October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10015

Accordingly (at 10 o’clock and 23 any person authorized by law to administer CONYERS), pending which I yield myself minutes a.m.), the House stood in re- oaths) may administer oaths to any witness. such time as I may consume. During cess until approximately 10:55 a.m.) For the purposes of this section, ‘‘things’’ in- consideration of this resolution, all cludes, without limitation, books, records, time yielded is for the purpose of de- f correspondence, logs, journals, memoran- bate only. REQUEST TO EXTEND DEBATE ON dums, papers, documents, writings, draw- IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RESOLU- ings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproduc- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY tions, recordings, tapes, transcripts, print- Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, consid- TION outs, data compilations from which informa- ering the historical importance of this b 1055 tion can be obtained (translated if necessary, vote today and the precedent we will through detection devices into reasonably Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask set for decades to come, would it be usable form), tangible objects, and other within the rules of the House for me at unanimous consent that the debate on things of any kind. House Resolution 581 regarding pro- this time to ask unanimous consent The SPEAKER. The resolution, since ceeding with an impeachment inquiry that each Member of this House, who reported from the Committee on the be expanded to the time of 8 hours. feels in his or her conscience that he or Judiciary, constitutes a question of The SPEAKER. The Chair is con- she would want to speak for 2 minutes privilege and may be called up at this strained not to recognize the gen- on this issue, be allowed that oppor- time. tleman for that purpose at this time. tunity as they try to represent the Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, while the f 560,000 people in their district? normal procedure grants 1 hour of de- The SPEAKER. The gentleman is not AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON bate on a privileged resolution, I pro- recognized for that purpose, and the THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE pose doubling that time. House has already established by unan- WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS Therefore, I ask unanimous consent imous consent the 2-hour time limit. EXIST FOR THE IMPEACHMENT that I be recognized for 2 hours for the PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLIN- debate on H. Res. 581, 1 hour of which Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserv- TON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED I intend to yield to the gentleman from ing the right to object. STATES Illinois (Mr. CONYERS) for the purposes The SPEAKER. There is no request Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of debate only. And anybody on my to be objected to at this time, but the of the Committee on the Judiciary, I side who was constrained to object, I Chair would be glad to recognize the hope they will withhold their objection call up H. Res. 581, and ask for its im- gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DIN- so we can have the 2 hours of debate. mediate consideration. GELL) for a parliamentary inquiry. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Mr. DINGELL. Then I will make this lows: the request of the gentleman from Illi- a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. nois? H. RES. 581 Why is it we are not being afforded Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reserv- more time to debate this? This is one Resolved, That the Committee on the Judi- ing the right to object, I appreciate the of the most important questions—— ciary, acting as a whole or by any sub- unanimous consent that is being put committee thereof appointed by the chair- The SPEAKER. That is not a par- man for the purposes hereof and in accord- forward, and ask my friend, the distin- liamentary inquiry, but that might be ance with the rules of the committee, is au- guished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. raised during debate, if the gentleman thorized and directed to investigate fully and HYDE), chairman of the Committee on gets time. completely whether sufficient grounds exist the Judiciary, if he would add 2 hours PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY for the House of Representatives to exercise to that request, please. Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, par- its constitutional power to impeach William I understand the exigencies of the Jefferson Clinton, President of the United liamentary inquiry. I would like to in- moment, but I have enormous pressure quire if a unanimous consent request is States of America. The committee shall re- being put upon the ranking member for port to the House of Representatives such in order. resolutions, articles of impeachment, or Members to merely have a chance to The SPEAKER. That would not be in other recommendations as it deems proper. get in a brief expression on this his- order at this time unless the gen- SEC. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such toric occasion, and I ask that the gen- tleman from Illinois yielded for that investigation, the committee is authorized tleman give that his most generous purpose. to require— consideration. Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will (1) by subpoena or otherwise— Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- the gentleman yield? (A) the attendance and testimony of any tleman yield? The SPEAKER. The gentleman from person (including at a taking of a deposition Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gen- by counsel for the committee); and Illinois (Mr. HYDE) controls the time. (B) the production of such things; and tleman from Illinois. Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman (2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the yield for a unanimous consent request? information; gentleman for yielding. I can only say Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I must in- as it deems necessary to such investigation. that we have had extensive discussions sist on regular order or we will not get (b) Such authority of the committee may and I am fearful that there would be through with this, so I cannot yield for be exercised— several objectors to that. So, I am con- a unanimous consent request. (1) by the chairman and the ranking mi- strained to offer the extra hour only GENERAL LEAVE nority member acting jointly, or, if either and not go beyond that. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- declines to act, by the other acting alone, ex- I would suggest a special order to- mous consent that all Members may cept that in the event either so declines, ei- night where everybody can speak as ther shall have the right to refer to the com- have 5 legislative days within which to mittee for decision the question whether long and as loudly as they want. revise and extend their remarks on such authority shall be so exercised and the b 1100 House Resolution 581, the resolution committee shall be convened promptly to now under consideration. render that decision; or Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I with- The SPEAKER. Is there objection to (2) by the committee acting as a whole or draw my reservation of objection. the request of the gentleman from Illi- by subcommittee. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to nois? Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized the request gentleman from Illinois? Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, re- may be issued over the signature of the There was no objection. serving the right to object, we are just chairman, or ranking minority member, or The SPEAKER. The gentleman from asking for fairness. any member designated by either of them, Illinois (Mr. HYDE) is recognized for 2 The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman and may be served by any person designated hours. from New York (Mr. ACKERMAN) object? by the chairman, or ranking minority mem- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes ber, or any member designated by either of Mr. ACKERMAN. In that case, Mr. them. The chairman, or ranking minority of debate only, I yield 1 hour to the dis- Speaker, I object. member, or any member designated by ei- tinguished minority ranking member The SPEAKER. Objection is heard. ther of them (or, with respect to any deposi- on the Committee on the Judiciary, The Chair recognizes the gentleman tion, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. from Illinois (Mr. HYDE). H10016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, general With that personal experience, I Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolu- leave was objected to? pledge to my colleagues the fairest and tion to authorize and direct the Committee on The SPEAKER. General leave was most expeditious search for the truth the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient objected to. The gentleman from Illi- that I can muster. I do not expect that grounds exist to impeach the President of the nois (Mr. HYDE) controls the time and I will agree with my Democratic United States. has yielded to himself. friends at each step along the way, but I commend the Judiciary Committee for fol- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- I know that to date we have agreed on lowing the intent of the Rules Committee reso- mous consent to revise and extend my many things. In fact, we have agreed lution, H. Res. 525, which passed the House remarks. on many more things than is generally overwhelmingly on September 11. That resolu- (Mr. HYDE asked and was given per- known. tion instructed the Committee to carefully re- mission to revise and extend his re- I hope at the end of this long day we view and release the material in the independ- marks.) will agree on the result. I am deter- ent Counsel's report, expunging that material Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today we mined we will continue to look every in the Independent Counsel's report, will vote on an historic resolution to day for common ground and to agree expunging that material which is not relevant begin an inquiry into whether the where we can. When we must disagree, or may interfere with ongoing investigations. President has committed impeachable we will do everything we can to mini- I would say to the CommitteeÐyou have ju- offenses. All of us are pulled in many mize those disagreements. At all times, diciously carried out the instructions given to directions by our political parties, by civility must be the watch word for you by the House, and I commend you for it. philosophy and friendships; we are Members on both sides of the aisle. Too The public release of the material in that re- pulled by many competing forces, but much hangs in the balance for us not port, with appropriate redactions, was nec- mostly we are moved by our con- to rise above partisan politics. essary to give Members of the House the abil- sciences. We must listen to that still I will use all my strength to ensure ity to cast informed votes here on the floor small voice that whispers in our ear, that this inquiry does not become a today. Members of the House and the public, duty, duty, duty. fishing expedition. Rather, I am deter- unfortunately, must have a dialogue about the Some years ago Douglas MacArthur, mined that it will be a fair and expedi- in a famous speech at West Point, as- contents of this report. tious search for truth. We have plenty I believe that in approving the release of this serted the ideal of our military forces enough to do now, we do not need to as duty, honor and country. We do not material by such a large margin, the House re- search for new material. lied on the traditional notion that an informed have to be a soldier in a far-off land to However, I cannot say that we will citizenry is critical to the success of our repub- feel the force of those words. They are never address other subjects, nor would our ideal here today as well. lic. it be responsible to do so. I do not In supporting this resolution before the We have another ideal here, to attain know what the future holds. If substan- House today, let me say to the Members that justice through the rule of law. Justice tial and credible evidence of other im- regardless of your personal feelings about the is always and everywhere under as- peachable offenses comes to us, as the President, whether political supporters or not, sault, and our duty is to vindicate the Independent Counsel hinted or sug- you have a constitutional obligation to set rule of law as the surest protector of gested in a letter we received only yes- aside those feelings and cast your vote solely that fragile justice. terday, the Constitution will demand on the basis of whether you believe the evi- And so here, today, having received that we do our duty. Like each of my dence submitted to this House is sufficient the referral in 17 cartons of supportive colleagues, I took an oath to answer grounds to undertake an impeachment inquiry. material from the Independent Coun- that call. I intend to do so, and I hope Prior to today, I have withheld judgment and sel, the question asks itself: Shall we my colleagues will join with me if that made no statements to the media regarding look further or shall we look away? day comes. I do not think we want to the substantive grounds for impeachment. I respectfully suggest that we must settle for less than the whole truth. look further by voting for this resolu- Some are concerned about timing. However, I have reviewed the evidence in the tion and thus commencing an inquiry Believe me, nobody wants to end this report and I find it thorough, well-documented, into whether or not the President has any sooner than I do. But the Constitu- and exhaustive in its corroborating detail. committed impeachable acts. We do tion demands that we take the amount After reviewing all of this evidence, I believe not make any judgments, we do not of time necessary to do the right thing we have an overwhelming constitutional duty make any charges, we simply begin a in the right way. A rush to judgment to vote to proceed with an inquiry. search for truth. does not serve anybody’s interest, cer- I for one will continue to reserve judgment My colleagues will hear from our op- tainly not the public’s interest. As I on whether articles of impeachment should be ponents that, yes, we need to look fur- have said publicly, my fervent hope brought until after the Judiciary Committee has ther, but do it our way. Their way im- and prayer is we can end this process completed its investigation and sends a further poses artificial time limits, limits our by the end of the year. That is my new recommendation to the House. inquiry to the Lewinsky matter, and year’s resolution. However, to agree to Mr. Speaker, today we should not determine requires us to establish standards for an artificial deadline would be irre- whether to impeach the man who holds the impeachment that have never been es- sponsible. It would only invite delay Executive Office of the President. Rather, we tablished before, certainly not in the and discourage cooperation. should ratify the Judiciary Committee's rec- Nixon impeachment proceedings, which For those who worry about the tim- ommendation that there is enough evidence to we are trying to follow to the letter. ing, I urge them to do everything pos- formally ask that question. We have followed the Rodino format. sible to encourage cooperation. No one In doing so, we affirm the grim charge hand- We will move with all deliberate speed. likes to have their behavior ques- ed down by the framers of the Constitution, to Many raise concerns about that propo- tioned. The best way to end the ques- guard against degradation of the office by the sition. Let me speak directly to those tions is to answer them in a timely and man who happens to hold it. concerns. Some suggest the process to truthful manner. Thorough and During the debate on whether to include the date has been partisan, yet every mem- thoughtful cooperation will do more impeachment clause in the Constitution at the ber of the Committee on the Judiciary than anything to put this matter be- convention, Governor Morris, a delegate from voted for an inquiry in some form. We hind us. Pennsylvania, offered an amendment to strike differ over the procedural details, not Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he the clause. the fundamental question of whether may consume to the gentleman from At the conclusion of the debate, he changed we should go forward. New York (Mr. SOLOMON.) his mind and supported the impeachment Many on the other side of the aisle (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given clause and argued, ``Our executive is not like worry that this inquiry will become an permission to revise and extend his re- a Magistrate having a life interest, much less excuse for an open-ended attack on this marks.) like one having an hereditary interest in his of- administration. I understand that Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I cer- fice.'' worry. During times when Republicans tainly thank the gentleman for yield- With the unique idea of this constitutional controlled the executive branch and I ing me this time, and I just rise in sup- clause as a foundation for our deliberation, our was in the minority, I lived where they port of the resolution and to commend action here today affirms that we are not like are living now. the Committee on the Judiciary. the rest of the world. October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10017 I urge support for the resolution. It should not become an invitation for can proceed with its very important Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the a free-ranging fishing expedition, sub- business by the end of this year. balance of my time. jecting to a formal impeachment in- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield quiry matters that are not before the minutes to the distinguished gen- myself 10 seconds. Congress today. The potential for such tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. SENSEN- I really want to say to the chairman a venture should be strictly limited by BRENNER), a member of the committee. of the Committee on the Judiciary, the the resolution adopted today by the Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speak- gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HENRY House, and our Democratic proposal er, I rise in support of the resolution of HYDE), that I respect the fulsomeness contains those appropriate limits. It inquiry. and fairness of his statement. I know would subject to the inquiry the mate- At Monday’s meeting of the Commit- that he is a person of his word, and I rial presented to us by the office of tee on the Judiciary, Investigative hope that these processes within our Independent Counsel, which is the only Counsel David Shippers informed the committee and the Congress will follow material before the House today. committee that the material received along the lines that he has outlined so The public interest also requires that to date shows that the President may admirably. the matter be brought to conclusion at have committed 15 felonies. These al- Mr. Speaker, I yield 41⁄2 minutes to the earliest possible time; that is, con- leged felonies were in the course of the the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RICK sistent with a thorough and complete President’s successfully defeating BOUCHER), the principal architect of review. The country has already under- Paula Jones’ civil rights lawsuit, the alternative proposal to the motion gone substantial trauma. If the com- claims the Supreme Court in a 9–0 deci- on the floor that will be embodied in a mittee carries this work beyond the sion said that she had the right to pur- motion to recommit. time that is reasonably needed to con- sue. The President denies all these al- (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given duct its complete and thorough review, legations. Obviously someone is telling permission to revise and extend his re- that injury to the Nation will only the truth and someone is lying. marks.) deepen. We should be thorough, but we The Committee on the Judiciary Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want should also be prompt. must be given the power to decide this to thank the gentleman from Michigan Mr. Speaker, given that the facts of issue. What is at stake here is the rule for yielding this time to me and com- this matter are generally well-known, of law. Even the President of the mend him for the leadership that he given that there are only a handful of United States has no right to break the has exerted as we have worked on this witnesses who have relevant informa- law. If the House votes down this in- side in order to offer a fair and a bal- tion that can be addressed in this in- quiry, in effect, it will say that even if anced alternative to the resolution of quiry, and given the further fact that President Clinton committed as many inquiry. all of those witnesses have already as 15 felonies, nothing will happen. The At the conclusion of this debate, I been the subject of extensive review by result will be a return to the imperial will offer a motion to recommit the the Grand Jury, and their testimony is presidency of the Nixon era where the resolution offered by the gentleman available, this inquiry can, in fact, be White House felt that the laws did not from Illinois to the Committee on the prompt. The committee’s work should apply to them, since they never would Judiciary with the instruction that the not extend into next year. A careful be punished. That would be a national committee immediately report back and a thorough review can be accom- tragedy of immense consequences. that resolution to the House with in- plished between now and the end of Vote for the resolution. Let the Com- structions that it contain our Demo- this year, and our Democratic resolu- mittee on the Judiciary try to find the cratic alternative. tion provides that appropriate limita- truth. While we would have preferred that tion on time. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 Democrats have a normal opportunity The resolution requires that the com- minutes to the able gentleman from to present our resolution as an amend- mittee hold hearings on the constitu- New York (Mr. SCHUMER), a senior ment, the procedure that is being used tional standard for impeachment, member of our Committee on the Judi- by the House today does not make a which was clearly stated in the conclu- ciary. Democratic amendment in regular sion of the committee’s report in the Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank course in order. The motion to recom- Watergate years of 1974. Our substitute the gentleman for yielding time. mit with instructions does, however, then directs that the committee com- Mr. Speaker, this is a serious and sol- give us an opportunity to have the pare the facts that are stated in the re- emn day. After a careful reading of the House adopt the Democratic plan. ferral of the Independent Counsel to Starr report and other materials sub- The Democratic amendment is a res- that historical constitutional standard mitted by the Office of Independent olution for a full and complete review and, if any facts rise to the level of im- Counsel as well as a study of the ori- by the Committee on the Judiciary of peachable conduct, that material gins and history of the impeachment the material that has been presented to would then be subjected to the thor- clause of the Constitution, I have come the House by the office of Independent ough inquiry and review process con- to the conclusion that, given the evi- Counsel. The Republican resolution tained within our resolution. dence before us, while the President de- also provides for that full and complete Under the resolution that we are put- serves significant punishment, there is review. The difference between the ting forth, the committee will begin its no basis for impeachment of the Presi- Democratic and the Republican ap- work on the 12th day of October, that dent and it is time to move on and proaches is only over the scope of the is next Monday, and will conclude all solve the problems facing the Amer- review, only over the time that the re- proceedings, including the consider- ican people, like health care, education view will take, and only over our in- ation of recommendations, during the and protecting seniors’ retirement. sistence that the Committee on the Ju- month of December. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that diciary, in conducting its process, pay the President lied when he testified be- b deference and become aware of the his- 1115 fore the grand jury not to cover a torical constitutional standard for im- There would then be ample time for crime but to cover embarrassing per- peachment that has evolved to us over the House of Representatives to con- sonal behavior. While it is true that in the centuries and was recognized most sider those recommendations and con- ordinary circumstances and in most in- recently by the Committee on the Ju- clude its work by the end of this year. stances an ordinary person would not diciary in 1974 and then recognized by The procedure we are recommending be punished for lying about an extra- the full House of Representatives. is fair, it is thorough, it is prompt. It is marital affair, the President has to be The public interest requires a fair a recommendation for an inquiry. It held to a higher standard and must be and deliberate inquiry in this matter. would assure an appropriate scope. It held accountable. But high crimes and Our resolution provides for that fair would give deference to the historical misdemeanors, as defined in the Con- and deliberate inquiry. But the public constitutional standard for impeach- stitution and as amplified by the Fed- interest also requires an appropriate ment, and it would assure that this eralist Papers and Justice Story, have boundary on the scope of the inquiry. matter is put behind us so the Nation always been intended to apply to public H10018 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 actions relating to or affecting the op- is whether or not we will say to all of a wrongdoing but as a protection of eration of the government, not to per- our citizens, including the President of constitutional liberties and of the sonal or private conduct. the United States, when you take an structure of the government that they That said, the punishment for lying oath, you must keep it. were establishing against a President about an improper sexual relationship Having deliberately provided false who might seek to become a tyrant. should fit the crime. Censure or rebuke testimony under oath, the President in The President’s acts, if proven true, is the appropriate punishment. Im- my judgment forfeited his right to of- may be crimes, calling for prosecution peachment is not. It is time to move fice. It was with a deep sense of sadness or other punishment, but not impeach- forward, not have the Congress and that I called for his resignation. By his ment. So I do not believe we need a for- American people endure the specter of own misconduct, the President dis- mal impeachment inquiry. But if we what could be a year-long focus on a played his character and he defined it are to have an inquiry, it must be fair. tawdry but not impeachable affair. badly. His actions were not ‘‘inappro- So far it has been anything but fair. Today the world economy is in crisis priate.’’ They were predatory, reckless, The President was not given the Starr and cries out for American leadership, breathtakingly arrogant for a man al- report before it was made public; a vio- without which worldwide turmoil is a ready a defendant in a sexual harass- lation of all the precedents. No debate grave possibility. The American people ment suit, whether or not that suit was on the committee occurred on the mer- cry out for us to solve the problems politically motivated. its whatsoever. We spent a month on facing them. This investigation, now in And if in disgust or dismay we were deciding what should be released and its fifth year, has run its course. It is to sweep aside the President’s immoral what should be kept in private, and time to move on. and illegal conduct, what dangerous then we heard the report of the two Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 precedent would we set for the abuse of counsels and then we discussed proce- minutes to the distinguished gen- power by some future President of the dure but not a minute of debate on the tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. United States? merits on the evidence, on the standard MCHALE). We cannot define the President’s of impeachment, on anything. Mr. MCHALE. Mr. Speaker, Franklin character. But we must define the Na- The supreme insult to the American Roosevelt once said that ‘‘the presi- tion’s. I urge an affirmative vote on people, an hour of debate on the House dency is preeminently a place of moral the resolution. floor on whether to start, for the third leadership.’’ Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield time in the American history, a formal I want my strong criticism of Presi- 21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from New impeachment proceeding. We debated dent Clinton to be placed in context. I York (Mr. NADLER), who coauthored two resolutions to name post offices voted for President Clinton in 1992 and the alternative proposal that we shall yesterday for an hour and a half. An 1996. I believed him to be the ‘‘Man shortly offer this morning. hour debate on this momentous deci- from Hope’’ as he was depicted in his Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the issue sion is an insult to the American peo- 1992 campaign video. I have voted for in the potential impeachment is wheth- ple and another sign that this is not more than three-fourths of the Presi- er to overturn the results of a national going to be fair. dent’s legislative agenda and I would election, the free expression of the pop- The democratic amendment is a fair do so again. My blunt criticism of the ular will of the American people. It is device for a fair process. It provides for President has nothing to do with pol- an enormous responsibility, and an ex- a limitation in scope in time, and I icy. Moreover, the President has al- traordinary power. It is not one that urge its adoption. ways treated me with courtesy and re- should be exercised lightly. It is cer- POINT OF ORDER spect and he has been more than re- tainly not one which should be exer- Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I make a sponsive to the concerns of my con- cised in a manner in which or would be point of order. stituents. perceived to be unfair or partisan. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will Unfortunately, the President’s mis- The work of this House during the state his point of order. conduct has now made immaterial my Nixon impeachment investigation com- Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a past support or agreement with him on manded the respect and support of the fairly important issue. It seems to me issues. Last January 17, the President American people. A broad consensus that if Members are going to vote on it of the United States attempted to that President Nixon had to go was de- the least they could do is be here in the cover up a sordid and irresponsible re- veloped precisely because the process chamber when it is debated, and I lationship by repeated deceit under was seen to be fair and deliberate. If would hope that the leadership of both oath in a Federal civil rights suit. Con- our conduct in this matter does not parties would be sending out messages trary to his later public statement, his earn the confidence of the American to the Members that whatever they are answers were not ‘‘legally accurate,’’ people, then any action we take, espe- doing, they ought to drop it and get they were intentionally and blatantly cially if we seek to overturn the result their tails here. false. He allowed his lawyer to make of a free election, will be viewed with Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 21⁄2 arguments to the court based on an af- great suspicion and could divide a na- minutes to the distinguished gen- fidavit that the President knew to be tion for years to come. tleman from Florida (Mr. CANADY), a false. The President later deceived the We do not need another ‘‘Who lost member of the committee. American people and belatedly admit- China?’’ debate. We do not need a dec- Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speak- ted the truth only when confronted ade of candidates running for office ac- er, I rise today to support the impeach- some 7 months later by a mountain of cusing each other of railroading a ment inquiry resolution of the Com- irrefutable evidence. I am convinced democratically elected President out of mittee on the Judiciary, a resolution that the President would otherwise office, or participating in a thinly which ensures that we expeditiously have allowed his false testimony to failed coup d’etat. deal with the serious charges against stand in perpetuity. The issue has the potential to be the the President in a process that is fair, What is at stake is really the rule of most divisive issue in American public thoughtful and deliberative. law. When the President took an oath life since the Vietnam War. The proc- In this resolution, we followed the to tell the truth, he was no different at ess by which we arrive at our decision pattern and procedures established in that point from any other citizen, both must be seen to be both nonpartisan the Nixon impeachment inquiry. This as a matter of morality and as a mat- and fair. The legitimacy of American model served the House well in the ter of legal obligation. We cannot ex- political institutions must not be Nixon case. It has stood the test of cuse that kind of misconduct because called into question. time and there is no reason that we we happen to belong to the same party I do not believe personally that all should abandon this model now. as the President or agree with him on the allegations in the Starr report, if The House should reject the unprece- issues or feel tragically that the re- proven true, describe impeachable of- dented Democratic alternative with its moval of the President from office fenses. We need to remember that the unwise, arbitrary and unrealistic limi- would be enormously painful for the framers of the Constitution did not in- tations and restrictions on the ability United States of America. The question tend impeachment as a punishment for of the Committee on the Judiciary to October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10019 do its job. We must recognize that the Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 tions were wrong. In fact, they were in- Democratic alternative sets up a proc- minutes the distinguished gentleman defensible. But our role today is not to ess that has never, not once, been fol- from Arkansas (Mr. HUTCHINSON). attack him. Our role today is to make lowed in the more than 200-year his- Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, sure that this process is defensible. tory of impeachment under our con- today we are considering a resolution And this is not a defensible process. stitution. It is totally without prece- of inquiry into the conduct of the This Chamber spent a day, a little dent. President of the United States. It is more than a day, debating renaming an Some have claimed that the charges not about a person, but it is about the airport, and we are spending 2 hours on against the President do not amount to rule of law. Each of us took a simple deciding the future of this Presidency. high crimes and misdemeanors but the oath to uphold the Constitution of the That is unfair. very report cited by the President’s United States. The Constitution pro- There should be an inquiry; we lawyers, which was prepared by the im- vides a path to follow in these cir- should move on. But it has to be fair, peachment inquiry staff in the Nixon cumstances. The path may not be well and what we are seeing today is not case, recognizes that conduct of the worn, but it is well marked, and we fair, it is not focused. President which, and I quote, ‘‘under- will be wise to follow it rather than to We have a report from Kenneth mines the integrity of office’’ is im- concoct our own ideas on how to pro- Starr. We should focus our inquiry on peachable. The unavoidable con- ceed. the report and any subsequent matters sequence of perjury and obstruction of The gentleman from New York con- Ken Starr brings us. We should have a target date of com- justice by a President would be to cluded that the President has lied pletion. We should aim to finish this by erode respect for the office of the under oath, that he should be punished, December 31. And if we cannot get it President. Such acts inevitably subvert but he should not be impeached. The done, we can ask for an extension, and the respect for the law, which is essen- gentleman is way ahead in his conclu- that can happen. sion of where this process should be tial to the well-being of our constitu- But the American people want this to and where I am. I would say that this tional system. be a fair process, and they are not stu- If perjury and obstruction of justice process is not about punishment. The pid, and they recognize that this is not do not undermine the integrity of of- purpose of this process is to examine a fair process. The President may be fice, what offenses would? Not long the public trust, and, if it is breached, punished, the President should be held after the Constitution was adopted, one to repair it. accountable for his actions, but we We have been referred serious of the framers wrote, if it were to be have a duty, each and every person in asked what is the most sacred duty and charges of perjury, obstruction of jus- this Chamber has a duty, to do that in the greatest source of security in a re- tice and abuse of power. The President a fair way. public, the answer would be, an invio- and his lawyers have denied each of And I think each of us has to exam- lable respect for the Constitution and these charges, as is his right to do. Our ine our conscience and ask whether we laws. Those, therefore, who set exam- response should be that we need to ex- want to have a wide-ranging fishing ex- ples which undermine or subvert the amine these facts to determine the pedition or whether we want to focus it authority of the laws lead us from free- truth and to weigh the evidence, and it on the report that has been brought to dom to slavery. They incapacitate us is our highest duty today to vote for us and any subsequent matters the spe- for a government of laws. this inquiry so that, if the result is cial prosecutor brings to us. If we do Today, as Members of this House, it there are no impeachable offenses, we that, I think we can do that on a bipar- is our solemn responsibility under the can move on, but if there is more to be tisan basis, and I think that will be Constitution to move forward with this done, we can be sure that the rule of fair, and that is what the American inquiry and to set an example that law will not be suspended or ignored by people want. strengthens the authority of the laws this Congress. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 and preserves the liberty with which The Watergate model was chosen be- minutes to the distinguished gen- we have been blessed as Americans. cause that was what was demanded by tleman from California (Mr. DREIER). Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my friends from across the aisle. This (Mr. DREIER asked and was given 11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from resolution does not direct the commit- permission to revise and extend his re- Florida (Mr. WEXLER), a valuable mem- tee to go into any additional areas, but marks.) ber of the Committee on the Judiciary. it does give the committee the author- Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is ob- Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, God help ity to carry out its responsibility and viously a very difficult time for every this Nation if today we become a Con- to bring this matter to a conclusion Member of this House. gress of endless investigation, accom- without further delay. I think it was said first by the gen- plices to this unAmerican inquisition It is my firm commitment, as an Ar- tleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE): Duty, that would destroy the presidency over kansan, as an American and as some- duty, duty. The gentleman from Wis- an extramarital affair. one who has tried to work with my col- consin (Mr. BARRETT) just talked about The global economy is crumbling and leagues from both side of the aisle, to our duty. But I think, over and above we are talking about Monica Lewinsky. be fair in every way in the search for our duty, I think it is important for us Saddam Hussein hides weapons and truth. Did the President participate in to recognize the words of the gen- we are talking about Monica Lewinsky. a scheme to obstruct justice? Did the tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. President commit perjury? Do these al- MCHALE) who talked about the impor- b 1130 legations, if proven, constitute im- tance of the rule of law. That really is Genocide wracks Kosovo, and we are peachable offenses? We can answer why we are here. talking about Monica Lewinsky. these questions in a fair and bipartisan Over the past several weeks and Children crammed into packed class- manner, and that is my commitment. months a number of us have dusted off rooms, and we are talking about People say this is not Watergate. our copies of the Federalist Papers, Monica Lewinsky. That is true. Every case is different. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Families cannot pay their medical But the rule of law and our obligation Madison—James Madison being the au- bills, and we are talking about Monica to it does not change. They do not thor, the father of the Constitution. Lewinsky. change because of position, personal- Towards the end of the 51st Federalist, God help this Nation if we trivialize ities or power. The rule of law and jus- James Madison puts it perfectly as we the Constitution of the United States tice depends upon this truth. look at the challenge that we face and reject the conviction of our Found- I ask my colleagues to support the today. He said: ing Fathers that impeachment is about resolution. Justice is the end of government. It is the no less than the subversion of the gov- Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield end of civil society. It ever has been and ever ernment. The President betrayed his 11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Wis- will be pursued until it be obtained or until wife; he did not betray the country. consin (Mr. BARRETT). liberty be lost in the pursuit. God help this Nation if we fail to recog- Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask nize the difference. Speaker, many of the President’s ac- unanimous consent that on the motion H10020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 to recommit we be granted 5 minutes sented to date strongly suggests as a beacon of light and a guideline to on each side for the purpose of com- wrongdoing by the President and if the get us through trying times. Histori- ments and for the purpose of debate. alleged wrongdoing likely rises to the cally, impeachment was to be used The SPEAKER. Has the gentleman level of an impeachable offense; that is, when the misconduct of the executive from Illinois yielded to the gentleman a high crime or misdemeanor. I would was so severe that it threatened the from Michigan for the purpose of that submit that strong evidence exists that very constitutional system of govern- request? the President may have committed ment itself. Ben Franklin described it Mr. HYDE. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think perjury and the historic record dem- as the alternative to assassination. It 5 minutes on each side on the motion onstrates that perjury can be an im- is that standard that needs to be ap- to recommit is justifiable, and I sup- peachable offense. plied in this case. port the gentleman in his request. Based on the facts and on the law, The question is not whether the The SPEAKER. Is there objection to this House has a constitutional duty to President’s misconduct was bad. We all the request of the gentleman from proceed to a formal inquiry. know that the President’s misconduct Michigan? Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for most was bad. The question is, are we going There was no objection. of my colleagues when I say that this to punish America instead of him for Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield is not a matter to be taken lightly. his misconduct? Are we going to trash 11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from New Rarely in one’s political life is one our Constitution because of his mis- Jersey (Mr. ROTHMAN), an able member forced to confront such an awesome conduct? Are we going to make sure of the Committee on the Judiciary. and historic responsibility. It is my that this investigation goes on inter- Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, after sincere hope that we can work together minably while we ignore economic cri- 41⁄2 years investigation of nearly every as the Founding Fathers envisioned, in ses, or the needs of our students for aspect of President Clinton’s public a bipartisan fashion, to complete this and private life, Independent Counsel task as expeditiously as possible and to education? I fear that we are letting down our Ken Starr presented the House with 11 do what is in the best interests of the allegations of impeachment, all relat- country. country. Twenty-four years ago, as an ing only to the President’s misconduct I would urge my colleagues on both idealistic student, I watched this body with Monica Lewinsky. The Democrats sides of the aisle to rise above the par- rise to the occasion. Twenty-four years say that these are serious allegations tisan fires that too often burn in our ago, as an idealistic student, I worked and that we should resolve these 11 Nation’s capital. Consider the facts at on the staff of a member of the Judici- charges by the end of this year and let hand and fulfill our constitutional re- ary Committee, and I saw the commit- the chips fall where they may. The Re- sponsibilities by moving forward with a tee, and I saw this Congress do a very publicans say that they will not be lim- fair and thorough investigation of this hard thing: come together, become ited to the 41⁄2 year investigation by important matter. nonpartisan, and do a tough job for Mr. Starr. They feel that Mr. Starr was Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 America. too light on President Clinton, and so minutes to the gentlewoman from Cali- I am very concerned that, instead of they want an impeachment inquiry not fornia (Ms. LOFGREN), a member of the rising to this occasion today, we are only limited to Mr. Starr’s charges re- Committee on the Judiciary who has falling down and lowering ourselves garding Miss Lewinski, but any other worked tirelessly on crafting a middle and America with it. I urge the adop- charges anyone can come up with on course for the Members of the House of tion of the Boucher amendment. any subject at any time and with no Representatives. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased time limit. And they want the Amer- Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, many of to yield 1 minute to the distinguished ican people to pay for it. us have labored very hard to craft a gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. ROS- Mr. Speaker, I believe the Republican plan that would allow us to deal with LEHTINEN). bill is unfair, it is unfair to the Presi- the referral of the independent counsel Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, dent, it is unfair to our country, and it in a way that is focused, in a way that our laws promise a remedy against sex- is not in our national interest. We al- is fair, in a way that is prompt and effi- ual harassment. But if we say that ready know that what the President cient, and, most of all, in a way that lying about sex in court is acceptable puts our Constitution first. I am very did was wrong, It was morally wrong, or even expected, then we have made distressed to say that I do not see that and now we need to decide what is an our sexual harassment laws nothing that is going to happen today in this appropriate punishment for his of- more than a false promise, a fraud chamber. upon our society, upon our legal sys- fenses. Mr. Speaker, I fear what Alexander But let us reject the open-ended Re- tem, and upon women. Hamilton warned against in Federalist Lying under oath and obstruction of publican inquiry. Let us instead follow Paper Number 65, that ‘‘there will al- the democratic model and resolve the justice are ancient crimes of great ways be the greatest danger that the weight because they shield other of- 11 charges that Mr. Starr actually decision will be regulated more by the brought to us and do so before the end fenses, blocking the light of truth in comparative strength of parties than human affairs. There they are a dagger of the year so that we can get together by the real demonstrations of inno- as a Nation and address the serious and in the heart of our legal system and cence or guilt.’’ That prophecy, that our democracy. They cannot and must important other issues that face us fear, is about to be realized. I believe here at home and around the world. not be tolerated. that the majority has used its raw vot- The office of the presidency is due Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 ing power to create a proposal that minutes to the gentleman from Ohio great respect, but the President is a could result in a wide-ranging and citizen with the same duty to follow (Mr. CHABOT), a member of the commit- lengthy impeachment inquiry. The the laws as all other citizens. The tee. Committee on the Judiciary may be- world marvels that our President is not (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given come the standing committee on im- above the law, and my vote today helps permission to revise and extend his re- peachments. And I further fear that assure that this rule continues. marks.) the rules in the Constitution may With a commitment to the principles Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in never be applied to the referral that of the rule of law, which makes this support of the resolution. has been sent to us. Even worse, we Our responsibility today is to deter- may end up—as happened Monday— country the beacon of hope for political mine if the evidence we have examined with the majority counsel creating en- refugees like myself throughout the thus far warrants further investigation tirely new standards for high crimes world, I cast my vote in favor of the by the Committee on the Judiciary. We and misdemeanors, which will have a resolution to undertake an impeach- do not sit in judgment today. We are very serious distorting effect on our ment inquiry of the conduct of the not here to convict or punish or sen- constitutional system of government. President of the United States. tence today. We are here to seek the Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 b truth. 1145 minutes to the gentleman from Massa- To fulfill our constitutional duty we When we are lost, the best thing for chusetts (Mr. DELAHUNT), my friend must determine if the evidence pre- us to do is to look to our Constitution and a senior prosecutor. October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10021 Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am of perjury by lying under oath in a dep- set in motion a process that is too aware of the fact that there is limited osition in a sexual harassment case. much about partisanship and not time for this debate. I think that is, in- The issue is did the President of the enough about statesmanship. deed, unfortunate, because I was going United States commit the felony crime The Republican proposal offers no on to talk about how we have abdi- of perjury by lying under oath to a limits on how long this partisan in- cated our constitutional duties to an Grand Jury. The issue is did the Presi- quiry will go on nor on how long inde- unelected prosecutor, how we have re- dent of the United States commit a fel- pendent counsel Ken Starr can drag up leased thousands of pages that none of ony crime of obstructing justice or the issues that he has had 4 years to bring us in good conscience can say that we felony crime of witness tampering. If to this House. Sadly, there has been no have read. he did, are these high crimes and mis- willingness to limit the duration or We violated the sanctity of the Grand demeanors that deserve impeachment? scope of this resolution. Jury so that we can arrive here today I would suggest that these are ex- The Republican proposal moves to launch an inquiry without an inde- traordinarily serious; that if the Presi- ahead with an impeachment inquiry pendent, adequate review of the allega- dent of the United States is to be before the Committee on the Judiciary tions by this body, which is our con- judged not to have committed a high has even conducted a review of the stitutional mandate. Ken Starr is not crime and misdemeanor if the facts are facts and determined whether those the agent of the United States Con- proven, and we do not know that, that facts constitute substantial and credi- gress. It is our responsibility. these things are true and he committed ble evidence. It lowers the threshold I was going to go on and speak about these crimes, but if he is judged not to for which a President can be harassed the proposal put forth by the gen- have committed a high crime and mis- and persecuted to the point of distrac- tleman from Virginia (Mr. BOUCHER), demeanor for committing these other tion from his constitutional duties. one that would have addressed and crimes of perjury, we will have deter- From now on, any Congress dissatis- would address all of the allegations mined that, indeed, he is no longer the fied with the policies of a particular raised in the Starr referral in a fair legal officer at the highest panicle of administration or the personal behav- ior of any President could simply con- way and in an expeditious way without this country. dragging this Nation through hearings Because to leave him sitting there is duct an ongoing, costly, and distract- that will be interminable in nature. to undermine the very judicial system ing inquiry designed to dilute the au- What it really means for this coun- we have. It is to convey the message thority of the Presidency. After this election, when rational be- try, is all the President’s, any Presi- that perjury is okay, certainly at least havior returns, and cooler heads can dent’s, enemies have to do to com- perjury in certain matters and under prevail, I urge us to forge a way to rise mence an impeachment process is to certain circumstances. It is not okay. above the nasty politics that have name an independent counsel so that It is a very serious crime. Obstructing clouded this body. we can here just simply rubber stamp justice is. Witness tampering is. I will not be here with those of you that independent counsel’s conclusions. One hundred fifteen people are serv- who return to this next Congress. I I was going to speak about the letter ing in Federal prisons today who may leave after 20 years with my self-re- that was referred to by the universally be watching these proceedings today, spect intact. I have reached across the respected chairman of the committee serving in prison for perjury. Two lines within my own party and, when and a gentleman whom I hold in high judges have been impeached since I necessary, across the aisle to the other esteem, the gentleman from Illinois have been in Congress for nothing more party to make this House work and to YDE), the letter where Mr. Starr (Mr. H than perjury, committing perjury as get things done for this country. is saying that he may make further re- we call it. I fought partisan battles. I have ferrals and keep this inquiry going on What do we say in the future to all of stood my ground on issues that matter indefinitely. That is not a process, Mr. those people who take the oath of of- to my district. The American people Speaker; it is a blank check. That is fice who say ‘‘I swear to tell the truth, expect us to do that. But they also ex- what I was going to talk about. the whole truth, and nothing but the pect us to, each of us, to rise above the But out of deference to others that truth?’’ What do we say to all of those base political instincts that drive such want to speak, I will conclude by say- people who swear to tell the truth, a wedge through this institution. ing, one hour to begin only the third nothing but the truth, but the whole In the months ahead, we must find a impeachment inquiry in U.S. history is truth when they are witnesses in cases way, my friends, to do what is right for a travesty and a disgrace to this insti- throughout this country, civil and America to find a way to return this tution. I think that says it all, and be- criminal? What do we say to all of the House to the people through a respect sides, I am probably out of time. people who we may judge in the future for law, for fairness, and due process. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased who may be judges or otherwise who In the end, we must do a lot better to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman come before us who commit perjury? Is than we will do today. from Florida (Mr. MCCOLLUM), a distin- it okay? Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very guished member of the committee. If we leave this President alone if he pleased to yield 21⁄2 minutes to the gen- (Mr. MCCOLLUM asked and was committed these crimes, then we have tleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR), a dis- given permission to revise and extend undermined our Constitution, and we tinguished member of the committee. his remarks.) have undermined our system of justice. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the This is serious. We need to investigate yield to me very briefly? question for us today is not whether or these allegations. Mr. BARR of Georgia. I am happy to not the President committed impeach- Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am yield to the gentleman from Illinois able offenses or whether or not we are pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gen- (Mr. HYDE), the distinguished chairman here to impeach, the question is, do the tleman from California (Mr. FAZIO), the of the Committee on the Judiciary. allegations that have been presented to departing chair of our caucus. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just want us by Kenneth Starr and his report Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speak- the record to be clear. My good friend merit further consideration? er, today’s proceeding is of such great the gentleman from Massachusetts Some would have us believe today historical importance that it should be (Mr. DELAHUNT) talked about 60,000 that, even if all of those allegations approached with a deep and abiding re- pages that were released that were not were proven to be true, that the answer spect for the Congress, the Constitu- reviewed or looked at. is no. They are wrong. The issue before tion, and the Presidency. I want him to know, and I want ev- us when we consider this matter is not We had the opportunity to develop a eryone listening to know that every Monica Lewinsky. The issue is not sex. fair and responsible process that would single page of anything that was re- The issue is not whether the President protect, not only the dignity of the of- leased was reviewed, and things that committed adultery or betrayed his fice of the Presidency, but create a were not released were reviewed by our wife. precedent worth following. But I be- staff. The issue is did the President of the lieve the Republican majority has I also would like to point out that United States commit the felony crime squandered that, and, by doing so, has total time spent looking at these H10022 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 records by the Democrats, members of ars. I find that 24 years ago, no less a Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the the Committee on the Judiciary on the constitutional scholar than William distinguished gentlewoman from Cali- Democrat side, were 21.81 hours. Six of Jefferson Clinton, defined an impeach- fornia (Ms. WATERS). them never came over to see the mate- able offense as, ‘‘willful, reckless be- Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the deci- rial. On the Republican side, 114.59 havior in office.’’ sion of the Republicans to limit the de- hours, and every Member came over to I did not stop there. I looked at a re- bate on this very important resolution look at the material. port coauthored by Hillary Rodham, to decide whether this body will move Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the part of the impeachment team in the with an inquiry to impeach is a con- gentleman yield to me? Watergate years, and I find that at tinuation of the partisan, unfair, in- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I will give page 26 of their report, she and others considerate actions that have dictated the gentleman from Georgia additional of her colleagues define an impeachable the management of this impeachment time. offense as ‘‘wrongs that undermine the crisis since independent counsel Ken Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the integrity of office.’’ Starr dumped his referral in the laps of gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CON- Where are we now, Mr. Speaker? The this Congress and in the laps of the YERS), the distinguished ranking mem- step we are taking today is one I first public. This continuous, shameless and ber. urged nearly a year ago. All we are reckless disregard for the Constitution, Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank doing today is taking the constitu- basic civil rights and the citizens of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. tionally equivalent step of impaneling this country cannot be tolerated. HYDE). That really contributes to the a grand jury to inquire into whether or This is a sad and painful time for all comity of this body, and I am sure it is not the evidence shall sustain that of- of us. The least we can do is handle an interesting statistic that everybody fenses have, in fact, occurred. this matter with dignity and fairness ought to know about. The passage of H.R. 581 will mark the for everyone involved. Four and one- Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, dawn of a new era in American govern- reclaiming my time, I yield to the gen- half years, $40 million. Unnecessary. ment. We are sending the American Subpoenas of uninvolved individuals, tleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE), the people a clear message, that truth is distinguished chairman of the commit- and Mr. Starr’s close relationships more important than partisanship, and with groups and individuals, with dem- tee. that the Constitution cannot be sac- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just want onstrated hatred for the President, rificed on the altar of political expedi- taints the independent counsel’s inves- to say to my friend that when the gen- ency; that no longer will we turn a tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. tigation. blind eye to clear evidence of obstruc- This Congress does not need a pro- DELAHUNT) says this has been done tion of justice, perjury and abuse of careless or in a slipshod manner not re- tracted, open-ended witch-hunt of in- power. We will be sending a message to timidation, embarrassment and harass- viewing these things, it is important to this and all future Presidents that if, know we took our job seriously. They ment. The tawdry and trashy thou- in fact, the evidence establishes that sands of pages of hearsay, accusations, were there to be reviewed. If my col- you or any future President have com- leagues did not choose to do it, that is gossip, and stupid telephone chatter mitted perjury, obstruction of justice, does not meet the standard of high their option. subversion of our judicial system, that Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. crimes and misdemeanors. we will be saying, no, sir, Mr. Presi- HYDE. The President’s actions in this mat- dent, these things you cannot do. Mr. HYDE. You are welcome, Mr. ter are disappointing and unacceptable, It is our job as legislators to diagnose CONYERS. but not impeachable. Mr. Schippers, threats to our democracy and elimi- Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the general counsel for the Repub- nate them. By the time the damage to might I inquire of the gentleman from licans, extended the allegations in our system is so great that everyone Illinois (Mr. HYDE), the distinguished search of something, anything that can see it, the wounds will be too deep chairman of the committee, if I have, may meet the constitutional stand- to heal. We have already waited too in fact, 2 minutes remaining? ards, and even the extended and added long to address this issue. We must Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gen- allegations do not comport with the move forward quickly, courageously, tleman has every reason to inquire, Constitution. and I would like to give the gentleman fairly, and most importantly, constitu- tionally, along the one and the one and It is time to move on. Reprimand the from Georgia (Mr. BARR) a total of 3 only path charted for us in the Con- President, condemn him, but let us minutes for his generosity. move on. These grossly unfair proce- Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, stitution, the impeachment process. We must do this, Mr. Speaker, so dures will only tear this Congress and as the United States Attorney ap- this Nation apart. I ask my colleagues pointed by President Reagan, when a that tomorrow morning as we in this Chamber, as teachers all across Amer- to vote down this open-ended and un- case was presented to me, I started at fair resolution. It does not deserve the the beginning. I would look and see ica, lead their students in the pledge of allegiance, we can look America in the support of this House. what the law says, and I would look Mr. Speaker, the Members of the and see what the history of that law eye and say, yes, at least for today the Constitution is alive and well. Congressional Black Caucus have con- said. stantly warned this body about the Here we have similarly to look at the Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. dangers of a prosecutor run amok. Constitution. It is pretty clear. What They have warned this body about the makes it even clearer, though, Mr. I think it is very important for the record and for the American people to abuse of the power of the majority. We Speaker, is if we look at the sources for ask our colleagues to listen to us as we Article II Section 4, which is the im- know that yes, the staff worked hard; the staff, the majority staff and the remind our colleagues of the history of peachment power, we find, for example, our people who have struggled against Mr. Speaker, that, according to the minority staff, to review 60,000 and some odd pages. But let me suggest injustice and unfairness. Let us not Federalist writings 211 years ago, that march backwards; let us be wise an impeachable offense is, quote, ‘‘Any that no Member in this House, no member in this committee in good con- enough to move forward and spend our abuse of the great trust reposed in the precious time working on the issues of President.’’ science can stand here in this well today and state that he or she ade- education, health care, senior citizens, b 1200 quately reviewed that testimony before children, and in the final analysis, Mr. Moreover, they tell us, as Federalist its release. Speaker, justice, and opportunity for 65 did, written by that great constitu- And this is a responsibility mandated all Americans. tional scholar Alexander Hamilton, an by the Constitution to Members, not to Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like impeachable offense is a ‘‘violation of staff, and that is what this is about to inquire as to the time remaining on public trust.’’ today. This is not about defending the both sides. I did not stop there, Mr. Speaker. I President, this is about defending the The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen- looked at further constitutional schol- Constitution of the United States. tleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) has October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10023

331⁄2 minutes; the gentleman from Mas- against a constitutional standard, not of this House on this important issue, sachusetts (Mr. DELAHUNT) as 341⁄2 min- a bicycle standard; focused on what the and at the very worst has set an histor- utes. independent counsel has referred or ical precedent that we can easily begin Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 might refer to us; and timely, one that the process of undoing the freely exer- minutes to the distinguished gen- sets an objective to conclude this mat- cised votes of millions of Americans. tleman from South Carolina (Mr. ING- ter and put it behind us. To even begin this radical process LIS), a valued member of the commit- We have also had the opportunity to without the greatest of deliberation, tee. listen to our colleagues on the Com- regardless of one’s final vote, is in Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. mittee on the Judiciary who want to itself, in my opinion, an attack upon Speaker, we are now engaged in a con- engage in an unfair and open-ended, the very core of our democracy. stitutional process that is about the partisan political fishing expedition, b 1215 search for truth. I believe that we dealing with bicycles rather than con- should do that in a fair and expeditious stitutional standards, some of whom Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very way, completely disregarding polls, have already gone on television and al- pleased to yield 2 minutes to the dis- completely disregarding the pendency ready declared their conclusion in this tinguished gentleman from Tennessee of an election on November 3, and an- matter before a trial even begins. (Mr. BRYANT), a member of our com- swering the question that our col- We have had our opportunity. mittee. league from California just asked Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given about whether it is appropriate just to balance of my time to a nonmember of permission to revise and extend his re- move along. the Committee on the Judiciary, my marks.) Of course, we do want to move along good colleague from Texas (Mr. ED- Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to to important issues facing the country. WARDS). remind our colleagues that we are not We do want to restore freedom in Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am voting on impeachment today. We are health care, we do want to secure the deeply disappointed that the Repub- here today simply to uphold our con- future of Medicare and Social Security, lican leadership has placed an incred- stitutional obligation to look further and we do want to continue the ibly unfair gag rule on a constitutional into the allegations of wrongdoing progress toward balancing the budget. debate of historic proportions. If this against this president, and not to look All of those things we want to do. gag rule is the first test of the Repub- away. But I would ask my colleagues to licans’ fairness in this inquiry, they We seem to all agree that the Presi- consider this. Really, this is the crucial have failed that test. dent’s conduct was wrong, and we seem business of the country. This is the The most important issue today, Mr. to now agree that we must continue crucial business. Speaker, before us is not the November this process toward finding the truth. As we go into the next century, the 3 elections, or even the fate of Presi- But this is not about keeping political question is, does the truth even mat- dent Clinton. The most important issue score. It is not about allowing the ter. Now, some would say, let us move before us is the historical precedent we President to dictate the terms of this along, it does not matter, just move set in beginning the process of undoing process. We are here protecting our along. But if we move along, what we an election for the most important of- Constitution, which we have a duty to are leaving aside is serious allegations fice of our land. The right to vote is uphold. So let us complete our task of serious crimes. the foundation of our entire democ- fairly and expeditiously. Just this week one of my staffers was racy. To override the votes of millions I must respectfully disagree with my on her way over here with a staff mem- of Americans in a Presidential election good friend and colleague, the gen- ber of one of our colleagues, the gen- is an extraordinary action. It is a radi- tleman from Virginia (Mr. BOUCHER) tleman from Louisiana (Mr. COOKSEY). cal action, and, in effect, it is allowing and his alternative to this. Now is not An accident occurred, occurred on a bi- the votes of 535 citizens to override the the time to set arbitrary time limits, cycle, struck this young lady, not my votes of tens of millions of citizens. because, as we have learned before, staffer, but the other staffer. She was In its rush to begin an impeachment that encourages stonewalling. We can hurt. Now, she has two duties as a citi- inquiry just days before a crucial elec- actually get this done quicker, as the zen. One is to testify, to be a witness, tion, this Congress will have lowered chairman said, without time limits. to come forward; and the second is to the threshold for future Presidential Now is not the time to consider pos- testify truthfully when called on, if impeachment inquiries in such a way sibly piecemealing allegations. Let us necessary, in court. that compromises the independence of get all this done, get all this behind us, Now, what shall we say to her if we the Presidency as a coequal branch of and move forward. are going to just move along and say government. As part and parcel of that, our re- that the potential of the crime of per- The truth is the Committee on the sponsibility to the American people is jury just does not matter, then what of Judiciary has not even had 1 day, not to be fair throughout this process. It is that small case in a court here in D.C.? even 1 hour of hearings on our Found- an elementary principle of this fairness We say to that case, well, it is not nec- ing Fathers’ original intent about the that the President should not be al- essary to tell the truth in court, and it threshold for impeachment. I find it lowed to limit or direct or influence is not necessary to testify, I suppose. ironic that the very Republicans who the process that Congress uses to in- But we must say, if we are going to have preached all year long that we vestigate these allegations. preserve the rule of law in this Nation, should impeach Federal judges for not At the end of the day, our Constitu- that it does matter, and that when that abiding by our Founding Fathers’ con- tion will still stand as a pillar of our young staffer is called on to testify, if stitutional intentions have now de- Nation. It will and it should, fittingly, she must, she must testify, and then cided we can start an historic constitu- outlast any person, whomever it might she must tell the truth. tional process without even 1 hour of be, who has the great privilege of serv- This is the essential work of this hearings. How ironic that those same ing in the office of the presidency. Congress and of this Nation. Republicans will today force us to vote Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield on a truly historic constitutional issue 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 4 minutes to the distinguished gen- without even 1 hour, 1 day of hearings York (Mr. ACKERMAN). tleman from North Carolina (Mr. on our Founding Fathers’ intent about MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ACKERMAN WATT), and a distinguished member of high crimes and misdemeanors. Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I the Committee on the Judiciary. To begin a formal impeachment in- move that when the House adjourn, we Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. quiry after only a cursory review of the do so to Salem, a quaint village in the Speaker, as members of the Committee Independent Counsel’s report, in light Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the Judiciary, we have had the op- of a standard that has not been defined, whose history beckons us thence. portunity to indicate our willingness within the context of a pending con- The SPEAKER. That is not a proper to engage in a process that is fair, gressional election weeks away, at the motion, the Chair would say to the measuring the President’s conduct very least undermines the credibility gentleman from New York. H10024 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield will be no resolution without an open torical gravity of the moment. Today 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, hearing. There will be no accountabil- is not the day to condemn the process the gentleman from Massachusetts ity without an open hearing. There will or the prosecutor. Today is not the day (Mr. MEEHAN), whose district I do not be no closure for this country, for this for talking points or pointing fingers. think includes the town of Salem. Congress, or for our president, without Mr. Speaker, in this debate, let us Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, this de- an open hearing. pledge not our loyalty to our party, let bate is as important for what it is not The Nation is divided. The House is us pledge allegiance to our country. about as for what it is about. It is not divided. A House divided against itself Let us not be partisans. Instead, let us about whether to conduct an inquiry. will not stand, so if inquire we must, be patriots. Both the Democratic and Republican let us do it fairly, and in the words of I, too, am concerned about the open- resolutions would initiate an inquiry. Lincoln, with malice towards none, ended nature of the investigation. I be- It is not about who has been more with charity towards all, because there lieve each one of us would fervently faithful to the Watergate precedent. will be an inquiry. The American peo- wish this cup would pass us by, but I Neither side is pure on that subject. ple expect it to proceed fairly, expedi- have faith in the integrity and ability What this debate is about is whether tiously, and then they expect it to end. of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. the Committee on the Judiciary will The people want us to get this over HYDE), and when he says this process take up Whitewater, Travelgate, and with, and they will be watching. will be handled fairly and expedi- Filegate, without a shred of paper from Let the President make his case. tiously, I think his word deserves great the Independent Counsel on this sub- Give him a chance to clear his name weight in this body. ject. It is about whether the committee and get back to his job. Bring every- So the question I have for the Mem- will commence a fullscale impeach- thing out in the open. Bring forward bers is simply this: Is it possible, is it ment hearing without asking itself, as the accusers and subject them to the possible, that there is credible evidence a threshold matter, whether even Ken light of day, settle this, and then move that exists that would constitute Starr’s best case compels impeach- forward to do the business of the peo- grounds for an impeachment? If Mem- ment. ple, the business for which the people bers’ answer is a solemn yes, then vote If Members can somehow convince elected us: to further economic growth, in favor of the resolution. But I submit, even if Members’ an- themselves that after 41⁄2 years and to protect social security, to improve swer is an equivocal ‘‘I do not know,’’ nearly $50 million in taxpayers’ money, health care, and to meet all the other then I think that the judgment of the that Ken Starr has been less than ag- pressing needs of the American people. doubt, the benefit of the doubt, must gressive in pursuing Whitewater, Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my go in favor of the resolution. Travelgate, and Filegate, then Mem- pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gen- Mr. Speaker, last January I was priv- bers should vote for the Republican tleman from Maine (Mr. ALLEN). ileged to enter this Chamber for the resolution which authorizes the Com- Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank first time, my family proudly beaming mittee on the Judiciary to take them the gentleman for yielding time to me. from the House gallery as I rose in uni- up even without a referral from Ken- Mr. Speaker, this is a solemn mo- son with the Members of this body to neth Starr. ment, but as theater, it is overdone. It take an oath. I pledged my sacred If Members believe that the commit- is overdone because this vote is not honor to the Constitution of the United tee should avoid the question of wheth- about whether or not we should have States. That is what this vote is about. er even Ken Starr’s best case compels an impeachment inquiry. Both resolu- In my humble and considered opin- impeachment, and, instead, plunge tions call for such an inquiry, so we ion, that oath requires from me a vote blindly into a month-long evidentiary will have one. This vote is about what of aye on the resolution. fiasco, then they should vote for the kind of impeachment inquiry we will Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my Republican resolution. conduct. That question is important. pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the able How is it in our Nation’s best inter- The majority wants an open-ended gentleman from New York (Mr. est to initiate an impeachment inquiry impeachment inquiry with no limits on CHARLES RANGEL). which willfully blinds itself to the nu- its scope or duration. Under their plan, (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given merous constitutional scholars that the Committee on the Judiciary can in- permission to revise and extend his re- say that even Ken Starr’s best case vestigate anything and everything it marks.) does not compel impeachment? At this wants for 6 months, a year, or even Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I had the time of global political and economic longer. I believe their plan will inflame privilege of serving on the Watergate turmoil, it is in our Nation’s interest partisanship, and if prolonged, weaken Committee on the Judiciary. One dif- to deal with the Lewinsky matter fair- the institution of the presidency and ference then, as opposed to now, is that ly and expeditiously. Only the Demo- this country. we worked together as Republicans and cratic alternative would do that. This is not Watergate. That commit- Democrats to search for the facts and So please, let us put the national in- tee conducted a factual inquiry. We to report to the House of Representa- terest above partisanship. I ask Mem- have piles of facts from the special tives for them to make a determina- bers to vote their conscience, vote for prosecutor. Our task is to find an ap- tion. the Democratic alternative, and propriate consequence for behavior we Now, we do not have any question of against the Republican resolution. know is wrong. Our alternative will trying to impeach the President of the Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased provide for thorough consideration of United States or protecting the integ- to yield 11⁄2 minutes to the distin- the Starr alternative, of the Starr re- rity of the Congress or the Constitu- guished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. ferral, by December 31, 1998. What is tion. The Republicans do not want to DENNIS KUCINICH). wrong with that? impeach, and would not touch it with a Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise I urge my colleagues to oppose an in- 10-foot political pole. They know at the today not on behalf of Democrats or quiry resolution that does not say end of this year that this Congress is Republicans, but as an American who when it will end or what it will cover, over, and they even want to carry this is deeply concerned that our country and instead, support the focused, fair, over for the next 2 years, to attempt to bring closure to the charges against and expeditious Democratic alter- hound this president, who has been the President. A vote for an inquiry is native. elected twice, out of office. not the same as a vote for impeach- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased The reason for it is because it is the ment. This vote is neither a vote to im- to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished only thing they have to take to the peach nor a license to conduct a par- gentleman from Missouri (Mr. KENNY American people before this election. tisan witchhunt. HULSHOF). What else are they going to take? In fact, some have called for im- Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, last Their legislative record? The fact that peachment without a hearing. Some night I addressed this body and urged they have renamed National Airport have called for resignation without a my colleagues to please avoid partisan after Ronald Reagan, that they have hearing. Some have called for exonera- wrangling. Today I implore the Mem- deep-sixed the tax code to the year tion without a hearing. I believe there bers of this body to recognize the his- 2002? October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10025 On the question of social security, conduct as President of the United Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be here what have they done? Tried to rape the States.’’ today. I wish I could just ignore all of reserve. What have they done as it re- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such this and make it go away. But I have a lates to minimum wage and providing time as he may consume to the gen- responsibility to answer a question jobs? What have they done for edu- tleman from Kentucky (Mr. BUNNING). today and that question is: How will cation? What have they done for the (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given history judge our actions that we take health of the people in this Nation? permission to revise and extend his re- today? They are not just going to get elected marks.) I believe that this Nation sits at a by hounding the President of the Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in crossroad. One direction points to the United States, because as they judge support of the resolution. high road of the rule of law. Sometimes the President of the United States, the Except for declaring war, impeachment is hard, sometimes unpleasant. This path voters will be judging them on Novem- the most serious and sobering issue that the relies on truth, justice, and the rigor- ber 3. House can consider. The question before us ous application of the principle that no Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very today demands that we act out of statesman- man is above the law. pleased to yield 1 minute to the distin- ship and not raw, political partisanship. Our Now, the other road is the path of guished gentleman from California history and our Constitution demand the best least resistance. This is where we start for us. (Mr. CHRIS COX). making exceptions to our laws based I have read the referral to the House from Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I on poll numbers and spin control. This the Independent Counsel, Ken Starr, and I be- thank the chairman for yielding time is when we pitch the law completely lieve there is enough evidence to warrant fur- to me. overboard when the mood fits us; when ther inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, a member of the minor- The Judiciary Committee's review of the evi- we ignore the facts in order to cover up ity stated during the debate that the dence accumulated by the Independent Coun- the truth. Shall we follow the rule of law and do decision to limit the debate to 2 hours sel indicates that there exists substantial and our constitutional duty no matter how on this resolution is partisan. In allo- credible evidence of fifteen separate events di- cating 2 hours for debate on a resolu- rectly involving the President that constitute unpleasant, or shall we follow the path tion authorizing an inquiry of impeach- grounds to proceed with an impeachment in- of least resistance, close our eyes to ment, the Congress is adhering to quiry. The charges are troublingÐperjury, ob- the potential law breaking, forgive and precedent, the precedents established struction of justice, witness tampering, and forget, move on, and tear an unfixable by the House of Representatives when abuse of power. They are not simply about hole in our legal system? it was under Democratic control. It is extra-marital affairs, or making misleading No man is above the law and no man in fact doubling the amount of time statements. Instead, the allegations touch is below the law. That is the principle that was spent in debate on the iden- more profoundly upon claims of criminal con- that we all hold dear in this country. tical resolution in February, 1974. duct. The President has many responsibil- Likewise, the wording of the resolu- I do not know if all of the allegations in the ities and many privileges. His chief re- tion adheres directly to precedent. The Starr report are true and factual. But, the sponsibility is to uphold the laws of minority argues today that an im- charges are serious and some of the claims this land. He does not have the privi- peachment inquiry should be narrowly made against the President are compelling. lege to break the law. limited to the evidence we already However, the report represents only one side The American system of government know, but on February 6, 1974, when of the story, and the President deserves the is built on the proposition that the the Democrats were in the majority, right to exonerate himself before the Judiciary President of the United States can be Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Committee, the full House and the American removed if he violates his oath of of- Rodino stated: ‘‘To be locked into . . . people. fice. This resolution simply starts that a date (for completion of the inquiry) Our Constitution and historical precedent set process of inquiry. Did the President would be totally irresponsible and un- out a procedure to follow in proceedings such break the law? And if he did, does that wise.’’ The inquiry, he said, must be as this, and I believe we must strictly follow lawbreaking constitute an impeachable ‘‘thorough, so that we can make a fair the letter of the law. Impeachment is a grave offense? and responsible judgment.’’ matter, and at this crucial moment in our his- Closing our eyes to allegations of The resolution does, as it must, fol- tory we must not rush to judgment. wrongdoing by voting ‘‘no,’’ or by lim- low precedent. We, in undertaking this The inquiry by the Judiciary Committee iting scope or time, constitutes a solemn constitutional duty, must fol- must be orderly, and judicious. But, it must breach of our responsibilities as Mem- low precedent. A vote for the resolu- also be expeditious. While I do not think that bers of this House. So let history judge tion is a vote for a fair, full, and com- an arbitrary deadline should be imposed on us as having done our duty to uphold plete inquiry today, just as in 1974. the panel, for the good of the country I believe that sacred rule of law. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield b 1230 it is incumbent upon the Committee to work with all deliberate speed in order to conclude such time as he may consume to the Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 this matter as soon and as fairly as possible. able gentleman from Pennsylvania minute to the gentleman from Rhode Chairman Hyde's goal of the Committee con- (Mr. KANJORSKI). Island (Mr. KENNEDY). cluding its work by the end of the year is fair (Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. and reasonable. given permission to revise and extend Speaker, today I will cast the most im- By the same token, I also believe that the his remarks and to include extraneous portant vote of my whole time here in President has a duty to work with, and not material.) the United States Congress. And if we against, the Judiciary Committee to speedily Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise are not going to listen to each other, resolve this matter. The sooner we can con- in opposition to any impeachment in- then I would like us to listen to the clude these proceedings, the better it will be quiry. eminent scholar, Lawrence Tribe, on for the country. Now is not the time for further Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. what we are doing today. foot-dragging and delay by anyone. Today, for only the third time in our nation's He said that, ‘‘Today this Congress is I believe the President was right yesterday history, the House will consider whether to ini- twisting impeachment into something when he said members of the House should tiate an impeachment inquiry against the else, instead of keeping it within its cast ``a vote of principle and conscience'' on President. I take my sworn constitutional duty historical boundaries, and our Nation authorizing the impeachment inquiry. I agree. and responsibility in this matter very seriously. and its form of government are imper- Of all the votes cast in this Congress, this Over the last four weeks, I have reviewed iled as a result.’’ He went on to say should be one of integrity and honor. the Starr report and other material submitted that, ‘‘Today we are losing sight of the Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 21⁄2 by his office. I have also listened to legal ex- constitutional wreckage that this vote minutes to the gentleman from Texas perts, constitutional scholars, and my constitu- will cause as we lay down historical (Mr. DELAY), the distinguished whip. ents about the referral. I have further studied precedent that a President of the Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the the origins and history of our Constitution's im- United States can be impeached for gentleman from Illinois (Chairman peachment clause. After considerable delib- something other than official mis- HYDE) for yielding me this time. eration, I have determined that there is no H10026 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 convincing reason to vote for an impeachment the panel concluded by a bipartisan vote of 26 ing with the truth regarding this relationship, inquiry into the matters referred by the inde- to 12 that personal misconduct is not an im- not only with the independent counsel and pendent counsel based on the evidence that peachable offense. Further, the Supreme Congress, but also with his family and the we have before us at this time. Court has ruled that other remedies exist for American people. Ultimately, after months of Clearly, President Clinton behaved badly. addressing Presidential wrongdoing, including personal turmoil the President admitted the af- He was wrong to engage in an inappropriate civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. fair, and suffered great humiliation and much relationship with a young woman. He was Finally, it is important to note that the public embarrassment, probably more than wring to mislead the American people in his Founders included impeachment as a constitu- any other individual in our nation who has public statements, and he was wrong to pro- tional remedy because they worried about made similar mistakes. vide misleading answers in judicial proceed- Presidential tyranny and gross abuse of The President's conduct was wrong and ings. For that wrong behavior the President power. They did not intend impeachment or worthy of rebuke. Even if such personal be- should be reprimanded, but he should not be the threat of its use to serve as a device for havior is not impeachable, as representatives removed from office. denouncing the President's private actions. In- of the people we must tell the President that Our Constitution demands a higher standard stead, they left punishment for improper pri- his actions are not acceptable. We should, for the Congress to undertake the extraor- vate Presidential conduct to public opinion, the therefore, immediately consider some sort of dinary action of removing a duly-elected Presi- political process, and judicial proceedings. I censure against the President. Censure is a dent. This Congress has not sufficiently con- support the Framers' wise counsel on im- serious act that will certainly damage his sidered what constitutes an impeachable of- peachment. The consideration of whether to standing in the public and lower his rank in fense. Before we irreparably damage our na- overturn a decision of the electorate should history. tion's delicate system of checks and balances only be undertaken in extreme situations. In CONCLUSION among our three branches of government, it is short, Presidents ought not to be impeached At the end of my prepared remarks, I will at- imperative that we establish that standard in a for private conduct, however reprehensible. tach four excellent articles that further elabo- fair, non-partisan matter. The resolution we POOR PRECEDENT rate on the points I have made today. They in- are considering today is not about whether the Beyond failing to meet the standard of im- clude an analysis by noted constitutional man who holds the highest elected office in peachment envisioned by our Founders and scholar Cass Sunstein, thoughts by Robert F. the country engaged in an improper relation- strengthened by past practice, an impeach- Drinan and Wayne Owens who served as ship and then tried to conceal it. Rather, this ment inquiry into the matters recently referred Democratic Members on the House Watergate resolution is about the standard under which by the independent counsel would create dan- panel, and a commentary by former Repub- the Congress has the right to overturn the will gerous and undesirable precedents for the lican President Gerald R. Ford. The former of the people who elected the President of the country in at last three significant ways. First, President argues that instead of impeachment, United States. if this politically-inspired effort ultimately suc- the House should publicly censure the current IMPEACHMENT DEFINITION ceeds, it will tip the delicate system of checks President's behavior. I have also attached Both the text of the Constitution and the and balances in favor of Congress. The result several recent statements about the Starr re- comments of its authors place the bar for im- would be a parliamentary system whereby the ferral from some of the individuals integrally peachment quite high, and mandate that Con- party in power in Congress could impeach a involved in Watergate all of whom conclude gress use the impeachment process to ad- President and a Vice President of another that this is vastly different form and less seri- dress only the gravest of wrongs. Specifically, party for virtually any reason. Our Founders ous than Watergate. Article II of the Constitution states that the created a government with three separate, but Mr. Speaker, from my perspective Congress President may be removed from office on im- equal branches of government. We should re- must swiftly resolve the matters referred by peachment for, and conviction of ``treason, member this fact today and not upset the bal- the independent counsel. We need to admon- bribery or other high crimes and misdemean- ance of power they so sensibly established. ish the President for his inappropriate personal ors.'' Second, as noted above, the House should behavior and quickly move forward and ad- Because this phrase is often truncated and vote to pursue an impeachment inquiry only if dress the nation's real priorities. We also need used out of context, it is necessary to carefully it has credible evidence of action constituting to ensure that we rebuke the President, and examine the writings and debates of the Con- fundamental injuries to the governmental proc- not punish the nation. The American people stitution's authors. Fortunately, evidence of the ess. Assuming the facts presented by the should not have to suffer through what could phrase's meaning and development is exten- independent counsel thus far to be true, the be an unlimited Congressional inquiry into a sive. One individual who can provide espe- President's conduct does not rise to the level tawdry, but hardly impeachable extramarital cially helpful guidance about the meaning of the Founders deemed impeachable because it affair. This Congress should begin the process the term is George Mason, the man who pro- was not ``a serious abuse of power or a seri- of healing the nation's wounds. We should posed the language adopted by the Constitu- ous abuse of official duties.'' Furthermore, also begin to forgive. For these reasons, I will tional Convention. Mr. Mason noted that ``Im- Congress has in more than 200 years never oppose this impeachment inquiry. peachment should be reserved for treason, removed a President from office even though [From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1998] bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors several Presidents have committed far more ‘‘IMPEACHMENT? THE FRAMERS WOULDN’T BUY IT’’ where the President's actions are great and serious abuses. One must consequently ask (By Cass Sunstein) dangerous offenses or attempts to subvert the whether this is where we want to set the bar Constitution and the most extensive injustice.'' for impeaching this and future Presidents. We all now know that, under the Constitu- tion, the president can be impeached for Read in their entirety the writings of the From my perspective it is not. Finally, based on the facts of this referral, ‘‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Constitution's authors firmly imply that the bar Misdemeanors.’’ But what did the framers in- for impeachment is extremely high, and that an impeachment inquiry would impose an ex- tend us to understand with these words? Evi- Congress should use it to address only those traordinary invasion of privacy. An impeach- dence of the phrase’s evolution is extensive— Presidential actions that threaten the stability ment inquiry on what is fundamentally a pri- and it strongly suggests that, if we could so- of our democracy. Moreover, the debate over vate matter will likely deter worthy contenders licit the views of the Constitution’s authors, the Constitution indicates that the Founders in both parties from running for political of- the current allegations against President clearly intended that ``other high crimes and ficeÐparticularly the presiencyÐbecause they Clinton would not be impeachable offenses. fear protracted, government-sponsored inves- When the framers met in Philadelphia dur- misdemeanors'' had to be crimes and actions ing the stifling summer of 1787, they were against the state on the same level of mag- tigations into their past, current, and possibly seeking not only to design a new form of nitude as treason and bribery. future actions. Moreover, it could also provoke government, but to outline the responsibil- We can also look to precedent when seek- a move to impeach future Presidents every ities of the president who would head the ing to understand the definition of impeach- time that Congress thinks they may have new nation. They shared a commitment to ment and whether the actions of a President made false statements. disciplining public officials through a system in his private life rise to the level of ``high THE SOLUTION of checks and balances. But they disagreed crimes and misdemeanors.'' In 1974, the Like most Americans, I am personally dis- about the precise extent of presidential power and, in particular, about how, if at all, House Judiciary Committee considered sub- appointed with the President's acknowledged the president might be removed from office. stantial evidence that Richard Nixon commit- inappropriate personal behavior. Clearly, the If we judge by James Madison’s characteris- ted tax fraud during his presidency. Although President engaged in an improper relationship tically detailed accounts of the debates, this the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that about which he did not want anyone to know. question troubled and divided the members President Nixon had committed such fraud, The President, as a result, was not forthcom- of the Constitutional Convention. October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10027 The initial draft of the Constitution took There is a further wrinkle in the clause’s University of Chicago School of Law, is the the form of resolutions presented before the history. On Sept. 10, the entire Constitution author of ‘‘Legal Reasoning and Political 30-odd members on June 13. One read that was referred to the Committee on Style and Conflict’’ (Oxford University Press). the president could be impeached for ‘‘mal- Arrangement. When that committee’s ver- practice, or neglect of duty,’’ and, on July 20, sion appeared two days later, the words [From the New York Times, Oct. 1, 1998] this provision provoked extensive debate. ‘‘against the United States’’ had been ‘‘AN EASY LINE TO DRAW’’ The notes of Madison, who was representing dropped, probably on the theory that they (By Robert F. Drinan and Wayne Owens) Virginia, show that three distinct positions were redundant, although we have no direct dominated the day’s discussion. One extreme evidence. It would be astonishing if this This is not the first time the House Judici- view, represented by Roger Sherman of Con- change were intended to have a substantive ary Committee has been called on to deter- necticut, was that ‘‘the National Legislature effect, for the committee had no authority to mine whether actions of the President in his should have the power to remove the Execu- change the meaning of any provision, let private life rise to the level of ‘‘high crimes tive at pleasure.’’ Charles Pinckney of South alone the impeachment clause on which the and misdemeanors.’’ In 1974, we were mem- Carolina, Rufus King of Massachusetts and framers had converged. The Constitution as bers of the House Judiciary Committee that Gouvernor Morris of Pennsylvania opposed, a whole, including the impeachment provi- considered evidence that Richard Nixon com- with Pinckney arguing that the president sion, was signed by the delegates and offered mitted tax fraud while President. The panel ‘‘ought not to be impeachable whilst in of- to the nation on Sept. 17. concluded that personal misconduct is not fice.’’ The third position, which ultimately These debates support a narrow under- an impeachable offense. carried the day, was that the president standing of ‘‘high Crimes and Misdemean- The evidence against President Nixon was should be impeachable, but only for a narrow ors,’’ founded on the central notions of brib- convincing. He had claimed a $565,000 deduc- category of abuses of the public trust. ery and treason. The early history tends in tion on his taxes for the donation of his Vice It was George Mason of Virginia who took the same direction. The Virginia and Dela- Presidential papers, but the loophole that al- a lead role in promoting this more moderate ware constitutions, providing a background lowed the deduction was closed in 1969. The course. He argued that it would be necessary for the founders’ work, generally allowed im- IRS concluded that the documents for the to counter the risk that the president might peachment for acts ‘‘by which the safety of donation had been signed in 1970 and obtain his office by corrupting his electors. the State may be endangered.’’ And consider backdated. There was persuasive evidence ‘‘Shall that man be above’’ justice, he asked, the words of the highly respected (and later that Nixon was personally involved in the ‘‘who can commit the most extensive injus- Supreme Court Justice) James Iredell, decision, making him criminally liable for tice?’’ The possibility of the new president speaking in the North Carolina ratifying tax fraud. becoming a near-monarch led the key convention: ‘‘I suppose the only instances, in But the committee decided by a vote of 26 votes—above all, Morris—to agree that im- which the President would be liable to im- to 12 that he should not be impeached for tax peachment might be permitted for (in peachment, would be where he had received a fraud because it did not involve official con- Morris’s words) ‘‘corruption & some few bribe, or had acted from some corrupt mo- duct or abuse of Presidential powers. other offences.’’ Madison concurred, and Ed- tive or other.’’ By way of explanation, Iredell As one of the committee’s most partisan mund Randolph of Virginia captured the referred to a situation in which ‘‘the Presi- Democrats, Jerry Waldie, said, ‘‘Though I emerging consensus, favoring impeachment dent has received a bribe . . . from a foreign find the conduct of the President to have on the grounds that the executive ‘‘will have power, and, under the influence of that bribe, been shabby, to have been unacceptable, and great opportunitys of abusing his power; par- had address enough with the Senate, by arti- to have been disgraceful even, this is not an ticularly in time of war when the military fices and misrepresentations, to seduce their abuse of power sufficient to warrant im- force, and in some respect the public money, consent to a pernicious treaty.’’ peachment.’’ will be in his hands.’’ The clear trend of the James Wilson, a convention delegate from This bipartisan conclusion was made easier discussion was toward allowing a narrow im- Pennsylvania, wrote similarly in his 1791 because the first order of business when the peachment power by which the president ‘‘Lectures on Law’’: ‘‘In the United States committee convened in 1974 was to discuss could be removed only for gross abuses of and in Pennsylvania, impeachments are con- what the standards should be for impeach- public authority. fined to political characters, to political ment. Without such standards, the impeach- To Pinckney’s continued protest that the crimes and misdemeanors, and to political ment process could become a partisan free- separation of powers should be paramount, for-all. Morris argued that ‘‘no one would say that punishments.’’ Another early commentator went so far as to say that ‘‘the legitimate The committee stipulated from the begin- we ought to expose ourselves to the danger ning that ‘‘because impeachment of a Presi- of seeing the first Magistrate in foreign pay causes of impeachment . . . can have ref- erence only to public character, and official dent is a grave step for the nation, it is pre- without being able to guard against it by dis- dicted upon conduct seriously incompatible placing him.’’ At the same time, Morris in- duty. . . . In general, those offenses, which may be committed equally by a private per- with either the constitutional form and prin- sisted, ‘‘we should take care to provide some ciples of our government or the proper per- mode that will not make him dependent on son, as a public officer, are not the subjects of impeachment.’’ formance of constitutional duties of the the Legislature.’’ Thus, led by Morris, the Presidential office.’’ framers moved toward a position that would This history casts new light on the famous 1970 statement of Gerald Ford, then a rep- The current House Judiciary Committee maintain the separation between president would do well to ‘‘follow the precedents set and Congress, but permit the president to be resentative from Michigan, that a high crime and misdemeanor ‘‘is whatever a majority of in the Nixon hearings,’’ as the chairman, removed in extreme situations. Henry Hyde, recently pledged to do. If the A fresh draft of the Constitution’s im- the House of Representatives considers it to panel applies the standard that emerged in peachment clause, which emerged two weeks be.’’ In a practical sense, of course, Ford was 1974, it will decide that the charges against later on Aug. 6, permitted the president to be right; no court would review a decision to Clinton do not fall under the articles of im- impeached, but only for treason, bribery and impeach. But in a constitutional sense, he corruption (exemplified by the president’s was quite wrong; the framers were careful to peachment.—Robert F. Drinan and Wayne securing his office by unlawful means). With circumscribe the power of the House of Rep- Owens are former Democratic Representa- little additional debate, this provision was resentatives by sharply limiting the cat- tives from, respectively, Massachusetts and narrowed on Sept. 4 to ‘‘treason and brib- egory of legitimately impeachable offenses. Utah. ery.’’ But a short time later, the delegates The Constitution is not always read to took up the impeachment clause anew. mean what the founders intended it to mean, RECENT STATEMENTS COMPARING THE Mason complained that the provision was and Madison’s notes hardly answer every LEWINSKY MATTER TO WATERGATE BY INDI- too narrow, that ‘‘maladministration’’ question. But under any reasonable theory of VIDUALS CLOSELY INVOLVED IN WATERGATE should be added, so as to include ‘‘attempts constitutional interpretation, the current al- ‘‘With Mr. Nixon, of course, you had really to subvert the Constitution’’ that would not legations against Clinton fall far short of the serious abuse of high office. He engaged in count as treason or bribery. permissible grounds for removing a president wiretapping of newsmen and government of- But Madison, the convention’s most care- from office. Of course, perjury and obstruc- ficials. He ordered break-ins—the staff did— ful lawyer, insisted that the term ‘‘mal- tion of justice could be impeachable offenses of government institutions, and then there administration’’ was ‘‘so vague’’ that it if they involved, for example, lies about un- was a cover-up where there was clearly no would ‘‘be equivalent to a tenure during lawful manipulation of elections. It might question when you’re paying hush money pleasure of the Senate,’’ which is exactly even be possible to count as impeachable that you’re seeking silence of those involved. what the framers were attempting to avoid. ‘‘corruption’’ the extraction of sexual favors So, the width and breadth of Watergate was Hence, Mason withdrew ‘‘maladministra- in return for public benefits of some kind. much different than the single incident we tion’’ and added the new terms ‘‘other high But nothing of this kind has been alleged have involved here.’’—John Dean (CNN, 9/11/ Crimes and Misdemeanors against the thus far. A decision to impeach President 98) State’’—later unanimously changed to, ac- Clinton would not and should not be subject ‘‘The offenses being investigated are to- cording to Madison, ‘‘against the United to judicial review. But for those who care tally different. . . . In the aggregate, Water- States’’ to ‘‘remove ambiguity.’’ The phrase about the Constitution’s words, and the judg- gate was serious, piece-by-piece subversion itself was taken from English law, where it ment of its authors, there is a good argu- of presidential accountability to the Con- referred to a category of distinctly political ment that it would nonetheless be unconsti- gress and public. Those are very wide dif- offenses against the state. tutional.—Cass Sunstein, who teaches at the ferences from Whitewater and Monica H10028 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 Lewinsky.’’—Elliot Richardson (Associated change history by convincing the electorate Anyone who confuses this scenario with a Press, 9/10/98) that he and his party wore the mantle of in- slap on the wrist, or a censure written in dis- Asked if the Starr Report established dividual responsibility and personal account- appearing ink, underestimates the historic grounds for impeachment, Ben-Veniste an- ability, the President has since been forced impact of such a pronouncement. Nor should swered, ‘‘No, I don’t. And I believe that the to take refuge in legalistic evasions, while anyone forget the power of television to fos- report itself is a flagrant and arrogant mis- his defenders resort to the insulting mantra ter indelible images in the national mem- use of the power and the authority of an that ‘‘everybody does it.’’ ory—not unlike what happened on the sol- independent counsel. It had been reported The best evidence that everybody doesn’t emn August noontime in 1974 when I stood in that Mr. Starr was going to follow the exam- do it is the genuine outrage occasioned by the East Room and declared our long na- ple of the Watergate prosecutors in trans- the President’s conduct and by the efforts of tional nightmare to be over. mitting evidence as a statute permits him to some White House surrogates to minimize its At 85, I have no general personal or politi- do relating to his view of impeachable of- significance or savage his critics. cal agenda, nor do I have any interest in fenses. Instead, he has set himself up, not The question confronting us, then is not ‘‘rescuing’’ Bill Clinton. But I do care, pas- only as investigator and prosecutor, but as whether the President has done wrong, but sionately, about rescuing the country I love judge and jury and has had the arrogance to rather, what is an appropriate form of pun- from further turmoil or uncertainty. write articles of impeachment as to make an ishment for his wrongdoing. A simple apol- More than a way out of the current mess, argument here, a prosecution argument for ogy is inadequate, and a fine would trivialize most Americans want a way up to something better. In the midst of a far graver national the removal of the President of the United his misconduct by treating it as a mere ques- crisis, Lincoln observed, ‘‘The occasion is States. This report has gone so far beyond tion of monetary restitution. piled high with difficulty, and we must rise what he was authorized to do that is has now At the same time, the President is not the with the occasion.’’ We should remember merged Starr, the prosecutor, and Star the only one who stands before the bar of judg- those words in the days ahead. Better yet, we Supermarket tabloid.’’—Richard Ben- ment. It has been said that Washington is a should be guided by them.—Gerald R. Ford, Veniste (Meet the Press, 9/13/98) town of marble and mud. Often in these past the 38th President of the United States, was ‘‘I think we have to remember what the few months it has seemed that we were all in a Republican member of the House of Rep- crimes in Watergate were. Watergate was danger of sinking into the mire. resentatives from 1949 to 1973. about a vast and pervasive abuse of power by Twenty-five years after leaving it, I still a President who ordered break-ins; who or- consider myself a man of the House. I never Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield dered fire bombings; who ordered illegal forget that my elevation to the Presidency 21⁄2 minutes to the gentlewoman from wiretappings; who ordered a squad of goons came about through Congressional as well as Houston, Texas (Ms. SHEILA JACKSON- to thwart the constitutional electoral proc- constitutional mandate. My years in the LEE), an able member of our Commit- ess. We’ve seen nothing like that here.’’— White House were devoted to restoring pub- tee on the Judiciary who was working Carl Bernstein (CNN Saturday Morning lic confidence in institutions of popular gov- until midnight on the floor. News, 9/12/98) ernance. Now as then, I care more about pre- serving respect for those institutions than I (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend [From the New York Times, Oct. 4, 1998] do about the fate of any individual tempo- her remarks.) ‘‘THE PATH BACK TO DIGNITY’’ rarily entrusted with office. This is why I think the time has come to Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I (By Gerald R. Ford) pause and consider the long-term con- thank the distinguished gentleman GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.—Almost exactly 25 sequences of removing this President from from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) for yield- years have passed since Richard Nixon nomi- office based on the evidence at hand. The ing me this time, and I thank my nated me to replace the disgraced Spiro President’s hairsplitting legalisms, objec- democratic colleagues for the convic- Agnew as Vice President. In the contentious tionable as they may be, are but the fore- tions they have shared with America days of autumn 1973, my confirmation was by taste of a protracted and increasingly divi- no means assured. Indeed, a small group of sive debate over those deliberately imprecise today and for helping them understand House Democrats, led by Bella Abzug, risked words ‘‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’’ The this most somber challenge and the a constitutional crisis in order to pursue Framers, after all, dealt in eternal truths, high constitutional that we may have. their own agenda. not glossy deceit. To my colleagues on the other side of ‘‘We can get control and keep control,’’ Ms. Moving with dispatch, the House Judiciary the aisle, truth matters, but the Con- Abzug told the Speaker of the House, Carl Committee should be able to conclude a pre- stitution also matters. The President’s Albert. liminary inquiry into possible grounds for behavior was reprehensible, out- The group hoped, eventually, to replace impeachment before the end of the year. rageous, and disappointing. But as Nixon himself with Mr. Albert. Once that process is completed, and barring George Mason indicated, impeachable The Speaker, true to form, refused to have unexpected new revelations, the full House anything to do with the scheme. And so on might then consider the following resolution offenses are those dangerous and great Dec. 6, 1973, the House voted 387 to 35 to con- to the crisis. offenses against the Constitution. They firm my nomination on accordance with the Each year it is customary for a President constitute a subversion of the Con- 25th Amendment to the Constitution. to journey down Pennsylvania Avenue and stitution. When I succeeded to the Presidency, in Au- appear before a joint session of Congress to Members gathered in 1974 and refused gust 1974, my immediate and overriding pri- deliver his State of the Union address. One of to impeach Richard Nixon on the per- ority was to draw off the poison that had the binding rituals of our democracy, it sonal charge of tax evasion. It must be seeped into the nation’s bloodstream during takes on added grandeur from its surround- that we understand what these con- two years of scandal and sometimes ugly ings—there, in that chamber where so much stitutional standards are for impeach- partisanship. Some Americans have yet to of the American story has been written, and forgive me for pardoning my predecessor. In where the ghosts of Woodrow Wilson, Frank- ment high crimes and misdemeanors— the days leading up to that hugely con- lin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower call would that be private sexual acts—it troversial action, I didn’t take a poll for succeeding generations to account. appears not. guidance, but I did say more than a few pray- Imagine a very different kind of Presi- Mr. Speaker, I wish in my Republican ers. In the end I listened to only one voice, dential appearance in the closing days of this friends’ attempt to explain to the that of my conscience. I didn’t issue the par- year, not at the rostrum familiar to viewers American people that they stand by don for Nixon’s sake, but for the country’s. from moments of triumph, but in the well of the Constitution that they would have A generation later, Americans once again the House. Imagine a President receiving not implored their own counsel, Mr. Ship- confront the specter of impeachment. From an ovation from the people’s representatives, pers, and, of course, Mr. Starr, not to the day, last January, when the Monica but a harshly worded rebuke as rendered by Lewinsky story first came to light, I have re- members of both parties. I emphasize: this hide the truth, for the presentations frained publicly from making any sub- would be a rebuke, not a rebuttal by the made by both men did not forthrightly stantive comments. I have done so because I President. acknowledge that Monica Lewinsky haven’t known enough of the facts—and be- On the contrary, by his appearance the said, ‘‘No one ever asked me to lie and cause I know all too well that a President’s President would accept full responsibility for I was never promised a job for my si- responsibilities are, at the best of times, on- his actions, as well as for his subsequent ef- lence.’’ I am concerned about this un- erous. In common with the other former forts to delay or impede the investigation of even presenting of the facts. Presidents, I have had to wish to increase them. No spinning, no semantics, no evasive- Democrats do not want a cover-up. those burdens. Moreover, I resolved to say ness or blaming others for his plight. We simply want to have an inquiry nothing unless my words added construc- Let all this be done without partisan ex- tively to the national discussion. ploitation or mean-spiritedness. Let it be that is fair, that is expeditious, and is This much now seems clear: whether or not dignified, honest and, above all, cleansing. not open-ended and is not a fishing ex- President Clinton has broken any laws, he The result, I believe, would be the first mo- pedition. has broke faith with those who elected him. ment of majesty in an otherwise squalid What is perjury? Perjury is lying; A leader of rare gifts, one who set out to year. however perjury must be proven. Sev- October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10029 eral defenses if raised would disprove Constitution.'' The noted legal scholar from sidered, for a certain designated time. The Re- lying—such truth, or whether the pro- Yale University Professor, Charles Black, publicans refused that request. ponent thought he or she was telling writes in his Impeachment Handbook that, While the Republican resolution does not the truth, and materiality. My friends In the English practice from which the have a time certain for the inquiry to end, the on the other side of the aisle are rush- Framers borrowed the phrase, ‘‘High Crimes Democratic amendment calls for the Judiciary ing to judgment. But I am reminded of and Misdemeanors’’ . . . was intended to re- Committee to make a full recommendation to the words of Congresswoman Barbara dress public offenses committed by public of- the House concerning Articles of Impeachment Jordan, ‘‘It is reason and not passion ficials in violation of the public trust and du- by no later than December 31, 1998. This is ties. It was designed to be justified for the which must guide our deliberations, gravest wrongs—offenses against the Con- a compromise. There must be fairness and guide our debate, and guide our deci- stitution itself. balance. The Democrats have also yielded on sion.’’ We must proceed deliberately— This is our standard. It is clear that while we the provision which allows the House to con- not eager to accuse without the facts. have no conduct or allegations showing the sider other pertinent matters, as long as it is Mr. Speaker, I implore my col- President to have committed either treason or referred by the Independent Counsel, and not leagues, to let reason guide us. And bribery, we must focus our attention on two arbitrarily decided by Congress. This impeach- then let me say to my constituents and questions. One, what is a ``high crime and ment inquiry must be limited in scope and those who face a moral dilemma, I have misdemeanor or an impeachable offense?, have a time certain. On February 6, 1974, been in churches in my district, they and two, did the President of the United Congressman Hutchinson, then the ranking believe in redemption. And, yes, the States commit any high crimes and mis- Republican on the committee spoke on the President has sinned. But those of you demeanors or an impeachable offense? Those floor of the House about the Watergate inquiry who want to rise and cast the first are the questions, and it is up to the Congress and said, stone, my question is: Who has not to find the answers. The resolution before you carries no cutoff sinned? We are at this point today because the date. Although charges have raged in the And whatever we do today, those of President of the United States had an affair media there has yet to be demonstrated any us who have received death threats in evidence of impeachable conduct. Therefore, with a White House intern and he didn't want if by the end of April no such evidence has our office, attacks against our children anyone to know about it, and that was wrong. because of the hysteria that has been been produced, the committee should so re- However, what we have heard or seen thus port to the House and end its labors. created by this Congress, I simply ask far does not set out a prima facie case for im- that we give this proceeding a chance The American people have spoken and they peachment. have said that this has gone on too long. This to be fair, to act judiciously, and to fol- On the floor for consideration today is a Re- can not be an endless process. There must be low the Constitution. publican ``privileged resolution'' on the ques- time certain or the House should ``end its la- Lastly, might I say I believe that we tion to launch an impeachment inquiry ``to in- bors.'' will survive this together as a Nation vestigate fully and completely whether suffi- So far what we have in Congress is the and we will do this if we let constitu- cient grounds exist for the House of Rep- word of one man, an Independent Counsel tional principals guide us for Isaiah resentatives to exercise its constitutional who is not duly elected by the people. We 40:31 says, ‘‘They that wait upon the power to impeach the President.'' There are have convoluted facts, inconsistent stories and Lord shall renew their strength. They no limits to their investigation and no estab- versions, possible illegal tape recordings, but shall mount up with wings as eagles lishment of the necessary constitutional stand- no real hard evidence. and they shall walk and not be faint.’’ ards. Mr. Speaker, I will stand for the pres- Twenty-five years ago, this committee un- In Act V of Macbeth, William Shakespeare ervation of the Constitution. dertook the constitutional task of considering writes, It is fate that has put us all here today. the impeachment of President Nixon. The Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the But history will reflectÐand tell the story of process was painstaking, careful, and delib- how we acted todayÐwhether or not the Con- stage, And then is heard no more; it is a tale erative, and both the Nation and the world Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Sig- stitution matters. Truth does matter, but the were reassured that America's 200 year-old Constitution dictates that impeachable of- nifying nothing. Constitution worked. That's what we have so far Mr. Speaker. fenses be grounded in attempts to subvert the Impeachment is final, nonappealable without We have fury, but no facts, and a tale told by Constitution. I am supporting the democratic further remedy, a complete rejection of the a nonelected official that is full of allegations, amendment today that focuses our review, es- people's will and thereby, I believe it must be not yet fact signifying anything. As the Water- tablishes the constitutional standards, and al- done fully beyond a doubt and without rancor gate Committee's February 1974 Staff Report lows us to bring this inquiry to closure by the or vengeanceÐcomplying with every woven explained, ``In an impeachment proceeding a end of the year. thread of the Constitution. Today, by contrast, President is called to account for abusing Truth matters and the Constitution matters. the world and the American people have been powers that only a President possesses.'' In The President is not above the law, however, alternatively puzzled, confused, and appalled Watergate, as in all prior impeachments, the neither is he beneath the law. We need to act by the reckless media circus our automatic allegations concerned official misconduct that with reason, not fury, harmony not acrimony, dumping of documents has produced. with deliberation, not recklessness, with con- On July 24, 1974, the House Judiciary Com- threatened to subvert the constitutional order stitutional discharge, and not with opinion, and mittee had a meeting to consider the Impeach- or balance, not private misbehavior. Impeach- speculation with justice and fairness and not ment of President Richard Nixon. One of my ment is not a personal punishment. In all of injustice and unfairness. predecessors of the 18th Congressional Dis- American history, no official has been im- Mr. Speaker, in November of 1992 Presi- trict of Texas, the late, great, Barbara Jordan peached for misbehavior unrelated to his offi- dent William Jefferson Clinton was elected said that, cial responsibilities. I make no attempt to ex- President of the United States by focusing on My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is cuse the President's behavior, but as we vote the economy and using the slogan ``It's the complete, it is total. I am not going to sit on whether to launch a full scale impeachment Economy Stupid.'' I come here today with here and be an idle spectator to the diminu- inquiry, I admonish my colleagues that we mixed feelings. We come here today not to tion, the subversion, the destruction of the must adhere to the constitution and the focus on the economy, but the Constitution. Constitution. writings of the Framers. It's the Constitution It's the Constitution that matters! So I, like my predecessor come not to sub- that matters! Article II, Section IV states that, vert or destroy the Constitution, but to uphold As James Wilson explained in the Pennsyl- the President . . . shall be removed from Of- it. vania ratification convention: ``far from being fice on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, I am fully aware like most of my colleagues, above the laws, [the President] is amenable to treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and that this privileged resolution only allows for a them in this private character as [a] citizen, Misdemeanors. 10-minute motion to recommit, and not the and in his public character by impeachment.'' It's the Constitution that matters! The Fram- regular full time allotted to consider a Demo- The Constitution imposes a grave and serious ers of our Constitution set the standard. cratic amendment. In order for this process to responsibility on us to protect the fabric of the George Mason, one of the Framers, stated be fair and balanced and for the American Constitution. To perform our job requires that that ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' refers to people to truly hear both sides of this debate we investigate the facts thoroughly before we Presidential actions that are ``great and dan- the House should waive House Rule IX, and begin dealing with what our predecessors gerous offenses'' to attempt to subvert the allow the Democratic amendment to be con- called ``delicate issues of basic constitutional H10030 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 law.'' We must avoid prejudging the issues or spect for the officers of the Court, re- Mr. Speaker, as a member of the turning this solemn duty into another forum for spect for women and ultimately about Committee on the Judiciary, I pledge partisan wrangling. The Republican resolution self-respect. to work diligently to move this matter on the floor today, which may result in the Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield forward. House acting without all the facts, weakens such time as he may consume to the Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the foundation of the Constitution. gentleman from New York (Mr. ACKER- such time as he may consume to the The former Congressman and now a re- MAN). gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DAVIS). nowned Georgetown Law Professor, Father (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was Drinan, who served on the House Judiciary given permission to revise and extend given permission to revise and extend Committee during the Watergate Impeachment his remarks.) his remarks.) hearings stated that, Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I There is no such thing as a Democratic or in passionate objection and opposition rise in opposition to the Hyde resolu- Republican approach to the allegation of im- to the resolution. tion. peachment, The House of Representatives is Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield now involved in a proceeding which was de- minute to the distinguished gentle- such time as he may consume to the scribed by George Mason [a Founding Fa- woman from California (Ms. PELOSI). gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO). ther] as the Constitution providing for the Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank (Mr. DEFAZIO asked and was given regular punishment of the executive when the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. permission to revise and extend his re- his misconduct should deserve it’’ but also CONYERS) for yielding. marks.) ‘‘for his honorable acquittal when he should Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in be unjustly accused. the Hyde resolution, and in doing so support of the Democratic alternative It was George Washington, the first Presi- point out the inconsistency of the Re- and in opposition to the open-ended Re- dent of the United States who said in his Fare- publican majority. At the start of this publican resolution of inquiry. well Address on September 17, 1796, ``Let me Congress, the Republican majority Mr. Speaker, the question of impeaching a now . . . warn you in the most solemn man- gave you, Mr. Speaker, the highest sitting President has only come before the ner against the baneful effects of the spirit of honor this House can bestow: The House of Representatives three times in our party.'' speakership. For the freshman Repub- nation's history. There's a very good reason This should be a nonpartisan debate, and a licans, this was the first vote that they this has happened so seldom. Our nation's constitutional debate. We need to act with rea- cast in this House. The Republican ma- founders deliberately set very high standards son, not fury, harmony not acrimony, with de- jority did this after you, Mr. Speaker, for impeachment in order to spare the nation liberation . . . not recklessness, with con- were charged with and admitted to the trauma of such an inherently divisive de- stitutional discharge, and not with opinions lying under oath to the Ethics Com- bate and to maintain a strong and independ- and speculation, with justice and fairness, and mittee about the conduct of your polit- ent Presidency. At a time like this, we all have not injustice and unfairness. ical affairs. a responsibility to rise above party politics and I hope my colleagues will allow for full con- How inconsistent then, Mr. Speaker, short term political considerations. We are not sideration and debate of the Democratic for this same Republican majority to just debating the fate of this President. We are amendment which is focused and fair. I leave move to an impeachment inquiry of the setting precedents that will have a profound you with the words of Martin Luther King, who President for lying about his personal and long-lasting effect on our constitutional said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice life. Our Republican majority have said system of government. everywhere . . . whatever affects one directly, lying under oath is a dagger in the The issue before the House today is wheth- affects all indirectly.'' It's the Constitution that heart of the legal system. We all agree er we will initiate a lengthy and open-ended matters Mr. Speaker, and I hope today it will that lying is wrong, but why the double impeachment inquiry that will paralyze our rule. standard? government and throw this nation into a pro- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 I urge my colleagues to reject this longed constitutional crisis, or whether we will minute to the gentleman from Texas Republican double standard which ex- demand a focused and speedy resolution of (Mr. SMITH), a distinguished member of alts the Speaker and moves to impeach this matter. After carefully considering the evi- the committee. the President. I urge my colleagues to dence so far produced by Independent Coun- (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was vote no on the Hyde resolution. sel Kenneth Starr, I have concluded that the given permission to revise and extend Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 nation's interests are best served by an im- his remarks.) minute to the distinguished gentleman peachment inquiry that is thorough, but fo- Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, from Utah (Mr. CANNON), a member of cusedÐcomprehensive, but promptly con- others continue to argue or continue to the Committee on the Judiciary. cluded. imply that this inquiry is only about a Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I would This debate is already preventing Congress personal relationship, but that is like like to associate myself with the views from addressing important issues facing the saying Watergate was only about pick- expressed by the chairman, the gen- nationÐincluding issues like the future of So- ing a lock or that the Boston Tea tleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE), and cial Security, health care reform and improving Party was only about tea. also by those expressed by the gen- our educational system. There is no profit to During a similar investigation of tleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH). the people of the United States in a drawn-out President Nixon 24 years ago, there was I am proud that my Republican col- impeachment debate that could go on for an- little focus on the burglary. The Com- leagues have spent more than 5 times other year or more. We have the information mittee on the Judiciary and the special as much time reviewing the Starr re- we need to conclude this matter by the end of prosecutor rightly wanted to know, as ferral material than my Democratic this year. The Republican leadership should we should today, whether the President colleagues. work with Democratic leaders to make that lied to the American people, obstructed This is a solemn occasion and I feel happen. justice or abused his office. the full weight of the responsibility President Clinton's behavior has been out- While some try to describe this scan- that we are assuming today. rageous, reckless and morally offensive. He dal as private, the President’s own At- Some would trivialize this debate by flatly lied to the American people and may torney General found that there ex- giving it the name of a young intern or have committed perjury in a civil lawsuit. Mr. isted credible evidence of criminal by referring to other important mat- Starr also alleges that the President ob- wrongdoing. ters that face the Nation. They know structed justice and otherwise abused his of- This is not a decision to go forward that this is or they should know that fice. with an inquiry into a personal rela- this is inappropriate. Americans want Reasonable people can differ over whether tionship. It is about examining the this matter brought to closure. That these chargesÐif trueÐconstitute the kind of most public of relationships, between a can only occur if we fully determine offenses that warrant the national trauma of witness and the courts, between the the facts, place those facts in the con- impeachment. For that reason, if for no other, President and the American people. text of the law and weigh the proper re- I believe the Judiciary Committee should con- It is about respect for the law, re- sponse that will preserve the integrity sider the evidence brought forward by the spect for the office of the presidency, of the office of the presidency and the Independent Counsel, as well as any new evi- respect for the American people, re- integrity of our Nation. dence he sees fit to refer to us, and decide October 8, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10031 without delay whether to forward articles of im- need for an impeachment process. Secondly, The second reason is that the Starr allega- peachment to the House. But I strongly dis- the House of Representatives undermined the tion for which the evidence is disturbingly agree with the delay tactics and the blatantly process when they ignored the precedents strong—perjury—stems directly from acts the Founders would have considered per- unfair and partisan approach adopted by Re- which have been followed in the evaluation sonal, not governmental, and so is not the publican leadersÐa strategy aimed more at and released large volumes of testimony and sort of issue they intended to allow Congress improving their party's election prospects than documents collected in the grand jury process to cite to remove a president from office. at promoting the national interest. to not only the Congress but to the world at NO ‘LARGE-SCALE INFIDELITY’ Impeachment of a President is not a matter large. Says Professor Sunstein, ‘‘Even collec- for Congress to take lightly or use for narrow This has allowed the full membership of the tively, the allegations don’t constitute the partisan purposes. By its very nature, im- House of Representatives and the public to kind of violation of loyalty to the United peachment repudiates the will of the people as come to conclusions before the process of im- States or large-scale infidelity to the Con- expressed in a popular election. it severely un- peachment has begun. The polls would sug- stitution that would justify impeachment, dermines the separation of powers, which is at gest that the public does not favor removing given the Framers’ decision that impeach- ment should follow only from treason, brib- the core of our system of government. And in the President from office but it is less clear ery or other like offenses . . . What we have the long term, it would weaken not only the of- what they feel is an adequate sanction. in the worst case here is a pattern of lying to fice of the President, but the nation's strength Today, the members of the House will be cover up a sexual relationship, which is very and prestige in international affairs. confronted with the question of whether or not far from what the Framers thought were For those reasons and others, I oppose the an impeachment inquiry should begin. I will grounds for getting rid of a president.’’ Republican leadership's drawn-out and open- vote against an inquiry for the following rea- Douglas W. Kmiec, who spent four years in ended impeachment inquiry proposal and will son: the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and now teaches at Notre Dame Law vote today in favor of the alternative: a prompt The evidence presented to the Congress by School, agrees: ‘‘The fundamental point is and focused impeachment inquiry aimed at re- Mr. Starr does not support the charge of an the one that Hamilton makes in Federalist solving this crisis and putting these issues be- impeachable offense. When all is said and 65: Impeachment is really a remedy for the hind us, one way or another. done, the President made some false state- republic; it is not intended as personal pun- Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield ments under oath about a sexual relationship ishment for a crime. such time as he may consume to the and lied to many people about that relation- ‘‘There’s no question that William Jeffer- gentleman from Washington (Mr. ship. While I in no way condone the Presi- son Clinton has engaged in enormous per- sonal misconduct and to some degree has ex- MCDERMOTT), my dear friend. dent's behavior, I have concluded that it re- hibited disregard for the public interest in (Mr. MCDERMOTT asked and was quires no further investigation and does not doing so, he says. But does that mean that it given permission to revise and extend support impeachment. is gross neglect—gross in the sense of being his remarks, and to include extraneous The framers of the Constitution did not an- measured not by whether we have to remove matter.) ticipate litigation against a president in a sex- the children from the room when the presi- Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ual harassment case or investigation by an dent’s video is playing, but by whether [al- rise in opposition to the Hyde amend- independent counsel. The framers limited im- leged terrorist Osama] bin Laden is now not ment. peachment to the kinds of improprietiesÐtrea- being properly monitored or budget agree- ments aren’t being made?’’ Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in 1789, son, bribery, and the likeÐthat threatened the Adds Prof. John E. Nowak, of the Univer- the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution de- nation for the benefit of the individual. We sity of Illinois College of Law, the impeach- signed to create a stable government. They have no such case before us. His actions, ment clause was intended ‘‘to protect politi- established a democracy of the peopleÐnot a while totally unacceptable, do not rise to the cal stability in this country, rather than parliamentary democracyÐbecause they did level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The move us toward a parliamentary system not want a government that would change President's actions do not threaten our ability whereby the dominant legislative party can whenever the executive fell into disfavor with to act decisively in the world of politics for the decide that the person running the country is a bad person and get rid of him.’’ Mr. the majority party. The Founding Fathers benefit of all Americans, sadly, the House of wanted a government of laws, not people, so Nowak co-authored a constitutional law Representative's actions do. hornbook and a multivolume treatise with they made only one option available to change [From the National Law Journal, Oct. 5, fellow Illinois professor Ronald Rotunda, the chief executive outside of an election by 1998] with whom he does not discuss these matters the peopleÐimpeachment. Impeachment was TOP PROFS: NOT ENOUGH TO IMPEACH because Professor Rotunda is an adviser to prescribed only in unique and extraordinary NLJ ‘JURY’ OF 12 CON-LAW EXPERTS WEIGHS Mr. Starr. ‘‘It seems hard to believe that anything in circumstances. EVIDENCE the report . . . could constitute grounds for The impeachment process was vaguely out- (By Harvey Berkman) lined in the Constitution and the established an impeachment on other than purely politi- ON A ‘JURY’ OF 12 constitutional law pro- cal grounds.’’ Professor Nowak says. ‘‘If false criteria are very few. Article II, Section 4 says fessors, all but two told The National Law statements by the president to other mem- that the President, ``Shall be removed from Of- Journal that, from a constitutional stand- bers of the executive branch are the equiva- fice on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, point, President Clinton should not be im- lent of a true misuse of office . . . I would Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and peached for the things Independent Counsel think that the prevailing legislative party at Misdemeanors.'' Impeachment does not re- Kenneth W. Starr claims he did. any time in our history when the president quire criminal acts. In fact, the House Report Some of the scholars call the question a was of a different party could have cooked up on the Constitutional Grounds of Presidential close one, but most suggest that it is not; . . . ways that he had misused the office.’’ they warn that impeaching William Jeffer- Impeachment states, ``the emphasis has been And that, says Prof. A.E. Dick Howard, son Clinton for the sin he admits or the who has been teaching constitutional law on the significant effects of the conductÐun- crimes he denies would flout the Founding and history for 30 years, would be a step in dermining the integrity of the office, disregard Fathers’ intentions. a direction the Founders never intended to of constitutional duties and oath of office, arro- ‘‘On the charges as we now have them, as- go. gation of power, abuse of the governmental suming there is no additional report [from ‘‘The Framers started from a separation- process, adverse impact on the system of Mr. Starr], impeaching the president would of-powers basis and created a presidential government.'' The bar was set high so that im- probably be unconstitutional,’’ asserts Cass system, not a parliamentary system, and R. Sunstein, co-author of a treatise on con- peachment would be neither casual nor easy they meant for it to be difficult for Congress stitutional law, who teaches at the Univer- to remove a president—not impossible, but for fear that we would undermine the stability sity of Chicago Law School. difficult,’’ says Professor Howard, of the Uni- of the office. Alexander Hamilton summed up The first reason for this conclusion is that versity of Virginia School of Law. ‘‘We risk the dangers of impeachment by saying, ``there the one charge indisputably encompassed by diluting that historical meaning if we permit will always be the greatest danger that the de- the concept of impeachment—abuse of a liberal reading of the impeachment cision will be regulated more by the compara- power—stands on the weakest argument and power—which is to say: If in doubt, you don’t tive strength of parties, than by the real dem- evidence. impeach.’’ onstrations of innocence or guilt.'' ‘‘The allegations that invoking privileges Many of the scholars point to the White and otherwise using the judicial system to House’s acquisition of FBI files on Repub- Hamilton's warning seems prophetic today. shield information . . . is an abuse of power licans as an example of something that could Aside from its partisan nature, the situation that should lead to impeachment and re- warrant the Clintons’ early return to Little before us is quite unusual. It is the first time moval from office is not only frivolous, but Rock—but only if it were proved that these an Independent Counsel has presented find- also dangerous,’’ says Laurence H. Tribe, of files were acquired intentionally and malev- ings to the Congress for determination of the Harvard Law School. olently misused. The reason that would be H10032 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 8, 1998 grounds for impeachment, while his activi- fessor Kmeic, ‘‘The places where personal But even that distortion, he believes, does ties surrounding Monica Lewinsky would misbehavior is raised have entirely been in not reach the high bar the Founders set for not, the professors say, is that misuse of FBI the context of judicial officers. There is a imposing on presidents the political equiva- files would implicate Mr. Clinton’s powers as healthy amount of scholarship that suggests lent of capital punishment. president. But if Mr. Starr has found any that one of the things true about judicial im- ‘‘It would be a disastrous precedent to say such evidence, he has not sent it to Congress, peachments (which is not true of executive that when one’s concept of truth makes it which he is statutorily bound to do. impeachments) is the additional phraseology harder for people to trust you, that that One professor who believes there is no saying that judges serve in times of good be- fuzzy fact is enough to say there has been havior. The counterargument is that there is doubt that President Clinton’s behavior in impeachable conduct,’’ Professor Tribe says. only one impeachment clause, applying to the Lewinsky matter merits his impeach- ‘‘That would move us very dramatically to- executive and judicial alike. But . . . our his- ment is John O. McGinnis, who teaches at ward a parliamentary system. Whether tory is that allegations of profanity and Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo someone is trustworthy is very much in the School of Law. ‘‘I don’t think we want a par- drunkenness, gross personal misbehavior, have come up only in the judicial context.’’ eye of the beholder. The concept of truth re- liamentary system, although I would point vealed in his testimony makes it much hard- out that it’s not as though we’re really going In addition to history, there is another reason for making it harder to impeach er to have confidence in him, but the im- to have a change in power. If Clinton is re- peachment process cannot be equated with a moved there will be Gore, sort of a policy presidents, says Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches constitutional law at Yale Law vote of no confidence without moving us clone of Clinton. A parliamentary system much closer to a parliamentary system.’’ suggests a change in party power. That fear School and who recently published a book on is somewhat overblown.’’ the Bill of Rights: ‘‘When you impeach a Professor Kmiec does suggest that some- Professor McGinnis considers the reasons judge, you’re not undoing a national election thing stronger than simple ‘‘no confidence’’ for impeachment obvious. ‘‘I don’t think the . . . The questions to ask is whether [Presi- might form the possible basis for impeach- Constitution cares one whit what sort of in- dent Clinton’s] misconduct is so serious and ment. Call it ‘‘no confidence at all.’’ ‘‘It is cident [the alleged felonies] come from,’’ he malignant as to justify undoing a national possible that one could come to the conclu- says. ‘‘The question is, ‘Can you have a per- election, canceling the votes of millions and sion that the president’s credibility is so de- jurer and someone who obstructs justice as putting the nation through a severe trau- stroyed that he’d have difficulty functioning president?’ And it seems to me self-evident ma.’’ as an effective president,’’ Professor Kmiec that you cannot. The whole structure of our THEY’RE UNCOMFORTABLE says, ‘‘But the public doesn’t seem to think country depends on giving honest testimony None of these arguments, however, is to so, and I don’t know that foreign leaders under law. That’s the glue of the rule of law. suggest that the professors are comfortable think so,’’ given the standing ovation Mr. You can go back to Plato, who talks about with what they believe the president may Clinton received at the United Nations. the crucial-ness of oaths in a republic. It’s well be doing: persistently repeating a sin- In the end, Professor Howard says that he why perjury and obstruction of justice are gle, essential lie—that his encounters did not opposes impeachment under these conditions such dangerous crimes.’’ meet the definition of sexual relations at his not only because the past suggests it is inap- This argument has some force, says Profes- Paula Jones deposition. Mr. Clinton admits propriate, but also because of the dangerous sor Kmiec, but the public is hesitant to im- that this definition means he could never precedent it would set. ‘‘Starting with the peach in this case because of a feeling that have touched any part of her body with the Supreme Court’s devastatingly unfortunate ‘‘the entire process started illegitimately, intent to inflame or satiate her desire. It is and totally misconceived opinion [in Clinton that the independent counsel statute is an assertion that clashes not only with Ms. v. Jones, which allowed Ms. Jones’s suit to flawed and that the referral in this case was Lewinsky’s recounting of her White House proceed against the president while he was even more flawed, in that it was done some- trysts to friends, erstwile friends and the still in office], this whole controversy has what hastily by the attorney general.’’ grand jury, but also with human nature. played out in a way that makes it possible Jesse H. Choper, a professor at the Univer- ‘‘That’s one of the two things that trouble for every future president to be harassed at sity of California at Berkeley School of Law me most about his testimony—that he con- every turn by his political enemies,’’ Profes- (Boalt Hall) and co-author of a con-law case- tinues to insist on the quite implausible sor Howard warns. ‘‘To draw fine lines and book now in its seventh edition, agrees that proposition [of] ‘Look, Ma, no hands,’ which say that any instance of stepping across that perjury, committed for any reason, can is quite inconsistent with Monica line becomes impeachable invites a presi- count as an impeachable offense. ‘‘The lan- Lewinsky’s testimony, and that he’s doing dent’s enemies to lay snares at every turn in guage says ‘high crimes and misdemeanor.’ that in what appears to be quite a calculated the path. I’m not sure we want a system that and [perjury] is a felony, so my view is that way,’’ Professor Tribe laments. ‘‘But I take works that way.’’ it comes within the [constitutional] lan- some solace in the fact that [a criminal pros- ecution of perjury] awaits him when he The other ‘‘jurors’’ on this panel of con- guage. But whether we ought to throw a stitutional law professors were: president out of office because he lied under leaves office.’’ Professor Amar agrees that ‘‘whatever . .. oath in order to cover up an adulterous affair The one essentially abstaining ‘‘juror’’: Mi- crimes he may have committed, he’ll have to . . . my judgment as a citizen would be that chael J. Gerhardt, of the College of William answer for it when he leaves office, and that it’s not enough.’’ and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law. is the punishment that will fit his crime.’’ A JUDGE WOULD BE IMPEACHED Douglas Laycock, of The University of Also disturbing to Professor Tribe is the Texas School of Law. Many of the professors say Mr. Clinton president’s apparent comfort with a peculiar would almost certainly be impeached for pre- concept of what it means to tell the truth, a Thomas O. Sargentich, co-director of the cisely what he has done, were he a judge concept the professor describes as ‘‘It may be program on law and government at Amer- rather than the president. That double deceptive, but if you can show it’s true under ican University, Washington College of Law. standard, they say, is contemplated by the a magnifying glass tilted at a certain angle, Suzanna A. Sherry, professor at the Uni- Constitution in a roundabout way. Says Pro- you’re OK.’’ versity of Minnesota Law School.

N O T I C E Incomplete record of House proceedings. Except for concluding business which follows, today’s House proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the Record.

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1853, amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT. CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL- 1853), to amend the Carl D. Perkins Voca- (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT OF tional and Applied Technology Education the ‘‘Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Amendments of 1998’’. 1998 Act, having met, after full and free con- ference, have agreed to recommend and do (b) AMENDMENT.—The Carl D. Perkins Voca- Mr. Goodling submitted the following recommend to their respective Houses as fol- tional and Applied Technology Education Act conference report and statement on the lows: (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) is amended to read as fol- bill (H.R. 1853) to amend the Carl D. That the House recede from its disagree- lows: Perkins Vocational and Applied Tech- ment to the amendment of the Senate and ‘‘SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. nology Education Act: agree to the same with an amendment as fol- ‘‘(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as lows: the ‘Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical CONFERENCE REPORT (105–800) In lieu of the matter proposed to be in- Education Act of 1998. The committee of conference on the dis- serted by the Senate amendment, insert the ‘‘(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the following: tents for this Act is as follows: