress
voted to impeach a president, and, in that era of 1868, it was also
radical Republicans who misused the tool of impeachment.
Much of the country is watching what we do here with anger, sorrow,
fear and disbelief. I share with my constituents the feeling of
unreality about these proceedings. The country is waiting for grownups
to walk into this Chamber and stop this madness, but, alas, those
Republicans with the maturity and judgment to ask that censure be
utilized as an alternative, such as former President Ford and former
Senator Dole, have been ignored by the majority in this House.
The outcome appears clear: The Republicans will vote to impeach the
President, whom they could not defeat at the polls, for reasons that do
not add up to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
As a consequence, the Senate and the Supreme Court will be tied up for
most of next year.
The President will not be able to resign, no matter how you may urge
it, because to do so would further destroy the precedents that have
protected our country for over two centuries.
This is not fair to the President, but that should not be our main
concern. It is not fair to the minority in this House, but that is not
the main problem either. This is unfair to the American people.
By these actions, you would undo the free election that expressed the
will of the American people in 1996. In so doing, you will damage the
faith the American people have in this institution and in the American
democracy. You will set the dangerous precedent that the certainty of
presidential terms, which has so benefitted our wonderful America, will
be replaced by the partisan use of impeachment. Future presidents will
face election, then litigation, then impeachment. The power of
President will diminish in the face of the Congress, a phenomena much
feared by the Founding Fathers.
Our constituency in this matter includes not just the voters of
today, but the future grandchildren of my own children. We have an
obligation to generations not yet born to preserve and protect our
wonderful system of government. In that obligation you fail your
country today.
Some in the majority have told me they are entitled to their opinion
about whether or not the President's misconduct meets the
constitutional standard. Some Americans believe aliens will arrive in
spacecraft, but it does not make it so. You say the President's
deception about sex has destroyed our system of government. Some of you
have actually convinced yourselves that is true.
The capacity for self-deception is an amazing phenomena, but the
public can see clearly what you are doing here today. You say that the
President's dishonesty about sex has destroyed our constitutional form
of government, but the people do not agree. They think that it is you
who threaten our country by this cynical and political distortion of
impeachment. As is generally the case, the American people have it
right. It is not too late to listen to them. You would honor your own
oath of office by doing so.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady).
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I must respond to the claim that
there are those of us who contend that the acts of the President have
destroyed our system of government. That is far, far from the truth.
The question is not whether the President has destroyed our system of
government. We know that that has not happened. That is obvious. The
question is whether by his conduct he has undermined the integrity of
the law; whether by his conduct he has undermined the integrity of the
high office that has been entrusted to him; whether he has subverted
the rule of law; whether he has acted to set an example which is
harmful to our system of government.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, above the entrance to the
Supreme Court are four powerful words: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Yet
there can be no equal justice without a judicial process capable of
reaching to the truth. That is why when one raises their right hand and
swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
each one of us must do it. That is why perjury is a serious crime. It
strikes at the heart of the only process that protects each one of us
from false accusations.
I will vote for impeachment, not because the President has human
frailties, but because he has committed perjury repeatedly and
willfully. Marital infidelity is not an impeachable offense. Even lying
to hide sexual indiscretion is not impeachable. But the President does
not have the right to lie under oath, to commit perjury.
No one is above the law, not even the President. I believe perjury
does meet at least the definition of high misdemeanor. In my mind, it
certainly meets the measure of high crime.
In my judgment, our democracy is far more capable of surviving a
transition in power than surviving an erosion of fundamental
obligations such as that to tell the truth under oath and to treat all
citizens equally under the law.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here on
the floor today and throughout the night is just wrong. It is wrong for
a lot of reasons, but most fundamental is the fact that, yes, the
President made mistakes; yes, in fact he misled his family, he misled
the public; and, yes, he in fact tried to trick even maybe a grand
jury. Whether it is perjury or not is a different question.
But at its core, at its core, this is about an individual, a man in
our country, who had a wrongful affair. He lied about that affair, and
he has asked for forgiveness. What is incredible is the American people
have looked into their conscience and found that forgiveness; people
from all walks of life, from every different corner of this country,
have found forgiveness.
There is only one group of people that I can find that cannot find
that forgiveness, and that is people that had been locked in struggle
over so many questions dealing with the future of this country against
President Clinton's agenda over the course of the last four years, and
that is what this is all about.

{time} 1315

Now, I know that there is a lot of talk about morality today, and I
think that is good, I think that is healthy for our country. I think we
ought to talk a little bit about morality. But I do not think that the
only moral standard in America ought to be about sex. I think there is
a lot of moral things about our country; there is a lot of immoral
things about our country. And I look around our Nation today and I see
little children that do not have enough food in their bellies at night,
and when we talk about balancing the budget, what do we do? We cut the
food stamp program. When we talk about trying to stand up and make sure
that we have decent schools in our inner cities, we have a hellacious
debate on the floor of this House. And yet, our schools are still
terrible.
We make pronouncements about these wonderful new changes that we have
made in laws, but at its core, the truth is that there are too many
people in poverty, there are too many kids that do not have access to
health care; there are too many families that do not have enough food
in their stomachs, and those issues do not receive even close to the
amount of time and effort and energy that we are now putting into
trying to impeach the President.
The President has put the wood to the Republicans time and time
again. The President has put the wood to the Republicans time and time
again. He has taken away the issue of crime, he has taken away the
issue of taxes. He has taken away so many of the issues that my
colleagues in the past have had leadership roles on, and so they get
angry at him. That is okay, they can get angry at him. But to dumb down
the impeachment process and to allow

[[Page H11801]]

this to be used not just by my Republican colleagues, but by people
that will serve after me certainly, and people that will serve after
everybody in this institution and allow this to be utilized in a
partisan critical manner is an immoral act on the part of the
Republican Party.
I am so sorry that the final vote I cast here on the House floor is
going to be over an issue that is so partisan in nature. Let us come
together and let us find the forgiveness that the American people have
found for President Clinton, that his own family has found for him, so
that many millions of people across this planet want him to have. Give
him forgiveness. He recognizes he did something wrong. He is trying to
right it. Find in your hearts the forgiveness that he asks for.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let us return to the Constitution. Members of this House
of Representatives have a solemn task specifically assigned to us by
the authors of that Constitution. Whatever happens today, whether the
President is impeached or not, our Nation is going to endure. We are a
strong people and we have a Constitution that works.
A quarter of a century ago, we arrived at a similar point. President
Clinton's defenders say this is not Watergate. They are right to the
extent that the underlying behavior does not involve the bungled break-
in of a campaign headquarters; rather, it involves a reckless
relationship in the White House itself with a young employee that the
President hardly knew.
President Nixon did not lie repeatedly to a Federal judge and then to
a grand jury of citizens charged with discovering the truth. President
Clinton did. But President Clinton, like President Nixon, did obstruct
justice by encouraging others to lie, and both abused their offices by
violating their oath to uphold the laws of our country.
The President has escaped accountability for his actions time after
time. His intelligence, pleasing personality and way with words have
saved him, so far. Perhaps the most accurate description of his pattern
of behavior is a campaign slogan used by a New York senatorial
candidate against his opponent this year: ``Too many lies, for too
long.''
Last week I listened to the President's most recent apology, and I
agree with him. I cannot imagine a greater agony than being ashamed
before one's family and friends. But emotions cannot change the
evidence or the facts, nor should they control our actions.
If the President will not resign, we must go forward. Our entire
justice system rests on the rule of law. Without it, we would not enjoy
a civilized and democratic society. To carve out exceptions for anyone,
particularly the chief law enforcement officer of the United States,
would be to undermine this rule of law.
For the benefit of our country to set an example for our children,
our grandchildren and future generations, we must maintain our high
ideals. That the President has failed to meet the standard does not
mean we should lower it.
Our constitutional duty in the House is to decide whether to impeach
or accuse the President of wrongful actions. The Senate's duty is to
render judgment and decide punishment. So if a sanction other than
removal from office such as censure is ever considered, it should be
initiated by the Senate. And, ultimately, any outcome must be supported
by the American people.
This is not a decision to go forward because of a ``private
relationship.'' It involves the most public of relationships, that
between a citizen and the justice system, and that between the
President and the American people. It is about honor and telling the
truth. It is about respect for the law, respect for the office of the
presidency, respect for the American people, respect for the officers
of the court, respect for women, and ultimately, our own self respect.
During this difficult but necessary impeachment process, I've relied
on several people for their helpful ideas. Although they shouldn't be
held accountable for my views, I do want to thank my perceptive wife,
Beth Schaefer, and special friends, Judge Cyndi Krier, John Lampmann,
and Judge Tom Rickhoff, for giving me the benefit of their wise
counsel.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), my friend and colleague.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from San Antonio for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a Nation founded on rules and laws. We are a
young country, but we are the greatest that has ever existed. America
is strong and gets stronger because we are passionate about our laws,
of which no one is above. If one is a mayor, a police officer, a
Senator or a President, one must obey the law, just like any other
citizen.
American law and our system of justice relies on truth, truth
presented by witnesses sworn before God. Those who have appeared before
grand juries in this country know it is a daunting experience, knowing
that if you stumble, if you lie, you could commit perjury and maybe
wind up in jail.
Thousands of Americans have been prosecuted and have criminal records
because they perjured themselves like the President. The President's
own Justice Department regularly prosecutes Americans for perjury, and
yes, they are prosecuted for perjury in cases of sexual harassment.
We are not talking politics here. In politics, a President may lie to
the American people on television, in town meetings, and even in
political ads. I think that is wrong, and so do most of my colleagues.
But that is not against the law and that is not a reason to impeach.
Voters are the ultimate judges in those cases. But here we are talking
about the law.
As we search our conscience today to cast our votes, let us remember
the rules and laws on which our Nation was founded. No one is above the
law. Let us vote to uphold that American principle today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a solemn, fearful
and heavy heart as I face the stark reality that this House and lame
duck Congress is going to disregard the will of the American people
and, to quote this week's Hill Newspaper, ``unleash the awesome power
of impeachment in a blatantly partisan manner for what hardly measures
up to high crimes and misdemeanors.''
It is what this body is about to do, while we are at war, that comes
closer to meeting that constitutional standard than anything our
President is charged with. How will the sober hand of history judge us?
My colleagues, the American people overwhelmingly continue to oppose
the impeachment of their twice-elected President. They are no fools.
They recognize the blatant unfairness of the process, and while they do
not condone what the President did, they understand that he has
committed no impeachable or constitutional crime.
But we do not have to just go by popular opinion. More than 400
historians and constitutional scholars have opined that the allegations
put forth in the Starr report ``do not cross the threshold of high
crimes and misdemeanors warranting impeachment under the
Constitution.''
I agree with the comments I have heard as early as this morning that
this is not about the President's behavior with Monica Lewinsky, but
neither is this about so-called legitimate charges of perjury,
obstruction of justice, or abuse of power. It has been clearly shown
time and time again that none of that occurred.
What this is about is a purely partisan attack on Bill Clinton, the
man; on Bill Clinton, the people's President; and make no mistake, it
is also about a very popular First Lady.
By his own admission, the President has sinned. He was contrite and
has asked for our forgiveness and the forgiveness of the American
people. It is time for us to come together as a Nation, support our
troops in the Middle East, and put this matter behind us. The American
people want and need us to get back to the work on the issues that will
improve their quality of life.
This is a season of peace. I hope against hope that my words and the
words of others who have called for forgiveness and healing at this
time can soften the hearts of my colleagues who

[[Page H11802]]

would seek to throw our Nation into turmoil over politics. I urge my
colleagues to heed the wishes of those who sent us here to tend to
their concerns. Make real and true the claim of conscience and
constitutional responsibility. Do not lower the bar for impeachment.
Reject this partisan impeachment process. We should have a censure
vote, but if that will not be allowed, then vote for the Constitution,
vote for this country. Vote ``no'' on impeachment.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
Mr. Speaker, as I understand the Rules of the House as it governs the
discourse in the House, it is very clear, and it has been a time-
honored tradition that has served this House well, that we not, in
House debate, make disparaging remarks or characterizations about the
motives of other Members of the Chamber. I must say I am very saddened
to report, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to several speakers, and
that I have seen frankly quite caustic and harsh characterizations of
the motives of the Members.
We ask each Member to look into their heart and each Member that does
so knows that only God can do so also, and I would ask the Speaker,
would it be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to ask on behalf of the
dignity of this Chamber to exercise the authority of the Chair to
remind Members of these protocols and respects, and perhaps if
necessary enforce them so that we on this side may not find ourselves
compelled to raise it as a point on the floor during the debate. I
thank the Chair.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has arrived at the time when we and
the Nation must look beyond the polls, the media, and beyond the
political rhetoric and consider the grave matter of voting on the
impeachment of the Nation's President. We stand at a moment of defining
action, one that will require each of us to state for the Record our
commitment to the principles involved in this case.
As the gentleman from Florida, a member of the minority said earlier,
our decision is not about Bill Clinton, it is not about personalities,
it is not about partisanship, it is not about Republicans or Democrats.
Popular opinion and polls cannot dictate our course of action. Duty,
honor, and obligation must. Ageless principles must.
On this solemn occasion, I will vote for impeachment. People,
politics, and polls change. Presidents come and go. Fundamental
principles do not. My vote is based on the following principles: The
first, a commitment to the truth. It is essential to a just society. A
commitment to the truth is the foundation of our democracy and our
freedom.

{time} 1330

The second is, actions and behaviors matter. Only God can search and
sift the soul. Because we cannot read the heart, we must rely on
actions and behaviors. Certain actions and behaviors are inconsistent
with the office of President.
Third, forgiveness does not absolve one of responsibility for
actions, nor relieve one of the consequences of those actions.
Earlier I asked for unanimous consent, and at this time I will submit
for the Record an article out of the Wall Street Journal entitled
``Religion Should Not Be Used as a Political Tool,'' signed by 85
religious scholars.
In that, it says, ``We challenge the widespread assumption that
forgiveness relieves a person of further responsibility and serious
consequences.'' I commend this article to all my colleagues and
introduce it here.
The material referred to is as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal]

Religion Should Not Be a Political Tool

The following statement--``Declaration Concerning Religion,
Ethics, an the Crisis in the Clinton Presidency''--was signed
by 95 religion scholars, including Paul J. Achtemeier (Union
Theological Seminary), Karl Paul Donfried (Smith College),
Jean Bethke Elshtain (University of Chicago), Stanley M.
Hauerwas (Duke University), Robert Peter Imbelli (Boston
College), Max L. Stackhouse (Princeton Theological Seminary),
and Harry Yeide (George Washington University):
As scholars interested in religion and public life, we
protest the manipulation of religion and the debasing of
moral language in the discussion about presidential
responsibility. We believe that serious misunderstanding of
repentance and forgiveness are being exploited for political
advantage. The resulting moral confusion is a threat to the
integrity of American religion and to the foundations of a
civil society. In the conviction that politics and morality
cannot be separated, we consider the current crisis to be a
critical moment in the life of our country and, therefore,
offer the following points for consideration:

misuse of religion

1. Many of us worry about the political misuse of religion
and religious symbols even as we endorse the public mission
of our churches, synagogues and mosques. In particular we are
concerned about the distortion that can come by association
with presidential power in events like the Presidential
Prayer Breakfast on Sept. 11. We fear the religious community
is in danger of being called upon to provide authentication
for a politically motivated and incomplete repentance that
seeks to avert serious consequences for wrongful acts. While
we affirm that pastoral counseling session are an
appropriate, confidential arena to address these issues, we
fear that announcing such meetings to convince the public of
the president's sincerity compromises the integrity of
religion.
2. We challenge the widespread assumption that forgiveness
relieves a person of further responsibility and serious
consequences. We are convinced that forgiveness is a
relational term that does not function easily within the
sphere of constitutional accountability. A wronged party
chooses forgiveness instead of revenge and antagonism, but
this does not relieve the wrong-doer of consequences. When
the president continues to deny any liability for the sins he
has confessed, this suggests that the public display of
repentance was intended to avoid political disfavor.

Central to survival

3. We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to
the survival of our political system, among which are
truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the
dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process,
and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the
premise that violations of these ethical standards should be
excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular
political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong
economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution
and to the people who elected them. By his own admission, the
president has departed from ethical standards by abusing his
presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his
knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are
particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of
public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for
one's actions.
4. We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our
children and on our students. Some of them feel betrayed by a
president in whom they set their hopes while others are
troubled by his misuse of others, by which many in the
administration, the political system, and the media were
implicated in patterns of deceit and abuse. Neither our
students nor we demand perfection. Many of us believe that
extreme dangers sometimes require a political leader to
engage in morally problematic actions. But we maintain that
in general there is a reasonable threshold of behavior
beneath which our public leaders should not fall, because the
moral character of a people is more important than the tenure
of a particular politician or the protection of a particular
political agenda. Political and religious history indicate
that violations and misunderstandings of such moral issues
may have grave consequences. The widespread desire to ``get
this behind us'' does not take seriously enough the nature of
transgressions and their social effects.
5. We urge the society as a whole to take account of the
ethical commitments necessary for a civil society and to seek
the integrity of both public and private morality. While
partisan conflicts have usually dominated past debates over
public morality, we now confront a much deeper crisis,
whether the moral basis of the constitutional system itself
will be lost. In the present impeachment discussions, we call
for national courage in deliberation that avoids ideological
division and engages the process as a constitutional and
ethical imperative. We ask Congress to discharge its current
duty in a manner mindful of its solemn constitutional and
political responsibilities. Only in this way can the process
serve the good of the nation as a whole and avoid further
sensationalism.

extended-discussion

6. While some of us think that a presidential resignation
or impeachment would be appropriate and others envision less
drastic consequences, we are all convinced that extended
discussion about constitutional, ethical and religious issues
will be required to clarify the situation and to enable a
wise decision to be made. We hope to provide an arena in
which such discussion can occur in an atmosphere of scholarly
integrity and civility without partisan bias.

[[Page H11803]]

Further, our children must have positive role models; someone has
said, more now than ever. There is a standard of conduct below which
our leaders must not fall.
In conclusion, I commend to Members the words of George Washington at
the eve of the battle of Valley Forge: ``Let us raise a standard to
which the wise and the honest may repair. The event is in the hands of
God.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Tony Hall).
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to these articles of impeachment.
The President is guilty of conduct unbefitting his office. However,
despite his actions, I do not believe they rise to the level of high
crimes and misdemeanors, which is the requirement the Constitution sets
for removal from office.
Within this House, as throughout the Nation, there is a mood of anger
and frustration and betrayal. Retribution through impeachment may feel
right today, but the long-term harm it will cause our government
outweighs filling the immediate satisfaction.
I also strongly object to the provision in the articles which
disqualifies the President from holding any future office, and it goes
on to say other things. What it essentially means is almost anything
that is commissioned, that has any kind of Federal monies in it, XYZ
commission, a nonprofit organization, he cannot fulfill that as a
result of this particular clause.
This goes too far. It is a too severe. The House does not have the
moral authority to judge that the President is forever unredeemable. A
strong resolution of censure is the appropriate response by the House
of Representatives. Let the House go on record condemning the President
in the strongest terms.
Censure is a harsh enough punishment. It expresses the profound
disappointment of the American people, and it will stay with the
President for the rest of his life and throughout history. Censure will
spare the Nation the agony of a Senate impeachment trial and the
possible removal of the President.
I regret that the House leadership will not permit a censure
resolution from coming to the House floor for a vote. This denies the
House the opportunity to work its will. Impeachment is not the answer
to the challenge the House faces in responding to the President's
action.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the articles of
impeachment. My opposition to impeachment has nothing to do at all with
Bill Clinton, but everything to do with the office of the presidency.
By setting a standard which goes beyond the Constitution, and, my
Republican colleagues, beyond the historic position of our party, we
are, however well-intentioned, continuing our spiral toward a
government subject to the whims of independent counsels and based on
the frenzied politics of the moment, rather than a government of
immutable principles and transcendent institutions.
This is not a decision which came easy to me. It is not a position
which I particularly enjoy. No one has a higher respect than I do for
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde). To me he is the
conscience of this House, and it causes me great pain to in any way
differ from him.
But I feel I have no alternative. I strongly believe that for a
president to be impeached, a president of the United States to be
impeached, for an election to be undone, there must be a direct abuse
of presidential power. There must be a president abusing the CIA,
abusing citizens with the IRS or the FBI, a crime comparable to treason
or bribery.
I would say to my colleagues that my position, I believe, is rooted
in Republican philosophy. I go back to the Watergate hearings of 1974,
when President Nixon's most eloquent defender, subsequently appointed
to the United States Court of Appeals by President Reagan, Congressman
Charles Wiggins, came back and testified before the committee, and said
that if he were a Member of Congress today, he would vote against
impeachment.
But there is even a larger issue here: Where are we going as a
Nation? Quite frankly, when I hear Members on the other side rise up in
such opposition to this impeachment, I say, where were they during the
times of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or John Tower?
But two wrongs do not make a right. We are a Nation consumed by
investigations, by special counsels. We are a Nation consumed by
scandal. We are driving good people from government. What we are
talking about here in this case, the President's conduct, was illegal,
it was immoral, it was disgraceful, it was indefensible, but the fact
is, I don't believe rises to the level of treason or bribery.
The principle we are setting that in the future, all of us, anyone
who assumes the office of the presidency, is subject to civil
depositions, subject to lawsuits, and then to have that deposition
examined and scrutinized by an Independent Counsel, how many of our
former presidents would we have lost if this was the case, if this rule
of law, if this principle, had prevailed in prior times, and prior
times of crisis?
Also, I would ask my fellow Republicans, throughout the 1980s we saw
the abuses of special counsels by Lawrence Walsh and others as they
went against members of the Reagan and Bush administration. We saw good
people like Elliott Abrams brought down on the flimsiest of charges
involving lying. All of us knew it was wrong, and we railed against it.
But today somehow we are willing to apply a different standard, a
different principle. That is wrong.
This is a sad day for our country. It is a sad year for our Nation,
because of the conduct of the President, but also because I believe
that as Republicans, we have failed to rise to our obligation. As a
matter of conscience I must vote against impeachment, and I rue this
day.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Major Owens), an outstanding member of the committee.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to pardon my ignorance,
but I am not a lawyer and I have not been impressed with the legal
gymnastics of the Committee on the Judiciary hearings.
Like the majority of the American people, I watched and listened, and
in the end I concluded that in any court of common sense, this is a
case that would have been immediately dismissed. No man in America is
above the law. The converse should also be true, no citizen, even a
feared partisan enemy, should be denied the benefits of the law, of the
due process and of equal justice.
Our defendant is an outstanding citizen who has done great service
for his people, for his government. On the basis of the charges before
us, what prosecutor anywhere in America would press forward with this
case and a demand for such a harsh punishment?
Examining the extenuating circumstances related to the outstanding
performance and the exemplary accomplishments of this defendant, what
ordinary judge in any court, in any county in America, would allow the
trial to go forward?
This defendant, this President, has been denied his basic rights. He
is not a beneficiary of the rule of law. This defendant is a victim of
organized partisan persecution. It is not fair, it is not just. The
majority of the American people are angry, for good reasons. The voice
of Shakespeare's King Lear is ringing in our ears: ``Fool me not to
bear tamely. Touch me with noble anger.''
Consider the record of the defendant. This is the education
President, who has gone beyond lofty rhetoric and done more for
education than any President since Lyndon Johnson. In Haiti they have
cheered him as the liberator. In the Middle East and Northern Ireland
they have hailed him as the great peacemaker. In Yugoslavia, Bosnia,
Sarajevo, they give him thanks as an angel of mercy who stopped the
mass slaughter of innocent men and women and children. On Wall Street
this President is celebrated as a master of macroeconomic policy-
making.
In all endeavors where it has mattered most, this defendant has done

[[Page H11804]]

his duty well. Why is this defendant before us? Why is the political
death penalty being demanded? Our posterity will spit upon us for
allowing this madness to reach this level.
It is not too late for all Members to truly vote their conscience.
Good men and good women can often be hypnotized momentarily by the
collective fervor of the crowd. Today in this proceeding extreme
punishment is the only item that is allowed on the agenda. The majority
is demanding excommunication. The loud cry is for banishment. This is a
political crucifixion. Responsible decision-makers have temporarily
lost their reason.
I call upon every Member to break the spell. Forget we are under the
glare of television cameras in Washington, and imagine that we are back
home in a local courtroom. The defendant before us deserves equal
treatment, equal justice. Let us be fair. Let us be reasonable. Let us
consider the extenuating circumstances. Let us dismiss this case now.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes, and I yield to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very briefly to the commentary
from the gentleman who preceded the gentleman from Florida in the well.
The gentleman said that no reasonable prosecutor or judge would come
forward on such an overwhelming case of perjury and bring this case
before the court.
I have some authority to speak on this, having spent 10 years as a
deputy district attorney in Los Angeles county and as a criminal trial
court judge in Los Angeles county.
Under the Clinton Justice Department, since President Clinton became
president, some 700 people have been tried and convicted for perjury
and perjury-related crimes. As we speak today, Mr. Speaker, some 115
people sit in Federal prisons as a result of their conviction on
perjury charges. Those are people that were prosecuted and convicted by
the Clinton Justice Department.
In my own home State of California, since Bill Clinton became
president, there have been some 16,000 prosecutions for perjury. So the
suggestion that perjury charges would not be brought in an appropriate
case is incorrect.
Further, the gentleman's comments go directly, once again, to the
point that we are debating here: whether the standard that we set
during Watergate, which was no person is above the law, will continue
to be the standard for our Congress and our country, or whether we are
going to make exceptions for people who happen to have high rank and
privilege, and share one's party affiliation.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important today for us to
understand some perspective on what we are debating.
First of all, those on this side of the aisle do not view this as a
bipartisan issue. In fact, as Republicans it is not in our political
interest to see the President of United States impeached and removed
from office. The last thing in the world we would want politically, on
a rational basis, is to see Mr. Gore, Vice President Gore, assume the
presidency and be in the office for a while, and to have to combat
that, and to have established that position for the year 2000
elections.
We do believe in principle. We are concerned about what is going to
happen to our court system and what the message would be of failing to
impeach. That is why we are so ardent about this, for no other reason.
Having seen what the President has done, the multiple crimes of
perjury and obstruction of justice that I honestly believe he has
committed, it would be an irresponsible act on my part to ignore it and
to suggest that censure were an appropriate result and an appropriate
way to address this.
Having said that, let us go over for a minute the facts of where we
are with this. What we are dealing with is a President who was sworn
into office, took an oath to uphold the laws of the Nation, then faced
a lawsuit, a civil suit, in a civil rights sexual harassment suit by a
woman named Paula Jones.
Long before that suit had any witness list published, he and Monica
Lewinsky had an arrangement that they agreed to lie about the affair
that they were having if anybody asked them. Then somewhere along the
way, in December a year or so ago, there was a subpoena prepared and a
witness list appeared for Monica Lewinsky.
The President called her and told her in a telephone conversation
that she was on the witness list, and they talk about their cover
stories that they had previously discussed about what they would say
about what they were doing, so they did not have to reveal the
relationship.
In that same phone conversation, the President suggested she could
file an affidavit in order to avoid testifying. He suggested that, I
submit, knowing full well that it was going to be a false affidavit.

{time} 1345

What Monica Lewinsky said, and she said this under oath, and I
believe very credibly, to the grand jury, she said, ``It wasn't as if
the President called me and said, you know, Monica, you are on the
witness list, this is going to be really hard for us. We are going to
have to tell the truth and you will be humiliated in front of the
entire world about what we have done, which I would have probably
fought him on. That was different. And by him not calling me and saying
that, you know, I knew what that meant.''
They knew that that affidavit was going to be false, and from that
moment on is when the serious nature of this matter came before us.
Because at this moment the President committed the crime of obstructing
the law, obstructing justice. And the path was set for a scheme in
which he engaged with Monica Lewinsky and others to conceal the truth
from the Paula Jones case and deny Paula Jones her rights and then
later to lie to the grand jury, to conceal the truth from a criminal
grand jury as well as from the public.
What happened next is fairly straightforward. During the period of
the month of December, there came up the issue of gifts because Monica
Lewinsky had a subpoena to produce any gifts the President had given
her in the Jones case. And the President and she had a conversation
about that shortly after Christmas, in which she suggested maybe she
should hide those gifts or give them to the President's secretary to
keep. The President said, ``I don't know, I have to think about that.''
A couple of hours later the evidence shows that is before us, Monica
Lewinsky received a call from Betty Currie. We have the President's
secretary, we have a telephone record showing that call, even though
Ms. Currie did not recollect that she made the call. She thought Monica
made it to her. We have a record showing it came from Ms. Currie who
said, according to Ms. Lewinsky, and I believe Ms. Lewinsky on this,
that the President suggests that I call you to pick up something. And a
little while later, Ms. Currie went over to Lewinsky's home, picked up
gifts that Lewinsky packaged and put them under her bed. Another
obstruction of justice.
Then in early January, in early January the President was talking to
Vernon Jordan, who is his good friend and counselor, and arranged for
Monica Lewinsky to have an attorney to prepare that affidavit we talked
about. Along the way, in the process of preparing that affidavit,
finally on January 7, she signed it. And Vernon Jordan testified he
informed the President of that. What do you know, the next day, on
January 8, for the first time Mr. Jordan, although asked much earlier
often to help get a job for Monica Lewinsky by Monica finally made a
call to the head of Revlon Corporation and secured a job for Monica and
reported that fact back to the President.
And then what happens next? The President goes to testify. The
President goes to testify in the deposition he gave in the Paula Jones
lawsuit. And during that deposition, we all saw some of the television
film of that deposition in the Committee on the Judiciary the other
day. The President observed his attorneys referring to the affidavit
that he knew was false and he affirmed the truth of that affidavit that
he knew was false. He affirmed the fact that in that affidavit it said
that he and Monica essentially were never alone, not just that they did
not have particular relations. He went on to lie

[[Page H11805]]

then about the specific acts that he engaged in with her. He was given
a definition. And even taking his interpretation of the definition the
court in that case gave him and assuming that that rather far out
definition was accurate, if you believe Monica Lewinsky, and she has
been corroborated by 7 contemporaneously told friends and relatives who
were witnesses in this under oath that what she said is correct, they
engaged in sexual activity under the definition in that report and the
court, and the President lied about. He lied about a lot of other
things in that deposition.
He then went on after that, while he, in that deposition, referred
often to his secretary Betty Currie, to then call Betty Currie to come
over to visit him the following day right after he had left the
deposition. And he talked to Betty Currie. Why did he call her up? He
called her in his office and he said to her, to corroborate, he says,
``You were always there when she was there; right? We were never really
alone. You could see and hear everything. Monica came on to me and I
never touched her, right? She wanted sex with me and I can't do that.''
Well, Ms. Currie twice testified under oath the President said this
to her. Any interpretation is ridiculous other than one that assumes
the President expected her to be a witness, even if she wasn't on the
witness list. That is a crime of witness tampering or obstruction of
justice, and the list goes on.
The sad fact is, I do not want to be here any more than you do. I do
not want to impeach this President any more than you do. This is not a
happy day for me or anyone else here. But the President of the United
States committed multiple felony crimes, not just one instance, not
just having some relationship which we would have no business being
concerned with on impeachment, but he committed multiple felony crimes
of perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice. The evidence is
very clear about it.
And to fail to impeach him would send an awful message to the
countryside that we have a double standard in this country, that the
President, who is the chief law enforcement officer, the Commander in
Chief of the uniformed services of this country, is allowed to get away
with perjury. I submit if we do not impeach him, we will send a message
that will result in more people lying in court and committing perjury
than they do already. And that is on the rise. It is a very, very
serious matter.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JEFFERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan),
a prosecutor, has indicated for the first time in all of our hearings
that there were 16,000 cases of perjury in the State of California
alone. I would beg him to supply at any time at his convenience any
indication for the Record what source he uses for that statement. There
are some that question whether there are 16,000 cases a year in all of
our courts much less one State.
My friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has now brought
forward a matter that has been aired sufficiently in the Committee on
the Judiciary that he could not possibly have forgotten, that the cell
phone incident occurred 1\1/2\ hours after the gifts were returned.
Now, perhaps he has a lapse of memory. The record is clear in our
hearings and why this would be introduced at this time is beyond this
Member.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, at what point shall we expect the
approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we
expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us
at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined
with all the treasure of the earth in their military chests, with a
Bonaparte for a commander could not by force take a drink from the Ohio
or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.
So spoke President Lincoln in 1838 about the power of America. But he
coupled this declaration of our world dominance with a warning and
admonition of how we could lose it, which is apropos here. He said
then, at what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I
answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us, it cannot
come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its
author and finisher.
I hope as Lincoln hoped against hope then that I am overwary today
about the wounds we are inflicting upon ourselves, our Constitution and
our body politic by this unfair rush to judgment against our President.
Like Lincoln then, I worry now about the wild and furious passions
aimed to bring this President down rather than an exercise of sober
judgment to lift up the true meaning of our Constitution.
Like Lincoln, I worry that even though we are the preeminent power in
the world today, that this grating, this chipping away at the high
ideal of impeachment leads us further down the road to constitutional
death by suicide of a free society. High crimes and misdemeanors, not
all crimes and misdemeanors, is what our constitution holds as grounds
for impeachment. There are no high crimes shown here. But there is a
base and basic perversion of the rule of law into a rule of hot blood
and a rule of political convenience by a majority bent on getting
President Clinton.
Today you may have the votes but you do not have the high ground. But
just remember, as we say in Louisiana, what goes around ultimately,
unfailingly and always comes around.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who raised the issue about the
corroboration of Monica Lewinsky's testimony in the cell phone call. In
fact, Monica Lewinsky gave a statement 7 months after the December 28
incident concerning the gifts. And in her testimony she was asked how
she knew that Betty Currie was coming over. She thought there was a
cell phone or a telephone call, and it was my cell phone. The records
were checked that corroborated the testimony of Monica Lewinsky even
though it was 7 months later. The telephone call was about 3:37. I
think there is documentary corroboration of her testimony.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), a member of the committee.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, let me also respond regarding an inquiry
that our colleague from California made on the statistics of perjury
from that State. I too have seen those numbers. I think rather than an
annual one-year listing of some 16,000, I think the more accurate
statement would be that over the last 5 years some 16,000 people have
been prosecuted for perjury in the State of California on a rising
trend, unfortunately, for this country.
Also fortunate for this debate for the most part the facts of this
case have been conceded. We have dwelt our time on higher things such
as are these impeachable offenses. And that is a good statement; that
is a good question. That is a good area of debate for us.
Had the President limited his conduct to the oval office and not
stepped outside to participate in the cover-up, I would suggest, and I
think most of my colleagues would agree on the House floor, that we
would not be here today. Certainly we do not agree with what he did in
the oval office, but that does not rise to the level of impeachable
conduct.
This is not about sex. This is about what happens when you take a
poll and that poll tells you whether or not to tell the truth. That
poll tells you that they will not accept your perjury. And the
President says, well, we will just have to win. And this case, this
impeachment proceeding is about what occurred after that, the cover-up.
One of the charges in this article, series of articles is obstruction
of justice. That concerns many of us who heard the evidence. That not
only involved the President but that involved this President of the
United States, the chief law enforcement officer of this country,
bringing additional people into this, causing additional innocent
people to commit crimes. I cite to you the filing of a false affidavit
by Monica Lewinsky, the hiding of evidence, the

[[Page H11806]]

bringing of people, staff members, cabinet members into his office,
telling them his version of the story, knowing that they would repeat
that story when they were called to the grand jury. That is a serious
charge, when you not only commit the crimes yourself but you bring
others into that and cause them great, great distress.
Perjury is also very important in this case. This President did not
have a lapse of judgment. On many occasions, through a pattern and
practice he gave false testimony, in the grand jury, the deposition, in
answering written interrogatories and to this very Congress in this
very proceeding when he answered the 81 questions.
This President is a lawyer. He is a former law professor at the
University of Arkansas. He is the former Attorney General for the State
of Arkansas, and he very well knows how important people telling the
truth is in our court proceedings, how it underpins our judicial
system. Courts have agreed. And yet he continues to parse his words.
And his own lawyers come in before the committee and say, yes, he
misled, he evaded questions. He gave incomplete answers. That is their
defense. He parsed his words. And the courts uniformly say that is not
right. You cannot focus on the precision of a question and ignore what
the defendant knows.
The law is clear that the perjury, the real perjury, the issue is you
have to look to the defendant's intent to testify falsely and thereby
mislead questioners, which has been the intent of this President
consistently throughout this process.
It is unfortunate that we still have that perception of this
President. Because of the very events we are involved in today, many
people call into question, is he giving us complete answers about what
we are doing over in the Middle East? Is he evading questions. Is he
misleading? I do not know, but again that is the pattern and practice
that we have had to deal with, and that is one of the concerns that
brings many of us to this point where we feel it is necessary.
The office of presidency, the stature to which it is entitled has
been eroded by this President and this involvement in this process,
necessitated by the commission of his own conduct, not the Congress's
conduct, but his own conduct with the United States Constitution.

{time} 1400

If I might say, there is great stress and turmoil and angst on the
floor today. There should be. This is a serious, solemn event,
something that we all, all would rather not have occurred. But as a
Congress, we cannot ignore our constitutional responsibility and turn
our head and say let's just forget about this. We have to move forward
within the authority we have, and our only authority is to decide
whether to impeach or not to impeach, whether to charge or not to
charge.
We have no authority to invent sanctions such as censure or
reprimand. If anybody has that authority, it is the Senate. But we
cannot do that. But let me assure all the Members of Congress, I think,
of a fact that we all understand and others that are listening who are
concerned about this debate. The office of presidency is bigger than
any person that occupies that office for 4 or 8 years. This office will
survive. This office will stand. And what we are doing today in
debating this process is coming to the point of what conduct we will
accept from the President of the United States, from the office of
presidency.
We have heard a lot today about we do not want to dumb-down, we do
not want to lower the standards for impeachment. I submit to my
colleagues that the better question that we all ought to be concerned
about as Members of Congress, as American citizens, do we want to dumb-
down, do we want to lower the expectation of the conduct of the chief
law enforcement officer of this country, the Commander in Chief of this
country who sends our soldiers off to foreign lands in harm's way, the
President of the United States? Do we really want to lower that
expectation of conduct?
I say we do not. And I say at the end of this day, perhaps at the end
of tomorrow's day that we vote, we will have made that final decision.
Since the inception of this inquiry, a division has been created as
to what allegations rise to the Constitutional standards of ``high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
To assist my own interpretation, I look to the words of Justice Louis
Brandeis from 1928 which read:

In a government of laws, existence of the government will
be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our
government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good
or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime
is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it
breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law
unto himself; it invites anarchy.

The intersectional collision of President Clinton's deplorable
conduct with our Constitution has set in motion this Inquiry of
Impeachment. Each member must now match his or her action with only the
authority the Constitution delegates to the House of Representatives.
No more, no less.
As such, we must not invent, for the purpose of expediency, a remedy
which does not exist. The House can not and should not be able to
reprimand, censure or fine the other two branches of government--the
Judiciary or the Executive.
Rather, members must be prepared to vote their conscience on whether
or not to impeach, that is to charge the President with an impeachable
offense. This is our single role in this process.
Further, impeachment is not a part of the criminal law. It is not
governed by the criminal rules of procedure, court precedents, nor
necessarily, the rules of evidence. Impeachment is truly a unique
Constitutional process combining elements of the legal and political
systems.
Numerous scholars have come forward suggesting not every crime is
impeachable. Likewise, it is clear that an impeachable offense does not
require a criminal law violation. The distinguished Senator Robert Byrd
from West Virginia stated, ``An impeachable offense does not have to be
an indictable offense of law.''
Before we begin our evaluation of the charges, let's be clear that
the standard that we must attain before we can impeach is not--I
repeat--is not the same case as that against President Nixon's in 1974.
Some intimate that Nixon is the magic threshold and anything less
should not be considered for impeachment.
That is simply, as the President's legal team put it, ``a misleading
statement.'' Analogize this situation to the prosecutor at law who
fails to indict the bank robber who robbed five banks because the
prosecutor had previously only indicted a robber of 20 banks.
As for our own evaluation, our first task is to ascertain the facts.
The second task is to determine if the facts support an impeachable
offense.
As for the facts:
President Clinton was sued by Paula Jones in a civil sexual
harassment suit. In her case, Mrs. Jones tried to establish a
particular pattern and practice of behavior by the President. This was
not unique to her case, most sexual harassment cases establish such a
pattern.
After former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was listed as a
potential witness a series of illegal acts ensued. The evidence
establishes the President engaged in the following misconduct, in an
apparent effort to prevent Ms. Jones from recovering a monetary
judgment against him and to protect his Presidency.
The facts surrounding these unlawful acts are:
Perjury. The President through a series of calculated lies over a
period of months attempted to evade, mislead and provide incomplete
responses to Paula Jones, the judiciary system and the American people.
Disregarding the recognized legal standard of a ``reasonable man''
used in all courts, the President repeatedly used verbal gymnastics to
redefine words and phrases, such as ``alone,'' ``is'' and ``sexual
relations.'' The latter interpretation, as admitted by his lawyer,
results in the ridiculous conclusion that one party to a particular sex
act may be involved in a sexual relation while the other party is not.
Obstruction of Justice. Once the question arose concerning an
``improper affair'' with Miss Lewinsky, suddenly there was another
series of incidents to cover the tracks of this, including ridding the
immediate area of evidence in the Jones case and Miss Lewinsky. While
the President's ``fingerprints'' aren't clearly on these actions,
almost by magic the President is benefitted by physical evidence
disappearing from Miss Lewinsky's apartment and reappearing under his
personal secretary's bed. Ms. Lewinsky lands her long-sought job with a
New York Fortune 500 Company within 24 hours of signing a false
affidavit supportive of the President in the Jones Case. How lucky can
one man be?
Abuse of Power. Any claim the President had that this affair was a
private matter, and at worst grounds for divorce, changed when he
brought the powers of his high office into play. The facts show that in
the President's zeal to keep this affair from the Jones lawsuit,

[[Page H11807]]

he allowed his government-employed White House Counsels, policy
advisors, Cabinet members and communications team to defend him and
perpetuate the lies. He continued to use his staff for a period of more
than seven months to deny, stonewall and lie to those investigating his
actions.
We must use a common sense approach to this evidence and look at the
results of this series of calculations and incidents. Washington is a
``wink and nod'' community, where people do not need to say exactly
what they want in order to get what they want done. Nor can we judge
each act in a vacuum. The context--the big picture--must also be
considered. Just look at the time line, look at the actions and the
results would all benefit the one person who says he had nothing to do
with anything,

Throughout this process, we have had the daunting task of determining
whether these charges meet the standard of ``high Crimes and
Misdemeanors,'' and whether the Rule of Law could be interpreted to
include these criminal offenses.
Surely, one cannot seriously argue perjury and obstruction of justice
are not impeachable. They are fraternal triplets of bribery which is
spelled out in the Constitution. Each of these have the effect of
thwarting the truth in our court system. As former Attorney General
Griffin Bell has testified:

The statutes against perjury, obstruction of justice and
witness tampering rest on vouchsafing the element of truth in
judicial proceedings--civil and criminal and particularly the
grand jury.

Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington Law School told
Congress that:

The allegations against President Clinton go to the very
heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of
the political system.

For those remaining few who persist that this is merely private or
trivial conduct, I draw your attention to the testimony before this
committee of John McGinnis, a Professor of Law from the Benjamin H.
Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, who said:

Integrity under law is simply not divisible into private
and public spheres. . . . It would be very damaging for this
House to accept a legal definition of ``high Crimes and
Misdemeanors'' that created a republic which tolerates
``private'' tax evasion,'' ``private'' perjury and
``private'' obstruction of justice from officials who would
then continue to have the power to throw their citizens into
prison for the very same offenses.

In addition, Stephen B. Presser, of the Northwestern University
School of Law stated:

They are not trivial matters having to do with the private
life are thus impeachable offenses. The writings and
commentary of the framers show that they would have believed
that what President Clinton is alleged to have done, if true,
ought to result in his impeachment and removal from office.

Harvard Law professor, Richard D. Parker, also stressed the Rule of
Law in his testimony saying:

Now, consider another hypothetical situation: Suppose the
President were shown to have bribed the judge in a civil
lawsuit against him for sexual harassment, seeking to cover
up embarrassing evidence. As bribery, this act would be
impeachable, despite its source in the President's sex life.
What is the difference between that and lying under oath or
obstructing justice in the same judicial proceeding--to say
nothing of before a federal grand jury--for the same purpose?
By analogy, both sorts of behavior would seem grossly to
pervert, even to mock, the course of justice in a court of
the United States.

And finally, when one wants to blame Congress for all of this, I
issue the reminder that it was President Clinton and only President
Clinton whose consistently made wrong choices instead of the right
choices who has brought us to the point of national exhaustion.
Also, remember the additional words of Professor McGinnis about our
forefathers' paramount concern with the integrity of our public
official:

They recognized that the prosperity and stability of the
nation ultimately rest on the people's trust in their rulers.
They designed the threat of removal from office to restrain
the inevitable tendency of rulers to abuse that trust.

Since these allegations were brought to the attention of the
Committee, my office has been inundated with phone calls and mail. In
my office, I have received an overwhelming number of calls in support
of impeachment, however, I understand the concerns of both sides. I
look forward to the end of this debate and getting back to the
important issues of social security, health care and others. But I want
my constituents to understand, I do not relish this vote or this
position our President has put us in. This will be the toughest vote I
will make as a Congressman and I only wish I never had to make it.
There are no winners or losers here today. America has truly
suffered. The facts remain, our President has placed himself before the
law and the nation.
As such, I join the more than 100 newspapers and numerous other
Americans to call upon the President to do the right and honorable
thing--resign from the Office of the Presidency.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Manton), a distinguished attorney and Member of the House.
(Mr. MANTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
Speaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of impeachment before the
House.
Mr. Speaker, after 14 years representing the citizens of the 7th
Congressional District of New York, these will likely be my last votes
that I cast as a Member of the House of Representatives. They will,
ironically, certainly be the most significant and the ones which will
garner the most attention from historians.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that what the President has done is
reprehensible. No one condones his actions. No one excuses his conduct.
We all wish that he had conducted himself in a more responsible manner.
We all want him to be more forthcoming in confronting the charges
against him. We cannot, however, vote to overturn the two national
elections and impeach the President simply because of a perceived lack
of contrition on his part.
Mr. Speaker, we must take into consideration the consequences of our
actions and weigh them against the purported misdeeds of the President.
While I do not agree with the President on each and every issue, I
believe he has done a good job as our country's steward over the past 6
years.
Mr. Speaker, I for one am particularly proud and humbled by his
unceasing efforts to bring peace to Northern Ireland and the Middle
East, succeeding where many before him have failed or did not even
attempt to act.
In closing, I turn to the words of one of our Founding Fathers,
Thomas Jefferson, who said, ``Common sense is the foundation of all
authorities, of the laws themselves and of their construction.'' I put
to my colleagues that to vote for impeachment flies in the face of
common sense and good judgment. We should avoid a dangerous precedent
and vote against these articles of impeachment.
Our descendants would be ill served by an impeachment vote which
alters the standard for removing a president. In the end we must
remember that the perfect can be the enemy of the good. The right
decision, the just conclusion is a vote for censure.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale)
Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to
salvage any sense of nobility in reviewing the allegations before us.
But there is one truth. The most basic rights of the people will be
preserved only so long as public officials at every level of government
tremble before the law.
As a deeply disheartened Democrat, I will be voting yes on
impeachment articles I, II, and III.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a dear friend of mine from the
old Government Operations Committee.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as the only Member in the history of the Congress
who has lived under and fought against both fascism and communism.
Every day I enter this hall I do so with a feeling of humility and
pride, as one who has suffered the pain of living in a police state and
now enjoys the exhilaration of living in a free society.
The question I want to raise today is, what distinguishes this
Congress from the legislatures of despotic countries? It certainly is
not the taking of votes. Because there are always votes, plenty of
them, in totalitarian parliaments. Nor is it the eloquence or the
erudition or the IQ level of Members. Mr. Speaker, what distinguishes
this House from

[[Page H11808]]

the fake parliaments of police states is procedural fairness.
What we ask is the opportunity to vote on censuring the President in
addition to the opportunity to vote on impeachment. Democracy not only
means the rule of the majority, it also mandates respect for the
minority. If our Republican colleagues allow a vote on censure and even
if that vote fails, they will give respect and legitimacy to these
proceedings. Should a censure vote prevail, they will allow the voice
of the true majority to triumph.
Some of my very best friends sit on the other side of the aisle and I
would defend their right to vote their conscience with my life if
necessary. I find it unbelievable that they want to limit my right to
vote my conscience.
The censure vote we are seeking is supported by our former Republican
colleague, the former Republican President of the United States of
America, Gerald Ford, who is renowned for his fairness. The censure
vote we seek is supported by the former Republican leader of the United
States Senate and the Republican candidate for President in 1996,
Senator Bob Dole. The censure vote we seek is supported by the large
majority of our fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, compromise is the currency of a free society. Self-
righteous certitude is the antithesis of democracy. I respect all of my
colleagues who will ultimately vote for impeachment, but I ask that
they respect the right of those of us who wish to express our
disapproval but who deeply believe that the impeachment and the removal
of our President would be a travesty to the principle of
proportionality, it would be unfair to him and to his family, and it
would be damaging to our national interest.
When this debate is over, I hope they will allow all of us to feel
that we have participated in a real vote of a real legislature. I ask
that we have the opportunity to vote on a motion to censure the
President. If the impeachment vote succeeds in this House, come
January, President Clinton will be on trial in the Senate. But today,
my friends, it is this House that is on trial.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is important to address that issue of censure. We discussed this
in the committee and there were numerous constitutional experts that
addressed this. Stephen Presser, professor of legal history at
Northwestern University School of Law, wrote a letter to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) disagreeing about censure and saying
that censure would not be constitutional. He said, ``In my opinion,
impeachment is the remedy for misconduct.''
We go to the University of London, a similar response by Gary
McDowell noted that censure was not a proper constitutional remedy and
would violate the separation of powers. And on to John Harrison,
University of Virginia School of Law by a letter to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) Saying that, ``My view at this point is
that there are serious constitutional difficulties with congressional
censure.'' And for that reason, because of the constitutional problems,
that was not presented.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding.
The technicalities have been debated ad nauseum and ad infinitum.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the
gentleman's point was also on fairness. And, as has been read earlier
today, going back to 1974 on this House, the Democrat Speaker refused
to allow a vote on censure in reference to President Nixon; and so,
there is a precedent for what has transpired as well as constitutional
consideration.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) 1 minute.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could I point out to my distinguished
scholars and members of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are not
trying to solve this problem within this debate. Let's bring up the
motion and we can debate its constitutionality or its
unconstitutionality. You surely must know that there have been censures
in our American history.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is not a person in
this body on either side who does not clearly understand that this body
has every right to censure the President, and to hide behind these
phony technicalities demeans this House.
My colleagues know as well as I do that a censure vote could be
taken, would be legal, would be constitutional and would carry.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity. But censure
is being used in this case as a marketing tool to the American public
to sell them on the idea that there is a simple, easy way to avoid our
constitutional responsibility; and I think that we should stick with
the Constitution.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Riggs).
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to interject at this point in
the debate, colleagues, that as part of my own personal deliberations,
in the last 48 hours I have spoken to both former President Ford and
Bob Dole. Both men emphatically told me, and of course both are former
House members, that they would vote to impeach, that they felt it was
the duty of the House, barring a public acknowledgement, an admission
of the President that he had lied under oath and perjured himself, it
was the duty of the House to vote for the articles of impeachment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the argument has been made that lying about sex is
different and does not qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor. I am
not a lawyer, but I do not think that the law requiring us to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth means we can tell the
truth that is convenient or the truth only about certain things.
A lie is a lie. A lie to a grand jury and a lie in a sworn deposition
is equally a lie and equally a violation of the law, whether it is
about sex or whether it is about national security.
Others who have lied under oath have been criminally charged. In the
last 2 years, 3 people in my State of Utah have been charged, convicted
and sentenced for lying under oath. They faced the consequences of
their actions and they took their punishment. How can we now tell the
American public that a lesser standard applies to the President of the
United States, the chief administrator of the laws of this country?
Some have argued that by voting for impeachment we are lowering the
bar for impeachment. I disagree. I think we are instead affirming
democracy as truly the cornerstone of this great country. We are saying
that the American people who have, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) so eloquently put it this morning, believed, fought and
sacrificed this past 227 years for the rule of law, believe that all
are subject to that law, not just the poor, the minorities or those
without affluence or influence, as some cynics have claimed in recent
years, but all, including the man who holds the most powerful and
influential office in this country.

{time} 1415

To me that does not lower the bar for impeachment; it raises the
standard for democracy.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a
violation of the House rules.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek), who has waited patiently for her turn.
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand to voice my dissent and my
disagreement, and I rise to give my strong opposition to the articles
of impeachment that have been brought before us today.

[[Page H11809]]

I know what has caused this to happen; I have watched it.
It took me 129 years to get to this Congress because of some folks
interpreting the Constitution. I have heard a lot about the
Constitution today. But the same people that are interpreting it
wrongly today were obviously there long many years ago when it was
misinterpreted and when some folks were left out.
How many more good people are going to have to lose their reputation
because of what I am seeing here in this Congress? Good men are losing
their reputation every day here. Who will be next because of this
strive, this strive for gonadal agony?
We are going in the wrong direction here in this Congress. Because of
this biased interpretation a man who has served this country very well
is now up for impeachment.
Too many of my colleagues have a gotcha syndrome. They want to do
their best to get Mr. President. I saw it from the very beginning with
every kind of gate there was in government reform. There was a
tailgate, there was a post office gate. Every gate imaginable was
brought before that committee long before this impeachment started, but
it was the beginning of impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.
My colleagues have not liked him from the very beginning. I have
tried to find out why. They dislike him, but they cannot get him in the
manner which they tried before, so now they are going to use this gonad
shriveling impeachment process to try and get him. It is unfair, it is
tainted.
I have some familiarity with this unfairness and injustice that we
see in this country. My colleagues cannot escape it. Every American
knows that this impeachment process is partisan if they looked at the
votes of the very good Committee on the judiciary hearings we had. I
watched it. I read everything I could. It is partisan. It goes against
the history of this country.
The Republican majority has chosen time and time again to exclude the
Democrats. We are asking only for a chance for censure. That is what we
are asking for. It does not mean we are going to win that, but at least
they could give us that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues are out of touch with the people of the
country, they are out of touch with the Constitution, and I say to the
rest of them: Now is the time to try and give censure to a man who has
given something for this country and give all of us who seek fairness
and justice for this country. It was not only set out for certain
people; it is for all the people.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues believe in the Constitution so
strongly, they should act on it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me, and I ask that a letter received from Senator Bob Dole
dated today be placed in the record. I will read a part of that:
It is entirely appropriate for the U.S. House of Representatives to
debate and vote on articles of impeachment at this time.
He later says, I also believe that quick positive action in the House
could improve chances for a timely resolution of this matter in the
U.S. Senate.
So to those on the other side who have been invoking the name of
Senator Dole, I would point out that he believes that it is appropriate
for us to take the action we are taking today.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, just before the November 3 election my 5-
year-old grandson, Jake, asked his mother if we were going to be
electing a new President, and upon being told, no, we already have a
President, Jake replied: No, we do not; he lied.
As my colleagues know, such principle from the mouths of babes. As
sad as this is for our Nation, this action is necessary so that all of
us can continue to not only uphold but teach those basic truths and
basic right and wrong in our houses and, most assuredly, in this House.
Yes, to err is human, but to lie and deny and vilify; rather than
that we need to confess and repair and repent.
Just remember, the children are watching.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Republicans say the underlying
issue is not about sex, it is about perjury. Democrats say the
underlying issue is about sex, a private consensual relationship, and
the President lied about it, possibly committing perjury in the
process. But since lying about sex is not an act involved using his
official position against the state as Nixon did, Democrats say
Clinton's sins do not reach the constitutional standard for
impeachment. That is the essence of the arguments we have heard
presented by Members of Congress and the Committee on the Judiciary,
but underlying the pending Clinton impeachment is neither sex, nor
lying, nor perjury, but American history itself. Essentially the same
economic and political forces that drove the presidential impeachment
process against Andrew Johnson in 1868 are driving the impeachment
process 130 years later. There has been a role reversal. The
Republicans of 1998 were the Democrats of 1868, but the underlying
issue is essentially the same:
Reconstruction. The first reconstruction was at issue in 1868; the
second reconstruction is at issue in 1998.
It could not possibly be about the standard. Congress determined that
Mr. Nixon's failure to pay taxes and his lying about failure to pay
those taxes did not meet the constitutional standard while felonious.
Mr. Clinton's actions, while potentially felonious, does not reach the
constitutional standard. So we look to history for the answer.
People keep asking me every time I step outside of this Congress why
does the African American community keep sticking with Bill Clinton?
When legal slavery ended, this is why. There were 9 million people in
the old Confederacy which was led by the Democrat Party. Then the
Democratic Party was defined in exclusive terms, as slave holders
protected by States rights governments. Four million people,
southerners, were uneducated, untrained former slaves who wanted to be
brought into the mainstream of America, that it include poor and
working class whites who wanted to be brought in. The identification of
Lincoln and the Republican Party with ending slavery led southern
Democrats to refer to Lincoln as the black President and the Republican
Party as the black Republican Party. Former Democratic confederates
opposed and resisted the big centralized Republican federal government
and wanted to get the government off of their States' backs so they
could get right back to their old States rights ways. Senator Andrew
Johnson was a Tennessee Democrat who had refused to join his southern
Democratic Confederates and stayed with the northern Unionists.
Lincoln's concern about preserving and re-unifying the Union, the
Nation following the war led him to appoint that Democrat to become
Vice. When Lincoln was killed, President Johnson focused on putting the
Union back together but not on building a more perfect union for all
Americans. And unlike Lincoln and the Republicans, he was willing to
preserve the Union by leaving some Americans behind, sacrificing the
rights and interests of the former slaves. This is why. As a result
those northern angry Republicans investigated a vulnerable Johnson, who
not unlike Bill Clinton had personal foibles, to try to come up with an
excuse to impeach him. It was a partisan attack by Republicans on a
Democratic President in order to preserve undertaking the Republicans'
first reconstructive economic program. Today's conservative based
Republicans' target is not Bill Clinton, it is second reconstruction,
especially the liberalism of Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson,
but also ultimately including the big government economic programs of
FDR.
Let us not be confused. Today Republicans are impeaching Social
Security, they are impeaching affirmative action, they are impeaching
women's right to choose, Medicare, Medicaid, Supreme Court Justices who
believe in equal protection under the law for all Americans. Something
deeper in history is happening than sex, lying about

[[Page H11810]]

sex and perjury. In 1868 it was about reconstruction, and in 1998 it is
still about reconstruction.
Republicans say the underlying issue is not about sex, it's about
perjury. Democrats say the underlying issue is about sex--a private
consensual sexual relationship--and the President lied about it,
possibly committing perjury in the process. But since lying about sex
is not an act that involved using is official position against the
state, as Nixon did, Democrats say, Clinton's sins do not reach the
Constitutional standard for impeachment.
That is the essence of the argument we heard presented by members of
the House Judiciary Committee and voted on along partisan party lines
to impeach President Clinton. That is what the current Republicans and
Democrats are saying. What will history say?
Underlying the pending Clinton impeachment is neither sex, nor lying,
nor perjury, but American history itself. Essentially the same elitist
economic and political forces that drove the president impeachment
process against Andrew Johnson in 1868 are driving the impeachment
process 130 years later. There has been a ``role reversal''--the
Republicans of 1998 were the Democrats of 1868--but the underlying
issue is essentially the same: reconstruction. The First Reconstruction
was at issue in 1868, the Second Reconstruction is at issue in 1998.
Congress determined that Mr. Nixon's failure to pay taxes, while
felonious, did not meet constitutional standards. Mr. Clinton's action
while potentially felonies, does not reach the standards so we look to
history for the answer.
The end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 13th Amendment to
the Constitution on December 18, 1865 ended legal slavery, Slavery, the
Democratic Party, its geography and its ideology were all defeated. But
Lincoln's assassination five days after Appomattox denied him and the
Republican Party the opportunity to pursue a ``Big Federal Government''
policy of economic reconstruction and political enfranchisement for all
Americans, leaving no American behind.
People keep asking me why the black community sticks with Bill
Clinton.
When legal slavery ended, there were nine million people in the old
Confederacy, which was led by the Democratic Party. Then, the
Democratic Party was defined in exclusive terms--as slave holders with
private property rights (slaves) which were protected legally by
``States' rights'' governments. Four million of the southerners were
uneducated and untrained former slaves who needed to be educated,
trained and brought into the economic mainstream and politically
enfranchised with the right and ability to vote. That didn't include
poor and working class whites who had similar needs and had been
exploited, manipulated, misused and politically diverted with a focus
on social issues (then, perpetuating the fear of interracial sex) by
the slave owners to preserve and protect their elite economic system of
special interests.
Just eight years earlier, in 1857, in the Dred Scott decision, the
Court had ruled that blacks had no rights that a white man must respect
and that Congress could not outlaw slavery anywhere in the U.S. The
Confederacy--its economy, religion, family, social customs, mores and
politics--was based and built on the institution of slavery. The Civil
War ended slavery, but it did not create a more perfect Union because
there were still two outstanding problems: (1) How to bring four
million former slaves into the economic mainstream? And (2) How to
politically enfranchise them? That was the goal of the First
Reconstruction and it's goal has never been realized. Those twin
problems have never been completely fixed!
The identification of Lincoln and the Republican Party with ending
slavery led southern Democrats to refer to Lincoln as the Black
President and the Republican Party as the Black Republican Party. So
the Rep. J.C. Watts' Republican Party has gone from being known as the
Black Republican Party to one Black Republican. ``Former'' Democratic
Confederates opposed and resisted the ``Big Centralized Republican
Federal Government'' and wanted ``the government off of their states'
backs'' so they could go back to their old ``States' Rights'' ways.
Senator Andrew Johnson was a Tennessee Democrat who had refused to
join his fellow southern Democratic Confederates and stayed with the
northern Unionists. Lincoln's concern about preserving and reunifying
the nation following the war led our first Republican President to
reward Johnson's loyalty by nominating him for Vice President in the
1864 campaign.
Lincoln fought a Civil War to preserve the Union and to end slavery.
He defeated the southern slave forces militarily at a national cost of
620,000 lives and was prepared to reconstruct the nation with a
Republican program of economic inclusion and political enfranchisement.
When Lincoln was killed, President Johnson focused on putting the
Union back together, but not on building a ``more perfect Union'' for
all Americans. Unlike Lincoln and the Republicans, he was willing to
preserve the Union by leaving some Americans behind, sacrificing the
rights and interests of the former slaves. As a result, angry northern
Radical Republicans investigated a vulnerable Johnson--who was not
unlike Bill Clinton in terms of his personal foibles--to try to come up
with an excuse to impeach him. It was a partisan Republican attack on a
Democratic President in order to preserve undertaking the Republicans'
First Reconstruction economic program. It was in this context that the
historically black colleges and universities were founded.
The struggle between these radical progressive northern Republicans
and these radical conservative southern Democrats continued following
the Civil War, and finally came to a head in the 1876 presidential
election and Tilden-Hayes Compromise of 1877--which ended
reconstruction. Rutherford B. Hayes, a Republican, was finally elected
President by one vote in the House, but in exchange for pulling out
Federal troops protecting the newly freed slaves in the South, and
agreeing to appoint conservative Democrats to the Supreme Court. New
Democratic Confederates, with the help of new ``black laws'' of
discrimination, psychological intimidation, physical violence and
murder, were now on their way back to being in power in the South.
By 1896, the Supreme Court appointments resulted in Plessy, which
ushered in Jim Crow, and by 1901 the first Congressional Black Caucus
was completely eliminated from Congress, not to return for three
decades.

Blacks remained loyal to the Republican Party until 1936, FDR's
second term. African Americans were attracted to his New (economic)
Deal. Roosevelt defined a new more inclusive Democratic Party by
offering an economic agenda that appealed to every American.
It is the same white elitist southern forces and their continuing
anti-Federal government ideology--except today they are called
Republicans--who want, this time, not to preserve but to undue the
nation's effort at reconstruction, a Second Reconstruction begun in
1954 with Brown, continued with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965
Voting Rights Act, affirmative action and majority-minority political
districts. The southern Democratic Party, with the legacy of the
Confederacy, generally found itself on the wrong side of history again
in the 1960s. Governors George Wallace of Alabama, Lester Maddox of
Georgia and Orville Faubus of Arkansas were all Democrats. Renowned
segregationists like Senator Richard Russell of Georgia and Congressman
Howard Smith from Virginia were Democrats. Today's Senators Strom
Thurmond of South Carolina and Richard Shelby of Alabama were
originally Dixiecrats, but are now Republicans.
Today's conservative southern-based Republicans' target is the Second
Reconstruction, especially the ``liberalism'' of Democratic President
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, but also ultimately including many of
the ``Big Government'' economic programs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
New Deal. The real underlying dynamic of this impeachment proceeding is
not the removal of Bill Clinton, but the removal of the social and
economic programs of the New Deal and the Second Reconstruction of the
Great Society, a weakening of the Big Federal Government generally, and
the destruction of liberalism as a viable political ideology in
particular.
Whether these conservative anti-Federal government Republicans are
successful or not will be determined by history. There will be a few
pro-impeachment Democrats thrown in for good measure because,
politically, they must factor in the old Democratic forces in the
South, now controlled by the Republicans. The Republican impeachment
strategy can only be measured by future elections. Will the American
people be led astray again by the Republicans' new sex diversion or
will a strong political leader be able to get them to focus on their
real economic interests of full employment, comprehensive and universal
health care, affordable housing and a quality public education?
History--not President Clinton or the current crop of Democrats and
Republicans--will render that judgment!
The political and ideological roots of this anti-reconstruction and
anti-more-perfect-union crowd is in the South, though its tentacles
have spread beyond the South. This Republican impeachment effort allows
us to look at the roots, dynamic and current political structure of
this conservative political movement.
Begin with the Judiciary Committee. Ten of the eighteen Republican
members of the Judiciary Committee are ultra-conservatives from former
Confederate states. In the middle of the impeachment hearings, one of
them, Bob Barr of Georgia, was exposed for having recently spoken
before a white supremacist group.
Move on to the House Republican leadership. The Speaker is Newt
Gingrich (R-GA), whose history is laced with not-so-subtle new racial
code words, and the Speaker-elect is

[[Page H11811]]

Bob Livingston (R-LA). There styles are different, but their substances
is essentially the same. Both abdicated their leadership roles in the
impeachment crisis only to have another southern conservative, Rep. Tom
``The Hammer'' DeLay (R-TX), fill the void. He is intimidating and
forcing Republicans, not to vote against censure, but to vote with
their party on a procedural vote--which, in essence, is a vote to kill
a vote of conscience for censure.
In addition, call the roll of House leadership and committee
chairmanships in the 105th Congress: Richard Armey (TX), Majority
Leader; Bill Archer (TX), Ways and Means; Bob Livingston (LA),
Appropriations; Floyd Spence (SC), National Security; Thomas Bliley
(VA), Commerce; Porter Goss (FL), Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Add to that the 105th Republican controlled Senate: Trent Lott (MS),
Senate Majority Leader; Strom Thurmond (SC), President Pro Tem (3rd in
line to be President), Chairman, Armed Services; Jesse Helms (NC),
Senate Foreign Relations; John Warner (VA), Rules; Richard Shelby (AL),
Select Committee on Intelligence. Today in Congress there are more
people arguing on behalf of states' rights than there are people
arguing on behalf of building a more perfect union.
But don't stop there. Look at who will preside as Chief Justice over
an impeachment trial in the Senate--the ultimate conservative states'
righter, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Nominated to
the Court by Nixon and elevated to Chief Justice by Reagan, this
intellectually gifted conservative, when clerk for Justice Robert H.
Jackson between 1952 and 1953, wrote a memorandum arguing in favor of
upholding the ``separate but equal'' doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson in
preparation for the 1954 decision on Brown. As a conservative Phoenix
lawyer, he appeared as a witness before the Phoenix City Council in
opposition to a public accommodations ordinance and took part in a
program of challenging African American voters at the polls.
From 1969 until 1971, he served as assistant attorney general for the
Office of Legal Counsel. In that position, he supported executive
authority to order wiretapping and surveillance without a court order,
no-knock entry by the police, preventive detention and abolishing the
exclusionary rule, that is, a rule to dismiss evidence gathered in an
illegal way.
As a member of the Burger Court, Rehnquist played a crucial role in
reviving the debate regarding the relationship between the federal
government and the states. The consequences of Rehnquist's state-
centered federalism surfaced dramatically in the area of individual
rights. Since the 1960s, the Court had held that nearly every provision
in the Bill of Rights applies to the states through the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rehnquist voiced his disagreement
with such a method of determining the constitutional requirements of
state action, particularly in the context of criminal proceedings,
urging a return to an earlier approach whereby the states were not
required to comply with the Bill of Rights but only to treat
individuals with ``fundamental fairness.''
Likewise, Rehnquist narrowly construed the Fourteenth Amendment's
mandate to the states not to deny any person the equal protection of
the laws. He contended that all that the framers of the Fourteenth
Amendment hoped to achieve with the Equal Protection Clause was to
prevent the states from treating black and white citizens differently.
The most important value for Rehnquist is his state-centered
federalism, followed by private property and individual rights. In
other words, his current views are consistent with the core of the
states' rights legal philosophy a century-and-a-half ago, where the
individual right to own property (slaves) was to be protected by a
states' rights government!
To capture a new political base, Republicans abandoned the essence of
Lincoln and decided to go after Dixie, using social issues as cover for
their narrow economic interests. Barry Goldwater launched this modern
conservative anti-Federal government movement with his 1964
presidential campaign. Ronald Reagan picked it up and sent the same
signal by launching his southern campaign from Philadelphia,
Mississippi in 1980, in the name of states' rights, where two Jews and
a Black were murdered in the name of states' rights fighting for the
right to vote. Now Republicans want to complete Mr. Gingrich's 1994
``Revolution of Devolution'' by defeating and eliminating the twin evil
forces of ``liberalism'' and ``Big Government'' in the 2000 election.
The Republicans know that if the President is impeached in the House,
he will not be convicted in the Senate. They don't want him convicted
and out of office, with President Al Gore given two years to solidify
his hold on the White House. They want an impeached, but not convicted,
President twisting in the wind for two years leading up to the 2000
election. This is a continuation of the November 3, 1998, strategy of
the Republican hard liners to motivate and build their conservative
``social values'' political base as a dimersion from economic justic
issues.
What the Republicans want out of this impeachment crisis is a
``family values'' issue for the 2000 presidential campaign. They want
to say that Clinton's sexual misconduct is the result of the ``decadent
values'' of the 1960's and liberalism generally. In other words, in
some form, the Lewinsky matter will become a Republican ``wedge issue''
in the 2000 campaign. The fact that African Americans are so closely
identified with both President Clinton and liberal ``Big Government''
programs fits perfectly with their consistent use of race to divide the
electorate in presidential campaigns. They can send the subliminal race
signal while publicly denying they are using race as an issue in the
campaign. So far the Republicans have gotten away with it and they have
not been impeached for lying about it.
The Republican goal in 2000 is to use this strategy to retain control
of the House and Senate and to gain control of the White House. They
can then appoint their hardcore conservative right wing friends to the
Supreme Court after 2001. We will be treated to Kenneth Starr clones as
nominees to the Supreme Court. Remember, Kenneth Starr's ambition
before being sullied by the Lewinsky affair was to be appointed to the
Supreme Court.
Republicans in control of the executive, legislative and judicial
branches of the Federal government could turn the clock back to a
twenty-first century version of the good old States' Rights days of the
1850s and the 1896 ``separate but equal'' days of Plessy v. Ferguson.
By putting impeachment in the legislative rather than the judicial
branch of government, the Constitution deliberately made it a
political-legal affair. Republicans have done in 1998, what Democrats
did in 1868. They have used the political-legal nature of the
impeachment process to turn it into a political--political affair to
further their anti-Big Government aims.
Republicans are trying to impeach reconstruction. President Clinton
risked all of that history of social and economic progress by lying
about an issue of personal satisfaction. He has not committed treason
as defined by the Constitution as an impeachable offense. His treason
is against our cause of building a more perfect union.
After economic and socially conservative Presidents Nixon, Ford,
Carter (an economic conservative, but more liberal socially), Reagan
and Bush, a moderate-to-conservative southern Democrat, President
Clinton, has helped to prepare an economic bridge which would allow us
to again begin to work on some of the unfinished and unreconstructed
tasks of the Civil War. Monica Lewinsky has now reduced the defense of
that agenda to a defense of him.
Today Republicans are trying to impeach Social Security, affirmative
action, the right to choose, Medicare, Medicaid, Supreme Court justices
who believe in equal protection under the law for all Americans, public
education for all over vouchers for some, universal and comprehensive
health coverage over medical savings accounts for the few, affordable
housing for all, versus mansions for a select few in an effort to win
elections.
Clinton launched a dialogue to talk about race, but the real race
dialogue is what could potentially happen to economic reconstruction in
2001 if this reactionary Republican strategy works. Clinton has worked
hard to separate the race dialogue from the economic dialogue--joining
with the Republicans in 1997, and ignoring his strongest liberal
supporters today, by cutting a budget deal to balance the budget with
the conservative Republicans. That deal assures that there will not be
enough money to fix our historic problem. He has reduced his own
defense to a personal defense instead of a defense of history.
Something deeper in history than sex, lying and perjury is at issue
here--just as something deeper in history than the removal of a cabinet
secretary was a stake in 1868. At stake in 1868 was the First
Reconstruction. At stake in 1998 is the Second Reconstruction. The
struggle taking place in Congress and nationally today is between those
political forces who want to build a more perfect union for all
Americans, leaving no American behind, and those who want to return an
elitist economic program of more perfect ``States' Rights'' for the
few. That is what underlies the impeachment crisis.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the twentieth session in which I
have been casting votes in legislative chambers in this status. I
submit a statement on behalf of all four articles of impeachment for my
side.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady).
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is much in the statement of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to which I could respond. I
do

[[Page H11812]]

want to focus on one particular point that he made which we have heard
repeated time and time again concerning the impeachment proceedings
against President Nixon.
It is claimed that the Committee on the Judiciary decided that tax
fraud by President Nixon was not an impeachable offense. The record
simply does not bear that out. It is true that the committee rejected
an article of impeachment based on tax fraud against President Nixon,
but it is equally clear that the overwhelming majority of the members
of the committee who expressed an opinion on that subject said that
they were voting against that article because there was insufficient
evidence to support tax fraud.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote what the subsequent chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Brooks, a Democrat, said in that
context. He said that no man in America can be above the law. It is our
duty to establish now the evidence of specific statutory crimes and
constitutional violations by the President of the United States will
subject all Presidents now and in the future to impeachment. No
President is exempt under our U.S. Constitution and the laws of the
United States from accountability for personal misdeeds any more than
he is for official misdeeds.
I think that we on this committee in our effort to fairly evaluate
the President's activities will show the American people that all men
are treated equally under the law.
Now that was a view that was adopted by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) also, who supported the tax fraud article, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and various other Members on the Democrat
side.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, censure did not change Andrew Jackson. We have
heard a lot about censure during the Jackson administration. When the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Indians, Jackson was heard
to say about the sitting Chief Justice, ``Well, John Marshall has made
his decision, let us see if he can enforce it.'' Obviously the Court
could not enforce the order. The Court does not have the Army. The
Court does not have the Federal marshals. So much for censure.
Censure would have about as much effect on the behavior of Presidents
as a parent yelling and shouting at a teenager. As we know, shouting
does not usually change teenage behavior.

{time} 1430

The other point that I would make is we have heard an awful lot of
talk about the repeal of the 1996 election. We have heard a lot of talk
in the Shays town meeting about a coup occurring in America. This is
utter nonsense. After all, the President of the United States picked
his Vice President in 1992 and 1996, and he picked him for issue
compatibility, and certainly Vice President Gore would have that,
should the Senate vacate the office of President. I would suggest that
the ``repeal the 1996 election'' argument falls.
The President must subject himself to the rule of law that effects
all of our citizens. This should be a warning to all presidents, that
when you break the rule of law, you violate Federal laws--be it
perjury, suborning witnesses, whatever it is--that you might endanger
yourself with impeachment.
Let us do the right thing. Let us vote for the articles of
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: my weekly column
entitled ``Two Challenges for Our Country.''

Two Challenges for Our Country

This week, our nation has been confronted with two crucial
challenges--Saddam Hussein again has blocked weapons
inspections in Iraq and the House of Representatives is
preparing to decide whether President Clinton should be
impeached. The collision of these events should reaffirm for
us that we can unite in dealing with foreign threats even as
complicated domestic matters are under consideration.
First, I strongly support our armed forces in current
operations to reduce Saddam Hussein's ability to produce
weapons of mass destruction. Although I believe we should
have acted earlier, when Saddam repeatedly thwarted United
Nations efforts, it is clear that we must deter Iraqi efforts
to obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
On the domestic challenges before us, the American people,
and their Representatives in Congress, are confronted with
one fundamental issue: Are all Americans, including the
President of the United States, equal before the law? My
answer to that question is Yes, and so I will be voting for
the articles of impeachment of President Clinton.
I have reached this decision after many weeks of reviewing
all the evidence. I have also waited for the President to
rebut the facts or take responsibility for his actions.
However, the President has steadfastly refused to address
these charges.
The impeachment of a President by the House does not remove
him from office. The House judges whether or not there is
``clear and convincing evidence'' for the Senate to conduct a
trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the United
States. That was the standard used by Watergate-era Judiciary
Committee Chairman Rodino in 1974 and by Chairman Hyde in
1998.
I have paid close attention to the telephone calls, mail,
faxes, and e-mail. I have received thousands of
communications--most of which come from organized groups
outside our district. Within our district, the often
passionate communications have been closely divided between
those who favor and those who oppose impeachment.
Most Americans know there is powerful evidence that
President Clinton deliberately testified falsely under oath
in both a federal sexual harassment case and a federal
criminal grand jury proceeding. They know there is
substantial evidence that the President attempted to tamper
with witnesses and obstruct justice.
What should be done in response to President Clinton's
actions is, and should be, a matter of conscience. Despite
news reports to the contrary, on this issue there has been no
arm-twisting by either the White House or the Republican
leadership. I respect the views of my colleagues who will
vote differently, and those of my constititunts who will
disagree with my position.
It would have been easy to vote against impeachment.
According to the polls, a majority of the public is against
it. Additionally, I have voted against a majority in my party
a number of times--on such issues as protecting a women's
right to choose, sensible gun control, the patients' bill of
rights, campaign finance reform, and equal rights for gays
and lesbians.
In this case, there is simply overwhelming evidence that
the President has committed serious crimes such as perjury. I
realize that the President is popular. But being popular does
not excuse his breaking of the law. Any other person--a
teacher, soldier, a businessperson, a newspaper editor--would
long ago has lost his or her job for such actions.
The President refuses to take responsibility for his
actions. That refusal has brought him, and all of us, to his
point. There any many myths regarding the President's
defense. Here are just a few of the main ones:
(1) ``These are Not High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' This is
not Watergate. But, no committing watergate-style crimes
should hardly be the minimum standard we ask of out
Presidents. There have been only two other Presidents who
have faced the serious prospect of impeachment, but other
officials, primarily judges, have been impeached for actions,
such as perjury, that had nothing to do with their officials
duties.
(2) ``Censure is the Proper Punishment'' It has been said
that instead of impeachment, the House should censure the
President. First, the Contitituion does not provide for
censure, and even many scholars who support President Clinton
say that it would be unconstitutional for the House to do it.
The House does not determine the ultimate punishment of those
impeached. That is the Senate's role. Second, censure at this
point really comes down to passing a meaningless resolution
condemning the President either for unspecified bad
behavior or for crimes that he refuses to admit. Censure
would be like shouting at a teenager and thinking that
loudness will change his behavior. However, if the Senate
should decide on other measures short of removal, then
censure might be proper. The role of the House is to
ascertain whether there is enough evidence to have the
Senate conduct a trial.
(3) ``It's a Coup Overturning the 1996 Election'' If the
President should actually be removed from office by the
Senate, then he would be succeeded by Democratic Vice
President Al Gore, not losing Republican candidate Bob Dole.
President Clinton picked Gore as his running mate in 1992 and
1996. He picked Gore because he felt that they would agree on
public policy. To say that this ``overturns'' the 1996
election is no more accurate than saying that the forced
resignation of Richard Nixon overturned the 1972 election.
When President Nixon resigned, his own hand-picked Vice
President, Gerald Ford, succeeded to the office.
(4) ``It's Just Sex'' What we should not forget is that
President Clinton is accused, not of having an affair, but of
lying in a sexual harassment case in an effort to defraud an
American citizen of her rightful day in court. Plaintiffs in
sexual harassment cases are permitted by law to inquire into
the behavior of defendants in order to establish a pattern
and practice of behavior (such as giving benefits for sex).
If President Clinton is

[[Page H11813]]

permitted to lie, will every other defendant in a sexual
harassment lawsuit be permitted to lie?
If we fail to hold the President accountable, we inevitably
confront these questions: (1) Do we believe that the
President is above the law? (2) Do we believe that such
actions are acceptable and deserving of no more than a
meaningless and nonbinding censure resolution? (3) Do we
believe that the President should be held to a lower standard
than anyone else in our society?
Our nation will survive this crisis, regardless of the
ultimate fate of President Clinton. I am far more worried
about our future if, as a society, we give the wrong answers
to the above questions. By his actions, the President has
answered Yes to all of these questions. By my vote, I will be
answering each of them No.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a ranking Member of the House.
(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe this is the worst day for
this institution in this century, and history will see it as such. The
tool of impeachment was inserted in the Constitution to protect the
country from irreparable harm, not to punish the President. Under our
system, the proper institution to punish the President if he violated
the law is the court system, a legal institution, not the Congress, a
political institution.
The House Republican leadership has said that this is a vote of
conscience. It is denying the right to cast that vote of conscience to
those of us who believe that the proper course is to censure, not
impeach. That decision dooms this House to go down in history as
tragically lacking in both perspective and fairness.
To those who say censure has no bite, my response is this: I come
from the State of Joe McCarthy. Tell him censure has no bite. It
destroyed him.
Whether the President has committed perjury or not is a legal,
technical question that can be decided by a jury and a judge and our
court system at the proper time.
There is no question that the President has misled the country and
the Congress. That is unacceptable. But, in my view, it does not rise
to the level of an impeachable offense, because the lies essentially
grew out of sex, not public acts. If the House ignores that
distinction, it fails in its obligation to put the President's acts in
perspective.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said earlier in
this debate that there cannot be one law for the ruler and one law for
the ruled. I agree. But I would say, respectfully, that this House
should not have one standard of judgment for truth telling for the
leader of the Executive Branch, and another for the leader of this
institution, who was found not to have told the truth to this House. In
that case there was no removal from office; there was not even censure.
There was simply a reprimand and then reelection by the Republican
House majority to the Speakership.
Mr. Speaker, for the House Republican leadership to, in effect,
predetermine the outcome of this vote by refusing to allow a conscience
vote on censure in this instance is a massive failure of fairness. If
the House leadership can only win this vote by denying any alternative,
it will have failed the country as much as Bill Clinton has.
Mr. Speaker, because of time limits imposed on debate today I would
like to extend my remarks at this point updating the thought on the
issue that I expressed earlier in the year, to place my conclusion in
full context.
Mr. Speaker, three months ago, as I tried to wade through my copy of
the Starr Report, and as I came again and again to gratuitously graphic
and voyeuristic descriptions of ``sexual encounters'' contained in that
report, I reached the point where I could read no more. I had voted to
release that report earlier that day, but I really began to wonder
whether I would have done so if I had known it was so graphic. I say
that because while reading the report I was continually asking myself
what we had done to our own children, to the President's privacy and
dignity (and that of Monica Lewinsky) and even to the dignity of the
nation itself by the placement of that report on the Internet.
Putting down the report, I turned on the t.v. set to see, as an
unreconstructed Cub fan, if I could find out if Sammy Sosa had hit
another home run or not. The tube came on and within seconds I heard a
CNBC reporter describing the Starr report, using language I never
expected to hear on the nation's national news programs or what passes
for them these days.
At that moment I reached the same conclusions that millions of
Americans have probably reached. I have had it--not just with this
story, but with something far more disturbing.
What I felt was a conclusion that has been building within me for
months, even years. I was overwhelmed with the feeling that this report
is a phenomenally gross verification that our society and our country
is faced with nothing less than the accelerating failure of
institutions that are central to our functioning as a decent society
and as a democracy that works the way our Founding Fathers wanted it to
work.
Please do not misunderstand. This is a great country. In many ways it
is a good country. There is much that is good in our society, and we
have had much good economic news in recent years.
Nonetheless, I believe that the most crucial institutions and
institutional arrangements in this country and in this society are
failing in their responsibilities. That failure is affecting our
economy, our culture, our political system, our long-term environmental
security, and even our own spirituality.
The evidence of the failure of our most important institutions is all
around us--in this and in other events. At the moment that our nation
is transfixed on the most pornographic document ever produced by
government, global challenges face us everywhere.
The world's economy is in turmoil. We have almost no tool but
persuasion to move the Japanese government off a course of economic and
fiscal impotence and incompetence that threatens the economic health of
all of Asia and indirectly threatens our own as well.
International financial institutions such as the International
Monetary Fund are being overwhelmed by changes in the world economy,
changes in currency relationships, changes in capital flows that each
day weaken the ability of the major institution the world has to
stabilize economic relationships between nations.
The nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons that could
possibly one day be arrayed against us (Russia) is experiencing
political and economic chaos. Much of Europe is focused on that chaos,
but here in America we give it only intermittent attention and
analysis.
The most irrational, paranoid and dangerous government in the world
(North Korea) is facing military, political, and economic instability
that could easily threaten the lives of 50,000 American servicemen and
women stationed in South Korea and hundreds of thousands of others.
Our ability to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons has been brought
to the edge of failure by events on the Indian subcontinent and in
Korea. And yet, the discourse in this country about how to deal with
that issue is shallow and in some cases downright dangerous.
The best change in a generation for peace in the Middle East is
slowly but surely sliding away.
This decade has produced the hottest known global temperatures in 200
years with huge potential consequences for worldwide agriculture,
fisheries, economic dislocation, public health, and environmental
stability. Yet commercial disputes about profit levels are threatening
our ability to take even marginal action to minimize potential
catastrophe.
On the home front, the Supreme Court, the institution that we, in the
end, rely upon more than any other to preserve the balance of forces
that protect our democratic processes and our liberty, has handed down
two very different sets of decisions that have crippled the ability of
our political system to function as a democracy should.
(1) The spectacularly myopic decision in the Paula Jones case that
the government would not be distracted if that case went forward now
rather than two years from now when the President was out of office and
his private activities could be handled as a private civil matter
rather than as a national governmental soap opera.
(2) The mind-bogglingly naive decisions that the constitutional
rights of Americans to have a political system that functions for them
would be protected by a series of naively libertarian decisions that
equate money with speech, establish absurd legalisms about campaign
financing that have no relationship to reality, that have turned
politics into a money chase and political campaigns into the
competition of dollars rather than ideas.

And other domestic institutions are also failing in their fundamental
responsibilities.
Large sections of corporate America are making economic decisions,
devoid of any values except the maximization of financial benefit to
the management and investment elite of this country--in almost total
disregard of the impact of those decisions on loyal workers, their
families, and their broader communities which have nurtured them.
These decisions, and policy decisions by government, have together
produced the greatest disparity between the economic well-

[[Page H11814]]

being of the wealthiest 5 percent of our people and everyone else in
the modern history of the country. If we as a people are concerned with
moral outcomes, should we not be just as concerned about how the nation
deals with poor people and sick people as we are about how we deal with
each other on matters of sexual intimacy?
The political elite has largely debased what passes for political
dialogue on many crucial issues.
It has allowed its reliance upon the community of pollsters and
consultants to produce lowest common denominator discourse in which
winning and holding power drive out any consideration of the need to
educate and enlighten the public on almost every front. We should ask
ourselves: Are there no lengths to which we will not go to seize or
hold power? Is there no amount of pain we will not inflict on each
other for political gain?
More and more, individuals are entering Congress and other political
institutions who see issues not as problems to be confronted, but
concerns to be manipulated and toyed with around the margins in order
to seize and hold power. So many debates are split along party lines
and driven by ideological enforcers (the modern day American
counterparts of Michael Suslov, the old guardian of the purity of
Soviet Orthodoxy) that when bipartisanship does occur, we are almost
startled by its appearance.
And the focus and limits of much of that debate are set by political
elites in both parties who rub shoulders with the financial and
economic elites of the nation far more often than they do with every
day working people.
The press itself, with all too few lonely and valiant exceptions, has
fallen into the same bad habits it legitimately criticizes in the
politicians it covers. The press too (especially the electronic media)
drawn by the realities of the marketplace, has often become little more
than the public affairs entertainment division of profit making
corporations who will do almost anything to preserve market share
instead of responding to the public's need to understand the substance
of issues before the country. The press, driven by market surveys and
polls, produces story after story that portray politicians as
gladiators and celebrities rather than problem solvers--responding to
and strengthening some of the most unhealthy public biases on the
landscape.

For every question I get from a reporter about the substance of an
issue, I get five from other reporters about the politics of that same
issue--reflecting both a laziness and a shallowness that the country
cannot afford. And worst of all, some reporters cannot resist using any
device to win a point, no matter how much damage they do to the country
and innocent individuals in the process. One need look no further than
the incident last Sunday in which a report from a Sunday talk show,
during his interview with the President's lawyer, David Kendall,
snidely asked Mr. Kendall what Mr. Kendall's wife's definition of sex
was. That reporter owes his own profession, his viewers, and Mrs.
Kendall a public apology for his inability to resist his ``Dennis the
Menace'' impulses which have increasingly made that reporter a
caricature of himself. Is there no length to which some segments of the
press will go to humiliate other human beings in the name of ``news
values''?
Even religious institutions have allowed themselves to fail the
Nation in too many instances and have allowed politicians to manipulate
religious concerns, more to find political advantage than to find
spiritual answers.
Debates and discussions about the nature of humankind, our origins,
our purpose, and our relationship with our creator are essentially
conversations about the unknowable--at least in this life.
And yet the certitude with which some political and religious figures
attack those who have legitimate differences of belief are
disheartening and appalling and border on the sacrilegious. Too many
political and religious leaders alike have allowed religion--or the
superficial reference to religion--to be used for nonreligious
purposes. They wrap political commercial and ideological preferences in
religious ribbons and desecrate both religion and politics in the
process.
The Ten Commandments represent a guide for living and for the
treatment of others. God did not give them to us to provide a roadmap
for human beings and politicians to destroy each other. They are not a
political program or an economic platform. As Mario Cuomo once said,
``God is not a celestial party chairman.'' To the best of my knowledge,
God has not yet taken a position on capital gains or other tax plans,
but you would never know that by listening to some of the self-
promoting political manipulators who pass themselves off as the
``Clergy of the Tube.''
Politicians have no special qualifications to judge the private lives
of other people. In the end, only God can do that. The Nuns at St.
James taught me a long time ago that we have enough to do worrying
about the stewardship of our own souls to pass judgment on the private
lives of others.

Neither do religious leaders have any special competence to judge the
specific mechanisms by which elected officials in a democracy
accomplish decent public ends. Those of us in public life owe due
consideration to their opinions, but we have, after all, taken an oath
to uphold the Constitution in accordance with the dictates of our own--
not someone else's--conscience and that is our own sacred public duty
under the Constitution.
We--religious and political leaders alike--have allowed debates about
religious truths and values to be used all too often as weapons to
inflict pain and gain political advantage rather than as tools to find
moral answers that take decent account of the moral values of others as
well as ourselves.
We have all too often allowed the substitution of moralizing for
morality and have allowed the search for God to become a journey that
develops hatred and contempt rather than love for our fellow searchers.
Example: On abortion, perhaps the most agonizing, troubling, and
divisive of all moral debates in the public realm, both sides have
allowed their own certitude about the will of God or their dedication
to unbending individualism, their desire for tactical advantage, to get
in the way of their responsibility to recognize good intentions and
honest nuances of conscience. And so that debate has become more and
more a political manipulation of the legislative process rather than a
search for areas of agreement that would reduce the world's acceptance
of abortion at the same time that it recognizes the dignity of
individual conscience.
All of these institutional failures are rooted in two shortcomings.
One, simply a lack of knowledge or understanding about how the world
and institutional relationships are changing. The other is the triumph
of a ``me-first'' rampant, materialistic individualism that prevents
the leaders of almost all of our social, political, commercial,
informational, and religious institutions from really focusing on the
answer to one simple question: ``In addressing whatever decisions
confront us, how can I, or we, take into fair account the needs,
concerns, and interests of those who are not `just like us' in social
or economic standing, cultural outlook, or political or religious
beliefs?'' We desperately need to address our key institutional
shortcomings because institutions are the major tools available to any
culture, to any nation, to any society to shape its future. Yet we
continue to be transfixed on the Starr-Clinton-Lewinsky soap opera.
The nation has been moved to this focus because of two people:
(1) Mr. Starr: On a number of accounts Mr. Starr's report grossly
represents the overreaching zealotry of a personally upright, but
ideologically and politically partisan, individual who, before he was
appointed special prosecutor, was already contemplating filing a court
brief on behalf of Paula Jones and who had indicated that he was
planning to join Pepperdine Law School, and institution financed in
large part by a person who has contributed millions of dollars to try
to bring down the President. Mr. Starr from all reports is a fine,
upstanding human being, but a person of his partisan and ideological
mind set should never have been appointed to a position that called
for, above all, unquestioned fairness balance and judgement.

(2) President Clinton: Up to this point, he has been the most
personally talented politician of his generation. He appears to be a
person of good heart and courage who wants to do good things for the
country. But his career has been both promoted and crippled by a
tendency to manipulate language in ways that are technically in
conformance with the truth, but often are designed to obscure rather
than clarify!
For example: As frustrating as I feel the President's lack of candor
to be in this episode, I'm even more unhappy about the lack of candor
demonstrated by both the President and congressional leaders in jointly
obscuring the real effect of the budget agreement they both sold to the
nation last year on our ability to meet our domestic responsibilities
in strengthening education, health, environment, housing, and social
services. Why does that frustrate me more? Because the lack of candor
in the first instance was meant to hide private, personal conduct, but
the second was a public event which had direct substantive consequences
for American citizens and their families.
After finishing reading Mr. Starr's submission of opinion and the
response of the President's lawyers some things are clear to me and
some things are not. I cannot really reach a final judgement on this
depressing matter until I have had an opportunity to evaluate the
thousands of pages of backup material which are still to be released.
But my first impressions of what I read are these.
First, after four years and the expenditure of over $40 million since
Mr. Starr was first appointed to review the facts surrounding the
Whitewater land deal in Arkansas in the 1970s, we still have no finding
of illegal conduct by the President in Whitewater, no finding

[[Page H11815]]

of illegal conduct by the President in the investigation of the White
House travel office which Mr. Starr subsequently undertook, no finding
of illegality by the President on the matter relating to the FBI file
case. All we have is a document which is largely focused on what
actions the President took to hide sexual conduct that had not even
occurred when Mr. Starr was first appointed Independent Prosecutor.
There's no doubt that some conduct cited in the allegations is indeed
troubling. Many other allegations clearly overreach.
Mr. Starr's allegation that the President acted illegally by
misleading his own staff about his sexual activity is a real stretch as
is his allegation that the President acted illegally by pursuing
legitimate questions of Executive Privilege. Mr. Starr's active
advocacy of impeachment, going so far as to draw up potential articles
of impeachment, is, as the Washington Post has said, an ``arrogant''
act that claims for Mr. Starr a responsibility that is solely the
prerogative of Congress. Mr. Starr's job is to lay out the facts in
``Joe Friday style''--as Mr. Starr himself has on occasion pointed out.
It is not to reach a conclusion about what actions Congress should
take. That is our job.

But, Mr. Starr's overreaching does not obscure the fact that the
President appears at this moment to have provided information to the
public in the Paula Jones suit and possibly to the grand jury that
obscured the truth, even if it did not technically violate it. If that
proves to be the case, the question we will then have to answer is:
``What is the proper action for Congress to take?''
The actions taken by President Clinton, regrettable though they may
be, are far different from the actions President Nixon took in
Watergate. The actions in Watergate involved burglarizing and
wiretapping political opponents, attempting to use the IRS to
intimidate political opponents, financial payoffs to defendants in
criminal cases, and other uses of the levers of governmental power to
subvert the very democratic process that underlies the essence of
America.
In contract, this case is largely about actions taken by the
President to obscure personal conduct. They are not in the same league
as Mr. Nixon's.
That does not necessarily mean that some action by Congress may not
be warranted. If it is, based on what we know now, the case of Speaker
Gingrich may be instructive.
In the case of the Speaker, the House determined that the proper
action for the House to take was to reprimand the Speaker for having
misled the House in the ethnics investigation of his political
activities. Because the essence of the charges against the President
seem to be similar--that his actions also appear to have been designed
to obscure the truth--a congressional reprimand or sanction of some
sort, rather than removal from office, may prove to be the most
appropriate action. It would be especially so if it allowed Congress to
end this matter in a much shorter period of time so that the Congress
and the Presidency can refocus our attention and our activities from
the past private misdeeds of this President to the future public needs
of the nation and the people we are supposed to represent.
I do not know how this sad chapter will end, but I do know that this
episode and the way it has been handled by the leadership circles of
our major institutions demonstrates a desperate need to examine how we
can renew those crucial institutions.
In two years the millennium will draw to a close. This nation's
institutions are simply not ready to lead this country into a new one.
I would never in three lifetimes call for a new Constitutional
convention because this generation of political leadership is highly
unlikely to improve on the work of the Founding Fathers; it is much
more likely to muck it up.
But I do believe we need to have Millennium Conventions convened for
the purpose of examining ways to reshape, redirect, and refocus almost
all of our institutions--economic, corporate, political, communication,
religious, and even our international institutions such as the IMF, the
U.N., and NATO.
In the political area, we need special attention paid to the
presidential nominating process to try to find ways to reduce the
importance of candidates' media skills and increase the role of peer
review by people who know them best, if both parties are to produce
candidates with the qualities necessary to lead the nation.
I do not know how we can change the human heart, but we need to find
ways to reshape the major institutions of this society so that there
are more incentives to produce a new focus on selflessness. That is the
major task that we each face as individuals on life's journey, and we
need more help--and less hindrance--from the institutions that dominate
our lives along the way.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, while I sincerely doubt that those
who continue to bow down before the holy grail of censure will let the
historical record of precedent interfere with their support for this
notion of censure, I would direct those Members who still trust
historical precedent, I would direct their attention to a communication
from President Andrew Jackson, the last President who was censured, as
he at great length and eloquently set forth in a communication to this
body, printed in the official records of this body, ``Censure, although
it may have a place in certain procedures in the Congress, it has no
place if it is used as a substitute for impeachment.''
The precedent that applied back in the 1830's, in 1834 when that took
place, which was the basis for its later expungement in the very next
Congress, are just as relevant today. Censure is unconstitutional if in
fact it is used or attempted to be used as a substitute for
impeachment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that I am witnessing something very
similar to-day that I witnessed 25 years ago when I first ran for this
office, a Vice President forced out of office and a President forced
out of office. But then I am also reminded of the beauty of our system.
Nothing happened seriously. The system operated beautifully. Life went
on. No crisis. But, again, we are back to something very similar to
what happened then.
I began the day by reading an article in a New York newspaper, and I
quote: ``Two more cops were arrested yesterday on Federal charges of
lying when questioned by the FBI.'' They were not before a grand jury.
They were two highly decorated officers.
Then I turned to the sports page from one of the Washington
newspapers, and I read the following: ``A former Northwestern football
player pleaded not guilty and denied lying to Federal grand juries.''
The article also said two other players have been charged with lying.
There are more than 100 people in prison today, in Federal prisons,
for perjury. Some of those were prosecuted by this administration, and
some of those dealt with sex. Our constitutional system of government
cannot survive if we allow our judicial system to be undermined, and,
again, giving you the three illustrations that I just gave, what are
they to think? How are they to be treated differently than anyone else,
even if it is the President of the United States?
This vote will be the most monumental I will cast in all 24 years of
Congressional service. Our republic has weathered two centuries, a
civil war, but it cannot weather corruption of its basic tenet, the
oath of office. The oath of office is that invisible bond which links
the people to their elected representatives, and, upon its strength,
the virtue of this republic stands.
Similarly, the virtue of our legal system rests upon a simple oath,
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
you God.
I believe the President violated this oath, and, by violating the
oath, Mr. Speaker, I think he has violated the oath of office, and we
must proceed with these articles of impeachment. The Constitution
clearly states the course for this body to follow, it clearly tells us
what that course is, and it would be an abdication of our duty not to
follow that course.
Our republic and its institutions must be defended, and this House
must send the message that no man, not even the President, is above the
law. Therefore, it is my duty to defend the rule of law and support the
articles of impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if I might, the requests on our side are so
numerous, we still have over 40, I want to read the names of my
colleagues, and, with apologies to some of the Members who have been
waiting all morning, I would like to indicate that the next Members
that will be recognized on this side of the aisle are Ms. Slaughter,
Mr. Kildee, Mr. Filner, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Klink, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr.
Hastings, Mrs. Lowey,

[[Page H11816]]

Mr. Wynn, Mr. Kucinich and Ms. Pelosi.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
(Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to the House of Representatives
for the first time in 1948 and 23 times thereafter. For that reason, I
am frequently asked by the press these days whether this Congress
differs from the early ones to which I was elected.
I answer yes--there is a difference. There is a difference in the
ambience, in the relationship between Members of the two parties. I
have the impression that in the earlier Congresses Members were
friendlier than now and I regret that. And they were friendlier towards
the Presidency.
Nobody thought of impeaching a President. In the 81st Congress, the
Republicans did not like Harry Truman--they criticized him. They voted
against his Fair Deal programs, they abused him for firing General
MacArthur, they called him a tool of the Prendergast machine in Kansas
City--but there never was one mention of impeachment.
But that was prior to the special prosecutor law. That changed things
and now we have a special prosecutor, Mr. Starr, who investigated and
found nothing to blame on Mr. Clinton on Whitewater, Travelgate,
Filegate, his original charges. Then he stumbled on Monica Lewinsky.
That gave him his chance.
Starr is determined to drive Mr. Clinton out of the Presidency--and
in this bill, the Republicans are taking his recommendations to impeach
him--as the Chicago Tribune said--for ``low crimes and misdemeanors.''
There are no high crimes and misdemeanors that either Mr. Starr or the
Republicans can cite. It is unfortunate that the Congress should even
consider the bill.
Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune, not a liberal newspaper, but rather
the paradigm of Republican conservatism over the many years it has been
in existence, published an editorial entitled, ``There Is No Case for
Impeachment.'' Its arguments were sound and well-reasoned. Its
excellent editorial concludes:

But impeachment is a very different matter. It is a
constitutional sword meant to be unsheathed only in the
gravest, most unusual circumstances and to be wielded only to
preserve the security and integrity of the republic.
Use it in this instance, against Clinton and for these
offenses, and it will instantly become one more tool, one
more bludgeon, in the partisan wars that are turning our
politics into a wasteland and turning our people off. Like
the independent counsel law that has become Richard Nixon's
revenge, the promiscuous political use of impeachment will be
Bill Clinton's.
There are no ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' in this case.
There is no basis for impeachment. Let the House vote down
these proposed articles, and vote up a stern, historically
indelible resolution of censure.

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that my last vote as a Member of this
House should be on a bill like the bill under consideration. It should
never have been approved in committee. It must be voted down by the
House. I shall vote against the bill--there is no case for impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, I include the editorial from the Chicago Tribune of
December 17, 1998, with my remarks.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 17, 1998]

There Is No Case For Impeachment

From the beginning, our editorial concern in the Clinton-
Lewinsky episode has been to see a sense of proportion
maintained. ``What's it worth to get Clinton?'' we asked
repeatedly, as Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr hauled in
Monica Lewinsky's mother to put the squeeze on her daughter,
as he subpoenaed Secret Service agents, as he challenged the
posthumous validity of the lawyer-client privilege.
The issue, in our view, was never simply what it was legal
to do in pursuit of Clinton, but what it was wise to do. And
too much that has been done, we regret to say, has been
terribly unwise. But nothing that has been done to this point
is as unwise as what the House of Representatives will do if
it votes to impeach the president.
That we stand this morning on the verge of a presidential
impeachment--for only the second time in our nations
history--is evidence of how utterly the sense of proportion
has been lost.
The first time a president was impeached--Andrew Johnson in
1968--it arose out of actions he took in the wake of the
Civil War, actions having to do with the terms of
Reconstruction and the political status of newly freed blacks
and rebellious whites in the restored union. Even if the case
ultimately was meritless, it at least was about a matter of
real moment.
In the current instance, the impeachment turns on whether
Bill Clinton, in a lawsuit of dubious merit but indubitably
mischievous intent, lied about a tawdry, illicit--but
consensual--sexual affair with another adult.
The issues in the two instances are not even close to being
of the same gravity, and any member of the House who dares
suggest they are deserves the contempt of his constituents
today and of history in the future.
There still is time for the House to escape that judgment
and for the nation to escape the descent into political hell
that an impeachment vote in this instance would represent.
But it will demand a measure of courage and statesmanship
that so far has been conspicuously missing.
It has been missing most prominently in the House
Republican leadership, which has refused adamantly to allow a
vote on censure--the penalty most Americans say is
appropriate for Clinton's offense, the alternative many GOP
House members would like to have, the course recommended by
such party elders as Gerald Ford--and insisted instead that
the only allowable vote must be on impeachment.
In this regard, Robert Livingston, the speaker-elect of the
House, already has failed his first great test of
leadership--possibly the greatest test he ever will face. We
must accept that Livingston is sincere when he says he
believes that the House, which routinely passes resolutions
praising everything from peanuts to Ping-Pong players and
condemning bad actors from all over the world, is
constitutionally barred from censuring Clinton. We accept
Livingston's sincerity, but question his wisdom--and marvel
at how neatly this judgment coincides with the rank,
poisonously partisan nature of this entire proceeding.
Of course, we would not be in this fix if it were not for
William Jefferson Clinton, as amazing a human being as has
ever occupied the presidency. Brilliant, charming and
immensely talented, Clinton also is a pathetic creature,
slave of his enormous sexual appetite and addicted to lying.
It is those last two attributes that have brought him to this
current, perilous pass.
Whether or not it meets the technical definition of
perjury, Clinton lied under oath--first in his deposition in
the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, again in his
testimony to a federal grand jury.
Without question, those are serious matters. Any attempt to
subvert the justice system is serious, especially if made by
the person charged by oath to ``take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.''
But context is everything. Clinton lied to avoid deep
personal embarrassment, not to seize, maintain or subvert the
power of the state. His were the pathetic lies of a man
caught in marital infidelity, not those of a traitor or a
trader in government influence. His were low crimes and
misdemeanors, not the high crimes and misdemeanors that the
Constitution sets as the threshold for impeachment.
Again, it's a matter of proportion. When the House
Judiciary Committee was considering whether to impeach
Richard Nixon, it rejected an article citing Nixon's perjury
in signing a fraudulent income tax return. That offense, the
Democrat-controlled committee concluded, did not rise to the
level of an impeachable offense. It ought to be likewise in
this instance for Clinton and his sorry lies.
Three months ago, in the wake of the Starr report to
Congress, we called on Clinton to resign--as a matter of
honor. He has not, however, elected to oblige us and given
his character, that's no surprise.
But impeachment is a very different matter. It is a
constitutional sword meant to be unsheathed only in the
gravest, most unusual circumstances and to be wielded only to
preserve the security and integrity of the republic.
Use it in this instance, against Clinton and for these
offenses, and it will instantly become one more tool, one
more bludgeon, in the partisan wars that are turning our
politics into a wasteland and turning our people off. Like
the independent counsel law that has become Richard Nixon's
revenge, the promiscuous political use of impeachment will be
Bill Clinton's.
There are no ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' in this case.
There is no basis for impeachment. Let the House vote down
these proposed articles, and vote up a stern, historically
indelible resolution of censure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, most of us feel a surreal atmosphere here
in America's capital. I envision the dome of this magnificent building
swathed in black, because this is truly a day of mourning, and history
will not judge us well.
The process that brought us to this point was so fatally flawed that
no one can reasonably feel that justice has been done. The Independent
Counsel's investigation has gone on for five years, although we find he
did not personally participate in much of it. The investigation itself
will be debated for years to come. The role of the perfidious friend,
Linda Tripp, who worked in collusion with both the Independent Counsel
and the civil case lawyers, shows how amateurish and unfair Kenneth
Starr's stewardship was to the Office of Independent Counsel. The harm
it has done to due process, the lawyer-client relationship. And the
secrecy of

[[Page H11817]]

the grand jury. Will be lasting and destructive.
The Committee on the Judiciary did not fulfill its responsibility to
independently hear from material witnesses to assess their credibility
and to allow the President the opportunity to cross-examine them.
Instead, it has brought to the floor this highly-charged partisan
resolution.
Impeachment has always been reserved as a last resort as the check of
an executive's abuse of power. It was not intended to be invoked
lightly.
In the Federalist Papers No. 65, Alexander Hamilton warned that the
prosecution of impeachments ``will connect itself with the pre-existing
factions and will list all their animosities, partialities, influence
and interest on one side or the other; and in such cases 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.''
History tells us that Hamilton's fear was realized in the 1868
impeachment of Andrew Johnson, impeached because Republicans did not
like his personal habits and his sympathy for the defeated Southern
states. History records his real crime was disagreeing with the
majority party.
I fear that history will view this 1998 impeachment inquiry
similarly. A total control majority urges impeachment, not for treason,
bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors, but because they disdain
this President for his moral flaws, ranging from military service
evasion to flagrant infidelity.
Scholars disagree on whether the Constitution requires an indictable
crime. But most agree that at minimum, an impeachable high crime or
misdemeanor is one, in its nature or consequences, that is subversive
of some fundamental or essential principle of government.
The allegations against President Clinton, even if proven, are not
subversive of our government. The President is not accused of abusing
the power of his office or attacking a fundamental freedom of any
American. He is accused of lying about, and attempting to prevent the
revelation of, his consensual activities with a White House intern.
Were they wrong? Undeniably. Can they be punished through the legal
system? Absolutely. Should he be impeached? No.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, our courts of law and our legal system
are the bedrock of our democracy and of our system of individual
rights. Lying under oath in a legal proceeding and obstruction of
justice undermine the rights of all citizens who must rely upon our
courts to protect their rights. If lying under oath in our courts and
obstruction are ignored, or they are classified as merely minor
offenses, then we have jeopardized the rights of everyone who seeks
redress in our courts.
Lying under oath is an ancient crime of great weight because it
shields other offenses, because it blocks the light of truth in human
affairs. It is a dagger in the heart of our legal system, and, indeed,
in our democracy. It cannot, it should not, it must not be tolerated.
We know that a right without a remedy is not a right, and if we
ignore, allow or encourage lying and obstruction of justice in our
legal system, then the rights promised in our laws are hollow.

{time} 1445

Our laws promise a remedy against sexual harassment, but if we say
that lying about sex in court is acceptable and indeed, even expected,
then we have made our legal harassment laws nothing more than a false
promise, a fraud upon our society, upon our legal system, and upon
women.
All that stands between any of us and tyranny is law. The rule is
contemplated in our social compact and backed up by our courts. If we
trivialize the role of truth in our judicial system by simply assuming
that everyone will lie, then we trivialize the courts themselves, we
trivialize the rule of law.
The office of the presidency is due great respect, but the President,
whomever may hold that office, is a citizen with the same duties to
follow the law as all of us, as all of our citizens. The world marvels
that our President is not above the law, and my vote will help ensure
that this rule continues.
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 four counts of impeachment of the conduct of the President
of the United States. As a Representative in Congress, I can do no less
in fulfilling my responsibility to the Constitution and to all who have
preceded me in defending the Constitution from erosions of the rule of
law.
Each of the impeachment counts concerns the public conduct of the
President, including allegations of lying under oath in grand jury and
civil judicial proceedings, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
The supporting evidence is clearly sufficient to warrant impeachment.
The Constitution, the rule of law, and truth should be our only guides.
These allegations of lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and
abuse of presidential power are not about private conduct, but instead
about public conduct in our courts of law and in exercising
presidential responsibilities. Public duties and public power are
involved--and therefore the matters are of the greatest public concern
when those public duties are violated and those public powers are
abused.
Our courts of law and our legal system are the bedrock of our
democracy and of our system of individual rights. Lying under oath in a
legal proceeding (whether criminal or civil in nature) and obstruction
of justice undermines the rights of all citizens, who must rely upon
the courts to protect their rights. If lying under oath in our courts
and obstruction are ignored or classified as ``minor'', then we have
jeopardized the rights of everyone who seek redress in our courts.
Lying under oath is an ancient crime of great weight because it shields
other offenses, blocking the light of truth in human affairs. It is a
dagger in the heart of our legal system and our democracy; it cannot
and should not be tolerated.
We 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. Therefore, I must
vote in favor of counts one, two and three of impeachment.
The greatest challenge of free peoples is to restrain abuses of
governmental power. The power of the American presidency is awesome.
When uncontrolled and abused, presidential power is a grave threat to
our way of life, to our fundamental freedoms. Clearly improper use of
executive power by the President to cover-up and obstruct
investigations of his public lying in our courts cannot be tolerated.
If not checked, such abuses of power serve to legitimize the use of
public power for private purposes. Mankind's long struggle throughout
the centuries has been to develop governmental systems which limit the
exercise of public power to public purposes only. Therefore, I must, in
exercising the public power entrusted to me, act to restraint the
exercise of public power to public purposes alone; and I must vote in
favor of count four.
In reviewing this grave matter of impeachment, we must seek guidance
in first principles. These principles are all based on the recognition
of the social compact under which we as citizens join together in the
American Republic. Each of us have given up many individual
prerogatives (use of force, private punishment, etc.) in return for
promisers, the commitments, the elements of social compact. The central
promise or commitment of our compact is that our laws will be enforced
equally with respect to all, that our civil rights and civil grievances
will be fairly adjudicated in our courts, and that the powers we give
up to government will be used only for governmental purposes related to
the common good.
When these elements of the social compact are violated, the
legitimacy of the exercise of governmental powers is brought into
question and the underlying compact itself is threatened. Each members
of the compact--each citizen--received the guarantee, received the
promise from his or her fellow citizens, that the compact would be
honored and that the laws would not be sacrificed on a piecemeal basis
for temporary harmony or immediate gain of some (even in a majority)
over others (even a minority). None of us are free, for any reason of
convenience or immediately avoidance of difficult issues, to ignore our
promises to our fellow citizens. Our social compact does not permit the
breaches of these commitments to our fellow citizens, and to do so
would directly deprive those citizens (whatever their voting strength
or numbers) of our solemn promise of the rule of law.

[[Page H11818]]

All that stands between any of us and tyranny is law--the rule as
contemplated in our social compact--backed up by our courts. If we
trivialize the role of truth in our judicial system by simply assuming
that everyone will lie, then we trivialize the courts themselves, we
trivialize the rule of law. In doing so, we trivialize the eternal
search for justice for the weak under law, in place of exploitation of
the weak under arbitrary private power of the strong. I will not be a
party to such demanding of the most fundamental struggles of
humankind--and I will not be a party to the attempt to escape the
consequences of his public acts by the President through such
trivialization.
The Office of Presidency is due great respect, but the President
(whomever may hold the office), is a citizen with the same duty to
follow the law as all of our citizens. The world marvels that our
President is not above the law, and my votes will help ensure that this
rule continues.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
(Mr. HOLDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution--not
because the President did not do wrong and should not be punished--he
did do wrong and should be punished. But I do not believe this rises to
the level of high crimes and misdemeanors our Founding Fathers
envisioned. They talked about crimes against the country--that is why
they specifically cited bribery and treason. This does not rise to that
level.
I believe the President should be punished and should be censured.
Mr. Speaker, I have never made a partisan speech on the floor of the
House in my six years in Congress. But today, I cannot believe that the
Majority party has not given me the opportunity to vote my conscience
by allowing a vote of censure.
It is wrong and it is unfair.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a comrade.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, most Members of this House serve their
country without ever being called upon to address two of the most
awesome questions that could come before this body, and they are the
question of war and the question of the impeachment of the President of
the United States. During my time in this House, I have been handed
both bitter chalices.
However, in our consideration of the Gulf War, this House rose to its
very best. Full, fair and thorough debate took place, and no matter how
one voted at the end of that debate, everyone agreed that it was one of
the finest hours of this House.
Today, our deliberations lack that fundamental element of fairness.
Most of us believe that the President's behavior and actions were wrong
and deserve censure. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to consider and
vote on a resolution of censure of the President of the United States.
This unfair gag rule deprives us of the right to vote for the solution
which the majority of our citizens support.
Someone quoted Tip O'Neill from Breslin's book. I want to remind my
colleagues that that was a private conversation, not the rule of the
House, a private conversation long before Tip O'Neill became Speaker.
He became Speaker in 1977, the first vote I cast.
This unfairness in this rule, the unfairness in depriving us of the
right to vote on censure is in sharp contrast to our moment of
greatness when we debated the Gulf War in 1991. This House deserves
better, and the American people deserve better.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
(Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heart that is heavy and filled with
concern for our presidency, concern for our system of basic justice,
and concern for our great Nation. The charges against the President are
serious, and they are substantiated. Perjury by lying to a Federal
grand jury, perjury by lying in a deposition, obstruction of justice,
abuse of power. The evidence in support of these charges is clear,
overwhelming, and, for the most part, undisputed.
The Oval Office is a part of the people's House, which is the symbol
of American honor, of America's dedication to what is right, and to
justice for our people and all people throughout the world. Our
President's conduct in many ways impacts our Nation, impacts the
ability to lead at a time when leadership is needed, perhaps as much as
ever in our history.
While I recognize that this country and yes, my legislative district
in central Illinois is deeply divided on what we should do here, no
thoughtful person who has visited with me about this grave question
really questions the facts surrounding the President's conduct. But the
decision is very difficult. How, then do I come to a decision in this
matter?
Well, as I look into the eyes of my grandchildren or as I attempt to
stand tall in the counsels of my own family with my adult children, I
know that I can follow but one course. That course allows me to put
aside all fear for my own political future or that of my party. I must
vote for what I believe is right, what is fair, what is appropriate,
and what is demanded to address the consequences of the actions of
President Clinton. I must vote for impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart filled with concern for the
presidency, with concern for our system of basic justice, and with
concern for our great nation. Only once before in our history has this
House been called to vote upon articles of impeachment against a
President. That vote was some 145 years ago. We can find little
guidance from that far away and very different time. Instead, we must
rely on the Constitution, our system of justice, and our conscience.
Why are we here today? Because the Republican majority or the
Democrat minority willed it? I believe not. Because the majority of
American people desire this? That doesn't appear to be the case. For
political, partisan advantage? I don't think so. No, there's only one
reason for this national nightmare, and that's the actions and conduct
of President William Jefferson Clinton.
No other person, party, group, or body can or should accept the
responsibility for this day and the four articles of impeachment before
us. No one else, especially the Members of this Congress, willed or
wished for this ignoble day to dawn on this great land.
The charges against the President are serious and they are
substantiated--Perjury by lying under oath to a federal grand jury;
perjury by lying under oath in the deposition of the Paula Jones civil
lawsuit; obstruction of justice through witness tampering, relocating
of evidence, and frivolous claims of executive privilege; and abuse of
power by misleading his staff, cabinet, and other operatives in an
effort to destroy the reputations of innocent people.
The evidence in support of these charges is clear, overwhelming, and
for the most part undisputed, notwithstanding an unprecedented attempt
to confuse the issue and divide the country. Those who refute this
evidence would have you believe this is only about a personal sexual
dalliance between consenting adults, and that it has no impact on our
country--and that this is a private affair. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
This is not about some seamy sexual encounter in some remote part of
this urban city, but it is about our Commander in Chief and his conduct
in the Oval Office--conduct that included having sexual relations with
a young intern while at the same time, having a conversation with a
senior member of Congress about whether or not to send our young men
and women into harm's way in Bosnia.
Just take a step back and think about that. What if this was your son
or daughter, your husband or wife? If it was, would you still consider
this conduct to be private?
The Oval Office is part of the ``People's House,'' which is the
symbol of American honor, of America's dedication to what is right, and
to justice for our people and all people throughout the world. This is
far from a private affair. Our President's conduct in many ways impacts
our nation, impacts his ability to lead at a time when such leadership
is needed, perhaps as much as ever in history.
While I recognize this country and yes, my legislative district in
the heartland of Illinois, are deeply divided on what we should do
here, no thoughtful person who has visited with me about this grave
question really questioned the facts surrounding the President's
conduct. Most condemn his conduct and say it was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Some question the penalty that is deserved for his actions.
Many would have us think first of what the political ramifications
are for the Republican majority, the first Republican majority in over
half a century to last for more than two years. Some believe it is
vindictiveness against our President. Others say we should decide this
question based on what is easiest or expedient, what's best for the
economy, what's in

[[Page H11819]]

each Member's best political interest, or what the latest polls say.
The answer is we should not allow any of these reasons to guide our
thinking.
Instead, we must put America first, along with what's right for our
people--no matter the risk, no matter what the polls say, no matter the
most politically popular or expedient. We must support the rule of law,
one law for all our people, no matter how powerful or popular. No one
else in America could retain their position and status who have
committed similar acts. In fact, most would face felony criminal
charges. The honor of our judicial system is at stake, and it must be
upheld for sake of future generations.
How do I come to a decision in this matter? As I look into the eyes
of my grandchildren, or as I attempt to stand tall and just in the
counsels of my own family, with my adult children, I know that I can
follow but one course. And that course allows me to put aside all fear
for my own political future or that of my party. I must vote for what I
believe is right, what is fair, what is appropriate, and what is
demanded to address the consequences of the actions of President
William Jefferson Clinton.
As one of the leading newspapers in my district recently said, and I
quote, ``President Clinton should be a model for law and order, not an
exception. Due process needs to be carried out and the President should
stand trial before the Senate.''
I know for myself, and I would imagine for many here, we have sought
guidance through prayer and many others have prayed for us. There is no
doubt as to the seriousness of our actions, in what certainly will be
the most difficult vote of my political career. Yet I have been able to
reach but one inescapable decison--that President William Jefferson
Clinton has indeed committed high crimes and misdemeanors against our
nation, and therefore I must support the findings of the House
Judiciary Committee and vote for impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to vote ``no'' on impeachment.
In this way, I am voting ``yes'' to protecting our Constitution. It is
we who oppose this travesty today who are in fact supporting our
Constitution.
In the view of the Framers, impeachment is reserved for those who
undermine the fundamental political and constitutional structure of our
union. While President Clinton's behavior was both reckless and
indefensible, it is not impeachable. It is this Congress that is
subverting the Constitution by trivializing the impeachment process.
We have heard much today about the rule of law. All of us here today
respect the rule of law, but the aim of the rule of law is justice, a
word that I never, ever heard from the majority Members on the
Committee on the Judiciary or here today. In this case, justice demands
something in between no action and the national agony of impeachment.
That something has been called censure, and it is a course of action
supported by most Americans. It is a course of action supported by a
majority of this House were we allowed to vote on it, yet the
Republican leadership is so obsessed with getting this President, they
will not even allow this alternative to be debated. Why do we not get
our vote of conscience? Where is the rule of fairness?
Our vote today must not only produce justice, it must bring America
together; it must heal America. The questioning of the President's
motives in Iraq are only the beginning of a distrust and a suspicion
that will engulf this Nation during a long impeachment trial.
We must bring closure to this sorry chapter in our history as quickly
as possible so we as a Nation can move on to deal with our domestic and
international problems.
I urge this Congress to immediately censure the President, begin the
process to heal the breach of trust that engulfs us. Vote ``no'' on the
impeachment resolution.
Ken Starr has already spent four years and $40 million investigating
every aspect of the President's public and private life. It is
irresponsible for this process to go any further and tie up our nation
for who knows how long. The world economy is collapsing, our health
care system needs major reform, our whole campaign finance system is
corrupt--and we will be talking for months about who touched who where!
We've heard much today about ``the rule of law.'' All of us here
today respect the rule of law. But the aim of the rule of law is
justice--a word that I never, ever heard from the majority members on
the Judiciary Committee or here today.
In this case, justice demands something in between ``no action'' and
the national agony of impeachment. That something has been called
``censure''--and it is a course of action which is supported by most
Americans. It is a course of action that is supported by the majority
of this House--were we allowed to vote on it. Yet the Republican
leadership is so obsessed with getting this President, they won't even
allow an alternative to be debated and voted on. Why don't we get our
``vote of conscience''? Where is the rule of fairness?
Our vote today must not only produce justice, it must bring America
together, it must heal America. The questioning of the President's
motives in Iraq are only the beginning of the distrust and suspicion
that will engulf this nation during a long impeachment trial.
We must bring closure to this sorry chapter in our history as quickly
as possible--so we as a nation can move on to deal with our domestic
and international problems. I urge the Congress to immediately censure
the President--and begin the process to heal the breach of trust that
engulfs us now.
Vote ``no'' on this impeachment resolution.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a member of the committee.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Two quotes of relevance, my colleagues. Wendell Holmes said,

Sin has many tools, but the lie is the handle which fits
them all.
Nearly a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt observed,

We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariffing and
foreign policy, but we cannot afford to differ on the
question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to
endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute
prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man
is honest,

he said,

we have no right to keep him in public life. It matters not
how brilliant his capacity.
Some anti-impeachment proponents, Mr. Speaker, have accused those who
plan to vote for the articles before us of hating the President. I have
no hate toward President Clinton, but it is my belief that the
President did, in fact, commit perjury, and we can ill afford to turn a
blind eye to this offense. If we do so ignore it, what sort of
precedent do we establish when subsequent matters involving perjury
arise and must be resolved in a fair and impartial manner?
Much anxiety has been expressed, Mr. Speaker, about tying up the
country if this matter is transferred to the Senate for adjudication.
This, in my opinion, is not well-founded. If the House impeaches, the
Senate has wider latitude and more flexibility than we in the House.
The Senate is obliged to commence the trial, but it could terminate
prior to conclusion. The Senate could impose a penalty, it is my
opinion, without removal; or, the Senate could convict and remove. The
Senate is capable of discharging the duty in one of several ways in
limited time.
The people's House is the body charged with the duty of accusing, and
this is the duty we will discharge. If the impeachment articles before
us fail, it will have been the will of the House. If the impeachment
articles before us are passed, the Senate will then discharge its duty.
The process will have been well served.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have spent most of my adult life
dedicated to public service. Twenty-one years ago I began my work in
the Congress, first as an intern in the other body for George McGovern
of South Dakota, and later as a staff member for the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and now as a Member of the House from
Massachusetts.
I am proud to serve my country. I have enormous respect for this
institution, and I consider it a high honor and a great privilege to
serve in this body. I have tried, to the very best of my abilities, to
uphold the great traditions of this Congress and the Constitution of
the United States.
Unfortunately, those traditions and that Constitution are under siege
today. They are victims of an ill-timed, unfair and partisan process
that does a great disservice not only to the President of the United
States, but to the people of this country.

[[Page H11820]]

The timing of this debate is wrong. It is wrong for this Congress to
publicly and purposely attempt to weaken the Commander in Chief at the
very moment the young men and women of our Armed Forces are engaged in
battle. Waiting just a few days until the bombs have stopped falling
would not have denied the Republican majority the opportunity to go
after this President. But it would have meant a great deal to the
soldiers half a world away who are putting their lives at risk for our
freedom.
Mr. Speaker, every American is deeply disappointed with the
President's behavior. There is no debate about that. But that is not
the question before us today. The question is whether or not the
President's misconduct warrants tossing aside two national elections,
ignoring the will of the people we represent, and cheapening the
Constitution. I believe very strongly that it does not.
I believe the President's behavior warrants a tough censure, but the
leadership of this House, in a deliberate and cynical and partisan
maneuver, has refused to allow Members of Congress to even consider a
censure resolution. I want to vote my conscience, not the conscience of
the political arm twisters and the Republican leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want Congress to act on the real
issues that face our country. A Patients' Bill of Rights, school
construction, saving Social Security. Instead, the majority in Congress
will continue their partisan drumbeat of scandal, scandal, scandal.
They will use the impeachment vote as a weapon to try to force the
President to resign. Their goal is not to conduct the business of this
country, the goal is not the pursuit of justice; the goal is the
elimination of Bill Clinton by any means, and that is wrong.
This destructiveness, this vindictiveness, this blatant partisanship
has to end. This entire process, by its inherent unfairness, has
brought out the worst in the Members of Congress. It has made the
American people feel more cynical and frustrated and powerless.
Throughout our history, this Congress has risen to enormous
challenges and acted with integrity. This is not one of those moments.
The American people are angry because they know this process has not
been fair. Regardless of their opinions of the President's actions, the
people expect us to vote responsibly. Vote ``no'' on these impeachment
articles.

{time} 1500

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question before the House is whether
the President has acted in integrity in this matter. With all due
respect, I think in our hearts we all know the answer to that. The
question is whether we have the integrity to do our duty under the
Constitution and laws, and to stand up for what is right, or whether by
failing to do that we are going to become part of what is wrong.
Public officials commit private wrongs. We know that happens. The
issue is whether, when they are called to account for it in some forum,
they act honorably and live up to the consequences of what they do, or
at least they act accordingly the minimum standards that we are
entitled to expect and insist upon from people who occupy positions of
trust.
Mr. Speaker, on this record it is impossible not to conclude that the
President obstructed justice, that he perjured himself, that he flouted
his oath of office, that he abused the powers of his office, that he
manipulated other high officers of government, and that he did all
these things, first to obstruct a sexual harassment lawsuit against
him, and then to cover up the fact that he had committed perjury.
Impeachment is a hard thing, Mr. Speaker. But again, what is at stake
here is our integrity. If we do not stand up for something that is
clearly right when we have an inescapable obligation under the
Constitution to do it, we become part of what is wrong. I am not going
to vote for these articles because I want to, I am going to vote for
them because I see no other honorable alternative for me to follow than
to support these articles calling for the impeachment of the President.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I take to the
floor to express my support for approving these articles of impeachment
of the President, sorrow because we have come to this point in our fair
and wonderful country where we have to debate these articles.
Mr. Speaker, we are bound together as citizens of this great Nation,
and as citizens, we are all answerable to the same laws, including
President Clinton. The President is more than America's chief law
enforcement officer. He is also the trustee of the Nation's conscience.
It is a fact that sworn testimony can literally mean the difference
between life and death. Should we betray the rule of law by sweeping
the President's activities under the rug?
If the opponents of impeachment wanted to avoid this process, they
should have mounted a vigorous, vigorous defense of the President by
refuting the facts in the Starr report. The Minority Leader, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) mentioned trust, fairness,
forgiveness, and values. But I did not hear him mention the word
``truth.'' Those against impeachment have not contradicted one word of
testimony contained in over 60,000 pages of sworn evidence, not one
scintilla.
Those against impeachment should make their case based upon the
facts. Are we to conclude that the actions outlined in these four
articles of impeachment are permissible behavior for a chief executive
officer? Any military officer, from general to private, would be court-
martialed. Any private citizen would risk prosecution. Any church
leader, CEO of a Fortune 500 company, high school faculty member, or
community leader, would not face censure, they would be fired for
similar conduct.
Impeachment does not determine the guilt or innocence of the
President. We do not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in
order to move forward. Our duty in the House is to decide if the
available evidence indicates that the Senate should consider removing
the President from office.
I believe that there is sufficient evidence to approve these articles
of impeachment and to send this process to the next step. Through this
vote, we shall announce how we stand on the Constitution and the rule
of law. Are these outdated concepts to be ignored when convenient, or
are they the guiding principles of our American civilization?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), whose district borders my
own and who has waited very patiently.
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, on January 3rd, 1997, I stood in this
Chamber, this wonderful House of Representatives, and took the oath of
office to uphold the Constitution from both foreign and domestic
aggression, I am happy to say to the Members as I stand before them,
entering my second term, as I did in the Michigan legislature for 18
years of upholding the Constitution.
This act that we are doing today is unconstitutional. The
Constitution is very clear. This is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It
bothers me that some of my colleagues on the other aisle have said we
are using a marketing tool by asking for censure. Most of the American
people want the President censured. Most of the American people, nearly
70 percent, do not want him impeached. Why, then, do we, who represent
the people of these United States, come before the House with four
articles of impeachment? I think it is a travesty.
It is the wrong day. We have troops, young men and women under 25
years of age, risking their lives on foreign soil today for us to
uphold justice for all of us. It is the wrong day that we are before
the House with these articles of impeachment.
It is the wrong way. We are not even allowed to vote, to debate the
issue of censureship. Is this a democracy, or are

[[Page H11821]]

we moving towards a totalitarian country, where our rights are taken
away from us? This is a very serious moment in our history. Let us not
be trivialized, or trivialize the process.
A marketing tool? I do not think so. Censureship is what we want the
opportunity to debate, censureship is what we want the opportunity to
vote on. Unfortunately, the Republican majority will not let us have
that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to vote no. Vote no on this
ridiculous, insane affront to our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong, adamant and stern objection to
the articles of impeachment of our President, William Jefferson
Clinton. This recommendation to overrule not one, but two democratic
elections and remove the President from office for alleged ``high
crimes and misdemeanors'' is one of the two most grave votes that a
member of Congress must cast. As other Members of Congress have
erroneously stated, this is not a symbolic gesture, an expression of
moral sentiments, or a ``free vote'' with no consequences. This is the
first of a two-part process that removes the President from office. The
House should unequivocally vote no on these resolutions, and end, once
and for all, what has been a sordid, tawdry issue. The American people
deserve better than to have a Congress consumed with the personal, not
public, behavior of our President. I oppose the impeachment of our
President for the following two reasons.

The Allegations of the Independent Counsel Do Not Rise to the Level of
Impeachable Offenses

First of all, many experts agree that the allegations made by
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to not rise to the level of
impeachable offenses. After spending close to $50 million over four
years, Judge Starr found the President innocent of any wrongdoing in
the Whitewater investment debacle; innocent of any wrongdoing in the
so-called ``Filegate'' fiasco; and innocent of any wrong doing in the
unfortunate suicide of former White House aide Vincent Foster. All of
these allegations were reasons the special counsel was originally
deposed. There has been no demonstration that the alleged wrongdoing by
the President approaches the magnitude of ``treason, bribery and other
high crimes and misdemeanors,'' as stated in our Constitution.
Obviously, the framers of the Constitution intended that such ``other
high crimes and misdemeanors'' must be in the nature of large scale
abuses of public office such as treason and bribery. The President's
admitted wrongdoing in his inappropriate relationship with a former
White House intern simply does not measure up to this standard.
Historical precedent regarding impeachment clearly illustrates that
for offenses to be impeachable, they must arise out of a President's
public, not private, conduct. Former President Andrew Johnson was
impeached for his public duty regarding the termination of a member of
his cabinet, not for his private conduct of previously owning slaves.

The President Gave Misleading Statements, but they were not Perjurious.

While I am not an attorney, I have reviewed the record as provided by
the Independent Counsel and the House Judiciary Committee. From what I
understand, in order to prove perjury, it must be proven that the
President made a false statement about a fact that was ``material'' to
an issue that is under question. In the House of Representatives, we
call this ``germaneness.'' This means, for example, that I cannot bring
up an agricultural issue when the bill in question or on the floor is a
banking bill. If I make false statements about what is in the
agriculture bill, that has nothing to do with what is in the banking
bill. Just like the agriculture false statements are not germane to the
banking bill, the alleged false statements about Ms. Lewinsky are not
germane to the Jones inquiry.
Honestly and integrity are important, and vital, character traits of
all public servants. The President has repeatedly admitted to this
affair and to misleading the American public about it. The President
has apologized to God, his family, and the American people for his
misbehavior. Like my colleagues in the House and Members of the Armed
Services, I have sworn to protect our Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. I am in a fight to preserve what all Americans
hold dear: the precepts and principles of the Constitution of the
United States. I am not out to save President William Jefferson
Clinton; I am out to save the Presidency of the United States.
Two of the most important things a Member of Congress can do are vote
for war or overturn the will of the poeple by impeaching a President.
The vote that is expected to take place on this is no window-dressing,
glorified version of a censure. A vote on impeachment is not the end,
it is the beginning. If this resolution passes, there will
automatically be a Senate trial, which could lasts for months,
paralzying Congress and our nation.
While the Republican leadership and majority in Congress were
consumed by this issue, we did not finish the work of ensuring that
people who need health care have it; that we have enough elementary
schools to educate our children for the next millennium; that Social
Security will be around to protect our nation's senior citizens; that
health maintenance organizations protect patients, not profits. We need
to be about the people's business, and the people have said that while
they want the President to be punished, they do not want Congress to
usurp their choice of leader.
Some of my colleagues have compared President Clinton's behavior with
President Richard M. Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not Watergate. This is
not a case of the President directing the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency in a cover-up. This
is not a case of the President lying about the diversion of Iranian
arms-sales proceeds to the contras. This is simply about a President
who made a mistake in his personal life and who tried to save his
family and himself from personal embarrassment. That is all.
Again, in taking into consideration the weight of the President's
actions, I am mindful that twenty-three months ago, members of the
105th Congress took our collective oaths of office. In that oath, we
have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
As such, it is not our option but our obligation to the American people
to deliberate the issues and information that is presented before us in
hearings, Committee mark-ups, or during floor debate, and weigh them in
an unbiased and clear fashion before voting the issue of the day. The
Republican leadership did not allow this non-partisan, unbiased
analysis of the evidence before the Members of the House Judiciary
Committee and now, the entire House of Representatives.
Let me make clear that I do not condone the President's personal
conduct. I must add, however, that it would be sheer folly not fo
afford the leader of this great nation the same Constitutional
protections afforded every other member of our society. Our
constitution demands that we in Congress provide a fair and non-
partisan venue for the consideration of impeachment. It was my sincere
hope that we would have proceeded in the spirit of fairness so that we
can focus Congressional attention to issues like education, Social
Security and health care, issues which truly impact the daily lives of
the American people. In the final analysis, we in Congress have let the
American people down with these articles of impeachment.
I am adamently against impeachment. Impeachment is not mere
punishment for Presidents who have behaved badly, behavior to which
President Clinton has already admitted and apologized. Impeachment is a
mechanism to protect our Republic against rogue Presidents who threaten
our nation. For me, and for many Americans, the question is this: is
our President a threat to our nation? The evidence gathered by the
independent counsel, and the President's scintillating public record of
achievement, overwhelmingly says no. Based on the merits of the case
presented to the House Judiciary Committee and before the United States
House of Representatives, I cannot vote in support of on any of these
articles for impeachment before me today.
I only pray that the wisdom of our God prevails upon us during this
trying time of judgment. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress
prevails in rejecting these unnecessary and overreaching articles of
impeachment against our President, William Jefferson Clinton.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, in this country we operate on what is called and our
foundation is built upon what is called the rule of law. We all know
our history. Our history says that we came to this country to go away
from a king. Under the rule of law in this country, we say that the law
is the king. The king is not the law.
We have one President. That position of President of the United
States demands the highest public trust. Why the highest public trust?
Because we have only one President.
I have read with interest the Democratic censure, and I quote parts
from it: ``. . . that the President violated the trust of the American
people, lessened their esteem for the office of the President, and
dishonored the office for which they have entrusted to him.'' It goes
on, ``The President made false statements concerning his reprehensible
conduct with a subordinate, and took steps to delay discovery of the
truth.''

[[Page H11822]]

And they say to me, after they draft that kind of document, that that
individual now qualifies for the position of the highest public trust?
Any of these people there that are going to stand up and vote against
this, tell me what they would do in their community, what side they
would stand on, what kind of letter or report they would give to a
newspaper reporter if it were a local schoolteacher? There is not a
schoolteacher in this country that would step into the classroom ever,
ever again with this kind of conduct, with this kind of misleading
inaccuracy.
Take it from a schoolteacher, or take a police officer. Some Members,
show me, give me a demonstration, anywhere in this country. And those
are positions of public trust, not positions of the highest public
trust.
We owe it to our current generation and to future generations to
retain the standards of the Presidency, and those standards rise far
above an individual. Let us comply and stick with the rule of law. The
law is the king, the king is not the law.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this matter should never have been pursued
by Ken Starr, it should never have been pursued by the Committee on the
Judiciary, and it should never have reached the floor of the House of
Representatives. This matter belongs in family court, not in the court
of the United States Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United
States presiding.
Yes, the President made a grievous personal error, to the detriment
of his family. But no, it is not an offense against the State or our
Constitution. We are now on the threshold of overturning the people's
choice for President through a perversion of the Independent Counsel
law, a runaway partisan investigation of the most intimate, private
activity, having nothing, absolutely nothing to do with a real estate
deal in Arkansas. Ken Starr has twisted and warped his task from one in
which he was out to find the truth to one where he went out to get the
President and First Lady of this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are amending the Constitution of the United
States on the floor of the House of Representatives here today. Make no
mistake about it, this is a constitutional amendment that we are
debating, not an impeachment resolution. The Republicans are crossing
out the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and they
are inserting the words ``any crime or misdemeanor.''
We are permitting a constitutional coup d'etat which will haunt this
body forever. A constitutional clause intended to apply to a Benedict
Arnold selling out his country will now be expanded to cover every
personal transgression. Every future President, Democrat or Republican,
will be subject to harassment by his political enemies, who can
credibly threaten impeachment for the slightest misconduct.
This is wasteful, it is foolish, it is dangerous. When we talk to
people in the supermarkets, on the streets, they believe that the high
crime against the Constitution is their families being cheated out of
their government's ability to work on things that affect their
families: Medicare, social security, the democratization of access to
jobs and education for every family in our country.
The ultimate Republican paradox is that they dislike the government,
but they have to run for office in order to make sure that the
government does not work. In 1995 and 1996, they tried to shut down the
executive department. In 1997 and 1998 they shut down the Congress. Now
they are going for a political triple play. They are going to shut down
the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court of
the United States simultaneously.
Mr. Speaker, we have become the laughingstock of the entire world
because a sexual scandal is being allowed to consume our tax dollars,
our media, our judiciary, and our opportunity to deal with the problems
of ordinary families.
We must censure the President for what he did wrong. We should be
given the right to vote to censure him, to put this matter behind us so
that we can work on the problems of every other family in America. We
have worried about the President's family for an entire year. It is
about time we went back to the business of every other family.
GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party.'' Now it just stands for
``Get Our President.''
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I yield to
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman from
Massachusetts that it was the President's own Democrat Attorney General
who appointed this Independent Counsel, believing there was credible
evidence that needed to be investigated.
In regard to the high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution
specifically mentions bribery. Perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor
because just like bribery, perjury and bribery are unique threats to
the administration of justice, and that affects our society. That
affects our government.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Fawell).
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, it may well be a myth that George Washington confessed
to chopping down a cherry tree because he could not tell a lie. We do
not know if Abraham Lincoln as a young man actually walked several
miles to return a few pennies to a storekeeper who gave him incorrect
change.
But Mr. Speaker, true or not, these stories of truth and justice hold
a special and a very deep place in our Nation's heart and psyche. There
is a gift, however, that accompanies the President's problems. It is
the opportunity to now tell the truth about the violations of perjury
and obstruction of justice laws. The truth-telling can resolve most of
the factual controversies, and it can introduce the potential for
healing as the impeachment resolution is forwarded to the Senate.

{time} 1515

I urge the President to tell the truth about his multiple perjuries
and his efforts to obstruct justice, and I urge the Congress to deliver
this message of impeachment to the Senate in the knowledge that we are
all victims, including the President himself. I support the impeachment
resolution. It was a tough decision for me. I do not know, however,
otherwise how I can explain especially to my 8 grandchildren and to the
younger generation of this Nation why the President's willful and
wanton violations of perjury and obstruction of justice of laws can be
ignored.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard Member after Member get up on the other
side and say this is not about sex. Let us make one thing very
perfectly clear, the roots of this impeachment action are in fact in a
sexual deed. I was reading Andre Maurois the other day, who said the
path that leads from moral standards to political activity is strewn
with our dead selves. There is a lesson in that for all for all of us.
This impeachment process is a partisan political activity. Do not
make a mistake about it. What the President did was wrong. His conduct
was reprehensible. It was appalling and, most of all, to those of us
who have worked with him, it is disappointing. But just as every crime
does not justify the death penalty, neither should impeachment, the
political equivalent of the death penalty, be the punishment for every
presidential misdeed.
The President of the United States had a consensual extramarital
sexual relationship and did not want to divulge that to the public or
to his political enemies. Is the President guilty of bribery or treason
or other high crimes which threaten the future of our Republic?
Absolutely, positively not. We all agree the President should not be
above the law. However, just because he has been elected to the Office
of President does not mean he should be below the law either. He should
have the same treatment that every other American does. The President
should face the same legal consequences anyone else does, and the rule
of law should judge his actions as it would any other American.

[[Page H11823]]

Fairness should be our guiding force when we consider impeaching the
President. Unfortunately, fairness has taken a back seat to partisan
politics during this very serious one-sided debate. The overwhelming
majority of Americans agree that the President deserves to be punished.
But the majority of Americans also agree the punishment needs to fit
the crime. The President's conduct, however reprehensible, is not an
act of treason, bribery or other high crimes. In this, the biggest vote
that Congress can take next to a declaration of war, Democrats and
like-minded Republicans should at least be given the opportunity to
make this punishment fit the crime. And we have been blocked there.
Let me just say, it was once said that the test of courage comes when
we are in the minority; that the test of tolerance comes when we are in
the majority. And I will say, this Republican Party has failed that
test of tolerance. During this process comparisons have been made to
the Watergate hearings 24 years ago. I see only one similarity between
now and during the Watergate. Back then it was a Republican President
who used subterfuge and criminal activities to gain control of a
process as to who would decide who would be the President. And today it
is a Republican Congress who is using their majority and their power to
decide who is going to be the President of the United States. In the
name of the millions who have died to protect the sanctity of the
ballot box, I would say, may God have mercy on your souls.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
(Mr. WHITFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, while I am not a member of the Committee
on the Judiciary, I came to this debate today with the great hope that
the advocates for the President would spend considerable time
addressing specifically the articles of impeachment. Instead I have
heard a lot about the Iraqi war. I have heard about Ken Starr. I have
heard about Medicare, Social Security, but I have not heard any
evidence refuting the articles of impeachment.
Now we are not here today because of the political philosophy of any
political party or an obsession to impeach the President. We are not
here today because of the private sexual activities of anyone. We are
here today because the President is charged with breaking criminal laws
which for constitutional purposes are high crimes and misdemeanors. One
of those crimes is perjury. And by committing perjury, the President
harmed the integrity of our judicial branch of government, which is a
central component of the government.
Since 1993, when President Clinton took office, the U.S. Department
of Justice has prosecuted and convicted over 400 people for perjury.
Many of those people are in prison today or under house arrest. We
could go through a lot of individual cases. We have a psychiatrist at
the Veterans Administration who was convicted of perjury for lying in a
civil suit. She is under a jail sentence right today, and we could go
on and on. But our Nation has one legal standard that applies to all of
its citizens. We do not have one legal system for the President and a
more harsh legal system for everyone else. High office does not allow
anyone to be above or beyond the law.
For those reasons, I will vote for three of the four articles of
impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me the time.
I would like to say to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield)
and to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our
distinguished colleagues, that perjury is applicable to this President
as it is to all people once he leaves office. So that confused argument
of what political perjury is and what perjury is in a court of law
needs to be distinguished.
Let me also make it very clear for you that if the President is
charged with perjury when he leaves office, I predict for you that no
one in this body can prove that he committed perjury. The gentleman, my
distinguished colleague from Arkansas, who has been extremely studious
with reference to these matters, indicated that censure was some kind
of, and I apologize, some kind of fix he called it. I do not see it
that way.
I would like for you to recall that in the very cases regarding
judges that were cited to as examples, censure was used and also, as we
know, for two presidents. Additionally, the majority whip, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), proposed what amounted to censure of
the President over campaign finance issues just this past May.
This House can work its will on censure and anything else. I was
removed from office after being found not guilty, and here we are
talking we cannot censure. Today we have reached the zenith of
unfairness. Our military, under the aegis of our President, is
attempting to downgrade weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we are
en masse as a body degrading the institution of the presidency.
It is not sad. It is irrational. I have appended to my remarks what I
think would be helpful to this body so that you will understand the
dynamics that take place in the Senate. The pleadings and motions
stage, the trial preparation stage, a Senate trial, all of this
certainly will take at least the 14 months that it took to remove me
from office. And we are talking at least that amount of time, certainly
as late as July, and probably all next year. And things regarding
Social Security and matters that all of us want to take up for this
Nation will be put on hold.
The President has done a good job, and you have seen it. Consider
before you vote what you might be doing to tie this entire Nation up.
Our Nation is divided, and the House tomorrow will exacerbate that
division. We are being unfair and unwise. We are being harsh to the
institution of the presidency, harsh to our troops in harm's way, harsh
to each other as colleagues and extremely harsh to this great country
of ours.
This is not a debate for the ages. Rather, it is a debate of the
stages, partisan political stages. I ask you, how many of us have read
this report that came to my office last night after the close of
business? How many of us have read, other than Committee on the
Judiciary, the evidence that supports the conclusion that the
Republicans ask us to reach? Most of us will be voting in an
uninformed, unintelligent manner. This Nation deserves better.
You may win today, but the Nation will lose today and tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the information to which I
referred:
Ten years ago, on August 9th, 1988, this House voted to impeach a
federal judge from the southern district of Florida. It was not until
October 20th, 1989, fourteen months later, that the Senate voted upon
those articles. By its vote ten years ago, the House decided to impose
the burdens of Senate trial proceedings on a man. Today, the House must
decide whether the charges and the evidence against the President
warrant imposing the burdens of Senate trial proceedings on the Nation
and the world. All Members should understand the nature and extent of
the extraordinary burdens that a decision to impeach the President
would impose.
Although other Members have served as one of the House managers in
proceedings before the Senate, I am the only Member who has experienced
the burdens of developing a defense strategy and participating in its
implementation. I have borne the burdens and I have observed the
procedures in Senate impeachment trial proceedings. Professor Terence
J. Anderson of the University of Miami School of Law represented me in
the proceedings before this House and before the Senate. He has direct
knowledge of what the Senate did and did not do there. I asked him to
prepare a schedule projecting how the proceedings in the Senate might
unfold. I have reviewed the projections he prepared and believe that
they are conservative. I have appended to these remarks a statement of
the ``Projected Proceedings Before the United States Senate if the
House Votes to Impeach the President.'' That Projection provides a more
detailed schedule of the steps that would be required in this case. I
report and discuss the conclusions here.
Under the best case scenario, the proceedings before the Senate are
unlikely to be completed before late July and could extend until the
end of the year.
The proceedings in the Senate would unfold in three stages--a
pleadings, procedures, and

[[Page H11824]]

motions stage; a trial preparation stage; and a trial and judgment
stage.
The pleadings and motions stage in my case lasted seven months--from
August 1988 through mid-March 1989. That first stage would take at
least three months here.
The second, the trial-preparation stage, took three-and-a-half months
in my case; it would take three here.
A Senate trial in this case, the final stage, would last at least
seven weeks and could last for more than fourteen.
The similarity between the way in which the House Judiciary Committee
conducted the inquiry in my case and the way in which it conducted the
inquiry here will require the Senate to accord to the President and his
counsel, at a minimum, pretrial rights comparable to those that it
accorded me and my counsel. The principal similarity between the two
cases is that in neither did the House Judiciary Committee examine or
cross-examine the witnesses upon which the articles of impeachment
depended. In neither, did it call witnesses for the defense or seek
documents that will be necessary to the defense. Instead, it relied
primarily upon a report and materials transmitted by officials in
another branch and upon the testimony of the author of that report, in
my case John Doar and here Kenneth Starr. As a result, the Senate
permitted my counsel to conduct limited discovery proceedings to obtain
testimony and documents necessary to my defense. The Senate will,
perforce, accord an accuse President liberal opportunities to use its
subpoena power to depose witnesses and gather documents that his
counsel seek as necessary for a fair trial.
The two cases would be different in ways that would also influence
the conduct of the proceedings that the House seems prepared to launch
today. In my case, the Senate appointed an Impeachment Trial Committee
and delegated to it the power to control the pretrial proceedings and
to conduct the evidentiary hearings. That would not happen in
proceedings against the President. The Rules Committee might be asked
to guide the pretrial proceedings, but either side would have the right
to insist that any decision be reviewed de novo by the full Senate.
The Impeachment Trial Committee appointed in my case heard live
testimony from fifty-seven witnesses and received more than 374
exhibits. Those hearings took eighteen full, eight-hour days. The
Senate rules for the trial of an impeachment provide that the full
Senate shall convene as a court of impeachment at noon during the trial
of an impeachment; they, in effect, provide for half-day trial
hearings. It is unlikely that the Senate could hear, on average, more
than two witnesses a day. And it should be clear that witnesses such as
Monica Lewinsky are likely to occupy the stand for several days.
The materials submitted by Mr. Starr identify more than 120 potential
trial witnesses and some 390 trial exhibits. Those materials do not
identify, as witnesses, the FBI agents or OIC staff members who
participated in the investigation and whose testimony will clearly be
necessary. For example, each of the OIC staff and FBI agents who
participated in the initial and each subsequent interview of Ms.
Lewinsky had the opportunity to influence and shape her testimony in
ways that bear upon her credibility and the relevance of the so-called
``corroborating'' detail offered by the Independent Counsel Starr.
Those materials give little indication of the additional witnesses and
exhibits the President would present in his defense.
The debate in the Judiciary Committee makes it clear that the
prospective House Managers would be unlikely to exercise restraint in
presenting the case against the President. The presentations by counsel
for the President have made it clear that the defense will be
commensurately vigorous. Although the appended projections provide a
more conservative estimate, it seems unlikely that the number of
witnesses called to testify will be less that the 120 potential
witnesses identified in the Starr report. If that occurred, the Nation
and the world would watch for sixty days as the Chief Justice of the
United States presided, while the House managers and counsel for the
President examined and cross-examined witnesses presented audio and
video tapes and other evidence before the Senate in what will appear to
most viewers to be a tawdry, R-rated sex drama.
Those who would vote to impeach the President should consider
carefully the consequences. Over the next eight months, the attention
of the Nation, of the full Senate, and of the Chief Justice of the
United States would be devoted to hearing the evidence and arguments in
this tawdry affair on at least thirty-five days. For at least eight
months, a sword of Damocles would hang over the Nation, indeed over the
world.
Over the past two years, the Nation has seen its President play an
active and intensive role in mediating a peace accord in Northern
Ireland, in brokering the Wye accords, in working with the Congress to
produce a balanced budget and reforming the welfare system, in
protecting the Nation's economy and addressing the threats posed by
collapse of economies elsewhere, and in acting to assure that Iraq's
ability to make war against its neighbors is degraded.
Those who would vote to impeach the President should consider, before
they vote, what might have, or have not, happened had the President,
the Senate, and the American people been preoccupied with protracted
impeachment trial proceedings when any of those events occurred. Those
who would vote to impeach the President should consider, before they
vote, what may, or may not, happen if all are similarly preoccupied for
the next eight months or more.

Projected Proceedings Before the U.S. Senate If the House
Votes to Impeach the President

The proceedings in the Senate on the articles of
impeachment that the House exhibited against then United
States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings provide the most
recent and comparable precedents to guide the Senate in the
proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton that
will take place if the House adopts articles of impeachment.
The following outlines projects how the proceedings against
the President would unfold if the House impeaches him based
upon the proceedings in the Hastings case and the materials
released by the Judiciary Committee during its inquiry into
the President's conduct.

Weeks
I. Preliminary Proceedings
Min. Max.

[[Page H11825]]

c. Demand for Bill of Particulars. The
majority on House Judiciary Committee
appear to shoot themselves in the foot by
refusing to specify the precise statements
made by the President that they claim were
perjurious. If the pending articles are
adopted, counsel for the President will
demand and the Senate will almost surely
order the House Managers to provide a bill
of particulars. The real effect of the lack
of specificity will further delay.......... 6 10
d. Alternative Motion to Strike Particular
Allegations. If the Senate does not dismiss
the articles in their entirety, counsel for
the President are likely to ask that the
Senate, after the bill of particulars has
been filed, strike specific allegations in
the article that remains................... 6 10
2. The House. The House managers would be
required to file a Replication to the
President's Answer and Affirmative Defenses and
responses to the motions. If they opposed the
demand for a bill of particulars, there would
be a second round of briefing and further
argument before the Senate after the House had
complied with the Senate's order, adding an
additional two weeks to the process............ 8 14
3. The President's Reply. Counsel for the
President would file a reply and any
supplemental memoranda made necessary by the
House's bill of particulars.................... 10 16
D. Proceedings Before the Full Senate. The Senate
would be likely to set aside two days to consider
and act upon the report from the Rules Committee
and to hear arguments on and decide the pending
motions............................................ 12 18

II. Trial Preparation

In Hastings, the Rules Committee recommended that the Senate appoint an
Impeachment Trial Committee to regulate the preparation for evidentiary
hearings and to conduct those hearings. If the House adopts articles
here, the evidentiary hearings will be conducted before the full
Senate. It is likely that the Senate and the Chief Justice will agree
that the trial preparation duties that were performed by the
Impeachment Trials Committee should be assigned to the Rules Committee
(or to a special impeachment committee appointed for that purpose).
Although the counsel for the President would request that trial
preparation be deferred until the Senate had ruled on the President's
motion to dismiss, the Rules Committee might determine that necessary
preparation should proceed concurrently with other trial matters.
However those duties were exercised, the steps would likely be the
same.
A. Discovery Proceedings. The need for discovery
would be far greater in this case than it was in
Hastings. Here, as it did in Hastings, the House
Judiciary Committee relied primarily upon the
report and materials transmitted to the House by
another branch and upon the testimony of the
investigator who prepared the report. Here, as it
did in Hastings, the committee did not call and
subject to examination and cross-examination the
fact-witnesses identified by the Starr referral or
those who might testify on behalf of the accused or
obtain from the Independent Counsel or elsewhere
documents other than those included in the
materials transmitted. It is hard to conceive that
the Senate here would not afford the President the
time and the use of its subpoena power to take
depositions and obtain relevant documents. Based
upon Hastings and the materials available here,
discovery would proceed in three stages.
1. Submissions by the Parties. If any articles
remained after the motions to dismiss or strike
had been decided, the Senate or a committee
would have to decide whether and what discovery
should be permitted.
a. Counsel for the President would promptly
submit a memorandum identifying witness and
sources of documents that were likely to
produce relevant evidence and explaining
why the President should be permitted to
subpoena each of the witnesses and other
source to obtain that evidence. At a
minimum, it seems almost certain that the
counsel would seek to depose (i) lawyers
for Paula Jones about their initial
conversations with Linda Tripp and with
members of the Office of Independent
Counsel (``OIC'') staff; (ii) the members
of the OIC staff and FBI agents who met
with or interviewed Linda Tripp and Monica
Lewinski; and (iii) other technical
witnesses, such as those reconstructed
materials from the hard drive in Ms.
Lewinski's computer. It also seems certain
that they would want access to the
documents that the Independent Counsel did
not transmit with his referral............. 12 20
b. The House managers would be directed to
file a response agreeing with or objecting
to the President's requests................ 14 22
c. The Senate or its committee would examine
the president's request and the House's
response and hold hearings and enter the
appropriate order directing the issuance of
appropriate subpoenas...................... 16 23
d. Independent Counsel Starr, Ms. Jones's
lawyers, or others subpoenaed might object
to some or all of the subpoena, in which
event time-consuming enforcement
proceedings would be necessary, at least
three months............................... ........ 36
e. The depositions would be conducted and
the documents produced and examined........ 16-24 36-44
B. Other Trial Preparation Proceedings.
1. The House managers and counsel for the
President would propose stipulations or submit
requests for admissions. The Senate or its
committee would encourage the parties to
stipulate at least to the authenticity and/or
admissibility of various documents and other
potential exhibits. Responses would be
exchanged and negotiations would proceed....... 12 20
2. The Senate or its committee would direct the
parties to file and exchange ten days after the
close of discovery, pre-trial memoranda
identifying witnesses each intended to call and
exhibits each intended to introduce............ 25 45
3. The Senate or its committee would enter a
final pre-trial order establishing the date for
and procedures to be followed at trial......... 26 46

III. The Trial of a President

Rules XII and XIII of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting
on Impeachment Trials provide that, unless otherwise ordered, the
proceedings shall commence at 12:30 p.m. on the first day and at 12:00
noon thereafter. In order to make it possible for the legislative and
executive branches to tend to some of the government's business and to
enable the Chief Justice to participate, in the oral arguments before
the Supreme Court, it seems likely that the Senate would not schedule
the evidentiary proceedings to begin before 12:30 or would permit them
to extend beyond 6:30 p.m. on a regular basis.
A. The Presentation of Evidence by the House
Managers. The managers presented the testimony of
thirty-seven witnesses in Hastings. Only twenty-
seven appeared before the Impeachment Trial
Committee. The managers were permitted to introduce
transcripts of prior testimony for the other ten.
The House managers are likely to call most if not
all of the 120 witnesses whose statements or
testimony are included in the materials transmitted
by Independent Counsel Starr. Depending upon the
success of pre-trial negotiations, it might have to
call several more to establish necessary
foundations and the like. Forty to fifty would
appear to the minimum number necessary to support
the allegations the proposed article have borrowed
from the Starr Report. No prior testimony will be
admitted. The videotaped deposition and the
videotaped grand jury testimony will be shown in
their entirety, and many of the Tripp tapes will be
played given by the president. The examination and
cross-examination of the twenty-seven witnesses the
House presented in Hastings consumed more than ten
full days. If the President is impeached by this
House, the presentation of testimony and other
evidence will consume twenty [if forty witnesses
called] to forty [120 witnesses] partial trial days
before the full Senate............................. 27-30 47-50
B. The President's Case. It is impossible to project
the number of witnesses that the President's
counsel would call for his defense with any
confidence. The Starr Report was not a balanced
presentation of the available evidence. It seems
clear that the number would be substantial and
would include many of the 120 persons whom were
identified in the Starr Report, but were not called
by the managers. They would present all of the
Tripp tapes that the managers did not introduce.
They would call witnesses whose conduct might have
influenced the testimony of Ms. Lewinski and other
House witnesses and witnesses who had knowledge
relevant to Ms. Lewinski's credibility. Twenty
witnesses and ten days seems a safe minimum........ 31-32 51-52

[[Page H11826]]

C. The House Rebuttal. Given the passion and vigor
displayed by Republican members of the Judiciary
Committee, it seems likely the House managers would
want to try to rebut the President's case, no
matter how tired and angry the American people may
have become. Might we hope for only a day or two... 33 53
D. Argument, Deliberations, and The Vote. Given the
nature of the issues and the length of the
projected trial, it seems likely that Senate would
allot at least four hours to each side for closing
arguments. Past precedent dictates that the Senate
would close its doors to deliberate in executive
session until its members have expressed their
views. The vote would follow. With luck, the
denouement might be completed in less than a week.. 34 54

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, the sole responsibility for our actions
today lies with the President. Only his actions, characterized by his
own supporters, are wrongful and immoral, maddening and worthy of our
condemnation. President Clinton has violated his constitutional duty to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed by lying under oath in a
duly convened judicial proceeding.
President Clinton has violated his Constitutional oath of office to
preserve and protect the Constitution by obstructing the proper search
for the truth and abusing the power of the presidency. His actions,
deliberate and willful, have brought damage to the dignity of the
office of the President and corrupted our sacred respect for the rule
of law.
The question before us today is whether we, too, will turn away from
our long heritage of the rule of law, the love of truth, and instead
place our faith in the brutal role of power, the fickle winds of
appetite and the manipulation of public opinion.
The circumstances of history have our Nation facing two grave issues,
impeachment and war, at the same moment. President Clinton decided to
unleash the awesome power of war. And why did he do this? One, because
Saddam Hussein has lied to the United Nations. Another because Saddam
Hussein has obstructed justice by blocking the work of the weapons
inspector, and another one is he violated the rule of law in defiance
to the cease-fire resolution of the Gulf War.
I support the President of the United States in his rightful action
and pray for the safety of our troops. If we are willing to ask the
ultimate sacrifice in defense of the international rule of law, how can
we not act to defend its foundations at home? Our Nation is a strong
one and our Constitution is sound. Our peaceful and deliberate defense
of the Constitution and its foundation in the rule of law will send a
strong and clear message, testifying to the power and resilience of our
democracy. Tyrants, dictators and thugs around the world will see the
strength of our Nation lies not in one man but in a vast people, united
in liberty and justice.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
resolution. Our Founding Fathers viewed impeachment as a mechanism of
last resort to protect the Nation from a President who threatened the
Constitution or the American people. Throughout our history, Members of
Congress have appreciated the enormous gravity of impeachment and that
is why, despite countless disputes, provocation, misdeeds and lies, the
House has voted just once in its history to impeach a President.
Indeed the delicate system of constitutional checks and balances
established by the founders works only insofar as each branch of
government exercises its prerogatives responsibly. In the case of
impeachment, that means applying the most rigorous test to the use of
our authority. The Constitution gives this body the ability to undo our
only national election, but we must use that authority judiciously and
cautiously. To do otherwise imperils the stability of our democracy,
replacing the orderly transfer of power with the constant threat of
political upheaval.
A great Nation does not overturn two national elections and throw a
President out of office because he denied having a consensual affair.
Let us instead find a suitable punishment that fits the President's
offense, censure. The President misled his family and his country and
he deserves the reprimand of the Congress and the enduring judgment of
history.
Unfortunately, in their zeal to impeach Bill Clinton, the GOP
leadership has refused to allow this House to debate a tough motion of
censure, a censure that is overwhelmingly supported by the general
public over impeachment.

{time} 1530

Unfortunately, there is a determined minority in America and in this
Chamber who never accepted the legitimacy of this President. To them
this episode is mere pretext to accomplish what they could not during
two separate elections. The majority is not here today to give the
President his fair day in court. They are here to oust him. And Kenneth
Starr was their instrument.
By utilizing the vast prosecutorial powers of the government, Kenneth
Starr abused his authority and broke his trust with the American
people. His dangerous and misguided inquiry has been unparalleled in
our modern life, and impeachment merely serves to validate his methods
and goals.
And make no mistake, my colleagues, not all coups are accompanied by
the sound of marching boots and rolling tanks. Some, like today, are
wrapped in a constitutional veneer, softened by pious assertions of
solemn obligation and duty. But the result is the same, defiance of the
public will and rejection of the regular political process.
Mr. Speaker, what will impeachment mean? A trial in the Senate would
only deepen the Nation's wounds. Imagine the spectacle of the upper
Chamber of the world's greatest democracy, presided over by the highest
judge in the land, gathered for weeks and months not to consider
important affairs of state, but instead to hear the same tawdry
testimony, the same tiresome details, again and again.
I am frankly amazed, Mr. Speaker, that the House stands poised today
at the edge of a deep abyss. The American people, in their wisdom, have
implored us to leave the slippery road of impeachment and pursue
instead the measured course of censure.
Such a prolonged re-hashing, illuminated by television lights and
augmented by a thousand talking heads, would further alienate a public
that has already sent its representatives a clear message to end this
disgraceful episode in our nation's life. It would seriously compromise
our capacity to wrestle with serious policy challenges. And it would
weaken our international leadership at a perilous moment in world
affairs. It would shut our government down at a time when the American
people are looking at us to solve the problems that affect their
everyday lives.
Let us honor our Constitutional obligations, heed the call of
scholars and historians, and above all, keep faith with the men and
women we serve.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
The other gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) brought up an
interesting point a moment ago asking rhetorically who has indeed read
the material and reviewed the evidence. It is interesting to note, Mr.
Speaker, that in the more than three months that the independent
counsel's material, some 60,000 pages, have been over at the Ford
Building there remain, I believe, four members of the Democrats on the
Committee on the Judiciary that have not spent one minute reviewing
that material; and even though arrangements

[[Page H11827]]

have been made through the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to have
other Members of both sides of the aisle not serving on the Committee
on the Judiciary to review the material so they could answer any
questions or look at the material firsthand, I believe there has been
at most one Member on the Democrat side who has gone over to review the
material.
So the answer to the question posed by the gentleman from Florida is,
apparently, most Members on the other side are not interested in the
evidence and, therefore, have not even reviewed it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Canady).
(Mr. CANADY of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point
made by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend.
This is a process that we are following under the Constitution, and I
am very disappointed that there has been a failure of those who are
opposing these articles to focus on the facts of the case before us.
Now these facts are inconvenient facts, they are very compelling facts
pointing to a pattern of perjury and obstruction of justice by the
President of the United States. But all the passionate argument about
the independent counsel, all the passionate attacks on the process here
in the Congress do not alter the stubborn facts of the case before us.
Now, I would also like to bring to the attention of the Members the
report on ``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment'' which
was prepared in February of 1974 by the staff of the Nixon impeachment
inquiry; and I would ask that all the Members consider this key
language from that staff report describing the type of conduct which
gives rise to impeachment.
The Democratic staff of the Rodino committee wrote, ``The emphasis
has been on the significant effects of the conduct--undermining the
integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of
office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse
impact on the system of government.''
Perjury and obstruction of justice clearly undermine the integrity of
office. Their unavoidable consequence is to erode respect of the office
of president. Such offenses are in obvious disregard of the President's
constitutional duties and oath of office. Moreover, they are offenses
which have a direct and serious adverse impact on the system of
government.
Obstruction of justice is by definition an assault on the due
administration of justice, which is a core function of our system of
government. And as the first Chief Justice of the United States, John
Jay, observed, no crime is more extensively pernicious to society than
the crime of perjury.
The significance of the offenses committed by the President is not in
any degree diminished by the fact that they do not directly involve the
President's official conduct. Despite their argument that the President
is immune from impeachment because of the underlying conduct which gave
rise to his crimes was a private matter, the President's lawyers have
themselves proclaimed, and I would ask that my colleagues listen to
this, these are the words of the President's own lawyers, they said,
and I quote, ``Any conduct by the individual holding the Office of the
President, whether it is characterized as private or official, can have
substantial impact on a President's official duties.''
Perjury and obstruction of justice, even regarding a private matter,
are offenses that have a substantial impact on the President's official
duties because they are grossly incompatible with his preeminent duty
to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Perjury and
obstruction of justice are not private matters, they are crimes against
the system of justice, crimes for which this President must be
impeached.
In today's debate we have heard a convincing case made that the
President engaged in a calculated and sustained pattern of perjury and
obstruction of justice. The furious efforts of the President's
defenders cannot alter the stubborn facts of the case against the
President. The facts cannot be wished away, they cannot be ignored,
they cannot be treated as trivial. But the President's lawyers have
argued that even if the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice
are true, the President's conduct does not rise to the level of ``high
crimes and misdemeanors'' for which he can be impeached.
Although Congress has never adopted a fixed definition of ``high
crimes and misdemeanors,'' there is much in the background and history
of the impeachment process that contradicts the position advanced by
the President's lawyers. Two reports prepared in 1974 on the background
and history of impeachment are particularly helpful in evaluating the
President's defense. Both reports support the conclusion that the facts
before us make a compelling case for the impeachment of President
Clinton.
There has been a great deal of comment on the report on
``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment'' prepared in
February 1974 by the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. Those who
assert that the charges against the President do not rise to the level
of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' have pulled some phrases from that
report out of context to support their position. In fact, the general
principles concerning grounds for impeachment set forth in that report
indicate that perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable
offenses. Consider this key language from the staff report describing
the type of conduct which gives rise to impeachment:

The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the
conduct--undermining the integrity of office, disregard of
constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of
power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on
the system of government. (emphasis added)

Perjury and obstruction of justice clearly ``undermine the integrity
of office.'' Their unavoidable consequence is to erode respect for the
office of the President. Such offenses are in obvious ``disregard of
[the President's] constitutional duties and oath of office.'' Moreover,
they are offenses which have a direct and serious ``adverse impact on
the system of government.'' Obstruction of justice is by definition as
assault on the due administration of justice--which is a core function
of our system of government. And as the first Chief Justice of the
United States, John Jay, observed, ``no crime'' is ``more extensively
pernicious to Society'' than perjury.
The thoughtful report on ``The Law of Presidential Impeachment''
prepared by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in
January of 1974 also places a great deal of emphasis on the corrosive
impact of presidential misconduct on the integrity of office:

It is our conclusion, in summary, that the grounds for
impeachment are not limited to or synonymous with crimes. * *
* Rather, we believe that acts which undermine the integrity
of government are appropriate grounds whether or not they
happen to constitute offenses under the general criminal law.
In our view, the essential nexus to damaging the integrity of
government may be found in acts which constitute corruption
in, or flagrant abuse of the powers of, official position. It
may also be found in act which, without directly affecting
governmental processes, undermine that degree of public
confidence in the probity of executive and judicial officers
that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a
free society. (emphasis added)

The commission of perjury and obstruction of justice by a President
are acts which without doubt ``undermine that degree of public
confidence in the probity of the [the President] that is essential to
the effectiveness of government in a free society.'' Such acts
inevitably subvert the respects for law which is essential to the well-
being of our constitutional system.
The significance of the offenses committed by the President is not
diminished by the fact that they do not directly involved the
President's official conduct.
The record is clear that federal officials have been impeached for
reasons other than official misconduct. Two recent impeachments of
federal judges are compelling examples. In 1989, Judge Walter Nixon was
impeached and removed from office for making false statements before a
federal grand jury. The conduct of Judge Nixon which occasioned his
perjury before the grand jury was not official conduct. In 1986, Judge
Harry E. Claiborne was impeached and removed from office for making
false statements under penalty of perjury on his income tax returns.
His misconduct was without doubt outside the scope of his official
responsibilities. Should we today, as the opponents of those articles
demand, set a lower standard of integrity for the President than we
have set for federal judges?
There is nothing in the text, structure, or history of the
Constitution which suggests that Presidents are subject to impeachment
only for official misconduct. Greater harm to the system of government
may in fact be caused by the criminal acts of a President committed
outside the scope of his official responsibilities than by certain acts
of official misconduct.
Despite their argument that the President is immune from impeachment
because the underlying conduct which gave rise to his crimes

[[Page H11828]]

was a private matter, the President's lawyers have themselves elsewhere
claimed:

Any conduct by the individual holding the Office of the
President, whether it is characterized as private or
official, can have substantial impact on a President's
official duties. (emphasis added)

Perjury and obstruction of justice--even regarding a private matter--
are offenses that have a substantial impact on the President's official
duties because they are grossly incompatible with his preeminent duty
to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Regardless of
their genesis, perjury and obstruction of justice are acts of public
misconduct--acts which cannot be dismissed as understandable or
trivial. Perjury and obstruction of justice are not private matters;
they are crimes against the system of justice.
Soon after the adoption of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote
that ``an inviolable respect for the Constitution and the Laws'' is the
``most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic.''
Hamilton understood that respect for the Constitution itself grows out
of a general respect for the law. And he understood the essential
connection between respect for law and the maintenance of liberty in a
Republic. Without respect for the law, our freedom is at risk. Thus,
according to Hamilton, those who ``set examples which undermine or
subvert the authority of the laws lead us from freedom to slavery . .
.''
President Clinton by his persistent and calculated misconduct has set
a pernicious example of lawlessness--an example which by its very
nature subverts respect for the law. His perverse example has the
inevitable effect of undermining the integrity of both the office of
President and the judicial process. The maintenance in office of such a
President is inconsistent with the maintenance of the rule of law.
In light of the historic principles regarding impeachment, the
offenses committed by the President demand that this House impeach
William Jefferson Clinton. Our Constitution requires that this
President who has shown such contempt for the law and for the dignity
and integrity of the high office entrusted to him by called to account
before the Senate for his high crimes and misdemeanors.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the former Government
Operations Committee, and ask that he yield to me briefly.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have just been advised that the chairman
of the House Committee on the Judiciary has unilaterally permitted
other Members other than committee members to visit the Ford Building
to read other materials unbeknownst to me and we had not allowed any
Democratic Members to go over there because we did not know that they
were permitted to attend if they were not members of the Committee on
the Judiciary. And I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for
pointing that out to us. It is an incredible violation of our
democratic rights, and I am deeply offended by it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, over and over again our
Republican colleagues have called for the rule of law. Let me suggest
that if the President has committed a crime, let him be tried in a
court of law. There even he will have the protections of the law. Here
in this House he is not getting the rule of law but the rule of
politics.
This President has been subjected to an unprecedented and deliberate
strategy to use taxpayers' funded money to investigate him in order to
get him impeached. Millions of dollars have been spent, many reckless
charges were investigated, investigated to death, and they were found
to have no basis in fact.
As a matter of fact, a resolution of impeachment was introduced
before anybody had ever heard of President Clinton's affair with Monica
Lewinsky. There has been an impeachment in search of an impeachable
offense. What has been presented to us today do not amount to
impeachable offenses.
I call for the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clear up
the record as a result of what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) had to say about access to executive session materials.
Just so that all of the Members are clear, when the House passed
House Resolution 525 in September, immediately after the receipt of the
independent counsel's report, only members of the Committee on the
Judiciary had access to the executive session material. Section 4 of
that resolution was effective during the review of the referral from
Independent Counsel Starr.
Pursuant to section 1 of H. Res. 525, rules relating to review by the
committee was effective until there was a further order of the House.
Then in October, when we passed our inquiry resolution, that superseded
the previous resolution's provisions relative to access to executive
session material.
House Resolution 581, the inquiry resolution passed in October, had
standard executive session rules of the House obtained; and that meant
that all Members of the House of Representatives had access to those
executive session materials.
That has been what the rule is since October 8, and any Member has
had the legal right to go over to the Ford Building and examine the
executive session materials.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Houghton).
(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a little different tact
here. I stand here as a Republican. I am proud of my party. But I am
opposed to impeachment, and have proposed my own censure motion, which
sadly will die with this session.
But this is today. What about tomorrow? Today we deal with the law.
Tomorrow we deal with people's lives. The famous parliamentarian which
we have all read, Edmund Burke, once said, ``The law sharpens the mind
by narrowing it. But in a few, law has lifted the mind to a level of
comprehension and humanity.''
So, Mr. Speaker, when all the arguments are done and when the votes
are taken, this is what we must work for, the humanity, the healing of
this Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), and I ask him to yield a few
seconds to me.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly yield back to the ranking member.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, who
is the ranking Member on the Judiciary, for his explanation.
The one thing it did not include, of course, was that only Members
who were trying to have their minds made up were the only ones that
came over to the Ford Building that were not members of the Committee
on the Judiciary two days before this proceeding on the floor. And I am
glad to know now that everybody could have come over but nobody
apparently availed themselves until this last minute twisting of arms
took place.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the ranking member
for yielding.
(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these articles
of impeachment. We are perhaps at one of the lowest points in American
politics. We are in the midst of a parliamentary coup. The party in the
majority want to remove an elected president. And that is the
parliamentary system. That is not the democratic system. They are doing
so without legitimacy.
Legitimacy demands bipartisanship. There is no bipartisanship on the
floor today, simply the will of this majority to drive out this
President, a true parliamentary coup. This debate has brought out some
of the worst features of man. I have to say it. First of all,
hypocrisy. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Second,
unfairness.
The Members of this body on both sides would like to vote on a
censure resolution. The Republican majority will not allow that. The
American people believe censure is an appropriate response. The
Republican majority will not allow that.
And third, there is a very unseemly obsession with this matter to the
exclusion of what used to be called the war effort. It used to be we
got behind our young men and women, we focused on what they were doing.
This crowd now believes that their partisan agenda is more important.

[[Page H11829]]

At the bottom, this is about sex. Now, the Republicans also jump up
and say, no, it is about lying. Well, even if you accept the
allegations that they are making, it is about lying about sex. That is
not an impeachable offense.
If, in fact, they want to make the argument that this is about the
rule of law, then the President is not above the rule of law, the
President can be prosecuted. Do not believe the President can escape
prosecution for these offenses in a court of law.

{time} 1545

The President can be prosecuted after he leaves office. The Founding
Fathers left to us the question of impeachment, which is not legal; it
is a political exercise which we are engaged in today. Unfortunately
the Republicans have lost all sense of proportion of judgment. They
talk about law, but they do not talk about justice. Justice looks at
the situation and fits the sanction to the crime. In this instance we
do not have high crimes and misdemeanors, we have low crimes and
misdeeds. In truth, we ought to have the sanction option, we ought to
look at another way to respond to the situation, but we do not have
that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, this crowd, this Republican leadership is forcing us to
remove the President, and that is a tragedy, and that is in fact a low
point in American politics.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, first let me clear up a misconception of
the previous speaker about the situation internationally. May 18, 1972,
when over 62,000 troops were on the ground in Vietnam, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the
Judiciary, introduced House Resolution 989 calling for the impeachment
of the President of the United States of America.
Now let me say this. As I have listened to this debate and listened
to both parties, there is at least an emerging consensus that lies have
been made, laws were broken and that the rule of law was undermined and
subverted. The question diverges on the matter of consequences; is this
impeachable? Some want censure, but the only constitutional remedy to
the House is impeachment. Should the Senate decide, they may be able to
censure. They have that option because only the Senate can decide on
punishment; the House does not have that option. Our duty is to accuse,
not to punish.
But since Democrats and Republicans have agreed that lies were made,
is it a high crime or a misdemeanor? Lying under oath on a material
matter is perjury, and, under these circumstances, a felony. It has
been serious enough that 700 people under the Clinton-Reno Justice
Department have been tried and convicted of it; 115 are, in fact, in
jail today. What would happen to the court system if this were not the
case?
Justice must be applied to all equally regardless of popularity,
party or position. I sadly must support these articles.
After months of debate, a review of the evidence, and careful
consideration of the bipartisan hearings, I have decided to support all
four Articles of Impeachment. Not to do so would send a message to
every court and every trial in America that truth is relative, even
optional. In short, America is a nation of laws and, as such, the law
must apply equally to all people, regardless of position.
Throughout this debate, the first question that must be considered
is, what are the facts? Based on 60,000 pages of testimony, affidavits,
and tapes taken under oath, honest people regardless of party, should
be able to determine if laws were broken.
Here are the facts with respect to the Articles of Impeachment which
were reported out of the House Judiciary Committee on December 16,
1998:

Article I--Grand Jury Perjury

Article I charges that the President told a series of calculated lies
under oath, after swearing to tell the truth, before a federal grand
jury that was investigating his alleged misconduct.
On August 17, 1998, seven months after being deposed in the Jones vs.
Clinton case, the President swore to tell the truth, and nothing but
the truth before a federal grand jury.
Before the grand jury:
The President swore that he did not want Monica Lewinsky to execute a
false affidavit in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is
not true.
The President swore that he did not allow his attorney to refer to an
affidavit before the judge in the Jones vs. Clinton case that the
President knew to be false. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he did not believe Monica Lewisky's
affidavit was false. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he was trying to determine whether his
``recollection was right,'' and he was ``trying to get the facts down''
and ``understand what the facts were'' when he recited to Betty Currie
a false account of his interactions with Monica Lewinsky. The facts
show this is not true.
The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his
deposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not
true.
The President swore that he did not talk to Betty Currie, his
secretary, about the retrieval of gifts he had previously given to
Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he told the truth about his relationship
with Monica Lewinsky to his aides who he knew would likely be called to
testify before the grand jury. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he did not have sexual relations with Monica
Lewinsky. The evidence indicates that he lied, even according to his
own interpretation of the Jones vs. Clinton court's definition of the
term ``sexual relations.''

Article II--Civil Perjury

Artlce II charges that the President lied under oath, after swearing
to tell the truth, in answers to written questions asked in the Jones
vs. Clinton case, in order to thwart that federal civil judicial
proceeding.
On December 23, 1997, the President signed an affidavit in which he
swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in
answers to written questions asked in the Jones vs. Clinton case. Such
questions are permissible under current law in civil rights lawsuits in
order for the court and the parties to ascertain the true facts of a
case.
In those answers:
The President swore that he had not had sexual relations with any
federal employees. The facts show this is not true.
The President also swore that he had not proposed nor sought to have
sexual relations with any federal employees. The facts show this is not
true.
The President told a series of calculated lies under oath, after
swearing to tell the truth, in a deposition given in the Jones vs.
Clinton case, in order to thwart that federal civil judicial
proceeding.
On January 17, 1998, the President swore to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given in the Jones vs.
Clinton case.
In that deposition:
The President swore that he was ``not sure'' whether he had ever
talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked
to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not
true.
The President swore that he did not know whether Monica Lewinsky has
been served a subpoena to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he
last saw her in December 1997. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that the contents of an affidavit executed by
Monica Lewinsky in the Jones vs. Clinton case, in which she denied they
had a sexual relationship, were ``absolutely true.'' The facts show
this is not true.
The President swore that he did not know that his personal friend,
Vernon Jordan, had met with Monica Lewinsky, a federal employee and
subordinate, and a witness in the Jones vs. Clinton case in which the
President was named defendant, and talked about the case. The facts
show this is not true.
The President swore that he could not recall being alone with Monica
Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he could not recall giving gifts to Monica
Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he could not recall ever being in the Oval
Office hallway with Ms. Lewinsky except perhaps when she was delivering
pizza. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that Monica Lewinsky gave him gifts ``once or
twice.'' The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that the last time he spoke to Monica Lewinsky
was when she stopped by before Christmas 1997 to see Betty Currie or at
a Christmas party. The fact show this is not true.
The President swore that he did not have an extramarital affair or
sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true.

article III--Obstruction of Justice

Article III charges that the President engaged in a pattern of
obstruction while the Jones vs. Clinton case was pending, and while a
federal criminal investigation into his

[[Page H11830]]

alleged misconduct was pending, in order to thwart those proceedings.
The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file a sworn affidavit
that he knew would be false in the Jones vs. Clinton case.
The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath if called
personally to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case.
The President related to Betty Currie, a potential witness in the
Jones vs. Clinton case, a false account of events relevant to testimony
she might provide in the case.
The President told lies to While House aides who he knew would likely
be called as witnesses before the grand jury investigating his
misconduct which these officials repeated to the grand jury, causing
the grand jury to receive false information.
The President intensified an effort to provide job assistance to
Monica Lewinsky, and succeeded in his efforts, at a time when her
truthful testimony in the Jones vs. Clinton case would have been
harmful to him.
The President engaged in a plan to conceal evidence that had been
subpoenaed in the Jones vs. Clinton case.
The President, at his deposition, allowed his attorney to make a
false representation to a federal judge in order to prevent questioning
about Monica Lewinsky.

article iv--abuse of power

Article IV charges that the President, in his constitutional role as
President of the United States, lied under oath, after swearing to tell
the truth, in answers to written requests for admission asked in the
impeachment inquiry, assuming to himself powers reserved to the House
of Representatives, in order to thwart that constitutional proceeding.
On November 27, 1997, the President signed an affidavit in which he
swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in
answers to written requests for admission issued as part of the
impeachment inquiry in order to ascertain the true facts regarding the
President's conduct.
In those answers:
The President swore that he had no specific recollections that he
told Monica Lewinsky on the same day he told her she was a witness in
the Jones vs. Clinton case that she could say to anyone inquiring about
their relationship that her visits to the Oval Office were for the
purpose of visiting with Betty Currie or delivering papers to the
President. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he did not give perjurious, false and
misleading testimony under oath when he stated during his deposition
that he did not know if Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify
in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he did not have a discussion with Monica
Lewinsky at the White House regarding gifts he had given to her that
were subpoenaed in the case of Jones vs. Clinton. The facts show this
is not true.
The President swore that he did not discuss with Betty Currie gifts
previously given by him to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not
true.
The President swore that he did not request, instruct, suggest to or
otherwise discuss with Betty Currie that she take possession of gifts
he had previously given to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not
true.
The President swore that he did not have knowledge that any facts or
assertions contained in the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky in
the Jones vs. Clinton case were false. The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his
deposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he stated that he did not
recall giving gifts to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not
true.
The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his
deposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he responded ``once or
twice'' to the question ``has Monica Lewinsky ever given you any
gifts?'' The facts show this is not true.
The President swore that he did not attempt to influence the
testimony of Betty Currie. The facts show this is not true.

it is apparent that the independent Counsel and Republican Members of
the House Judiciary Committee concluded the President perjured himself,
but what have the some of the Democrats said?

House Judiciary Committee Democrats:
Rep. Charles Schumer: ``To me, it is clear that the President lied
when he testified before the grand jury.'' House Judiciary Committee
Hearing on Oct. 5, 1998.
Rep. Robert Wexler: ``The President did not tell the truth. He lied
under oath. That's something we have to deal with...His actions are
indefensible.'' Washington Post; September 15, 1998.
Rep. Barney Frank: ``I personally believe that the President
testified falsely when he said he could not remember being alone with
Miss Lewinsky.'' The San Francisco Chronicle; August 17, 1998.
Rep. Howard Berman: ``Even if one concludes the President's testimony
is not truthful--which I have--that's not grounds for impeachment. I
think the best way for the country to move beyond this sad affair is
for Congress to have some sort of formal declaration of disapproval of
the President's conduct. I think that is clear. There needs to be some
public consequence for the President's despicable behavior.'' House
Judiciary Committee Hearing; December 11, 1998.
White House Counsels:
Gregory Craig, Special Counsel to the President: ``I am willing to
concede that, in the Jones deposition, the President's testimony was
evasive, incomplete, misleading even maddening, but it was not
perjury.'' House Judiciary Committee Hearing; December 8, 1998.
Charles F.C. Ruff, Office of the White House Counsel: ``I had no
doubt that he walked up to a line that he thought he understood.
Reasonable people--and you may be--have reached that conclusion--could
determine that he crossed over that line, and what for him was truthful
but misleading, or nonresponsive and misleading, or evasive, was in
fact, false.'' House Judiciary Committee Hearing, December 9, 1998.

one can conclude there is at least some agreement that the President
provided false information before the grand jury. Thus, laws were
broken. Are these offenses impeachable?

Some critics argue that perjury about sex in a civil case is trivial
and not worth pursuing. In fact, prosecuting perjury vindicates the
rule of law. A judicial system is in order, because it is fair and
civil to settle disputes through judicial means. Perjury is a crime,
because a judicial system can only succeed if citizens are required to
tell the truth in judicial proceedings. If citizens are allowed to lie
with impunity, the system cannot reach just results and it descends
into chaos. Some say that people lie under oath all the time and are
not prosecuted. To some extent, that is true, but consider how much
worse the situation would be if there were no threat of a perjury
prosecution.

What does the Constitution say?

The Constitution states, ``The President shall be removed from office
on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors.'' What constitutes ``treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors?'' The Library of Congress defines
this clause as the following:

Treason is defined in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 as
follows: ``Treason against the United States shall consist
only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort.'' It is also defined in
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2381. Bribery is not defined constitutionally,
but the term appears in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201.
``High crimes and misdemeanors,'' are not defined in the
Constitution or by statute. U.S. precedents suggest that
certain actions that are not crimes may be impeachable. Some
interpreters of the impeachment clause place great importance
on the words ``other'' and ``high'' when reading the phrase
``or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' They suggest that
``other'' means that the crimes and misdemeanors contemplated
by the Framers must be of similar magnitude to treason or
bribery. They also suggest that ``high'' modifies both
``crimes'' and misdemeanors,'' meaning that ordinary crimes
and misdemeanors are not necessarily impeachable offenses.

What do the scholars think?

Eminent constitutional scholars testified before the House Judiciary
Committee about the meaning of impeachment, the impeachment standard as
applied throughout American history, and what the Founders said about
impeachment when the issue was debated in Philadelphia in the summer of
1787. Professor Stephen Presser of Northwestern University testified
that criminal interference in the legal process was an obvious ground
for impeachment. Indeed, Professor Presser argued that failure by the
President to live up to the standards of honesty, virtue, and honor
thought necessary for the office was precisely what the Founder
intended the impeachment provision of the Constitution. When a
President uses his office for personal rather than public ends, he has
betrayed his constitutional obligations to the Nation.
Other scholar made arguments before the committee supporting this
view. Professor John McGinnis of Yeshiva University Cardozo School of
Law pointed out that this matter is not about the President's private
life. It is about someone else's rights, rights which the President is
sworn to protect. It is about a private citizen's civil rights and an
effort to corruptly influence that citizen's due process rights. In the
United States, civil rights, the right to a fair trail, and equity
before the bar of justice are cherished rights, and the last person in
the Republic we should accept as a violator of them is the man charged
with enforcing them. Perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil case
are a threat to the civil rights of every citizen, especially when that
citizen if confronted with a vast apparatus of government power

[[Page H11831]]

What is the Supreme Court's view?

In this constitutional process of securing a witness's
testimony, perjury simply has no place whatsoever. Perjured
testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic
concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restrains against
the type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. The
power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power of contempt
for refusing to answer, drastic as that is--and the solemnity
of the oath--cannot ensure truthful answers. Hence, Congress
has made the giving of false answers a criminal act
punishable by severe penalties, in no other way can criminal
conduct be flushed in the open where the law can deal with
it.
Similarly, our cases have consistently--indeed without
exception-allowed sanctions for false statement or perjury;
they have done so even in instances where the perjurer
complained that the government exceeded its constitutional
powers making the inquiry--United States vs. Mandurano. 425
U.S. 564, 576-77 (1976)

The seriousness of perjury is reflected in the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines, which classify perjury in the same category as bribery
(2J1.3).
Congress has reaffirmed the Supreme Court's words through the
impeachment process. All three of the federal judges who were impeached
in the last twenty years (Claiborne, Nixon, and Hastings) were
impeached for some form of lying under oath.
The United States Department of Justice prosecutes perjury occurring
in civil cases. There are many cases similar to the one faced before
our President today. For example, the Justice Department recently
charged Veterans Administration psychiatrist Barbara Battalion with
obstruction of justice based on her denial in a civil case of a sexual
relationship. United States vs. Battalino.
Diane Parker, a former employee of the U.S. Postal Service was
sentenced to thirteen months in prison and three years parole for lying
in a civil case about a sexual relationship that she had with a
subordinate. Ms. Parker was charged perjury. United States vs. Parker.
In fact, the President and the Attorney General's Department of
Justice has tried and convicted over 700 people for perjury. Of those
700 people, 115 are now serving a prison sentence.
The President is the chief law enforcement officer in the United
States. If the President has committed perjury and Congress allows him
to do so without consequences, no other citizen can be expected to tell
the truth under oath. He sets an example that all Americans are
expected to follow. If every American feels that he can lie because of
what the President represents, then the judicial system for settling
disputes will falter.

why should the president be impeached and not censured?

Many support censure, yet, the Constitution neither gives the House
authority to censure the President nor does it prohibit such action.
What are the arguments against censure? The short answer is that there
is no Constitution basis for it. One could perhaps make the argument
that the Senate has the Constitutional authority for such a measure,
because they are in charge of punishment and have flexibility to decide
what punishment is appropriate. But the Constitution does not give the
House of Representatives any other option in the case of Presidential
misconduct aside from the provision of impeachment which sends the
matter to the Senate. The job of the House is not to punish but to
accuse. The Senate must review the accusation and make a final
decision.
Furthermore, should the House pass a censure resolution, it would set
a dangerous precedent for future Congresses, who will surely be tempted
to use this act as a weapon against a President of an opposing party
whenever Congress has serious disagreements with the administration's
policy. The Founders did not believe that the House should have such a
role, unless presidential misconduct were so egregious as to warrant
impeachment.
If censureship is not an option, what exactly is the House voting on?
Again, the Constitution interprets impeachment as an indictment. That
is, does the House find probable evidence to send the matter to the
Senate for a full trial and to make the final decision? Based on the
facts presented, the answer is ``yes'' if one believes the charges are
impeachable.
Outside of the legal realm, many argue that impeachment is against
the will of the people. However, Members of congress have to make this
decision based on the Constitution and the oath of office, not
political polls, party, or politics. But, to examine this idea of
polling, should polls also be conducted on the government's policy in
Bosnia, the Middle East, on the government's income tax, on the
Internal Revenue Service, on school choice? Those who insist on using
polls for impeachment decisions are selectively oblivious to the ``will
of the people'' on other matters which may or may not be in sink with
their own political philosophies.

Should the House of Representatives proceed with an impeachment vote at
this particular time?

Another argument against an impeachment vote is that it will disrupt
the nation while troops are being deployed to Iraq. Here is an example
of what our nation was going through while President Nixon was in
office:
As Henry Kissinger was engaged in negotiating a peace agreement with
the North Vietnamese in Paris in May 1972, 3 resolutions (H. RES. 975,
976, & 989) were introduced in the House calling for Nixon's
impeachment based on Indochina military actions taken as part of an
effort to strengthen the U.S.'s hand in the negotiations.

On May 18, while there were still over 62,000 troops on the ground in
Vietnam, Mr. Conyers (who is now ranking Member on the House Judiciary
Committee) introduced H. Res. 989--together with Mr. Dellums, Rangel,
and Stokes (also Members of the Judiciary Committee)--a resolution
which called for:

Impeaching Richard M. Nixon, for abuse of the office of the
President and of his powers as Commander in Chief of the
Armed Forces by ordering the mining of all North Vietnamese
ports and the massive aerial bombardment without
discrimination as to the lives of civilians in Indochina, and
for other high crimes and misdemeanors within the meaning of
article II, section 4, of the Constitution of the United
States.

On Oct. 12, 1972, four months after the break in, less than a month
before the Presidential election, and while the United States was still
bombing Hanoi and 32,000 troops remained in Vietnam, House Banking
Chairman Wright Patman attempted to have his committee initiate a
Congressional probe of Watergate and announced that the GAO had acceded
to a request for a ``full scale investigation'' of Watergate.
On Jan. 11, 1973, while Henry Kissinger was in the final stages of
negotiating the peace agreement that was signed in Paris on Jan. 27 and
21,500 troops remained in Vietnam, the Senate Democratic Caucus
unanimously approved a resolution calling for an investigation of the
Watergate affair. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield announced that
Sen. Sam Ervin had agreed to chair the hearings. Mansfield also
released letters he had sent to the Senate committee chairman the
previous November calling for committee investigations saying: ``The
question is not political, it is constitutional.''
On February 7, 1973, as the U.S. bombing in Laos was increased to
help force a wider peace in Indochina and just one week before the
first planeload of American POWs were sent home by North Vietnam, the
Senate voted to establish a select Committee to probe Watergate. The
Senate acted based on a preliminary study and a report was released
Feb. 1 by Sen. Kennedy which was the result of an investigation by his
Judiciary subcommittee into Watergate. Over 10,000 troops were still in
Vietnam at the time.
During the first week of May, 1973, 14 resolutions (2 by Rangel) were
introduced in the House calling either for the appointment of a special
prosecutor or authorizing Watergate investigations by the House. On May
1, the Senate passed a resolution calling for an outside prosecutor and
Sen. Ervin began his Watergate hearing on May 17. Archibald Cox was
appointed Special prosecutor the next day. The Senate and House also
voted in May to prohibit the use of funds to ``finance combat
activities [bombing] in, over, or from off the shores of Cambodia or
Laos by U.S. forces.'' At the time, over 6,000 military and civilian
DOD personnel were still on the ground in Vietnam and the U.S. was
bombing in Laos to force Hanoi to abide by the Laotian peace agreement
and in Cambodia to halt a North Vietnamese-backed assault on the
Cambodian government.--[H. Res. 367, 368, 369, 373, 374, 376, 377, 378,
380, 381, 384, 385, 386, 391]
Furthermore, do Washington pundits believe that business will not
function during an impeachment trial? Would they have us believe
America will quit buying and selling houses and cars? Will farmers stop
producing and consumers stop consuming? Those who fear disrupting the
country's business either misunderstand or underestimate the American
people. Or, are they saying the Constitution is flawed? When it is
interrupted in a manner with which they disagree, then it becomes a
Constitutional crisis. If this is in fact the case, then perhaps the
President should consider doing what over 200 publications have called
on him to do (including The Savannah Morning News, The Brunswick News,
The Statesboro Herald, The Atlanta Constitution, The Augusta Chronicle,
The Marietta Daily Journal, The Waycross Journal Herald, the USA Today,
and The Florida Times Union)--resign. This would allow the capable and
experienced Vice-President to take over as President Ford did in 1974.

closing remarks

The House voted on a bipartisan basis to proceed with an impeachment
inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. Procedures were modeled after the
Democratic-designed Watergate

[[Page H11832]]

rules and time was given to all parties for witnesses, thus making this
investigation fair and equitable.
Our actions will stand the test of time. They must. This vote is not
for today or the next election, but for the next generation. We are a
nation of laws and upholding those laws is the duty of all citizens,
or, as it has been asked, should we be a nation that has one law for
the ruler and another for the ruled?
This is a sad and serious situation, but to vote ``no'' would send a
message that oaths to tell the truth mean little and a cancer would
spread throughout our courts and eventually our nation itself.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today is a tragic day for our country
because, while our young people are fighting in the Persian Gulf and
bringing honor to our country, we are bringing dishonor to it with our
hypocrisy here in this Chamber. Today the Republican Party is not
judging our President with fairness but is impeaching our President.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the word ``hypocrisy'' in order on
this floor?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California would have
to yield.
Ms. PELOSI. I do not have enough time to yield, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may proceed.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican majority is not judging
the President with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance. In the
investigation of the President fundamental principles which Americans
hold dear, privacy, fairness, checks and balances, have been seriously
violated, and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in
the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton, and until the
Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer.
I rise to oppose these unfair motions which call for the removal of
the President of the United States from office, and in doing so wish to
point out some difference between the investigation of the President
and the investigation of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich).
The first principle in our investigation of the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) was that at the moment we found exculpatory
information it would be reported immediately to the accused and be made
public. The independent counsel knew that the President was exonerated
in Travelgate, Whitewater and Filegate, and he held that information
until the hearing, indeed until after the election. This was not fair.
Indeed, it is the responsibility of any prosecutor to immediately
release information that is exculpatory.
So it is not about Whitewater, it is not about Travelgate, and it is
not about Filegate. It is about sex. It is about a punishment searching
for a crime that does not exist.
In the Gingrich probe we drew every inference in favor of the
accused, but in this case it took a closing question from a member of
the grand jury to Monica Lewinsky to say: ``Is there anything you would
like to add to your prior testimony?'' for Monica Lewinsky to respond,
and I quote:
``No one ever asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my
silence.''
The point is why did the independent counsel not elicit that
important testimony?
In the Gingrich case we spent a major part of our report explaining
the laws which were violated. The Committee on the Judiciary has not
proven perjury, it has not even defined perjury. Instead, it has kept
the subject intentionally vague. Whether one is violating a marital vow
or some other aspect of his personal behavior, it is not an impeachable
offense. Our colleagues have not proven perjury.
In the Gingrich probe we had a bipartisan unanimous vote in our
subcommittee and an almost unanimous vote on the floor because we built
consensus and we tried to bring the matter to closure, and I will
submit the rest to the Record where I say that censure is closure,
censure is constitutional. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Chief
Justice of the United States testified that it was. How can the
Republicans, as we come to punishment, how can the Republicans exalt
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) to the highest post of
Speaker after he admitted lying to Congress and try to impeach the
President of the United States for lying about his personal affairs?
I urge my colleagues to vote no, stop this hatchet job on the
presidency, stop this hypocrisy, stop this hatred and vote no on all
four counts.

Responsibility in the Gingrich matter

We had a bipartisan unanious vote of our subcommittee and a near
unanimous vote on the floor because we build consensus and brought the
matter to closure. We have that opportunity today with a motion of
censure. Censure is constitutional. In 1800 Representative Livingston
introduced a motion of censure against President John Adams. The
President was successfully defended by Congressman John Marshall of
Virginia who would soon become Chief Justice of the United States.
Marshall is the father of much of our constitutional law and he never
argued in the Adams case that censure was unconstitutional.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I have been taking notes on my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I would just ask them to
talk about the facts in the articles, four. We would love them to talk
about those. If anyone disputes the allegations of perjury, obstruction
of justice, we would like to hear some specific allegations. The
Committee on the Judiciary conducted an independent review of this
matter. We are not bound by Kenneth Starr. All the exculpatory material
was made available to the President's counsel. He had an opportunity to
call witnesses. We urged him to. All the time was not taken by the
President's counsel, and I think that is important to be noted.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is critical that we were fair through the
Committee on the Judiciary process, and I believe we accomplished that.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we keep coming back to the rule of
law question. I think standing for the rule of law includes the
following: that the Nation's chief law enforcement officer cannot
commit perjury and remain in office. The rule of law means that the
Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces should not be held to a lower
standard than are his subordinates. The rule of law means that even the
most ordinary and humble citizens are entitled to their day in court,
and they are entitled to expect sworn testimony in that court to be
truthful, even testimony from the President of the United States. The
rule of law means recognizing that felonious criminal conduct by the
President of the United States cannot be tolerated. The rule of law is
more important than the tenure in office of any elected official.
During John Adams' second night in the White House he wrote these
words:
``I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this House and on
all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men
ever rule this roof.''
Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I conclude the current
occupant of the White House has utterly failed to live up to this
standard. I cast my vote for impeachment to protect the long-term
national interest of the United States, to affirm the importance of
truth and honesty, and to uphold the rule of law in our Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership's irresponsible
actions today on impeachment is only met by the irresponsible behavior
yesterday questioning the military action in Iraq.
The President's conduct has been deplorable, indefensible, but his
behavior by any objective analysis does not rise to the level of
impeachment as defined by our Constitution.
What did the President do? He misled, he manipulated and he lied to
two specific questions under oath. The first question was whether he
was ever alone with Ms. Lewinsky.

[[Page H11833]]

The leading Supreme Court case on perjury I think really points out
the fact that that issue was not perjury. As distasteful as that might
be, that is the facts of the law. The leading Supreme Court case talked
about someone who testified under oath that he did not have, his
company did not have, a Swiss bank account. He, in fact, did, but his
company did not. He was prosecuted, convicted for perjury. The Supreme
Court overthrew that case because in fact that was not perjury by being
deceitful, by being misleading in his answer. That is exactly what the
President did.
But even if it were perjury, even if it were perjury, our
Constitution talks about subversion of government as issues for
impeachment. Can anyone objectively say that the answers to those
questions were an attempt to subvert our government? Can anyone say
that objectively? Honestly? Obviously not. These misrepresentations
were lies, but absolutely not a subversion of our government.
Clearly this is not an impeachable offense. Clearly again the
conspiracy that my Republican colleagues say occurred in terms of the
actions in Iraq; the British are involved in those actions. Are they
part of the conspiracy that they allege? Are the 30 countries that are
part of the UNSCOM U.N. team that did the investigation in terms of
chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, are they part of this
conspiracy as well? Obviously not.
The irresponsible actions will be checked at the ballot box and by
history.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Canady) for rebuttal.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me, and I want to compliment my colleague from
Florida for at least touching on the facts of the case, but I feel
compelled to respond to the points he has made about perjury.
I think what we are hearing here are more of the legalisms, more of
the legal gymnastics, more of the hair splitting that we should not be
hearing in this context, and I would also point out that the
President's own lawyer in his presentation to the Committee on the
Judiciary admitted that when the President answered the questions in
the deposition he intended to mislead by his answers. That was his
intention.
Let me read to my colleagues from a recent decision of the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. It says a perjury inquiry which focuses only
upon the precision of the question and ignores what the defendant knew
about the subject matter of the question at the time it was asked
misses the very point of perjury. That is the defendant's intent to
testify falsely and thereby mislead his interrogators. Such a limited
inquiry would not only undermine the perjury laws, it would undermine
the rule of law as a whole, as truth seeking is the critical component
which allows us to determine if the laws are being followed, and it is
only through the requirement that a witness testify truthfully that a
determination may be made as to whether the laws are being followed.

{time} 1600

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) made reference
earlier in the debate to last-minute arm twisting of the undecided, and
I feel compelled to comment.
I made a commitment to myself and my colleagues, an unusual one, and
that is to come to this debate with my mind still available to
persuasion. I am one of the last few holdouts undecided in this debate,
and it needs to be said that not once, not once in this entire ordeal,
has a single member of my leadership, has a single colleague, has a
single member of the Committee on the Judiciary, not only not asked me
to vote one way, they have never even inquired as to how I would vote.
We have big differences of opinion here, but it does the process an
injustice to argue that there has been arm twisting.
I think the Whip has been maligned in this process. It has been
alleged that he is twisting arms. I spent 3\1/2\ hours in the company
of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the entire
elected leadership this week, and not once did any of them say a word
to me about impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a former member of the Supreme
Court of his state.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and an attorney, I have
seen firsthand the corrosive effect on the justice system of lying.
Lying under oath is just as wrong when it is committed by your allies
as when committed by your adversaries. I agree that no Republican made
this President lie, just as no Democrat influenced Newt Gingrich.
When the House reconvened after the August recess, after the
President's testimony to the grand jury and his statement to the
Nation, I was the first Member of this House on either side of the
aisle to come to this floor and condemn the President's lying and ask
that he be promptly punished.
Then, as today, this Republican leadership had a choice: It could
either bring us together in a collective condemnation of this conduct,
or it could split us apart. Unfortunately, on the eve of an election,
it took the latter course, and, in an unsuccessful effort, it tried to
exploit this situation to its maximum political advantage. It
arrogantly rejected Democratic suggestions for how to conduct this
inquiry, and it delayed for weeks getting the inquiry underway.
When it finally convened, this same committee that comes today and
tells us that this is the most important decision of this House, short
of declaring war, failed to meet its burden of proof by calling one
single witness who had firsthand knowledge of the facts involved.
Instead, it relied almost exclusively on a fellow named Ken Starr, who
is obsessed with getting Bill Clinton, no matter what the cost, in
either wasted taxpayer dollars or in violated civil liberties and
rights of privacy.
So, I find myself today I think like many Americans, disgusted with
the whole situation. I find a situation that is so shameful, a
situation so shameful that neither Republican Speaker, either Mr.
Gingrich or Mr. Livingston, will even preside over this proceeding
today.
A new year that begins in this country with all three branches of our
government embroiled in the first Senate trial in 130 years will not be
a prosperous and productive new year for our people. The poison of
division that infects this House today spreads throughout the American
population. It is a poison that invades our body politic and thwarts
our ability to come together as a Nation to resolve our problems.
Do not rip our Nation asunder. Bring us together. Punish the
President with a punishment that fits the offense. Do not punish the
American people by prolonging this dreadful episode. Censure and move
on.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, with over 60,000 documents, in the
presentation of the White House lawyer, Mr. Ruff, he made no challenge
to the testimony of Betty Currie, Monica Lewinsky or anyone else in the
factual situation that we have had before us.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I
rise in support of the articles of impeachment before the House today.
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will make one of the most
solemn decisions it can make--whether to indict, or impeach, the
President of the United States.
The historical significance of this week's action does not escape me.
This is only the second time in our nation's history that Congress has
voted on an impeachment inquiry. As we approach the votes that will
occur later this week, I feel a burden of responsibility as never
before during my years in public affairs.
Like most people in public service, President Clinton serves as a
mentor to young people who come to the nation's capital with idealism
and hope that they might learn the functions of government and
participate in the legislative process. It is quite clear that the

[[Page H11834]]

President grossly violated his responsibility as a mentor to a young
woman working in the White House. As a parent, I find his behavior
immoral and highly offensive. It shows a fundamental lack of judgment
and a total disregard for human decency.
Truth is the cornerstone of our legal system; it must be upheld if
our legal system is to endure. Lacking truth, our legal system means
nothing. No man, not even the President, is above the truth or above
the law. From the very beginning, I have wanted to give the President
every benefit of the doubt. I have wanted to believe that he was
telling the truth. But it is now clear that he repeatedly lied to the
American people, to the Congress, to his staff, and to his own wife and
family. The time this investigation has taken, and the toll it has
taken on our country, is a direct result of the President's efforts to
deny and evade the truth. He could have--and should have--told the
truth from the very beginning but instead he chose to lie.
Anyone who has served in a court proceeding knows the significance of
raising one's hand and taking an oath to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. A violation of that oath is perjury.
It is now evident that the President has lied--repeatedly lied--while
under oath. The first lie begot the second and the third lie which
became a pattern intended to obscure the truth. He has also clearly
violated the oath of office he took upon becoming President.
To maintain the fundamental integrity of our system of government,
the President, like every other citizen, must be held accountable for
his actions. His actions, detailed by the Judiciary Committee, provide
sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice and represent an abuse of
power. For this reason, I will vote to impeach the President on each of
the four articles of impeachment when this matter comes before the full
House.
President Clinton is an American President who has every political
gift and who at one time had every opportunity to be one of the truly
great presidents. Like most presidents, he could rightfully take credit
for the many good things that have occurred under his watch--a robust
economy, relative peace at home and abroad, and so much more.
Unfortunately, this president will not be remembered for these things
but for his inability to speak the truth. The verdict of history will
cast a shadow upon this once promising presidency. While history
remembers that George Washington could not tell a lie, it now appears
that history may well remember Bill Clinton for his inability to tell
the truth. Imagine the difference telling the truth would have made
upon the historical legacy of William Jefferson Clinton.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress takes an oath of
office to uphold and defend the Constitution, and today we are
challenged to do our duty under that oath.
No person in this House is without fault or without sin, but the
question before us is not whether the President has sinned. The
question before us is whether the President has committed illegal acts,
including perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
Under the Constitution that we swore to defend, these are serious
crimes, crimes that our constituents would go to prison for, and do we
hold the President, the top-ranking law enforcement official in our
country, to a lower standard?
John Locke once wrote, ``Where the law ends, tyranny begins.'' Mr.
Speaker, if we believe in our Constitution, then the law does not stop
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In our constitutional democracy, no one, not even the President, is
above the law. None of us sought the burden of impeachment when we ran
for this office, but every one of us raised our right hand and swore to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Who are we to
ignore that obligation by turning a blind eye to crimes by the leader
of our government?
I have no choice but to honor my oath of office. I have no choice but
to impeach this President and send this matter to the Senate, as my
oath of office requires me to do.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these articles
of impeachment. As a former prosecutor and special prosecutor, if the
rule of law and this process of impeachment is going to have any
credibility, it has to be applied fairly and consistently. But I am
afraid the double standard against the President today is anything but
fair, anything but consistent.
In 1974, the House Committee on the Judiciary, when Congress was
controlled by Democrats, drafted articles of impeachment against
President Nixon based upon fraudulent tax returns. But the Committee on
the Judiciary in a bipartisan fashion determined that it did not rise
to the level of an impeachable offense because it was private as
opposed to public misconduct.
Well, then, what is this all about, if it is not really about
perjury? If it is just about punishing and holding the President
accountable and retribution, we can do that, short of punishing the
country as well and paralyzing this government for the next six to
eight months, we can punish President Clinton through censure and
through private prosecution once the President leaves office. But we do
not even get a vote on censure, which is fundamentally unfair.
I do not believe the Founders intended impeachment to be used as a
tool of punishment, but, rather, to preserve and protect the country
against a rogue president, who, through his public duties, is
jeopardizing the very structure and functioning of our government. No
one can claim that that is happening here today.
Mr. Speaker, I have two young boys who are not old enough yet to
comprehend the gravity of this situation. My only hope is when they are
old enough and are reading about this in the history books, that they
are going to have confidence that every vote cast was done in the best
interests of the country, rather than short-term political gain. I am
not confident that is the story they will read.
In fact, the one person in this country that probably has the best
realistic assessment of what is really going on is the young mother of
two young children who told me, ``Listen, I can educate my own
children, I can teach them not to lie. But I can't protect them against
the destruction of the presidency.'' Only we in this body can do that.
I am afraid we are going to fail her in the next 24 hours.
Please, do not destroy the 210 years of history in this country.
Mr. Speaker, seldom in the course of our nation's history is a
congressional representative called upon to cast a vote of greater
constitutional significance than the possible impeachment of the
President of the United States. Short of declaring war, there is not
greater constitutional obligation. It is a responsibility I do not take
lightly.
After a thorough review of the historical evidence of the intent of
the framers of our Constitution, the standard of impeachable offenses,
prior precedents and the evidence so far collected surrounding the
allegations against President Clinton, I have concluded that the
President's conduct, as deplorable and indefensible as it is, does not
rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Such conduct does not
justify paralyzing our government indefinitely nor is impeachment
needed to hold him accountable. I will vote against all four articles
of impeachment.
Just once before in our 210 year history has the House of
Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment. Impeachment is a
constitutional provision that has seldom been used and for good reason,
impeaching the President is the atomic bomb of American politics.
Besides paralyzing our government during an impeachment trial, the
process causes, by its very nature, great acrimony and division
throughout the country and within Congress. Ultimately, the end result
could mean overturning a national election and the will of the people.
I am convinced, after a thorough review of history and analysis of
our founding fathers' intent, that impeachment was never meant to be
easily or frequently used. That is why our founders established a very
high standard of misconduct and placed the judgement of that misconduct
in the forum of representative democracy, the United States Congress,
rather than in the political vacuum of the Supreme Court.

standard of impeachment

It is evident that our Founding Fathers intended impeachment to be a
limited, last resort remedy reserved for misconduct that affects the
structure of our government and our democratic process or for
misconduct so egregious that society needs to be protected against the
individual. At the outset, some delegates to the Constitutional
Convention objected to including the power to impeach in the
Constitution. Others were concerned that some process was needed to
protect the country against misconduct by the President that would
damage our government. The classic example was cited by George Mason
who

[[Page H11835]]

was concerned about a President selling state secrets to an enemy
during time of war. Some process was needed to remove that person from
office in order to save the Republic.
Some delegates, such as James Madison, objected to the use of broad
impeachment language. Madison noted that impeachment was only necessary
to ``defend the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy
of the chief magistrate.'' George Mason objected to the draft language,
concerned that it was limited to ``treason or bribery.'' He sought to
add the term ``maladministration.'' Madison objected to this vague
language and substituted ``or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors
against the State'' (emphasis added). The narrow scope of the phrase
``other High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was confirmed by the addition of
the language ``against the State.'' This language reflects the
Convention's view that only offenses against the political order should
provide a basis for impeachment. Although the phrase ``against the
State'' was deemed redundant and eventually deleted by the Committee of
Style, its deletion was not intended to have any substantive impact. I
wonder how differently we would be debating President Clinton's conduct
today if its was within the written context of misconduct committed
``against the State.''
The interpretation that ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' should
be limited to serious abuses of official power is further confirmed by
the commentary of both the framers of the Constitution and prominent
constitutional experts, contemporary and past. For instance, Alexander
Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65 that impeachable offenses ``proceed
from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or
violation of some public trust.'' He stressed that those offenses ``may
with peculiar proprietary be denominated political, as they relate
chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself''.
Impeachment precedents also demonstrate that offenses should arise
out of a President's public, not private conduct. In 1868, Andrew
Johnson was impeached by the House Republicans after he removed
Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Those members disagreed with President
Johnson's post-Civil War reconstruction plans, which were merely the
continuation of President Lincoln's policies of moderation and leniency
toward the Southern States. The impeachment articles related to alleged
public misconduct only, and the Senate failed to convict President
Johnson by one vote.
The proposed impeachment of President Nixon also supports the view
that impeachment should be limited to threats that undermine the
Constitution, not possible criminal misbehavior unrelated to a
President's official duties. All three articles of impeachment passed
by the House Judiciary Committee involved misuse of the President's
official duties. They included using the CIA to obstruct an FBI
investigation, using the IRS to target political opponents, ordering
break-ins of private offices of political opponents, using slush money
to silence witnesses, using slush money to influence the outcomes of
federal elections, and engaging in a course of conduct to obstruct the
Watergate investigation.
The Judiciary Committee actually rejected articles of impeachment
against President Nixon relating to allegations of income tax evasion.
There was credible evidence that President Nixon had knowingly
committed tax fraud when filing his federal income tax returns for the
years 1969 through 1972 (tax returns are filed under penalty of
perjury). All seventeen Republicans were joined by nine Democrats to
defeat this article by a vote of 26-12. The primary reason for
rejection was that the tax fraud article related to the president's
private, rather than public, conduct.
As a former prosecutor, I know that if the rule of law is to have any
credibility it must be applied consistently and fairly. The same is
true with the standards of impeachment. I believe there is a double
standard being applied to President Clinton. How can we justify
impeaching President Clinton based on alleged perjurious statements
about his private life when a Democratically controlled Congress
concluded, in a bipartisan fashion, that President Nixon's perjured tax
returns constituted private, as opposed to public, misconduct, and
were, therefore, not impeachable?
Based on this very high standard of impeachable conduct and the
historical precedents, I am convinced that President Clinton's personal
misconduct and his attempt to lie about having a consensual sexual
affair do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

forum of democracy

II also do not believe our Founding Fathers meant for this country's
elected representatives to disregard the will of the American people
regarding such an important decision. If the Framers intended an
impeachment decision to be immune from public pressure, they would have
placed the process in the Supreme Court where unelected, life-tenured
justices could determine the case. Instead they placed the initiation
of impeachment in the House of Representatives. ``the People's House'',
so the American people could have a say, through their representatives,
on the disposition of their President and consequences for the future
of their country.
There are some who say that we should pay little regard to the
opinion of the American people on this important matter. I believe they
do so at their own peril. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state
that members of Congress are the embodiment of all the wisdom in this
country. I submit that it will be extremely difficult to impeach and
convict a President unless there is some consensus throughout the
country and bipartisan support in Congress to do so. Such a consensus
has failed to materialize. In fact, since the beginning of this
investigation, public opinion regarding the President has not changed.
Opinion polls show by a 2 to 1 margin that the American people oppose
impeachment and think the President is performing his duties well.
How can this be explained? I believe the American people have made
the distinction between the President's personal wrongdoing and his
conduct in discharging the duties of his office. Unlike Watergate, when
a consensus eventually materialized throughout the country and within
Congress regarding President Nixon's public misconduct, most Americans
feel that the President's personal conduct, however disgusting and
inexcusable, doesn't threaten our form of government or the process of
our democracy.
Those who defy the public will and vote for impeachment should
understand that in their fervor to punish this President they will
violate a sacred covenant with the American people: this government is
still the people's government. They will betray a promise that nothing
of enormous consequence in the life of our Republic will happen without
the consent and approval of the American people. A vote to uphold the
confidence of the American people in the democratic process will be a
vote against impeachment. Such a decision will be a vote of confidence
in the simple but sometimes forgotten founding principle of our
democracy that this government should be ``of the people, by the people
and for the people.''
Without the support of the American public, how can we justify
placing the country in a constitutional quagmire over a tortured
definition of sexual relations, one that even the presiding judge in
the case thought was confusing?
How can we justify passing articles of impeachment which would
require a lengthy trial in the Senate, presided over by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, about the sordid details of a consensual
affair and whether the President lied about it?
How can we justify calling a young woman to testify before one
hundred United States Senators and the Chief Justice about embarrassing
and intimate matters that transpired in a consensual relationship?
When you envision what a trial in the Senate will look like--Monica
Lewinsky, Linda Tripp and Lucianna Goldberg all sworn in as witnesses--
one has to wonder: What in the world are members of Congress really
trying to accomplish?

conclusion

The votes we are about to cast will be among the most important votes
any of us will be asked to make. Our decisions should be dictated by
our conscience and what each of us feel is in the best long-term
interest of our country, rather than for any short-term political gain.
I pray that we protect the impeachment process from being politicized
and defined downward.
The decisions we make today and throughout this process will set a
precedent for future Congresses and future Presidents. We must guard
against making impeachment too easy or we could disrupt the important
balance of power that exists between the three separate but coequal
branches of our government. Just as Watergate has served as a model for
our current proceedings, this impeachment proceeding will serve as a
model in the future.
One of the fundamental questions that each member of Congress must
answer is whether the President's personal conduct, as deplorable as it
was, justifies paralyzing our government for months and potentially
damaging our country in the process. There are many issues in which
Congress needs to be engaged. From Social Security and Medicare reform
to Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf and Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo,
from a Russian economic meltdown to financial crises throughout the
globe, how will history record Congress' performance at this time of
great domestic and international challenges?
A fair reading of our founders' intent will lead to the conclusion
that they placed country above personalities, the preservation of the
union above personal retribution. Impeachment was never meant to be a
form of punishment; it was intended to preserve and protect our
country.
There are other means of punishing Bill Clinton the person. One
option is a censure resolution from the House and Senate which

[[Page H11836]]

would require the President's signature to acknowledge the
condemnation. Such an alternative form of punishment has bipartisan
support. Former President Gerald Ford and, most recently, former
Senator Bob Dole have spoken in favor of this resolution. They
recognize the terrible cost our country will face if a trial goes
forward and effectively shuts down the government. I would even favor
imposing a fine to compensate the American people for the costs of the
Lewinski investigation. If there is to be any fairness in this process,
the Republican leadership should allow a vote on censure. Many members
believe in good conscience that a censure is the appropriate rebuke. To
deny a vote on censure would be the height of partisan politics.
Furthermore, the President can still be indicted and prosecuted as a
private citizen once he leaves office in two years. The President Has
already indicated that he will neither pardon himself nor accept a
pardon from any future President. As a former prosecutor, I would hope
that if there is enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the
President to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt before an unbiased
jury, a prosecutor would have the courage to indict and prosecute him
in a court of law. The President can and should be treated like any
other individual, neither above nor below the law, and the Constitution
ensures that will happen.
We don't need to invoke the atomic bomb of impeachment to hold
President Clinton accountable for any misconduct. We can spare the
nation of the ordeal while still delivering the message to all our
children that no matter who you are, whether a second grader at
Roosevelt Elementary school or the President of the United States,
there will be consequences to lying.
What we do today will serve as a lesson for future generations. I
hope it is the right lesson. Churchill once said: ``We must learn the
lessons of the past. But we must not remember today the hatreds of
yesterday.'' It is time to begin the process of reconciliation in
American politics and find ways to restore civility and mutual respect
to the democratic process. For too long now, the national political
scene has been dominated by the politics of personal destruction and
partisan bickering. That too is reflected in this impeachment process
and it confirms Alexander Hamilton's worst fear when he wrote in
Federalist No. 65: ``In many cases it will connect itself with the
preexisting factions, and will enlist all their animosities,
partialities, influence and interest on one side or on the other; and
in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the
decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the
parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
As we move forward with this vote, let us all hope that our decisions
will be made in good conscience for the sake of our country rather than
for short-term political gain. My decision is based as so many of my
decisions are, through the eyes of my two young sons, who are not old
enough to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Like so many other
Members, we all have to justify our decisions to our children and
grandchildren. We can teach our children not to lie. But we must
protect them from the destruction of the Presidency. My hope is that
years from now, when they are reading about this in their history
books, they will be proud of our conduct and they will conclude: ``They
got it right.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Canady) for rebuttal.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point again
which I made earlier today that in 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary
did not, did not, determine that tax fraud is a unimpeachable offense.
They simply determined that there was insufficient evidence that the
President of the United States was in fact guilty of tax fraud.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, every Member of the House now recognizes
what members of the Committee on the Judiciary have come to realize
over the last few months: This is likely the most important vote that
we as Members of Congress will ever cast. It also comes at an
especially difficult time, a time when our Nation's brave sons and
daughters are actively defending our Nation's freedom overseas.
I share many of my colleagues' concerns about this unfortunate
timing. But, just as we have a responsibility to our troops, we now
have a responsibility to keep our word to the American people and put
this matter behind the country as soon as possible.
Throughout the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of this
very serious matter, I worked to uphold my constitutional duty to
fairly and thoroughly investigate the charges brought against the
President. Throughout the proceedings, I tried to keep an open mind,
giving the President every opportunity to refute the evidence. But the
President made a calculated decision to avoid the facts. Instead, he
presented witnesses that could offer little more than excuses, insults
and historical perspectives tainted by partisan politics.
The President's attorneys did not fare much better. They, too,
decided to hide from the truth, consistently adhering to the company
line. ``The President did not really lie under oath,'' they testified.
``It depends on how one defines the word `alone.' ''
The President was not paying attention when his attorney offered
false evidence to the court. The President has continued to rely on
these absurd explanations and linguistic contortions for one reason and
one reason alone; he cannot dispute the facts.
The evidence against President Clinton is conclusive: The President
lied under oath before a Federal grand jury. He lied under oath in a
sexual harassment case. He obstructed justice, and he abused his
constitutional authority. Standing alone, each individual offense is
extremely serious. Collectively, they are overwhelming.
After months of painstaking review, it has become apparent to me that
impeachment is the only remedy that adequately addresses the
President's illegal and unethical acts. The President's actions have
gravely damaged the office of the presidency, our judicial system, and
our country.
This was not an easy decision to reach. Impeaching a President cannot
be taken lightly. But in this case, our constitutional duty is clear.
Some of my colleagues have come to the floor today using inflammatory
rhetoric and attacking Members for voting their conscience. This is
unfortunate and does not reflect the dignity that we owe this debate.
It is the President, by breaking his oath to preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States, who has violated the
trust bestowed upon him by the American people.
As to those who mistakenly claim that this body is seeking to
overturn an election or we are involved in a coup d'etat, let me remind
my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is the Democratic
Vice President, Al Gore, who would become President if the Senate
decides to remove President Clinton because of his crimes and remove
him from office.
I ask every Member of the House to consider the question I posed to
my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary last week: What message
are we sending to the youth of America if we abdicate our
constitutional duty and condone perjury, obstruction of justice and
abuse of power by the President of the United States?
I have two children at home, a daughter and a son. With the help of
their teachers and their church, my wife and I have tried to teach them
about honesty and integrity. We have tried to instill in them a belief
that character does indeed matter. We have taught them to obey the law.
Sadly, they have seen these principles corrupted by the chief law
enforcement officer of this land, the President of the United States.
William Jefferson Clinton has disgraced his sacred office, he has
cheapened the oath, he has disillusioned an entire generation of young
Americans, and he refuses to accept responsibility for his actions.
Abraham Lincoln, perhaps our Nation's greatest President, once said,
``Let us have faith that right makes might, and, in that faith, let us
dare to do our duty as we understand it.'' Today, we must fulfill our
constitutional duty and vote to impeach the President.

{time} 1615

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), and I would ask her to yield to me.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Could I point out to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Canady),

[[Page H11837]]

who took exception to why the income tax charge was not brought against
Mr. Nixon in 1974, if he would read our report of the minority at page
10, he would learn that it was not for lack of evidence, it was because
we determined that this was not a high crime or misdemeanor. And we
were joined by Republican Lawrence Hogan, Maryland, Wiley Mayne,
Republican--Iowa, and others.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, while attending church in
my hometown of Petaluma, California, I was struck by how utterly sad I
am. Sad about the President's behavior, sad about the Committee on the
Judiciary's unfair decision to not allow censure as an alternative, and
the impact all of this will have on our Nation.
Today, my heart is even heavier, because we are conducting this
debate while our troops are in harm's way. My heart aches for the
division separating us in this House, the distraction from the work of
government that we were elected to do, the threat of this unfair
process on our democratic system, and I am heartsick about the shame
and waste of this impeachment process. Shamed because the President's
conduct, while reprehensible, does not fit the definition under the
Constitution. Waste, because while we carry on, we are not working for
the important business of our Nation, and we ignore our young men and
women fighting abroad.
With these thoughts in mind and these feelings, I would like to share
with my colleagues the prayer that I prayed Sunday in my church:
Please, Lord, give wisdom, strength, and compassion to every Member of
the House so that we do not turn against our country and our need to
punish one man. Please help every Member of this House see that the
real mistake would be to push forward without the alternative of
censure to punish our Nation for one man's personal weakness. And
please, help us to remember the difference between partisan politics
and leadership. So that we will not make a decision against the people
of this country, we will make a decision for Americans based on
fairness, based on forgiveness, not against one person, our President.
Dear Lord, help us, through compromise and conscience, heal our Nation.
Amen.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Canady) for rebuttal.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I would yield to the gentleman from Michigan for a question.
Is it not true, I ask of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers),
as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary in 1974, that the
gentleman voted in favor of the tax fraud article against President
Nixon?
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely true.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman believes that
tax fraud was an impeachable offense?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct, and it does not
contradict what I corrected the gentleman about.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I think that nearly all that
could be said has been. Across party lines we stand shoulder to
shoulder with the principles and the values that brought us here.
This should be neither personal nor a partisan decision. Its
difficulty lies in the rare, but important, conflict between what is
expedient and short term and what resonates as a guiding principle for
all time. It is not about the fate of one man, but the value of truth
itself, the principle that no man, no matter how rich or how powerful,
is above the law. It is about the notion of accountability. It is about
the values of duty, honor, trust and sacrifice.
When I was a Suffolk County prosecutor, my entire duty was based on
the integrity and the conduct of the men and women who took an oath to
tell the truth. In many cases, it was difficult for these people to
testify honestly, sometimes even disastrous. But when they were sworn
in, they understood that this was different, that here the truth was
required; that upon their respect for their oath would ride many
things, including justice, our government of laws, equality of one
citizen with another, and not the least their own honor.
These were ordinary people, Mr. Speaker. They understood. In many
cases, they sacrificed. In many cases, they suffered. But they told the
truth.
If an anonymous citizen can abide by his oath, what about a
President?
When a President fails in his duty as an ordinary citizen does not,
the failure is catastrophic. Should less be expected of the President
than of you or me?
Here, the trustee of the greatest of world powers knows that he will
be in a sworn legal proceeding, consults with advisers and lawyers for
many months, has full notice, appears voluntarily before a criminal
grand jury, and can stop questions at any time, and still cannot bring
himself to do what the government he heads insists upon every day from
the people who take an oath: Tell the truth.
With this vote we will help set a standard of acceptable presidential
behavior. Will we judge presidential perjury to be acceptable? Is it
asking too much of the President that when he takes an oath he tell the
truth? With our votes we will send a compelling message one way or the
other to the children in classrooms across this country who are
watching their democracy at work. We are going to teach them through
our words and through our deeds either to respect or to have contempt
for the truth. This will be the timeless legacy of this Congress.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to impeachment, and I am for
censure.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to this
resolution.
I can tell you that this was not an easy decision, in fact, it was
one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made.
I believe the President's conduct was wrong.
Absolutely wrong!
However, after having watched the Judiciary Committee hearings
carefully, I remain unconvinced that the President's conduct, however
deplorable, rises to the level of impeachable offenses as intended by
the Framers of the Constitution.
I have concluded that the President did not commit high crimes and
misdemeanors against the integrity of the state.
Rather, the President committed low crimes against the integrity of
his marriage.
Reprehensible?
Yes.
But, not impeachable.
The Constitution dictates that impeachment be used to remove a
President only when there is clear and convincing evidence of
wrongdoing, and it must be related to large-scale abuses of public
office.
It is clear that such a standard has not been met in this case.
Today, we stand at the edge of a dangerous precipice.
The votes we cast today will decide whether we send this great
country over the edge, tumbling out of control, threatening our economy
as well as the very system of government we hold dear.
I am extremely concerned about the consequences for our country if we
vote to impeach the President and the Senate undertakes a long
impeachment trial.
I believe it will do untold damage to our country.
An impeachment trial will divide this Nation deeply, so much so that
we may not be able to heal the divide for a long time after the trial
concludes.
However, I am most concerned that a trial will threaten America's
position in the context of international relations and national
security.
Given the many volatile political situations that exist across the
globe, we can ill afford to be distracted by a lengthy and divisive
impeachment trial.
While I believe the President should be held accountable for his
actions, I believe censure is the appropriate response.
I am saddened that the Republican leadership denied this body the
opportunity to vote on censure.
This country was built on the principles of democracy and fairness.
I regret that the majority in Congress chooses to ignore those
principles and to dismiss the intent of our Nation's Founding Fathers.
I beseech my colleagues to put aside partisanship and personalities,
and to consider the gravity of the actions we take today.

[[Page H11838]]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett).
(Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, it has taken me a while to digest the myriad and
voluminous data relevant to the impeachment proceedings involving
President Clinton, and even longer to arrive at a decision with which I
feel at ease.
When I started in this process, I wrote constituents: ``This
(impeachment) is a grave and daunting issue that has the potential to
do great harm to our system of government if not prudently and
correctly managed. Every aspect of the process must adhere scrupulously
to constitutional requirements and meet established principles of
fairness, due process and substantial justice. I intend to carefully
and conscientiously review and weigh all facts relevant to the charges
before arriving at a final decision, and assure you of my commitment to
bring this matter to a conclusion as expeditiously as possible.'' I
have not deviated from these principles.
Beginning for historical reference with the Federalist Papers, and
their antecedents, and continuing through the Nixon proceedings to the
events of 1998, I have studiously and meticulously studied the facts
and determined what I believe to be the law applicable to an
impeachment proceeding under the U.S. Constitution. There are many
paths and side roads along the way, both factually and legally, that
honest and inquiring minds might follow to different conclusions which
for me has made the final decision of whether to support or oppose an
impeachment a close call. With the contending alternatives so
relatively balanced in my mind, prudence dictated that I err on the
side of historically established constitutional principles and support
the institutional stability of our Government that is built upon the
bedrock of predictable and consistent actions taken with the support of
our people.
Aside from my bias for ``law and order,'' it deeply disturbs me that
the House of Representatives has allowed a flawed process in its
impeachment proceedings that fails to meet the principles I noted at
the outset of this statement for ``fairness, due process and
substantial justice.'' The events of the last few days have especially
convinced me that all pretense toward fairness, due process and
substantial justice has now been abandoned and this whole matter is set
to be resolved on the basis of partisan political alignment. No one has
suggested to me, let alone attempted to convince me, that this is right
or good for our country as a whole.
While my natural inclination to rely upon law and fact has led me in
the direction of opposing impeachment, the failure of the House in its
proceedings to follow established principles of fairness, due process
and substantial justice has for me removed any doubt and convincingly
tipped the scales in favor of opposing impeachment.
For my conscience, for my country, and to support the institutional
underpinnings of our constitutional democracy, I will vote against
impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, our challenge today is one of fairness and
wisdom. A century ago, Justice Holmes advised the graduating class of
the Harvard Law School that the greatest service that one can do in a
democracy is to see the future as far as one may, to feel the force
behind the details of that future, and then to make clear and sound and
compact decisions to make them first-rate, and to let the results speak
for themselves. He was counseling them and us to be wise and far-
seeing, and to understand the consequences of our actions.
Perhaps no figure in our tradition of English law and history so well
portrays an impeachment on the charge of perjury as Sir Thomas More.
The author of A Man for All Seasons wrote that he was asked to testify
in a form that required him to state that he believed what he did not
believe and it required him to state it under oath.
Oliver Cromwell, accusing More of accepting a small gift in return
for a favor said, ``He is going to be a slippery fish. We need a net
with a finer mesh. We will weave him one. It must be done by the law.
It is just a matter of finding the right law. Or making one.''
Cromwell, in words too familiar to us today, in seeking to entrap
him, accused More of ``perverting the law, of making smokey what should
be clear light to discover his own wrongdoing.'' More replied, ``The
law is not a light for you or any man to see by, it is not an
instrument of any kind; the law is a causeway upon which a citizen may
walk safely.''
But that was not to be the way of the court, and in his closing, More
may have prefigured Holmes when he said, ``What you have hunted me for
is not my actions, but for the thoughts of my heart. It is a long road
you have opened. God help the people whose statesmen walk your road.''
It matters little whether the motive was base or high. An entrapment
is an entrapment. It is a road that More knew was contrived and unfair,
and it is a road that Holmes knew was unwise.
Future historians will judge this Congress largely on this vote. Let
us not go down in history as a deeply divided, vindictive Congress, but
as a body that took an action that brought the country together and
resolved this unhappy matter.
It is a long road we open today. If we take it, it will change our
lives and those of our children in lasting ways. God help the people
whose statesmen walk your road.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for rebuttal.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind all of my colleagues who are listening to
this debate that references to the word ``entrapment'' are rather
misplaced. There is no such thing as entrapment for perjury or
obstruction. It is a legal impossibility that is well-settled law in
Federal courts and state courts as well, and it in fact is the learned
testimony of several witnesses that appeared before the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of articles 1, 2, and 3.
Mr. Speaker, this Member approaches these proceedings of the House
with sadness for what has befallen our country and solemnly, but with a
firm conviction that we must discharge our responsibilities under
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution by considering
articles of impeachment against the President of the United States of
America. This Member intends and will act in a manner required by and
consistent with his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States.
Many people and leaders from other countries have spoken on the
matter before us today in a manner which reveals that they probably do
not understand the absolutely central role the Constitution and the
constitutional processes play in the governance of our country and
their role in maintaining the very fabric of the American society.
Indeed, even some of our citizens may not have focused on that central
role. Drawn from every corner of the globe, with a total diversity of
creeds, ethnicity, race, and heritage, America is the antithesis of a
nation state. More than any other country on earth, we Americans are
bound together and can function as a nation only because of our shared
ideals and ideas of governance as embodied in the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence. That is why upholding and defending the
Constitution, even with the controversies, inconveniences, and possible
effects on the nation's economic affairs, our foreign responsibilities,
and our domestic affairs and tranquility, must come before all other
considerations.
Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the partisan fervor that has marked the
proceedings of the impeachment inquiry and this debate. As an elected
Representative from what is by practice and nature undoubtedly the most
nonpartisan state in our nation and having served previously in my
state's unique state legislature, which surely functioned in an almost
totally nonpartisan fashion, this Member once again finds it
particularly difficult to fathom or justify the highly partisan course
that this process of impeachment of the President has taken. It does
not serve this nation well nor reflect well on this institution.
None of my Republican colleagues should be reaching a decision to
impeach the President for partisan reason. Indeed, there are very
substantial reasons why progressing with these impeachment proceedings
is not in the best interest of our party. None of us should
misunderstand that point and neither should the American people believe
that we do not

[[Page H11839]]

understand those immediate and long-term political consequences.
Nevertheless, we must pursue these impeachment proceedings and make our
individual decisions as Representatives in order to discharge our
constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, we ought to feel a particular sympathy for our Democrat
colleagues, for their natural instinct almost certainly is to defend a
President of their own party. They must, and undoubtedly do, struggle
to overcome those instincts in order to conscientiously perform their
constitutional responsibilities as demanded by our oath of office.
However, if the impeachment inquiry has been, and this debate is,
extremely partisan, if the partisan lines are very sharply drawn, it is
not one side which is to blame. Surely many of our Democrat colleagues
by their actions and the votes which they will cast bear at least half
of the burden for this unseemly and inappropriate partisan divide. To
maintain the trust of the American citizenry and to responsibly
discharge our constitutional duties we need to rise above such partisan
considerations. Indeed, that is especially true in a matter of this
great import and precedent.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding these introductory remarks before directly
addressing the articles of impeachment before us, this Member wants his
constituents to know that he received absolutely no pressure from party
leaders in the House or elsewhere in deciding how to vote on the
articles of impeachment before us. Nor did this Member receive
inappropriate pressure from any quarter. Rather this Member has been
able to conscientiously address the decisions before us on impeachment.
Furthermore, this Member has attempted to avail himself of the views of
numerous distinguished Americans and especially of the arguments,
views, and sentiments of the constituents he represents in Nebraska.
Obviously this has become a very decisive issue in America, made even
more so, no doubt, by the strong, conflicting views about the
President's performance and conduct and by the timing of intervening
events related both to the impending end to the 105th Congress and to
the armed conflict with Iraq which began less than two days ago.
Nevertheless, it is important to say, this Member believes, that polls
and the size, changes, and mixture in the tides of public sentiment
should have no effect upon whether this Member and the House faithfully
discharge their constitutional responsibilities related to impeachment
or any other matter.
Mr. Speaker, as for the specific matter before us in these
proceedings, much emphasis in the public discussion of the President's
actions has emphasized that impeachment is inappropriate, for it is
argued that this is really only about sex and that as such it either is
strictly a private matter or does not rise to the level of misconduct
which would justify impeachment. Mr. Speaker, the matter before us is
emphatically not just about sex and no person should be confused about
that point.
Certainly, the President has appropriately been condemned by perhaps
all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and by most Americans
for his sexual conduct in the White House and his intentional deception
of the American public. Most would agree that it was reprehensibly
exploitative, reckless, and morally and ethically inappropriate; that
it discredited the President and the presidency; that it soiled the
reputation of the White House which Most American's revere as a symbol
of our nation; and that it damaged abroad the reputation of our
country. As totally unacceptable as that conduct is, most Members of
Congress and most of the American people understand that sexual
misconduct does not justify impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, of course, what is at issue here today is whether the
President's actions or conduct constitute ``high crimes and
misdemeanors'' which would justify impeachment. The material in the
referral from the Independent Counsel and the investigative proceedings
of the House Judiciary Committee made it abundantly clear to most
reasonable persons that the President lied under oath to a Federal
grand jury. In the words of Impeachment Article I before us, he
``willfully provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the
grand jury'' on several important matters. The President's perjurious
statements thus means that his sexual discretions are no mere private
manner.
Similarly, it should be clear to most reasonable persons that the
President in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a
Federal civil rights actions brought against him, as stated in
Impeachment Article II, ``willfully provided perjurious, false and
misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a
Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with a
subordinant employee.'' Accordingly, his testimony can be seen as a
possibly important factor in denying that citizen, Paula Jones, her
legal rights as a citizen.
More importantly, however, for the purposes of both of these articles
of impeachment, one must consider that the President is in effect the
chief law enforcement official in our nation, charged by his oath of
office to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. By his
perjurious statements the President, as charged by Impeachment Article
I, ``impeded the administration of justice'' and ``acted in a manner
subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of
the people of the United States.'' The same language and relevance is
found in Impeachment Article II. No one in this country is more
important than the law or above the law, not even, indeed certainly
not, the President of the United States. If the President can lie under
oath it does, by example, great damage to the very basic element in the
foundation of the American justice system. In light of these
conclusions of the House Judiciary Committee, my own reasoning and
understanding of the facts, and as the elected Representative of my
constituents, I believe the President's perjurious statements do meet
the standards of misconduct--do meet the test of being a ``high crime
and misdemeanor''--which require a vote to impeach the President under
each of these two articles.

Mr. Speaker, a review of the facts and testimony related to the
matter of the President's conduct and actions now before us, in part as
provided in the findings for Impeachment Article III, have convinced
this Member that in order to conceal the perjurious nature of his sworn
statement in a Federal civil rights case, the President, in the words
of Impeachment Article III, ``in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and,
to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice,
and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates
and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede,
cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related
to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly
instituted judicial proceeding.'' By these actions, this Member
concludes, that the President, in the words of Article III, ``acted in
a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest
injury of the people of the United States,'' despite his oath of office
to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons this Member feels compelled, in voting
to discharge our constitutional responsibilities in these impeachment
proceedings, to vote in favor of Impeachment Article I, Impeachment
Article II, and Impeachment Article III, while concluding that the case
for impeachment under Article IV regarding the President's responses to
certain written requests from the House Judiciary Committee is not
sufficiently convincing to warrant a vote for Article IV.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all 4 articles
of impeachment.
I will stand by my oath of office to uphold this nation's laws and
vote to impeach President Clinton on the charges of perjury.
The evidence presented has demonstrated that President Clinton
knowingly, willfully and repeatedly lied not only to a federal judge
and grand jury, but directly to the American people. This act of
perjury is a criminal and impeachable offense and directly violates the
oath taken by the President to serve the country within the legal
boundaries set forth by the Constitution. Just as troublesome is the
President's involvement in influencing other witnesses to provide false
testimony in the Paula Jones case and his attempts to refer to these
known falsities as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth.
Upon entering the office of President of the United States, William
Jefferson Clinton took the following oath: ``I do solemnly swear that I
will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.''
Now, I ask these questions: Do actions such as lying under oath and
to the American people, as well as suborning perjury from other
witnesses help to faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States? Do these actions represent the best of Mr. Clinton's
abilities to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States? I believe that it is painfully obvious that not only do
these actions not help the President fulfill his duty and faithfully
execute his office, but they directly lead to a failure to uphold this
solemn oath and a direct betrayal of the American people.
Title 18 of the U.S. Code designates perjury as the act of anyone
who, while under oath, ``knowingly makes any false material declaration
or makes uses of any other information

[[Page H11840]]

(known) to contain any false declaration.'' Perjury is punishable by a
monetary fine and up to five years in federal prison, and perjury
certainly rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors necessary
for a charge of impeachment.
After reviewing the over 60,000 pages of evidence submitted to the
House Judiciary Committee by Judge Starr, I find it obvious that there
is indisputable evidence that the President lied under oath, aided and
allowed others to lie under oath and obstructed justice. There is no
doubt that these instances occurred, there is no doubt that these
instances are illegal and there is no doubt that they undermine the
integrity of the Constitution and the office of the Presidency.
Even as the highest-ranking official in the country, President
Clinton is not above the law. I am proud of the House for honoring the
Constitution and taking such a courageous stand in its vote for
impeachment. I have no doubt that the Senate will responsibly take on
this matter and I trust that justice will be served.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss).
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we are all public servants here today
representing our constituents and doing our duty.
My beginning in public service outside the bounds of my immediate
hometown began when I was appointed to a vacant county commission seat.
The seat was vacant because a good commissioner committed a single act
of perjury, lying to a grand jury about a sexual escapade, to protect a
recently married friend. He lost his job, his reputation, his paycheck,
his pension, his rights, and his freedom. He went to jail.
The judge noted that those in public service have a higher standard
of behavior and that telling the truth is fundamental to public service
in our free land. The sentence was considered just in my district. I
will support the articles of impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, sadly, some of our colleagues on the other side are, in
the interest of avoiding the issues at hand, seeking to deflect this
debate. Let me be clear: the work of this house in fulfilling our
constitutional obligation regarding the impeachment inquiry in no way
detracts from or diminshes our absolute support for the men and women
of our Armed Forces doing their jobs in the Persian Gulf. Those of us
whose responsibilities in Congress involve oversight in the national
security arena continue to keep our eyes carefully on the ball of the
mission in Iraq.
The truth is that every one of us here today would rather not be
debating articles of impeachment against this President. The American
people would rather not be faced with this scenario. It is an
exceedingly unpleasant set of events. I am most grateful for the
significant, extremely thoughtful input I have received from hundreds
of southwest Floridians who come down on both sides of this debate. The
fact that so many people have taken the time to call and write
demonstrates the seriousness with which the country approaches this
debate and vote.
Short of declaring war, there is not more solemn duty of this House
than to fairly and thoughtfully consider a judgment on impeachment when
the President stands accused of violations of law and his oath of
office. We must remember that it was this President's own actions that
have brought us to this point today.
We must vote on whether or not President Clinton committed
impeachable offenses in his conduct. After careful review of the
Judiciary Committee's work, I am convinced the President's conduct
warrant's impeachment by this House. Lying, perjury and obstruction of
justice are serious business and this House has a duty to say so. I
refuse to submit to a ``dumbing down'' of our principles and the
standards of conduct for a President of the United States, just because
the specifics of this care are embarrassing and distasteful. Perjury
and obstruction of justice in a legal proceeding are always wrong--
there's no room for situational ethics when it comes to respect for the
rule of law by the Nation's Commander in Chief. We squirm about this
entire matter because it began with a case of sexual misconduct. But
what began there has grown into much more, a case involving very
serious breaches of law. I take this position having lived through a
case many years ago--a case in which a county commissioner went to jail
for a single count of perjury in conjunction with a sex scandal--a
scandal that did not even involve him, but about which he lied in order
to protect a friend. Such lies were wrong then and they are wrong in
this case today.

The conundrum that many people see in this matter comes from wishing
to rebuke the President for his behavior but being hesitant about using
the ultimate sanction of impeachment to do so. But censure is not an
option for this House--and even if it were, in my view it would not be
enough of a sanction. History shows that censure can be fleeting since
it can be reversed by a succeeding Congress--after all, Andrew Jackson
was censured and then had his record expunged and now his face adorns
each and every American $20 bill in tribute to his memory. Clearly,
censure was not a permanent statement of rebuke in that case. The
message this House sends today must be unmistakable and enduring. The
President has stepped over the line and we must uphold our
responsibility to call him on it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for
allowing me 2 minutes, but being from Texas, to just exchange greetings
in 2 minutes will take plenty of time.
Mr. Speaker, overturning an election in a democracy should not be
taken lightly. Our country's history in presidential impeachment
inquiries is limited, due to the seriousness of overturning an
election. This current process smacks of partisanshipness and just
unfairness.
The presidential personal conduct cannot be defended and I am not
going to do so. My concern is I am disappointed in his personal
conduct, but this process has been based on partisanshipness, and
elected officials should not be removed from office just because they
won an election or won reelection. Without an alternative to vote on, a
censure resolution, this whole process is unfair.
One of our Founding Fathers, George Mason said, the phrase ``high
crimes and misdemeanors'' refers to ``Presidential actions that are
great and dangerous offenses, or attempts to subvert the
Constitution.'' Alexander Hamilton, who you will not hear me quoting
very often, said, ``Injuries done immediately to society itself.'' An
impeachment should only be undertaken for serious abuse of official
power. The impeachment process should never be used as a legislative
vote of no confidence on the President's conduct or policies.
Not only our Founding Fathers, but, Mr. Speaker, I have a Christmas
card that I received in my family from a constituent that says, ``I
just want you to know that my prayers have been with you and your
colleagues and also the President at this awful time in history. I am
praying that God will bring an end to this soon.''
The American people have recognized this, not only our Founding
Fathers, but in all of the polls that we have seen. And around the
country, Mr. Speaker, the newspaper articles, the Lexington Herald
Leader:

It would mean, quite simply, the President, duly elected
and reelected by a majority of voters, can be drummed out of
office by the vehement hatred of his political and personal
enemies.

The Owensboro, Kentucky Messenger-Inquirer:

Voting for impeachment when the wrongdoing is personal
rather than a crime against the country would weaken the
office much more than anything Bill Clinton has ever done so
far.

{time} 1630

Also the Billings Gazette, and I can go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I ask
a no vote on all articles of impeachment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) for rebuttal.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, let me respond briefly that the Constitution
itself talks about impeachment as well as election. The two processes
are compatible, according to our forefathers, since they completely
understood that you had first to be elected in order to be subjected to
the impeachment proceedings.
As to the polls and newspapers around the country, more than 100
major newspapers have called on the President to resign. If this
President would put the country in front of himself for one time and
follow the advice of the same or many of the same newspapers to resign,
and the polls show a majority of the Americans would like to see the
President resign, I think we would all be better suited.

[[Page H11841]]

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
(Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to impeach
William Jefferson Clinton, the President of the United States for
providing perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal
grand jury and in a Federal civil rights action, for obstructing
justice, and for abusing the Office of the Presidency by providing
false and misleading statements to the Congress as the House of
Representatives attempted to conduct a fair and thorough investigation
of the President's actions. With the exception of voting to commit the
nation to war, this is the most solemn and serious action which Members
of the Congress must take.
This action is not taken lightly. The rule of law and respect for the
sanctity of our judicial system are two of the foundations upon which
American society and our system of government depend. While I find the
President's personal conduct offensive and disgusting, it is clear to
me that on legal grounds, the President's campaign of lies, half-
truths, and evasiveness have demonstrated a cavalier and flagrant
disregard for the rule of law in our society. The President stands
accused of serious offenses which he has failed to refute.
Chairman Henry Hyde and the Judiciary Committee have gathered
substantial evidence and presented a strong case for which the
President must answer. It is the constitutional duty of the House of
Representatives to decide whether the body of evidence against the
President merits a trial. Based on my 25 years of experience as an
attorney, I firmly believe that the overwhelming evidence showing
perjury and obstruction of justice provide sufficient grounds to
support impeachment of the President. The President's actions certainly
do not reflect the respect that the office deserves. Indeed, he must be
held to a standard of conduct that is consistent with the rule of law.
We must preserve the integrity of the Presidency and our judicial
system by not allowing anyone, including the President, to subvert or
destroy the rule of law in the greatest country on Earth. I believe
that voting for impeachment of the President is the only reasonable
course of action for the House to take in the current grave situation
in which the President has placed us.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the rule of law and against this
partisan attack on the Constitution of the United States. In America,
the rule of law is above any man and above politics. We don't have
kingships in this country, we have publicly-elected officials. We
cannot have one set of laws for our rulers, and another for the ruled.
No one, most especially the President, can escape the rule of law.
Impeaching the President is an awesome responsibility, and one that I
do not take lightly. After careful review of the Independent Counsel's
Report to Congress, and in accordance with the findings of the
Committee on the Judiciary, I will support all four articles of
impeachment that are before us. The evidence of perjury, obstruction of
justice and the abuse of power is clear and convincing.
We owe it to each and every American, especially those who have
fought and died for our freedoms, to restore the integrity of Office of
the Presidency. If we do not take this action, our democracy will
become hollow and the rule of law meaningless.
Some have suggested that we should withhold action until Operation
Desert Fox is completed in Iraq for the sake of our men and women in
uniform. Our military is doing its job of protecting our Democracy, and
therefore we must also do our job to uphold the integrity of the
Constitution and the foundation of our Democracy. That means a vote for
impeachment.
I cannot articulate the pain and sorrow that this President has
subjected the Nation any better then two of my constituents. I have an
open letter to the President from retired Army Colonel Eric Jowers and
an Op Ed piece by high school junior Kimberly Gilley that ran in the
Dothan Eagle, and ask that they be included in the Record at this
point.
The material referred to is as follows:

Dear Mr. President: It's not about sex. If it were about
sex, you would be long gone. Just like a doctor, attorney or
teacher who had sex with a patient, client or student half
his age, you would have violated the ethics of your office
and would be long gone. Just like a Sergeant Major of the
Army, Gene McKinney, who though found not guilty, was forced
to resign amid accusations sexual abuse.
Remember the Air Force General you wouldn't nominate to be
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he freely
admitted to an affair almost 15 years before, while he and
his wife were separated? Unlikely you, he was never accused
of having a starry-eyed office assistant my daughter's age
perform oral sex on him while he was on the phone and his
wife and daughter were upstairs.
If it were about sex, you would be subjected to the same
horrible hearings that Clarence Thomas was to because of the
accusations of Anita Hill. The only accusation then was that
he talked dirty to her, he didn't even leave semen stains on
her dress.
No, it's not about sex. It's about character. It's about
lying. It's about arrogance. It's about abuse of power. It's
about dodging the draft and lying about it. When caught in a
lie by letters you wrote, you concocted a story that nobody
believed. But we excused it and looked away.
It's about smoking dope and lying about it. ``I didn't
inhale,'' you said. Sure, and when I was 15 and my buddies
and I swiped a beer from an unwatched refrigerator, we drank
from it, but we didn't swallow. ``I broke no laws for the
United States,'' you said. That's right, you smoked dope in
England or Norway or Moscow; where you were demonstrating
against the U.S.A. You lied, but we excused it and looked
away.
It's about you selling overnight stays in the White House
to any foreigner or other contributor with untraceable cash.
It's about Whitewater and Jim and Susan McDougal and Arkansas
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and Vincent Foster and Gennifer Flowers
and Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey and nearly countless
others. It's about stealing the records from Forster's office
while his body was still warm and putting them in your
bedroom and ``not noticing them'' for two years. It's about
illegal political contributions.
It's about you and Al Gore soliciting contributions and
selling influence at Buddhist temples and in the same Oval
Office where Abraham Lincoln and Frank Roosevelt led their
countries through the dark days of wars that threatened the
very existence of our nation. But we excused you and looked
away.
It's about hiding evidence from Ken Starr, refusing to
testify, filing legal motions, coaching witnesses,
obstructing justice and delaying Judge Starr's inquiry for
months and years, and then complaining that it has gone on
too long. The polls agreed. Thank goodness that Judge Starr
didn't read the polls, play politics or excuse you and look
away. He held on to the evidence like a tenacious bulldog.
Your supporters say that you've confessed your wrongdoings
and asked for our forgiveness. Listen, what you said on TV
the night you testified to the grand jury was not a
confession. Confession in the face of overwhelming evidence
is not a confession at all. Not that it would make a lot of
difference. A murderer who contritely confesses his crime is
still a murderer. When your ``confession'' didn't sell, even
to your friends, you became more forthcoming.
Maybe someday you'll confess more, but probably not. You've
established such pattern of lying that we can't believe you
anymore. Neither can your cabinet, the Congress or any of the
leaders of the nations of the world.
When a leader's actions defame and emasculate our country
as profoundly as yours have, it's no longer a personal
matter, as you claim. It's no longer a matter among you, your
family and your God.
By the way, I don't believe for a minute that Hillary was
unaware of your sexual misadventures, abuses of power and
pattern of lying. She has been a party to your wrongdoings
since Whitewater and Gennifer Flower just as surely as she
lied about the Rose law firm's billings and hid the Vincent
Foster evidence in your bedroom for two years. Why? So she
could share in the raw power that your office carries. The
two of you probably lied to Chelsea but that is a matter
among you, your family and your God.
Remember the sign over James Carville's desk during the
1992 campaign? It said, ``It's the economy, stupid!'' Place
this sign over your desk: ``It's about character, stupid!''
No, it's not about sex. Mr. President. If it were, you would
be long gone. It's about character; but we have to live with
your lies and arrogance for a while longer. Your lies,
amorality and lack of character have been as pervasive as
they have been despicable, so we have no reason to believe
that you will quietly resign and go away. You'll count on
half truths and spin doctors to see you through, the country
be damned. It has always worked before. We excused you and
looked the other way.
No more, we've had enough. You betrayed us enough. You have
made every elected official, minister, teacher, diplomat,
parents and grandparent in the country apologize for you and
explain away your actions. Now go away, and let us show them
that our country was not without morals. It was just that you
were.
Let us show them that America was not the problem. William
Jefferson Clinton was. Go away, Mr. President. Leave us
alone. And when you leave, know that your legacy to the
United States of America will be a stain on the Office of the
President that is as filthy as the stain on Monica's dress.
It will

[[Page H11842]]

take a lot of scrubbing to make it clean again.
Eric Jowers.
____

To Save America--Impeaching Clinton Is a Must

On June 13, 1996, William Jefferson Clinton, president of
the United States of America, said ``One thing we have to do
is to take seriously the role in this problem of older men
who prey on under-age women. There are consequences to
decisions, and one way or the other, people always wind up
being accountable.''
A year and a half later, Clinton himself is being held
accountable for actions he meant to be kept secret. These
``secrets'' are why Mr. Clinton should be impeached.
Impeachment--the constitution states that high officials may
be removed from office on impeachment ``for, and conviction
of, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and
misdemeanors.'' High crimes and misdemeanors can mean
anything but one thing for sure is that with the charges
against Clinton, morally and politically, he is not fit to be
the leaders of our country and therefore should be impeached.
Jan. 26, 1998, is a day I'm sure we all will never forget.
On that day Clinton had the audacity to wag his finger in our
faces and declare, ``I did not have sexual relations with
that women,'' meaning former White House intern Monica
Lewinsky. This was an intentional and calculated falsehood
meant to mislead us, the public, and Congress.
How can we trust this man who is supposed to be the moral
and political leader of our country? The fact is we can't.
Anyone who can go on national television and without blinking
an eye deny what he knows is the truth is a liar and an unfit
moral leader. While the president may say that he through
``sexual relations'' meant having actual intercourse, the
Bible and other sources say differently. They state that
``sexual relations is when a person knowingly engages in or
causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh or buttocks of any person with the intent of gratify
the sexual desire of any person.''
This graphic definition is one that we have always accepted
and known. A grown man like Clinton surely knew he was lying
to everyone that day, for we have been taught that oral sex
is sexual relations. What if he found out that Chelsea, his
own daughter, was having oral sex with here boyfriend? As a
dad, I'm sure that he would consider it sexual relations.
Although he has twisted all his lies around to sound like he
was telling the truth, we all know that he can never be trust
again.
Another reason for impeaching Clinton is that he is not to
be the role model high standing officers are meant to be.
What does this tell our children? That it's okay to lie
because the president does?
``I remember when President Clinton gave that swearing-in
and promised to tell the truth,'' says Philip Sperry, 10, of
Clifton, Va. ``Well, he lied to us that time and he lied to
us again.'' Even the children know it is wrong to lie and
that he should be punished. Some of the things the president
has done are so disgusting and irresponsible that just in
watching reports of it on the news young children need to
cover their ears. When the president is sworn into office, it
is his responsibility to act appropriately and be the kind of
leader that kids can look up to.
How many children do you think are going around wanting to
be the next president? In this time of scandal, I'm sure that
the numbers are slim. His behavior is a horrible example to
the younger generation. It is telling children that it's okay
to lie. If we don't impeach him, they will think you can get
away with it, also.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, until now I have declined to pass judgment
on the President over these last several months because I strongly
believed that it was improper to do so before the process secured
evidence through a rigorous investigation where both sides presented
their cases.
That process is now complete, and we are now in receipt of the
results of that investigation, as well as the specific recommendations
made through the articles of impeachment. Today Congress is not
standing in judgment of President Clinton's character, nor are we
debating the issue of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Rather, we are
being asked to determine whether or not he broke the law.
As many know, I have had great respect for the presidency on foreign
policy. I recognize the Constitution gives foreign policy to him, and
even though I have disagreed with him on many issues, respecting the
presidency, I have gone along with him.
It would make no difference to me if it were Ronald Reagan being
tried today or George Bush. If evidence is submitted to this Congress
through the proper Committee on the Judiciary channels that compels me
to vote up or down when there is substantial, justifiable evidence to
send a message to the Senate to make a determination of punishment, I
would vote the same way I am going to vote on this particular matter in
voting for these articles of impeachment.
It is a sad day for me, it is a sad day for the President, it is a
sad day for the country. It is a responsibility that gives us no
alternative; that if indeed in our hearts we believe that the committee
reports are substantial, that they justify returning a message or
sending a message to the Senate. We have absolutely no alternative but
to send that message to the Senate so they can sit in judgment of his
punishment.
We are not removing the President from office today, we are sending a
message to the Senate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) announced a moment
ago that the perjury trap is a legal impossibility. I refer him to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which said in 1991 that a
perjury trap is created ``. . . when the government calls a witness to
testify for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in
order to prosecute him later for perjury.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today, December 18, 1998, is a day of infamy
in the House of Representatives. History will record that on this day
the House of the people, through searing, brutal partisanship,
disallowed the right of each Member, and this Member, to express their
own conscience.
Today impeachment and only impeachment counts. It is a day when the
overwhelming voices of the American people are turned away. It is a day
when the Framers' intent for removal of the chief executive of our
Nation, treason, bribery, high crimes against the people, is ignored.
I shall vote against the articles of impeachment, because I believe
that the case that has been brought against the President has not been
proven by the Committee on the Judiciary. I do not believe that the
charges rise to what the Framers intended.
Mr. Speaker, the flag is the symbol of our Nation, but the
Constitution, as Barbara Jordan invoked over and over again in 1974,
the Constitution is the soul of our Nation. Today this House is set on
a course that tears at the very soul of our Nation. It is wrong, it is
imprudent, it is not wise, and it is harmful to the Nation.
By his actions, Bill Clinton has brought shame as president. But
today this body has set itself on a treacherous course where it is not
only weakening the presidency, but diminishing our Constitution.

{time} 1636

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair notes a disturbance
in the gallery, in contravention of the law and rules of the House. The
Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for rebuttal.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the distinguished ranking member on the
Committee on the Judiciary that when President Clinton or any person
appears before a grand jury or before a court, they have three, count
them, and only three choices: They can tell the truth, they can take
the fifth amendment, or they can lie. President Clinton chose the last
option, he lied.
It is a legal impossibility for somebody to be forced to lie before a
grand jury or in court, and that is the essence of what entrapment is.
The President chose voluntarily to tell a lie; to conduct perjurious,
misleading, and untruthful statements. He cannot be forced to do that.
That is what he did.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page H11843]]

(Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to a couple of key
points. First, I would like to create the context by sharing with my
colleagues two statements, one by Founding Father John Jay and the
other by President Kennedy.
John Jay said, ``When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most
valuable rights become insecure.''
Four days before his death, President Kennedy visited Florida. There
he made the following statement: ``In this country I,'' referring to
the presidency, ``carry out and execute the laws of the United States.
I also have the obligation of implementing the orders of the courts of
the United States. I can assure you that whoever is president of the
United States will do the same, because if he did not,'' that is, he,
the President, ``He would begin to unwind this most extraordinary
constitutional system of ours.''
The President's ability to unwind the constitutional system is
significant. The President is the only individual charged with ensuring
that our laws are faithfully executed. He is one of the few Americans
who always is an example for good or ill. If a president can lie before
a grand jury during a civil deposition, engage in obstruction of
justice, and abuse power, others will follow.
Article III sets forth that the President willfully and deliberately
allowed his attorney to make false statements to the court about the
affidavit of Ms. Lewinsky. The President's defenders, including his
attorney, Mr. Ruff, have said he was not paying attention at the time
when Mr. Bennett raised the affidavit, but the videotape of the
deposition shows otherwise. He was alert, attentive, and engaged.
The President's official defense was that he thought Ms. Lewinsky
thought her affidavit was true, and he was just affirming her belief.
First, the affidavit was not a statement of beliefs. It was a statement
of the facts under oath. The President's response was evasive.
Second, in the affidavit Ms. Lewinsky stated she had not received any
benefit from her relationship with the President. The facts are
indisputable. There was an intense effort by Mr. Jordan on behalf of
the President to get her a job.
Third, in the deposition, after reading from the affidavit, Mr.
Bennett asked the President, ``Is that a true and accurate statement,
as far as you know it?'' The President answered, ``That is absolutely
true.''
We know today that it was absolutely false. President Clinton's
deliberate effort to mislead Judge Wright is a clear obstruction of
justice. Others have been prosecuted for less. Under the Constitution,
the President is held accountable by the mechanism of impeachment.
Impeachment is serious and weighty.
My friends on the other side have repeatedly argued that the
President's offenses do not rise to the level of high crimes and
misdemeanors. The essence of their argument is that perjury,
obstruction of justice, and the abuse of power are not equivalent to
treason or bribery.
They are wrong. Perjury and obstruction of justice are akin to
bribery in many ways. Perjury and obstruction go to the corruption of
the judicial system. Bribery amounts to the corruption of a bureaucrat.
Both prevent citizens from enjoying their rights under the rule of law.
Their treatment by the United States Sentencing Commission, the only
thing that helps set forth penalties for Federal crimes, supports the
comparison. Under the guidelines, bribery of or by a public official is
an offense of base level 10. For a first-time offender, that would
translate to 6 to 12 months in a Federal penitentiary.
Under the guidelines, perjury and obstruction are base level 12, two
levels beyond bribery, and that means for a first-time offender a
sentencing range of 10 to 16 months. Someone convicted of perjury, and
remember, there are 100 Americans sentenced every year for perjury, can
face up to 10 months more in jail than someone convicted of bribery.
Based on the U.S. sentencing guidelines, not only are perjury and
obstruction of justice in the same ballpark as bribery, they are
treated as more grave.
I appeal to my colleagues. Let us not allow the President to begin
unwinding our constitutional system. Let us protect the integrity of
the oaths that underpin our judicial system. Let Congress protect our
dearest and most valuable rights by impeaching this president, who has
demeaned the sacredness of his oaths.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the four articles of
impeachment, and I request that my colleagues vote against it, and that
we start the healing process for our country.
Mr. Speaker, throughout this whole unseemly matter of impeaching a
President who lied about deplorable conduct, I have clung to the
dignity of the instruction of the Constitution to guide my actions. I
re-examined all the evidence offered to the House: the Referral from
the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC), the President's taped
testimony, the reams of evidence in support of the OIC Referral,
testimony (limited though it was) before the Judiciary Committee, and
the Committee's deliberations.
As the equivalent of a judicial and legislative grand juror in this
process, evaluating this evidence carefully, and privately, is
consistent with my constitutional role. As a Member of the House of
Representatives in the U.S. Congress, I am acutely aware that our
actions today represent half the precedent in our entire history with
regard to the sacred duty associated with impeachment, as this is but
the second time in U.S. history that the full House has been asked to
act on articles of impeachment.
Our constitutional process is not one that can be suspended or taken
lightly. Once begun, it must be completed. This process began when the
OIC referred its findings to the House. I voted earlier this year to
have the Judiciary Committee conduct a hearing to discover if these
offenses were indeed, as the OIC alleges, sufficient for impeachment of
a President. I agreed with Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde who,
when he spoke of impeachment in September, said that if the effort to
impeach President Clinton were not bi-partisan then it would be
ultimately unsuccessful. That is where we are now. The effort has been
unsuccessful.
As the rough equivalent of a grand juror, I exercised the real
strength of the United States grand juror: the common sense to let
prudence guide my actions. What the President did was immoral, first
the behavior then the lie. But this is not a vote on morality; it is
setting dangerous new constitutional precedent in a partisan setting.
Grand jurors in our judicial system today have to exercise good
judgment about stopping a bad case when the evidence is not there to
fortify it legally. In our role today, we have the added weight of
exercising good constitutional, democratic, and political common sense.
Our country's Founders put the impeachment clause in our governing
document for a very specific reason, to have a democratic mechanism for
the removal of a President who has grievously injured the country.
President Clinton certainly injured the national trust, as does any
public official when they lie; but he has not injured the U.S.
Constitution, our democracy, our government, or any political movement
in our country. His actions were outrageous. His lies about it were
disheartening and alarming. But his behavior itself, even when
compounded with lies under oath, was not impeachable.
We should take a lesson from this long and difficult drama. No lie
from a public official is acceptable. It is all the more appalling when
it is the chief executive, under oath, about an affair in the White
House. Those who seek the public trust of the presidency must be ever
vigilant to conduct themselves truthfully. Those who seek the
presidency should be on notice that the rules are forever changed: the
impeachment bar has been lowered and can be invoked far easier than our
Founders intended.
Those in Congress must be a careful watchdog of executive behavior,
and today's vote is a strong message that this body will not shy from
our duty, but we are not willing to let impeachment become a partisan
endeavor. I hope this exercise, while difficult and unnecessary, shows
the world the ultimate strength of the U.S. Constitution and the innate
common sense of the American people in the world's most sophisticated
democracy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these articles of
impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the four articles of
impeachment against President Clinton, because I do not believe that
such a

[[Page H11844]]

grave step is in the best interests of our country.
All of us in public life have to be accountable for our actions, and
there is no question that the President's conduct was deplorable.
Having reviewed the evidence, however, I do not believe that the case
has been made with sufficient clarity that the President's conduct
warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.
Heavily weighing in my decision are the charges made in greatest
detail by the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, addressing conduct
unrelated to the President's public and official duties. During the
impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, my predecessor, Tom
Railsback, noted that there was ``a serious question as to whether
something involving the President's personal tax liability has anything
to do with his conduct in the office of the president.'' Later, the
Committee on the Judiciary rejected the article of impeachment against
the President on those grounds.
Today a majority of the public continues to approve of President
Clinton's ability to perform his duties, and does not wish for him to
be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. I do not believe we
should impeach President Clinton based on misconduct not clearly
related to the President's official duties.
Let me be clear, a decision by the House not to impeach will not
exonerate the President. He will remain subject to indictment and
prosecution for his conduct in the court of law when he leaves office.
I do believe that the Congress should fashion an appropriate response
to his actions, which places the national interest first. I am greatly
disappointed that excessive partisanship on the part of the Committee
on the Judiciary prevents us from discussing censure.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in the name of the American people, who
oppose this impeachment as being manifestly unfair, behold the
prophetic power of the Biblical injunction, ``Judge not, that you not
be judged.'' In the name of all the people who have suffered a dark
night of assault, feel the might of the warning, let he who is without
sin cast the first stone.

{time} 1645

In the names of Washington, of Jefferson, of Lincoln, and all those
who fought to create one Nation indivisible, do not cleave this Nation
with a partisan impeachment, for a House of Representatives divided
against itself shall not stand. We speak of one Nation under God. In
God's name do not tear apart this House and this Nation with a low-rent
impeachment.
There is much misunderstanding about just what impeachment means. It
is not a form of censure. Impeachment is not a punishment. It is part
of a process for removing a President. It has been reserved for the
highest crimes, not low crimes. And I submit that if we vote to impeach
President Clinton for his offenses, we have committed an offense more
grievous because we will have nullified the votes of 97 million
Americans. Do not take away the people's voice. Do not nullify the
people's choice. Punish the President with censure if you must, but do
not punish the American people by canceling their vote.
Some day a generation far into the future will look at this moment
and ask why and they will conclude that in impeaching a President, this
House chose partisanship under the cover of patriotism and sanctimonius
salutations to that all hallowed and selectively perceived rule of law.
And that cloak of shame prepared for the President will also cover
those carrying the cloak. For at this moment we are troubling our
America. We are troubling our common bond. We are troubling our
American community. We are troubling our American unit.
The sun will rise and the year 2000 will soon come. And those who
troubled their own House will have inherited the wind.
The die is case. The President is about to be impeached. His offenses
not high crimes, but low. His conduct, yes, beneath the dignity of the
office but also beneath the requirements of what the Founders intended
to rise to a standard of impeachment. His shortcomings for all the
world to see, we must correctly review our own. The shortcomings of the
investigation by the Independent Counsel, the shortcomings of the
partisan Judiciary proceedings, the shortcomings of a day where
impeachment, which is no alternative, is the only alternative. We have
entered Wonderland with Alice and we have seen the Queen pronounce
``Sentence first--Verdict afterwards.''
In the name of the American people who oppose this impeachment as
being manifestly unfair, behold the prophetic power of the Biblical
injunction: ``. . . Judge not, that ye not be judged.'' In the name of
all those people who have suffered a dark night of soul, feel the might
of the warning: ``. . . Let he how is without sin cast the first
some.'' In the Names of Washington, of Jefferson, and of Lincoln, and
of all who fought to create one nation, indivisible, do not cleave this
Nation with a partisan impeachment, for a House of Representatives
divided against itself shall not stand. We speak of one nation, under
God. In God's name, do not tear apart, this House and this Nation with
a low-rent impeachment.
There is much misunderstanding about just what impeachment means. It
is not a form of censure. Impeachment is not a punishment. It is part
of a process for removing a President. it has been reserved for the
highest crimes, not low crimes, and I submit that if we vote to impeach
President Clinton for his offenses we will have committed an offense
more grievous, because we will have nullified the votes of 97 million
Americans. Don't take away the people's voice. Don't nullify the
people's choice. Punish the President with censure if we must. But
don't punish the American people by canceling their vote.
Let me talk for a moment about high crimes. It is a high crime that
forty three-million Americans are without health care. It is a high
crime that forty-four million Americans must worry about their Social
Security. It is a high crime that wealth is being distributed upward.
That the top 1% of the people hold more wealth than the bottom 90% of
the people. And this act today redistributes the political wealth of
the country. The Founders did not put impeachment in the Constitution
so that a majority party some day could topple a President of the
opposite party just because they had the votes. This process, when it
is partisan, becomes an ad hoc, back-door transition to a parlimentary
form of government.
Someday a generation far into the future will look back on this
moment and ask: ``Why?'' Why did they impeach a president when it was
clearly partisan? Why, When it was less than a high crime? Why, when
they knew it would fail in the Senate? Why, when they knew a trial in
the Senate would shut down the government? Why, when they had a clear
alternative of censure? Why, did they choose the harsh judgement and
condemnation of impeachment over the forgiveness and redemption of
censure?
And they will conclude that, in impeaching a President, this House
chose partisanship under the cover of patriotism and sanctimonious
salutations to that all hallowed and selectively perceived Rule of Law.
And the cloak of shame prepared for the President will also cover those
carrying the cloak. For at this moment we are troubling our America. We
are troubling our common bond. We are troubling our American community.
We are troubling our American unity. The sun will rise and the year
2000 will soon come. And those who troubled their own House will have
inherited the wind.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, this is a totally prejudged and partisan
process that denies the majority of the Members of this House of
Representatives and the majority of Americans a vote on a bipartisan
compromise, a vote of conscience to censure the President.
Mr. Speaker, the American people, in their collective electoral
wisdom that we all submit to, have twice elected President Clinton. The
American people support the President's performance of his official
duties, and they do not want him removed from office. Three months ago
when I first reviewed the Starr report, I looked for evidence of
treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, the only
constitutional grounds for impeachment. No such thing appears in the
Starr report.
Instead I found evidence, gathered at great public cost, in dollars
$50 million, and in destruction of privacy that Americans cherish,
evidence of a consensual sexual relationship of the tawdriest nature
which the participants tried to hide for its tawdriness. Weeks of
hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary have uncovered nothing more
except the partisan close-mindedness of the proceedings. The Republican
obsession to impeach President Clinton on the flimsiest of
constitutional grounds and against the will of

[[Page H11845]]

most Americans will cause long lasting divisions in America.
The Republicans know that they cannot get 67 votes in the Senate to
remove the President from office so this is a purely partisan exercise
in this House designed to humiliate and weaken a twice-elected
President of the United States.
To my Republican colleagues, by your efforts today, you show the
American people once and for all that you should not be in the majority
in this Congress, and that, I believe, will be your reward.
Mr. Speaker, this is a totally prejudged and partisan process that
denies a majority of the Members of this House, and the majority of
Americans, a vote on a bipartisan compromise--a vote of conscience to
censure the President.
Mr. Speaker, every one of us submits every 2 years to the collective,
electoral wisdom of the people we serve.
Mr. Speaker, the American people in their collective, electoral
wisdom have twice elected President William Clinton. The American
people support the President's performance of his official duties, and
they do not want him removed from office.
Three months ago when I first reviewed the Starr report, I looked for
evidence of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors--the only
constitutional grounds for impeachment. No such thing appears in the
Starr report.
Instead, I found evidence gathered at great public cost--in dollars,
$50 million, and in the destruction of privacy that Americans cherish--
evidence of a consensual sexual relationship of the tawdriest nature
which the participants tried to hide for its tawdriness.
Weeks of Judiciary Committee hearings have uncovered nothing more
except the partisan, closed-mindedness of the proceedings.
The Republicans' obsession to impeach President Clinton on the
flimsiest of constitutional grounds and against the will of most
Americans will cause long-lasting divisions in America.
The Republicans know they cannot get 67 votes in the Senate to remove
the President from office. So, this is a purely partisan exercise in
this House designed to humiliate and weaken the twice-elected President
of the United States.
To my Republican colleagues, by your efforts today you show the
American people once and for all that you should not be the majority in
Congress and I believe that will be your reward.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) for purposes of a rebuttal.
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago my dear friend from
California made commentary in her argument as to why she would vote
against articles of impeachment. In doing so she invoked the name of
our venerated late former colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas,
Democrat Barbara Jordan.
I wanted to share a quote of Barbara Jordan's from the Nixon
impeachment hearing that directly replies to the very issue which the
gentlewoman from California raised a few minutes ago.
Barbara Jordan, Members will recall, was a Democrat member of the
House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Nixon.
She made the point that the Constitution gives each House of Congress a
specific duty. The House serves as an accuser; the Senate serves as a
judge.
Barbara Jordan understood the difference between the House having the
role of filing the indictment and not bringing the evidence to an
ultimate conclusion in trial. That is the purpose of a jury trial,
which would be held in the Senate.
Congresswoman Jordan said during the Nixon hearing, ``It is wrong, I
suggest it is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to
assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means
that the member must be convinced that the President should be removed
from office. The Constitution does not say that. The powers relating to
impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the
legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the executive. In
establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature,
the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and
to the other the right to judge, the framers of the Constitution were
very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same
person.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the
articles of impeachment.
I ran for Congress in order to pass laws--not to pass judgment. But
events have transpired over the past year that have put me in a
position to decide whether President Clinton lied under oath,
obstructed justice and violated the powers of his office. There's no
question that this is the most difficult decision I will have to make
as a Member of Congress.
In my judgment, Bill Clinton has disgraced the Presidency and is no
longer fit to hold the highest office in the land. For that reason, I
will vote in favor of all four articles of impeachment to be considered
today by the House of Representatives.
If impeached, it is my hope that President Clinton would spare the
Nation a trial in the Senate by resigning as soon as possible. In the
event he does not resign, I am hopeful that the Senate would quickly
complete his trial and vote to remove him from office.
Like most Americans, I wish the President had not lied under oath and
had not urged others to do so--but he did. Unfortunately, he can't
simply wish that away, and neither can I.
Our system of justice is built on the principles of truth and
honesty. That's why charges of lying under oath and obstruction of
justice are so serious. They are an assault on the basic rule of law
that cuts to the very core of our system of government.
Some suggest that lying under oath and obstructing justice by the
President under certain conditions are different--and even acceptable--
than lying under oath and obstructing justice by an ordinary citizen.
In my mind, there are not certain conditions that meet this test.
Nobody is above the law, including the President of the United States.
That goes to the heart of the decision we will make today.
That decision should not be one that is judged 25 or 50 days from
now. Instead, it should stand the test of time to be favorably judged
25 or 50 years from now because the decision sends a message that
either supports or compromises the rule of law.
Let's remind ourselves that we are only here temporarily and the
President is only here temporarily. The office of the 4th District
Congressman from Washington and the office of the President will endure
after its present occupants leave. But these offices will only have
meaning if the basic rule of law is sustained. This is not personal, it
transcends that.
In fact, it is impossible to enter the Supreme Court building in
Washington, DC, without being struck by four words above the entrance:
``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Those words, more than any others, have
guided my decision.
After all, since its founding more than two centuries ago, ours has
been a government of laws and not of men--which means, in essence, that
unlike most other countries, here in the United States no man or woman
is above the law. Not you. Not me. Not this President. Not any
President.
This ordeal has gone on long enough. The President has had his say,
and his critics have had theirs. Now, the rule of law means the law
must rule.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
(Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, today I will join a majority of my colleagues in the
House of Representatives and vote in favor of impeaching the 42nd
President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton. I did not
reach this decision lightly. After reviewing the documents and articles
of impeachment put forth by the House Committee on the Judiciary, I
reached the unhappy but necessary conclusion that there is enough
evidence to warrant forwarding these articles to the Senate. I do so
with the best interests of California's 43rd congressional district,
and all Americans, foremost in my mind.
We have heard from the other side of the aisle the constant plea for
censure as an alternative to the vote today. I do not believe, however,
that censure is an option for the House. The Framers of the
Constitution did not provide for censure as an alternative to
impeachment, therefore it would be irresponsible and unconstitutional
to bring such a motion to the full House for consideration. The House
has never censured a President before, and it would be a horrible
precedent to set. It is the responsibility of the United States Senate
to decide President Clinton's guilt or innocence and punishment.
The President has twice taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of
the United States. He also took an oath before a Federal grand jury to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he
broke both of

[[Page H11846]]

these oaths. The President is the nation's chief law enforcement
officer and is subject to the same rules and laws as every American.
Without a clear and strong rule of law, the United States would be
nothing more than a banana republic. Simply put, the evidence is clear
that William Jefferson Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of
justice while serving as the President. In the best interest of our
nation, the rule of law should be upheld and this President should be
impeached, and face trial in the Senate.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to talk today. I have
made my decision and told my constituents. But some of the comments
made on the floor have caused me to reconsider my silence.
It appears that some of our Members believe or would have others
believe that those of us who will vote to impeach the President are
driven by some kind of blind partisanship or are doing it because our
arms are being twisted. I am the junior Member of this House. The
district that I love is more Democrat than Republican. And not once,
not once has any leader of this House even so much as asked me how I
will vote.
I read the evidence. I must admit that I was looking for some
explanation, a rebuttal of the facts, some justification to spare the
country from impeachment. I could not find it. I cannot turn from the
truth and the evidence that supports it.
I have reached my decision with a profound sense of sadness. I am
constantly 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. And that includes the President of the United States. It is a
powerful symbol. And today it is one we must live up to, even when it
would be easier to look away.
You may challenge the facts, you may challenge my reasoning, but do
not challenge the integrity of my purpose.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I profoundly apologize to those of my
colleagues on this side of the aisle who have been waiting so very long
to be recognized. We have the exigencies of the evening. We have still
a lot of Members, and our time is running shorter. I am going to have
to reduce to 1\1/2\ minutes many of my colleagues whom I had intended
to give a much larger amount of time. I apologize for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin).
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, by the President's own admission, his
conduct was wrong. He misled his family and our Nation. The President
has gravely disappointed and embarrassed our country.
The question presented to Congress is not whether the President's
conduct is reprehensible but whether his actions warrant his
impeachment and removal from office. Short of a declaration of war,
there is no more solemn responsibility for a Congressman in acting on
the possible impeachment of the President.
I was never so proud to be a Member of this House during our debate
of our participation in Operation Desert Storm. That debate helped
bring our Nation together. Regardless of what side one was on that
issue, the debate consolidated our country, and everyone felt good with
the results.
Unfortunately, the process used in the House impeachment inquiry has
brought about just the opposite result in our Nation. However, each of
us must be guided by what the Constitution dictates as far as
impeachment. Our decision will not only affect this President but will
affect the future of our presidency.
The Constitution and the historical record indicates that the words
in the Constitution were clear to our framers of the Constitution, that
they apply only to fundamental offenses against the system of
government. President Clinton's misleading statements have nothing to
do with the official duties of his office. They were designed to
conceal an embarrassing, highly inappropriate personal relationship. As
such, they do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
I urge my colleagues to reject each of the four articles of
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, by the President's own admission his conduct in the
Lewinsky matter was wrong; he misled his family and our nation. The
President has gravely disappointed and embarrassed our country. The
question presented to Congress is not whether his conduct is
reprehensible, but whether his actions warrant his impeachment and
removal from office.
Short of a declaration of war, there is no more solemn responsibility
for a Congressman than acting on the possible impeachment of our
President. I was never so proud to be a member of the Congress as when
we debated and acted on the U.S. participation in Operation Desert
Storm. That debate helped bring our nation together. Regardless of what
side of the debate one believed was right, the democratic process used
by Congress to debate our involvement was healing for Congress and for
the American people.
More recently, I had the responsibility to serve on the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct during the investigation of
Speaker Gingrich. The members of the Investigatory Subcommittee in that
process took great pains to proceed in a bipartisan manner. We
specifically defined and limited the charges against the Speaker, and
extended every opportunity to the Speaker to respond to our work. The
fairness and bipartisan nature of that process was confirmed by the
overwhelming vote of the House, 395 to 28, to fine and censure the
Speaker.
Unfortunately, the process used in the House Impeachment Inquiry has
brought about just the opposite result. The Judiciary Committee has
proceeded in a very partisan manner. The Committee has denied the
President basic fairness in the proceedings. As a result, the
recommendation has broken down strictly along party lines.
Last January, Chairman Henry Hyde observed that for this process to
succeed, it was absolutely essential that the process be bipartisan.
That has not happened. Now, whatever action Congress takes will be
viewed by the public with disdain. We will not be able to bring our
nation together. I believe Congress has greatly disappointed our
country.
What the committee has done cannot be undone. It is now time for the
full House to act. In making my decision as to whether to vote for or
against an Article of Impeachment, I must be guided solely by what the
Constitution requires. Our decision will affect not only this
President, but the future of the Presidency. Therefore I must make that
judgment regardless of the actions of the Judiciary Committee, my party
affiliation or the popular sentiment of the people of my district.
In order to vote for an Article of Impeachment, I must be convinced
first that the record establishes the offenses alleged, and second,
that the offense rises to the standard prescribed for impeachment under
the Constitution. Having reviewed much of the material included in the
Starr referral and having read much of the testimony of witnesses
before the Judiciary Committee, I have reached the following
conclusions:
Of the four articles voted by the Committee, one alleges obstruction
of justice. The record of evidence presented by the Independent
Counsel--which the Judiciary Committee failed to examine through
testimony of material witnesses--in my opinion does not support this
article. The charge of obstruction of justice rests on an
interpretation of events, surmises and speculations that the evidence
does not support.
The three remaining articles allege that the President committed
perjury in his testimony in his deposition in the Jones case, to the
grand jury, and to the Judiciary Committee. In my opinion these
articles raise more serious questions. As the President has conceded,
it is without question that his responses to questions in the
deposition were misleading and incomplete. He did not offer direct and
clear answers to the questions.
But proof of perjury requires more than misleading, incomplete, or
evasive statements. During the Judiciary Committee's hearings, numerous
expert witnesses, including legal scholars and former prosecutors,
testified on the perjury issue. There was no disagreement in their
testimony that the record compiled in this case would not, in the hands
of a responsible prosecutor, justify a perjury charge.
Even if we set aside that judgment, however, and assume that the
President in fact lied under oath, we must answer a second question. Do
the false and misleading statements in question rise to the level of an
impeachable offense under the Constitution?
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that ``the
President * * * of the United States shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The historical record of these words

[[Page H11847]]

makes clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended them to apply
only to fundamental offenses against the system of government.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved James
Madison's suggestion that the language read ``* * * high Crimes and
Misdemeanors against the United States.'' After this language was
approved, it was referred to the Committee on Style, which had
instructions to make no substantive changes. In removing the words
``against the United States,'' the Committee on Style was clearly
making the judgment that the words were unnecessary because they were
redundant. Thus, it is clear that the Framers intended that the
President should only be impeached for offenses against the structure
of our government.
President Clinton's misleading statements had nothing to do with the
official duties of his office. They were designed to conceal an
embarrassing, highly inappropriate, personal relationship. As such,
they do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
Our recent historical experience supports this view. In 1974, the
Judiciary Committee considered an Article of Impeachment based on
President Nixon's tax fraud. President Nixon had filed tax returns that
failed to report certain income and claimed deductions that were not
authorized by law. The President had signed his tax returns under
penalty of perjury. There was credible evidence that President Nixon
had committed perjury.
The Committee on the Judiciary, by a bipartisan vote of more than a
2-1 margin, rejected the tax fraud article. By that vote, the Committee
held that even if President Nixon had committed perjury in the filing
of his personal tax returns, that conduct did not rise to the standard
of an impeachable offense under the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the question of impeachment of a President of the United
States is a grave constitutional matter. It is designed to address
circumstances in which the President has violated the trust of the
American people through fundamental abuses of his office and serious
misconduct.
Mr. Speaker, nothing in the articles approved by the Judiciary
Committee approaches the historical and constitutional tests for
impeachment of a President. Even if one assumes that the strained
interpretation imposed by the committee on the facts of this case is
reasonable, the sad efforts of a President to avoid getting caught
having a consensual extramarital affair does not threaten our system of
government. It does not justify the impeachment of the President by the
House. Therefore, I will vote against each of the four articles
approved by the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for this House and
this country. I rise in opposition to these articles of impeachment.
What we say today will be soon forgotten but what we do will be
remembered throughout history. We are considering articles of
impeachment of a President of the United States based on standards of
our personal preference, selected interpretation of the law and
partisan politics. Yet we use the Constitution, the rule of law for our
reckless action.
The Constitution clearly states what constitutes an impeachable
offense, and we must not here attempt to substitute our personal views.
We are establishing a dangerous precedent when we move to lower the
standards below treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
We should follow the Constitution, not use it as a tool for public
execution, but we should use it to extol the high virtues and the
greatness of this Nation.
Much is said about the rule of law and that the President is not
above the law. The rule of law, however, must be based on justice, if
it is to survive. The inscription that appears upon the United States
Supreme Court says, equal justice under law. It should read, equal law
under justice.
Justice is a higher authority. The process of impeachment that we are
now undertaking is permitted by law, but each of us must ask the
question, what does justice require of us?
The law says we indeed can impeach the President. Justice says we
must consider the greatness of this country. And what he has done does
not move to an impeachable offense. We are breaking the law. We are
violating our oath when we do not consider the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for this House and this Country.
I rise in opposition to these Articles of Impeachment.
What we say will soon be forgotten.
But what we do will be remembered throughout history.
We are considering Articles of Impeachment of the President of the
United States based upon standards of our personal preference,
selective interpretation of law and partisan politics.
Yet, we use the Constitution and the Rule of Law for our reckless
actions.
The Constitution clearly states what constitutes an ``impeachable
offense.''
And, we must not here attempt to substitute our personal views.
We are establishing a dangerous precedent when we move to lower the
standards below treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
We should follow the Constitution and not use it for a public
execution, but use it as an instrument to extol the greatness of our
nation.
Much is said about the Rule of Law and that the President is not
above the Law.
The Rule of Law, however, must be based on Justice if it is to
survive.
The inscription that appears above the United States Supreme Court
Building states, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
It should state, ``Equal Law Under Justice.''
Justice is a higher authority.
This process of impeachment that we are now undertaking is permitted
by law.
But, each of us must ask the question, what does justice require of
us?
At one time in this Nation, women could not vote, blacks could be
enslaved and young people could fight and die in wars, but could not
elect those who sent them to war.
That was the law.
But, it was not just.
Throughout the proud history of this Nation, rigid thinking has
yielded to conscience and adamant attitudes have yielded to compromise.
That is the greatness of our Country.
And, I believe, Mr. Speaker, in this instance, this Resolution of
Impeachment should yield to the compromise and conscience of censure.
We should have the option of censure to consider if we are about
fairness and justice.
The impeachment of a President is a grave and serious matter.
When this debate ends, and the dust clears, and we vote, we must each
reach deep down inside of ourselves and ask the question, what does
justice require of us?
The President will be judged, both for his greatness and failures,
when he leaves office.
And, if he has violated the law of committed perjury, the courts will
decide his fate for his deeds.
But, the question to us is simply this--Does what the President has
done rise to the level of treason or bribery?
Should we remove a President from office because he was not faithful
to his wife, lied about it and was admittedly not truthful to his
Country.
His acts are reprehensible and should be sanctioned.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has the power to impeach our President,
and the majority has the votes to do it.
That is the law.
But, what does justice require of us?
The oath each of us has taken requires us to put the interest of the
Nation above our partisan politics.
History will record what we do here today, and history will judge us
harshly.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr.)
(Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today is the wrong day and this
is the wrong way. When our side asked this morning why are we doing
this today, the Republican leadership responded, because we want to
demonstrate democracy at work. Democracy at work? I served this country
in the United States Peace Corps. I know how to demonstrate democracy
at work. And this is not it.
No one, anywhere in the world today, can explain why a Congress would
impeach the most popular elected President in the world at a time when
that President is engaged in a conflict in Iraq. What you see here
today is not a demonstration of democracy; it is a demonstration of a
partisan political coups.

{time} 1700

This is not only the wrong day, this is also the wrong way. Mr.
Speaker, we cannot claim that a democracy is working when we deny the
minority a voice. There are no options here today. There will be no
vote for censure. That is not even allowed nor offered. There are
absolutely no alternatives, no nothing, just plain meanness.
``There is no fancy way to say I've sinned.'' That was Bill Clinton,
President of the United States, in an apology to his fellow citizens--
the people who elected him.

[[Page H11848]]

And, generally, it seems, the people who elected him accept that
apology and want to move on. They do not favor impeachment. They do not
favor removing him from office.
The Framers of our Constitution were wise men. They rightly
constructed the House of Representatives to be the legislative body
most reflective, most responsive and most connected to the citizens.
This is the reason why House members have very short terms and face re-
election every two years. This is the reason why the Framers required
House members be directly elected by the people but not Senators (who
originally were elected by state legislatures) or the President (who
even today is affirmed by the Electoral College). The Framers wanted to
strongly impress upon House members that they held the power of the
people in their hands and were responsible for representing it
faithfully and truthfully.
I must be true to this obligation. I have listened to the impeachment
hearings. I have read the Starr report. I have sought out legal experts
and constitutional scholars for guidance on the technical aspects of
the impeachment conundrum. I have noted the national polls. But mostly,
I have listened hard and long to persons in this Central Coast
community on their views of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
I will not vote for impeachment because I believe the majority of
people living in our area do not want it.
Since August, when the President appeared before the Grand Jury, I
have been accused of being silent on this matter. Silent, no. Keeping
my counsel, yes. I have been reticent until just recently to commit
myself on the matter because we are dealing with grave constitutional
matters that impact the very fabric of our government. These are not
decisions to be taken lightly and I wanted to be sure of all the facts
of the matter before declaring a position.
Having held my tongue now for these many months I must relate to you
that I believe as almost everyone, that what Mr. Clinton did was wrong.
But impeachable? No. Impeachment is a punishment to be used only in the
most extreme cases when the action of the President is such that it
undermines our government. It is a punishment to be used in cases when
the action of the President is such that he has turned the institutions
of the government against the very people that it is supposed to serve.
It is a punishment to be used when the people of the country must be
relieved of the President's--their President, the President they
elected--leadership because his continued tenure would be harmful to
the citizenry.
Impeachment is not a tool to be used to express one's displeasure in
the personal foibles of a man regardless of his position. It should not
be used to rain retribution on one's political opponents or used for
political gain. It is not the way to treat the American people who have
chosen their leader--not once, but twice--a leader in whom they have
placed their confidence, knowing even then of his propensities to
untoward personal behavior.
The crimes of which Mr. Clinton is accused do not rise to the level
that demand he be removed from office. They are such that in the normal
world, it is unlikely they would be prosecuted. Common crimes call for
common justice. They do not call for extraordinary means outside the
traditional justice system.
Our country was founded on the principles of fairness. This whole
investigation and impeachment proceeding has not been fair and it has
not been founded on a search for real justice. I cannot condone Mr.
Clinton's actions in the Lewinsky affair. But neither can I condone
abuse of a hallowed constitutional procedure that makes a mockery of
all our nation stands for. I will vote no on the impeachment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a
statement. It will be available on my web page for constituents and the
press as well.
Inspired by Providence, our Nation's Founders foresaw today's awesome
circumstances. They provided a fail-safe mechanism in the Constitution
to peacefully resolve the crisis created by a President's reckless and
illegal actions. As a Member of Congress I feel deeply the weight of
history and the need to provide additional guidance to future
generations.
After painstakingly reviewing the testimony and the documentary
evidence, after giving the President every reasonable benefit short of
suspending common sense itself, I have decided that I will vote for
impeachment. As excruciating as this has been, there is no escaping the
conclusion that President Clinton ``willfully provided perjurious,
false and misleading testimony to the grand jury'' and ``in sworn
testimony to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights
action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and
misleading testimony'', as stated in the impeachment articles.
The Declaration of Independence, which Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
informed us was the Nation's birth, calls upon us to have a ``decent
respect'' for the ``opinions of mankind'', which we today call public
opinion. A ``decent respect'', not slavish pandering, not abdication of
our Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, and not relinquishment
of our solemn obligation to filter opinion through our own value
systems. I have that decent respect, and am grateful to all those who
have taken the trouble to communicate their views to me and my office.
As difficult a task as it is, we must take this issue outside the
realm of current public opinion. What we are struggling to insure is
that we have an objective standard of public conduct for public
officials. We would descend into chaos if we had one standard of
conduct when the economy is good and another when the economy is not
good--one standard for a popular president, another for an unpopular
one.
The Constitution of the United States provides in Article 1 that
``The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of
Impeachment'', that ``The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
impeachments'', and that ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not
extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'' As is
now well known, the Constitutional standard for judges and the
president alike is treason, bribery, and other ``High Crimes and
Misdemeanors.''

It is a matter of great concern to me that the process appears to be
breaking down along partisan lines. This is not healthy, and I believe
that the Framers would not want it so. But that does not diminish one
iota my own responsibility to stand and be counted.
I reject categorically the argument that there are different
standards for impeachment where the President is concerned. We can not
be guided by situational ethics that can destroy one constitutional
officer and absolve another from the consequences of destructive
conduct. Over the past decades at least 2 federal judges have been
impeached for perjury unconnected to their judicial duties. The
constitutional standards for impeachment are not lower for the
President and we must not allow them to become lower for the President.
My reading of the case law does not support the conclusion that we have
a double standard for federal judges who are appointed, and another for
the President, who carries an election mandate with him.
My vote will reflect my conclusion that the President committed
perjury before a federal grand jury, and that this is an impeachable
offense. The President's statements were perjurious, not just
misleading. I have read and re-read the President's testimony before
the grand jury and in the Paula Jones civil rights case. There is no
blinking at the fact that the President lied under oath. Ironically,
this conclusion is supported by many of the President's defenders who
have argued in effect that a full admission cannot be made for fear of
legal exposure. Moreover, many of the President's supporters concede
the President perjured himself, but argue that such perjury didn't rise
to the standard of impeachment.
Moreover, the President was appropriately admonished by Senator Orrin
Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that whatever false
statements were made in the Paula Jones case would be forgiven, if he
merely told the truth in his Grand Jury appearance. Despite this
``second chance'', the President failed to do so.
I have given the most serious consideration to the suggestion that
censure is a more appropriate punishment for the president and a better
outcome for the nation. It is in my nature to find common ground where
compromise is possible. The Constitution simply does not permit the
House to take a convenient way out, nor should we. Under the Separation
of Powers mandate we are forbidden to impose sanctions on the President
short of impeachment. Also, strictly from a common sense standpoint, a
resolution of censure would carry all the legal weight of a
congressional designation of ``National Sweet Potato Week''. And
historically, the House has never passed a censure resolution against a
President. With no sanction, as censure resolution is a toothless
tiger.

What about a sanction the President agrees to? At this stage in the
process the House can not permit the President to be in effect his own
judge, and to set the terms of his own punishment and the amount of his
own fine. That would be the very height of cynicism. By voting for
impeachment the matter will be moved to the Senate for what I hope will
be an expeditious resolution, and one that will be fair to the Nation
and the Chief Executive.
This is a vote for the children and for the future. Somewhere in
America today is a young person just becoming interested in government
who will one day be President of the United States. This vote is for
that future

[[Page H11849]]

President as much as for the current occupant of the White House. This
vote reaches across the generations, across the barriers of time and
place to let that future president know that there are consequences for
illegal conduct and parameters of illegal activities. We are setting
that example as we light the constitutional torch for a new generation.
I would also note that the President's private conduct is not the
issue. Private conduct between consenting adults is in no way the
business of congressional impeachment action. It is his public conduct
that is at issue.
This vote is a signal to our armed forces, whose Commander-in-Chief
the President is, that we the peoples representatives are holding the
President himself to the same standard of conduct that we expect from
them.
This vote is a signal to civilians, that we representatives will
uphold their rights as we hold the President to the high standard the
country expects from all its free citizens.
As this solemn vote approaches, it is important for the world to
realize that the underlying stability of our free Nation is stronger
than ever. I am confident that history will view our actions as
consistent with the high ideals so many generations have struggled to
achieve.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise this
afternoon in support of impeaching our President, William Jefferson
Clinton. But make no mistake about it, it is Bill Clinton who has
brought us to where we are today. And the issue here is not the
relation that Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky but rather the
credibility and the honor under oath that must exist within the
institution of the Presidency and which has been squandered by the
current occupant of this high office.
There are absolute applicable standards by which we all must live. If
we do not live up to those standards, we will no longer be that nation
which stands as a beacon of hope for all the world. This President has
backed up his words of repentance with action that can only be
characterized as stonewalling.
There are many who say that the President, what he has done, is no
big deal and that anyone would do the same. As a relatively young man,
I remember a time in this great Nation when those endowed with public
trust and those that were elected to public office were held to a
higher standard. Today, with this vote, we take a step toward
restoration of honor and responsibility.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, once again the exigencies of time have
required me to apologize in advance to my colleagues because I am now
going to have to limit all of them to 1 minute. I recognize my friends
that have been waiting so long.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Weygand).
(Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WEYGAND. About two months ago, Mr. Speaker, I rose with 30 of my
Democratic colleagues to support the Republican request for an inquiry.
I did so because I really had grave reservations about what the
President had done. I truly believed that there may be indeed an
impeachable offense. I listened with an open mind and hoped for
fairness and openness in the hearings.
Unfortunately, I was very disappointed because I looked for clear-cut
evidence that would show me and my people in Rhode Island that indeed
there was an impeachable offense. We did not come to that conclusion.
So I researched and looked back, and back just 211 years Alexander
Hamilton said in regard to impeachment, ``In many cases it will connect
itself with preexisting factions and will enlist all the animosities,
the partialities, the influence and the interest in one side or the
other. And in such cases it will always be dangerous that the decision
will be regulated more by a comparison of strength of the parties
rather than the demonstration of innocence or guilt.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of you to consider that because today it is
the impartiality of partisanship and we should be really considering
the evidence. It is not there. Please do not vote for these articles of
impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the majority has sought to
claim for themselves the mantle of the rule of law. In fact, however, I
believe they have strayed far from the mandates of the United States
Constitution, the supreme law of the land. They have tried to make the
case that if we do not impeach President Clinton, we will be sending a
message that the President will not be held responsible for his
actions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether or not Congress
votes to impeach or convict President Clinton will be subject to both
criminal and civil prosecution when he leaves office.
In addition, the Constitution explicitly states that a person who is
impeached and convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to the law.
Regardless of what action the Congress does or does not take,
President Clinton, like every other citizen, will be held accountable
in court for his alleged violations.
Forget not that when President Nixon stepped down from office he
still had to be pardoned because of the crimes he committed. He could
have been held responsible for it. The President, under the
Constitution, is the only one that is allowable for double jeopardy.
I ask my colleagues that this matter is so important that we do not
want to lessen the standard for future generations.
This week, the House of Representatives will vote on four Articles of
Impeachment that the House Judiciary Committee, on party-line votes,
has adopted concerning the actions of President Clinton with respect to
his improper relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
This is am important matter. What President Clinton did was wrong. He
was wrong to have an affair with an intern and he was wrong to mislead
the Grand Jury and to lie to the American people about his conduct with
Miss Lewinsky. He must be punished appropriately.
I say this because I firmly agree with the assertions that have being
made that no one is above the law. My colleagues in the Majority have
sought to claim for themselves the mantle of the rule of law. In fact,
however, I believe that they have strayed far from the mandates of the
U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land. They have tried to make
the case that if we do not impeach President Clinton, we will be
sending the message that the President will not be held responsible for
his actions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether or not the Congress
votes to impeach or convict him, President Clinton will be subject to
both civil and criminal prosecution when he leaves office. In addition,
the Constitution explicitly states that a person who is impeached and
convicted ``shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment,
Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'' Regardless of what
action the Congress does or does not take, President Clinton--like
every other citizen--will be held accountable in court for his alleged
violations of the law.
When the Founding Fathers were drafting our Constitution, they
considered carefully the provisions for impeachment. In fact, in the
Federalist Papers No. 65, Alexander Hamilton talks about the concern
that a House of Representatives dominated by one political party would
impeach a president of the other political party without sufficient
cause or proof. He expressed concern about the shock and disruption
such an act would cause to our political system.
The Framers set a very high threshold for presidential impeachment.
They considered--and rejected--several lesser standards for
impeachment, including ``maladministration'' and failure to display
``good behavior.'' Instead, as we all know, they defined impeachable
offenses as ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.''
Impeachment of the President is a profound action. It should be
reserved for the most serious of cases, where the wrong-doing by the
President represents an abuse of the power of the office. The matter at
the root of this situation is a private one, not related to the
President's conduct of his official duties. I am convinced that the
Framers' intent in developing the standards for impeachment was to
limit impeachable offenses to those that represent a threat to the
republic. I do not believe that standard has been met in this case.
When Independent Counsel Starr presented his report to the Congress,
I supported moving forward with a focused inquiry. While I did not
endorse the precise resolution that passed the House, I agreed that
this was a serious matter that should be further considered by the
Judiciary Committee.
Since the beginning, I have said that above all, we must conduct our
inquiry in a fair and

[[Page H11850]]

deliberate manner that is worthy of the seriousness of the situation
and that will not set precedents that will weaken the Office of the
Presidency in the future. I regret that did not happen. The party-line
votes on the Articles of Impeachment expose the partisanship that has
been present throughout this case. When the full House votes on the
Articles, I expect that it will be one of the most partisan and
divisive votes we will have had on any controversial issue in this
Congress.
In fact, we seem to be right back at the place feared by the authors,
of the Federalist Papers, where one political party is seeking to
impeach the popularly elected President who is of another party on
partisan grounds. The Majority, while claiming to embrace the rule of
law, is in fact going against the highest law of the land, the
Constitution. They are also ignoring the clearly articulated wish of
the American people: that President Clinton be condemned for his wrong-
doing, but that he not be impeached. I do not expect that history will
look kindly on the Majority's handling of this matter.
I have examined the evidence in this case carefully. I have read the
grand jury testimony and the report of the Independent Counsel. I have
spoken to many of my constituents personally, and have read the
letters, e-mail messages and records of phone calls from hundreds more.
I have studied the Constitution and listened to scholars argue both
sides of the issues. I have weighed the matter in my own mind and
wrestled with it in my own conscience.
I have reached the conclusion that I must oppose the Articles of
Impeachment that are before the House. The potential impeachment and
removal from office of a popularly elected President is a very serious
matter. I have carefully considered the President's conduct, and have
determined that, in my mind, it does not rise to the level of ``high
crimes and misdemeanors.'' What President Clinton did was wrong, and I
believe that he should be punished. But I do not believe that his
mistakes warrant his removal from office.
I believe that a more rational response to the President's actions
would be a strongly worded resolution of censure. It is often said that
the punishment must fit the crime. I simply do not believe that
impeachment, which nullifies the vote of the people in a popular
election, is an appropriate punishment for a matter that does not
involve an abuse of power.
For those reasons, I will cast my votes against impeachment. I would
once again urge my colleagues in the Majority to put aside
partisanship, and to bring to this House a bipartisan censure
resolution with which we can lay this matter to rest and get on with
the business of the American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I have never fully appreciated before just
how out of touch this institution is with the needs of the American
people.
Forty-three million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of
senior citizens cannot afford their prescription drugs. And this House
is going to vote to send to the Senate for a trial to go on month after
month after month to discuss where Bill Clinton touched Monica
Lewinsky.
The global economy is volatile. The average American today is working
longer hours for lower wages. We have the widest gap between the rich
and the poor, and we are voting today perhaps to paralyze our
government as the Senate explores the President's extramarital
relations and his lies and his cover-up of that relationship.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton acted deplorably in his personal behavior.
But what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is, let's
get on with the business of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the only Independent in the House--
someone who is not a Democrat or a Republican.
There is a great political instability in the world--wars and famine
in Africa, tensions in the middle-east, in Bosnia, in Latin America, in
Ireland--and a war being fought as we speak in Iraq. There are weapons
of mass destruction in place all over the world--nuclear weapons,
biological and chemical weapons--all of which can destroy the world.
And we are voting today to impeach a President has extra-marital
sexual relations, lied about them and attempted to cover them up.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton acted deplorably in his personal behavior
with a 22 year old intern. What he did was wrong--and he should be
censured. He should not be impeached, however, and the United States
Congress should get on with the business of the American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler) a member of the committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) a
few moments ago said that an impeachment vote is not a vote to remove
the President but simply to charge him.
I read from the resolution: ``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton,
by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from
office''; in addition to which we are already being told he should
resign rather than face a trial.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
We have heard all of these prophets of economic doom and gloom if the
House discharges its constitutional duty today in impeaching the
President. The Nasdaq hit an all-time high. I think the markets are
smarter than some of the people who are making these accusations.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
(Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.).
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I rise in support of all four articles of impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration of the facts reported by the
Judiciary Committee, I have decided it is my constitutional duty to
cast my vote in support of all four Articles of Impeachment. I have not
reached this decision lightly, but with the full understanding of the
effect my vote will have on the future of our country. I am not pleased
to cast these votes. I regret it has come to this.
The polls overwhelmingly show political support for the President,
but I cannot be governed by the polls in this matter. The
constitutional framers did not place this decision in the hands of the
pollsters; they placed the question of impeachment in the hands of the
House of Representatives, and ultimately the decision to let the
President remain in office with the Senate. In their phone calls,
letters, e-mail, and in personal conversations, my constituents are
overwhelmingly in favor of a vote to impeach the President. But even if
they were not, I would still be duty bound to support all four Articles
of Impeachment.
At the beginning of the process, Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde asked,
``Based on what we now know, do we have to look further, or look
away?'' At that time, I voted to look further, because I believed the
allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice were serious and
credible. Nothing we have heard or seen since has changed my mind about
those allegations.
Since the actual impeachment hearings began, I have heard many
witnesses engage in legal hairsplitting over the meaning of the words
``is'' and ``alone.'' I have also heard the President's own lawyer
acknowledge that a reasonable person could conclude the President did,
indeed lie under oath.
Some witnesses have testified that, even if true, the alleged
offenses of President Clinton are not as serious as the alleged
offenses of President Nixon. I do not believe that, but even if I did,
it would not matter.
We need to ask ourselves whether the President is only required to
avoid abusing the power of his office to avoid impeachment? Should we
allow the President to avoid impeachment even with substantial evidence
indicating he has committed multiple felonies? Should we allow the
President to avoid impeachment even if these felonies go to the very
heart of our judicial system?
Although I am disappointed by the personal conduct of the President,
I want to make it clear I am not voting to impeach the President for
having an extramarital affair, or even for lying about having an
extramarital affair.
But a president does not have the right to lie under oath. A
president does not have the right to obstruct justice. A president does
not have the right to obstruct a congressional inquiry. A president
does not have the right to lie to the Ameican people who elected and
trusted him. We have the obligation to send a clear message to the
President, to the American people, and to the world that no one is
above the law.
We are all tired of this process. There are so many issues out there
needing our attention. But we can't just wish this away.
All the evidence we have before us clearly indicates the President's
conduct demonstrates a willful contempt of the judicial system of the
United States, the essential foundation of our democracy. The
President's conduct demonstrates a willful contempt of the House of
Representatives. The President's conduct demonstrates a willful
contempt of the people of the United States. The President's conduct
demonstrates a willful contempt to the office he holds. It is for these
reasons that I

[[Page H11851]]

must vote to support all four Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD the following
statement supporting the articles of impeachment:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the impeachment of President
William Jefferson Clinton as recommended by the House Committee on the
Judiciary. This is a decision that I have not reached lightly.I have
carefully reviewed the evidence against the President, and I am
convinced that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition and
before the grand jury. Furthermore, the President has lied to this
House and to its Members and continues to mislead the American people
in a clear attempt to subvert and obstruct justice under the very laws
that every American President takes a solemn oath to execute.
The President has violated his oath and has violated federal law. If
Congress turns away and does nothing, the meaning of the Presidential
oath and the strength of the rule of law in this country will be
permanently diminished. The oath will, in effect, be reduced to a
casual commitment to administer and enforce the laws only when hey
serve the President's personal and political ends. The law will apply
only to those who do not have the political power and influence to
escape its requirements.
I have spent six years in the house working to insure that the laws
that are applied to every American taxpayer and business are applied
equally to the Congress and agencies of the federal government. This
was a central idea in the Contract with America, and I am not prepared
to abandon it today.
It is also important to note that we have troops stationed around the
world to protect peace and civil order in nations in which the rule of
law has failed. The primary threat to stability on the Balkan
peninsula, for example has been lack of respect for the rule of law. I
believe such respect starts from the top. If a nation's leaders will
not abide by the law, why should the rest of that nation do so? I find
the President's hypocrisy striking. The President seems to find it
acceptable to send Americans to fight for the rule of law around the
world, but he will not even respect it at home.
Some Members have made the responsible argument that this impeachment
is a partisan ``witch hunt,'' but I believe the division between
Members supporting impeachment and those supporting censure is about
much more than partisan politics. Honestly, this proceeding is not
about overthrowing the government. We are not discussing taking power
from the hands of one party and giving it to another. If President
Clinton is removed from office, he will be succeeded by Vice President
Gore--not exactly stunning Republican victory. Furthermore, I'm sure
that most of us on the Republican side of the aisle understand politics
well enough to know that President Gore will be much more difficult to
defeat in 2000 than Vice President Gore would be. Therefore, describing
the actions of those who support impeachment as politically motivated
just does not make sense. There is no political advantage to be gained
by unseating the President.
I believe the division we are experiencing is a true reflection of
the differences in Republican and Democratic approaches to the Federal
Government. As a Republican, I believe in a Federal Government of
sharply limited powers. The limits to these powers are clearly
expressed in the Constitution. Each of the three branches is granted
clear, limited powers to serve specific governmental functions.
With regard to the powers of the legislative branch relative to he
executive branch, the Constitution is clear. While Article I of the
Constitution provides both the House and the Senate the open-ended
authority to ``punish its Members for disorderly Behavior,'' the
provisions for impeachment are much more strictly limited. Article I
states ``Judgment in Case of Impeachment shall not extend further than
the removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.'' Unlike the
provision dealing with Members of Congress, this provision specifically
limits Congressional sanctions to removal and disqualification.
Therefore, it seems clear to me that censure is a valid option for
punishing Member of Congress, but should not apply to the President.
If this House were to pass a censure resolution, there is no
guarantee that it would not be expunged by a future Congress (as well
as done in the case of Andrew Jackson) or overturned by the Supreme
Court. They only action that this House can take that will be both
permanent and Constitutional is impeachment.
Many of us on both sides of the aisle agree that the President has
not been honest in answering legitimate questions asked under oath. In
spite of the President's dishonesty, some Members, lawyers, and
professors suggest that because the President's statements may not meet
the strict legal standard for perjury, he should not be impeached. I
disagree.
While I may not be a lawyer or a history professor, I do have a fair
share of common sense. Common sense tells me that if some is dishonest
while giving legal testimony under oath, that person has violated the
spirit, if not the letter. If the perjury law. The law is there to
provide for the fair administration of justice by insuring he legal
process is based on accurate information. There is no doubt in my mind
the President has frustrated this goal by consistently providing
incomplete and inaccurate information after promising explicitly ``to
tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.''
In 1974, the Arkansas Gazette quoted then Congressional candidate
Clinton saying there was ``no question that an admission of making
false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI
and CIA is an impeachable offense.'' He did not say false statements
were impeachable only if they met the strict standard of perjury. He
did not say that they were impeachable only if the answers addressed
issues of public policy. He said that making false statements to
government officials is impeachable, and he was right.
Speaking of President Nixon, Candidate Clinton argued, ``there's not
any point in his putting the country through an impeachment since he
isn't making any pretense of innocence now.'' Today, even some of the
President's strongest supporters in Congress no longer make the
pretense that the President has been honest in his sworn testimony. The
President should hold himself to his own standard and resign. We know,
however, that the President does not intend to do so, so Congress must
do its duty.
It is clear to me that the President has done and continues to do
everything in his power, both legal and otherwise, to derail the legal
process and to obstruct the pursuant of justice. Now, the House must
decide if it will legitimize the President's actions or condemn them in
the only manner provided by the Constitution--impeachment. The demands
of both my conscience and my constituents re clear. I will cast may
vote in favor of impeachment.
I would like to close by again submitting for the Record the
following words of President Theodore Roosevelt.

We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and
foreign policy; but we cannot afford to differ on the
question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to
endure. Honesty is * * * an absolute prerequisite to
efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we
have no right to keep him in public life, it mattes not how
brilliant his capacity. Without honesty the brave and able
man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by
every lover of righteousness. No man who is corrupt, no man
who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty
to his community. If a man lies under oath or procures the
lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns
perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. Under the higher
law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is
precisely as guilty if instead of lying in a court, he lies
in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability the
evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread
and more pernicious. We need absolute honesty in public life;
and we shall not get it until we remember that truth-telling
must go hand in hand with it, and that it is quite as
important not to tell untruth about a decent man as it is to
tell the truth about one who is not decent.'' (from The
Strenuous Life)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
(Mr. PAPPAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the four articles of
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, over the past few months I have paid careful attention
to the testimony, statements and reports regarding the charges against
the President of the United States.
After reviewing all of the information available, I have come to the
conclusion that in fact the President did commit perjury by lying under
oath and he did obstruct justice and abuse his power by allowing White
House officials to perpetuate his inaccurate statements to them.
This by no means was an easy decision for me. It is a decision based
on principle and facts and not on poll numbers. It troubles me that the
Congress is forced to deal with these issues instead of working on
issues that would improve the quality of life for the people of my
district in Central New Jersey and of our nation.
This issue has had quite a stir in my district and I am sure almost
every other district around the nation. It would be easy to poll the
issue and vote the ``politically popular'' way, but I was elected to
cast votes based on principle and upholding the Constitution. I will do
just that today. Some have said that those who cast votes in favor of
impeachment may

[[Page H11852]]

pay a political price in the future. While that may in fact be true,
our nation, our Constitution and the rule of law will pay an even
greater and lasting price if we do not do the right thing.
Time spent on this could have been spent on saving Social Security,
improving our education system or seeking additional tax relief. But
let me make it very clear that there is one person who is ultimately
responsible for where we are today and the person is the President
himself.
It was President Clinton who misled the people of our country, his
cabinet and the Congress since last January. It was the President
himself who chose to commit perjury while under oath. So let me be very
clear on why I have come to my decision. It is not about sex.
The President's personal behavior--albeit reprehensible and
inappropriate--is not the issue at hand nor is itself an impeachable
offense. Rather, my decision to support the articles of impeachment
revolves around the President's public behavior. The President made his
private life and private inappropriate actions public when he lied
about them under oath in a public court of law.
As I said, my decision is not based on sex and not based on the
President's private life. There are elected officials in both parties
that have committed indiscretions. The difference however is very
clear. In the case before us the President lied under oath in court.
What if he had lied about another issue? Would that and should that
make a difference? I maintain that lying under oath is lying under oath
no matter the subject matter. An elected official's private life and
actions are just that--private. But an elected official's public
actions are just that as well--they are public.
Some have suggested that the House should censure the president. What
then would we say to the American citizens that this very day are in
jail for committing perjury in civil cases? I am sure that they too
would like to have had censure as an option. But as I said before, we
are a nation of laws that each and every one of us must abide by.
I think that most Americans, including many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle agree that the President did in fact lie under oath
and commit perjury. With that as the conclusion, there is no choice but
to support impeachment.
It has been said that history will judge our actions. Before history
judges us though we must ensure that the youth and citizens of our
nation respect the principle that that no one is above the law. I spend
a great deal of time speaking with young people who often ask me about
this. I tell them that we can and should forgive each other because no
one is perfect and we all make mistakes. Yet, there are consequences of
our actions.
I have made my share of errors and will make more in my life.
However, it is important to come to terms with our shortcomings,
apologize, admit our wrongdoings and ask to be forgiven. A cleansing
from within can then begin and healing can occur.
We are a nation of laws--laws that must be followed by each of the
citizens of our nation. Realizing that there is not one law for the
elected and one for the non-elected, one for those with power and
another for those without, I have concluded that I have no choice but
to support the articles of impeachment.
I do want to take exception to the statements from both sides that
this is the most difficult vote a Member of Congress will ever cast. I
completely disagree. I believe voting whether we send young Americans
to face an enemy on distant shores is far worse. A vote for war is much
more grave. I would urge all of my colleagues to refrain from this
inflammatory statement to keep things in proper perspective.
A vote for impeachment is very serious but the Constitution creates
the outline for this vote. It creates a process of succession. If Bill
Clinton is impeached and removed, his vice president Al Gore assumes
the responsibilities of the presidency. This is peaceful. During World
War II we lost our president and still won the war. After a terrible
civil war, our presidency survived the loss of President Lincoln. This
was peaceful. Our Constitution and the American people's resolve to see
an orderly transition vitiate any argument I have heard about how
disruptive a potential impeachment would be.
It is clear that our three-branch form of government as created by
the Constitution was done so in order to establish a set of checks and
balances. The framers did not want a King. We created lots of checks on
the President in order to ensure this. If we give in to the line of
argument that a President who commits crimes is above the law, simply
on the basis of polling, we have completely destroyed the framers'
intent and done irreparable damage to the future of our nation and the
rule of law. Today some would argue that perjury and obstruction of
justice do not rise to impeachable offenses, but if we let this slide
then what will we let slide the next time and the time after that. This
is a slippery slope that a nation of laws cannot tolerate.
Across the nation, lawyers and legal scholars are watching how we
proceed. They are waiting to find out if it is acceptable to lie under
oath. If it is alright for the President then how can we possible hold
anyone else to a higher standard?
I am one of the few members whose voters sent someone else back for
the 106th Congress. However, I sincerely believe that the majority of
New Jersey's 12th district residents do not want our President to be
above the law or given special treatment. If we did what the president
did, would we be treated the same? I do not think so.
The constituency that worries me the greatest in this debate is the
school-aged children. Recently, a student from the Montgomery Middle
School reminded me of the story about George Washington never telling a
lie, cutting down the cherry tree and then taking responsibility for
it. What will the meaning of that story be if President Clinton lies,
is caught and is then excused for it? How should I answer these
students?
As such, I reluctantly rise today to say I will vote for impeachment.
I am hopeful that Mr. Clinton will still resign before this vote is
counted; however, should he not, I refuse to allow my last vote in this
Congress to be a vote to allow a man in charge with enforcing the laws,
from being above the very same laws.
I want to close with a quote from Abraham Lincoln. He said, ``Let
every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood
of his father and to tear the character of his own and his children's
liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American,--let
it be taught in schools, in seminaries and in colleges--let it be
preached from the pulpit and proclaimed in legislative halls and
enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the
political religion of the nation * * *.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)
and others in this House tonight have made a very good point about the
defense that has been made in this case.
In the committee and again here today, the defense employed does not
consist of a denial of the charges or an explanation of the behavior
that is involved but rather it is an admission of the acts by many
defenders and it is coupled with almost certainly attacks on the
special counsel, attacks on the Committee on the Judiciary, and attacks
on the entire Congress. And today that defense has been expanded to
plead that our military forces would not want us to consider this
matter at this time.
A great Air Force officer, our colleague the gentleman from Texas
(Sam Johnson), who spent 7 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, who
surely earned the right to speak to and refute that defense, refuted it
very capably here today.
Now let us hear from another great American soldier who uttered these
words. And these words were reprinted in Roll Call magazine today.
``Duty. Honor. Country. These three hallowed words reverently dictate
what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. The
unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant
phrase. Every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every
troublemaker will try to downgrade them, even to the extent of ridicule
and mockery. But they build your basic character. They mold you for
your future roles as the custodians of the Nation's defenses. The long,
gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in
olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray would rise from their
white crosses thundering `duty, honor, country'.''
These are excerpts from General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's
farewell to the Corp of Cadets at West Point on May 12, 1962.
Eleven years earlier, he was invited to address a joint session of
Congress, ending his 52 years of distinguished military service. He
spoke of the courage and the sacrifice of so many Americans who did not
fail us, including those who gave their lives defending our values and
our way of life.
I would ask my colleagues, please remember the words of this great
soldier as they consider the merits of the allegation and the defenses
to the allegation of this case.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the

[[Page H11853]]

gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
(Mr. KLECZKA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I have spent a great deal of
time carefully reviewing the Judiciary Committee testimony and
evidence. Let me make absolutely clear that I do not in any way condone
the President's behavior. He lied to his family, his Cabinet, and the
American people.
But the Framers made clear that the constitutional act of impeachment
is not meant to punish a president for deplorable behavior but to
protect our Nation from acts which jeopardize our democratic system.
What the President did was wrong, both personally and morally, but his
acts did not threaten our democracy and thus do not rise to the level
of impeachable offenses as defined by our founding fathers in the
Constitution.
As Mr. Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional law and impeachment expert at
Yale University, testified before the Judiciary Committee, ``Once we
lower the impeachment standard to include conduct that does not amount
to a clear and present danger to our constitutional order, we will do
grievous damage to the independence of the Presidency. [T]here can be
little doubt that the present case falls short of the standard set by
the Framers when they insisted on `high crimes and misdemeanors against
the state.' ''
I do believe that the President should be held accountable for his
actions, and support an alternative to impeachment that would both
condemn his actions and fine him. The Judiciary Committee considered a
censure resolution which we in the full House are being denied the
opportunity to debate and vote on.
Many of my constituents have called and been resolute in their belief
that the President should be held accountable for his actions, and I
could not agree more. President Clinton is not above the law and is
still subject to indictment, trial, and sentencing in the same manner
as all other citizens who do wrong. He will be fully subject to
criminal prosecution for his wrongful acts when he leaves office.
Our founding fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the
nation from grave harm from a Chief Executive who clearly endangers our
constitutional democracy. I do not believe the President's actions meet
this test. The penalty for his misconduct should be exacted not through
impeachment, but through indictment in our criminal court system and a
stern censure by the Congress.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with apologies to my colleagues, I am now
reduced to only 1 minute for each of them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stokes).
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, for 30 years I have served in this
institution. It is an institution which I have always loved, honor and
revered. I have taken pride in being able to speak from this well on
many historic occasions. But it is no honor today to speak and cast the
last votes of my career against a resolution to remove from office the
President of the United States. This is, in my opinion, the saddest day
in the history of the House of Representatives. It is also a sad day
for America.
As one who long before coming to Congress practiced and studied
constitutional law, I am convinced that the Framers of the Constitution
believe that they could entrust to this elected body the responsibility
of determining what constitutes treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors. I firmly believe that they trusted us to place the
interest of the American people on such an exalted plane that they
never envisioned this House removing a President from office except for
grievous transgressions against the government which elected him.
I believe the Founders never envisioned this provision of our
Constitution being used in such an unconstitutional and unfair manner
as to overthrow an election where the American people have gone to the
polls to vote and elect their President.
The action being taken in the ``People's House'' today makes a
mockery of the Constitution and the electoral process which the
American people have fought and died to preserve. Those esteemed
Founders, those architects of our Constitution, never envisioned what
is being done here today. I caution you that the act of impeaching this
President today, while perhaps serving some narrow political purpose,
will have consequences far beyond the comprehension of any of us here
today. The impeachment of this President by the House and his
subsequent trial in the Senate will be tantamount to once again
shutting down the American government. This is the message that you
send the American people today. The gridlock, disarray, chaos, crisis
and paralysis which will envelop this government while the U.S. Senate
tries a United States President is going to be wrenching and appalling.
The American economy and world markets are going to be affected by a
Congress which will be stalemated in its inability to pass any
legislation into law because 100 Senators are sitting in a room trying
the President of the United States from January through June or July of
next year.
The people in my congressional district are angry and enraged over
what is happening to their President. They are good, decent, hard-
working people who love this country and care deeply about a President
who has shown concern for them. The people in my district have heard
the same evidence you have heard and while they do not approve of what
he did, they do not feel that he has harmed them or this Nation, by
what he did. In their opinion, his actions did not meet the
constitutional standard for impeachment of bribery, high crimes, or
misdemeanors. Through every means of communication, they have said to
me, we are embarrassed and ashamed of the House of Representatives.
They do not want their President impeached. Many constituents deem the
act of a special prosecutor spending $40 million to bring impeachment
charges based upon sexual activities to be loathsome and reprehensible.
It defies everything this Nation stands for.
Lastly, as I cast my last votes in this Chamber and end my career as
a Member of Congress, I am mindful that history will record forever
both what we say and do here today. Neither history nor the American
people will look kindly upon those who here today shunned the American
people and the U.S. Constitution. As I vote to oppose the impeachment
of the President, my conscience is clear. It is important to me that
history record me as a Member of Congress who did not do what was
expedient, but what was right.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, we have no right to stand
here and debate the rule of law if we cannot even extend to the
President of the United States that same right of due process as
required by our Constitution.
The majority has replaced the notion of due process with a notion
that if we just say something long enough it will become true. Today we
will be remembered for impeaching a president for punishment that does
not fit the crime. Today we will be remembered for a political mutiny
of our Commander in Chief when our troops are in the field. And today
this Congress sends a message that the constitutional scales of justice
can be tipped to one side if it suits the purpose of one political
party.
Four hundred respected historians have said that the presidency will
be permanently disfigured and diminished by today's vote. Over 200
constitutional scholars have argued that the sentiment of these
offenses does not rise to the level of impeachment. And two-thirds of
the American public have said the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans, put our country before your party.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I call this the nightmare before
Christmas. And the American people find it difficult to believe that
here we are on this day talking about impeaching a president who just
came back from the Middle East almost with a peace accord.
This is not about impeaching Bill Clinton. This is about trying to
roll back the clock. This is about impeaching affirmative action,
impeaching women's rights. This is about taking America back rather
than moving it forward.
I know how I am going to vote. My people have told me. I will not
disregard the people who elected me. Seventy percent of them have said
to me, protect the President, vote to keep this President in office.

{time} 1715

So, Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this nightmare before Christmas,
I will not vote for this lynching in the people's House, I will vote
against these resolutions.

[[Page H11854]]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious time for our country. I urge my
colleagues to do what is right and I ask that history be kind to us.
I rise in strong opposition to the articles of impeachment presented
by my colleagues from the Judiciary Committee.
This resolution is an attempt to do through parliamentary means what
could not be done in the last two elections: unseat the President of
the United States of America.
I ask my fellow colleagues, is this a high crime or just an act which
lacks moral judgement? Did he really abuse his power.
Let me state here on the floor of the House what most Americans
already know.
The impeachment of a sitting President of the United States of
America is an ominous and sober predicament that we as Members of
Congress face. This formal expression of the United States of
Representatives should not be about sexual indiscretion. We have
allegations of Presidential sexual indiscretions, some going back 200
years and involving slave women who certainly had no defense against
predatory relationships. But no such impeachment inquiry has been
initiated before.
This is not about lying. We have had allegations of Presidential
lying about the trading of munitions for covert foreign aid and
Presidential lying about personal federal income taxes. But no such
impeachment inquiries were initiated in response.
Mr. Speaker, there are some in this House who have campaigned for the
impeachment of this President for more than six years. Their campaign,
fueled by $40 million spent by the Office of Special Council, tens
millions of spent by private sources, and millions more spent by
assorted Congressional Committees, and the inevitable accompanying
leaks have yielded us only a sad, sordid marital infidelity and an
endless supply of headlines.
These relentless campaigns to impeach the President now hold their
sponsors hostage to their own rhetoric. Having failed to find an
impeachable offense, there is now relentless pressure to make do with
the $60 million scandal--to make the scandal fit the bill.
Mr. Speaker, our Constitution contains a number of examples of
purposely ambiguous language in addition to the phrase ``high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.'' Consider such language as ``due process.''
It is precisely such elegant and flexible language which has enabled
our democracy to develop, to encompass ever broader sectors of
Americans, in ever deeper and more empowering ways.
It is reasonable to expect that as the process of electing our chief
executive has become more and more democratic, enfranchising more
Americans, more and more directly, that the process for removing that
chief executive, of undoing the will of the people, would demand higher
and higher standards. It is reasonable to expect that the Congress
should not take unto itself the power to limit a President, in James
Madison's words ``. . . to a tenure during the pleasure of the
Senate.''
When we ``dumb down'' the Constitution to meet the needs of partisan
politics we inflict deep and lasting harm on our political and
Constitutional system. This is the real Constitutional crisis. I do not
believe it is accidental that all of our nation's encounters with
Presidential impeachment come following periods of great national
turmoil--either the executive or legislative branch attempting to use
extra-constitutional means of imposing its will on the policy of the
nation.
Like the attempt to impeach President Johnson in the wake of the
Civil War and the debate over how to incorporate African Americans into
the body politic or the attempt of President Nixon to undermine his
political opponents in the closing days of the War in Vietnam; current
attempts to undo the results of two Presidential elections will leave
deep, lingering wounds on our nation, but, in the long run, will fail
in their attempt to make an end run around the will of the people.
Undoing our Constitution will not advance the search for solutions to
the great national and international problems facing America: global
economic crisis and growing economic inequality, the undoing of decades
of struggle for racial equality in America, the resurgence of national
strife around the world, the need to address fundamental problems in
health care, education, environment and housing, preserving social
security and a host of other critical issues.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this insidious attempt to use, or
rather misuse, the power of impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, to the horror, outrage and disbelief of America, this
Congress is about to molest, to assault, the central pillar of our
Democracy, the right of the people to choose their representatives in
government, and vote to remove the President of the United States.
Why? I am convinced, and the American People are convinced, that
there are those who want to impeach the President as a means of
containing, delaying or terminating his efforts to carry out the
mandate which the American People have twice given him. Those driving
the process to remove him are frustrated by his mandate, and obsessed
with their fanatical desire to block programs from affirmative action
to energy assistance, to de-fund programs from summer jobs to one
hundred thousand new teachers.
I reject, and more importantly, the American People reject, the pious
hand wringing and piteous mutterings about the crime of perjury. Read
the articles of impeachment as closely as you want. You won't find the
actual words alleged as perjury with a divining rod.
Why? The American People know that the allegations do not rise to the
level of impeachment.
We do not allow such unspecified charges on the floor of this House.
Any Member of this body who would accuse another would have his words
taken down for judgment by the body. Why weren't the President's words
taken down so they could be judged? Because the process is not meant to
be fair. The process is meant to destroy. Every month, every week,
indeed every day, brings new examples of the hypocrisy of these
charges.
When, in the name of this House, secret grand jury testimony was
released, in contradiction to every understanding we have of individual
rights and due process, the claim was made that we had to inform and
involve the American People about the process.
But now, when the American People demand an end to the outrage of
this impeachment process, their voices are ignored. Suddenly their
informed opinion is no longer relevant.
Why? Because the process was never meant to be fair or democratic.
The process was meant to destroy.
I reject, and the American People reject, the pathetic whining about
upholding the rule of law. An unchecked prosecutor, accountable to no
one, with an unlimited budget, and a witch-hunting committee have
shredded any semblance of rule of law. They have undermined, in a few
short years, the protections that have taken our nation over two
hundred years to perfect.
And, in using and abusing the law on sexual harassment, the witch
hunters have created gaping holes in the law protecting women from
harassment.
How ironic that President Clinton who brought together the people of
Northern and Southern Ireland, who brought together the people of
Israel and Palestine is a victim of rending and division of the
American political system.
But he is not the only victim. We are perverting and destroying the
American constitutional system, based on the wisdom of the people--a
system we should be using to solve our real problems: saving social
security; creating jobs with a living wage; lifetime education;
accessible health care for all.
This is our last chance to stop the ``Nightmare Before Christmas.''
Some 50 years ago in the last days of Joe McCarthy, Senator Fulbright
stood in the Senate and reflected on the fact that a small group had
set a prairie fire which rapidly grew out of their control and
destroyed everything in its path.
Today, we have a chance to stomp out another prairie fire, another
witch hunt, which threatens to grow rapidly out of control.
Mr. Speaker, the American People are calling on this Congress, on
every member of this Congress, to rise above the shrill voices of
partisanship.
Therefore, if I might paraphrase Winston Churchill, let us feel the
wisdom of the people, and the strength of our ancestors.
Let us stop the madness of those who seek to use impeachment to
impose their political will. Let us undertake our duty, and so bear
ourselves, that if America lasts for a thousand years, men and women
will still say, ``This was their finest hour.''

Projected Proceedings before the United States Senate If the
House Votes To Impeach the President

[[Page H11855]]

Weeks

Min. Max.

I. Preliminary Proceedings

A. The First Step. The House Managers would
exhibit its articles to the Senate and the Senate
would issue a summons to the President requiring
him to respond within fifteen to thirty days and
would ask the Committee on Rules and
Administration to consider and report issues that
need to be addressed and special rules that
should be adopted for the conduct of the
proceedings...................................... 1 1
B. The Rules Committee. Since the Senate has not
conducted proceedings against a President in the
past century, the issues would be substantial. At
least five steps would have to be taken before
the committee could submit its report and
recommendations to the Senate....................
1. The committee meets and authorizes the
Chair and Ranking Minority Member to send a
letter asking the parties to file memoranda
addressing issues identified by the Committee
and other issues that either believes the
committee should consider, probably allowing
twenty to thirty days for initial memoranda
and ten to twenty days for responses......... 1 2
2. Each of the parties file memoranda......... 4 6
3. Each of the parties file memoranda
responding to the other...................... 6 9
4. The committee holds hearings on the issues
raised....................................... 7 11
5. The committee deliberates and prepares its
report and recommendations and any necessary
resolutions.................................. 9 13
C. Pleadings and Motions.
1. The President. It is hard to anticipate the
defense strategy the President will adopt,
but the House Judiciary Committee's
proceedings and recommended articles of
impeach suggest that counsel for the
President would file:
a. Answer and Affirmative Defenses.
Counsel for the President will raise at
least one and probably two affirmative
defenses--(i) the articles fail to allege
facts sufficient to state an impeachable
offense; and (ii) the misconduct of
Independent Counsel Starr and the House's
reliance upon the products of that
misconduct require that the articles be
dismissed................................ 3 4
b. Motion to Dismiss. The motion would
enable the Senate to consider whether it
should dignify the President's improper
conduct alleged in the articles of
impeachment by classifying it as ``High
Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under the
Constitution............................. 6 10
c. Demand for Bill of Particulars. The
majority on House Judiciary Committee
appear to shoot themselves in the foot by
refusing to specify the precise
statements made by the President that
they claim were perjurious. If the
pending articles are adopted, counsel for
the President will demand and the Senate
will almost surely order the House
Managers to provide a bill of
particulars. The real effect of the lack
of specificity will further delay........ 6 10
d. Alternative Motion to Strike Particular
Allegations. If the Senate does not
dismiss the articles in their entirety,
counsel for the President are likely to
ask that the Senate, after the bill of
particulars has been filed, strike
specific allegations in the article that
remains.................................. 6 10
2. The House. The House managers would be
required to file a Replication to the
President's Answer and Affirmative Defenses
and responses to the motions. If they opposed
the demand for a bill of particulars, there
would be a second round of briefing and
further argument before the Senate after the
House had complied with the Senate's order,
adding an additional two weeks to the
process...................................... 8 14
3. The President's Reply. Counsel for the
President would file a reply and any
supplemental memoranda made necessary by the
House's bill of particulars.................. 10 16
D. Proceedings Before the Full Senate. The Senate
would be likely to set aside two days to consider
and act upon the report from the Rules Committee
and to hear arguments on and decide the pending
motions.......................................... 12 18

II. Trial Preparation

A. Discovery Proceedings: The need for discovery
would be far greater in this case than it was in
Hastings. Here, as it did in Hastings, the House
Judiciary Committee relied primarily upon the
report and materials transmitted to the House by
another branch and upon the testimony of the
investigator who prepared the report. Here, as it
did in Hastings, the committee did not call and
subject to examination and cross-examination the
fact-witnesses identified by the Starr referral
or those who might testify on behalf of the
accused or obtain from the Independent Counsel or
elsewhere documents other than those included in
the materials transmitted. It is hard to conceive
that the Senate here would not afford the
President the time and the use of its subpoena
power to take depositions and obtain relevant
documents. Based upon Hastings and the materials
available here, discovery would proceed in three
stages.
1. Submissions by the Parties. If any articles
remained after the motions to dismiss or
strike had been decided, the Senate or a
committee would have to decide whether and
what discovery should be permitted.
a. Counsel for the President would
promptly submit a memorandum identifying
witness and sources of documents that
were likely to produce relevant evidence
and explaining why the President should
be permitted to subpoena each of the
witnesses and other source to obtain that
evidence. At a minimum, it seems almost
certain that the counsel would seek to
depose (i) lawyers for Paula Jones about
their initial conversations with Linda
Tripp and with members of the Office of
Independent Counsel (``OIC'') staff; (ii)
the members of the OIC staff and FBI
agents who met with or interviewed Linda
Tripp and Monica Lewinsky; and (iii)
other technical witnesses, such as those
reconstructed materials from the hard
drive in Ms. Lewinsky's computer. It also
seems certain that they would want access
to the documents that the Independent
Counsel did not transmit with his
referral................................. 12 20
b. The House managers would be directed to
file a response agreeing with or
objecting to the President's requests.... 14 22
c. The Senate or its committee would
examine the president's request and the
House's response and hold hearings and
enter the appropriate order directing the
issuance of appropriate subpoenas........ 16 23
d. Independent Counsel Starr, Ms. Jones'
lawyers, or others subpoenaed might
object to some or all of the subpoena, in
which event time-consuming enforcement
proceedings would be necessary, at least
three months............................. 36
e. The depositions would be conducted and
the documents produced and examined...... 16-24 36-44
B. Other Trial Preparation Proceedings:
1. The House managers and counsel for the
President would propose stipulations or
submit requests for admissions. The Senate or
its committee would encourage the parties to
stipulate at least to the authenticity and/or
admissibility of various documents and other
potential exhibits. Responses would be
exchanged and negotiations would proceed..... 12 20
2. The Senate or its committee would direct
the parties to file and exchange ten days
after the close of discovery, pre-trial
memoranda identifying witnesses each intended
to call and exhibits each intended to
introduce.................................... 25 45

[[Page H11856]]

3. The Senate or its committee would enter a
final pre-trial order establishing the date
for and procedures to be followed at trial... 26 46

III. The Trial of a President

A. The Presentation of Evidence by the House
Managers. The managers presented the testimony of
thirty-seven witnesses in Hastings. Only twenty-
seven appeared before the Impeachment Trial
Committee. The managers were permitted to
introduce transcripts of prior testimony for the
other ten. The House managers are likely to call
most if not all of the 120 witnesses whose
statements or testimony are included in the
materials transmitted by Independent Counsel
Starr. Depending upon the success of pre-trial
negotiations, it might have to call several more
to establish necessary foundations and the like.
Forty to fifty would appear to the minimum number
necessary to support the allegations the proposed
article have borrowed from the Starr Report. No
prior testimony will be admitted. The videotaped
deposition and the videotaped grand jury
testimony will be shown in there entirety, and
many of the Tripp tapes will be played given by
the president. The examination and cross-
examination of the twenty-seven witnesses the
House presented in Hastings consumed more than
ten full days. If the President is impeached by
this House, the presentation of testimony and
other evidence will consume twenty [if forty
witnesses called] to forty [120 witnesses]
partial trial days before the full Senate........ 27-30 47-40
B. The President's Case. It is impossible to
project the number of witnesses that the
President's counsel would call for his defense
with any confidence. The Starr Report was not a
balanced presentation of the available evidence.
It seems clear that the number would be
substantial and would include many of the 120
persons whom were identified in the Starr Report,
but were not called by the managers. They would
present all of the Tripp tapes that the managers
did not introduce. They would call witnesses
whose conduct might have influenced the testimony
of Ms. Lewinsky and other House witnesses and
witnesses who had knowledge relevant to Ms.
Lewinsky's credibility. Twenty witnesses and ten
days seems a safe minimum........................ 31-32 51-52
C. The House Rebuttal. Given the passion and vigor
displayed by Republican members of the Judiciary
Committee, it seem likely the House managers
would want to try to rebut the President's case,
no matter how tired and angry the American people
may have become. Might we hope for only a day or
two?............................................. 33 53
D. Argument, Deliberations, and The Vote. Given
the nature of the issues and the length of the
projected trial, it seems likely that Senate
would allot at least four hours to each side for
closing arguments. Past precedent dictates that
the Senate would close its doors to deliberate in
executive session until its members have
expressed their views. The vote would follow.
With luck, the denouement might be completed in
less than a week................................. 34 54

I call this the nightmare before Christmas and Mr. Spaker, it is
difficult to believe that we are here today; But we are debating
whether or not to bring charges of impeachment against the President
who has just returned from the Middle East where he was able to bring
together Palestinians and Israelis, where he was able to bring together
Netenyahu and Arafat. This President who was able to bring together
Northern and Southern Ireland, India and Pakistan. A President who has
opened up new avenues and relationships with the African Continent,
with China, and with other nations throughout the world.
During these proceedings we have heard a great deal of legal argument
but I submit to you that this is as much about politics as it is about
law. It's not just an attempt to impeach the President, it is an
attempt to undermine and dismantle the policies and programs of this
administration. This is an attempt to impeach and hold back Affirmative
Action, women's health rights, new teachers, summer jobs for
disadvantaged youth, energy assistance for low income people, community
health centers, treatment programs for victims of aids and HIV, clean
air, and raising the minimum wage. No Mr. Speaker, this is not just
about Bill Clinton it is about dashing the dreams and the hopes of one
growing up in a small state, an average citizen, in an average family,
no pedigree, no major wealth, but growing up with hope, drive and
determination, growing up with the idea that you can rise to the top
and that you can make a difference. This vote today is a prime example
of the contradictions with which we operate.
We talk justice and operate in an unfair and unjust manner. We talk
democracy and disregard the will of the people.
We talk forgiveness and practice retribution.
We talk unification and practice division--we talk about morality and
commit the immortal act of fundamental unfairness.
Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to disregard the will of the people, I
am not prepared to say that their feelings are irrelevant. I am going
to vote my conscience. I am going to vote with my people. I am going to
vote against impeachment. I am going to vote against this nightmare
before Christmas.
I am going to vote against this attempted lynching in the people's
house.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
(Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, we have dispatched and asked some of
America's women and men to place themselves in harm's way and degrade
Saddam Hussein's capacities in weapons of mass destruction.
Simultaneously, we placed the citizens of America in harm's way by
utilizing political weapons of mass destruction to degrade and destroy
the President of the United States. Lyndon Johnson said, ``The
difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we don't hate your
Presidents.''
Some say this is not about sex; it is about lying under oath. Lying
under oath about sex is still about sex, and the only reason it is
about sex is that our colleagues could not find anything else to get on
him.
Any extramarital affair, whether by a president or a Member of
Congress, is lying under oath, the most sacred of oaths, the marriage
vow. Any lie told by a president about the people's business is under
oath, the presidential oath of office.
It is not just one poll, but in all polls, by a two to one margin the
American people say that when it comes to people's sex lives even
presidents' sex lives, government should mind its own business.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) says the
President was not given due process, and exactly the opposite is true.
The chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), gave the
President a standing invitation to appear before the Committee on the
Judiciary. He did not accept that offer.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has named me
and my----
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Is not perjury a legal term? Has the
gentleman defined perjury in a court of law, or is it just his constant
repetition that the President has lied?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Rhode Island
is out of order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the President's lawyers had up to 30
hours to present their defense. Mr. Starr had 12\1/2\ hours.

[[Page H11857]]

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats had almost two-thirds
of the witnesses before the committee. They called 28 witnesses, the
Republicans called 15, and they shared two. The chairman, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), asked the White House to present evidence
that would exonerate the President, and they did not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of that enduring
document, the Constitution that has stood the test of time.
When this debate is concluded, I will reluctantly vote for at least
one article to impeach President Clinton.
I make this announcement with profound sorrow, and with deep concern
about the consequences for our country, but, in the final analysis,
with firm conviction that this is the only fitting and proper course
for me to take.
This has been by far the most difficult, even tormenting, decision I
have had to make in my 16 years in Congress. I have spent a great deal
of time assuring myself that in this case we are using the Constitution
as a shield, not a sword. The purpose of impeachment is to protect the
institutions of our Government--and through them, the people--not to
attack or punish a particular political figure. I am convinced that in
this case we do indeed need impeachment as a shield to protect the
integrity of our institutions.
I simply have not found the means to rationalize away the fact that
our President lied under oath; that he has tried repeatedly to game the
judicial system. Whatever the origins of this case, whatever the
motives of his questioners, the President had an obligation--a legal
and Constitutional obligation--to tell the truth under oath. No voter
ever elected to exempt the President from the demands of our system or
to weaken the Judiciary established in Article III of the Constitution.
I regularly visit high schools in my district, and I keep asking
myself, ``How am I to answer the high school student who asks me why he
was expelled for cheating, or what do I say to the average citizen who
is punished for lying in a court proceeding or the West Point cadet who
must live under the honor code?'' The answers I come up with all seem
like thin and transparent excuses that would appease no one, least of
all me.
And let me say that this is not about determining whether the
President has been sufficiently contrite, although contrition is
certainly in order. Congress was not established as a body of clerics
or therapists. This is about how to keep a system intact that is based
on law and trust, a system that cannot countenance attacks on those
foundations regardless of how sorry one is after having been found out.
Much time has been spent during this prolonged ordeal comparing the
situation to Watergate, only for most to conclude correctly that the
two scandals have little in common. But they do have one aspect in
common that I think has been overlooked. In a rare moment of personal
insight, Richard Nixon concluded that he had destroyed himself by
hating his enemies back. I am afraid that President Clinton fell into
the same, all too human, trap. Blinded by his contempt for people who
he thought were out to get him, the President forgot his larger
obligations to his Office, to the Constitution and to the American
people. He let his personal feelings interfere with fulfilling his
Constitutional obligations.
In making my decision, I have tried hard to put personal feelings and
political concerns aside and to focus solely on my Constitutional
obligation. And I have come to the difficult, heart wrenching, almost
unbearably sad conclusion that I am obligated to vote to impeach the
President.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
(Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad and difficult day,
but those of us elected to lead in this great representative democracy
must act and vote based upon our consciences even in the most difficult
of situations. I would like to make just a few points.
First of all, the founders of the republic did not create the remedy
of impeachment to change the results of presidential elections but
rather as a great check and balance to redress patterns of delinquent
conduct by chief executives.
Secondly, all democratic governments must have both the legitimacy of
origin and the legitimacy of conduct. President Clinton obviously
enjoys the legitimacy of origin, having been elected to the Presidency.
His serious violations of the law, however, including his breaking of
oaths in judicial proceedings to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth, have lost for him the legitimacy of conduct.
Thirdly, the matter before us today has nothing to do with the
President's private life, which should be of interest to no one. This
has to do with perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power,
violations of the law. Failure to impeach President Clinton would
increase the likelihood that perjury would be committed in future legal
proceedings, it would increase the likelihood that future Congresses
would hesitate to impeach Federal judges for perjury or obstruction of
justice. In short, it would do grave harm to the integrity of the
judicial system and the United States.
The essential point of the action that we are now taking is that no
one in the United States is above the law, not even the President.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans say we are not contesting
any fact allegations. The fact is there were no fact witnesses brought
before the committee, there were no specific perjury quotes, no
specific alleged lies cited in the articles, and I ask the Republicans
do they deny the President admitted to an inappropriate relationship to
the grand jury? Is their beef that he was not graphic enough about who
touched him where?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, censure of a President as a remedy available
to us to deal with the misconduct of a President was used in 1800
against President Adams. Then Representative John Marshall, a future
chief justice, made an argument against its constitutionality. If it
was good enough for him, it should be good enough for us. In denying us
that option the majority undermined its claim of conscience because the
essence of conscience is the freedom to choose among reasonable
alternatives. This is a political solstice with a cold darkness to
match the winter solstice. I pray that a new and better season of our
politics will come. I so want the speakership of my friend, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) to succeed and to nurture a
renewal of this House. We owe him and ourselves and the country that
opportunity. I want nothing more than for this House to fulfill the
aspiration of its Members and the people that it be a great and decent
deliberative body serving in honor the great purposes of a great
Nation.
This is my last speech here. I leave my colleagues with the plea to
be good to each other so that they may do their best for the country
that we love.
I love this House. This is my last time to speak here. How I wish it
were not such a sad occasion. And how I wish we were able to conduct
this grave business at a better time, in a better way.
The dishonorable and reprehensible behavior of the President of the
United States deserves our strong condemnation. We have a
responsibility to act in this matter, and to act with a dignity and
fairness and soberness fitting the enormity of the decisions we will
make.
The President got himself into this awful fix by having a tawdry
sexual affair and then almost certainly lying about it under oath. In
both respects, his conduct is immoral and indefensible. It is also
understandable that he tried to save himself and his family from shame,
embarrassment and humiliation by lying to cover it up. In all this, his
behavior was abominable, self-indulgent, incredibly reckless and
altogether human.
Probably no American other than the President could or would have
been subjected to the extraordinary circumstances of multiple testimony
about a sexual affair. First, he was compelled to testify in a civil
deposition about this sexual affair, about facts themselves immaterial
in a lawsuit later found to be without merit. Then, he testified before
a grand jury about this deposition testimony about this same, legally
immaterial sexual affair. This grand jury process would not be used to
investigate any ordinary American regarding

[[Page H11858]]

such civil deposition testimony; it is only available against someone
like the President, subject to a special prosecutor like Ken Starr.
Nonetheless, he should have told the truth. And, depending on some
technical but legally important considerations, he may have committed
perjury.
Now, what do we do about it?
The Constitution makes a President who's committed ``Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes or Misdemeanors'' liable to impeachment
by this House of Representatives, trial by the Senate and possible
removal from office. Each house of Congress also has plenary and
unrestricted power to express its views and sentiments about any matter
by the passage of resolutions.
The law would subject the ordinary American charged with violations
such as the President's to some civil fine or forfeiture in connection
with the civil deposition testimony. Recall that the President has
already paid a substantial amount to settle the Paula Jones case. And
the ordinary American would face the fairly unlikely possibility of
criminal prosecution for perjury in connection with the grand jury
testimony. Prosecution would be unlikely because the case turns
fundamentally on a swearing contest between witnesses and because the
subject of the possibly perjurious testimony was not itself criminal
conduct, but rather a tawdry, though not unlawful sexual affair.
So, if the objective is to treat the President as other Americans
would be treated, there's your answer. If the objective is to insure
that the President is not above the law, there's your answer. And if
the objective is to vindicate the rule of law, there's your answer.
Of course, the President is not an ordinary American. His wrongful
conduct occurred in the White House and implicates his high office. The
responsibilities and authority and stature of the Presidency require
their own vindication and deserve to be cleansed somehow of the taint
of this wrongful conduct. So, it is entirely appropriate to consider
sanctions that go beyond what an ordinary American would face. But how
much beyond?
Consider impeachment. From the words of the impeachment clause, it's
obvious this remedy was intended for serious offenses. The historical
context, the debates at the Constitutional Convention, Alexander
Hamilton's explanation in ``The Federalist'', and the debates during
state ratification generally support the proposition that impeachment
is to be reserved for very serious offenses that are themselves
destructive of the government or constitutional order, and that any
decision to impeach necessarily calls for a sober political judgment,
not a legalistic one. It's apparent from the same sources that
impeachment is not to be used as a device to get rid of a President
whom a sufficient majority in Congress happens to disapprove of,
however adamant their disapproval.
The debate we've had about what's an impeachable offense has been
only marginally helpful, because it's seemed to assume--wrongly, I
think--that impeachability requires impeachment. In the abstract, no
doubt perjury may qualify as an ``impeachable'' offense. It's a serious
crime. However, a proper reading of the Constitution and of our
responsibility under is leads, I believe, to a sober judgment that
while perjury may be impeachable, the perjury in this case (if it
occurred) does not warrant impeachment. That judgment recognizes the
important moral space between ``impeachability'' and ``impeachment''
and fills it with a reasoned and principled application of historically
grounded standards for impeachment to the facts and circumstances of
this case.
If impeachment were the only choice, the only way to hold the
President to account as President, there would be a greater temptation
to risk its use in this case. But there's another choice. It is
censure. A strongly worded censure resolution was offered in the
Judiciary Committee by Mr. Boucher, appropriately condemning the
wrongful acts of the President. And given it, and so moot any issue
of passing a bill of attainder, censure could move beyond words to
include a fine.

Congress has the plenary authority to pass resolutions about any
subject. Serious people nevertheless argue that impeachment states the
exclusive remedy available to us.
That argument quickly bumps into history and practice to the
contrary. The most compelling example is the first. In 1800, the House
took up a resolution of censure against President John Adams.
One Representative argued that Congress didn't have the power to
censure, but only to impeach. Others saw no such problem, and raised
the point that it would be unfortunate to have no way to express
disapproval of misconduct not serious enough to justify impeachment.
Representative John Marshall, the future Chief Justice, was in charge
of Adams' defense, and he did not challenge the constitutionality of
censure.
This happened when the House was comprised primarily of many Members
politically active at the time the Constitution was drafted only 13
years earlier, including several Members who had been members of their
states' ratifying conventions. This is as close as you can come to an
object lesson in ``original intent.'' If John Marshall accepted the
constitutionality of censuring a President, even as he worked to defeat
it, who are we to object?
This gets us to the matter of ``conscience''. Conscience is best
exercised through freedom. Freedom in turn suggests choices and
alternatives. The denial of freedom to choose among legitimate
alternatives is a denial of full freedom of conscience.
Now, we are told that it would be wrong to have the freedom of making
a choice--yet that freedom is the essence of conscience.
Stripped of its pretenses to constitutionalism and conscience-
mindedness, the majority's manipulation of the impeachment process is
revealed an unfair act of raw majoritarianism by which they are
determined to exact their one desired outcome: ending, or at least
hobbling, the Clinton Presidency. I regret that the behavior of the
majority leadership in handling this matter contradicts their claims of
dispassion and nonpartisanship.
Let me say that my charge is against the majority leadership who have
engineered the process today. I acknowledge and credit the sincerity of
the many who will vote for impeachment as an act of conscience. But do
not think that your definition of conscience can rightly be imposed on
others without, in doing so, diminishing the concept of conscience.
Can there be a more compelling instance in which the people of the
country, acting through their elected representatives, should be able
to find a conclusion by letting a consensus emerge; by letting the
preference of the greatest, not the smallest, majority prevail?
This a political solstice with a cold darkness to match the winter
solstice. I pray that a new and better season for our politics will
come as spring will follow this winter. I so want the speakership of my
friend, Bob Livingston, to succeed and to nurture a renewal of this
House. We owe him and ourselves and the country that opportunity.
I want nothing more for this House than to fulfill the aspirations of
its Members and the people that it be a great and decent deliberative
body, serving in honor the great purposes of a great nation. This is my
last address here. I leave my colleagues with a plea to be good to each
other so that you may do your best for the country we love.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, if an action by a President
poses a threat to our government, then he may be impeached for that
action. The President's behavior was reprehensible, insensible, even
unimaginable, but it is not impeachable. The punishment does not fit
the crime. The authors of the Constitution never intended this result.
Even the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), said that
he intended to conduct bipartisan hearings. We have watched as these
intentions have eroded into an unnecessary partisan battle.
The President is accused of degrading his office. We must ask
ourselves is the proper response to degrade the process by lowering the
standard of impeachment?
Our biggest responsibility is to the American people. The American
people elected this President, and they have made it clear that they
would like to keep him, warts and all. I join my Democrat colleagues in
calling for a lesser punishment than a political death penalty. It is
unfair, it is partisan, it is wrong.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the articles of impeachment
because I believe although the President's behavior was deplorable, I
believe he has not committed a high crime and misdemeanor. So this
decision is wrong for today.
But, Mr. Speaker, this decision is wrong for the ages because let me
predict what is going to happen. Last year the United States Supreme
Court said: ``You can now proceed with a civil suit against a sitting
President.'' The next time we have a polarizing President and a
Congress from a different party, here is what is going to happen: There
is going to be a civil suit launched against that President. He or she
is going to be dragged into discovery, and his or her opponents in this
Congress are going to try to categorize anything

[[Page H11859]]

they can as perjury and obstruction of justice. Articles of impeachment
will be pursued, and the country will be weakened.
It is my sincere prayer here tonight that our children will not bear
the bitter fruits of the reckless seeds that our colleagues are sowing
here today. The Constitution has worked well for over 200 years. Leave
it alone.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to explain my reasoning in voting against the
impeachment of the President. The Constitution recognizes a difference
between misconduct--even criminal misconduct--and the High Crimes and
Misdemeanors that are required for impeachment.
My judgment is that the President's misconduct, though deplorable,
does not rise to the level required by the Constitution for
impeachment.
And my judgment is that we will set a dangerous precedent if the
majority in the House disagree with me, and decide to vote for these
articles of impeachment which are before us. We will have lowered the
bar to impeachment, and this action, coupled with the Supreme Court's
decision to allow sitting Presidents to be sued in a civil lawsuit
while in office, will lead to more partisan mischief in coming years,
which could gravely harm our government and our nation.
The country would be best served by a return to the important
business at hand: education, health care, Social Security, and
international problems.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, John Page wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson
on July 20, 1776, which reads and I quote:
``We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong.
Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this
storm.''
I pray that Providence is with this body, this country and our
Constitution for fairness and justice and honor today, and I fear my
prayers will go unanswered.
I voted with my Republican friends 68 days ago to initiate this
investigation, to look at the facts and corroborate the evidence for a
high crime and misdemeanor, and George Mason, who wrote that phrase,
said, and I quote:
``It ranged from a great and dangerous offense to subverting the
Constitution.''
This does not pierce that high threshold, and when it comes to
punishment, yes, the President did something reprehensible and immoral
and sinful, and he should be punished by censure by this body and by
prosecution like every other American would be when he leaves office.
Now finally, Mr. Speaker, this is our rule book. This is our sacred
scripture in this body. There is nothing in here, Mr. Speaker, that
prohibits a censure; there is no impediment in our Constitution to a
censure. In fact we have censured and rebuked and criticized Presidents
three times, in 1834, in 1842, in 1860, and we have impeached a
President once.
There is precedent, Mr. Speaker. There is no prohibition or
prevention to censure, and it is unfair and against our own rules not
to let us vote.
Finally, let me quote from Benjamin Franklin, who said after the
Convention when he was asked what have you wrought with this
Constitution? And he said:
``A republic, if you can keep it.''
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is sacred scripture, and it applies
evenly and fairly to all of its people, all of its institutions,
including the presidency.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for rebuttal.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and I would only respond by saying impeachment is
the only power in the Constitution granted to Congress to address
presidential criminal misconduct in the derelict exercise of his
duties. The censure resolution that was offered the Committee on the
Judiciary in fact has findings of guilt with a punishment. It is
prohibitive then of a bill of attainder and is therefore
unconstitutional. A temptation to take the easy way out by assuming a
power not specifically granted in the Constitution should be shunned.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
(Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us.
This debate is not about the President, it is about the presidency. It
is not about marital infidelity or contrition, as tragic as that might
be, but it is about lying under oath, and it is not about contorted
legalese to create the appearance of truth, it is about facing the
underlying facts, facing the reality of what we all know has happened
here.
Mr. Speaker, no citizen should ever be above the law, and if my
colleagues believe, as I do, that President Clinton knowingly made
perjurious, false and misleading statements under oath to a grand jury
and in sworn affidavits, that he attempted to corruptly influence the
testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses, then we must support
this resolution.

{time} 1730

Let us pray that 1998 not be the year that we create a sovereign
ruler; rather, let it be the moment when we reaffirm the principle of
equal justice for all. I urge support of the pending resolution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that there is clear and
convincing evidence that the President lied under oath, obstructed
justice and abused the powers of his office in an attempt to cover up
his wrongdoing. I regret that the President's behavior puts me in the
position of having to vote in favor of articles of impeachment and pass
this matter on to the U.S. Senate for final judgment.
In facing this solemn duty, I look to the wisdom of our Founding
Fathers. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, impeachment
concerns ``offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or
in other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust.''
The evidence in President Clinton's case is overwhelming, that he has
abused and violated the public trust. In this Nation, all men are
created equal. Simply put, the President in our representative
democracy is not a sovereign who is above the law. Tomorrow I shall
cast a difficult vote.
The President's inability to abide by the law, the Constitution and
my conscience have all led me to the solemn conclusion that impeachment
articles must be passed.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) says
that a censure resolution would be unconstitutional. The Congressional
Research Service says that a censure resolution is an exercise of the
implicit power of a deliberative right to express its views. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) offered House Resolution 433,
disapproving the President's conduct with respect to campaign
financial.
What is the distinction, why did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) make the censure resolution offered in committee in order? Was he
exercising an unconstitutional prerogative?
I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I say that the censure resolution that was
offered has specific findings of guilt and therefore makes it
unconstitutional in its form.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what about the
resolution of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Michigan for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, in our House rules manual, it explicitly states, ``In
the modern practice, concurrent resolutions have been developed as a
means of expressing principles, opinions and purposes of the two
Houses.''
Thomas Jefferson said principles, opinions and purposes could be
expressed in the form of resolutions.

[[Page H11860]]

What better person to go to than Thomas Jefferson?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in America's
history, especially because everything leading up to today's vote has
been so unfair. Ken Starr's investigation was unfair. He even tried to
entrap the President. His report was unfair, for he left out important
exculpatory evidence. His presentation to the House Committee on the
Judiciary was so unfair that his own ethics adviser resigned as a
result.
The Speaker-designate's decision to deny the House and the American
people the right to vote on censure as an alternative is unfair. That
decision constitutes an obstruction of the justice that the American
people believe is warranted, censure; the justice that former President
Gerald Ford, who knows something about impeachment, believes is
warranted; that former Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole
advised this body; censure, not impeachment.
You may have followed your conscience in deciding to vote for
impeachment, but you cannot be considered just if you deny those of us,
I believe a majority of this body, I know a majority of the American
public, the right to vote on censure as an alternative to impeachment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the constitutional scholars testifying
before the Committee on the Judiciary made it clear that there is a
high threshold for impeachment.
Not all crimes are impeachable offenses. The impeachment power is
limited to treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The
word ``other'' means impeachment is limited to crimes similar to
bribery and treason, threatening the basic integrity of government.
The charges against President Clinton fall well below this standard.
When you cut through the rhetoric about rule of law, abuse of power,
civil rights cases, at bottom the allegations are that the President
tried to conceal an embarrassing private relationship. These efforts at
concealment came in the Paula Jones lawsuit, a civil lawsuit. The
relationship being concealed was that between the President and Ms.
Lewinsky, and it was only tangentially relevant to the lawsuit, which
was subsequently dismissed.
In any event, in his grand jury testimony, the President admitted an
improper intimate relationship. For that, he deserves censure.
As the majority in the House marches in lock-step to thwart the will
of a majority of the electorate, it is worth recalling that the House
Republicans came to power claiming that the Congress was out of touch
with the real America. How hollow this claim rings today, when two-
thirds of the electorate opposes removal of the President through
impeachment.
If the Republican majority were truly concerned about the views of
the real America, they would support the remedy which a majority of the
people support, a censure resolution permitting the President to stay
in office. But the Republican leadership, which in the past complained
vociferously about limitations on the amendment process, is so
determined to win, that it is unwilling to allow even a vote on
censure. Apparently they fear that they would lose this vote and that
the will of a majority of the electorate would prevail.
What could be more contrary to the rhetoric of the Reagan and Bush
Administrations than this vote, in which Republican ``Washington
insiders'' will decide that they know better than the public outside
the beltway. Indeed, the Republicans' zeal to remove the President is
so intense that they are willing to ignore not only the wishes of the
people, but the morale of our troops in combat, and even the letter and
the spirit of the Constitution.
Under the separation of powers which is fundamental to our
Constitution, the President and the Congress are separate and
independent. Ours is not a parliamentary system in which the
legislative and executive functions are merged. In a parliamentary
system the legislature removes the executive when it disagrees with
him, and the legislative majority is expected to enact the executive's
program without question. Under our system, the two branches are
separate, and only in extraordinary circumstances can the legislature
breach the independence of the executive and remove the President by
impeachment.
The Constitutional scholars testifying before the Judiciary Committee
made it clear that there is a high threshold for impeachment. Not all
crimes are impeachable offenses; the impeachment power is limited to
``treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The term
``other'' indicates that impeachment is limited to crimes which are
similar to bribery and treason in threatening the basic integrity of
government.
The charges against President Clinton fall well below this standard.
When we cut through all the high flown rhetoric about the rule of law,
abuse of power and civil right cases (incidentally, when was the last
time the Republicans called a sexual harassment case a civil rights
case) we have, at bottom, allegations that the President tried to
conceal an embarrassing private relationship. The first efforts at
concealment came in the civil lawsuit by Paula Jones. The relationship
which was being concealed, that of the President and Ms. Lewinsky, was
only tangentially relevant to Paula Jones' lawsuit. In any event, Ms.
Jones' lawsuit was subsequently dismissed.
In his grand jury testimony, the President admitted that he had an
improper, intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. At worst, the
President lied about the exact nature of some of his intimate actions.
It is hard to see how these alleged lies could constitute ``great and
dangerous offenses'' or ``attempts to subvert the constitution'' which
should be the basis for an impeachment, according to George Mason, one
of our founding fathers.
When I say that not all crimes warrant impeachment, I am not saying
that I approve of a President committing crimes. What I am saying is
that the purpose of the impeachment process is not to punish crimes,
but to remove a President who has misused the powers of his office. If
President Clinton committed the crimes alleged here, these crimes
should be dealt with in a criminal proceeding or a judicial contempt
proceeding after he leaves office. I emphasize that it is not clear
that crimes were in fact committed. Many of the scholars and
prosecutors who testified before the Judiciary Committee concluded that
the evidence presented against President Clinton would not have
resulted in the prosecution of an ordinary citizen.
There are other means for the Congress to deal with misconduct by the
President which falls short of the impeachment standard. Congress has
the power to pass a censure resolution, expressing our condemnation.
The impeachment process, which requires removal from office, must be
reserved for extraordinary cases. If we lower the bar for impeachment,
we seriously weaken the Presidency by giving a Congress controlled by
the opposition party virtually unlimited power to subject a President
to an all-consuming removal process.
The majority party has tried since January to convince the people
that the President should be removed from office. Two thirds of the
public remains unconvinced despite being bombarded daily with the facts
of this case. I am astonished and deeply distressed by the procedural
travesty to which the minority has been subjected: denial of our right
to offer and have a vote on a motion of censure. What does the majority
fear of a vote on censure? Are they afraid that it might pass, with
some of their own members voting for censure rather than impeachment?
Apparently fear of falling short of their objective of removing
President Clinton from office is driving the procedural unfairness to
which we have been subjected.
The majority still has time to be fair so be fair so be fair to us
and to the American people by allowing a vote on censure, which I would
support.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
(Mr. DeFazio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Member after Member has risen on the other
side and said the President should not be above the law. He is not. Ken
Starr is free to prosecute the President, indict him, perhaps while in
office, but definitely after.
It is not ordinary criminal or civil law in question in this debate,
it is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution regarding impeachment.
Impeachment is a special punishment reserved for the President of the
United States and other Federal civil officers.
The founders set an incredibly high bar for impeachment.
Constitutional scholars all agree, the framers of the Constitution did
not want a President to be impeached simply because a majority of the
Members of Congress disagreed with his policies or found his morals
repugnant.
The Republican majority has not raised and proven offenses that meet

[[Page H11861]]

those standards. Rather they have met the standards met by Gerald Ford
25 years ago. He said an impeachable offense is anything 218 Members of
the House will vote for.
That is an unconstitutional and cynical standard. The alternative of
censure would serve as well in this matter. A near unanimous House
could deliver a stinging and historic rebuke to the President with a
motion of censure, and we will be denied that vote, and we are denied
sufficient time to speak on the floor.
Member after Member on the Republican side has stood to plead the
force of law--that no citizen no matter how powerful should be above
the law.
There is total agreement on that point. The President should not be
above the law for purposes of criminal prosecution. Mr. Starr is free
to attempt to indict the President for criminal wrongdoing--if not
while the President sits in office he could certainly be prosecuted in
2 years after leaving office.
It is not ordinary criminal or civil law in question during this
debate. The law that binds the House of Representatives in this
proceeding is the Constitution of the United States article 2 Section 4
regarding Impeachment for ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and
Misdemeanors.''
Impeachment is a special punishment reserved for the President and
other federal civil officers.
The Founders set an incredibly high bar for impeachment: At the time
of the Constitutional Convention, ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' had
400 years of precedent in English law--it meant serious official
misconduct and abuse of the powers of the government by the King or one
of his officers.
Alexander Hamilton characterized impeachable offenses as
``political'' actions that involve injuries done to the society itself.
George Mason spoke of ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.''
Constitutional Scholars all agree that the framers of the
Constitution did not want a President to be impeached simply because a
majority of Members of Congress disagreed with his policies or found
his morals repugnant. We do not have a parliamentary system of
government where a Prime Minister can be removed from office at any
time. A strong and independent Presidency is vital to our
Constitutional order.
Now the leaders of the Republican majority have puffed up with a
booming voice much like the puny wizard in the Wizard of Oz in an
attempt to raise the President's outrageous, reckless and morally
offensive behavior to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. He
lied to the American people and offered misleading and possibly
perjurious testimony in a civil trial and a grand jury proceeding.
These are not trivial matters. The question is simply whether the
special Constitutional remedy of impeachment should be invoked for
these particular offenses.
The Wizards on the other side have puffed up these offenses to Abuse
of Power and Obstruction of Justice, and Perjury in their Articles of
Impeachment.
The Republican Majority has not raised and proven offenses that meet
the standards set by our founders. Rather they have met the standard
uttered by Former President Ford a quarter of Century ago--that
impeachable offenses are whatever 218 Members of the House of
Representatives say they are. That is an incredibly cynical and
unconstitutional standard, yet that is what is revealed when we rip the
curtain of puffery from the rhetoric of the other side.
The Alternative of Censure would serve us well in this matter. A near
unanimous House could deliver a stinging and historic rebuke to the
President with a motion of censure.
But, after cutting the Constitutional legs out from under standards
for impeachment the Republican leaders would have the House believe
that the Constitution's silence on the issue of Censure means it is
Constitutionally barred from consideration. It is not Constitutionally
barred it is politically precluded because the Republican leaders
feared that had the option of censure been before this House along with
the option of impeachment Censure would have garnered more support.
The procedures followed in bringing these Articles of Impeachment to
the floor at this time, in this manner with no option for censure are
abuse of power by the leaders of the Majority. This is a tragic day in
the history of the United States House of Representatives and a tragic
turn of events for our sacred system of government. The repercussions
will reverberate in our society for decades to come.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, halfway around the
world, our troops are engaged in battle, at a time that we are here
talking about doing in the commander-in-chief. I deplore that, because
they are trying to do away with a dictator who has weapons of mass
destruction that he will use. As a Vietnam veteran, a veteran of the
Vietnam era, I know what it means to serve and have the Commander in
Chief under siege.
I voted in October for the committee to move forward. I am ashamed
that they did not come back with a joint resolution without it being
partisan and unfair and politicized, and I am ashamed of this body. I
came here to do the people's business. Tonight we are not doing the
people's business, we are doing partisan business, and that is unfair.
The American people will recognize it is unfair, and they are going to
make us pay the price for being unfair and for being partisan.
I say if we could vote our conscience, we would vote for censure. The
Speaker-elect said we should vote our conscience, and you are not
allowing us to do it, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very
unfair attack on President Clinton and our Constitution. The partisan
assault which we are witnessing today is especially painful to me,
because when I was elected to Congress I had the privilege of taking
over the seat which had, up until that time, been held by the Honorable
Peter Rodino.
During the Watergate hearings in 1974, Chairman Rodino won the
respect and admiration of the entire Nation for his insistence on
fairness, his profound respect for the U.S. Constitution and his
impeccable sense of decorum. The Committee on the Judiciary and the
Congress at this time have not done the job, and it has been done in a
partisan way.
Mr. Speaker, I think the American people see this action for what it
is today. Is it not remarkable when a Democratic President engages in a
secret affair, the Republicans leap to impeach him, but when a
Republican leader engages in the same conduct, they leap on their feet
to give him a standing ovation?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
(Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Articles I, II and
III.
These votes today are defining votes--cast not for political position
or popularity but for purposes of confirming the integrity of the most
precious and essential element of a free society--the right of all
citizens to trust and rely upon a system of justice which is blind to
influence and oblivious to position or status. It is also a vote that
has implications for a modern society--that inextricably links our
American justice system with our political system. Justice and politics
should be linked. Our votes reflect our values and those of our
constituents.
The evidence is persuasive to me that President Clinton's offenses
justify my vote in support of articles 1, 2 and 3. The President's
legal breaches have a greater negative impact on our society than the
inherent damage of his moral lapses. This is because our system of
justice relies on the collection of evidence that leads ultimately to
the truth in legal proceedings. Only with truth and reliable facts can
justice under the law be fairly dispensed. And a free people must have
faith in our legal system if we are to have an orderly and lawful
society.
Presidents have a high standard of conduct to uphold. By their deeds
and words, they should encourage the rest of us to reach for that
standard, too. High standards include and embrace respect for the law.
Telling the truth in a legal setting should be the unquestionable
obligation of any President, and any person. President Clinton failed
in that simple obligation too frequently for his actions to be
considered an oversight or misunderstanding. His conduct should not be
allowed to become the new standard for our nation which historically
has revered those who personify dignity, truth, self-sacrifice and
honor.
We have no choice but to make this difficult judgment. To do
otherwise would be a breach of the trust that citizens should have, not
only in the President's standards, but in our own. My vote will be true
to my Constitutional oath, and I pray to God that my judgment is right.

[[Page H11862]]

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the four articles of
impeachment.
As a former law enforcement official, I have helped put people in
jail based on the strength of witness testimony. Our entire judicial
system must rest on the sure and solid foundation that witnesses tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under solemn
oath.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, William Jefferson Clinton willfully and
purposely committed perjury. He did so with alarming forethought,
frequency, and disregard for the law.
In a separate solemn oath, his oath of office, William Jefferson
Clinton swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the laws of this nation. He has failed to keep his word,
which has brought us to this sad and historic day.
If you believe that President Clinton perjured himself, and I do, and
if you believe that perjury is a serious matter, and we must, then we
have a duty to pass these painful but necessary articles of
impeachment.
President Clinton and apologists for him have tried to make this a
debate about anything other than the rule of law. They want to make it
a debate about the man and the circumstances surrounding his actions.
But we are a nation of laws, and the fundamental question must be
whether William Jefferson Clinton violated the law.
The facts of this case are well known. Neither the President nor his
defenders have countered them effectively. Indeed, on this fundamental
question, the President's team has presented no real defense. They have
said that it is just about sex. They have said that he misled, but he
did not lie. They have said that a reasonable person might conclude
that he lied, but he did not commit perjury. They have said that even
if you believe that he committed perjury, it is not an impeachable
offense. They have attempted to change the subject any number of times.
However, Mr. Speaker, you cannot explain away that fact that there
are people sitting in prison now for making perjurious statements under
oath. I have to ask my liberal friends if they have an elitist view of
the Constitution. Why should the President be treated differently? Is
he, alone, above the law?
I have yet to meet the Democrat who believes that Republican
Presidents are above the law, yet we seem to have an abundance of those
who believe that this President should be able to lie under oath and
get away with nothing more than a stern lecture.
That is what a resolution of censure would amount to--a stern lecture
from Congress with no legal underpinning. It would be an extra-
constitutional concoction designed to make its proponents feel better
while doing absolutely nothing.
Censure may be an easy way out, but it is not a real option. The
Constitution gave us no middle ground, which is as it should be. Either
the House votes to impeach and refer the matter to the Senate, or it
does not. It is a bright line, and I know on which side I must cast my
votes.
We have seen a lot of bright lines blurred in our society in recent
years. Moral relativism abounds. In this case, I have heard the most
amazing rationalizations: That it is wrong to lie under oath, unless
you are lying about sex. That it is wrong to lie about sexual
harassment, unless the woman in question was asking for it. That it is
wrong to commit perjury, but if you are really, really sorry, we can
forget about it. This kind of logic only makes sense to those bent on
defending the indefensible.
The scandals of recent years have desensitized our culture and
denigrated our society. Beyond the White House scandals, such
travesties as a celebrity former athlete literally getting away with
murder and a physician killing a patient on national television have
contributed to the notion that those with adequate legal defense funds
are not accountable to the law.
President Clinton lied repeatedly, with forethought, in civil
litigation, before a federal grand jury, and in response to questions
posed by the House Judiciary Committee. He obstructed justice in
numerous ways. His deputies have systematically attempted to destroy
those who dare to oppose him. He has shown contempt for the truth, the
law, the Congress, and his fellow citizens.
Section 4, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the
President ``shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.'' The threshold question is whether the President, at a
minimum, committed a high misdemeanor. Who can seriously doubt that he
has?
President William Jefferson Clinton should be impeached by the House
of Representatives and the matter referred to the U.S. Senate. It is
our solemn responsibility, and we must not flinch from it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pease), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, I have spent the greater part of the last several months
reviewing the terms which were assigned to us by action of the House.
It has not been an easy task, especially as I struggled to maintain
objectivity in the face of intense pressures from across the political
spectrum.
It seemed that everyone had an opinion, usually very firmly held, and
that anyone of any other opinion was not only wrong, but wrongly
motivated as well.
I accepted that, though I was discouraged with my own inability to
convey to others an understanding that people could hold strong
convictions without questioning the motives of those who differed with
them, and that all matters, but especially those as momentous as these,
must be approached with respect for all involved and the institutions
which we cherish.
As I have drawn the conclusions which my position on the committee
required me to address, the level of rancor here and in my district has
increased, and again it has been across the political spectrum.
Everything from my judgment, to my patriotism, to my motives, to my
professional and personal life have been attacked by people who
obviously feel passionately about the issues before us.
I understand that too, but feel deeply my failure to persuade others
that issues of high importance, perhaps most especially issues of high
importance, can and should be debated, not free of passion, but
certainly free of vilification and personal attack.
I have tried at all times to conduct myself accordingly. If nothing
else, I hope I have made that contribution to this conversation.
Members of the committee have worked, I believe, honestly, sincerely
and under extraordinarily difficult circumstances to do their jobs. We
have differed on many things, from the role of the committee, to the
standard of proof, to the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.
On several of them there was agreement, but I have never questioned the
motives of my colleagues or my constituents.
Among the issues the committee addressed was that of censure. As we
went into that discussion, I did not know whether this was an
appropriate option for us to consider, but I felt the instructions of
the House allowed us to review it. As one who hoped to find both the
right answer and one that most of us could support, I felt that we
must.
We did, and through the course of the discussion it became clear that
the meaning of censure and its place in a constitutional construct was
unclear. Aside from the constitutional discussion of whether either the
House or the Senate, neither or both, could impose a censure, there was
not even agreement on whether a resolution of censure was intended to
punish or not.

{time} 1745

After long debate, my conclusion on that subject is simply this: If
censure is intended as a punishment of the President, it is
specifically constitutionally prohibited as a bill of attainder. If
censure is not intended as a punishment of the President, it is
meaningless.
I have not researched the options available to the Senate, but for
the House, I am convinced that this option is not available.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in our Nation's history.
I say this because the stage has been set today to impeach our
President against the will of the American people. This action is
partisan, this action is wrong, this action is unconscionable.
How can we say this is a political democracy when an overwhelming
majority of the American people have clearly stated they want our
President to remain in office? How can we say this is a political
democracy when an overwhelming majority of the American people have
said they want to see us

[[Page H11863]]

negotiate a compromise? How can we undo the last two presidential
elections and say to the American people, your votes do not matter? Are
we a democracy or are we not?
I do not intend to stand by idly and be a party to what I will again
say is quite obviously an unfair process. I was elected to this
Congress to represent the people, and that is precisely what I intend
to by casting my vote against impeachment.
Compromise! Conscience! Censure! That is what must be the order of
the day. It is the only fair way the American people can be
represented.
Formal censure by the entire Congress is the only way to express the
disdain of the American people for the President's actions. It is a
fitting and constitutionally valid punishment, and one, I should add,
that polls show a majority of the public prefers.
Those who claim otherwise rely on the argument that the Constitution
does not mention censure. There are those who say it's ``impeachment or
nothing,'' when, in fact, a score of Constitutional experts called as
witnesses by both Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee
agreed in writing--by a margin of almost 4 to 1--that the Constitution
does not prohibit censure.
The Framers of the Constitution, anticipating the political
vulnerability of the Presidency to opposing factions in Congress,
established a threshold for impeachment which is very high--``treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' This high threshold
should be maintained, and as I have said before, the President's
actions have never compromised the security of this nation; so what
we're left talking about is private activity which reflects on moral
character. That is not what our Founding Fathers intended to be
impeachable offenses--unforgivable perhaps, but not impeachable.
The conduct which is the basis for the Judiciary Committee's
recommendation of impeachment--perjury, and related actions regarding
personal sexual misconduct--is not of the same legal magnitude as the
crimes set forth in the Constitution. There is no credible evidence
that the President's actions undermined the integrity of our Democratic
institutions, cast doubt on his loyalty to the country, or prevented
his ability to execute his duties as President. Again, while his
offenses are real, they are not impeachable.
To impeach the President for the offenses charged by the Judiciary
Committee would be to lower the threshold for impeachment for all
future Presidents, and lowering the threshold in this way would pose a
threat to the system of checks and balances and separation of powers
that form the foundation of our system of Democratic governance. This
would indeed be grave.
I said at the onset of this investigation that I would base my
actions on the evidence of record. Based on the evidence, a
Congressional action short of impeachment--such as censure for
unacceptable conduct--seems to strike the right balance and to best
serve the interests of our nation and its people.
To not allow a vote on a censure resolution amounts to only one
thing--a decision by the Republican leadership to ignore the will of
the American people. That is wrong. It is an example of the tyranny our
forefathers sought to escape when they founded this great nation.
I will vote my conscience today. I will vote to reflect the will of
the people. I will vote against partisanship and against impeachment. I
will cast my vote for Democracy.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
(Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Republicans no longer
come to the floor to tell us they are for small government, because
they are involved in the ultimate big government act. They are
attempting to take away from the people the decision of who will
preside over this great country.
When we saw Khruschev removed by the Politburo, no one ran tears. He
was not elected by the people; he was appointed by an unelected body.
When we see coups and coups d'etat, the removal of elected presidents
in Third World countries, we are saddened that they have not developed
to a stage where they have the institutional instincts for debate
without trying to criminalize the process of differing views.
But here in this House today, the Republican Party ignores what the
Constitution asks us to do. The President, for his criminal acts, if
they exist, is left to the normal criminal process. We are here to
judge if he undermined the United States in his office. Did he indeed
take actions that were deemed necessary for removal? The answer is no.
Vote against this proposal.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
(Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in our recent history, Barbara Jordan gave
us the best short definition of an impeachable offense during the
impeachment hearings on President Nixon when she said she would not
tolerate the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the
Constitution. President Clinton stands accused of something far short
of that standard.
By now I think most Americans have concluded that the President has
not subverted the Constitution. He has not undermined our system of
government. This impeachment punishes the country. It robs us of the
time and attention that we should be devoting to other matters. It
subverts the official duties of the President. It forces us to endure a
trauma that serves no practical purpose. It opens up the possibility
that the country will be forced to endure similar suspensions of the
Nation's business again and again if future Presidents face penalties
for any charges that a hostile prosecutor or a congressional majority
can find.
Let us reserve impeachment for high crimes that betray the American
people and our system of democracy. The charges against the President
do not meet that standard.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk today about the
rule of law. I wish I could have heard talk about the rule of fairness.
Why could we not have debated and voted on Monday after the bombing
ceased in Iraq? Why could not the majority party let us vote on a
censure proposal where all of us in the United States House of
Representatives could have voted our conscience?
Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the majority party, it makes me wonder
if they think the President had not been punished at all yet. The
President has been punished. He has been humiliated. He has been
embarrassed. He has paid a high price at home, as well as with the
American people, as well as the people all across the world.
Mr. Speaker, where our finest hour has been is when we have known how
to compromise. That is our finest hour in the United States House of
Representatives. But how do we compromise when we just have one point
of view?
Vote against impeachment, and give us the opportunity to vote on
censure.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
(Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, the President was given the opportunity to
present witnesses or evidence which would dispute the facts. He did
not. His legal hair-splitting defense could not alter the simple truth:
The President lied, and lied under oath.
Here is what convinced me that this perjury is an impeachable offense
and not simply a moral failure. These were not lies told under sudden
pressure when he was unexpectedly asked embarrassing questions. The
President's lies were planned well in advance. They were premeditated.
He knowingly acted to block justice, even after a Federal judge ruled
his behavior was relevant and material. He orchestrated a deliberate
scheme to tell multiple lies under oath on multiple occasions many
months apart. Even today, he has admitted only what he has been forced
to admit and otherwise continues to stonewall.
This was not a spur-of-the-moment decision to hide personal shame. He
had ample time to correct his course, but instead chose to defy the
laws of our land.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote to impeach.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
We have before us the evidence as presented by all responsible parties,
as well as the thoughts of so many constituents who feel strongly that
their views should be reflected in the votes we cast.
After reviewing so much of the evidence, I believe it is now clear
that the

[[Page H11864]]

President has violated both his oath of office and the oath he took to
tell the truth. In doing so, Bill Clinton not only committed perjury,
he violated the public trust. I will, therefore, vote in favor of
impeachment.
While I know that some will disagree, and strongly so, with my
decision, I reached it after much thought, deliberation and soul-
searching. When this sad chapter in our history is closed, I will have
voted the way I did because I have shared with my two teenage daughters
and thousands of other school children the fact that the truth still
matters and always will and, finally, that a vote of conscience is
always the right vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that since
beginning the debate at 12:15, the Republican side has used 2 hours and
16 minutes, and the Democratic side has used 2 hours and 26 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond. The gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) just said that we gave the President an
opportunity to call witnesses, to prove his innocence. Since when is
the burden of proof in this country on the person being accused?
You have the obligation to provide a case before the Committee on the
Judiciary, and you did not provide a single material witness in this
case. Not one witness. And then they get up before this House and say
the President had an opportunity to bring witnesses to prove his
innocence. You had the obligation to provide the witnesses that would
have proved the charges before this House, and you did not provide one
witness.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think I am perhaps the only Member
here who won an election and lost an election on the same day. I won a
special election in 1986 and lost a primary on the same day. As a
result, I was the last person to be sworn into this body by Tip O'Neill
before he retired.
What I remember from that short time that I was here, not knowing
whether I would come back, is remarks from Tip O'Neill and remarks from
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Both of them said to me in the
short time I was here, whether you are here 3 weeks, as I was, or
whether you are here for 30 years, this is the people's House. This is
the House of democracy.
That lesson was given to me by Tip O'Neill and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde). To not have the availability to us today to vote
on a censure motion is to take away the fundamental sense of fairness
that made me so proud to have been able to come to Hawaii 40 years ago,
never knowing that I would have the chance to serve in this House and
to be denied the opportunity now to vote on an alternative, a
reasonable alternative that was emphasized by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and Tip O'Neill is a travesty.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich)
was always proud to remind us that he was a professor of history, so he
could tell us about the Constitutional Convention, where it was decided
that a President could be removed from office for high crimes and
misdemeanors, or he could tell us that censure was weighed and
exercised against chief executives in the 19th century.
Let me be clear. No one is condoning the President's behavior, and if
we had the chance, we would vote to condemn it. To take poetic license
from Mark Anthony's words from Julius Caesar, I do not come here to
praise Bill Clinton, but I do not intend to see him buried either,
buried under an avalanche of innuendo and salacious scandal. Nor do I
wish to see this Congress play the role of Brutus, reaching across the
centuries to stab in the back the founders of our democracy who
entrusted us with their legacy.
No one is attempting to defend the President. We are trying to defend
a historical precedent. The voters spoke and they said they were sick
of this partisan political process, sick of this extraordinarily
expensive exhaustive examination of an extramarital affair. History
tells us what to do. Vote against impeachment of the President of the
United States.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with sadness in my heart. It
is a sad day for our republic.
Today, the Republican leadership in the House has proven that they
are, in fact, the minority party. The Republican leadership represents
the minority view on impeachment, on health care reform, on tax cuts to
benefit the wealthy, and on protecting and preserving the social safety
net.
Today, the Republican leaders have chosen to trample the Constitution
with partisan arrogance in order to strike a political blow against
President Bill Clinton. Today, the American people clearly oppose
impeachment.
But the Republican leaders, blind above their own sanctimonious piety
and hypocrisy, have chosen to push our Nation to the brink, the brink
of a constitutional crisis for their own political benefit.
Today, House Republicans held Bill Clinton to a standard that neither
the current Speaker, nor the Speaker-elect could meet. Today, our last
best hope is that the Senate will be a place where reason takes the
place of revenge.
I cast my vote against impeachment today because that is what my
constituents want, and because I know that that is the right thing to
do.
Today, the Republicans decided that in order to save America, they
had to destroy it.

{time} 1800

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
He did have one thing right, and that is the burden of proof is on
those going forward with impeachment. But that burden of proof was met
with 60,000 pages of documents, an independent review by the Committee
on the Judiciary, and the key point is that there has not been one
challenge to the evidence in the Committee on the Judiciary, nor
challenge to the facts today. Also, in addition to providing the
testimony of the witnesses, the President's counsel did not dispute it.
The evidence has been established and not refuted. We have made our
case on that. Today, any dispute about that today----
Mr. MEEHAN. Everything was challenged in the report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is out of order.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these articles of
impeachment because of the very serious allegations of felonies
contained in them.
I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court judge trying felony criminal
cases prior to coming to Congress. Many experts have pointed out that
the role of the House is really that of a grand jury. A grand jury is
required to indict any time there is a reasonable possibility that a
crime has been committed.
Like a grand jury, I believe the House has no choice but to impeach
when we have a report, an official report of felony offenses having
been committed. Jerome Siefman, the former Democratic chief counsel of
the Committee on the Judiciary, wrote recently that in his view,
``There is now more than substantial evidence to consider that the
President has committed impeachable offenses, and that the Congress has
a moral, ethical, and constitutional responsibility to vote to impeach
in this situation.''
As a speaker earlier this morning mentioned, the Justice Department
during this administration has prosecuted 700 people for perjury type
offenses. One of our leading syndicated

[[Page H11865]]

columnists summed up by asking, are we people of the Constitution?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these Articles of Impeachment
because of the very serious allegations of felonies contained in them.
Before coming to Congress, I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court
judge trying felony criminal cases.
Unfortunately, I believe some Members of Congress are forgetting,
ignoring, or perhaps do not understand the proper role of the House in
an impeachment proceeding.
Also, I had lunch with former Senator Howard Baker this week, and he
said many people are missing a very key difference between the
impeachment proceedings today and at the time of the Watergate
hearings.
Senator Baker said those who wishfully talk about the bipartisan
nature of Watergate are forgetting or overlooking the fact that many
Republicans came forward then and put aside their partisanship even
though it went against a President of their own party.
Today, not only are almost all Democratic Members siding with the
President, they are adopting his strategy of attacking his attackers in
a very partisan, very aggressive manner.
Republicans have been criticized by many on the national media for
being partisan. However, in reality, we should take lessons from the
Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee on how to be partisan.
We cannot hold a candle to the other party when it comes to
partisanship.
Democrats, almost in lockstep fashion, are saying they find the
President's behavior reprehensive, But . . .
This ``but'' is about as big as ``but'' can be and essentially means
the President should once again get away with things no once else could
get away with.
As to the House's proper role in an impeachment, it is really that of
a grand jury.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University,
said in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee:

The roles of the House and Senate roughly resemble the
classic grand jury and petit jury models. Under the
Constitution, the House functions much like a grand jury.
Like a grand jury, the House does not rule on the merits of
impeachment allegations, a function given exclusively to the
Senate.

The Washington Times wrote:

The Constitutional system of impeachment gives the House
the role of grand jury. The only decision to make is whether
the bulk of unproven information presents a prima facie case
that needs to be tried by the Senate.

The Atlanta Constitution stated that:

The U.S. Constitution makes the House of Representatives a
grand jury and the Senate a trial court for impeachment
proceedings, but it does not spell out how each body should
handle its responsibilities.

I do not think the grand jury system is fair, and I believe it should
be changed or eliminated.
However, unless or until the law is changed, a grand jury is required
to indict someone if there is any reasonable possibility that a crime
has been committed.
Our Founding Fathers envisioned that even some misdemeanors might
require impeachment. Does anyone really believe they would have said we
should ignore or overlook felonies?
We now have a report from the independent counsel, appointed by the
President's own Attorney General, saying that the President has
committed felony offenses.
Jerome Ziefman wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal:

As a lifelong Democrat and chief counsel of the House
Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment
inquiry, I believe I have a personal responsibility to speak
out about the current impeachment crisis. And I believe my
fellow Democrats on today's Judiciary Committee have a moral,
ethical, and constitutional responsibility to vote to impeach
President Clinton. Like most traditional Democrats--like most
Americans--I have grave reservations about Mr. Clinton's
morality and ethics. In my view there is now more than
substantial evidence to consider our President a felon who
has committed impeachable offenses.

As one of our leading syndicated columnists summed up:

Are we people of the Constitution? Are we a nation of laws?
Do Americans believe that perjury, obstruction of justice and
lying to a federal grand jury--all felonies for a private
citizen are not felonies when done by a president? Is a
president above the laws that bind other men?

Senator Baker also told me at our lunch that the Senate could
conclude this matter in one day if they really wanted to.
I hope that if the House votes to impeach, the Senate moves quickly
and that the President and his lawyers and supporters do not use the
stall and delay tactics that have dragged this matter on too far
already.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard).
(Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, it is with heavy heart that I rise today in
support of impeachment. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and
defend it against all enemies, and I would betray my conscience and my
country if I were to ignore this oath. I rise in favor of impeachment
because we all swore an oath, and I take my oaths very seriously, even
though the President does not.
My first wish is that the President resign. Unfortunately, he has
chosen to place his legacy ahead of our Nation's interest. Mr. Speaker,
I will vote to send these articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in support of
these articles of impeachment. Voting to impeach the President of the
United States is not a responsibility I enjoy, and it is not one I take
lightly. But I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend it
against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and I would betray my
conscience and my country if I were to ignore this oath.
I am not a lawyer. Nor am I an enemy of the President or a member of
any ``right wing conspiracy.'' I am a father, a grandfather, and a
public servant. As a public servant, I cannot look away when those
entrusted to enforce and uphold our laws choose instead to place their
personal interests ahead of the Nation's. And as a father and
grandfather, I cannot allow this President to escape accountability for
violating the laws he swore to uphold. To issue a ``slap on the wrist''
to a leader who commits perjury, obstructs justice, and abuses his
power would send a terrible message to American children. It would
teach them that promises may be broken, that solemn oaths are no more
than mere words.
Leaders should be worthy of the trust placed in them. President
Clinton betrayed this trust, and no hollow last-minute apologies or
legal hairsplitting can erase this betrayal. I remain convinced that a
President cannot lead without the trust of the American people, and he
cannot govern where he commands no respect.
My first wish is that the President take responsibility for his
actions and put a stop to this process. He should resign and allow us
all to put this matter behind us. Unfortunately, he has chosen to place
his ``legacy'' ahead of our Nation's interests. As a result, Mr.
Speaker, we are bound by our oaths to fulfill our constitutional duty
and vote to impeach him. The President of the United States broke the
law, violated his oath, and dishonored himself and our country. No poll
or posturing erases that fact. We must send a message that no one, no
matter how powerful or how popular, is above the law.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote to send these articles of impeachment to the
U.S. Senate for disposition. I do so because I swore an oath, and I
take my oaths very seriously. I do so because the President,
unfortunately, does not.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, but with
a solemn sense of duty, and that is to support all four articles of
impeachment against the President of the United States. I want to
believe my president. I cannot. I hoped he would keep his promise to
have the most ethical administration in history. He did not.
I want to accept his explanation that he did not lie under oath,
commit perjury, obstruction of justice, or abuse the power of his
office. However, his actions and comments over the past 11 months have
shaken my confidence in his ability to distinguish truth from fiction.
If you can't convince them, confuse them, President Harry Truman once
quipped. Like many Americans, I have been confused by the President's
denials, admissions, declarations, and apologies over the past year. I
have no doubt, however, that the President has engaged in a clear and
calculated pattern of deception. The integrity of the presidency, Mr.
Speaker, must always take priority over the self-interest of the
current occupant of that office.
Mr. Speaker, failing to hold the President accountable for his
actions would create a dangerous double standard. To borrow a phrase
from George Orwell's Animal Farm, we would be establishing a principle
that some Americans are more equal than others.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart--but with a solemn sense
of duty--to support all four articles of impeachment against the
President of the United States.
Like most Americans, I have closely followed the Judiciary
Committee's proceedings in recent weeks. Over the past few days, I

[[Page H11866]]

have carefully studied the Committee's findings and again reviewed the
available evidence. After serious consideration of these issues, I am
convinced that the President committed perjury, obstructed justice, and
abused the power of his office.
The Constitution of the United States empowers the House of
Representatives to impeach public officials who engage in ``treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Impeachment is not a
punishment. It is a process established by the Constitution to protect
our democracy and preserve the rule of law.
Historical writings on impeachment clearly define its role as a
democratic safeguard. In Federalist Paper Number Sixty-Five, Alexander
Hamilton wrote that a President may be impeached for ``offenses which
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the
abuse of violation of some public trust.''
James Madison explained the impeachment power at the 1787
Constitutional Convention by stating that ``some provision should be
made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or
perfidy of the chief magistrate.''
Our government is founded on the simple premise that ``all men are
created equal.'' Equal justice under the law is more than a slogan. It
is the bedrock principle that supports our democracy. It is too
important to set aside simply to avoid unpleasant or inconvenient
consequences.
Our President violated the public trust. His offenses arose from
reckless personal misconduct, but they were very clearly public in
nature. Perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power can hardly
be described as ``private conduct.''
We do not have the option of simply ``forgiving'' the President's
unlawful behavior. Failure to hold the President accountable for his
actions would seriously undermine the rule of law. Under these
circumstances, the Constitution compels us to follow the impeachment
process to its conclusion.
I want to believe my President. I cannot. I hoped he would keep his
promises to have ``the most ethical administration in history.'' He did
not. I want to accept his explanation that he did not lie under oath,
commit perjury, obstruct justice, or abuse the power of his office.
However, his actions and comments over the past eleven months have
shaken my confidence in his ability to distinguish truth from fiction.
``If you can't convince them, confuse them,'' President Harry Truman
once quipped. Like many Americans, I have been confused by the
President's denials, admissions, declarations, and ``apologies'' over
the past year. I have no doubt, however, that the President has engaged
in a clear and calculated pattern of deception.
On January twenty-sixth, the President wagged his finger at the
American people and said: ``I did not have sexual relations with that
woman, Ms. Lewinsky.''
On August seventeeth, the President stared us in the eye and said:
``I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not
appropriate.''
Last weekend, the President again took to the airwaives to state that
he ``could not admit to doing something that I am quite sure I did not
do.'' He said all he can do now is ``the work of the American people.''
I disagree. He can tell ``the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth.'' He swore to do so in the Paula Jones civil deposition and
in his federal grand jury testimony. The evidence demonstrates,
however, that he knowingly lied under oath.
While President Clinton claims to be remorseful, he continues to
ignore the evidence and to deny his unlawful actions. His reliance on
legalisms and abrsurd grammatical constructions is an insult to the
common sense of the American people.
The President's defense was similarly unconvincing. Instead of
refuting the Independent Counsel's charges, the President's lawyers
claimed that his transgressions do not rise to the level of impeachable
offenses. I believe they do, and the Constitution directs Congress to
make that determination.
The President's lawyers argued that his conduct, even if admitted,
would never result in criminal prosecution. However, constitutional
scholar Bruce Fein summarized studies of impeachment by concluding that
``impeachable offenses were envisioned as political crimes against the
nation, which might or might not be indictable under the criminal
code.''
I believe the weight of the evidence is overwhelming. It leads me to
conclude that the President committed perjury, obstructed justice, and
abused the power of his office. He committed impeachable offenses by
breaking the very laws he twice swore to ``preserve, protect, and
defend.'' He knowingly subverted the judicial process and intentionally
deceived the courts, federal officials, his friends and family, and the
American people.

As our nation's senior law enforcement official, the President must
be held responsible for his actions. Perjury undermines the rule of
law. It cannot be overlooked or ignored. Over one hundred people are
currently incarcerated in federal prisons for committing perjury in
civil cases. How can we demand responsibility from them while judging
the President by a different standard?
The answer, of course, is that we cannot. The integrity of the
presidency must always take priority over the self-interests of the
current occupant of that office.
Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in 1946 that
``If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every
man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny. Legal process is an
essential part of the democratic process.''
Mr. Speaker, failing to hold the President accountable for his
actions would create a dangerous double standard. To borrow a phrase
from George Orwell's novel Animal Farm, we would be establishing the
principle that some Americans are ``more equal than others.''
This is one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made, or will
ever make. Throughout this process, my constituents made impassioned
arguments both for and against impeachment. I spoke with many local
residents who offered their heartfelt opinions on how to resolve this
matter.
In the final analysis, however, I alone must make this momentous
decision. After carefully reviewing all of the available evidence and
legal precedents, and after much soul-searching, I have decided to
support the constitutionally prescribed remedy of impeachment.
Webster's Dictionary defines the term ``impeach'' as follows: ``to
bring an accusation against; to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; and
to charge . . . with misconduct in office.'' The evidence demonstrates
that the President must be charged with perjury, obstruction of
justice, and abusing the power of his office. He has exhibited gross
misconduct in office. He should now be held accountable for his actions
and stand before the Senate in judgment.
When I was sworn in as a member of the House of Representatives, I
took a solemn oath to ``support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . .'' I am
confident that history will judge my vote to impeach the President as
one borne not from malice, but out of love for my country, and in
defense of my sworn oath.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Hutchinson), every single charge that is made by the majority was
responded to in our minority report. That is number one.
Secondly, only under this system, with the majority railroading this
president, could we have a system where someone is accused of perjury,
and they will not even tell us which words are perjurious. Nowhere in
America could they ever charge someone with perjury and not tell them
what they said.
Finally, there is no judicial proceeding anywhere in this country
where we would not have a witness, a material witness, come before the
bar; nowhere but under their majority.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. Mr. Speaker, that is what we have been reduced to. We are reduced
to 1 minute on perhaps the most important vote we will ever cast.
Mr. Speaker, more than the President, we are on trial today. As we
debate whether to impeach the President, our actions will be judged by
the American people, not only today but for generations to come.
The standard for impeachment is high: treason, bribery, high crimes,
and high misdemeanors. These articles of impeachment degrade what our
forefathers meant by high crimes and high misdemeanors. While the
President's actions were reprehensible, they were wrong, and certainly
they deserve punishment, they do not rise to the level of offenses
which meet the historical judicial standard of impeachment.
If we approve these articles of impeachment today, we will demean the
institution of Congress. We will have turned the most serious
proceeding that Congress can undertake into a vicious example of
obsessive politics.
These articles do not represent justice, they do not represent the
judgment of the majority of American people, and they certainly are not
the best

[[Page H11867]]

way for us to act as a jury. We demean the actions of a jury, the
instructions that any jury must follow, and certainly as a jury, we
will be judged into the future.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this impeachment is unfair on three counts.
It is unfair to the President, whose admitted misconduct in covering up
a private sexual affair cannot compare to the Nixon precedent, where
high State crimes were not in doubt; it is unfair to the country,
because the preference of the voters for censure of the President is
being barred even from consideration; it is unfair to the people who
live in this city, whose 23rd amendment constitutional right to vote
for president has been denied, because they cannot vote for removal of
the President.
We are converting a solemn constitutional process into a petty
political proceeding. The people, acting officially on November 3rd,
repudiated impeachment, yet the majority has denied a vote on the
public preference for censure, defying its own announced standard that
no impeachment could occur without bipartisanship. The majority is
headed for an incredible partisan party line vote to impeach the
President. This impeachment is raw with unfairness.
Mr. Speaker, this impeachment is unfair on three counts. It is unfair
to the President whose admitted misconduct in covering-up of a private
sexual affair cannot compare to the Nixon precedent where high stake
crimes were not in doubt. It is unfair to the country because the
preference of the voters for censure of the President is being barred
even from consideration. It is unfair to the people who live in this
city, who have a 23rd amendment constitutional right to vote for
President but have been denied a vote on removal of the President.
We are converting a solemn constitutional process into a petty
political proceeding. The framers raised the bar as high as possible
allowing impeachment not even for crimes, but only for high crimes. The
Republicans have lowered the bar as low as they can to reach tawdry
private consensual sex.
The framers sought to make partisan impeachment a contradiction in
terms; the majority is making it a reality. The people acting
officially on November 3rd repudiated impeachment. Yet, the Majority
has denied a vote on the public preference for censure. Defying its own
announced standard that no impeachment could occur without
bipartisanship, the Majority is heading for an incredible partisan,
party line vote to impeach the President.
This impeachment is unfair to the people of the District of Columbia.
The Majority has relegated them to the functional equivalent of partial
citizens--good enough to vote for president, but not good enough to
decide whether to remove him.
This impeachment is raw with unfairness. Only a repudiation of all
articles can save us now.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, although I am denied the privilege of
voting on the floor of this great institution, on behalf of the
thousands of Samoan Americans men and women who proudly wear with pride
and honor the uniforms of our armed services wherever they are in the
world, I am grateful for at least the privilege to express an opinion
on this most serious issue that is now before this body.
Mr. Speaker, if we proceed to vote on the articles of impeachment, as
mandated or forced upon the Democratic Members by our friends in the
majority, I find it difficult to comprehend why procedurally the
Members on this side of the aisle are not at least afforded the
courtesy of voting, as a matter of conscience, to censure the President
of the United States. They have the votes to impeach, but for the sake
of fairness, why are Members so adamant in not allowing other Members
who also represent millions of our fellow Americans to vote for
censure?
Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends in the majority, and they are my
friends, when all of this is over, with blood all over this floor, my
friends in the majority will have pounded and hammered some 218 nails
on the flesh of this man without even an ounce of blood as a cure.
Mr. Speaker, although I am denied the privilege of voting on the
floor of this great institution, on behalf of the thousands of Samoan-
American men and women who proudly wear with pride and honor the
uniforms of our armed services--wherever they are in the world--I am
grateful for at least the privilege to express an opinion on this most
serious issue that is now before this body.
Some twenty-four years ago Congress moved toward the impeachment of
President Nixon. In that case, President Nixon directed the FBI and CIA
to coverup illegal activity, used the IRS to investigate political
enemies, and cheated on his personal income taxes. Those actions were
grave enough that it was expected that more than a two-thirds majority
of the Senate would vote to convict. In contrast, the actions taken by
President Clinton were of a personal nature and his attempts to save
himself and his family from personal embarrassment are not, in my
opinion, impeachable.
Some have argued that a resolution of censure is unconstitutional. I
am not persuaded by that argument. For one reason, such resolutions
have been pursued on several occasions in the past, including a Senate
censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834, resolutions and statements of
censure against President John Adams in 1800, against President John
Tyler in 1842, against President James Polk in 1848, and against
President James Buchanan in 1860 and 1862. In more modern times, two
censure resolutions were brought against President Richard Nixon, one
in 1973 and one in 1974.
The actions the Congress cannot take against a President, such as
reducing his salary during a current term in office, are spelled out in
our Constitution. No where does it say the Congress cannot express its
opinion of actions taken by a sitting President. Mr. Jack Maskell,
author of a recent CRS report on this issue notes that although there
is ``no express constitutional provision regarding censure . . . there
is also no express constitutional impediment'' for Congress to adopt a
resolution expressing censure.
It is also being argued that censure is no more than a slap on the
wrist. In fact, strongly-worded resolution of censure is sure
punishment which would have greater impact, in current terms and in the
future, than this doomed-to-fail effort to remove the President from
office.
In addition to being disproportionate to the wrongs committed, a
trial in the Senate based on articles of impeachment adopted by the
U.S. House of Representatives will distract the Nation for months and
make it more difficult for the Congress to attend to its legislative
duties. Such an action at this time lowers the standard for future
impeachments, and will encourage future Congresses to bring articles of
impeachment against future Presidents for offenses other than ``high
crimes and misdemeanors.''
As a practical matter, a trial in the Senate on articles of
impeachment against President Clinton will likely not result--in my
opinion--in a conviction by a two-thirds majority vote as required by
the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, if we proceed to vote on the articles of impeachment as
mandated or forced upon the Democratic Members by our friends in the
majority, I find it difficult to comprehend why, procedurally, the
Members on this side of the aisle are not at least afforded the
courtesy of voting--as a matter of conscience--to censure the President
of the United States. You have the votes to impeach, but for the sake
of fairness, why are you so adamant in not allowing other members, who
also represent millions of our fellow Americans, to vote for censure?
Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends in the majority--and you are my
friends--when all this is over, with blood all over this floor, my
friends in the majority will have pounded and hammered some 218 nails
or more on some 218 pounds of this man's flesh with your hands, without
even an ounce of blood as a cure.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for our American democracy. Instead of
acting according to the highest principles of compromise, consensus and
bipartisanship, the American people are witnessing the worst example of
how we, as representatives of the people, are acting in a most
pathetic, mean-spirited, adversarial, partisan process.
Mr. Speaker, I submit--God definitely needs to bless America.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
(Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of
impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, private sexual relations between consenting adults
should be just that--private. If President Clinton had simply been
revealed to have had an extra-marital affair,

[[Page H11868]]

the U.S. House of Representatives would not be considering articles of
impeachment. Unfortunately, the President's troubles arise from a
number of actions quite different from private, consensual sexual
encounters.
Before the President even knew Monica Lewinsky, he was the defendant
in a civil lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state
employee, who claimed that, while she was a state employee, the
governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, made a crude and unwanted sexual
request of her. Ms. Jones claimed in the lawsuit that she was
emotionally upset by the governor's action and that she suffered in her
job as a state employee as a result of her refusal to grant the
governor's request for her to perform a particular sex act with him.
The subject of this lawsuit was not a consensual sex act, but an
unwanted sexual advance by the male employer of a female.
In any civil lawsuit, the plaintiff has the right to call witnesses
to testify under oath as to the truthfulness of the claims being made
in the lawsuit. Central to our civil justice system is the requirement
that witnesses under oath tell the truth, unless such testimony would
tend to incriminate them, in which case the witness can claim the 5th
Amendment to the Constitution and refuse to testify.
President Bill Clinton was called to testify in the discovery phase
of the Paula Jones lawsuit. Under oath, President Clinton made a number
of statements which have since been shown to be false. Taken together,
these lies under oath were clearly calculated to thwart the Jones v.
Clinton federal civil judicial proceeding.
Upon the discovery of evidence indicating the President may have
committed perjury, a federal criminal grand jury was charged with
investigating the matter. President Clinton testified under oath before
that grand jury and, once again, told a series of calculated lies. Good
lawyers may quibble over whether the President's lies under oath
constitute perjury, but I believe no reasonable, unbiased person would
conclude that the President did not lie under oath. I am convinced that
the lies under oath do constitute perjury, a felony criminal offense.
In addition to the perjurious testimony given by the President, I am
convinced, after carefully studying the evidence, that the President
engaged in a pattern of obstruction while the Jones v. Clinton case was
pending, and while a federal criminal investigation was pending, in
order to thwart those proceedings. The pattern of obstruction consisted
primarily of tampering with witnesses whom the President knew would
likely be called to testify before the criminal grand jury. Those
witnesses included Monica Lewinsky, his secretary, Betty Currie, and
numerous White House aides.
In summary, this impeachment proceeding is not about sex! It is about
attempts to thwart proceedings in our civil and criminal justice
systems. It is about the President committing perjury in a civil
lawsuit which concerned not consensual sex, but a crude and
inappropriate sexual advance made by an employer toward an employee. It
is about the President committing perjury before a criminal grand jury.
And it is about the president having so little regard for the rule of
law that he even sought to have others commit the crime of perjury in
order to protect himself. Those acts constitute an attack by the
President on our justice system, serve to undermine the orderly
administration of justice in this country, and are therefore
impeachable offenses. As a lawyer, had I committed the offenses the
President committed, I would be disbarred. Should the President be held
to a lower standard than that expected of lawyers in this country?
Surely not.
It is important, if not critical, for the U.S. House of
Representatives to approve articles of impeachment against President
Clinton in order to send the message to the citizens of our Nation that
the rule of law is a crucial part of the foundation of our society, and
that no one, not even the President, no matter how popular he might be,
is above the law.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rogan).
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, some now suggest that holding a President, accountable
after committing perjury in a criminal grand jury proceeding amounts to
a coup d'etat or will bring blood on the floor demeans the level of
this debate.
I quote from Dr. Larry Arnn:

Elections have no higher standing under our Constitution
than the impeachment process. Both stem from provisions of
the Constitution. The people elect the President to do a
constitutional job. They act under the Constitution when they
do it. At the same time they elect a Congress to do a
different constitutional job. The President swears an oath to
uphold the Constitution. So does the Congress. Everyone
concerned is acting in ways subordinate to the Constitution,
both in elections and in the impeachment process.
If a President is guilty of acts justifying impeachment,
then he and not the Congress will have ``overturned the
election.'' He will have acted in ways that betray the
purpose of his election. He will have acted not as a
constitutional representative, but as a monarch, subversive
of, or above the law.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, we are all, all deeply saddened to be here
in the midst of this constitutional crisis. But I am convinced that it
is my constitutional duty to vote for the articles of impeachment as
presented by the Committee on the Judiciary.
Let us first be very clear. The case against the President is not
about sex or the privacy of the President and the first family. It is
about the very public legal action of perjury in a civil disposition
and before a Federal criminal grand jury. These are matters of public
policy and the law, along with the questions of obstruction of justice
and abuse of power.
In this respect, I have determined that the evidence brought before
us by the Committee on the Judiciary is credible and substantial, and
warrants sending, and listen to this, sending these articles to the
Senate for trial. This is our constitutional obligation, and one that
all of us Members of the House took upon us ourselves when we took our
own oath of office.
I would stress, and this is, I think, very important for all our
colleagues to remember, and for the public to remember, this House did
not arbitrarily choose to do this. This case was forced upon us as a
consequence of the President's failure to deal directly with the Paula
Jones lawsuit years ago, and then of course at the same time over the
years, including the 18 months under investigation, while under
investigation by the Independent Counsel's office.
The issue before us today is, can the House fulfill its
constitutional obligation and not yield to the spinmeisters or the talk
shows. This is not a matter of a popularity or an uninformed poll. It
is a matter of our constitutional obligation, and how we can turn this
over to the Senate for trial.
Mr. Speaker, I bear no animosity towards the President. I do not wish
him ill. Clearly, any sins that may have been committed are between him
and the Lord, and any infidelities must remain between him and his
family.
But we cannot deny the damage that has been done to his office and to
our Nation. He is the chief executive officer and our chief law
enforcement officer of the United States, under the Constitution. It is
the obligation of this Congress and the Committee on the Judiciary to
make this case to the people so that they will understand that the
bottom line issue is that no one is above the law. That has to be
determined with a full trial in the Senate.

{time} 1815

Mr. Speaker, history will judge us. Our children and our
grandchildren will know whether we voted to endorse and buttress the
rule of law and allow our constitutional process to work. That is our
obligation under the law. That is the oath we took as Members of
Congress.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is a coup d'etat when you impeach a
President for allegations that even if true the overwhelming majority
of constitutional scholars say are not impeachable offenses. It is a
coup d'etat when most of the prosecutors who testified in front of the
committee said no prosecutor would seek an indictment because no jury
would convict on the evidence we have. And it is a coup d'etat when you
seek to upset an election, to overturn an election without a broad
consensus of the necessity for doing so against the majority of the
American people. That describes a coup d'etat, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these articles
of impeachment. Indeed I think it is time that we uphold our
constitutional responsibilities, not debase them. In fact,

[[Page H11869]]

we have a solemn duty and judgment that we are to make.
I think that the report that has come back and the duty charged to
the Committee on the Judiciary has been lacking. You have not done the
job that is expected. Refusing a timetable and then jamming this into
two weeks after the election obviously gives strong suspicion to the
reasons that we are doing this.
This does not stand the legal test. This does not stand the
constitutional test. This is turning this Congress upside down. This is
partisanship carried to an extreme. It is now attacking the basic
fundamental document, the law of the land, our Constitution and
process.
There is a reason that there have not been impeachments in the past
of the President. The only time we can look to is after the Civil War
when this country was in upheaval. The fact is, if this is the
direction that we are going, if you are going to lower the bar and set
new precedents such as this with regard to impeachment, we are going to
keep the Senate awful busy.
This is an outrage, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Articles of
Impeachment before the House.
These articles and conclusions are unfair and demonstrate very poor
judgment and rank partisanship on the part of the Republican Majority,
the House Committee and Leadership. The House, on September 11, 1998,
sent the Starr report to the Judiciary Committee with the charge to
investigate and determine the validity of such assumptions.
The Starr report, unlike the investigatory work from previous Special
Counsels, went beyond a report on the proceedings before the Grand Jury
and actually put forth conclusions. Rather than presenting the evidence
and permitting the Congress to make its own judgement, the Starr Report
superimposed the views of the Special Counsel upon the House. In fact,
Kenneth Starr's outspoken advocacy for impeachment finally resulted in
the resignation of Sam Dash, the famed 1970's Watergate Counsel, whom
Starr had personally engaged as the Ethics Advisor for the Office of
Independent Counsel.
The Judiciary Committee, with the authority of the House vote, had
the responsibility to fully evaluate this 450-page report, the
seventeen boxes of testimony and the additional materials. The final
product presented today as Articles of Impeachment has failed
significantly to achieve an independent, credible, bipartisan consensus
concerning the conduct of the President. The standard of evidence is
second hand and is far short of the Watergate criteria of clear,
convincing evidence.
The Judiciary Committee and the Republican Majority permitted this
major Constitutional role to languish, spending most of the limited
time debating which material should be made public. Unfortunately,
throughout the time period from September 11 until today, the Judiciary
Committee did not hear from a single direct witness and never subjected
any witness to cross examination. Rather, this report rubber stamps
numerous allegations of the Starr report and sees fit to manufacture a
further Article of Impeachment from the 81 questions put forth by the
Republican Majority.
The Republican Majority motivations to rush to judgment today are
transparent. In mid-October, when the Democrat Minority sought to limit
the scope and timetable for the consideration of this Starr Report, the
Republican Majority refused. Subsequently, the Starr Report and
Judiciary Committee investigation languished with not a single
substantive hearing before the November 3 elections. In fact, the
Congressional Republicans sought to employ the Starr Report to their
advantage in this election cycle. Despite the House spending $30
million on investigations on varied topics and the Office of the
Independent Counsel expending in excess of $40 million, the American
electorate spoke loud and clear on November 3. They want a Congress
that will use its powers and time to address the concerns and the
problems that affect the American people rather than a GOP Congress
which wields their power to undercut their political opponents as they
have since winning control in 1995. Most notably, Democrats and
President Clinton have been the primary focus of most investigations.
The American voters saw through this unfair abuse of power and
harassment and have become fed up with such antics. In an historic
November 3, 1998 election, this year the GOP majority lost significant
ground and specifically lost on the issue of the Starr Report and the
relentless abuse of power by Starr and the Congressional GOP
counterparts.
As Speaker Gingrich announced his intent to step down, light shone
through the partisan clouds that have loomed over the Congress these
past years. A ray of hope existed that this Congress would accept the
people's judgment. Instead, the GOP leadership quickly reverted to
unfair partisan action. Recognizing that more Democrats would be in the
Congress in January 1999, they set upon a scheme to jam through the
lame-duck 105th Congress an impeachment vote before the new 106th
Congress is sworn into office and seated. Within the Judiciary
Committee due process and fairness were cast aside, perfunctory
testimony and time limits were the order of the day and within a short
period of two weeks, without one direct material witness relevant to
the accounts of the Starr report and trumped up allegations concerning
questions the Majority Republicans asked President Clinton. The end
product--these four Articles of Impeachment are grossly unfair, and
that was insured by the manner and lack of deliberation that shaped
their substance.
That the President was evasive, unclear and uncooperative regards his
representations concerning an extramarital affair is clear. However,
even assuming that President Clinton's testimony in these instances is
unlawful--a point which has not been proven--this matter does not rise
to the level of an impeachable offense. It is not treason, bribery, or
other high crime or misdemeanor. It does not involve the official
duties and role of the President. It is a personal matter as are the
relations of other public officials that do not touch upon their
official duties. Certainly, this behavior and the subsequent
questionable conduct in giving testimony merits our strong reprimand
and censure, not impeachment. Unfairly, a censure action will not be
allowed by the Republican Majority today in this House. In an effort to
insure that these weak questionable Articles of Impeachment prevail,
the GOP Majority Leadership has steadfastly refused the opportunity to
permit a censure vote on the floor, intent upon using its power to
frustrate and thwart the will of the American people who believe
censure--not impeachment--to be the appropriate penalty.
Mr. Speaker, the President should be fully subject to the law.
Indeed, when the court permitted the private civil suit to proceed in
1997, President Clinton was subject to the law for alleged activities
before he was even elected to his current office in 1992. Furthermore,
if the participation in such legal process is improper, it can and
should be fully adjudicated with the full ability to exercise all
rights and privileges accorded every citizen. The President isn't above
the law, neither should he be considered below the law. The debate
about the so-called legalisms employed in this instance are the essence
of the ``rule of law'' even as some venerate the ``rule of law.''
Republicans seem all too willing to deny the President the opportunity
to defend himself.
The proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee have made a
mockery of the important Constitutional role accorded Congress in
regards to our impeachment role. The President was required to defend
himself against unknown Articles of Impeachment, the Articles were
composed and presented after his defense was completed. Furthermore, no
material witnesses testified or were subject to cross examination. The
House must not compound the unfairness that has characterized this
process. This proposed action today on the Articles of Impeachment is
an abuse of fundamental responsibility and duty of this House. Today's
action indeed spells out a new order and degraded role, cheapening the
historic meaning and purpose of the impeachment of a president.
This important impeachment role and responsibility of the House
should be based on our best effort, not a matter to be compressed into
a political timetable with questionable substance and motives. The
House, with this proposed action, risks significant harm to the
historic role and duties accorded the elected Members by the
Constitution should we act today to impeach. I urge the Members to vote
no, to step back from the rush to judgement and partisan leanings that
have dominated this House and permit the Committees of this House to
properly do their job. The standard must be clear and convincing
evidence--not second hand information, conjecture and a schedule of
convenience for the Members of the House. If such allegations have
merit, then take the time to do the task and exercise the
responsibility properly. Vote no on these articles and against this
unfair procedure and process.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Bible says, let he without sin
cast the first stone.
Let me tell you in this Chamber, it is full of sinners. I am here on
behalf of my constituents who want me to tell the President that they
love him and they are praying for him and the country.
The Republicans say that their sin is different from the President's.
They

[[Page H11870]]

are hypocrites. What a shame that while the troops are fighting for us
in the Persian Gulf, we are having this silly and stupid debate because
of your hatred of the President. The President is like David from the
Bible. He is the favorite one. He is the favorite one because he does
the people's work. The Republicans hate him because he beat them on
every single issue.
Let me tell you what the real crime and high misdemeanor is, my
fellow Americans. In 1994, the leaders announced their Contract on
America. And today is the final agenda of that contract. They began
their contract by attempting to cut school lunch, Head Start, food
stamps, health care and Medicare for the elderly. These are the crimes
that should be punished.
This is a modern day coup d'etat, Mr. Speaker. It is the final piece
of their contract. You can fool some of the people some of the time,
but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. And let me tell
you, the American people are not fooled by your motives.

____________________