[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 155 (Saturday, December 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11968-H11975]
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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 611), impeaching William 
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, December 18, 1998, the resolution is debatable for 1 additional 
hour equally divided between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan).
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. The question is 
elementary. The President was obliged under his sacred oath faithfully 
to execute our Nation's laws. Yet he repeatedly perjured himself and 
obstructed justice, not for any noble purpose but to crush a humble 
lone woman's right to be afforded access to the courts. Now his 
defenders plead for no constitutional accountability for the one 
American uniquely able to defend or debase our Constitution and the 
rule of law.
  When they are old enough to appreciate today's solemnity, I want my 
young daughters to know that when the last roll was called, their 
father served in a House faithful to the guiding principle that no 
person is above the law. And he served with colleagues who counted it a 
privilege to risk political fortune in defense of the Constitution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose these articles of 
impeachment and this very flawed and undemocratic process. This process 
and this action are the real crimes against the American people and our 
democracy. This march to impeachment is an attempt to undo and 
overthrow a duly elected President and ignores the will of the people.
  Denying a vote on censure creates the appearance of a one-party 
autocracy which we condemn abroad and which history has proven can lead 
to authoritarian rule. This Republican Party coup underscores that 
their only goal is to turn back the clock on an agenda that puts people 
first; an agenda that will want to cancel policies that value and 
support basic human rights, such as a woman's right to choose, a good 
public education instead of vouchers; that insists on a living wage for 
working men and women; that protects our environment; that supports the 
Patient's Bill of Rights and that preserves Social Security.
  The Republican process is cynical and it is dangerous. It will be 
recorded that they stood on the wrong side of history. We must restore 
the public trust and establish a Congress which communicates respect 
for the people of the United States, the Constitution and democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose these articles of impeachment. 
I join my Democratic colleagues in speaking out against this flawed, 
undemocratic process.
  This process and this action are the real crimes against the American 
people and our democracy.
  This Republican Congress is marching this country into an impeachment 
of President Clinton in an attempt to undo and overthrow a duly elected 
President. This ignores the will of the people.
  We condemn single party rule abroad. But this Republican Congress 
refuses to allow the minority party to vote on censure. But squelching 
the minority's requests for debate, for fairness, and for reasonable 
alternatives, this Republican Congress demonstrates its contempt for 
the Presidency, for the democratic process, and for the will of the 
people of this nation.
  It abridges the Constitution by restricting and closing off 
legislative options, and creates the appearances of a one-party 
autocracy, which history has proven can lead to authoritarian rule.
  This Republican party coup underscore that their only goal is to turn 
back an agenda that puts people first. To cancel a program that values 
basis human rights. That values a woman's right to choose, and that 
supports good public education instead of vouchers. Their goal is to 
cancel an agenda that insists that working women and men have a right 
to a living wage. An agenda that protects our environment. An agenda 
that fights for a Patient's Bill of Rights and preserves Social 
Security.
  Today's vote is one of the most important votes in American history. 
The Republican's process is cynical and dangerous. It will be recorded 
that the Republicans have stood on the wrong side of history. As 
Americans who value an open and just society, we must reject this 
madness and say yes to openness. Say yes to fairness.
  We must restore public trust and establish a Congress which 
communicates respect for the people of the United States, the 
Constitution, and democracy. A vote on a censure motion will allow the 
opinion and the voice of millions of Americans to be heard.

[[Page H11969]]

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this long and difficult process for all of 
us in the House is almost to a conclusion. Twenty-five years ago a 
Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee with a minority of 
Republicans reported articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. 
Why? Nixon cheated. He cheated the electoral system by concealing 
efforts of a political break-in. And his people thought the other side 
deserved to be cheated. They thought his enemies deserved to be 
mistreated. Ladies and gentlemen, they were wrong.
  Today Republicans, with a small handful of Democrats, will vote to 
impeach President Clinton. Why? Because we believe he committed crimes 
resulting in cheating our legal system. We believe he lied under oath 
numerous times, that he tampered with evidence, that he conspired to 
present false testimony to a court of law. We believe he assaulted our 
legal system in every way. Let it be said that any President who cheats 
our institutions shall be impeached.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues I spent a great deal 
of time carefully reviewing the Judiciary Committee testimony and 
evidence. Let me make it absolutely clear I do not in any way condone 
the President's behavior. 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 our Constitution.

                              {time}  0930

  I do believe that the President should be held accountable for his 
actions, and support an alternative to impeachment that will both 
condemn his actions and fine him. The Committee on the Judiciary 
considered a censure resolution which we in the full House are being 
denied the opportunity to debate and vote on today.
  Our Founding Fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the 
Nation from grave harm from a Chief Executive who clearly endangers our 
constitutional democracy. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the President's 
actions meet this test. The penalty for his misconduct should not be 
exacted through impeachment, but through indictment in our criminal 
court system and a stern censure by this Congress.
  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. 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 decmoratic 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. Burce 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 
grevious 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 today.
  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 not be exacted through 
impeachment, but through indictment in our criminal court system and a 
stern censure by the Congress.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Accountability 
comes not from opinions; really in a way it does not even come from 
votes. It comes from those three great pillars of our society that are 
the basis for the rule of law. It is our laws, the Criminal Code of the 
United States of America, which based on exhaustive evidence this 
President has violated pursuant to a pattern of activity. It is based 
on the evidence, the evidence accumulated, considered at great length 
and voted on, and available to every Member of the House by the 
Independent Counsel, and as summarized in the report of our very able 
staff on the Committee on the Judiciary; and finally, the smallest yet 
most profound document that we have before us in all of our 
deliberations, the Constitution of the United States.
  Today our votes and our consciences must be based on these three 
great pillars of the rule of law: the law itself, the evidence and the 
Constitution.
  God bless the United States of America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, as our Commander in Chief 
battles the problems in Iraq he is also battling for his presidency in 
the people's House. This could have waited. Wrong day, wrong way.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the articles of impeachment before this 
House this morning. I urge Members to step outside the passion of their 
convictions and think about our obligations to the Constitution, to our 
constituents and the American people before we cast this vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I had hoped this moment could have never come and the 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary, after carefully examining 
the evidence, history and their conscience, could recognize that these 
charges do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. However, 
with this vote we have the opportunity by censure to live up to the 
Framers' vision and honorably close a sad chapter in our Republic's 
history, or we can open a new one that is perilous.
  I will say to my colleagues that the American people and history will 
judge us. Yes, we have the votes to impeach, but can our conscience 
withstand the scrutiny that history will bring to bear on our vote?
  What a sad day in the history of America.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with the fondest hopes that the 
bitterness engendered in this debate will at its conclusion be put 
aside, and that all Members will return to their families for the 
holidays mindful of what has been done here by we as agents of 
principle. We have fulfilled our duty to our magnificent Constitution.
  Yes, our young men and women in the uniformed Armed Services have in 
these last few days set about the task of ridding the earth of the 
threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an enemy of 
civilization, Saddam Hussein, and they have performed their tasks with 
valor and fortitude, that we may freely engage in this most unpleasant 
aspect of self government as was envisioned by our forefathers.
  I very much regret the enmity and hostility that has been bred in the 
Halls of Congress for the last months and years. I want so very much to 
pacify and cool our raging tempers and return to an era when 
differences were confined to the debate and not of personal attack or 
assassination of character.
  I am proud to serve in this institution, and I respect every Member 
of this body. Each of us stands here because a majority of roughly 
600,000 people had the confidence to vest us with

[[Page H11970]]

this authority to act as their agents in a representative democracy.
  When given the chance, we often find that aside from political and 
partisan differences we have much in common with one another. But we 
never discover what that common ground may be with the gulf between the 
sides of this narrow aisle.
  The debate has done nothing to bring us together, and I greatly 
regret that it has become quite literally the opening gambit of the 
intended Livingston speakership. I most certainly would have written a 
different scenario, had I had the chance.
  But we are all pawns on the chessboard, and we are playing our parts 
in a drama that is neither fiction nor unimportant. Indeed, it is of 
utmost significance in the course of American history, and my desire to 
create an environment for healing must take lesser precedence than must 
the search for responsibility, duty and justice within the format 
provided by the U.S. Constitution.
  I believe we are in active pursuit of these goals, and I give great 
credit to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and Mr. Tom Mooney and all the members and 
staff, majority and minority, of the Committee on the Judiciary for 
their deliberate and conscientious effort on this most difficult task.
  We are nearing completion, and however the vote turns out, no one may 
say that we did not own up to our constitutional responsibility as 
Members of Congress in a careful, respectful and insightful debate. 
Much credit is due our presiding officer, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. LaHood), who has done an outstanding job.
  Mr. Speaker, we differ on process. The minority believes that we 
acted too hastily in view of the troops in the field, and that we 
omitted an alternative from the options available for consideration. We 
in the majority believe we have properly begun the debate after setting 
aside a whole day to honor and praise our troops and the effort that 
they are extending on our behalf. General Schwarzkopf, the commander of 
the troops in Iraq several years ago, agreed with us on the Brian 
Williams Show on MSNBC just two nights ago. We believe, we believe that 
the Constitution envisioned that censure not be a part of the debate on 
whether or not to impeach the President, and we are supported there by 
comments by then majority leader Tip O'Neill during the Nixon 
impeachment proceedings.
  So there are differences in process; what about substance? The 
minority has maintained that the President has not perjured himself and 
that even if he did, such perjury was not intended within the term 
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' delineated in Article 2, Section 4 of 
our Constitution.
  Surely no President has been impeached for perjury, but at least 
three Federal judges have been impeached and convicted under the 
perjury statutes, and so perjury, a felony punishable by up to 5 years 
in the penitentiary, is a crime for which the President may be held 
accountable, no matter the circumstances.
  Perjury is a felony, as I have said, and fully 116 people are serving 
time in Federal prison as we speak for perjury today, and, yes, there 
have been several instances of people going to prison following 
convictions for perjury involving lies under oath under sexual 
circumstances.
  The average citizen knows that he or she must not lie under oath. Ms. 
Christine Simms of Rockville, Maryland, wrote to the Committee on the 
Judiciary just 2 weeks ago and said, and I quote:

       I too was called upon to give answers under oath in 
     interrogatories during a civil proceeding. Truthful answers 
     to those questions would be embarrassing to me, and what I 
     knew exposed me to criticism and had a potential to ruin my 
     life, particularly as it related to my children whom I love 
     very much. In short, I was scared to tell the truth. However, 
     I did just that. I could not lie when I was sworn to tell the 
     truth, no matter what the risks nor the degree of temptation 
     to take the easy way out. Parts of my life have been 
     difficult since that time because elements of that testimony 
     have been used to scorn me. But I as a common citizen was 
     compelled by my conscience to tell the truth.

  Yes, our Nation is founded on law, not on the whim of man. We are not 
ruled by kings or emperors, and there is no divine right of Presidents. 
A President is an ordinary citizen, vested with the power to govern and 
sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States. Inherent in that oath is the responsibility to live within its 
laws with no higher or lower expectations than the average citizen, 
just like Ms. Simms.
  When the President appeared at the deposition of Ms. Jones and 
secondly before the Federal grand jury, he was sworn to a second oath, 
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God. This, according to witnesses to the Committee on the Judiciary 
and before the Special Counsel, he did not do. For this I will vote to 
impeach the President of the United States and ask that his case be 
considered by the United States Senate, that other body of this great 
Congress, uphold their responsibility to render justice on these most 
serious charges.
  But to the President I would say:
  Sir, you have done great damage to this Nation over this past year, 
and while your defenders are contending that further impeachment 
proceedings would only protract and exacerbate the damage to this 
country, I say that you have the power to terminate that damage and 
heal the wounds that you have created. You, sir, may resign your post.
  And I can only challenge you in such fashion if I am willing to heed 
my own words.
  To my colleagues, my friends and most especially my wife and family: 
I have hurt you all deeply, and I beg your forgiveness.
  I was prepared to lead our narrow majority as Speaker, and I believe 
I had it in me to do a fine job. But I cannot do that job or be the 
kind of leader that I would like to be under current circumstances, so 
I must set the example that I hope President Clinton will follow.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not stand for Speaker of the House on January 6, 
but rather I shall remain as a back bencher in this Congress that I so 
dearly love for approximately 6 months into the 106th Congress, 
whereupon I shall vacate my seat and ask my Governor to call a special 
election to take my place.
  I thank my constituents for the opportunity to serve them; I hope 
they will not think badly of me for leaving. I thank Allen Martin, my 
chief of staff, and all of my staff for their tireless work on my 
behalf, and I thank my wife most especially for standing by me. I love 
her very much.
  God bless America.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, continuing the business under the 
incredible turn of events that has occurred, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jose Serrano).
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is a tough time to follow, but I must 
stay the course and be true to myself. The Republican right wing in 
this country does not like it when we say coup d'etat, so I will make 
it easier for them, golpe de estado. That is Spanish for overthrowing 
the government.
  From day one they wanted to get rid of Bill Clinton. From day one 
they stood on him and tried to make him out to be the number one 
villain in this country. They have been blinded by hate then and they 
are blinded by hate today. This place is full of hate because of what 
they tried to do to our president.
  My constituents do not hate Bill Clinton, they love him, and they are 
praying for him right at this very moment. That side may have the votes 
today to impeach them, but they do not have the American people.
  Let me tell the Members something, I grew up in the public housing 
projects of the South Bronx. I can tell a bunch of bullies when I see 
them. The bullies get theirs, and these Members are getting get theirs, 
too. The people are going to rise up from California to New York. They 
are going to rise up from Texas to Florida, everywhere in this country, 
and they are going to tell us, do not do this to him. By the way, do 
not ask him to quit. He will never quit.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would ask all

[[Page H11971]]

Members to respect the time constraints under which we are operating.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how to begin, 
following Bob Livingston's astounding announcement, except to say that 
our prayers are with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston). 
His decision must be respected, but we are all profoundly distressed. 
His action only underscores what I was prepared to say before the 
gentleman from Louisiana made his announcement. I was prepared to say, 
and now more than ever insist, that ``These are the times that try 
men's souls.'' Indeed it was on this date, December 17, 1776, that 
Thomas Paine published that essay. We all share in the emotional 
trauma, getting back to our subject, of this constitutional crisis in 
which we are all ensnared.
  But this cup cannot pass us by. We cannot avoid it. We took an oath 
of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic 
system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances. We 
must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the 
Senate for a trial.
  I want to say personally, and all who know me, and many do, I have 
served in this House a long time, I bear no personal animosity towards 
the President. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional 
confrontation. It was thrust upon us by a series of legal maneuvers and 
denials.
  Let me stress, going back to the President again, that the articles 
of impeachment are not about sex or the privacy of the President and 
his family. Those personal matters, which even his supporters deplore, 
are between him, his God, and his family.
  These charges are about perjury before a grand jury and obstruction 
of justice. It is about whether the President is above the laws that 
apply to all Americans.
  We must vote to send this evidence reported by the Judiciary 
Committee to the Senate for trial.
  So the Congress and the American people can determine, in the words 
of Abraham Lincoln, whether--``This Nation or any other nation so 
conceived and so dedicated can long endure''.
  This is our solemn obligation. History will judge us. We owe it to 
our children and grandchildren.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair asks that all Members respect the 
rights of others while they are speaking, and we will try and stay 
within the time constraints. We have a limited amount of time here.


                     Request For Call of the House

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to have a call of the 
House at this point? I call for a quorum call.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Chair's discretionary authority, 
the Chair would prefer not to do that. The Chair appreciates the 
suggestion of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), but the Chair 
would prefer to proceed.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to pause here for a 
moment. There is a songwriter who wrote a song that says, give me a 
higher love.
  Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution did not entrust this 
House with the power to impeach the President of the United States in 
order to establish this body as a court of personal morality. 
Impeachment was supposed to be a constitutional shield, not a moral or 
political sword.
  For all of these reasons, we should step back from this edge of this 
dangerous cliff. Serious crimes have been committed that this Congress 
needs to address. Every morning children across the Nation go to school 
and sit in overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating and crumbling 
facilities, and Congress turns a blind eye. That is a serious crime.
  Every afternoon people find themselves lacking access to affordable 
health care, trying to figure out how to afford the prescription drugs 
they need. People are suffering, and even dying, even as we debate 
today. That is a serious crime.
  Every evening people sit at their dinner tables wondering how they 
will afford a college education for their children, whether they need 
or even if they will be able to get a second job. That is a serious 
offense.
  We should be leaving personal and moral sanctions to the courts, the 
branch of government where they properly belong. We should be doing the 
job we were elected to do. The wisdom of history, not the passions of 
this moment, must guide our actions.
  As David cried out to the Lord in the Book of Psalms--``For I know my 
transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, 
have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight, so that thou 
art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgement.''
  The President has asked for the forgiveness of his family, his God 
and the American people. Let us not continue to persecute a person who 
has sought to make his peace.
  I pray to God that wisdom will prevail.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, the example that the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) has set for us has completely changed 
what I was going to say. Let me offer these words instead. He has shown 
us the importance of trust. If we cannot trust our leaders, they cannot 
govern. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) has led by 
example.
  Our Constitution was amended in 1967 to allow removal for 
incapacitation. Prior to that, the only way to remove a person who was 
physically incapacitated was impeachment. Today we deal with 
incapacitation of a different kind; a person who, by his conduct under 
oath in a Federal criminal grand jury, demonstrated that he would not 
tell the truth if it was in his interest not to tell the truth. He has 
incapacitated himself from being president.
  The voters of our country elected Al Gore to be president if Bill 
Clinton were incapacitated. That day has arrived.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while the world is rocked by war and the 
spectacle of removing a president, our drama here is not about 
impeachment, it is what we have done to ourselves. We have managed to 
squeeze the life out of what is the most important vote we will ever 
cast, the overturning of a presidential election. Gone is any pretext 
of fairness or nonpartisanship, rendering us unable to do what a 
majority of the public and what a majority of this House wants to do, 
issue a harsh statement of condemnation and censure.
  In the final death throes of this Congress we have debased our 
powers, we have frayed our fragile bases for bipartisan cooperation, 
making the impeachment process just one more pathogen in the medical 
chest of toxic politics. We will long be judged by our failure to deal 
fairly, quickly, and decisively with the President's shameful behavior.
  It is with great sadness that I vote to oppose this flawed, tragic 
symbol of the continued unraveling of our political process.
  Mr. Speaker, the experts tell us there are five stages of grief from 
denial to bargaining then anger, followed by depression, and 
ultimately, acceptance.
  Most of us as Americans have been experiencing this sequence of 
emotions as we react to this tangled national soap opera. For some time 
now, I like many Americans, have been trapped somewhere between the 
stages of anger and depression. We have been in a large echo chamber 
dominated by many angry and frustrated voices, but are now at the 
central issue: ``What does Congress do?'' A vote to impeach the 
President is simply not warranted by the facts. It is, rather, a 
dangerous precedent that is completely inconsistent with our 
requirements and responsibilities under the Constitution.
  The President can and will be punished for his conduct. In part, that 
has already happened. No one in history has been the object of such 
world-wide scorn, anger and ridicule as Bill Clinton. The details are 
all known to anyone who cares to know about them as well as many who 
really don't have the slightest interest. Nor is the President, by any 
stretch of the imagination, through being punished. The public 
humiliation continues in Congress, in the press and on the late night 
comedy shows. As he leaves office he can be subject

[[Page H11972]]

to perjury and further lawsuit just like any other citizen. The 
President has expended millions of dollars in legal fees with no end in 
sight. Of course, there has been a permanent loss in his reputation. 
Congress can and should censure his conduct and express the deep 
disappointment of the American people in his behavior.
  The reality is that it is not our role in Congress to deal with 
America's anger and sense of betrayal by adopting a very dangerous 
standard for impeachment.
  My research and consultation with constitutional experts convinces me 
that impeachment for ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' would not include 
an act that did relate to the official duties of the Office of the 
President. For example, one of the articles of impeachment that was 
drafted but not presented to the House Judiciary Committee in the 
Watergate Inquiry was Richard Nixon's alleged tax evasion. In that case 
Nixon would have been subjected to prosecution like any other citizen, 
after he left office.
  This is a difficult concept at best. It grates on us. We in Congress 
would like to right the wrongs of the world, especially if they are 
somebody else's wrongs.
  Yet there are some things that the Constitution does not permit us to 
do. It is with good reason that this threshold of what constitutes an 
impeachable offense should remain higher rather than lower. A lower 
standard of what constitutes an impeachable offense would severely 
weaken future Presidents of either party, allowing them to be 
manipulated for political purposes. I must agree with the 
constitutional experts that under the lower standard credible inquires 
into impeachment could have been launched against President Roosevelt 
about Lend Lease operations with Britain, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon 
about Vietnam, and Reagan and Bush about the Iran Contra scandal.
  I fear the use of impeachment not just for the paralytic effect it 
would have on the Executive Branch. It would have a corrosive effect on 
Congress, with the possibility of being constantly in a state of 
attack, because there will always be determined minorities who will be 
able to pursue these actions due to this dramatically reduced standard.
  Congress should guard the process of impeachment for the future of 
the Presidency, the integrity of Congress and the possibility of 
getting on with the business of running the Government. I cast my vote 
against impeachment with the hope to be able to express the will of my 
constituents that the President's conduct be severely censured.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, there are very few values 
and legal obligations that are fundamental, the foundation on which all 
else rests. But personal responsibility, a responsibility that each of 
us bears to tell the truth under oath, is such a fundamental 
responsibility.
  If we treat perjury lightly, the only path to truth can be blocked by 
the instinct to lie, to cover up shame, or the determination to do harm 
to others. In either case, regardless of the motivation to lie, the 
result is the same. The path to truth is blocked.
  Mr. Speaker, there can be no justice without the truth. That is just 
profoundly so, and that is why perjury matters. Had the President been 
able to face up to the truth a year ago, we would not be here. If he 
had faced up to the truth a month ago, he could have taken 
responsibility for the impact of that on our Nation and individuals. 
Our Nation can survive a transition better than it can survive the 
erosion of our fundamental values.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sentiment that I yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Chris Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, after Judge Starr's report to Congress in 
September and his presentation to the Judiciary Committee in November, 
I concluded that impeachable offenses were not proven and that the 
proven offenses were not impeachable.

                              {time}  1000

  But the President's continued failure to come to grips with his 
actions; the sincerity and arguments of members of the Judiciary 
Committee from both sides of the aisle; the change of heart and 
conviction by Members on my side of the aisle who originally opposed 
impeachment and who now support it; and the strong and powerful opinion 
of so many of my constituents who oppose my position and wanted the 
President impeached, caused me to rethink my position.
  Like you, I listened to my constituents: those who supported 
impeachment and those who opposed it. I revisited the evidence, 
reexamined the documents, and even looked at documents I had not seen 
earlier. I spoke to people who were truly experts on these issues--
people who I have immense respect for.
  Yesterday morning, before I visited with the President, I concluded 
that my original position was the correct one--for me. I believe that 
the impeachable offenses have not been proven and that the proven 
offenses are not impeachable. But they are close. And that's why I 
understand why Members who happen to be primarily Democrats concluded 
that the President should not be impeached and Members on my side of 
the aisle--Republicans believe he should be impeached.
  With no exception, I truly believe that every Member of Congress is 
voting his or her conscience. In a few minutes, the President of the 
United States, William Jefferson Clinton, will be impeached. But he 
will not be impeached with my vote. I cast my vote with no criticism of 
those who think differently and who will vote differently. We've all 
tried to do our best. And we will all have to live with our vote the 
rest of our lives.
  My prayers are for this country and its people, our President and his 
family, and for the House of Representatives and its Members, all of 
whom I dearly love. I pray the President of the United States will be 
able to do the right thing in the days and weeks and months to come. 
And I pray Republicans and Democrats in Congress will find common 
ground and do the work of the people of this great and prosperous land 
during the next two years.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, there are those who would have the American 
people believe that my colleagues and I have been threatened by our 
party to fall into line. We have seen this morning this is not about 
falling into line. It is about honor.
  I have only been here 5 months. The New Mexico 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.
  No, Mr. Speaker, the line that I will fall into today is the line of 
legislators who are doing in our hearts what we believe to be right, 
even if it would be easier to do otherwise.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my friends, and many are 
indeed my friends in the majority, would recognize that in their 
attempt to get Bill Clinton, they have at least lost one Speaker and 
one Speaker to-be. They could be almost accused of being the gang that 
could not shoot straight.
  This effort, this effort to get Bill Clinton, first it was 
Whitewater, then it was campaign finance, FBI files, Travelgate. We 
come to the floor today and they are going to vote to impeach this 
President for having an affair and not telling the truth about it?
  This is something that is, I think for the majority of people in this 
country, a nonsensical issue. On one hand we have 16 million new jobs, 
a balanced budget, better education, we have a President committed to 
protecting the environment and preserving Social Security. On the other 
hand we have a party determined to do nothing other than to attack and 
investigate and now to finally impeach Bill Clinton. We deserve better.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, after careful review of the evidence, I 
will vote today to impeach President William Jefferson Clinton. I 
believe the evidence is overwhelming that the President committed 
perjury before a Federal grand jury and in other settings, that he 
obstructed the administration of justice, and that he abused his office 
by lying under oath to Congress.

[[Page H11973]]

  ``The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me 
God.'' Like the Pledge of Allegiance, those words are ingrained in 
every American from an early age. They are the foundation of our legal 
system which is the foundation of a civil society.
  If America's chief law enforcement officer sought to compromise the 
integrity of that legal system, it is a matter of the highest 
consequence and requires us to invoke our most serious of 
constitutional prerogatives, impeachment, and refer this matter to the 
other body for trial. No individual, not even the President, is above 
the law.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  (Ms. STABENOW asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, as an American who cares deeply about our 
Constitution, I rise in opposition to this impeachment process.
  This is a difficult time for our Nation. The impeachment of a 
president has happened only once before in history. I cast my vote 
against impeachment solemnly, after serious study and many hours of 
soul searching. It has been especially difficult to watch this issue 
come before the House of Representatives while our American troops are 
at war against Saddam Hussein.
  Impeachment is the most constitutional power given to Congress. It is 
the first step in overturning a democratically held election and 
removing the President. When Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and 
the other framers of our Constitution adopted the impeachment 
mechanism, they spoke of it as an alternative to assassination or a 
military coup, to be used only for treason, bribery of other high 
crimes against the government. I believe that the President's actions, 
while immoral and irresponsible, were not treasonous, and do not meet 
the high test of impeachment as intended by our Founders.
  Make no mistake. The President's behavior is indefensible. He did not 
tell the truth about his actions, and he should be held accountable for 
his behavior. I strongly believe that the best way to do this--in fact 
the only constitutional alternative--is through censure and a stiff 
fine. Once President Clinton has completed his term in office, he 
should be charged with perjury before a court of law, just as any other 
private citizen would be.
  I am disappointed that the Republican leadership refused to allow a 
vote on censure. Although opponents are correct that censure is not 
specifically mentioned in the Constitution, there is nothing that 
prohibits this action. There are at least four instances of 
Congressional censure involving Presidents--Presidents Jackson (1834), 
Tyler (1842, Polk (1848) and Buchanan (1860). Subsequent sessions of 
Congress have continued to consider censure resolutions. Former 
President Gerald Ford, former Senator Bob Dole and other Republicans 
have called on Congressional leaders to permit a censure vote. Do they 
not understand the Constitution? It is tragically unfair that the 
opportunity for at least half of our Members to vote our conscience 
will not be allowed.
  We have many important issues that we need to consider in the coming 
months, and I intend to keep my focus on the important matters that 
affect our families. I pray that we can come together in the new year 
and begin the healing process for our nation. This is a sad day for our 
country and our Constitution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam 
(Mr. Underwood).
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a serious debate, 
a serious matter for all Americans, even for those Americans that I 
represent who cannot vote for President. But he is our President as 
much as any American community, and I and my constituents stand against 
the impeachment of the President.
  With weighty and eloquent words, we have been told that this is a 
matter of conscience, that Members of this body should vote their 
conscience based upon their understanding of the Constitution, the 
charges, and evidence presented against the President.
  But this view of conscience is a limited one. One can only vote their 
conscience if they have the conscience of the Republican Majority 
leadership, if they accept only the majority's view of the 
Constitution, and only if they accept the majority's view of the 
charges and options available.
  Yes, this is a vote for one's conscience, but only if one's 
conscience is exactly that of the Republican Majority. The debate today 
will not allow for that one option, that of censure, which meets the 
conscience of most Americans and probably a majority of Members of this 
House. The conscience option of censure is absent and its failure to be 
included is fundamentally unfair and a blemish on this Nation's 
democratic tradition.
  Mr. Speaker, We are obviously in the midst of one of this nation's 
most serious debate; a serious matter for all Americans, even those 
that I represent, Americans who can not vote for President because they 
live in a territory of this country. Nevertheless, President Clinton is 
our President as much as he is the President of any other American 
community.
  President Clinton is a great President. He has been a good President 
for schools, for the environment, for the economy, for health care and 
for the well-being of the ordinary citizen of this great and diverse 
nation. As the leader of the free world, he pushes for peace and 
reconciliation throughout the world while demonstrating that force can 
and will be used as a last resort as he is doing today. It is tragic 
that we bring this matter before the people's House at a time when our 
men and women in uniform are engaged in military action on distant 
shores. Some may question the timing, but it is the mark of Bill 
Clinton's presidency that he does what is right at the right time.
  I say all of this because no matter what we may hear, President 
Clinton's record as a leader is important factor in this debate. The 
energy to remove him is motivated by discontent and disdain for Bill 
Clinton just because he occupies this office. And for me, his record of 
achievement must be considered against any proof of harm to the 
Constitution, to our system of government and to our country if we are 
to remove him. And based on my review of the facts, I conclude that his 
offenses, as wrong as they are, are not a threat to our system of 
government and simply do not rise to the standard of impeachment 
outlined in the Constitution.
  With weighty and eloquent words, we have been told that this is a 
matter of conscience; that members of this body should vote their 
conscience based upon their understanding of the Constitution and the 
charges presented against the President. But this view of conscience is 
a limited one. One can only vote their conscience if they have the 
conscience of the Republican majority leadership; if they accept only 
the majority's view of the Constitution and only if they accept the 
majority's view of the charges and possible options available to deal 
with the matter.
  Members are being asked to vote yea or nay on the articles of 
impeachment. To vote your conscience is to vote yea or nay on their 
view of what is Constitutionally permissible, to vote yea or nay on 
their view of the punishment. Despite the reality that members of this 
body, members with as good a conscience as any one here, may be willing 
to vote for censure, this option is not within the conscience of to the 
majority. Despite the fact that the majority of the American public, 
that it is to say the conscience of a majority of Americans, wants 
censure included and, in fact, passed as the ultimate remedy of this 
procedure, censure is not an option.
  Yes, this is a vote of one's conscience, but only if your conscience 
is exactly that of the Republican majority. The debate today will not 
allow for the one option, that of censure, which meets the conscience 
of most Americans. Today's debate does not include all options and if 
fundamentally unfair and a blemish on this nation's democratic 
tradition.
  Yesterday's session began with a prayer of St. Francis of Assisis; 
let us truly bring light to darkness and allow all options to 
illuminate these proceedings and allow every member a vote which 
reflects their conscience.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, there is no joy sometimes in 
upholding the law. It is so unpleasant sometimes that we hire other 
people to do it for us. Ask the police or judges. It is tiring and 
thankless. But we know it must be done, because if we do not point at 
lawlessness, our children cannot see it. If we do not label 
lawlessness, our children cannot recognize it. And if we do not punish 
lawlessness, our children will not believe it.
  So if someone were to ask me, ``J.C., why did you vote for the 
articles of impeachment?'' I would say I did it for our children. How 
can we tell our children that honesty is the best policy if we do not 
demand honesty as a policy? How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his 
oath if elected officials do not honor theirs? How can we expect a 
business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons 
his or hers?
  Whether it is a promise or a truth or a vow or an oath, a person's 
word is the

[[Page H11974]]

firm footing our society stands upon, and the average kid understands 
that. They do not need a grand jury to enforce it. They say ``cross 
your heart, hope to die''; ``pinkie promise''; ``king's X''; ``blood 
brother.'' These are the childhood instincts that seek to draw a line 
between the honest and the dishonest, between the principled and the 
unprincipled.
  Ask the children. The kid who lies does not last and they do not 
bicker over what is and what is not a lie. They know. So do I. So do 
the American people.
  Time and again, we wanted the essence of truth and we got the edges 
of the truth. We hear, ``Let's get on with the business of our 
country.'' What business is more important than teaching our children 
right from wrong? Some say it is all about politics and party lines. If 
that were true, I would have given in to popular opinion. But what is 
popular is not always what is right.
  Some say polls are against this. Polls measure changing feelings, not 
steadfast principle. Polls would have rejected the Ten Commandments. 
Polls would have embraced slavery and ridiculed women's rights.
  Some say we must draw this to a close. I say we must draw a line 
between right and wrong; not with a tiny fine line of an executive 
fountain pen, but with the big, thick lead of a Number 2 pencil. We 
must do it so every kid in America can see it.
  The point is not whether the President can prevail, but whether truth 
can prevail. We need to cease the cannibalizing of Members of Congress. 
We need to cease the attacks on the President and his family because, 
friends, this is not about the President of the United States. He is 
not the injured party. Our country is.
  In this moment, our children's future is more important than our 
future. If our country looks the other way, our country will lose its 
way.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the record of the House on something as important as 
impeachment should be as clear and accurate as it can be, and after 
yesterday's considerable misstatements by Members of the majority, I 
rise to set the record straight.
  Mr. Speaker, they say these articles show high crimes. The record of 
historians who wrote the committee say they are low crimes and do not 
justify the drastic remedy of impeachment.
  As to Article I, impeachment is not justified. They say the President 
committed perjury in the grand jury, but the actual record is that he 
did not deny an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky during 
his grand jury appearance. They are complaining only because of a lack 
of specificity, if my colleagues can believe that, in the President's 
testimony about who touched who and where and when it happened.
  They claim that there is a clear and convincing evidence of grand 
jury perjury, but ignored is the panel of experienced prosecutors who 
testified that no reasonable prosecutor in the land would have brought 
a perjury case arising out of these facts.
  As to Article II, the impeachment is not justified. They say the 
President's testimony deprived the plaintiff, Paula Jones, of her day 
in court. Not so. The record shows that a Federal judge ruled three 
times that Monica Lewinsky's allegations were not relevant to the core 
issues of the Jones case and refused to permit the Jones lawyers to 
pursue the allegations.

                              {time}  1015

  They say the President lied when testifying about his understanding 
of the definition of sexual relations. The record shows that three 
lawyers and a judge spent a half an hour debating the meaning of that 
contorted phrase, with the judge concluding, ``I am not sure Mr. 
Clinton understands all these definitions anyway.''
  They say the President perjured himself when he testified to the 
truthfulness of the Lewinsky affidavit. The record shows that Ms. 
Lewinsky stated that her denial of sex was not untruthful because she 
defined sex as intercourse.
  As to the third article of impeachment, it is not justified either. 
They say the President obstructed justice by, one, asking Ms. Lewinsky 
to lie in the Jones case; two, engineering the return of gifts he had 
given her; three, trying to buy her silence with a job; and, four, 
directing Ms. Currie's testimony.
  The record is that Ms. Lewinsky stated over and over again that the 
President never asked her to lie. She said this in the grand jury and 
in her written statement. The record shows that Ms. Lewinsky and not 
the President or Ms. Currie initiated the return of the gifts. The 
record shows that the President gave her more gifts after she had been 
subpoenaed. The record is that the job search began months before Ms. 
Lewinsky showed up on the witness list in the Jones matter. The record 
shows that the President made no extraordinary effort to get her a job. 
The record shows that Ms. Currie was never a witness on any list. Ms. 
Currie testified no fewer than 9 times and stated repeatedly that she 
did not feel pressured by the President's remarks.
  Finally, to article 4, the President, they say, abused his power by 
failing to answer the 81 questions. But the record shows the President 
answered the 81 questions completely, but that the alleged abuse of 
power lies in the fact that the majority disagrees with the answers. 
The majority has simply tried to dress up its perjury allegations in 
the clothes of the Watergate's abuse of power language, and I know 
something about that, in an effort to make its case against the 
President seem more serious.
  They say the President has to be impeached to uphold the rule of law, 
but we say the President cannot be impeached without denigrating the 
rule of law and devaluating the standard of impeachable offenses.
  Mr. Speaker, during the course of our proceedings, President 
Clinton's attorneys rebutted each and every charge of impeachment 
leveled against him. If there is any doubt as to that the Members 
should review the following materials (which are hereby incorporated by 
reference):
  1. Preliminary Memorandum of the President of the United States 
Concerning Referral of the Office of the Independent Counsel and 
Initial Response of the President of the United States to Referral of 
the Office of the Independent Counsel, Communication from the Committee 
on the Judiciary, 105th Congress, 2d Session, House Document 105-317 
(57 printed pages).
  2. Submission by Counsel for President Clinton to the Committee on 
the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives, 
Impeachment Inquiry Pursuant to H. Res. 581, Committee on the 
Judiciary, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, 2d Session, 
Committee Print Serial No. 16 (404 printed pages).
  Memorandum Regarding Standards for Impeachment dated October 2, 1998, 
transmitted with cover letter addressed to Chairman Hyde and Rep. 
Conyers dated 10/2/98 signed by Charles F. C. Ruff, Counsel to the 
President, and David E. Kendall of Williams & Connolly (31 typed pages, 
published House Judiciary Democratic Web Page).
  4. The testimony of the witnesses called by the White House including 
in particular the fourth panel called by the White House on December 
9th dealing with prosecutorial standards (Thomas P. Sullivan, Richard 
Davis, Edward Dennis, Jr., and William F. Weld). (Printing 
forthcoming).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can make this speech, but 
I am going to try.
  Believe it or not, I have been very depressed about this whole 
proceeding. When I came to work yesterday, it really hit me what we 
were about to do. But after this morning, it made me realize even more 
what this is all about. I feel great about it, because no matter how 
low we think we are or depressed we are, this country shows us time and 
time again how great it is.
  There is no greater American in my mind, at least today, than the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) because he understood 
what this debate was all about. It was about honor and decency and 
integrity and the truth, everything that we honor in this country. It 
was also a debate about relativisim versus absolute truth.
  The President's defenders have said that the President is morally 
reprehensible, that he is reckless, that he has violated the trust of 
the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President 
and dishonored the office which they have entrusted him, but that it 
does not rise to the level of impeachment.

[[Page H11975]]

  What the defenders want to do is lower the standards by which we hold 
this President and lower the standards for our society by doing so.
  I cannot in good conscience, after watching Newt Gingrich put the 
country, his caucus, his House above himself and resign, and I cannot 
stand before you watching Bob Livingston put his family, and I hope you 
will think about his family, his friends, his House and his country 
above any ambitions that he may have. He thought he could do a good job 
as Speaker. I think he would have. But for some it is no longer good 
enough to make a mistake, confess that mistake and accept the 
consequences of that mistake and change the way you live your life and 
keep moving and make a contribution to this country. I think you ought 
to think about that, both sides.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we will proceed. We will elect another Speaker. This 
country will be better for it. I cannot say this strong enough: This is 
God's country, and I know He will bless America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 14 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 15 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), an outstanding member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am even more depressed today than I 
thought I would be yesterday. I believe the resignation of the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), while offered in good faith, 
was wrong. It is a surrender, it is a surrender to a developing sexual 
McCarthyism.
  Are we going to have a new test if someone wants to run for public 
office: Are you now or have you ever been an adulterer? We are losing 
sight of the distinction between sins, which ought to be between a 
person and his family and his God, and crimes which are the concern of 
the State and of society as a whole.
  On one level we could say, I suppose, that you reap what you sew, but 
that gives us no joy, and it gives me no joy. I wish that the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) would reconsider, because I do not 
think that on the basis of what we know he should resign. But the 
impeachment of the President is even worse. Because, again, we are 
losing the distinction, we are losing track of the distinction between 
sins and crimes. We are lowering the standard of impeachment.
  What the President has done is not a great and dangerous offense to 
the safety of the Republic. In the words of George Mason, it is not an 
impeachable offense under the meaning of the Constitution.
  As we heard from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the 
allegations are far, far from proven. And the fact is, we are not 
simply transmitting evidence, transmitting a case with some evidence to 
the Senate, as evidenced by the fact that we already heard leaders in 
this House say he should resign. God forbid that he should resign. He 
should fight this and beat it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here to deal with 
a problem that none of us wants and we are agreed upon much more than 
we admit.
  The censure resolution, not the articles of impeachment, but the 
censure resolution states that William Jefferson Clinton has violated 
his oath of office, damaged and dishonored the presidency, engaged in 
reprehensible conduct with a subordinate and wrongly obstructed 
discovery of the truth. This debate, therefore, is not about whether 
the President has abused his office. He has. And both Democrats and 
Republicans acknowledge it.
  Some have said we should not deal with this question now while our 
troops are in the Gulf. It might be added that they are also in Bosnia, 
in Kosovo, and nose to nose with North Korean soldiers in the DMZ. A 
quarter million American soldiers are positioned at trip wires of 
global conflict, and they will be there long after this debate ends. 
They are protecting our freedom and our democracy. It is for them as 
much as for any Americans that Congress meets today.
  Every one of our soldiers is held to a code of conduct. None of them 
could keep his or her job, the privilege of being ordered into battle, 
if they had committed the crimes of our Commander in Chief. For 
committing just the underlying acts, the so-called personal elements of 
the Commander in Chief's offenses, the Clinton administration has 
prosecuted no fewer than 67 American officers and enlisted men and 
women. Hundreds of Americans who have served their country in the Army, 
the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps have lost their careers, 
even though they did not once lie under oath to a judge or to a grand 
jury or obstruct justice or tamper with a single witness. They were 
dismissed because of a more simple reason: They failed in their duty.
  Every single man and woman in operation Desert Fox at this very 
moment is held to a higher standard than their Commander in Chief.
  Let us raise the standard of our American leader to the level of his 
troops. Let us once again respect the institution of the presidency. 
Let us see to it indeed what the censure resolution says merely in 
words, that no man is above the law. Let us not fail in our duty. Let 
us restore honor to our country.

                          ____________________