{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1998-12-18-pt1-PgH11774", "1998-12-18", 105, 2, null, null, "PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--IMPEACHING WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H11774", "H11870", "[{\"name\": \"Henry J. Hyde\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David E. Bonior\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Conyers, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard A. Gephardt\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Asa Hutchinson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Martin Frost\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert Menendez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Barney Frank\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chet Edwards\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rosa L. DeLauro\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"George W. Gekas\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ed Bryant\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rick Boucher\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ike Skelton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Lewis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert C. \\\"Bobby\\\" Scott\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gerald B. H. Solomon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Barr\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill McCollum\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sam Johnson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles E. Schumer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Randy (Duke) Cunningham\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerrold Nadler\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lindsey Graham\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thomas M. Barrett\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles T. Canady\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steve Buyer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Maxine Waters\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steny H. Hoyer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James E. Rogan\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Martin T. Meehan\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"W. G. (Bill) Hefner\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John D. Dingell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheila Jackson Lee\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom Bliley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Diana DeGette\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Elton Gallegly\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert Wexler\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom Campbell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steven R. Rothman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thomas E. Petri\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mary Bono Mack\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Vic Fazio\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Kevin Brady\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Barbara B. Kennelly\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Kenny C. Hulshof\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Zoe Lofgren\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Nancy L. Johnson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Joseph P. Kennedy II\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lamar Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Henry Bonilla\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard K. Armey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Spencer Bachus\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tony P. Hall\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Peter T. King\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Major R. Owens\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"William J. Jefferson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thomas J. Manton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Paul McHale\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom Lantos\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Frank Riggs\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Merrill Cook\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Carrie P. Meek\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Goodlatte\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sue Wilkins Myrick\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Linder\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Stephen Horn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David R. Obey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"William F. Goodling\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sidney R. Yates\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Louise McIntosh Slaughter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ileana Ros-Lehtinen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tim Holden\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dale E. Kildee\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thomas W. Ewing\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Filner\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Howard Coble\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James P. McGovern\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Talent\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Cliff Stearns\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Carolyn C. Kilpatrick\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Scott McInnis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Edward J. Markey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Harris W. Fawell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ron Klink\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ed Whitfield\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Alcee L. Hastings\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James V. Hansen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Nita M. Lowey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Henry A. Waxman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Amo Houghton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Albert Russell Wynn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jack Kingston\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Nancy Pelosi\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Roger F. Wicker\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Peter Deutsch\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James C. Greenwood\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lloyd Doggett\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerry Lewis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John A. Boehner\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ron Kind\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steve Chabot\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lynn C. Woolsey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rick Lazio\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Norman Sisisky\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Owen B. Pickett\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom Sawyer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Doug Bereuter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Joe Barton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Porter J. Goss\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gene Green\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Saxby Chambliss\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Terry Everett\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sonny Callahan\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Anna G. Eshoo\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chris Cannon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Solomon P. Ortiz\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lane Evans\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dennis J. Kucinich\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John W. Olver\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Doc Hastings\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ken Calvert\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Heather Wilson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Benjamin L. Cardin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Eva M. Clayton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sam Farr\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom Davis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert B. Aderholt\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert A. Weygand\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Elias Baldacci\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bernard Sanders\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill Barrett\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mac Collins\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael Pappas\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"William L. Jenkins\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gerald D. Kleczka\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Louis Stokes\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patrick J. Kennedy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Danny K. Davis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Julia Carson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sherwood Boehlert\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lincoln Diaz-Balart\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David E. Skaggs\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Carolyn B. Maloney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert E. Andrews\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tim Roemer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles F. Bass\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"J. Dennis Hastert\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John J. LaFalce\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James L. Oberstar\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Peter A. DeFazio\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Etheridge\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Donald M. Payne\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"George R. Nethercutt Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael G. Oxley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Edward A. Pease\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ruben Hinojosa\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sam Gejdenson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Maurice D. Hinchey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Clement\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ernest J. Istook Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rodney P. Frelinghuysen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Neil Abercrombie\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Luis V. Gutierrez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Cynthia A. McKinney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John J. Duncan, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ron Packard\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael Bilirakis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Xavier Becerra\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Eleanor Holmes Norton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Eni F. H. Faleomavaega\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim McCrery\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Marge Roukema\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bruce F. Vento\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Corrine Brown\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"367\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"433\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"525\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"581\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"611\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"611\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"611\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"975\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"989\"}]", "144 Cong. Rec. H11774", "Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 154 (Friday, December 18, 1998)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 154 (Friday, December 18, 1998)]\n[House]\n[Pages H11774-H11870]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--IMPEACHING WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,\n PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS\n\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the\nJudiciary, I call up a privileged Resolution (H. Res. 611) impeaching\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high\ncrimes and misdemeanors, and ask for its immediate consideration.\n The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:\n\n H. Res. 611\n\n Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the\n United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors,\n and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited\n to the United States Senate:\n Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of\n Representatives of the United States of America in the name\n of itself and of the people of the United States of America,\n against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United\n States of America, in maintenance and support of its\n impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.\n\n Article I\n\n In his conduct while President of the United States,\n William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional\n oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the\n United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,\n protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,\n and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that\n the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and\n manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his\n personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of\n justice, in that:\n On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell\n the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before\n a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that\n oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided\n perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury\n concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and\n details of his relationship with a subordinate Government\n employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading\n testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought\n against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he\n allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil\n rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the\n testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of\n evidence in that civil rights action.\n In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the\n integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the\n Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has\n acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,\n to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.\n Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,\n warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and\n disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,\n trust, or profit under the United States.\n\n Article II\n\n In his conduct while President of the United States,\n William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional\n oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the\n United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,\n protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,\n and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that\n the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and\n manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his\n personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of\n justice, in that:\n (1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in\n sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal\n civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided\n perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to\n questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning\n conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.\n (2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore\n under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing\n but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal\n civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that\n oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided\n perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to\n questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the\n nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate\n Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's\n involvement and participation in the civil rights action\n brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the\n testimony of that employee.\n In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined\n the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the\n Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has\n acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,\n to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.\n Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,\n warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and\n disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,\n trust, or profit under the United States.\n\n Article III\n\n In his conduct while President of the United States,\n William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional\n oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the\n United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,\n protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,\n and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that\n the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed,\n and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that\n end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and\n agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,\n impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and\n testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought\n against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.\n The means used to implement this course of conduct or\n scheme included one or more of the following acts:\n (1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson\n Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil\n rights action brought against him to execute a sworn\n affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious,\n false and misleading.\n (2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson\n Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil\n rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false\n and misleading testimony if and when called to testify\n personally in that proceeding.\n (3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson\n Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a\n scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a\n Federal civil rights action brought against him.\n (4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing\n through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson\n Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job\n assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action\n brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the\n truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a\n time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have\n been harmful to him.\n (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal\n civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson\n Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and\n misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an\n affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by\n the judge. Such false and misleading statements were\n subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication\n to that judge.\n (6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William\n Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of\n events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought\n against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in\n order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.\n (7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William\n Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to\n potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in\n order to corruptly influence the testimony of\n\n[[Page H11775]]\n\n those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by\n William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to\n the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and\n misleading information.\n In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined\n the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the\n Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has\n acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,\n to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.\n Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,\n warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and\n disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,\n trust, or profit under the United States.\n\n Article IV\n\n Using the powers and influence of the office of President\n of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation\n of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office\n of President of the United States and, to the best of his\n ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of\n the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional\n duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has\n engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his\n high office, impaired the due and proper administration of\n justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened\n the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking\n purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as\n President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to\n respond to certain written requests for admission and\n willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn\n statements in response to certain written requests for\n admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment\n inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the\n Congress of the United States. William Jefferson Clinton, in\n refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious,\n false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions\n and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of\n impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of\n Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.\n In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the\n integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the\n Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has\n acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,\n to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.\n Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,\n warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and\n disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,\n trust, or profit under the United States.\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The resolution constitutes a\nquestion of the privileges of the House and may be considered at this\ntime.\n\n Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to read an announcement\nto all Members.\n Today the House will embark on a resolution of impeachment of the\nPresident of the United States. The Chair would take this occasion to\nmake an announcement regarding proper decorum during debate in the\nHouse during the pendency of the impeachment resolution.\n As the Speaker announced, with the concurrence of the minority\nleader, on September 10, 1998, during the pendency of proceedings in an\nimpeachment as the pending business on the floor of the House, remarks\nin debate may include references to personal misconduct on the part of\nthe President.\n While limited references in debate to the personal conduct of the\nPresident are allowed, the stricture against personally offensive\nreferences is not totally disabled. To the contrary, this exception to\nthe general rule against engaging in personality, admitting references\nto personal conduct when that conduct is the very question under\nconsideration by the House, is not limited. The point was well stated\non July 31, 1979, in the analogous circumstances of a disciplinary\nresolution involving a sitting Member:\n While a wide range of discussion is permitted during debate, clause 1\nof rule 14 still prohibits the use of language which is personally\nabusive.\n This is recorded in the Deschler-Brown Procedure in the House of\nRepresentatives in chapter 12, at section 2.11.\n While the impeachment matter is pending on the floor, the Chair would\nremind Members that although the personal conduct of the President is\nat issue, the rules prohibit Members from engaging in generally\npersonal abusive language toward the President and, also, from engaging\nin comparisons to personal conduct of sitting Members of either House\nof Congress.\n\n {time} 0945\n\n The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of the Members in\nmaintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings\nof the House.\n The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is recognized for 1 hour.\n\n General Leave\n\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have\n5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the\nresolution under consideration.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Illinois?\n There was no objection.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during\nconsideration of House Resolution 611, the previous question shall be\nconsidered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without\nintervening motion except: First, debate on the resolution shall be\nextended, and I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that I\nhave 4 hours here, but that is certainly negotiable and I would welcome\nany suggestions the gentleman might have on time, but for purposes of\nthis unanimous consent request I ask that the debate be extended to 4\nhours equally divided at the outset and controlled by the chairman and\nranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and seoncd,\none motion to recommit with or without instructions, which, if\nincluding instructions, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally\ndivided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the\nrequest of the gentleman from Illinois?\n Mr. BONIOR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I thank my\ncolleague for his request, although I do not thank him that much. The\ngentleman has just handed to us on our side of the aisle the request\nthat he has just read, and we have just looked at it, and we have a\nnumber of concerns with it, and if I might proceed for just a second,\nMr. Speaker, I would like to enumerate our concerns and then yield, if\nI could, to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan\n(Mr. Conyers), for any comments that he might have?\n Mr. Speaker, we are concerned obviously because we do not believe we\nshould be here today while our men and women are fighting abroad, and\nwe have expressed that in the first motion of the day with respect to\nadjournment. We do not believe this is a proper time to be debating\nremoving the Commander in Chief while thousands of men and women are\nfighting abroad.\n Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks for 4 hours of debate. I\nhave just done the math briefly here. That comes out less than 30\nseconds per Member. We do not think that is a reasonable amount of time\nfor Members of this body to express themselves in perhaps one of the\nmost important issues that they will face in their lifetime.\n Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, it runs, this time problem that the gentleman\nhas raised, the 4 hours, runs to the fairness issue, and we note that\nin the unanimous consent request there is nothing here to give the\nAmerican people a chance to see this Congress vote on the option that\nthey would like to see that would bring this country together: the\noption of censure.\n Much of my argument, our argument, goes to the question of fairness,\nand we will have grave, grave concerns about agreeing to this request\nbased on the arguments that have just been made.\n Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the\ngentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).\n Mr. CONYERS. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate my\nconcurrence in the position raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nBonior), but is there any reason why the chairman, the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Hyde), could not wait for 2 days before proceeding with\nthis very serious undertaking, until at least our brave soldiers may be\nout of harm's way before we proceed?\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?\n Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is\nyielding to me for an answer for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nConyers), I would like to say, first of all on the time, that the 4\nhours I said, that is negotiable; I would not expect\n\n[[Page H11776]]\n\nto limit it to 4 hours. Limit it to some reasonable sum. We offered a\nlot of hours last night that our colleagues rejected.\n So, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be fair, and on the time I ask my\ncolleagues for their suggestions.\n As to holding this for a couple of more days, that is a decision that\nour conference has made. We felt the quicker we could go ahead, the\nmore we could show the world our democracy works.\n Mr. BONIOR. I object, Mr. Speaker.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the\ncustomary half of the time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nConyers), and during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded\nis for the purpose of debate only.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.\nSensenbrenner).\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is moved, I\nintend to vote against it so that I may be recognized to control time\nunder the hour rule in order to continue debate on House Resolution\n611.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues of the People's House, I wish to\ntalk about the rule of law.\n After months of argument, hours of debate, there is no need for\nfurther complexity. The question before this House is rather simple. It\nis not a question of sex. Sexual misconduct and adultery are private\nacts and are none of Congress' business. It is not even a question of\nlying about sex. The matter before the House is a question of lying\nunder oath. This is a public act, not a private act. This is called\nperjury. The matter before the House is a question of the willful,\npremeditated, deliberate corruption of the Nation's system of justice.\nPerjury and obstruction of justice cannot be reconciled with the Office\nof the President of the United States.\n The personal fate of the President is not the issue. The political\nfate of his party is not the issue. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is\nnot the issue. The issue is perjury, lying under oath. The issue is\nobstruction of justice, which the President has sworn the most solemn\noath to uphold. That oath constituted a compact between the President\nand the American people. That compact has been broken. The people's\ntrust has been betrayed. The Nation's chief executive has shown himself\nunwilling or incapable of enforcing its laws, for he has corrupted the\nrule of law by his perjury and his obstruction of justice.\n Mr. Speaker, that and nothing other than that is the issue before\nthis House.\n We have heard ceaselessly that even if the President is guilty of the\ncharges in the Starr referral, they do not rise to the level of an\nimpeachable offense. Well, just what is an impeachable offense? One\nauthority, Professor Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School\nof Law, said, and I quote:\n ``Impeachable offenses are those which demonstrate a fundamental\nbetrayal of public trust; they suggest the federal official has\ndeliberately failed in his duty to uphold the Constitution and laws he\nwas sworn to enforce.''\n So, Mr. Speaker, we must decide if a President, the chief law\nenforcement officer of the land, the person who appoints the Attorney\nGeneral, the person who nominates every Federal judge, the person who\nnominates to the Supreme Court and the only person with a\nconstitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully\nexecuted, can lie under oath repeatedly and maintain it is not a breach\nof trust sufficient for impeachment.\n The President is the trustee of the Nation's conscience, and so are\nwe here today.\n There have been many explosions in our committee hearings on the\nrespective role of the House and the Senate. Under the Constitution,\nthe House accuses and the Senate adjudicates. True, the formula\nlanguage of our articles recites the ultimate goal of removal from\noffice, but this language does not trump the Constitution, which\ndefines the separate functions, the different functions of the House\nand the Senate. Our Founding Fathers did not want the body that accuses\nto be the same one that renders final judgment, and they set up an\nadditional safeguard of a two-thirds vote for removal.\n So, despite protests, our job is to decide if there is enough\nevidence to submit to the Senate for a trial. That is what the\nConstitution says no matter what the President's defenders say.\n When Ben Franklin, on September 18, 1787 told Mrs. Powel that the\nFounders and Framers had given us a Republic ``if you can keep it,''\nperhaps he anticipated a future time when bedrock principles of our\ndemocracy would be mortally threatened as the Rule of Law stands in the\nline of fire today. Nothing I can think of more clearly illustrates\nthat America is a continuing experiment, never finished, that our\ndemocracy is always a work in progress than this debate today, for we\nsit here with the power to shape and reconfigure the charter of our\nfreedom just as the Founders and Framers did. We can strengthen our\nConstitution by giving it content and meaning, or we can weaken and\nwound it by tolerating and thus encouraging lies under oath and evasion\nand breaches of trust on the part of our chief executive.\n The President's defenders in this House have rarely denied the facts\nof this matter. They have not seriously challenged the contention of\nthe independent counsel that the President did not tell the truth in\ntwo sworn testimonies. They have not seriously attempted to discredit\nthe facts brought before the committee by the independent counsel. They\nhave admitted, in effect, he did it.\n But then they have argued that this does not rise to the level of an\nimpeachable offense. This is the ``so what'' defense whereby the Chief\nExecutive, the successor to George Washington, can cheapen the oath,\nand it really does not matter. They suggest that to impeach the\nPresident is to reverse the result of a national election as though\nSenator Dole would become President. They propose novel remedies, like\na Congressional censure that may appease some constituents and\ncertainly mollify the press, but in my judgment betray lack of\nseriousness about the Constitution, the separation of powers and the\ncarefully balanced relationship of checks and balances between Congress\nand the President that was wisely crafted by the framers. A resolution\nof censure, to mean anything, must punish, if only to tarnish his\nreputation, but we have no authority under the Constitution to punish\nthe President. It is called separation of powers.\n As my colleagues know, we have been attacked for not producing fact\nwitnesses, but this is the first impeachment inquiry in history with\nthe Office of Independent Counsel in place, and their referral to us\nconsisted of 60,000 pages of sworn testimony grand jury transcripts,\ndepositions, statements, affidavits, video and audio tapes. We had the\nfacts, and we had them under oath. We had Ms. Lewinsky's heavily\ncorroborated testimony under a grant of immunity that would be revoked\nif she lied; we accepted that and so did they, else why did they not\ncall any others whose credibility they questioned as their own\nwitnesses? Now there was so little dispute on the facts they called no\nfact witnesses and have even based a resolution of censure on the same\nfacts.\n Let us be clear. The vote that all of us are asked to cast is in the\nfinal analysis a vote on the rule of law.\n Now the rule of law is one of the great achievements of our\ncivilization, for the alternative is the rule of raw power. We here\ntoday are the heirs of 3,000 years of history in which humanity slowly,\npainfully, and at great cost evolved a form of politics in which law,\nnot brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies.\n\n {time} 1000\n\n We are the heirs of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law, a moral\ncode for a free people, who, having been liberated from bondage, saw in\nlaw a means to avoid falling back into the habits of slaves.\n We are the heirs of Roman law, the first legal system by which\npeoples of different cultures, languages, races and religions came to\nlive together in a form of political community.\n We are the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the free men of England\nbegan to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal absolutism.\n\n[[Page H11777]]\n\n We are the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development, in\nwhich the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as\nthe means for governing a society of free men and women.\n We are the heirs of 1776, and of an epic moment in human affairs when\nthe Founders of this Republic pledged their lives, their fortunes and\ntheir sacred honors, think of that, sacred honor, to the defense of the\nrule of law.\n We are the heirs of a hard-fought war between the states, which\nvindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning\nothers.\n We are the heirs of the 20th Century's great struggles against\ntotalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense costs\nagainst the worst tyrannies in human history.\n The phrase ``rule of law'' is no pious aspiration from a civics\ntextbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the\narbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the\nsafeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live\nour freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while\nstrengthening the common good.\n The rule of law is like a three-legged stool. One leg is an honest\njudge, the second leg is an ethical bar, and the third is an\nenforceable oath. All three are indispensable to avoid political\ncollapse.\n In 1838, Abraham Lincoln celebrated the rule of law before the Young\nMen's Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, and linked it to the\nperpetuation of American liberties and American political institutions.\nListen to Lincoln, from 1838:\n ``Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to\nhis posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in\nthe least particular the laws of the country; and never to tolerate\ntheir violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to\nsupport the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the\nConstitution and laws, let every American pledge his life, his property\nand his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law is\nto trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his\nown and his children's liberty. Let reference for the laws be breathed\nby every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap,\nlet it be taught in the schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it\nbe written in primers, spelling books and almanacs. Let it be preached\nfrom the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in the\ncourts of justice.'' So said Lincoln.\n My colleagues, we have been sent here to strengthen and defend the\nrule of law; not to weaken it, not to attenuate it, not to disfigure\nit. This is not a question of perfection; it is a question of\nfoundations. This is not a matter of setting the bar too high; it is a\nmatter of securing the basic structure of our freedom, which is the\nrule of law.\n No man or woman, no matter how highly placed, no matter how effective\na communicator, no matter how gifted a manipulator of opinion or winner\nof votes, can be above the law in a democracy. That is not a council of\nperfection; that is a rock bottom, irreducible principle of our public\nlife.\n There is no avoiding the issue before us, much as I wish we could. We\nare, in one way or another, establishing the parameters of permissible\npresidential conduct. In creating a presidential system, the framers\ninvested that office with extraordinary powers. If those powers are not\nexercised within the boundaries of the rule of law, if the President\nbreaks the law by perjury and obstructs justice by willfully corrupting\nthe legal system, that president must be removed from office. We cannot\nhave one law for the ruler and another law for the ruled.\n This was, once, broadly understood in our land. If that understanding\nis lost or if it becomes seriously eroded, the American democratic\nexperiment and the freedom it guarantees is in jeopardy. That, and not\nthe faith of one man, or one political party or one electoral cycle, is\nwhat we are being asked to vote on today.\n In casting our votes, we should look not simply to ourselves, but to\nthe past and to the future. Let us look back to Bunker Hill, to Concord\nand Lexington. Let us look across the river to Arlington Cemetery,\nwhere American heroes who gave their lives for the sake of the rule of\nlaw lie buried, and let us not betray their memory. Let us look to the\nfuture, to the children of today who are the presidents and members of\nCongress of the next century, and let us not crush their hope that they\ntoo will inherit a law-governed society.\n Let us declare, unmistakably, that perjury and obstruction of justice\ndisqualify a man from retaining the presidency of the United States.\n There is a mountain of details which are assembled in a coherent\nmosaic in the committee report. It reads like a novel, only it is\nnonfiction, it really happened, and the corruption is compelling. Read\nthe report and be convinced.\n What we are telling you today are not the ravings are some vindictive\npolitical crusade, but a reaffirmation of a set of values that are\ntarnished and dim these days, but it is given to us to restore them so\nour Founding Fathers would be proud.\n Listen, it is your country. The President is our flag-bearer. He\nstands out in front of our people, and the flag is falling. Catch the\nfalling flag as we keep our appointment with history.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is our plan to recognize our leadership,\nand then our members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and then the\nrest of our distinguished membership on this side.\n Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our minority leader.\n (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is taking place on the\nwrong day, and we are doing it in the wrong way. I am disappointed and\nI am saddened by the actions of the majority, in both the timing and in\nthe method that we are considering the most important act that the\nConstitution asks us to perform. The actions of the majority, in my\nview, show a lack of common sense and decency, and is not befitting of\nour beloved House.\n As I said yesterday, when our young soldiers, men and women, are in\nharm's way, we should not be debating and considering and talking about\nremoving our Commander in Chief. If we believed that this would go on\nfor days and days, I could understand the decision to go forward today.\nI do not believe it will go on for days and days, and I believe that we\nsend the wrong message to Saddam Hussein, to the British, to the\nChinese and to the Russians, to be on the floor of this House today,\nwhen we could be here Sunday or Monday or Tuesday.\n I guess I am worried also that some of us do not want to be\ninconvenienced. Our young people are inconvenienced today who are in\nthe Persian Gulf. They are being shot at, and they stand in danger, and\nwith all my heart I believe the least we could do is postpone this\ndebate to a different day. But I know I have lost that debate and the\ndecision has been made. We are here.\n Let me address the way this is being done. But before I do that, I\nwant to say something else. The events of the last days sadden me. We\nare now at the height of a cycle of the politics of negative attacks,\ncharacter assassination, personal smears, of good people, decent\npeople, worthy people. It is no wonder to me and to you that the people\nof our country today are cynical and indifferent and apathetic about\nour government and about our country. The politics of smear and slash\nand burn must end.\n This House and this country must be based on certain basic values:\nRespect, trust, fairness, forgiveness. We can take an important step\ntoday back to the politics of respect and trust and fairness and\nforgiveness.\n Let me talk about the way we are doing this and how that can be that\nfirst step. We have articles of impeachment on the floor of this House.\nThis is the most radical act that is called for in our Constitution.\n In this debate, we are being denied a vote as an alternative to\nimpeachment for censure and condemnation of our President for the\nwrongful acts that we believe have been performed.\n We all say that this is a vote of conscience. You get to vote your\nvote of conscience, and I respect that right. All we are asking for is\nthat we get to vote our conscience. And it is not just our conscience,\nit is the conscience of millions of Americans who share this view.\n\n[[Page H11778]]\n\n I know what you say. You say that the Constitution does not allow\nthis vote of censure. Constitutional scholars in the hundreds, some of\nthe most respected, conservative constitutional scholars have opined in\nthe days before, in the committee and through articles and through\nspeeches, that, in their view, the Constitution does allow this vote;\nthat the Constitution is silent on this question of what else we can\ndo; that the Constitution in no way prevents us from doing this.\n What do I conclude? I can only conclude that you do not want our\nMembers to have this choice. I can only conclude that some are afraid\nof this vote. I can only conclude that this may be about winning a\nvote, not about high-minded ideals.\n\n {time} 1015\n\n Let me, if I can, go back to the values: Respect, fairness, trust,\nforgiveness. We need to begin in the way we do this to practice a\ndifferent kind of politics. We need to stand today as a unified body,\nRepublicans and Democrats, liberals, moderates, conservatives,\nrejecting raw, naked partisanship, and putting in its place a politics\nof trust and respect and decency, and values. We need to turn away from\nextremism and inquisition and return to a sense of moderation in our\npolitical system.\n We are considering articles of impeachment that allege an abuse of\npower. We have an obligation not to abuse our power.\n We need to turn back. We have another chance. The chance is still\nthere, before our Nation and our democracy have become unalterably and\npermanently degraded and lowered. The great Judge Learned Hand once\nsaid that no court can save a society so riven that the spirit of\nmoderation is gone. Today, I believe the majority is pursuing a path of\nimmoderation, disregarding even a consideration of the wishes of a vast\nmajority of the American people regarding penalizing this President\nwith censure and not impeachment.\n In the Book of Isaiah in the Bible it was said, ``Judgment is turned\naway backward and justice stands far off.'' I ask the majority one last\ntime to reconsider what you are doing. We are deeply offended, in all\nsincerity, from my heart; we are deeply offended by the unfairness of\nthis process. You are asking us to consider the most important act the\nConstitution calls on us to do.\n We are considering overturning the free choice and vote of over\nalmost 50 million Americans. We are considering the most radical act\nour Constitution allows. We are considering changing the balance of\npower and the proportionality of the branches of our government. You\nare doing this in a way that denies millions of Americans the trust and\nrespect for our views that we afford to you, and that we feel we\ndeserve in our Constitution guarantees. In your effort to uphold the\nConstitution, you are trampling the Constitution.\n In Lincoln's Gettysburg Address he prayed this prayer, that this\nNation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that this government of\nthe people, by the people, for the people should not perish from this\nearth. I pray today that you will open up this people's house and let\nthe people's voice come in and let fairness reign. Thank you.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from\nArkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me\nthis time.\n Mr. Speaker, this is not easy. In fact, it is difficult, it is\nunpleasant, and we would all just as soon the responsibility go aside.\nAs our Founding Fathers warned, this is an issue that divides us and\nstirs the passions of the great people of this country. I know my\nfellow Arkansans are divided on the issue of impeachment, and for these\nreasons it is argued that we should find an easier way out of this\npresent trouble, that we should put it off, we should turn aside. But\nas we all know, the easy way is not always the right way.\n The difficult path is to follow the Constitution, but that is the\noath that we all took in this Chamber, and I have faith that the path\nJames Madison marked will lead us out of these woods.\n Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution that has been offered. I will\nfocus my attention on Article I. This article charges that on August\n17, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided false testimony to the\nFederal grand jury. The first article is perjury before the grand jury.\nThere are 3 questions: What are the facts, what is the law, and is it\nimpeachable under the Constitution?\n The facts are that a Federal civil rights lawsuit was filed by\nanother citizen of the United States against the President. The Supreme\nCourt said that lawsuit could proceed. In January of 1998, a deposition\nwas taken, and the committee found that the President, despite being\ntold by the judge to answer the questions, lied under oath in order to\nprotect himself from that lawsuit. At that point, a criminal\ninvestigation was begun with the approval of the United States Attorney\nGeneral, and as a result of that investigation, President Clinton\nagreed to testify before the Federal grand jury investigating these\nallegations.\n Prior to his testimony, we all recall that there was a uniform\nwarning across this land by his aides, by the public: Mr. President,\nwhatever you do, do not lie to the grand jury. In fact, Alan\nDershowitz, an ardent defender of the President said, he must tell the\ntruth, whatever the truth may be. If he perjures himself, he could very\nwell be impeached.\n Dick Morris warned him that the people would forgive a personal\nmisconduct, but they could not forgive perjury or obstruction of\njustice. Despite these warnings, the committee found that the President\nwent before the grand jury, took an oath to tell the truth, and then\nintentionally provided false statements to the grand jury of citizens\ncharged with a heavy responsibility.\n The article specifically charges the President lied about his\nrelationship with a subordinate employee. He provided false statements\nabout the truthfulness of his prior testimony. He falsely testified\nabout statements made by his attorney in the previous lawsuit. False\nstatements were made about his efforts to corruptly influence the\ntestimony of witnesses. And so there were perjurious statements that\nwere given.\n But what is the law? Title 18 of the United States Code makes it a\nfelony for any citizen to willfully provide false statements to the\ngrand jury. Now, I agree this is not a criminal case, but it\nillustrates that these are not lies to inquiring minds at the country\nclub, but they are to the grand jury of the United States. The\nPresident certainly understood the gravity of his testimony and the\nexpectation of truthfulness.\n At the beginning of his testimony, he was asked if he understood that\nhe had to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,\nand that if you are to lie or to intentionally mislead the grand jury,\nyou could be prosecuted for perjury of obstruction of justice, and the\nanswer was, I understand. But is it impeachable? The answer is yes.\n Alexander Hamilton talked about harm that is done to society itself.\nJustice Story talked about great injuries to the State, and I believe\nthat the damage to the State and to the integrity of government occurs\nwhen those in high office violate a court oath and a constitutional\noath to faithfully execute the laws.\n The facts establish a pattern of false statements, deceit and\nobstruction, and by committing these actions, the President moved\nbeyond the private arena of protecting personal embarrassing conduct\nand his actions began to conceal, mislead and falsify; invaded the very\nheart and soul of that which makes this Nation unique in the world, the\nright of any citizen to pursue justice equally.\n The conduct obstructed our judicial system and at that point that\nbecame an issue, not a personal concern, but of national consequence.\nThe preamble to our Constitution, in the second purpose says, it is to\nestablish justice. It is not for the President or his lawyers to\ndetermine who can or cannot seek justice, and if the President lied\nunder oath in a Federal civil rights case, that he took it upon himself\nto deny the right of a fellow American, in this case a fellow Arkansan,\nequal access to seek relief in the courts.\n The President's lawyers have declared such a lie to be a small one,\nof small consequence, and therefore, not impeachable. But I cannot see\nhow denying the rights of a fellow citizen could be considered a small\nconsequence.\n Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support Article I, and this\nresolution.\n\n[[Page H11779]]\n\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the\ngentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip of the\nCongress.\n Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak, the men and women of\nAmerica's Armed Forces are engaged in battle. Halfway around the world\non ships at sea, in the skies over Baghdad, they are risking their\nlives for us. But even as millions of Americans across our country are\nhoping for a quick end to this conflict, even as we are praying for the\nsafety of our sons and daughters, my Republican colleagues are obsessed\nwith a different target. They are determined to impeach the Commander\nin Chief of America's Armed Forces, the President of the United States.\nEven as the bombs are falling on Baghdad, they are trying to force him\nfrom office.\n What kind of signal does this send our troops, our allies, the\nAmerican people, the world? I find it quite incredible that we are even\nhere today having this debate. To force an impeachment vote is to\ncompletely ignore the will of the American people.\n\n {time} 1030\n\n The people of this country support the President, just as they have\nsupported him through two elections and throughout his presidency. He\nis doing the job they elected him to do. It is a grave mistake to rush\nforward with impeachment like a runaway train heading for a cliff. Why\ncan we not just pause for a second? Why can we not stop right here and\ncome to our senses?\n The American people have made it very clear they oppose impeachment.\nThey are looking for another solution, a just solution, a solution that\ncondemns the President's wrongdoing yet enables America to put this\nsorry spectacle behind us and get on with the country's business; a\nsolution that brings us together as a Nation, not one that divides us.\n Censure, this is the one option the Republican leadership refuses to\nconsider. They will not even let us vote on it. President Ford supports\ncensure, Senator Dole supports censure, Members on both sides of the\naisle support censure. I dare say if it was made in order, it would\npass. Yet the Republican leadership in this House is so angry, so\nobsessed, so self-righteous, that they are refusing us a true vote of\nconscience.\n This is wrong, it is unfair, it is unjust. At a time when events in\nthe world and challenges at home demand that we stand united, censure\nis the one solution that can bring us together.\n To my colleagues across the aisle, I say, let go of your obsession.\nListen to the American people. Stop hijacking the Constitution. We\nshould not be having this debate now while our troops are in battle.\nBut if, if they insist on ramming this matter through at any cost, give\nus the opportunity, give the country the opportunity, to express\nthemselves on censure.\n If Members cannot set aside partisan politics until our troops are\nsafe, at least, at the very least, let us have a clean vote of\nconscience, and let us bring America together once again.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).\n Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the decision we are faced with today is of\nsingular importance. We are being asked to overturn the results of a\npresidential election under a procedure that is fundamentally unfair,\nand at a time that is contrary to the strategic national interests of\nthe United States.\n There are three issues involved here today: the unfairness of this\nproceeding, the timing of this action, and the merits of whether or not\nto impeach the President.\n Let us start with the fundamental unfairness of this proceeding. The\nRepublicans have denied the House the opportunity to vote on censuring\nthe President, even though a clear majority of the American public\nbelieves the President should be censured for his conduct but not\nremoved from office. Leading members of the Republican Party, former\nPresident Gerald Ford, former Senator Bob Dole, have urged the censure\noption, but we are being denied the opportunity to even consider it\ntoday. There is no fairness on this floor today.\n Second, the Republican majority, by starting this proceeding today,\nwhile we are engaged in military action against Saddam Hussein, sends\nentirely the wrong message to Saddam and to the rest of the world. We\nhave a great bipartisan tradition of supporting the Commander in Chief\nand supporting our soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the time of war.\nThat tradition is being shattered today by a partisan majority.\n Seven years ago I joined 86 of our colleagues, of our Democratic\ncolleagues, in supporting a Republican President, George Bush, when he\ninitiated military action against Saddam Hussein. I disagreed with\nPresident Bush on a variety of matters, but I felt it was important to\nshow national unity against Saddam.\n By starting this proceeding against President Clinton today, we are\nsending the ultimate mixed message to Saddam about our national\nresolve. We may be encouraging him to resist longer by our actions in\nthe midst of war. Starting this proceeding today may wind up costing\nAmerican lives.\n The majority may well have blood on its hands by starting this\nproceeding today. We certainly could have waited until Monday to pursue\nthis proceeding, giving our military time to pursue its mission.\n That brings me to the question of the merits. The Republican majority\nis trivializing the U.S. Constitution and setting a terrible precedent\nby pressing for impeachment on these particular grounds. What Clinton\ndid was wrong, but it does not rise to the level of an impeachable\noffense.\n If we make every Member of this House rumored to have been involved\nin an affair subject to a $40 million special prosecutor, and then hold\nthem accountable for any misstatement of fact, we may be faced with a\nnumber of empty seats in this Chamber. We should reserve impeachment\nfor those rare instances that undermine our form of government and\nthreaten the essence of democracy. It should not be used as a club by a\npartisan majority that dislikes the particular president.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the\ngentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).\n Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is set upon an unfair, false\nchoice. This historic decision should be a moment above all political\nmaneuvering. Instead, it is riddled with unfairness, sloppy procedure,\nand mean-spirited partisanship.\n From the 4-year, $40 million investigation which could only turn up a\nprivate, consensual affair, the airing and publishing of the tawdry\nStarr report and Lewinsky tapes where all of our children could hear\nand read every sexual detail, the failure of the President's accusers\nto spell out which of his words were allegedly perjurious, the unfair\ndenial of the censure option here today, to trying to impeach the\nCommander in Chief with troops in harm's way, this process is a\ntravesty. Where is their sense of fairness?\n Somewhere along the way, some in this House forgot that Bill Clinton\nis our President, not their personal enemy. The Constitution is not a\nlicense to destroy a president because one does not like him.\n I believe the President's actions were reprehensible and worthy of\ncondemnation, but the clearest, most appropriate way to send a message\nabout this President's behavior is censure. That is what our best legal\nscholars say, that is what the American public says. If the Republican\nleadership would allow us the freedom to vote our conscience, that\nwould be the option.\n A censure would put an indelible scar upon the President's place in\nhistory, something we all know this President cares about deeply. It is\na tough, just, and appropriate punishment. It would not absolve the\nPresident of any future indictment and prosecution of alleged perjury.\n Impeachment, however, should not be used as a form of super censure.\nFar from upholding the rule of law, a vote for impeachment under these\ncircumstances weakens and undermines the rule of law, turning our\nConstitution into an unfair political tool.\n Former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary Peter Rodino said\nto me, ``We voted to impeach Richard Nixon because of the irreparable\nharm he had done and threatened to do to the rights, liberties, and\nprivileges of American citizens using the CIA, the FBI, the IRS,\nillegally wiretapping and auditing United States citizens. But we\n\n[[Page H11780]]\n\nwould not have impeached Nixon alone for lying.''\n Yes, let us censure the President for his misconduct, let us send a\nmessage to our children that these actions are wrong, but let us not\nunfairly use the Constitution as a way to send that message.\n I warn my colleagues that they will reap the bitter harvest of the\nunfair partisan seeds they sow today. The constitutional provision for\nimpeachment is a way to protect our government and our citizens, not\nanother weapon in the political arsenal. Monica Lewinsky is not\nWatergate. Let he who has no sin in this Chamber cast the first vote.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Barney Frank), a senior member from Massachusetts on\nthe Committee on the Judiciary.\n Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this House is launched on a\nhistorically tragic case of selective moralizing. By the history of\nthis country, the appropriate response to lying about a consensual\nsexual affair would be censure.\n When Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense was indicted for perjury by\nan Independent Counsel and pardoned by George Bush, Members on that\nside applauded the action. When Speaker Gingrich was found to have been\ninaccurate 13 times in an official proceeding to the House Ethics\nCommittee, he was reprimanded and simultaneously reelected Speaker with\nthe overwhelming vote of Members on that side. That is why we believe\ncensure is appropriate.\n The American people also believe censure is appropriate. Let me agree\nwith those who say that simply because a large number of the voters\nbelieve something, we are not obligated to vote for it. I welcome this\nassertion that we have an obligation not always to follow public\nopinion.\n But while we have the right not to vote for something just because\nthere is overwhelming public support, in a democracy, we have no right\nnot to vote on it. We have a right to stand up honestly and say, I\ndisagree with censure. Members have no right to hide behind a partisan\nleadership and not take a position.\n The public has a right, on this overwhelmingly important issue, to\nhave the preferred option that the public supports voted on. That is\nthe abdication of democracy. It is not that Members have to support\nwhat the public wants, but Members cannot hide from it in a democracy.\n Why will Members not take a position on censure? If they have the\nvotes to defeat it, they should not use partisan pressure and threats\nto keep it from being voted on. Do not deny to the American public a\nrecorded vote on their notion of what ought to be done, particularly\nsince Members' own behavior in the case of Caspar Weinberger, in the\ncase of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich), clearly makes\nit understandable that censure and not impeachment is relevant.\n The final point is this: Members on the other side understand that\npeople think throwing someone out of office is too harsh. We have a\nstunningly illogical game going on. First, to get votes for impeachment\nfrom people who know that the public doesn't want it, they downgrade\nimpeachment. Impeachment is not throwing the President out of office,\nthe chairman says; impeachment does not end the process, it simply\nsends it to the Senate.\n But what have they already begun to do? They plan, having degraded\nimpeachment and claimed it is no definitive judgment, once they get a\npartisan vote for an impeachment, where the bar has been lowered, then\nto say, that is the basis for resignation. First, impeachment will be\ninsignificant, it will simply be the beginning of the process. But\nhaving used their partisan power and the power of the right wing in the\ncountry to get an impeachment through after they have dumbed it down in\nsignificance, they will turn around and use the fact that they got that\nimpeachment as a club to try to drive the President from office. First\nimpeachment will simply be very little, and then it will be an enormous\namount.\n Members cannot, de facto, amend the Constitution by that distortion\nof impeachment, and then use it to try to drive a President out of\noffice when they know that is an inappropriate sanction for his\nbehavior.\n\n Parliamentary Inquiry\n\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his\nparliamentary inquiry.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. How much time was charged to the gentleman from\nMichigan (Mr. Conyers) for the speech of the gentleman from Missouri\n(Mr. Gephardt)?\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will say this, because other\nMembers have inquired about this. The Chair has in the past had a\nstanding policy during important debates to allow for the highest\nranking party-elected Members of the House, the Speaker, the majority\nleader, the minority leader, and the minority whip, additional time\nduring the time they are making important statements.\n The answer to the gentleman's question is that while the gentleman\nfrom Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) took 12 minutes to make his remarks, the\nChair extended the time to him as a courtesy, as has traditonally been\ndone on both sides of the aisle.\n\n {time} 1045\n\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Edwards).\n Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the hindsight of history will be harsh on\nthis Congress and this unfair process. For some to speak of their vote\nof conscience today, even as they deny others a deep vote of\nconscience, is in itself unconscionable. A process whose goal was to\nemulate the Watergate legacy sadly will leave a legacy more akin to the\nimpeachment of Andrew Johnson.\n In the name of the Constitution, Article II, this process trampled on\nthe Constitution, Articles II and VI. In the name of the rule of law,\nthis process ignored the fundamental principles of due process and\nfairness that formed the foundation of that rule of law. In the name of\nno person is above the law, this process forgot that no citizen should\nbe treated below the law. In the name of justice, this process ignored\nthe pillar of justice that in our Nation every citizen is innocent\nuntil proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. In the name of\nAmerica, this process raised the ugly debate of who is a real American.\n History will surely judge this process as a combination of Kafka, To\nKill a Mockingbird and Keystone Kops.\n Mr. Speaker, if the Golden Rule were to be our guide, who among us,\nwho among us, Democrat or Republican in this House, would want to be a\ndefendant in the case where the rules of law and fairness were ignored,\nwhere secret grand jury testimony against us was released to the world,\nwhere there was not one direct witness, where your defense attorney was\nlimited to one hour of cross-examining your chief accuser, where your\nattorney was forced to give your final defense even before one charge\nhad been formally presented against you, where the charges of perjury\nagainst you were finally presented at the 11th hour and failed the test\nof decency which statements were allegedly perjurious. Surely no Member\nof this House would want to be judged by that process. We should not\njudge this President by that process.\n Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the\ngentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).\n Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose these articles of\nimpeachment. I oppose this action with every fiber of my body because\nit is an affront to our Constitution and our democracy.\n In my short tenure in the House of Representatives, I can recall no\nother action that has so jeopardized the historic obligations that we\nare sworn to uphold. For me, this is no longer about the President's\nactions. They were repugnant, embarrassing and immoral. But this is not\na constitutional forum for judging such behavior and exacting\npunishment. The President's family, the American people and maybe even\nthe courts may eventually speak to his errors.\n We might have given voice to our views in the form of a censure\nresolution, but this House leadership chose not to allow any but the\nmost draconian actions, impeachment. It is wrong\n\n[[Page H11781]]\n\nand it is unfair. It denies the American people their right to\nrepresentative democracy.\n We have the constitutional authority to remove a President only when\nhe or she crosses the line into treason, bribery and high crimes\nagainst the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin spoke of impeachment as an\nalternative to assassination. Today this body is contemplating a\nconstitutional assassination, driven by a naked partisanship, almost\nwithout lawful and civil bounds. The Republican majority is moving to\nimpeach an elected President of the United States. Thwarting the\npublic's will, they do so even as the President commands our troops in\nbattle against Iraq and even as he seeks to perform his constitutional\nresponsibility with the support of the overwhelming majority of the\nAmerican people.\n This debate amidst those bombs more than anything else symbolizes the\nmadness that has inflamed the partisan fires on the other side of the\naisle.\n This is a moment for boundaries and not license. This is a moment to\nallow history to have its sway. This is a moment to allow Madison,\nJefferson, Franklin and Washington to be heard in this Chamber above\nthe partisan din. If that spirit were to prevail, I have no doubt that\nthe provocateurs would be stilled and our Constitution preserved. The\nAmerican people, not the politicians, would have the final say, as the\nFounders intended.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), a member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?\n Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, there are some Members in this\nChamber that seem to have forgotten history. We were at war in Vietnam\nwhen the hearings on the impeachment of President Nixon occurred. That\nwas because of the serious offenses that were alleged against President\nNixon. Today we are proceeding because of the serious offenses alleged\nagainst President Clinton.\n I thank the gentleman.\n Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, a loud lament has been heard about some\ndeprivation of the right to vote one's conscience. But that is exactly\nwhy we are here today. All of us in the ultimate must vote the ultimate\nsense of conscience. That is what this process is all about. We are\nfacing indeed our moment of truth.\n Now, the moment of truth for the President of the United States first\nfaced him in December of 1997. It faced him in the nature of a legal\ndocument, legal in interrogatories that were forwarded to him in\npursuit by the Paula Jones attorneys of discovery proceedings in their\ncase, a document laid before the President to be attested to under oath\nto answer certain questions. The President faced his moment of truth\nright there and then, the first item in the legal proceedings that have\nbecome the hallmark of these proceedings, and there under oath\ntestified falsely.\n At that moment, he began the chain of events that led a month later\nto his appearance before the deposition lawyers and judge and, further\ndown the line, to the grand jury in August of that year. But here is\nthe important difference that Members must take into account as they\nevaluate the evidence.\n The evidence is that when he signed these interrogatories, this first\nmoment of truth to which I allude, there was no parsing of definitions.\nThere was no argument among the lawyers about meanings and definitions.\nThere was no judge interpolating the opinion of the court into the\nargument of the lawyers. There was no parsing or mixing or evasion of\ntypes of definitions and words. This was a straight interrogatory to\nwhich the President of the United States added perjurious and false\nanswers.\n In a single moment in the Oval Office or wherever he executed this\nset of interrogatories, he began the long chain of falsehoods that have\nled us to our moment of truth here today.\n We must exercise that conscience to which all the Members have\nalluded and recognize that when the President faced this moment of\ntruth in countless occasions, each time he swept it away and caused\nhimself the difficulty that he brings to our Chamber here today.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).\n (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I might add that I want to again honor the\nConstitution by what we do today. I think we all share that. And while\nthe polls seem to show one thing, they also seem to show that many\npeople would like this President to resign, in fact a majority of the\npeople polled. But we cannot govern this country by polls. We have to\nbe responsible today. It is not our job to create or invent solutions\nbeyond the authority of this House. We must match our power with the\nauthority that the Constitution gives us.\n In light of that, I want to speak briefly and add on to what the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) has said about Article II of\nthe impeachment articles. It is clear there is compelling testimony\nthat in addition to the interrogatories that were answered under oath\nby this President, falsely, there was also testimony given that was\nfalse in the deposition that was taken after those interrogatories. On\nnumerous occasions the President lied under oath, and there is\ncompelling evidence that this occurred. And specifically when his\nattorney brought up the false affidavit of Monica Lewinsky and said\nthat the sexual relationship term referred to meant that there was no\nsex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form, the President sat\nsilently, knowing that this false affidavit was being put into this\nsexual harassment lawsuit. He said that he was not paying attention.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that the gentleman from\nWisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois\n(Mr. Hyde), has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan\n(Mr. Conyers) has 11 minutes remaining.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for\nyielding me the time.\n In its 1974 Watergate inquiry, the House Committee on the Judiciary\nconducted an exhaustive examination of the constitutional history of\nthe impeachment power. Then on a broad bipartisan basis, the committee\nadopted a report which eloquently states the constitutional standard\nfor use by the House of Representatives of its impeachment power.\n In the committee's words, only that presidential misconduct which is\nseriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and\nprinciples of our government or the proper performance of the\nconstitutional duties of the office of the presidency will justify\nimpeachment.\n The facts now before the House, which arise from a personal\nrelationship and the efforts to conceal it, simply do not meet that\nstandard. While the President's conduct was reprehensible, it did not\nthreaten the Nation. It did not undermine the constitutional form and\nprinciples of our government. It did not disable the proper functioning\nof the constitutional duties of the presidential office. These facts\nsimply do not meet the standard.\n To misuse of impeachment power in this case, as some are now prepared\nto do, will create a national horror. The divisions on this subject\nwhich now exist within our society will harden and deepen. A rift and a\ndivide will occur. There will be a polarization. The President and the\nCongress will be diverted from their urgent national business while\nprolonged proceedings take place in the Senate.\n There will be a lowering of the standard for future impeachments with\nan inherent weakening of the presidential office. There will probably\nbe instability in the financial markets with adverse effects for the\neconomy.\n These harms are unnecessary. The President's conduct was deplorable,\nbut it was not impeachable.\n The House today should censure the President for bringing dishonor on\nthe\n\n[[Page H11782]]\n\npresidential office. That path will bring closure and a restoration of\nnational dignity.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nMissouri (Mr. Skelton).\n Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, our friend from Illinois spoke reverently\nof Bunker Hill and Arlington Cemetery. We find ourselves in a debate to\nimpeach a Commander in Chief of the successors to those brave patriots\nof Bunker Hill and all who served since then. Today we should have our\nmen and our women who stand in harm's way in the Persian Gulf in our\nthoughts and in our prayers rather than trying to politically\ndecapitate their Commander in Chief.\n\n {time} 1100\n\n What is a few days? Why the rush to judgment? Our being here reflects\na lack of respect for all in uniform as well as their families. If\nthere were such an attempt by my party to remove President Bush during\nthe Persian Gulf conflict, I would have opposed it with all of my\nbeing.\n We must look at the proceeding today and seek the guidance of our\nConstitution. We must do so without emotion, for the more emotion, the\nless reason.\n The framers of the United States Constitution knew that in an extreme\ncase there will be a need to remove or overturn a popular election.\nThey also knew that they must not make impeachment easy or routine. To\nmaintain separation of powers, they set the bar of impeachment high and\nlimited the grounds to impeachment. Initially, the framers made the\ngreat crimes of treason and bribery the only offenses worthy of\nimpeachment. Later, at the Constitutional Convention, the standard was\nbroadened to include ``other high crimes and misdemeanors.''\n I studied the phrase carefully. The word ``other'' is important\nbecause I believe it is crucial to our deliberations on impeachment. I\nhave concluded that the correct legal interpretation and the intent of\nthe framers of that document is that the general phrase ``other high\ncrimes and misdemeanors'' must be limited to the kinds of class or\nthings within the specific words ``treason'' and ``bribery.''\n As members of the House of Representatives, it is our duty to measure\nthe President's actions against this high Constitutional standard,\nwithout regard to political party or partisan influence. We should not\nestablish a new Constitutional standard which lowers the threshold for\nousting a sitting President. I have concluded that even if we concede\nthat all of the allegations in the Judiciary Report are true, President\nClinton's actions do not constitute impeachable offenses under the\nConstitution. There is just no evidence that permitting him to stay on\nwould cause great or serious harm to our system of government.\n The impeachment proceedings which took place in 1974 can provide us\nwith a useful precedent. In that investigation, the House Judiciary\nCommittee discovered persuasive evidence that President Nixon was\ncriminally liable for tax fraud. However, the Committee, with a\nDemocratic majority, voted 26-12 not to impeach President Nixon for tax\nfraud because it did not involve official conduct or abuse of\nPresidential powers. Rather, the Committee limited its impeachment\narticles to those actions by President Nixon which affected our rights,\nour liberties, and our privileges, and which if permitted to go on\nwould have seriously harmed our Constitutional system.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the\ngentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), one of our leadership members.\n Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I come before you to speak for the\nprinciple of democracy, the doctrine of fairness, and the spirit of\nforgiveness.\n America is sick. Her heart is heavy. Her soul is aching. And her\nspirit is low. Today our Nation stands at a crossroads, at the\nintersection of participatory democracy and the politics of personal\ndestruction.\n Today, my colleagues, we must choose, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,\nwrote, between community and chaos. We must choose the course of\npartisan destruction or national reconciliation. We will, in our\nlifetime, never cast a more important vote. The spirit of history is\nupon us and the future of the republic before us.\n Our obligation as citizens of the state are as old as human history\nand as fresh as the morning dew, to right wrong, do justice and love\nmercy. Our Constitution, that sacred document, is a covenant, a\ncontract between the Government and those who are governed.\n We must not, we cannot ignore the will of the people. Almost 50\nmillion people elected Bill Clinton as our President in spite of his\nproblems, his shortcomings and his failings. They, the people, elected\nBill Clinton President of the United States and they want him to remain\nthe President of the United States.\n And yet some, some even in this Chamber, have never accepted the\nverdict of the people. They have never accepted Bill Clinton as their\nPresident. Instead they embarked on a crusade of personal destruction.\n Our Constitution was never intended to be used as a hammer to destroy\nour political enemies. Some of our colleagues have been too quick to\npick up the hammer of impeachment and swing it with reckless abandon.\nSo bent are they on the destruction of this President that they would\nknock down the very pillars which support our constitutional system.\n What President Clinton did was wrong. About that there can be no\nmistake. There is no disagreement, no debate. But how, how, my\ncolleagues, should we respond? How we respond, how we act says as much\nabout us and our character as it does about his. Let he that has no sin\ncast the first stone. Who among us has not sinned?\n What the President did was wrong, but it simply does not rise to the\nheight or sink to the depths of an impeachment offense. I know it, my\ncolleagues know it and, most importantly, the American people know it.\n Will we write a chapter or be consigned to a footnote. The spirit of\nhistory is upon us. Let us do what is right, let us do what is just and\nlove mercy.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Michigan\n(Mr. Conyers) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin\n(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 5 minutes remaining and has the right to close.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the\ndistinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the\nCommittee on the Judiciary.\n Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is in the Constitution to protect\nour Nation from a president who is subverting our constitutional form\nof government. Our authority to impeach is limited in the Constitution\nto findings of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.\n We know, from our hearings, that treason, bribery, or other high\ncrimes or misdemeanors does not cover all felonies. In fact, it does\nnot even cover a half-million-dollar income tax fraud. That is the rule\nof law. We cannot act unless there is treason, bribery, or similar\noffenses. And so, that is why historians and constitutional scholars\nhave said that these allegations, even if they were true, do not\nconstitute impeachable offenses; and that is why one historian warned\nthat history will hunt down those who knowingly violate the\nConstitution when they vote for impeachment.\n That would be the case even if the allegations were true. But support\nof the new, low standard for impeachment comes by way of contradictory,\ndouble hearsay, and dubious inferences, without a single witness.\n In Watergate and every other prior impeachment, we heard witnesses.\nIn this case, the accused has not even had an opportunity to cross-\nexamine witnesses. In fact, the accused has never been told the\nspecifics of the charges against him. There is a reason why the\nspecifics are not mentioned and that is because the so-called\nperjurious statements constitute such immaterial minutiae that the\nsupporters of impeachment resort to titles of offenses such as perjury,\nwithout stating what the perjurious statements are.\n Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that we would attempt to overturn a\nnational democratic election on these flimsy allegations on the very\nday that our young men and women are risking their lives to protect our\ndemocratic form of government.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is\nrecognized for 2 minutes.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this body, we are\nconfronted with an overzealous and non-\n\n[[Page H11783]]\n\nindependent counsel report combined with a totally politicized process\nin the committee with party line votes on nearly every issue. And so, I\nwant to remind my colleagues that I am witnessing the most tragic event\nof my career in the Congress, in effect a Republican coup d'etat, in\nprocess.\n We are using the most powerful institutional tool available to this\nbody, impeachment, in a highly partisan manner. Impeachment was\ndesigned to rid this Nation of traitors and tyrants, not attempts to\ncover up extramarital affairs. This resolution trivializes our most\nimportant tool to maintain democracy. It downgrades the impeachment\npower into a partisan weapon that can be used with future presidents.\nPerhaps, hopefully, we may never ever use impeachment again after this\nexperience.\n Now, I am personally outraged that we would decapitate the Commander\nin Chief at a time when we are at war abroad. Republicans sacrifice the\nnational security by doing so. To be spending time of this House to\nsmear our Commander in Chief when brave men and women are risking their\nlives for their country shocks the conscience. The failure by the\nRepublican majority to allow a censure alternative shows again the\nperversely partisan process this is.\n I have been a Member here for some time and I cannot recall a single\noccasion when the Democrats denied the Republicans the ability to offer\nan alternative on a matter as momentous as this.\n Our Nation has been pushed to the edge of a constitutional cliff. We\nare about to inflict permanent damage on our Constitution, on our\nPresident, on the Nation and ourselves. We should not be here today.\nAnd history will not look kindly on the partisan passions that have\nbrought us to this point.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the time of the gentleman from\nMichigan (Mr. Conyers) expired in this hour?\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has\nexpired.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).\n (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the impeachment\nresolution.\n Mr. Speaker, in September when the Rules Committee brought a\nresolution to the floor to provide for the appropriate handling and\nrelease of the Independent Counsel report, I stated that many of us\nhoped such a day would never come in our careers in public life. These\nlast few months have been difficult and profound for the House of\nRepresentatives, and certainly for the Nation.\n It is my sincere hope, despite the unfortunate nature of the subject\nmatter, that we will make the Founding Fathers proud by solemnly\naddressing our constitutional obligation today.\n If the meaning of an oath has been minimized at all in America, at\nleast we can courageously abide by our constitutional oaths here in\nthis Chamber today.\n Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Judiciary Committee for their\ndiligent service to the House, and to the Nation, in this difficult\ntime.\n Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the resolution impeaching President\nClinton for high crimes and misdemeanors.\n I find the case presented by the Judiciary Committee in its report\ndevastating and I am compelled, after studying the case, to support\nthese articles of impeachment.\n The evidence presented demonstrates the President committed perjury\nboth in a deposition before a Federal judge in a sexual harassment\nlawsuit and in grand jury testimony.\n I am astounded at the methodical and calculating manner in which this\nperjury was conducted. The President obstructed justice and interfered\nwith the machinery of our judicial system, and he committed perjury\nbefore the Congress in response to the Judiciary Committee's inquiries\nunder oath.\n Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming, it is remarkably detailed,\nand it is corroborated at key points. It has also not been rebutted, in\nany meaningful way, by the President or his attorneys.\n The President's conduct could be considered reckless for any\ngovernment official or chief executive officer of a corporation, but it\nis truly tragic--for the office and the Nation--when that illegal\nconduct was committed by the President of the United States.\n Perjury is a felony, Mr. Speaker, and it is an offense which demands\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, the rule of law, and our adherence to the rule of law,\nhave made us the great Nation that we are today.\n What kind of example do we set for the future if we do not impeach\nthe chief law enforcement officer of the land, who happens to be an\nattorney, because of this type of behavior in office?\n If we countenance this misconduct, what are we to say to the American\ncitizens currently serving Federal prison sentences for perjury?\n How are we to answer our children when they ask us ``If the President\ncan lie and get away with it, why can't I?''\n The argument has been advanced in recent days that impeachment is\ndisruptive to the Nation; it will result in chaos in the financial\nmarkets, and the economy will crumble. The work of government will\nsomehow cease.\n Mr. Speaker, this is the greatest representative body in the world.\nThe Members of this institution can attest, based on their close\ninteraction with their constituents, that America is strong.\n America is healthy and robust and prosperous in spite of the\nmisconduct of the President.\n This notion of a world thrown into turmoil due to impeachment is\ncompletely false.\n We are a resilient people, and we have endured depression and world\nwars in this century and a vicious civil war in the century before.\n After defeating fascism and communism in this bloody 20th century,\nare we to believe that we simply cannot survive without Bill Clinton?\nWe should remember that we are all just temporary occupants of these\noffices.\n The Constitution was here long before we were and it will be here\nlong after.\n Why discard our historic notion of the rule of law, a notion which\ndifferentiates us from much of the world around us, for one man?\n The man in question clings to the trappings of his powerful office,\nand cloaks himself in its symbols and icons, but adheres to none of the\nprinciples of the men who served in it before him.\n Why is any one man worth the sacrifice of the office which we hold\nwith such great esteem? this impeachment vote by the House and trial in\nthe Senate is intended to protect constitutional government--it is not\nintended to punish the President for his crimes.\n Rather, it is designed to protect the office--our office--from\nfurther harm by its temporary occupant.\n I will vote to impeach President Clinton, and vindicate the rule of\nlaw.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to\nthe gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is\nrecognized for 5 minutes.\n Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding\nme time.\n Members of the House, today our Constitution stands in harm's way.\nThe rule of law in America is under fire, the rule of law about which\nour chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), spoke so\neloquently just a few short moments ago, the rule of law which finds\nits highest and best embodiment in the absolute, the unshakeable right\neach one of us has to walk in a courtroom and demand the righting of a\nwrong.\n As President John F. Kennedy so eloquently put it, ``Americans are\nfree to disagree with the law but not to disobey it. For a government\nof laws and not of men, no man however prominent and powerful, no mob\nhowever unruly or boisterous is entitled to defy a court of law. If\nthis country should ever reach the point where any man or group of men,\nby force or threat of force, could long defy the commands of our courts\nand our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt, no judge\nwould be sure of his writ, and no citizen would be safe from its\nneighbors.'' This, Mr. Speaker, is the fundamental American right which\nPresident William Jefferson Clinton tried to deny a fellow citizen.\n How did he do it? I direct the attention of every Member of this body\nto the report of the Committee on the Judiciary to accompany H. Res.\n611. I direct their specific attention to Article III, which lays out a\ncase of obstruction of justice. Despite the fact that in the ears of a\nlay person obstruction might conjure up a massive frontal assault, in\nthe word of law, and I know this as a former United States attorney who\ndirected the prosecution of a Republican member of this body for\nobstructing justice before a grand jury, obstruction of justice is much\nmore insidious, much more implied, much quieter, but nonetheless\ndestructive of the rule of law in this country.\n\n[[Page H11784]]\n\n What is obstruction and what was the pattern of obstruction in this\ncase? I respectfully direct the attention of each Member of this body\nto the United States Criminal Code, title 18, to those several\nprovisions which set forth the principle that no man, no citizen of\nthis land, no visitor to this land shall tamper with witnesses, seek to\nhide witnesses, seek to hide evidence in a case, or seek to change,\nmodify, or prevent testimony.\n Yet there is in this report and in the accompanying 60,000 pages of\nevidence to which Chairman Hyde alluded, evidence of a clear pattern of\nobstruction of justice, in violation of title 18 of the United States\nCode, by this President; such things as making statements to his\nsecretary after he gave sworn testimony in an effort, a very clear\neffort, with no other purpose than to influence the testimony of his\nsecretary, who most assuredly would have been and was called as a grand\njury witness, evidence such as the President calling and directing one\nof the most powerful attorneys in this city, Mr. Vernon Jordan, after\nit was found out that Monica Lewinsky would indeed be and had been\nsubpoenaed as a witness to appear before the court and directed that\nshe be found a job.\n\n {time} 1115\n\n Evidence such as the President, the Commander in Chief, as we have\nheard today, picking up a telephone at 2 a.m. in the morning, not by\ncoincidence the very day that he found out that Ms. Lewinsky was indeed\na named witness and would be a witness in the court case of Paula Jones\nand going over with her to reaffirm in her mind the stories, the cover\nstories, that they indeed had agreed to if just this calamity would\nbefall them.\n These, I submit to every Member of this House, are obstruction. They\nare indeed a frontal assault on our Constitution.\n We have here today in Article III alone three legs of a stool, if I\ncould borrow an analogy from the chairman of the Committee on the\nJudiciary. We have the Constitution, we have the United States Criminal\nCode as violated by this President, and we have the evidence. They\nsupport a vote for Article III of impeachment of William Jefferson\nClinton for obstructing justice in America.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to be recognized under the\nhour rule.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from\nWisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield\nthe customary one-half hour to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nConyers). All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.\nMcCollum).\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is moved, I\nintend to vote against it so that I may be recognized to control under\nthe hour rule time in order to continue the debate on House Resolution\n611.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).\n (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the argument\nthat our military forces are fighting. Do my colleagues know what they\nare fighting for? They are fighting to uphold the Constitution and the\noath that we took and they took.\n As my colleagues know, when the President stands before God, puts his\nhand on the Bible and takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and\nlawfully carry out the duties of his office, he is promising to put the\npeople and the Nation before his own interests. I believe the President\nviolated the laws and beliefs he swore to uphold instead of following\nthe law, respecting American people's values and honoring his office.\nHe chose to lie, cover up and evade the truth. His actions have made a\nmockery of the people who fought for this country and are fighting for\nthis Nation today, the Constitution and the laws we live under, and\nbecause of the President's actions Congress must act as dictated by the\nConstitution.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?\n Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.\n Mr. HYDE. The gentleman has some familiarity with our military\nservice. Did he serve in the Vietnam War?\n Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, sir, and the Korean one, if we want to\ncall it.\n Mr. HYDE. And the Korean War.\n How much time did the gentleman spend in the prison camp in Hanoi or\nin Vietnam?\n Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Nearly 7 years, sir.\n Mr. HYDE. Seven years in a POW camp?\n Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, sir.\n Mr. HYDE. In solitary?\n Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, sir; 3 years of that.\n Mr. HYDE. Well, I think the gentleman from Texas is qualified to talk\nabout military service.\n Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Well, I want to tell my colleagues that our\nmilitary fighting men want the Congress to carry on their\nconstitutional responsibility every day. That is why we are here.\n As my colleagues know, maybe we ought to be debating right after this\nissue how we support our military and give them more arms and more\npeople to make sure they can win that battle. We cannot sacrifice what\nis right to do, what is easy.\n As my colleagues know, when I was a POW, we did some things that were\ntough to do. This is a tough thing to do, but it is the right thing to\ndo, and I suggest we continue with this impeachment process.\n Mr. Speaker, the duty of the President of the United States is to\npreserve, protect and defend our Constitution. For over two hundred\nyears we have sent our fathers, brothers, sons, mothers and daughters\nto war to do just that.\n Many of them never returned. They gave their lives for a better\nAmerica. They believed that America is greater than one person, one\nlife.\n They gave their lives to ensure that America and our Constitution\nremain safe and that our way of life would not perish.\n They knew--with death--came honor, trust, loyalty and respect. They\nknew their death meant freedom to the millions of Americans who would\ncome after them. Many of those who died were my friends.\n I spent 29 years in the Air Force, fought in two wars and was a\nprisoner of war for nearly 7 years in Vietnam.\n I love this great nation. And I would defend it again because America\nand our ideals are worth dying for.\n When I left Vietnam there was an inscription scrawled on one of the\nprison walls which read: ``freedom has a taste to those who fought and\nalmost died that the protected will never know.''\n The President is the one person who must hold these words and actions\nin the highest regard.\n The President is our moral leader. His picture hangs in classrooms\nthroughout America. The President is our symbol of freedom. The\nPresident is the Commander in Chief, the chief law enforcement officer,\nand the leader of the free world.\n When the President stands before God, puts his hand on the Bible and\ntakes an oath to uphold the Constitution and lawfully carry out the\nduties of his office--he is promising to put the people and the Nation\nbefore his own interests.\n I believe this President violated the laws and the beliefs he swore\nto uphold. Instead of following the law, respecting the American\npeople's values and honoring his office, he chose to lie, cover up and\nevade the truth.\n His actions have made a mockery of the people who fought for this\ncountry, the Constitution and the laws we live under.\n It is clear from the evidence that this President committed perjury.\n It is clear from the evidence that this President obstructed justice.\n It is clear from the evidence that this President abused the power of\nhis office.\n He systematically used his office and staff to protect his own\npersonal interests. Instead of truth and forgiveness he hid behind\nlegalistic jargon.\n And now, because of the President's actions, Congress must act as\ndictated by the Constitution.\n We cannot sacrifice what is right to do what is easy.\n During those awful years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, there were\nmany times that I and my fellow prisoners could have taken the ``easy''\nway out.\n We could have told the enemy our military secrets, or we could have\nbetrayed one another. That would have been the ``easiest''\n\n[[Page H11785]]\n\nthing to do to stop the daily torture we endured. If we had just given\nup a few military secrets or betrayed a fellow soldier, we could have\navoided starvation, been released much earlier, and not missed all\nthose years of our lives with our families and children. But we never\ndid. Even through all the daily torture, beatings and starvation, we\nnever once considered taking the ``easy'' way out. and now we must\nendure these hardships, uphold our Constitution and protect America.\n When we, in Congress, raised our right hands and took our oaths of\noffice, we promised to make the difficult decisions.\n We have come to the end of a very long and winding road. Long and\nwinding--not because of anything Congress has done, but rather because\nPresident Clinton has walked us down it by his own actions.\n The President has diminished his office in the eyes of the Nation,\nand more dangerously, in the eyes of the world.\n The President is the chief law enforcement official of this country.\nIf you lose respect for him, you lose respect for the law.\n I would just say, again, to the American people, that this is not a\nchoice about doing what is easy. This is a choice between what is right\nand what is wrong under our Constitution and the rule of law.\n Let's be clear: the President lied to us. He pointed his finger at\nus, looked us in the eye and lied to us, over and over again.\n We must make a stand and say--we are a nation of laws and no one is\nabove the law.\n So, I will vote to impeach the President. The Constitution demands it\nand the country deserves no less.\n Thank you, Mr. Speaker.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom New York (Mr. Schumer), a distinguished member of the Committee on\nthe Judiciary and Senator elect.\n (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, these are my last moments as a Member of\nthe House that I honor and that I love, but this is a bittersweet day\nfor me because a pall hangs over this House. Unless a miracle occurs,\nwe will take one of the most serious and rare actions that this body\ncan assume and impeach the President against the overwhelming will of\nthe American people. Voting against these articles will be my last act.\n Since September I have said what the President did was reprehensible\nand should be punished. I also argued that lying about an extramarital\naffair, even under oath, does not rise to the level of high crimes and\nmisdemeanors as spelled out in the Constitution and that the proper\npunishment is censure, not impeachment.\n But today, Mr. Speaker, my last day in the House that I cherish, I\nask myself what has brought us to this day? It would be easy for\nDemocrats to lay the blame on a narrow band of right wing zealots out\nto destroy Bill Clinton. It would be convenient for Republicans to lay\nthe blame squarely at the feet of the President for his behavior. But\nthis goes much deeper than that.\n What began 25 years ago with Watergate as a solemn and necessary\nprocess to force a President to adhere to the rule of law has grown\nbeyond our control so that now we are routinely using criminal\naccusations and scandal to win the political battles and ideological\ndifferences we cannot settle at the ballot box. It has been used with\nreckless abandon by both parties, Democrats and Republicans, and we are\nnow at a point where we risk, deeply risk, wounding the Nation we all\nlove.\n We cannot disagree, it seems; we cannot forcefully advocate for our\npositions, without trying to criminalize or at least dishonor our\nadversaries over matters having nothing to do with public trust. And it\nis hurting our country, it is marginalizing and polarizing this\nCongress.\n I want to be clear. I am not pointing fingers at Republicans. The\nDemocrats investigated John Tower for allegations not too dissimilar\nfrom allegations against the President. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.\nGingrich) led the investigation which brought down Speaker Wright, and\nSpeaker Gingrich was investigated and brought down as well. The ledger\nbetween the two parties is pretty much even.\n Today we are upping the ante. The President could be removed from\noffice over a matter that most Americans feel does not come close to\nthe level of high crimes and misdemeanors as written in our\nConstitution. I expect history will show that we have lowered the bar\non impeachment so much we have broken the seal on this extreme penalty\nso cavalierly that it will be used as a routine tool to fight political\nbattles. My fear is that when a Republican wins the White House\nDemocrats will demand payback.\n Mr. Speaker, in Greek mythology, in the Oresteia, a trilogy of\nancient Greek plays by Aeschylus, the warring factions of the House of\nAtreus trapped themselves in an escalating chain of revenge.\n* * * such that Atreus serves his brother a pie that contained his\nbrother's own murdered children. It was the end of what was once a\nnoble family. A noble House.\n Let us not become a House of Atreus. Let us reject the instinct for\nrevenge and embrace instead a greater sense of justice for the sake of\nour Republic.\n That is why I leave the institution that I cherish and respect with a\nheavy heart. I know we are better than what we have shown.\n But I fear that the road that we are on will lead us to ruin. It is\ntime to get off.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the\ndistinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who served in\nVietnam and was recommended for the Medal of Honor.\n Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had served on the Committee on\nNational Security in authorization. I now serve on the Subcommittee on\nNational Security of the Committee on Appropriations, and I want to\ntell my colleagues, every single member on those two committees, I have\nthe greatest respect for what they try to do to bolster our military\nand our men and women. And my colleagues, some of them say, ``Why not\nwait? Why can't we wait just a few days?''\n The President of the United States last night deployed ground troops\nto Iraq. Just imagine, just imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein\ngoes into Kuwait again, and the turmoil and the loss of lives, and\nthink about how difficult it would be to bring up a resolution like\nthis if we waited.\n There has been talk about Ramadan. Well, there is another religious\nholiday: Christmas. Think about how hard it would be to bring up this\nresolution.\n If this goes beyond January 6 into a next Congress, then we have a\nconstitutional problem. And the public, they want this over. I agree\nthey want it over, and that is why we are proceeding on, to get it\nover. We would have to start this process all over again. The public\ndoes not want that I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) or\nthe gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); they want it done.\n As a matter of fact, talk about polls; in the Washington Post poll\nthey talked about if this article goes through, almost 60 percent of\nthe American people would ask the President to resign. It is not for\nthe President. It is because they do not want this thing to go on, and\nwe are going to do that.\n Mr. Speaker, I have a tape here. I would love to play it for the\ngentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) sometime. It is 18 SAMs (surface-\nto-air missiles), SA-2s, going off in pairs over Vietnam.\n When we talk about at a time like this, our troops are fighting. Not\nonce did I ever worry about what was going on in Congress. I worried\nabout the strike mission, about where the SAMs were, where the triple A\n(anti-aircraft artillery) was, about getting back to my carrier alive.\n They do not care what is going on here. They want this over, too.\nThat is not a factor in this. Our men and women are fighting and dying.\n I have got a friend named Bug Roach. He was flying a 25-year-old\naircraft, an A-4 Skyhawk. His engine quit over Whiskey 291. It is a\ntraining area in the Pacific, west of San Diego. When he tried to\neject, his seat did not work. Do my colleagues have any idea what it is\nlike to talk to his family?\n Do not cut defense any more. If my colleagues want to support our\ntroops, do not cut defense, with the Progressive Caucus that wants to\ncut it an additional 50 percent. Bolster our troops.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n\n[[Page H11786]]\n\n Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the precedents show and the Nation's leading\nscholars and historians overwhelmingly agree that impeachment is\nreserved under the Constitution only for abuses of presidential power\nthat undermine the structure of functioning of government or of\nconstitutional liberty. It is not intended as a punishment for crimes\nbut as a protection against the President who would abuse his powers to\nmake himself a tyrant. That is why Benjamin Franklin called impeachment\na substitute for assassination.\n We are told that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery, a per\nse impeachable offense, but bribery goes to the heart of the\nPresident's conduct of his constitutional duties. It converts his\nloyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the Republic to\npromoting some other interest.\n\n {time} 1130\n\n Perjury is a serious crime and, if provable, should be prosecuted in\na court of law. But it may or may not involve the President's duties\nand performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury\nregarding sex, is not a great and dangerous offense against the Nation.\nIt is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten\nour form of government. It is not an impeachable offense.\n The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the\nvoters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from\noffice except to defend our system of government or our constitutional\nliberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an\noverwhelming consensus of the American people.\n There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment\nsupported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another.\nSuch an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our\npolitics for years to come, and will call into question the very\nlegitimacy of our political institutions.\n The American people have heard the allegations against the President,\nand they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. They elected President\nClinton, they still support him. We have no right to overturn the\nconsidered judgment of the American people.\n Mr. Speaker, the case against the President has not been made. There\nis far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the\nallegations, even if proven true, do not rise to the level of\nimpeachable offenses.\n Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job. The same people\nwho today tell us we must impeach the President for lying under oath,\nalmost to a person voted last year to reelect the Speaker who had just\nadmitted lying to Congress in an official proceeding.\n The American people are watching, and they will not forget. You may\nhave the votes, you may have the muscle, but you do not have the\nlegitimacy of a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative.\nThis partisan coup d'etat will go down in infamy in the history of this\nNation.\n Mr. Speaker, today, for only the second time in our nation's history,\nthis House meets to consider articles of impeachment against a\nPresident of the United States. This is a momentous occasion, and I\nwould hope that, despite the sharp partisan tone which has marked this\ndebate, we can approach it with a sober sense of the historic\nimportance of this matter.\n I believe that we need to get back to basics--the Constitution and\nwhat the impeachment power conferred on the Congress requires of us.\nArticle II, section 4 of the Constitution says that a President ``shall\nbe removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,\nBribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' We have received\ntestimony from some of the nation's leading legal scholars and\nhistorians who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are\nabuses of Presidential power that undermine the structure or\nfunctioning of government, or constitutional liberty.\n Benjamin Franklin called impeachment a ``substitute for\nassassination.'' It is, in fact, a peaceful procedure for protecting\nthe nation from despots by providing a constitutional means for\nremoving a President who would misuse his presidential power to make\nhimself a tyrant or otherwise undermine our constitutional form of\ngovernment. To impeach a President, it must be that serious.\n The history of the language is also clear. At the Constitutional\nConvention, the Committee on Style, which was not authorized to make\nany substantive changes, dropped the words ``against the United\nStates'' after the words ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' because it\nwas understood that only high crimes and misdemeanors against the\nsystem of government would be impeachable--that the words ``against the\nUnited States'' were redundant and unnecessary.\n History and the precedents alike show that impeachment is not a\npunishment for crimes, but a means to protect the constitutional\nsystem, and it was certainly not meant to be a means to punish a\nPresident for personal wrongdoing not related to his office. Some of\nour Republican colleagues have made much of the fact that some of the\nDemocrats on this Committee in 1974 voted in favor of an article of\nimpeachment relating to President Nixon's alleged perjury on his tax\nreturns, but the plain fact is that a bipartisan vote of that\nCommittee--something we have not yet had in this process on any\nsubstantive question--rejected that article. That's the historical\nrecord, and it was largely based on the belief that an impeachable\noffense must be an abuse of Presidential power, a ``great and dangerous\noffense against the Nation,'' not perjury on a private matter.\n We are told that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery, a per\nse impeachable offense. But bribery goes to the heart of the\nPresident's conduct of his constitutional duties--it converts his\nloyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the Republic to\npromoting some other interest. Perjury is a serious crime--and, if\nprovable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may, or may\nnot, involve the President's duties and performance in office. Perjury\non a private matter--perjury regarding sex--is not a ``great and\ndangerous offense against the Nation.'' It is not an abuse of uniquely\nPresidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is\nnot an impeachable offense.\n The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the\nvoters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an\nelection and remove a President from office except to defend our very\nsystem of government on our constitutional liberties against a dire\nthreat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the\nAmerican people and of their Representatives in Congress on its\nabsolute necessity. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment,\nor an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political\nparties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will lack\nlegitimacy, will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics\nfor years to come, and will call into question the legitimacy of our\npolitical institutions. The American people have heard all the\nallegations against the President and they overwhelmingly oppose\nimpeaching him. The people elected President Clinton. They still\nsupport him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of\nthe American people.\n There are clearly some members of the Republican majority who have\nnever accepted the results of the 1992 or 1996 elections, and who\napparently have chosen to ignore the message of last month's election,\nbut in a democracy, it is the people who rule, not political elites--\nand not members of political elites who were repudiated at the last\nelection. Some members of the House may think the people have chosen\nbadly, but it is the people's choice and we must respect it absent a\nthreat to our democracy that would justify overturning the repeated\nexpression of their will at the ballot box. Members of Congress have no\nright to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent\nthat compelling case.\n the Judiciary Committee also received testimony from some outstanding\nformer prosecutors, including the former Republican Governor of\nMassachusetts, William Weld, who headed up the Criminal Division of\nRonald Reagan's Justice Department, who compellingly explained why all\nthe loose talk about perjury and obstruction of justice would not hold\nup in a real prosecutor's office--that the evidence we have been given\nwould never support a criminal prosecution in a real court of law.\n For those who demand that the President prove his innocence, without\nhis accusers having to provide his guilt or even to state clearly the\ncharges, the Judiciary Committee received answers from the President's\nCounsel, Mr. Ruff, and from the Committee's Minority Counsel, Mr.\nLowell this morning, in which they meticulously pointed out, using Mr.\nStarr's own work, how the charges were not supported, and were indeed\ncontradicted, by the evidence Mr. Starr's own office had assembled. In\nfact, Mr. Starr has stated in his referral to Congress, that his own\n``star witness'' is not credible, except when her uncorroborated\ntestimony conflicts with the President's, and then it proves his\nperjury.\n We have received sanctimonious lectures from the other side about the\n`'rule of law,'' but the law does not permit perjury to be proved by\nthe uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Nor does the law recognize\nas corroboration the fact that the witness made the same\n\n[[Page H11787]]\n\nstatement to several different people. You may choose to believe that\nthe President was disingenuous, that he was not particularly helpful to\nPaula Jones' lawyers when they asked him intentionally vague questions,\nor that he is a bum, but that does not make him guilty of perjury.\n This House is not a grand jury. To impeach the President would\nsubject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would\nparalyze the government for many months while the problems of Social\nSecurity, Medicare, a deteriorating world economy, and all our foreign\nconcerns festered without proper attention. We cannot simply punt the\nduty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere ``probable\ncause'' that an impeachable offense may have been committed. To do so\nwould be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of\nimpeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses.\nThey rely solely on the findings of an ``independent'' counsel who has\nrepeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include exculpatory\nevidence, and consistently misstated the law. We must not be a rubber\nstamp for Kenneth Starr. We have been entrusted with this grave and\ndangerous duty by the American people, by the Constitution and by\nhistory. We must exercise that duty responsibly. At a bare minimum,\nthat means the President's accusers must go beyond hearsay and\ninnuendo, and beyond demands that the President prove his innocence of\nvague and changing charges. They must provide clear and convincing\nevidence of specific impeachable conduct. This they have failed to do.\n If you believe the President's admission to the grand jury and to the\nnation of an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and\nhis apologies to the nation, were not abject enough, that is not a\nreason for impeachment. Contrition is a remedy for sin, and is\ncertainly appropriate here. But while insufficiency of contrition may\nleave the soul still scarred, unexpiated sin proves no crimes and\njustifies no impeachment.\n Some say that if we do not impeach the President, we treat him as if\nhe is above the law.\n Is the President above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the\ncriminal law--to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like\nany other citizen, whether or not he is impeached. And if the\nRepublican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third\nPresident in U.S. history, and the first since 1848, to be censured by\nthe Congress\n But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as\na punishment for a President.\n The case is not there--there is far from sufficient evidence to\nsupport the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven, do not\nrise to the level of impeachable offenses. We should not dignify these\narticles of impeachment by sending them to the Senate. To do so would\nbe an affront to the Constitution and would consign this House to the\ncondemnation of history for generations to come.\n Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job, the same people\nwho today tell us we must impeach the President for lying under oath,\nalmost to a person, voted last year to re-elect a Speaker who had just\nadmitted lying to Congress in an official proceeding about abuse of the\nTax Laws for particular purposes. The American people are watching, and\nthey won't forget. You may have the votes, you may have the muscle, but\nyou lack the legitimacy of a national consensus and the Constitution.\nThis partisan coup d'etat will go down in the history of this nation in\ninfamy.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield six minutes to the gentleman\nfrom South Carolina (Mr. Graham).\n Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, a comment and a perspective from my point of\nview. Thus far the debate in this House I believe has brought honor to\nthe House and is serving the American people well. Some of the rhetoric\nI disagree with, but that is what a debate is all about. I choose now\nto not use rhetoric, but to talk about the facts.\n I will talk to you about Article IV, abuse of power, and the offenses\nagainst this institution, the Congress, by the President of the United\nStates. It is the one article that is very similar to the Watergate\nimpeachment of President Nixon. Article IV is very similar to Article\nIII in the Nixon case, and I will talk about that just in a moment, but\nfirst a quick summary from my perspective of what brought us here.\n What brought us here is not partisanship, but the conduct of one man\nwho happened to be the President, who happened to be elected by the\npeople and given the most solemn responsibility in the Nation, to be\nthe chief law enforcement officer of the land, and he failed miserably\nin that responsibility and he deserves to be impeached based on what he\ndid, not what I think about him, not how I voted, but what he did.\n Article I, grand jury perjury. Mr. Speaker, remember the context in\nwhich the perjury occurred. The President several months before had\ngiven false testimony in a deposition. The President was begged by\nmembers of both parties in the House and Senate, ``Mr. President, do\nnot go into the grand jury and lie again. Do not give false or\nmisleading or perjurious testimony again, because you put your\npresidency at stake; you do a disservice to this country.''\n Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, based on the facts, not based on my\nfeelings, based on overwhelming facts, the President of the United\nStates chose in August, months after being warned not to do it, he\nchose to lie to a Federal grand jury. He abused the 23 citizens who\nwere trying very hard to get it right. He abused the Federal court\nsystem. It was his fault, and no one else's.\n Mr. Speaker, any President of the United States, regardless of party,\nthat goes to a Federal grand jury in the future, let it be said by as\nmany Members of the House that can say it, you are subject to being\nimpeached if you do that.\n Article II, who is the injured party? Consensual sex, this is colored\nby sex, but there is a moment in time, Mr. Speaker, where the\nallegations about sex were anything but consensual.\n The day the President gave deposition testimony in the Paula Jones\ncase, the allegations were far from consensual. They were rude and\ncrude. He was put under oath, he was asked questions with a Federal\njudge sitting in front of him, and the injured party was Paula Jones,\nbecause he chose to lie in a sexual harassment suit. That is\nnonconsensual sex, the topic. He chose to deny a citizen their fair day\nin court. The President turned the justice system upside down on many\noccasions for his personal gain, and that is why we are here today.\n Article III, the President of the United States, while being in a\nlitigation matter against an average, everyday citizen, chose to go to\nwitnesses and try to get them to lie and provide false testimony, chose\nto go and plant stories about witnesses that were false, that were\nmalicious. The President of the United States tried to cheat a litigant\nout of a fair day and trial. Let it be said that at anytime, anywhere,\nregardless of party, in the future if you do that as president, you are\nsubject to being impeached.\n Article IV, who is the injured party? We are the injured party. Here\nis what happened in Article IV. This House by House Resolution 581, 360\nvotes, I believe, authorized the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire\ninto the allegations against the President. Mr. Speaker, we can that.\n Part of that inquiry, what we chose to do was submit questions to the\nPresident to flesh out the facts. Eighty-one questions were sent to\nflesh out the facts in this case by Chairman Hyde, and the President\nwas asked under oath to give answers to those questions as part of our\ninquiry.\n Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the President lied in January to injure\nPaula Jones, he lied to the Federal grand jury to injure the Federal\ncourt system in this case, and I think the facts are overwhelming that\nhe gave false, misleading and perjurious testimony to the Congress as\npart of our inquiry.\n Let me tell you how that is similar to the Nixon case. Article III of\nimpeachment against Richard Nixon, the article was based on the idea\nthat Richard Nixon as president failed to comply with subpoenas of\nCongress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide\noversight of the President. When asked for information, Richard Nixon\nchose not to comply, and the Congress back in that time said, ``You are\ntaking impeachment away from us. You are becoming the judge and jury.\nIt is not your job to tell us what we need; it is your job to comply\nwith the things we need to provide oversight over you.''\n The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that\nhe was subject to impeachment, because he took the power from Congress\nover the impeachment process away from Congress and he became the judge\nand jury; and the day that William Jefferson Clinton failed to provide\ntruthful testimony to the Congress of the\n\n[[Page H11788]]\n\nUnited States is the day that he chose to determine the course of\nimpeachment. He usurped our power, he abused his authority, he gave\nfalse information. That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is the same as giving no\ninformation at all. Actually, I think it is worse.\n So I believe these articles will stand the test of time, they will\nstand a factual scrutiny that has to be done, and the only way to avoid\nimpeachment is to leave your common sense at the door, defy the way the\nworld works and ignore the facts and talk about something else.\n We are the victim of Article IV. If you believe he committed grand\njury perjury, I think it would be incumbent upon you to find him guilty\nof Article IV, because the underlying conduct that led to perjury in\nthe grand jury was reasserted in the 81 questions, and he gave the same\nfalse, misleading, unbelievable answers. William Jefferson Clinton's\nimpeachment is based on what he did, and no one else.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield three minutes to the\ngentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), perhaps our newest member on\nthe Committee on the Judiciary.\n Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for\nyielding.\n Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day. It is a sad day for our democracy. I\ncannot defend President Clinton's actions. He failed to tell the truth\nand he failed to cooperate. He must be held accountable. And although I\ncannot defend President Clinton's actions, I can and must defend our\nConstitution. Our Constitution does not allow us, no, it does not allow\nyou, to remove a President from office because you cannot stand him.\n That is not an unfair allegation. It is not an unfair allegation,\nbecause the vast majority of the people voting for impeachment today\nvoted to reelect our Speaker, even though he had submitted information,\nfalse information, to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of\nthis House, the judicial branch of this House. Even though the Speaker\nhad submitted false information to the judicial branch of this House,\nthe majority of people here voted to reelect him as Speaker.\n It is not an unfair allegation, because when the Secretary of Defense\nunder President Bush was duly indicted by a Federal grand jury for\nperjury and he was pardoned by the President of the United States,\nGeorge Bush, the silence on this side of the aisle was deafening. There\nwere no claims from this side of the aisle that this was injustice.\nThere were no claims that somehow our military would be damaged. There\nwere no claims that somehow the pillars of democracy were damaged by\nperjury by the Secretary of Defense.\n There is one difference, and only one difference, between the false\nallegations submitted by Speaker Gingrich and the perjury allegations\nagainst the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United\nStates, and that difference is he is a Democrat. He is a Democrat, and\nso we are going to go after him.\n I feel bad for this institution today, because I think it is acting\nunfairly. I trust that every member there is voting his or her\nconscience. I will give you that, because I trust the conscience of\nthis institution.\n But what is happening today is the conscience of this institution is\nbeing strangled. It is being strangled for the cause of raw partisan\npolitics.\n Every person here today knows that the American people believe the\nPresident should be held accountable. Every person here today knows\nthat the appropriate remedy lies within this institution.\n We can do it. We disagree, and there is an honest disagreement as to\nwhether impeachment is the appropriate remedy or censure is the\nappropriate remedy, but it is the ultimate unfairness to deny Members\non this side of the aisle and Members on that side of the aisle the\nright to vote their conscience for censure.\n If we believe in the conscience of this institution, let us let the\nconscience of the institution display itself.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Canady).\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point\nthat has just been made concerning the conduct of the Speaker of the\nHouse. It is inaccurate to compare the situation involving the Speaker\nof the House with a case that is now before us. It is admitted that the\nSpeaker submitted inaccurate information, there is no question that\nthat was admitted. But the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct\ndid not find that the Speaker was guilty of intentionally submitting\nfalse information. That was a finding that was not made.\n In the case before us, there is a critical distinction. In the case\nbefore us, there is overwhelming evidence that the President of the\nUnited States willfully, time after time after time, lied under oath.\nIt is a very, very different case than the submission of inaccurate\ninformation by the Speaker.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Indiana (Mr. Buyer).\n Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.\n Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) brought up\nthe issue of censure to this House, and I would like to address it at\nthis time. While I appreciate the intentions of the supporters of\ncensure, I, nonetheless, urge Members to oppose it, because it is a\nfraud and assault upon the Constitution.\n Censure is not an authorized alternative to impeachment. Congress has\nthe express constitutional authority to censure its own Members for\nmisconduct, but there is no expressed authority in the Constitution for\nCongress to censure the President. Impeachment is the only power in the\nConstitution granted to Congress to address presidential misconduct and\ndereliction in his executive duties.\n The Founding Fathers set high standards for impeachment, and by also\nproviding that conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to\nremove the President from office, the ensured impeachment would not\nbecome a method for Congress to harass executive or judicial officials.\n A censure resolution would fly in the face of the separation of\npowers doctrine. Congress cannot make it up as we go along.\nConstitutional scholar Gary McDowell stated, ``Impeachment is the only\npower granted by the Constitution to Congress to deal with errant\nexecutives. Had the founders intended some other means of punishment to\nbe available to your branch they would have said so, as Chief Justice\nMarshall once said, `in plain and intelligible language.' That they did\nnot do so should be your only guide in this grave and sensitive\nmatter.''\n\n {time} 1145\n\n The temptation to do anything possible to avoid exercising the awful\nconstitutional power of impeachment is obvious and is understandably\ngreat. But such a temptation to take the easy way out by assuming a\npower not granted should be shunned by this House. And should President\nClinton, as a result of bad advice or political pressure, agree to such\nunconstitutional punishment as censure by this House, that would be a\nbreach of his constitutional obligations and his oath of office, as\ngreat as anything else for which he has been accused of by the\nCommittee on the Judiciary. The great office he is privileged to hold\ndeserves his protection against any ill-considered censorious assault\nfrom Congress.\n President Andrew Jackson, one of our distinguished Presidents who is\nknown as the Father of the Democrat Party, was censured by the Senate\nand after the election the Senate then expunged the censure.\n President Jackson's words shed great light on our challenge today\neven though they were penned over 150 years ago. President Jackson\nwrote that the very idea of censure is a ``subversion'' of the powers\nof government and ``destructive of the checks and safeguards'' of\ngovernmental power. President Jackson rightfully claimed that censure\nwas ``wholly unauthorized by the Constitution'' and is a ``derogation\nof the entire spirit.''\n The framers of the Constitution purposely avoided granting the\nlegislature power to impose nonjudicial punishments. Such bills are\ncondemned in the Constitution because they represent a legislative\nencroachment on the powers of the judiciary. It is called a bill of\nattainder. It pronounces the guilt upon a party without any forms or\nthe safeguards of a trial.\n\n[[Page H11789]]\n\n An integral part of the censure debate in the Committee on the\nJudiciary was whether the purpose of the censure that was offered was\nto punish the President. In answer to my questions on the intent, one\nof the authors, Mr. Boucher of Virginia, stated that it is not our\npurpose to have findings of guilt, it is not our purpose to punish the\nPresident. However, a close examination of the wording of the censure\nresolution appears that the explicit and the implicit purpose would be\nto shame the President, to voice disdain for his actions, which\nundermine the integrity of the Office of the President, to reprove his\ndubious, if not criminal acts, i.e., to punish.\n The censure resolution offered in the Committee on the Judiciary uses\nsuch words and phrases as, ``The President egregiously failed,'' he\n``violated the trust of the American people,'' he ``lessened their\nesteem,'' he ``dishonored his office,'' he ``made false statements,\nreprehensible conduct, wrongfully took steps to delay the discovery of\nthe truth,'' and then therefore cites that he ``fully deserves the\ncensure and condemnation of the American people.''\n Mr. Speaker, these words and phrases are not remedial. On the\ncontrary, the intent is to shame and condemn the President's misconduct\nand impugn his reputation and is, therefore, a prohibited bill of\nattainder. It is unconstitutional in its form, and the idea is clearly\nin violation of a bill of attainder.\n Now, some Members of Congress are arguing that censuring the\nPresident is a better idea because it is ``what the American people\nwant.'' I believe the American people want their elected officials to\nhonor their oath, defend the Constitution in accordance with the laws\nof this Nation. Further, the American people want their elected\nrepresentatives to take a stand on matters of national importance, such\nas the integrity of our judicial system and for Members of the House\nand the Senate to exercise their judgment in matters of statecraft\nbased upon their intellect, not their emotions of the moment.\n The facts and evidence in this case are overwhelming; the allegations\nare grave. Censure is not an alternative to impeachment.\n While I appreciate the intentions of the supporters of censure, I\nnonetheless must oppose it because it is a fraud and an assault upon\nthe Constitution. Censure is not an authorized alternative to\nimpeachment.\n Congress has the expressed Constitutional authority to censure its\nown members for misconduct. But, there is no expressed authority in the\nConstitution for the Congress to censure the President.\n Impeachment is the only power in the Constitution granted to Congress\nto address presidential misconduct and dereliction of his executive\nduties. The Founding Fathers set high standards for impeachment by\nproviding that conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, to\nremove the President from office. They insured impeachment would not\nbecome a method for Congress to harass executive or judicial officials.\nA censure resolution would fly in the face of the separation of powers\ndoctrine. Congress cannot make it up as we go.\n Constitutional scholar Gary McDowell testified:\n\n Impeachment is the only power granted by the Constitution\n to the Congress to deal with errant executives. Had the\n Founders intended some other means of punishment to be\n available to your branch they would have said so, as Chief\n Justice Marshall once said, ``in plain and intelligible\n language.'' That they did not do so should be your only guide\n in this grave and sensitive matter.\n The temptation to do anything possible to avoid exercising\n the awful constitutional power of impeachment is obviously\n and understandably great. But such a temptation to take the\n easy way out by assuming a power not granted should be\n shunned. And should President Clinton, as a result of bad\n advice or political pressure, agree to such an\n unconstitutional punishment as a censure (by the House), that\n would be a breach of his constitutional obligations as great\n as anything else of which he has been accused. The great\n office he is privileged to hold deserves his protection\n against any ill-considered censorious assault from Congress.\n\n President Andrew Jackson, one of our distinguished presidents who is\nknown as a father to the Democrat Party, was censured by the Senate and\nafter the next election, the Senate then expunged the censure.\n President Jackson's words shed great light on our challenge today\neven though they were penned over 150 years ago. President Jackson\nwrote that the very idea of censure is a ``subversion'' of the powers\nof government and ``destructive of the checks and safeguards'' of\ngovernmental power. President Jackson rightly claimed that censure was\n``wholly unauthorized by the Constitution'' and is a ``derogation of\nits entire spirit.''\n\n The Framers of the Constitution purposely avoided granting the\nlegislature the power to impose nonjudicial punishment. Such bills are\ncondemned in the Constitution because they represent ``legislative\nencroachment on the powers of the judiciary.'' A bill of attainder\n``pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of the forms or\nsafeguards of trial.''\n An integral part of the censure debate in Committee was whether the\npurpose of censure is to punish the President. In answers to my\nquestions regarding the intent one of the authors, Mr. Boucher of\nVirginia, stated: ``It is not our purpose to have findings of guilt. It\nis not our intent to punish the President.''\n However, a close examination of the wording of the censure resolution\nappears that the explicit and implicit purpose would be to shame the\nPresident, to voice disdain for his actions which undermine the\nintegrity of the office of the President, to reprove his dubious if not\ncriminal acts . . . to punish.\n The censure resolution offered in the Judiciary Committee used such\nwords and phrases as ``egregiously failed,'' ``violated the trust of\nthe American people,'' ``lessened their esteem,'' ``dishonored the\noffice,'' ``made false statements,'' ``reprehensible conduct,''\n``wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth,'' and ``fully\ndeserves the censure and condemnation.'' The use of these words and\nphrases is not remedial, on the contrary, the intent is to shame and\ncondemn the President's misconduct and impugn his reputation. It is a\nprohibited bill of attainder and therefore unconstitutional.\n Some Members of Congress argue that censoring the President is a\nbetter idea than impeachment because that ``is what the American people\nwant.'' But I believe the American people want their elected officials\nto honor their oath, defend the Constitution, and act under and in\naccordance with the laws of their Nation. Further, the American people\nwant their elected representatives to take a stand on matters of\nnational importance, such as the integrity of our justice system, and\nfor Members of Congress and the Senate to exercise judgment in matters\nof statecraft based on their intellect, not the emotions of the moment.\n The facts and evidence in this case are overwhelming; the allegations\nare grave. Impeachment is the only power granted to the House to deal\nwith the President's alleged criminal misconduct.\n Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).\n Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today's historic and tragic vote is not about\nwhether any of us condone the private behavior of the President. It is,\nhowever, about whether we are committed to uphold the Constitution, the\ntouchstone of our freedom and the articulation of the genius of our\ndemocratic government's separation of powers and adherence to the\ndemocratic transfer of power.\n Nor is this vote about whether the President of the United States is\nabove the law. He is not. Indeed, as has been amply demonstrated over\nthe past 6 years, even the President, as must each of his fellow\ncitizens, must respond to the demands of the law.\n Moreover, it is clear that upon leaving office, the President could\nbe held accountable in a court of law if charges were to be brought\nagainst him alleging the wrongdoing of which the Committee on the\nJudiciary Republicans have accused him of today.\n Nor, as some claim, is this vote about process or simply moving this\nweighty matter from our calendar to that of the United States Senate: A\nPontius Pilate-like act, presumably designed to rationalize the\nprofoundly precedent-setting action that this House now contemplates.\n Nor do I for one second believe that this vote is about setting a\nmarker for the young on what conduct will be sanctioned or allowed to\nstand. Our Nation and our sustaining values will survive one man's\nfailings. But our democracy will be threatened if we destroy the due\nprocess and high standard that the Founding Fathers established over 2\ncenturies ago.\n The process that the majority has pursued in this matter has been\npartisan, driven, I believe, by animus, and exceedingly unfair. Like so\nmany other acts of these last two Congresses, it has been unworthy of\nour duty and of our responsibility.\n At the beginning of this Congress, after almost 30 years of House\nprecedent, the Committee on House Oversight moved to allow a case to go\nforward to remove the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), who\nhad been\n\n[[Page H11790]]\n\nelected by the people of California to this body. They spent over $1\nmillion to do so on the expressed theory that they were simply moving\nthe process forward. It was my contention then that there was no case\nat the outset, and it was the irrefutable conclusion that there was no\ncase at the end.\n Later on, because the President defied them in 1995, they shut down\nthe government. They threatened to do so again this year, if the\nPresident defied them. Today they seek to substitute, in my opinion,\ntheir judgment for the will of the American people and remove their\nnemesis from the position to which the American people, over their\nobjection, elected him. If I believed that the conduct of this\nPresident had threatened our Nation's security or undermined the\noperation of our government, or put at risk the principles of our\ndemocracy, I would vote to impeach.\n But I am absolutely convinced of the opposite. I have said that the\nPresident's conduct has defamed himself and his Presidency. But it has\nnot amounted to treason. It is not a case of bribery. And, as so many\nscholars of all political and philosophical stripes have testified, it\ndoes not amount to high crimes and misdemeanors endangering our freedom\nor our democracy.\n The President may well be accountable on another day.\n But, today, I clearly see it as my duty, consistent with the oath\nthat each of us took to preserve and protect the Constitution, and to\nthe stability of our democracy for generations to come to reject and\noppose these articles of impeachment. And, I shall, therefore, vote\n``no'' on each of them.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Rogan).\n (Mr. ROGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n First, I observe a bit of irony in the fact that our friends on the\nother side now are so quick to hurl charges of ``shutting down the\ngovernment'' today, yet they ask us to shut down both the government\nand our constitutional process that obligates us to proceed.\n The gentleman from South Carolina a few minutes ago was absolutely\nright. It is both false and unfair to characterize these articles of\nimpeachment as relating solely to consensual sex. That is not the case.\nLawyers did not just show up one day and begin to question the\nPresident's personal lifestyle. The President was a defendant in a\ncivil rights sexual harassment lawsuit, and just like every other\ndefendant in those types of cases around the country, he was ordered by\na Federal judge supervising that case to answer under oath questions\nrelating to his pattern of conduct as both governor and President with\nrespect to female subordinate employees. That is the context in which\nthe questions were asked, and that is the context in which perjurious\nanswers were given.\n Now, in a desperate last-ditch attempt to insulate this President\nfrom any constitutional accountability for his conduct, his defenders\nare forced to trivialize felony perjury. How trivial is perjury to the\nperson who loses a child custody case or goes to prison because\nperjured testimony was offered as a truth in a court of law? What is\nthe impact on our system of justice when perjury is marginalized or\nexcused for embarrassment, inconvenience, or to insulate one's self as\nwas done here in a sexual harassment case?\n Listen to the words of the United States Supreme Court on the subject\nof perjury: ``In this constitutional process of securing a witness'\ntestimony, perjury simply has no place whatsoever. Perjured testimony\nis an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial\nproceedings. Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal\nact, punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal\nconduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it.''\n Mr. Speaker, our Supreme Court characterizes perjured testimony not\nas trivial conduct, but as criminal conduct.\n This Congress must decide whether we will turn a blind eye to\nallegations respecting the subversion of the courts, the search for\ntruth, and the perjurious abuse of a young woman in a sexual harassment\nlawsuit.\n If we allow perjury to be viewed as a sign of legal finesse, we will\nbe responsible for setting the standard that any future President may\nlie under oath for any personal convenience and may do it without\nregard to constitutional consequences. Under this perversion of the\nlaw, any President may commit perjury for reasons of self-interest and\nthereby trample his constitutional obligation to ensure that our laws\nare faithfully executed. The Congress must not insulate from\nconstitutional accountability those who repeatedly violate their sacred\noath.\n The evidence against the President on this score is overwhelming, and\nso too is Congress's constitutional obligation. We must keep faith with\nour founders' dream that a Nation could rise and be sustained where no\nperson is above the law.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the\ngentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 9 minutes remaining,\nand the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has 17\\1/2\\ minutes\nremaining.\n The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized.\n Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a distinguished member of the Committee on\nthe Judiciary.\n Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the House's role\nin this dreadful process, the words I want to leave with my colleagues\nare those of history. Here is how one prominent historian describes the\nimpeachment of Andrew Johnson: ``The impeachment was a great act of\nill-directed passion, and was supported by little else. It was rather\nlike an immense balloon filled with foul air, the most noisome elements\nof which were those most active.''\n I am sick at heart today, for I fear that the words used to describe\nthe Johnson impeachment will come to characterize what this House is\nabout to do. Impeachment based not on reason, but on rancor.\n Yet it is not history's verdict alone that I fear. I also fear how\nour actions will shape history. Will the House now have license to\nengage in free-wheeling speculation about how a President's private\nwrongs bear upon his or her capacity to govern, and then to pursue the\nremoval of those whom it deems unfit? If so, I fear for the very\nconcept that Presidents are to be chosen directly by the people, not by\nthe legislature.\n Will the vote over whether or not to impeach the President of the\nUnited States now display the same degree of partisan division that our\nvotes on school vouchers and environmental riders have?\n\n {time} 1200\n\n If so, I fear that generations to come will view impeachment to be of\nno greater gravity than those lesser issues.\n Will censure now be derided as unconstitutional? If so, I fear that\nthat precedent will gag the House when it desires to express its formal\nopinion on another subject on another day.\n Will an Independent Counsel's fact-finding be the sole record upon\nwhich the House votes to impeach a president? If so, I fear for future\npresidents of either party whose tenure in office might be threatened\nby the sort of overreaching that we have all accused independent\ncounsels at one time or another.\n Will we now compel the ship of State in one direction while the\nrudder of popular opinion clearly points in the opposite direction? If\nso, I fear for the notion that consensus among the public counts for\nsomething when this House takes up the gravest of matters of State.\n I fear for our Republic on this dreadful day. I fear for America\ntoday.\n Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 10 seconds to the\ngentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), the respected retiring\nmember of the Committee on Appropriations.\n Mr. HEFNER. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the\n24 years that I have spent in this House has been the greatest\nexperience of my life. The last vote that I will be called upon to cast\nin this House is the most troubling vote that I have made in the 24\nyears that I have been in this House.\n It bothers me about the venom and the hatred, and the comraderie that\nis nonexistent in this House anymore.\n\n[[Page H11791]]\n\n Hate is a terrible thing. Hate is a cancer that eats at us. It shows\nin our face, it shows in our walk, and it is something you cannot treat\nwith chemotherapy, you cannot treat it with any drugs. You have to\ntreat it with compassion and love.\n President Clinton is my friend, but the notion is that President\nClinton has to go, because the word is, we have to get this done. There\nis no doubt about it, the President has to go. On the Committee on the\nJudiciary, I watched hours after hours of the Committee on the\nJudiciary. The members said the President has shown no contrition. He\nshows no contrition.\n I do not know if Members saw the moment when the President of the\nUnited States stepped out from the meeting with the ministers at the\nWhite House. It was not a call thing, it was an annual thing that they\nhave.\n He stood before the entire world, before the microphones and the\ntelevision cameras that were carried all over the world, and he stood\nby himself and said, I have sinned. The most powerful man on the face\nof the earth stood bare before the world and said, I have sinned, and I\nask forgiveness from anyone that I have caused pain to. I ask\nforgiveness from Ms. Lewinsky.\n I talked with him on two occasions after he made that statement. The\nman is contrite. I do not judge that he has had a talk with his maker,\nbut I have tried to talk with the news media to express another\nopinion, and nobody wants to hear that.\n If we turn on the newscasts, they start off either with the President\nsaying, I never had sex with that woman, I never had sex with that\nwoman, or hugging Ms. Lewinsky. I have yet to see one newscast where\nanywhere in it, or starting with it, that shows the President of the\nUnited States showing contrition; where he says, I have sinned, and I\nask God's forgiveness. I have sinned, and I ask forgiveness for anybody\nthat I have caused pain to. For those of us who believe in contrition\nand forgiveness, it is very important to us.\n I think that this is wrong. There is no reason, there is no reason\nthat has been explained to me, or to this House, why we cannot have a\nvote on censure; no reason. Vote to give us a vote to censure the\nPresident, not condemn him and do away with him.\n Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the most senior Member of the\nHouse.\n (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, what the President did was wrong, and what\nwe are doing today is equally wrong. The process before us is unfair.\nThe rights of the minority to offer necessary amendments or proper\nmotions to recommit are being disregarded by the majority. It is an\nexercise of abuse of power by the majority on the rights of the\nminority.\n We are taking here and creating a rule of law which does not exist.\nThe rule of law says that we should exercise our proper conscience and\ndo what is right. It says we should impeach the President if he has\ndone that which is wrong, and which rises to the level of an\nimpeachable offense.\n Clearly, this is not an impeachable offense, because impeachable\noffenses were defined to mean great and dangerous offenses by George\nMason, not ordinary offenses. They were attempts to, and again in the\nwords of one of the Framers, subvert the Constitution. They constituted\nacts which were a danger to the office, a danger to the society, a\ndanger to the Nation, a danger to the people.\n Clearly that is not so. The President's behavior, as I said, is\nwrong; tawdry. The best thing that could be said, it is not a great\nevent but it is a very small and small-minded set of events. This\nbehavior should not initiate the impeachment processes.\n There are a lot of points that need to be made today. They have\nhistorical and constitutional importance. Impeachment is for matters\nthat involve a threat to the Nation, the Constitution, and the office.\n Impeachment is a constitutional act of the House, referring to the\nSenate a finding of most serious misbehavior, as discussed above, which\ninitiates a trial in the Senate, possibly resulting in removal from\noffice of the person impeached.\n Impeachment is primarily a political process. It is not a judicial or\na legislative act. Impeachment participates in the character of an\nindictment by the grand jury, but impeachment is different and imposes\ndifferent responsibilities on Members of the House.\n Impeachment does not involve criminal consequences. It simply\ninitiates a process to decide whether the officeholder shall continue\nin office or be removed. Impeachment is not a bar to subsequent\ncriminal process, including indictment, trial, conviction, and\npunishment. While the President, under the Constitution, cannot be\ntried or indicted while in office, he may be subject and is subject to\nfull process of the law upon leaving his office.\n Mr. Starr, if he finds the events require indictment or action in a\ncriminal court, may clearly take that action. I urge my colleagues to\npermit us to vote on something which is important, and that is censure.\nThat is what the people want. That is what we should be doing today.\n Mr. Speaker, the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment in\nthe House, as . . . ``The President . . . shall be removed from Office\non Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high\nCrimes and Misdemeanors.''\n The Framers of the Constitution, in the words of George Mason, one of\nthe leaders of the Constitutional Convention, found impeachable\noffenses to mean ``great and dangerous offenses'' and ``attempts to\nsubvert the Constitution.'' In other words, they meant no ordinary\noffenses, but they referred to acts attacking the security of the\nNation, the primacy of the Constitution, or the basic functions and\nwell being of the office involved. They felt the behavior should be so\ninconsistent with the responsibilities of the office that the people\nrequired removal of the office holder for their well being, the proper\nconduct of the office, and the welfare of the Nation.\n While the behavior which could trigger the impeachment process can be\ncriminal, and although the actions may be criminal in character, it\nneed not necessarily be so.\n There are a number of points to be made which have constitutional and\nhistorical importance:\n (1) Impeachment is for matters involving behavior which constitutes a\nthreat to the office, the Constitution, and the Nation.\n (2) Impeachment is a Constitutional act of the House referring to the\nSenate a finding of most serious misbehavior, as discussed above, which\ninitiates a trial in the Senate possibly resulting in removal from\noffice of the person impeached.\n (3) Impeachment is primarily a political process, not a judicial or\nlegislative act.\n (4) Impeachment participates in the character of an indictment by a\ngrand jury. But impeachment is different and imposes different\nresponsibility on members of the House.\n (5) Impeachment does not involve criminal consequences. It simply\ninitiates a process to decide whether an office holder shall continue\nin office or be removed.\n (6) Impeachment is not a bar to subsequent criminal process,\nincluding indictment, trial, conviction, and punishment. While the\nPresident may not, under the Constitution, be indicted or subject to\ncriminal process while holding office, he may be subject to the full\nprocess of criminal law for misbehavior immediately upon his leaving\noffice.\n Parenthetically, Mr. Starr said in the Judiciary Committee\nimpeachment hearings that there is no bar to such action in the case of\nthe President, including the running of the sundry applicable statutes\nof limitations.\n (7) The Founding Fathers, and Framers of the Constitution, tried to\nmake impeachment difficult. They especially feared constraints on the\ninstitutional power of the President or impairment of the office, or\nloss of balance between the branches of government. They especially\nfeared efforts by one party controlling the legislative branch to\nremove the President of a different persuasion.\n The Framers of the Constitution were much concerned that the\nlegislative branch not be empowered to easily upset an election where\nthe people spoke and selected their President.\n Under these principles then, it becomes plain the question before us\nis whether the behavior of the President, although clearly wrong, rises\nto the level of an impeachable offense or offenses.\n I find that the offenses do not rise to the level of impeachable\noffenses.\n The actions of the President are wrong, arrogantly stupid, and\npossibly involve criminal misbehavior.\n The last question, criminal misbehavior, can and should be addressed\nin the appropriate time and fashion.\n My friend, Mr. Hyde, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has made it\nplain in statements on this matter that an impeachment effort not\nsupported by the people will not succeed. I agree.\n\n[[Page H11792]]\n\n We should not lightly set aside an election where the people freely\nchose their President. We owe it to the Founders, and to the future, to\nnot impair the separation of powers, or the necessary and proper power,\nas well as the freedom, of the Presidency. We owe it to the people of\nthe United States not to cavalierly set aside their choice of\nPresidents.\n Lastly, I remind all that the President was elected, not once but\ntwice, and by significant majorities.\n\n Listen to the people. This is a political process. It was expected by\nthe Framers of the Constitution that this same political process would\nfunction as such. Politics and political process requires involvement\nof the people and that we who hold this responsibility listen carefully\nand respectfully to their wishes.\n Listen to the people of America. They do not believe impeachment is a\nproper remedy for President Clinton's misbehavior. The people do not\napprove of Mr. Clinton's behavior, but they do not believe that the\nPresident's action rises to the level of impeachable offenses. They\nfind no basis for us to take such action.\n My Republican colleagues disregard the Constitution. They fabricate a\nrule of law which neither exists here, nor imposes on this House the\naction they would require. Rather, the rule of law requires us to\nexercise one of our highest and most important Constitutional\nresponsibilities, deciding on whether to impeach the President with the\nutmost attention to the Constitution as defined for us by the Founding\nFathers.\n We are not acting here as a mere grand jury. We are exercising a\nConstitutional trust and duty of the highest order. We are deciding\nwhether there is enough grave wrongdoing to meet the test of ``high\ncrimes and misdemeanors.'' This requires intelligence, attention, and\ndiscretion.\n We are now deciding whether to precipitate a Constitutional crisis.\nWe are deciding whether to create a great public controversy where the\npeople will be divided by a process they do not want to go forward. We\nmust now decide whether to put at risk the powers of the Presidency,\nnot the well being a Bill Clinton.\n All this is set against the wishes of the people who have spoken to\nus with clarity.\n To my colleagues, I say, listen to the people. Look at your\nresponsibilities, exercise your wide and necessary discretion, carry\nout your duty in voting no.\n For the reasons above, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no\non the impeachment of President Clinton.\n It is the right thing to do.\n To my Republican colleagues and their leadership, I add, give us a\nprocess that is fair, that enables us to act with dispatch on matters\nthe people want us to address.\n The people want some action condemning the behavior of Bill Clinton.\nIn a word they want censure of Bill Clinton for his serious\nmisbehavior.\n A careful but improper rewriting of both the Constitution and of the\nrules of the House by my Republican colleagues denies the people their\nright to have the Congress respond to their will.\n Censure is a worthwhile and proper response by the House here to the\nsituation and the will of the people. It is also possible under both\nthe rules of the House and the Constitution. There are abundant\nprecedents that Presidents have been censured before without any\nquestion of Constitutionality or anything else. President probably will\nbe censured again.\n Censure is a fair, proper, and a legal exercise of the power of the\nHouse. It does what the people want. It vindicates both the law and the\nfeelings of the people. That cannot be said of the impeachment of Bill\nClinton proposed by the republicans under a gag rule.\n To the Republicans and their leadership, I say your behavior is\nunfair. It does you great discredit. It does not permit the House to\nchoose among the most appropriate actions to be used here.\n My colleagues, do what is right--allow a vote on impeachment, but\nallow, also, a vote on censure. Given a proper choice, the House can\nact properly and carry out both our Constitutional responsibilities and\nour duty to the people.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.\n Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further\nconsideration of House Resolution 611, the previous question shall be\nconsidered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without\nintervening motion except: (1) debate on the resolution for a period\nnot to extend beyond 10 p.m. tonight, equally divided at the outset and\ncontrolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee\non the Judiciary, and one further hour of debate on Saturday, December\n19, 1998, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking\nminority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) after such first\nperiod of debate, a motion to adjourn; and (3) one motion to recommit,\nwith or without instructions, which, if including instructions, shall\nbe debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the\nproponent and an opponent.\n During consideration of a resolution appointing and authorizing\nmanagers for the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton,\nPresident of the United States, the previous question shall be\nconsidered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without\nintervening motion or demand for a division of the question, except 10\nminutes of debate on the resolution, equally divided and controlled by\nthe chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n When the House adjourns on Friday, December 18, 1998, it adjourns to\nmeet at 9 a.m. on Saturday, December 19.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the\nrequest of the gentleman from Illinois?\n Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I shall not\nobject. I want to indicate the cooperation and concurrence of this side\nwith the proposal, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.\nHyde), the chairman, for the cooperation in both our staffs working\nthis out.\n Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.\n Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and I\nthank the Chair.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Illinois?\n There was no objection.\n\n Parliamentary Inquiry\n\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, was all that taken out of my time?\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. It was not taken out of the gentleman's\ntime, and the gentleman may proceed for 4 minutes.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the notion\nof censure.\n Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.\n Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan\n(Mr. Conyers), by mutual agreement, I would demand a division of the\nquestion by article.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is divisible and will be\ndivided for the vote by Article.\n Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will yield, I would tell him, yes.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.\nSensenbrenner) may proceed on his 4 minutes.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about censure. I\nthink it is important to follow the constitutional and historical\nprecedents of the House of Representatives in that censure is not an\nalternative.\n We need look back in 1974, which was the last time the entire issue\nof impeaching the President of the United States came up. I would like\nto quote from the book, How the Good Guys Finally Won, Notes from an\nImpeachment Summer, by Jimmy Breslin, published by Ballantine Books in\n1975.\n This book quoted our former distinguished Speaker, Thomas O'Neill\nfrom Massachusetts, as follows:\n\n O'Neill went down the hall, picking his way through the\n tourists, to attend the meeting at which John Rhodes, the\n Republican leader of the House, gave it one last try for\n Nixon.\n Rhodes said he wanted the impeachment resolution\n recommitted with instructions that there should be a vote on\n censuring the President. ``I am bitterly opposed to that,''\n O'Neill said. ``But you wouldn't be opposed to us having a\n vote on censure, would you?'' Rhodes asked. ``Yes, I would,''\n O'Neill said.\n\n I think that my friends on the other side of the aisle should listen\nto their former Speaker one last time, because on this one, he is\nright.\n Mr. Speaker, today we enter the final stage of the impeachment\nprocess. For those of us who serve on the Committee on the Judiciary,\nthis has been a difficult and exhausting time. We have\n\n[[Page H11793]]\n\nreviewed 18 boxes of evidence. We have heard the Independent Counsel\npresent his case. Constitutional and legal scholars have provided\nopinions and historical perspectives. The President's lawyers have made\ntheir case in his defense, and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman\nHyde) offered them 30 hours in which to do so. They did not use it all.\n After examining and weighing all of this evidence and testimony, I\nbelieve that the President lied under oath, obstructed justice, and\nabused the power of his office by providing false statements to\nCongress in response to questions submitted by the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n\n {time} 1215\n\n On Wednesday of last week, I asked the President's very able\nattorney, Charles Ruff, a very simple question, did the President lie.\nMr. Ruff could easily have said no. Instead, he split legal hairs, and\nthat sealed my decision to support impeaching President Clinton.\n Mr. Speaker, most Americans are repelled by the President's actions.\nThe toughest questions I have had to answer have come from parents who\nagonize over how to explain the President's behavior to their children.\nEvery parent tries to teach their children the difference between right\nand wrong, to always tell the truth and, when they make mistakes, to\ntake responsibility and face the consequences of their actions.\nPresident Clinton's actions every step of the way have been contrary to\nthose values. But being a bad example is not grounds for impeachment.\nUndermining the rule of law is. Frustrating the courts' ability to\nadminister justice turns private misconduct into an attack upon the\nability of one of the three branches of our government to impartially\nadminister justice. This is a direct attack upon the rule of law in our\ncountry and a very public wrong that directly impacts the\nconstitutional workings of our government.\n Mr. Speaker, impeachment is not a tool to paralyze democracy.\nInstead, it is the only constitutional mechanism available to protect\ndemocracy when its institutions are threatened by a President's\nactions.\n Today, based upon the evidence that the President lied, obstructed\njustice and abused power in an effort to prevent the courts from\nadministering justice under law, I rise in favor of impeaching William\nJefferson Clinton. I take no joy in this decision but I make no\napologies either.\n America will emerge from this dark period of our history a stronger\nNation because we have demonstrated once again the resiliency of our\ndemocracy and the supremacy of our Constitution.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentlewoman\nfrom Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).\n (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend her remarks.)\n Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank our\nAmerican troops who are now fighting for our liberty. The Declaration\nof Independence is the promise of that liberty and the Constitution is\nthe fulfillment.\n So today it is was with great humility and somberness that I rise on\nthe floor of this House in strong opposition against the articles of\nimpeachment and express my support for censure. Impeachment, Mr.\nSpeaker, is final, it is nonappealable. And the Constitution is the\nonly arbiter of that process.\n Article II, section 4 is clear. Impeachment is for treason, bribery\nand other high crimes and misdemeanors. This President did not commit\nimpeachable offenses under our Constitution, and today with such a vote\nthese chambers will become the incinerator of the Constitution. There\nis no fairness in this process. There is no justice and there is no\ndignity.\n The charges in these articles of impeachment are meritless and not\nproven. Perjurious remarks have not been proven. Misleading, evasive\nstatements are not perjurious, per the rule of law of the United States\nSupreme Court under Bronston. Abuse of power has not been proven.\nMonica Lewinsky said the President did not ask her to lie. And\nobstruction of justice has not been proven because the President did\nanswer the 81 questions sent to him by the Judiciary Committee.\n In light of the revelations of the last 24 hours, I believe not one\nof us in these chambers, not one Member would ask for the resignation\nof a Member so charged. But as a woman, adultery is adultery.\nNevertheless, the majority is recklessly attempting to make impeachable\noffenses purely private acts, in direct attack on the Framers' intent\nthat impeachment was for great and dangerous offenses against the\nConstitution.\n How do we heal this Nation? How do we find uncommon courage? The\nmajority must allow us to vote on a freestanding censure resolution,\nconstitutionally allowed, that acknowledges that the President was\nmorally wrong, misled the American people and that the President, upon\nleaving office, will be subject to civil and criminal penalties. To do\nmore lays the shredding of this Constitution at our feet.\n Today with the vote for the articles of impeachment, we will use the\nultimate weapon, we will use the ultimate political death blow, the\nremoval from office of this duly-elected President for acts not against\nthe Constitution or the government. Our censure resolution does not\nviolate the Constitution. It is not a bill of attainder. It does not\nrestrain the property or the liberty of the President. It is\nconstitutionally sound.\n Finally this day sunset falls on this House. And as we see it fall,\ntoday our vote leads us into the darkness of a vile attack on the\nConstitution. We leave here today void and empty because our President\nwill have been toppled against the will of the people of the United\nStates.\n Mr. President, if you can hear me, do not resign. This is not a\nparliamentarian form of government.\n Mr. Speaker, I say, to my colleagues you can heal our Nation. Rise\nand vote for censure. Do the just and right thing, for it is written,\nMr. Speaker, judge not and ye shall not be judged. Condemn not and ye\nshall not be condemned. Forgive and ye shall be forgiven.\n Vote for a censure resolution and end these unseemly proceedings\nagainst our President and the Constitution. Our Nation deserves no\nless!\n It is written in Luke 6:37, ``Judge not, and ye shall not be judged:\ncondemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be\nforgiven.''\n Mr. Speaker, with great humility and somberness, I rise today in\nstrong opposition against the Articles of Impeachment and express my\nsupport for a censure resolution.\n However, before we even begin this debate on the merits let me say\nthat we are engaging in this discussion while our American troops are\nin harm's way in the Persian Gulf. This is the worst time to have this\ndiscussion. We are talking about impeaching our President, our\nCommander in Chief of the Armed Forces while he has authorized troops\nto engage Saddam Hussein.\n My colleagues are not correct in stating that American Troops were in\nVietnam during a debate in these chambers on the Impeachment of a\nPresident that did not occur in 1974. No such debate took place.\nAmerican men and women are fighting to uphold the Constitution and they\nexpect nothing less from this body. It is imperative that we uphold and\nfollow the Constitutional process for impeachment. Anything less would\nbe dishonorable.\n The Constitution, Article II, section 4, requires removal of the\nPresident from office on ``Impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,\nbribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The Framers of our\nConstitution considered ``high crimes and misdemeanors as political\ncrimes against the state. The critical element of injury in an\nimpeachable offense was injury to the state. This element of injury to\nthe commonwealth was the historical criterion for distinguishing a\n``high'' crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one. Impeachment is\ndirected for ``great misdemeanors against the public.''\n The purpose of Impeachment is to curb breaches and abuses of the\npublic trust. The Framers realized that impeachment is final and non-\nappealable.\n At the time of the Constitution's construction, the Framers were\nconcerned with assuring individual freedom and avoiding governmental\ntyranny. Their intent was to create a viable government with sufficient\npower to fulfill its given responsibilities. As a result, the\nseparation of powers doctrine was instituted to prevent unfettered\nauthority in a single branch of government. Accordingly, each branch is\nvested with the power to check and balance the others.\n Our debate is about the future of the Presidency, the Constitutional\nprocess required for the removal of a president and the importance of\nbi-partisan cooperation. I think every American, Republican or\nDemocrat, or Independent,\n\n[[Page H11794]]\n\nshould be concerned about the Articles of Impeachment and whether the\nallegations contained therein, rise to a level that would justify\nimpeachment.\n There is no concrete evidence to substantiate the allegation that\nPresident Clinton encouraged a witness to execute a false affidavit. No\none should be hailed before a tribunal to answer allegations that are\nnot supported by substantial and credible evidence or threatened with a\npotential prosecution for perjury because of the questioner's\ndeficiency.\n During the Watergate hearings, Mr. St. Clair, the President's\nattorney, stated in closing summation that ``a President cannot be\nimpeached by piling inference upon inference.''\n The Articles of Impeachment drafted against President Clinton do not\ncomport with fundamental fairness nor substantial notions of procedural\ndue process because the alleged perjurious statements lack specificity;\nan independent collaborating witness and materiality. The President is\nneither above nor beneath the law. The Constitutional safeguards\ncontained in the Sixth Amendment govern these proceedings.\n Monica Lewinsky's Grand Jury testimony clearly refutes an allegation\nthat President Clinton encouraged her to give perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony: ``[N]either the President nor Mr. Jordan asked or\nencouraged me to lie.'' This statement by Ms. Lewinsky was made in her\nFebruary 1, 1998, proffer to Office of the Independent Counsel. Let's\ntake a moment to examine the correlation between the President's\nrelationship with Lewinsky and the allegations put forth by Paula\nJones. President Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was consensual\nbut morally wrong.\n On the other hand, Ms. Jones was alleging sexual harassment.\nLewinsky's relationship with President Clinton was a tangential\ncollateral issue that was not relevant. Therefore, the probability of\nits admittance during the Jones trial was unlikely because it would not\nhave ``any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of\nconsequence to determination of the Jones action more probable.''\n It is axiomatic, that perjury requires a (1) volitional act on the\npart of the declarant (2) about a material matter in the case. Perjury\nis a specific intent crime. It requires that the declarant willfully\nand contrary to such oath subscribe to a material matter which the\ndeclarant does not believe to be true. More importantly, because\nperjury requires a specific intent on the part of the declarant, the\nlaw provides several defenses to perjury.\n Truth is a defense to perjury. A defendant can not be prosecuted for\nperjury, if he truly believes that he ``spoke the truth'' when asked a\nquestion under oath. The defendant would not be guilty of perjury\nbecause although his testimony is freely and voluntarily given; he does\nnot manifest the requisite mental state necessary for perjury, a\nspecific intent crime. Restated, perjury requires that the defendant\n(1) set-out to deceive and (2) know that statement's he utters are\nuntrue.\n Another defense to perjury is materiality. The declarant's statement\nmust be material to the matter before the tribunal. The third defense\nto perjury arises where the questioner's interrogatories are drafted in\na manner that invites ambiguity. In the landmark case of Bronston v.\nUnited States, the United States Supreme Court stated:\n\n It is the responsibility of the lawyer to probe * * * if a\n witness evades, it is the lawyer's responsibility to\n recognize the evasion and to bring the witness back to the\n mark, to flush out the whole truth with the tools of\n adversary examination * * * A potential prosecution for\n perjury is not the primary safeguard against errant\n testimony.\n\n Under our adversarial system of jurisprudence, a defendant is not\nrequired to assist a plaintiff in bringing her suit to trial nor is a\ndefendant required under the rules of civil procedure to volunteer\nspecific information that the plaintiff has not requested. This is our\nsystem of jurisprudence that we have utilized for over two hundred\nyears. This really is adhering to the rule of law and the right to due\nprocess.\n The President's actions were wrong and reprehensible but not\nimpeachable because his conduct did not injure the state as required by\nthe framers. Impeachment is a remedy of last resort, it is the atomic\nbomb of partisan politics.\n In the Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described\nimpeachment as a mechanism to reach: ``[T]he misconduct of public men\nand abuse or violation of some public trust. Impeachable offenses are\npolitical, as they relate to injuries done immediately to society\nitself.\n The Framers never intended impeachment or the threat of impeachment\nto serve as a device for denouncing the President for private\nmisbehavior or for transforming the United States into a parliamentary\nform of government in which Congress can vote ``no confidence'' in an\nexecutive whose behavior it dislikes. The President is elected by\nthe people of the United States and it is not the prerogative nor duty\nof the House of Representatives to undo that election because of\npartisan politics.\n\n The records of the Constitutional Convention confirm that the Framers\ndid not intend the President to serve at the ``pleasure of the\nSenate.'' In fact, it was suggested by Mr. Pinkney of South Carolina, a\nFramer of the Constitution, that ``if the President opposes a favorite\nlaw, the two Houses will combine against him, and under the influence\nof heat and faction throw him out of office.''\n Hence, if we follow Mr. Pinkney's theory to its logical conclusion, a\npresident could be removed for any transgression, however remote in\ntime, which the Senate may decide in its discretion warrants removal\nfrom office. This unbridled authority could establish an atmosphere\nthat manufactures impeachable offenses where they do not exist. We\nshould consider Mr. Pinkney's words as we tread these dangerous waters.\nTherefore, it is essential that we utilize every constitutional\nsafeguard to prevent the truth from being ``twisted by knaves to make a\ntrap for fools.'' On February 8, 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter\nto James Madison about the impeachment of Senator Blount, stating, ``I\nsee nothing in the mode of proceeding by impeachment but the most\nformidable weapon for the purposes of [a] dominant faction that ever\nwas contrived. It would be the most effectual one of getting rid of any\nman whom they consider as dangerous to their views * * * impeachment\nhas been an engine more of passion than of justice.''\n The Constitution imposes a grave and serious responsibility on\nCongress to protect its fabric and integrity. It would have been a\ndereliction of duty if I failed to investigate the allegations\ncontained in the Starr Report before I begin dealing with what has been\ncalled ``delicate issues of basic constitutional law.''\n Imagine a justice system where a prosecutor can present charges to a\ngrand jury, obtains an indictment and then proceeds to trial. During\nthe trial, the prosecutor calls himself as a witness, to testify about\nthe defendant's prior bad acts and his rationale for charging the\ndefendant. While testifying, he admits that individually and\ncollectively, the charges are insufficient to meet the standard of\ncrime, but he believes the defendant has engaged in a pattern of abuse\nto obstruct justice.\n Certainly, if this incident occurred in our home town, we would be\noutraged at the waste of financial resources. We would call for this\nprosecutor to end this charade, immediately because his conduct and\nabusive tactics would emasculate the system he is attempting to\nprotect.\n Independent Counsel Starr violated District of Columbia Rules of\nProfessional Conduct Rule 3.7, entitled ``Lawyer as witness'' which\nprovides a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the\nlawyer is likely to be a necessary witness and Virginia Code of\nProfessional Responsibility DR5-102, entitled ``Withdrawal as counsel\nwhen the lawyer becomes a witness'' when he testified in front of the\nHouse Judiciary Committee.\n Nowhere in the history of this Country's system of jurisprudence has\na prosecutor had the ability to take the witness stand to ``vouch for\nthe credibility'' of evidence presented during trial, to do so would be\na miscarriage of justice. Likewise, allowing Independent Counsel Starr\nto testify for two hours ``about a pattern to obstruct justice''\neviscerates the purpose of the Independent Counsel Act.\n Further, Sam Dash, Mr. Starr's ethics advisor resigned in opposition\nto Mr. Starr's inappropriate appearance before the House Judiciary\nCommittee.\n Section 595(c) authorizes the Office of the Independent Counsel to\nsubmit a referral to Congress to guarantee that its findings would not\nbe thwarted by internal sources within that individual's branch of\ngovernment. This concept is consistent with the separation of powers\ndoctrine was instituted to prevent unfettered authority in a single\nbranch of government. Accordingly, each branch is vested with the power\nto check and balance the others.\n This Act was designed to provide a mechanism to prevent inherent\nconflicts of interest which could arise where the Executive branch of\ngovernment must supervise or conduct an investigation of an individual\nassociated with its office.\n On October 8, 1998, the House passed H. Res. 581, which expressly\nauthorized the committee to report: ``such resolutions, articles of\nimpeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.'' Over the\npast two months, the Judiciary Committee has heard testimony from\nseveral witnesses about ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' and\nalternatives to impeachment. Censure is a viable alternative to\nimpeachment that will quickly and judiciously resolve this national\nissue.\n Censure is neither a substitute for a federal pardon nor is it a\ncover-up. Therefore, the President is still subject to civil and\ncriminal punishment for any alleged crimes he may have committed by the\ncourt system after he leaves office. The United States Constitution\ndoes not prohibit Censure.\n Several critics continue to suggest that censure is unconstitutional\nbecause there is no constitutional provision that expressly authorizes\ncensure. This rationale is flawed and\n\n[[Page H11795]]\n\nwithout merit. If we follow this line of reasoning to its logical\nconclusion: postal stamps, social security, and public education are\nunconstitutional because there is no explicit reference to these\nprograms in the Constitution.\n Furthermore, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from acting\nbecause of its silence. Many powers and individual rights not expressly\nstated in the Constitution have been recognized by this body politic.\nFor example, the right to privacy, the right to bodily integrity and\nthe Executive power of removal. Our Constitution is a ``living and\nbreathing'' document that requires continuous interpretation by the\nSupreme Court to address the problems facing our Nation.\n Further, there is an historical precedent for a censure resolution. A\ncensure resolution was considered against President Nixon during the\nWatergate investigation because of the allegations involving his abuse\nof Presidential authority and misuse of the Justice Department. Richard\nNixon resigned from office. In 1834, the United States Senate censured\nPresident Andrew Jackson because of actions interpreted as contravening\nthe rule of law. More importantly, censure would not violate the\nConstitution's substantive restraints against the use of federal power.\n Censure is a sensible historically proven solution for addressing the\nPresident's disturbing behavior. It is time for America to move\nforward; it is time to put this unsettling controversy and divisiveness\naside; it is time for the business of the American people to take first\npriority. It would benefit the entire country if the President could\nreturn to focusing on the issues at hand, as opposed to this scandal.\nThe time to close this dishonorable chapter in our Country's history\nhas come.\n There are millions of Americans who want their voices heard on a\ncensure resolution. It is our obligation, as their duly elected\nrepresentatives, to ensure that their views be heard.\n Censure is a window of opportunity for this body politic to display a\nbi-partisan atmosphere during these alarming moments. We must exhibit a\nunited front for our Nation and our troops. It is time for national\nunity.\n In all things that are purely political we can be as separate as the\nfingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to the mutual\nprogress of America and democracy.\n It is imperative that we bring this chapter to a close in a\nreasonable judicious and equitable manner. It is time to move forward;\nit is time to focus our energy on securing our shores from foreign\nenemies.\n The Bible, Ecclesiastes Chapter 3, Verses 1 through 8 states, ``[T]o\nevery thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the\nheaven: a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; *\n* * a time to love, and a time of peace.'' At the end of day, we should\nmove forward, prepare for tomorrow and America's business.\n I will vote ``No'' on these Articles of Impeachment; for to vote\n``yes''-does subvert the Constitution! I still hold hope for the\nopportunity to vote for a Censure Resolution which will break this\npartisan divide and appropriately rebuke and reprimand the President,\nand finally by our collective good judgment--Heal this nation.\n\n Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all\nMembers to address their comments to the Chair.\n The Chair will recognize managers from the Committee on the Judiciary\non either side of the aisle, endeavoring to maintain equality between\nthe two sides in the consumption of time available and at the\nprescribed hour will determine where we are and then we will move on\nfrom there.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nVirginia (Mr. Bliley).\n (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the\ntime.\n This is a sad day, sad day for this country. We should not have to be\nhere. Had the President done what he should have done, we would not be\nhere, and admitted wrongdoing right from the start.\n We have heard said in this body, Mr. Speaker, that this is different\nfrom Watergate, but really, is it? In Watergate, the President lied to\nthe American people. This President lied to the American people. In\nWatergate, the President did not commit perjury. This President, in my\nopinion and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people of\nthis country, did commit perjury.\n Either we are a Nation of laws or we are a Nation of men. If we are a\nNation of laws, then the highest and the lowest are subject to the same\nlaw. There is no preferential treatment, and we and our Constitution\ngrant none.\n The President, in my opinion, obstructed justice. He attempted to\ncover up. To say this is just about sex is to say that Watergate was\njust about a third-rate burglary. Nothing is further from the truth.\nThis President sought to cover up a crime. And if we allow this to\nstand without the ultimate punishment which is afforded the\nConstitution, which charges us as the people's body to make, we have\nnot done our duty and history will so remember.\n I would like to quote and paraphrase in closing the words of our\ncolleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). He said\nearlier in the proceedings, 25 years ago, we had Watergate and the\nAmerican people today think that Congress reached the right decision. I\nhope that 25 years from this day, people will think that we made the\nright decision.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nColorado (Ms. DeGette).\n (Ms. DeGETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution\nstates that the President shall be removed from office on impeachment\nfor and conviction of treason or bribery or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors.\n We have heard a lot today and in the past weeks about the rule of\nlaw, but that is not the standard for impeachment. We are all sworn to\nuphold the rule of law, and there is still a remedy in this situation\nfor the President's action under the rule of law: Criminal prosecution.\n The President lied to us, but this vote is neither about absolution\nor punishment. The only question we face is whether the President's\nactions, regardless of how wrong or potentially criminal, rise to the\nstandard our constitutional forefathers set for us.\n We have been told by the majority of constitutional scholars that the\nPresident's actions do not fall within the meaning of high crimes or\nmisdemeanors but yet we persist. We have divided this House with\npartisan politics, sewing mistrust and exposing the darkness in our own\nhearts. It started with the first vote of the 105th Congress to censure\nthe Speaker, and it has continued to this day to the vote to impeach\nthe President.\n With all of the lost opportunities in between, it is no wonder we are\nlosing the public's trust. After today, when the impeachment frenzy\nsubsides, we will survey the damage to our own political system, we\nwill have unnecessarily crippled the presidency for a generation to\ncome. We will have wantonly weakened this House of Representatives\nreaching a new low in partisan rancor. We will have substantially\nsubverted the Constitution which was designed to reflect the will of\nthe people in a republic, not to promote a political party in what is\nslipping towards a parliamentary system.\n We will intentionally have ignored the business of the American\npeople both at home and abroad, and we will have changed the political\nclimate where decency, privacy and civility have been sacrificed on the\naltar of political greed, cynicism and shame.\n This vote is unworthy of our institution. We will pay for it in the\nyears to come. We will undermine the ability of the next generation of\nAmerican Presidents to lead us through the enormous challenges that\nface the 21st century, just as we did after the last impeachment of a\nPresident over 100 years ago.\n While this President must answer for his actions, history will judge\nus for our actions, too. As legislators, as representatives and as\ncitizens, we have an enormous responsibility, and I fear that we are on\nthe brink of disgracing the public's trust.\n I urge Members to vote against impeachment on principle, mindful of\nour oath of office, understanding our duty to our constituents, to the\nConstitution and to the future.\n\n {time} 1230\n\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Rogan).\n Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n Some of our friends on the other side have indicated that perjury is\nnot an\n\n[[Page H11796]]\n\nimpeachable offense under the Constitution. I remind them of the\ntestimony of the former Democratic attorney general of the United\nStates, Griffin Bell, who came before the House Judiciary Committee.\nGeneral Bell referred to the legal authorities relied upon by our\nfounders, such as Blackstone, in drafting the Constitution.\n General Bell testified that Blackstone identified a series of crimes\nthat were called ``crimes against justice,'' and those crimes included\nperjury. General Bell concluded, ``I am of the opinion, my conclusion,\nis that those crimes are high crimes within the meaning of the\nimpeachment clause.''\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Gallegly), a member of the committee.\n (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very trying time for all\nof us, for the President, and for the country. But there are few things\nmore important than standing up for the Constitution of the United\nStates and for the rule of law.\n There are three points I will make this morning in support of the\narticles of impeachment. First, I am a member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary. And based on months of review, it is clear to me that\nPresident Clinton repeatedly lied under oath, intentionally and\nwillfully, during a civil deposition and before the Federal grand jury.\nHe also attacked the integrity of Congress by lying under oath in\nresponse to the 81 questions submitted by the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n Our legal system, which protects the rights and liberties of all\ncitizens, is dependent on telling the truth, telling the truth under\noath. The President is our chief law enforcement officer and our chief\nmagistrate. When he lies under oath, he undermines the integrity of our\njudicial system and threatens the right and liberties of every one of\nus.\n Second, lying under oath after swearing before God and country to\ntell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is, and my\nfellow members I believe I know what ``is'' is, is an impeachable\noffense.\n Our legal system is dependent on people telling the truth, telling\nthe truth under oath. Lying under oath undermines the rule of law. By\nlying under oath, President Clinton has also violated his presidential\noath of office.\n Third, this is not about sex. It is about the rule of law. It is\nabout lying under oath before a Federal judge and a Federal grand jury.\nEvery citizen must obey the law, period. A society without laws is\nanarchy. Societies that ignore their laws are condemned to violence and\nchaos. We must state directly and strongly that the integrity of the\njudicial branch must not be violated. We must make it clear that all\nAmericans are equal under the law.\n After much painful soul searching, I have reached the conclusion that\nimpeaching the President for repeatedly and willfully lying under oath\nis necessary to protect the rule of law which is the foundation of our\nrepublic.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is on the verge of a tragic\nmistake that will reverberate for centuries and alter the course of\nAmerican history.\n Impeachment is not the ultimate censure. Impeachment is devastating.\nImpeachment is enduring. Impeachment is momentous. If we dumb-down\nimpeachment and make it easier for future Congresses to impeach\npresidents, we will forever weaken the institution of the presidency.\n The Founding Fathers knew this. They could have said a president\ncould be impeached for any crime, but they chose to designate crimes\nonly of the gravity of treason and bribery. To impeach for anything\nless than the highest of crimes is a distortion of the Constitution and\nhands a tremendous weapon to our present and future enemies who will\npoint to a weakened president and ultimately a weakened nation.\n That is why the Founding Fathers knew that low crimes should wait,\nthat the strength of our national leader, the sovereignty of our Nation\ntrump all but the gravest of charges, those which subvert our\ngovernment.\n If my colleagues have even the slightest doubt as to whether this\nPresident's actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors,\nthen they do a tremendous disservice to our Nation and to our standing\nin the world if they vote to impeach.\n So do not think for one moment that this is a free vote, that the\nSenate is the real player in the impeachment drama. We have the power\nto stop this travesty, to pull the curtain on this theater of the\nabsurd.\n This impeachment vote is bigger than Bill Clinton. It is bigger than\nall of us. I implore my colleagues, do not weaken the presidency in an\neffort to punish this President. This is about that delicate balance of\npower that is the bedrock of our democracy. It is about due process and\nfairness. It is about safeguarding our privacy and curtailing the\nintrusiveness of government. It is about nothing less than our\nhumanity.\n What have we become when we impeach a president over an extramarital\naffair and the lies to conceal it, when we lose all sense of\nproportion? What have we become when we enter a new era of sexual\nMcCarthyism, when the boundaries of people's private lives are no\nlonger respected? Have we no sense of decency? What have we become when\nour partisan warring does not stop at the water's edge but spills over\nand bestows upon Saddam Hussein the hope of a divided America? What\nhave we become? I fear, our own worst enemies.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Campbell).\n (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I have been here since the debate began,\nand no speaker has refuted the facts. The facts are that the President\ndid not tell the truth under oath on August 17 and on other occasions,\nbut specifically on August 17.\n Let me address why that matters so much and why that rises to the\nlevel of high crimes and misdemeanors. The August 17 incident does rise\nto that level because it undermines my ability to trust this President\nwhenever he says anything to me or to anyone else, if it is in his\ninterest not to tell the truth. And that is what takes this conduct\nabove the level of a common violation of law and to the level of a high\ncrime and misdemeanor, because it incapacitates him from effectively\nserving as our President.\n He raised his hand, he promised to God he would tell the truth. He\nhad his attorney by his side. He had seven months' advance notice. He\ncould have interrupted the August 17 proceedings at any moment. The\nreason that humanity might allow us to understand the President's not\ntelling the truth earlier in January, namely to hide the truth from his\nwife and daughter, no longer was the case in August. He had already\ntold them the truth. And having taken the oath to God and having seven\nmonths' advance notice, and having the right to stop the proceedings if\nit was difficult, and, unlike any other American citizen, having his\nattorney by his side if a question required the advice of counsel, this\nPresident chose not to tell the truth. I cannot trust him again.\n Today we are engaged in war in the Persian Gulf. I was assured by\nSecretary Cohen and by the Director of our Central Intelligence Agency\nthat the timing was justified. Those two are honorable men. And because\nof their testimony, I believe the timing was justified. But I do not\nbelieve it was justified on the basis of what President Clinton has\nsaid, because I can no longer believe him. If it is in his interest not\nto tell the truth, he will not tell the truth.\n Now, there are some who say that I should not draw that conclusion\nbecause this merely dealt with sex; and so, perhaps, I should only\ndoubt the President's ability to tell the truth in the future--even if\nhe is looking me in the eye, even if he has sworn to God to tell the\ntruth--because he will only fail to tell the truth if it deals about\nsex.\n I cannot tell you how deeply that wounds me, because of the\nimportance I have always attached throughout my public career to the\nfair and equal treatment of women. And to say that it only deals with\nsex is to denigrate, to\n\n[[Page H11797]]\n\nput at a lower level, the seriousness of the offense felt by virtually\nevery woman in our society at least once in her working career.\n Sexual harassment is not just about sex, and to say that sexual\nharassment and denying the truth to a plaintiff in a sexual harassment\ncase is somehow less important is to denigrate the harm that women in\nAmerica feel every day when they go into the workplace and they are\ntreated less because they are women. No, sexual harassment is not less\nthan any other offense.\n The President raised his hand, promised to God to tell the truth, and\ndid not. On behalf of my five sisters and my wife, I cannot say that\nsexual harassment makes this less. On behalf of my own oath to God, I\ncannot look the other way.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas\n(Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n I just wanted to respond briefly to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.\nWexler), who preceded my colleague, who argued that we were lowering\nthe bar from impeachment by submitting articles of impeachment on\nperjury.\n I do not believe we are lowering the bar. In fact, I have no problem\nin setting a standard for future presidents in official court\nproceedings that would jeopardize their office for repeated intentional\nacts of perjury. That is what we are doing, is maintaining a standard.\n On the other side of the coin, if we fail to act, then we are\nlowering the standard of conduct that we expect from the chief\nexecutive officer of our land not to commit perjury in official\nproceedings.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the\ngentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a distinguished member of the\nCommittee on the Judiciary.\n Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is about one thing, the\nsanctity of the Constitution of the United States.\n The Founding Fathers were clear. They created a strong presidency\nwhere the executive was elected for 4-year terms. They did not want a\nparliamentary system where the Congress could remove the people's\nchoice unless the President's conduct had threatened the very stability\nof the country.\n The founders specifically rejected proposals to allow impeaching the\nPresident for poor character or for morally bad behavior. They said it\nclearly. The President can only be impeached for treason, bribery, or\nother high crimes or misdemeanors against the state.\n This high bar for presidential impeachment has served our country\nwell for 210 years, so well in fact that only one president in our\nNation's history has ever been impeached by this House. Now, driven by\ntheir hatred and loathing of Bill Clinton and his policies, the\nRepublican Party is about to take our constitutional balance of powers\nand permanently and irreparably and forever damage it.\n The constitutional punishment of impeachment was not meant to\nsubstitute for the punishment of the civil and criminal courts.\nImpeachment was meant to address presidential behavior that threatened\nthe republic so gravely as to require the removal of the President in\nthe middle of his or her term.\n We can all agree that the President's acts, lying to the American\npeople and having an affair in the White House with an intern, were\nreprehensible. The President should be censured for his wrongful\naction. But violations of these kinds of civil or criminal laws should\nbe handled like any other Americans, in the civil and criminal courts.\n The first three words of the Constitution are, ``we the people.'' And\nin this case the views of the people are well-known, censure the\nPresident but do not impeach him. But we cannot. The Republican Party\nwill not let America's elected representatives either vote for or even\ndebate censuring the President. It is a blatant abuse of the Republican\nParty's majority power in the Congress.\n This Republican juggernaut, driven by the right wing of their party\nand aided and abetted by the so-called Republican moderates, will\nforever damage the constitutional balance of power in America.\n\n {time} 1245\n\n Every future President will be looking over his or her shoulder\nwondering if future Congresses do not like the President's veto of a\ncontroversial bill or do not like the President's policies or\nlifestyles, will that future Congress controlled by a different\npolitical party appoint a special prosecutor and spend $40 million in 4\nyears investigating that President's private life. If this Congress\nimpeaches the President on these grounds, today will go down as one of\nthe saddest days in American history for our country, for our Congress\nand for the institution of the American presidency.\n I beg the Republican majority, the one that the people put in power\nand that the people can remove from power, censure our President for\nhis wrongful conduct, let the civil and criminal courts punish any of\nthose offenses, but do not damage our Constitution by impeaching the\nPresident on these grounds.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.\n Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to one of the comments the\ngentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) just made about the level to\nwhich it has to be for before we impeach a president of the United\nStates. It certainly does not have to be presidential powers only. If\nthe President of the United States committed murder, if he committed a\nlot of other crimes, it seems to me that those would be perfectly\nimpeachable, and if we are talking about perjury which rises to the\nvirtual level of bribery, in fact under the Federal sentencing\nguidelines has a greater amount of sentencing in our court system, a\nhigher level of it than bribery, which is, as my colleagues know,\ntreason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, it seems\nabundantly clear that perjury is impeachable.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.\nPetri).\n Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to respond to the previous\nspeaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).\n While admonishing the trial court to be sensitive to demands on the\nPresident's time, the U.S. Supreme Court recently unanimously ruled\nthat he had the same obligations as every other citizen in the Nation's\ncourts. Testifying truthfully under oath is one of those obligations.\nThe President maintains he did this. I believe beyond a reasonable\ndoubt that he repeatedly committed perjury.\n I do not believe our President should be held to a lower standard of\naccountability than other citizens who perjure themselves.\n If anything, he should be held to a higher standard because of the\ntrust proposed in his office and because he is the chief law\nenforcement officer in a Nation whose very foundation is the rule of\nlaw. Other Federal officials, including three judges, in the last dozen\nyears have faced removal from office after committing perjury. So\nshould our President.\n Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will vote to refer articles of impeachment\nto the Senate.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentlewoman\nfrom California (Ms. Waters), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black\nCaucus and distinguished member of the House Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, how must our American soldiers feel to have\ntheir Commander in Chief under attack while they are engaged in battle?\nThey have the right to feel betrayed and undermined. Today we are here\nin the people's House debating the partisan impeachment of the\nPresident of the United States of America while the Commander in Chief\nis managing a crisis and asking world leaders for support.\n This is indeed a Republican coup d'etat.\n Mr. Speaker, Americans all, the Republicans will couch this extremist\nradical anarchy and pious language which distorts the Constitution and\nthe rule of law. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the real targets, and the\nRepublicans are the vehicles being used by the right wing Christian\nCoalition extremists to direct and control our culture. The rule of law\nhas been violated\n\n[[Page H11798]]\n\nin denying the President notice of charges, by the abuse of power in\nthe collecting of so-called evidence and the denial of the presumption\nof innocence.\n President Clinton is not guilty of the trumped up charges presented\nin these four articles of impeachment. Yes, Bill Clinton is guilty of\ncertain indiscretions in his private life. However, he did not commit\nhigh crimes and misdemeanors. Rather the President is guilty of being a\npopulist leader who opened up government and access to the poor, to\nminorities, to women and to the working class. President Bill Clinton\nis guilty of not being owned by the good ole southern boys or the good\nole eastern establishment. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is guilty of\nbeing smart enough to outmaneuver the Republicans in the budget\nnegotiations, electoral politics and the development and implementation\nof the people's agenda.\n Mr. Speaker, I am an African American woman. I am accustomed to\nhaving to fight and struggle for fairness and justice. Ken Starr, I\nknow and recognize abuse of power when I see it; he is guilty. However,\nI am greatly disappointed in the raw, unmasked, unbridled hatred and\nmeanness that drives this impeachment coup d'etat, the unapologetic\ndisregard for the voice of the people.\n Mr. Speaker, I say to my Republican friends what they do here today\nwill long be remembered and recorded in history as one of the most\ndespicable actions ever taken by the Congress of the United States of\nAmerica. I dare the Republicans of this House to allow themselves to\nmove just one inch and give me and my colleagues the opportunity to\nvote for an alternative. I dare them to be fair. I dare them to allow\nus to vote for censure.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Mrs. Bono), a member of the committee.\n Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of\nimpeachment. I want to speak about this difficult issue not only to my\ncolleagues but also to the American people. Although there is much\ndisagreement on this issue, most Americans agree that we must resolve\nthis matter as soon as possible. I strongly believe that our troops\noverseas must be reassured that the business of our Nation will not be\ninterrupted by the actions of a tyrant who will not heed the will of\nthe international community despite the clear and convincing evidence\nthat the President of the United States committed perjury before a\ngrand jury, before a Federal grand jury, lied to the American people.\nThe decision was not an easy one for me or, in my belief, any of my\nCommittee on the Judiciary colleagues. Yet I firmly believe that we\nwould not be fulfilling our oaths of office as United States\nRepresentatives if we do not follow our duty as stated in the\nConstitution.\n We need to be realistic about what is at the heart of this vote. The\ncentral issue is whether the President is above the law and whether\nsexual harassment in civil rights laws remain viable in effective\nprotections for all Americans. Despite record numbers of women working\nto support their families, women are all too vulnerable in our society\nto sexual harassment. If Congress turns a blind eye to the President's\nbehavior, then we are turning our back to those victims of sexual\nharassment.\n Every person, including Paula Jones, is entitled to certain rights\nunder our Constitution. This includes truthful testimony from all\nparties, and that is why we are here, because the President thought he\ncould provide untruthful testimony to obscure the truth first in his\ndeposition in the Jones case and later in his testimony before a\nFederal grand jury.\n Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is not above the law.\nI am deeply disappointed that the President failed to uphold the public\nsacred trust and his own oath of office, but I am also saddened by the\nneed for this Congress to arrive at this moment. As we debate this\nissue some will argue that impeachment is too harsh a punishment or too\ninconvenient for our Nation; however, it is the only appropriate remedy\ngiven to us by the framers of our Constitution.\n As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I must say a final\nword in recognition of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.\nHyde). I know that no one could have given the President a fairer\nhearing.\n So I appeal to every American to look deep into their conscience and\nweigh the consequences for our system of justice if we allow the\nPresident of the United States to commit felony acts and not be held\naccountable for his actions.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Fazio), a departing member of our leadership.\n Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final moment in my\n20-year career here in this House I love so much, and it is by far the\nsaddest one. I am sad that a reckless President and a Republican\nCongress driven by blind animus for him have brought us to this moment\nin history. This is a moment where legalisms reign over human\nunderstanding and acknowledgment that we are all sinners before our\nLord, and it is even more unfortunate that this debate takes place when\nour troops are in harm's way.\n My instinct is to stand here and plead with my colleagues to consider\nthe ramifications of what we will do, but I fear this vote is a forgone\nconclusion. Sadly it seems to have more to do with our political\naffiliations and loyalties than anything else, and it must be said that\nwhat we do here today is to some degree driven by revenge.\n Some of my colleagues obsess about Slick Willie in the same way that\nthose on my side of the aisle used to about Tricky Dick. Robert Bork,\nClarence Thomas, Jim Wright, on and on; we do each other in in personal\nterms. Each one of us has been given a most precious gift, the right to\nrepresent some 600,000 American citizens in the House of\nRepresentatives, and yet when it comes time to be here for them we seem\nto lose track of the fundamental issues of our times and instead focus\nfar too much on petty and partisan battles. This vote and this time\nwill either unite us and show the country that we are above\npartisanship and legalistic word games, or it will lay the foundation,\nI believe, for a growing permanent divide in this Nation where there is\na left and a right while those in the center, the great majority of our\npeople, do not seem to matter.\n It is much more difficult to govern here now, to do what is right for\nthis country at this time, to look not to legalisms and parsed\ninterpretations so valued on all sides, but to place the actions of our\nPresident in the proper context, to censure those actions without\nundeniably and irrevocably harming our democracy by lowering the\nthreshold of impeachment. But we will not allow that vote here today.\n Many here have suggested that this is not about sex. That is a very\nconvenient decision for some to make. If it is not about sex, then we\nmight think it is less hypocritical to sit here in judgment of this\nPresident.\n I might add this Nation and its people have suffered greatly from the\npartisan battles that have only grown stronger in recent years. Jerry\nFord, upon assuming the presidency after Watergate, said our long\nnational nightmare is now over, and when resigning his speakership Jim\nWright called upon his colleagues to end what he called mindless\ncannibalism. But today we find our nightmares continue and political\ncannibalism thrives and grows stronger. Sadly it was the late Vince\nFoster who recognized in Washington peoples' lives are destroyed for\nsport.\n I ask my friends to put aside the partisanship, the legalisms and,\nyes, the late hypocrisy. The American people deserve a clean slate for\nthe next Congress to build upon and renew its trust and public\nconfidence. This is our chance. Let us unite this country with a vote\nagainst impeachment today and put an end to this open-ended and\nmindless process of destroying the lives of good and decent people who,\nyes, are flawed and all too human.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Brady).\n (Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, some Americans are not watching\nthese proceedings. Instead in hushed courtrooms across this country\nfamilies slashed apart by violent crime and innocent people wrongly\naccused are staring intently at a witness stand, and they are praying.\nFor many their best\n\n[[Page H11799]]\n\nhope, perhaps their only hope, for justice depends upon that witness\ntelling the truth, the full truth, under oath. Truth does matter, and\nif it is no longer the duty of the President to tell the truth under\nsworn oath, can we require it of any American? The answer is no which\nis why justice, hope and the Constitution demand that today we vote\n``yes.''\n After carefully studying all the facts, there is strong and\nsufficient evidence to warrant a trial in the United States Senate. I\nintend to vote ``yes'' on each of the four articles of impeachment of\nthe President that were forwarded by the House Judiciary Committee.\n In making this decision, I upheld my constitutional responsibility to\nact as a fair and thoughtful juror. I weighed the evidence against the\ncharges and cast my vote without regard to polls, party or conjecture\nabout any future presidential race.\n I am sad for the Nation because none of this needed to occur. It is\nonly the second time in our Nation's history that a vote to impeach the\nPresident of the United States has taken place on the floor of the\nHouse of Representatives. Unfortunately, this pain could have been\nprevented had the President simply conducted himself decently and\nwithin the law as do most Americans.\n It is the duty of the President to tell the whole truth under sworn\noath, as it is for every American. This truth is no less than the\nfoundation of our justice system, as important as the constitutional\nrights of the accused.\n If the President is held to be above the law, the ultimate and\npredictable consequence is that achieving justice in America's legal\nsystem will become significantly more difficult. The necessity for the\ntruth is reflected by the appropriately severe punishment for those who\nwillfully refuse to provide it--which is up to five years imprisonment\nfor each Federal violation.\n Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who\nmake and discharge them. To its credit, America continues to strive to\npreserve equality under the law as a self-evident truth. It is\nessential to the common consent of citizens who must abide by these\nlaws.\n I am proud to represent the impressive new George Bush Presidential\nLibrary and Museum which is located on the Texas A&M University campus\nin College Station, Texas. Engraved on the southern exterior wall of\nthe library, engraved high enough to catch the late afternoon Brazos\nValley sun each day, is an appropriate quote from our former President\nwhom I deeply admire and respect.\n It is from his 1991 inaugural presidential address, and I take\ninspiration from it as I deliberated on this matter: ``Let future\ngenerations understand the burdens and blessings of freedom. Let them\nsay we stood where duty required us to stand.''\n Duty requires us to stand here today. The burdens of freedom demand\nwe uphold the Constitution regardless how tiring, how distasteful, how\ndifficult.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nConnecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), a departing member of our leadership.\n Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose\nthese articles of impeachment, and I do it secure in the knowledge that\nthis is the right decision. This is the last issue I will address after\n17 years in this body, after thousands of votes, only a very few of\nwhich I regret, and I do not want to regret this incredibly important\nvote. That is why I have taken it so seriously.\n When John Quincy Adams after his term as President of the United\nStates ran and won a seat in this House, he was criticized by his\nfriends because this was ``beneath'' his status as former President. He\nexplained it is always the highest honor to serve in the House of the\nPeople.\n Mr. Speaker, no honor will rain on this House today if we vote to\nimpeach. Let us be honest with ourselves: A vote to impeach on the\nbasis of the vexing materials assembled by the Office of the\nIndependent Counsel is a vote to lower, dramatically and unalterably,\nthe bar to future impeachments.\n Until now, the House has very much held a high standard for\nimpeachment, keeping with the Constitution dictum that impeachment be\nreserved exclusively for high crimes and misdemeanors.\n There is so much discussion now about what is a high crime. Let us\nthink about what was not. Remember President Reagan and Iran-Contra?\nFour laws, serious laws, broken; remember Harry Truman, taking over the\nsteel mills, sending troops into Korea without letting the Congress\ntelling him it was okay; Herbert Hoover and what happened there with\nthe Federal Reserve funds.\n But there was no impeachment, Mr. Speaker, because, as serious as\nthese allegations appeared at the time, impeachment never became a\nserious proposition. Collectively, our predecessors in this body\nunderstood fully both the necessity of impeachment as the ultimate\nbulwark against the potential tyranny of the executive, but also the\nvery real threat impeachment presents to the structure of our\ngovernment if improperly or too readily used. Impeachment was the means\nof last resort.\n Mr. Speaker, we should not vote to impeach today because it is\nneither necessary nor in step with precedent. Voting to impeach today\nis to participate in an assault on the institution of the presidency\nand our delicate system of checks and balances.\n I will vote ``no'' on all articles of impeachment for the sake of our\nposterity, and I urge my colleagues to do this today, for the future of\nthe country, for the future of the United States of America.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nMissouri (Mr. Hulshof).\n Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.\n Mr. Speaker, if the President of the United States simply committed\nadultery, then that indeed is a matter that should be reserved to his\nfamily. If, on the other hand, the President of the United States\ncommitted perjury or other illegal acts, then that matter must\nnecessarily be reserved to this Congress.\n I agree that the private failings of a public man deserve neither\ndebate nor reprimand from this body, and yet public misconduct\ncommitted by that same official deserves punishment of the fullest\nmeasure.\n Based upon my solemn review of the evidence and historical\nprecedents, I am firmly convinced beyond a doubt that William Jefferson\nClinton used every conceivable means available to him, including\nperjury and obstruction, to defeat the legal rights of another citizen\nwho claimed she had been wronged and who sought redress from our\njustice system, and, in that way, the President's private indignities\nbecame indignities against the Constitution by which we are governed.\n Our third branch of government has rightly said no individual is\nabove the law, no single citizen can determine or judge the merits of\nanother case, save those clothed with the cloak of judicial\ninterpretation, and yet the President, under penalty of perjury, bore\nfalse witness under oath, and Ms. Jones' rights to due process were\nviolated.\n That result, Mr. Speaker, is bad enough in itself, but I believe it\nreached constitutional proportions when the denial of a civil rights of\nanother citizen is directed by the President of the United States.\n Mr. Speaker, what we say here today will be but paragraphs, perhaps\neven footnotes, in the pages of history yet to be written by those to\ncome. What we do here will be indelibly imprinted upon the American\ntradition.\n Let not this House grant a pardon to the President for his criminal\noffenses. Let not history look back on this day and say there, on that\ndate, America surrendered the rule of law. There can be no presidential\nexecutive privilege to lie under oath.\n Regrettably, my oath of office, my sacred honor, requires from me a\nvote of ``aye'' on the resolution before this House.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the\ngentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) a member of the Committee on\nthe Judiciary.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party in this House has made\na tragic decision for the Nation and a decision that will permanently\ndamage our constitutional democracy.\n The President of the United States had a sexual affair. That was\nwrong. Then, like many others who misbehave sexually, he tried to hide\nthe affair. That was wrong too. But then the greater wrong occurred.\nThe majority decided to give into the worst within themselves, their\nabiding hatred of this President. The majority has decided to discard\nour history, to damage our Constitution and to threaten our future to\nget the President, all the while pompously pronouncing they are doing\nthe opposite.\n\n[[Page H11800]]\n\n When the Founders wrote our Constitution, they provided for the rare\nremedy of impeachment that the Legislative Branch could utilize if the\nelected President should engage in conduct that would threaten our\nconstitutional government. Only once in our 211 years has Congress\nvoted to impeach a president, and, in that era of 1868, it was also\nradical Republicans who misused the tool of impeachment.\n Much of the country is watching what we do here with anger, sorrow,\nfear and disbelief. I share with my constituents the feeling of\nunreality about these proceedings. The country is waiting for grownups\nto walk into this Chamber and stop this madness, but, alas, those\nRepublicans with the maturity and judgment to ask that censure be\nutilized as an alternative, such as former President Ford and former\nSenator Dole, have been ignored by the majority in this House.\n The outcome appears clear: The Republicans will vote to impeach the\nPresident, whom they could not defeat at the polls, for reasons that do\nnot add up to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.\nAs a consequence, the Senate and the Supreme Court will be tied up for\nmost of next year.\n The President will not be able to resign, no matter how you may urge\nit, because to do so would further destroy the precedents that have\nprotected our country for over two centuries.\n This is not fair to the President, but that should not be our main\nconcern. It is not fair to the minority in this House, but that is not\nthe main problem either. This is unfair to the American people.\n By these actions, you would undo the free election that expressed the\nwill of the American people in 1996. In so doing, you will damage the\nfaith the American people have in this institution and in the American\ndemocracy. You will set the dangerous precedent that the certainty of\npresidential terms, which has so benefitted our wonderful America, will\nbe replaced by the partisan use of impeachment. Future presidents will\nface election, then litigation, then impeachment. The power of\nPresident will diminish in the face of the Congress, a phenomena much\nfeared by the Founding Fathers.\n Our constituency in this matter includes not just the voters of\ntoday, but the future grandchildren of my own children. We have an\nobligation to generations not yet born to preserve and protect our\nwonderful system of government. In that obligation you fail your\ncountry today.\n Some in the majority have told me they are entitled to their opinion\nabout whether or not the President's misconduct meets the\nconstitutional standard. Some Americans believe aliens will arrive in\nspacecraft, but it does not make it so. You say the President's\ndeception about sex has destroyed our system of government. Some of you\nhave actually convinced yourselves that is true.\n The capacity for self-deception is an amazing phenomena, but the\npublic can see clearly what you are doing here today. You say that the\nPresident's dishonesty about sex has destroyed our constitutional form\nof government, but the people do not agree. They think that it is you\nwho threaten our country by this cynical and political distortion of\nimpeachment. As is generally the case, the American people have it\nright. It is not too late to listen to them. You would honor your own\noath of office by doing so.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Canady).\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I must respond to the claim that\nthere are those of us who contend that the acts of the President have\ndestroyed our system of government. That is far, far from the truth.\n The question is not whether the President has destroyed our system of\ngovernment. We know that that has not happened. That is obvious. The\nquestion is whether by his conduct he has undermined the integrity of\nthe law; whether by his conduct he has undermined the integrity of the\nhigh office that has been entrusted to him; whether he has subverted\nthe rule of law; whether he has acted to set an example which is\nharmful to our system of government.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentlewoman\nfrom Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).\n Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, above the entrance to the\nSupreme Court are four powerful words: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Yet\nthere can be no equal justice without a judicial process capable of\nreaching to the truth. That is why when one raises their right hand and\nswears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,\neach one of us must do it. That is why perjury is a serious crime. It\nstrikes at the heart of the only process that protects each one of us\nfrom false accusations.\n I will vote for impeachment, not because the President has human\nfrailties, but because he has committed perjury repeatedly and\nwillfully. Marital infidelity is not an impeachable offense. Even lying\nto hide sexual indiscretion is not impeachable. But the President does\nnot have the right to lie under oath, to commit perjury.\n No one is above the law, not even the President. I believe perjury\ndoes meet at least the definition of high misdemeanor. In my mind, it\ncertainly meets the measure of high crime.\n In my judgment, our democracy is far more capable of surviving a\ntransition in power than surviving an erosion of fundamental\nobligations such as that to tell the truth under oath and to treat all\ncitizens equally under the law.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).\n (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to\nrevise and extend his remarks.)\n Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here on\nthe floor today and throughout the night is just wrong. It is wrong for\na lot of reasons, but most fundamental is the fact that, yes, the\nPresident made mistakes; yes, in fact he misled his family, he misled\nthe public; and, yes, he in fact tried to trick even maybe a grand\njury. Whether it is perjury or not is a different question.\n But at its core, at its core, this is about an individual, a man in\nour country, who had a wrongful affair. He lied about that affair, and\nhe has asked for forgiveness. What is incredible is the American people\nhave looked into their conscience and found that forgiveness; people\nfrom all walks of life, from every different corner of this country,\nhave found forgiveness.\n There is only one group of people that I can find that cannot find\nthat forgiveness, and that is people that had been locked in struggle\nover so many questions dealing with the future of this country against\nPresident Clinton's agenda over the course of the last four years, and\nthat is what this is all about.\n\n {time} 1315\n\n Now, I know that there is a lot of talk about morality today, and I\nthink that is good, I think that is healthy for our country. I think we\nought to talk a little bit about morality. But I do not think that the\nonly moral standard in America ought to be about sex. I think there is\na lot of moral things about our country; there is a lot of immoral\nthings about our country. And I look around our Nation today and I see\nlittle children that do not have enough food in their bellies at night,\nand when we talk about balancing the budget, what do we do? We cut the\nfood stamp program. When we talk about trying to stand up and make sure\nthat we have decent schools in our inner cities, we have a hellacious\ndebate on the floor of this House. And yet, our schools are still\nterrible.\n We make pronouncements about these wonderful new changes that we have\nmade in laws, but at its core, the truth is that there are too many\npeople in poverty, there are too many kids that do not have access to\nhealth care; there are too many families that do not have enough food\nin their stomachs, and those issues do not receive even close to the\namount of time and effort and energy that we are now putting into\ntrying to impeach the President.\n The President has put the wood to the Republicans time and time\nagain. The President has put the wood to the Republicans time and time\nagain. He has taken away the issue of crime, he has taken away the\nissue of taxes. He has taken away so many of the issues that my\ncolleagues in the past have had leadership roles on, and so they get\nangry at him. That is okay, they can get angry at him. But to dumb down\nthe impeachment process and to allow\n\n[[Page H11801]]\n\nthis to be used not just by my Republican colleagues, but by people\nthat will serve after me certainly, and people that will serve after\neverybody in this institution and allow this to be utilized in a\npartisan critical manner is an immoral act on the part of the\nRepublican Party.\n I am so sorry that the final vote I cast here on the House floor is\ngoing to be over an issue that is so partisan in nature. Let us come\ntogether and let us find the forgiveness that the American people have\nfound for President Clinton, that his own family has found for him, so\nthat many millions of people across this planet want him to have. Give\nhim forgiveness. He recognizes he did something wrong. He is trying to\nright it. Find in your hearts the forgiveness that he asks for.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Smith), a member of the committee.\n Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for\nyielding me this time.\n Mr. Speaker, let us return to the Constitution. Members of this House\nof Representatives have a solemn task specifically assigned to us by\nthe authors of that Constitution. Whatever happens today, whether the\nPresident is impeached or not, our Nation is going to endure. We are a\nstrong people and we have a Constitution that works.\n A quarter of a century ago, we arrived at a similar point. President\nClinton's defenders say this is not Watergate. They are right to the\nextent that the underlying behavior does not involve the bungled break-\nin of a campaign headquarters; rather, it involves a reckless\nrelationship in the White House itself with a young employee that the\nPresident hardly knew.\n President Nixon did not lie repeatedly to a Federal judge and then to\na grand jury of citizens charged with discovering the truth. President\nClinton did. But President Clinton, like President Nixon, did obstruct\njustice by encouraging others to lie, and both abused their offices by\nviolating their oath to uphold the laws of our country.\n The President has escaped accountability for his actions time after\ntime. His intelligence, pleasing personality and way with words have\nsaved him, so far. Perhaps the most accurate description of his pattern\nof behavior is a campaign slogan used by a New York senatorial\ncandidate against his opponent this year: ``Too many lies, for too\nlong.''\n Last week I listened to the President's most recent apology, and I\nagree with him. I cannot imagine a greater agony than being ashamed\nbefore one's family and friends. But emotions cannot change the\nevidence or the facts, nor should they control our actions.\n If the President will not resign, we must go forward. Our entire\njustice system rests on the rule of law. Without it, we would not enjoy\na civilized and democratic society. To carve out exceptions for anyone,\nparticularly the chief law enforcement officer of the United States,\nwould be to undermine this rule of law.\n For the benefit of our country to set an example for our children,\nour grandchildren and future generations, we must maintain our high\nideals. That the President has failed to meet the standard does not\nmean we should lower it.\n Our constitutional duty in the House is to decide whether to impeach\nor accuse the President of wrongful actions. The Senate's duty is to\nrender judgment and decide punishment. So if a sanction other than\nremoval from office such as censure is ever considered, it should be\ninitiated by the Senate. And, ultimately, any outcome must be supported\nby the American people.\n This is not a decision to go forward because of a ``private\nrelationship.'' It involves the most public of relationships, that\nbetween a citizen and the justice system, and that between the\nPresident and the American people. It is about honor and telling the\ntruth. It is about respect for the law, respect for the office of the\npresidency, respect for the American people, respect for the officers\nof the court, respect for women, and ultimately, our own self respect.\n During this difficult but necessary impeachment process, I've relied\non several people for their helpful ideas. Although they shouldn't be\nheld accountable for my views, I do want to thank my perceptive wife,\nBeth Schaefer, and special friends, Judge Cyndi Krier, John Lampmann,\nand Judge Tom Rickhoff, for giving me the benefit of their wise\ncounsel.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Bonilla), my friend and colleague.\n Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from San Antonio for\nyielding to me.\n Mr. Speaker, this is a Nation founded on rules and laws. We are a\nyoung country, but we are the greatest that has ever existed. America\nis strong and gets stronger because we are passionate about our laws,\nof which no one is above. If one is a mayor, a police officer, a\nSenator or a President, one must obey the law, just like any other\ncitizen.\n American law and our system of justice relies on truth, truth\npresented by witnesses sworn before God. Those who have appeared before\ngrand juries in this country know it is a daunting experience, knowing\nthat if you stumble, if you lie, you could commit perjury and maybe\nwind up in jail.\n Thousands of Americans have been prosecuted and have criminal records\nbecause they perjured themselves like the President. The President's\nown Justice Department regularly prosecutes Americans for perjury, and\nyes, they are prosecuted for perjury in cases of sexual harassment.\n We are not talking politics here. In politics, a President may lie to\nthe American people on television, in town meetings, and even in\npolitical ads. I think that is wrong, and so do most of my colleagues.\nBut that is not against the law and that is not a reason to impeach.\nVoters are the ultimate judges in those cases. But here we are talking\nabout the law.\n As we search our conscience today to cast our votes, let us remember\nthe rules and laws on which our Nation was founded. No one is above the\nlaw. Let us vote to uphold that American principle today.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nthe Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).\n Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a solemn, fearful\nand heavy heart as I face the stark reality that this House and lame\nduck Congress is going to disregard the will of the American people\nand, to quote this week's Hill Newspaper, ``unleash the awesome power\nof impeachment in a blatantly partisan manner for what hardly measures\nup to high crimes and misdemeanors.''\n It is what this body is about to do, while we are at war, that comes\ncloser to meeting that constitutional standard than anything our\nPresident is charged with. How will the sober hand of history judge us?\n My colleagues, the American people overwhelmingly continue to oppose\nthe impeachment of their twice-elected President. They are no fools.\nThey recognize the blatant unfairness of the process, and while they do\nnot condone what the President did, they understand that he has\ncommitted no impeachable or constitutional crime.\n But we do not have to just go by popular opinion. More than 400\nhistorians and constitutional scholars have opined that the allegations\nput forth in the Starr report ``do not cross the threshold of high\ncrimes and misdemeanors warranting impeachment under the\nConstitution.''\n I agree with the comments I have heard as early as this morning that\nthis is not about the President's behavior with Monica Lewinsky, but\nneither is this about so-called legitimate charges of perjury,\nobstruction of justice, or abuse of power. It has been clearly shown\ntime and time again that none of that occurred.\n What this is about is a purely partisan attack on Bill Clinton, the\nman; on Bill Clinton, the people's President; and make no mistake, it\nis also about a very popular First Lady.\n By his own admission, the President has sinned. He was contrite and\nhas asked for our forgiveness and the forgiveness of the American\npeople. It is time for us to come together as a Nation, support our\ntroops in the Middle East, and put this matter behind us. The American\npeople want and need us to get back to the work on the issues that will\nimprove their quality of life.\n This is a season of peace. I hope against hope that my words and the\nwords of others who have called for forgiveness and healing at this\ntime can soften the hearts of my colleagues who\n\n[[Page H11802]]\n\nwould seek to throw our Nation into turmoil over politics. I urge my\ncolleagues to heed the wishes of those who sent us here to tend to\ntheir concerns. Make real and true the claim of conscience and\nconstitutional responsibility. Do not lower the bar for impeachment.\nReject this partisan impeachment process. We should have a censure\nvote, but if that will not be allowed, then vote for the Constitution,\nvote for this country. Vote ``no'' on impeachment.\n\n Parliamentary Inquiry\n\n Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of parliamentary inquiry.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.\n Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.\n Mr. Speaker, as I understand the Rules of the House as it governs the\ndiscourse in the House, it is very clear, and it has been a time-\nhonored tradition that has served this House well, that we not, in\nHouse debate, make disparaging remarks or characterizations about the\nmotives of other Members of the Chamber. I must say I am very saddened\nto report, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to several speakers, and\nthat I have seen frankly quite caustic and harsh characterizations of\nthe motives of the Members.\n We ask each Member to look into their heart and each Member that does\nso knows that only God can do so also, and I would ask the Speaker,\nwould it be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to ask on behalf of the\ndignity of this Chamber to exercise the authority of the Chair to\nremind Members of these protocols and respects, and perhaps if\nnecessary enforce them so that we on this side may not find ourselves\ncompelled to raise it as a point on the floor during the debate. I\nthank the Chair.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from\nAlabama (Mr. Bachus).\n (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks, and include extraneous material.)\n Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has arrived at the time when we and\nthe Nation must look beyond the polls, the media, and beyond the\npolitical rhetoric and consider the grave matter of voting on the\nimpeachment of the Nation's President. We stand at a moment of defining\naction, one that will require each of us to state for the Record our\ncommitment to the principles involved in this case.\n As the gentleman from Florida, a member of the minority said earlier,\nour decision is not about Bill Clinton, it is not about personalities,\nit is not about partisanship, it is not about Republicans or Democrats.\nPopular opinion and polls cannot dictate our course of action. Duty,\nhonor, and obligation must. Ageless principles must.\n On this solemn occasion, I will vote for impeachment. People,\npolitics, and polls change. Presidents come and go. Fundamental\nprinciples do not. My vote is based on the following principles: The\nfirst, a commitment to the truth. It is essential to a just society. A\ncommitment to the truth is the foundation of our democracy and our\nfreedom.\n\n {time} 1330\n\n The second is, actions and behaviors matter. Only God can search and\nsift the soul. Because we cannot read the heart, we must rely on\nactions and behaviors. Certain actions and behaviors are inconsistent\nwith the office of President.\n Third, forgiveness does not absolve one of responsibility for\nactions, nor relieve one of the consequences of those actions.\n Earlier I asked for unanimous consent, and at this time I will submit\nfor the Record an article out of the Wall Street Journal entitled\n``Religion Should Not Be Used as a Political Tool,'' signed by 85\nreligious scholars.\n In that, it says, ``We challenge the widespread assumption that\nforgiveness relieves a person of further responsibility and serious\nconsequences.'' I commend this article to all my colleagues and\nintroduce it here.\n The material referred to is as follows:\n\n [From the Wall Street Journal]\n\n Religion Should Not Be a Political Tool\n\n The following statement--``Declaration Concerning Religion,\n Ethics, an the Crisis in the Clinton Presidency''--was signed\n by 95 religion scholars, including Paul J. Achtemeier (Union\n Theological Seminary), Karl Paul Donfried (Smith College),\n Jean Bethke Elshtain (University of Chicago), Stanley M.\n Hauerwas (Duke University), Robert Peter Imbelli (Boston\n College), Max L. Stackhouse (Princeton Theological Seminary),\n and Harry Yeide (George Washington University):\n As scholars interested in religion and public life, we\n protest the manipulation of religion and the debasing of\n moral language in the discussion about presidential\n responsibility. We believe that serious misunderstanding of\n repentance and forgiveness are being exploited for political\n advantage. The resulting moral confusion is a threat to the\n integrity of American religion and to the foundations of a\n civil society. In the conviction that politics and morality\n cannot be separated, we consider the current crisis to be a\n critical moment in the life of our country and, therefore,\n offer the following points for consideration:\n\n misuse of religion\n\n 1. Many of us worry about the political misuse of religion\n and religious symbols even as we endorse the public mission\n of our churches, synagogues and mosques. In particular we are\n concerned about the distortion that can come by association\n with presidential power in events like the Presidential\n Prayer Breakfast on Sept. 11. We fear the religious community\n is in danger of being called upon to provide authentication\n for a politically motivated and incomplete repentance that\n seeks to avert serious consequences for wrongful acts. While\n we affirm that pastoral counseling session are an\n appropriate, confidential arena to address these issues, we\n fear that announcing such meetings to convince the public of\n the president's sincerity compromises the integrity of\n religion.\n 2. We challenge the widespread assumption that forgiveness\n relieves a person of further responsibility and serious\n consequences. We are convinced that forgiveness is a\n relational term that does not function easily within the\n sphere of constitutional accountability. A wronged party\n chooses forgiveness instead of revenge and antagonism, but\n this does not relieve the wrong-doer of consequences. When\n the president continues to deny any liability for the sins he\n has confessed, this suggests that the public display of\n repentance was intended to avoid political disfavor.\n\n Central to survival\n\n 3. We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to\n the survival of our political system, among which are\n truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the\n dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process,\n and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the\n premise that violations of these ethical standards should be\n excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular\n political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong\n economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution\n and to the people who elected them. By his own admission, the\n president has departed from ethical standards by abusing his\n presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his\n knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are\n particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of\n public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for\n one's actions.\n 4. We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our\n children and on our students. Some of them feel betrayed by a\n president in whom they set their hopes while others are\n troubled by his misuse of others, by which many in the\n administration, the political system, and the media were\n implicated in patterns of deceit and abuse. Neither our\n students nor we demand perfection. Many of us believe that\n extreme dangers sometimes require a political leader to\n engage in morally problematic actions. But we maintain that\n in general there is a reasonable threshold of behavior\n beneath which our public leaders should not fall, because the\n moral character of a people is more important than the tenure\n of a particular politician or the protection of a particular\n political agenda. Political and religious history indicate\n that violations and misunderstandings of such moral issues\n may have grave consequences. The widespread desire to ``get\n this behind us'' does not take seriously enough the nature of\n transgressions and their social effects.\n 5. We urge the society as a whole to take account of the\n ethical commitments necessary for a civil society and to seek\n the integrity of both public and private morality. While\n partisan conflicts have usually dominated past debates over\n public morality, we now confront a much deeper crisis,\n whether the moral basis of the constitutional system itself\n will be lost. In the present impeachment discussions, we call\n for national courage in deliberation that avoids ideological\n division and engages the process as a constitutional and\n ethical imperative. We ask Congress to discharge its current\n duty in a manner mindful of its solemn constitutional and\n political responsibilities. Only in this way can the process\n serve the good of the nation as a whole and avoid further\n sensationalism.\n\n extended-discussion\n\n 6. While some of us think that a presidential resignation\n or impeachment would be appropriate and others envision less\n drastic consequences, we are all convinced that extended\n discussion about constitutional, ethical and religious issues\n will be required to clarify the situation and to enable a\n wise decision to be made. We hope to provide an arena in\n which such discussion can occur in an atmosphere of scholarly\n integrity and civility without partisan bias.\n\n[[Page H11803]]\n\n Further, our children must have positive role models; someone has\nsaid, more now than ever. There is a standard of conduct below which\nour leaders must not fall.\n In conclusion, I commend to Members the words of George Washington at\nthe eve of the battle of Valley Forge: ``Let us raise a standard to\nwhich the wise and the honest may repair. The event is in the hands of\nGod.''\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nOhio (Mr. Tony Hall).\n Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding\ntime to me.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to these articles of impeachment.\nThe President is guilty of conduct unbefitting his office. However,\ndespite his actions, I do not believe they rise to the level of high\ncrimes and misdemeanors, which is the requirement the Constitution sets\nfor removal from office.\n Within this House, as throughout the Nation, there is a mood of anger\nand frustration and betrayal. Retribution through impeachment may feel\nright today, but the long-term harm it will cause our government\noutweighs filling the immediate satisfaction.\n I also strongly object to the provision in the articles which\ndisqualifies the President from holding any future office, and it goes\non to say other things. What it essentially means is almost anything\nthat is commissioned, that has any kind of Federal monies in it, XYZ\ncommission, a nonprofit organization, he cannot fulfill that as a\nresult of this particular clause.\n This goes too far. It is a too severe. The House does not have the\nmoral authority to judge that the President is forever unredeemable. A\nstrong resolution of censure is the appropriate response by the House\nof Representatives. Let the House go on record condemning the President\nin the strongest terms.\n Censure is a harsh enough punishment. It expresses the profound\ndisappointment of the American people, and it will stay with the\nPresident for the rest of his life and throughout history. Censure will\nspare the Nation the agony of a Senate impeachment trial and the\npossible removal of the President.\n I regret that the House leadership will not permit a censure\nresolution from coming to the House floor for a vote. This denies the\nHouse the opportunity to work its will. Impeachment is not the answer\nto the challenge the House faces in responding to the President's\naction.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nNew York (Mr. King).\n Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the articles of\nimpeachment. My opposition to impeachment has nothing to do at all with\nBill Clinton, but everything to do with the office of the presidency.\n By setting a standard which goes beyond the Constitution, and, my\nRepublican colleagues, beyond the historic position of our party, we\nare, however well-intentioned, continuing our spiral toward a\ngovernment subject to the whims of independent counsels and based on\nthe frenzied politics of the moment, rather than a government of\nimmutable principles and transcendent institutions.\n This is not a decision which came easy to me. It is not a position\nwhich I particularly enjoy. No one has a higher respect than I do for\nthe gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde). To me he is the\nconscience of this House, and it causes me great pain to in any way\ndiffer from him.\n But I feel I have no alternative. I strongly believe that for a\npresident to be impeached, a president of the United States to be\nimpeached, for an election to be undone, there must be a direct abuse\nof presidential power. There must be a president abusing the CIA,\nabusing citizens with the IRS or the FBI, a crime comparable to treason\nor bribery.\n I would say to my colleagues that my position, I believe, is rooted\nin Republican philosophy. I go back to the Watergate hearings of 1974,\nwhen President Nixon's most eloquent defender, subsequently appointed\nto the United States Court of Appeals by President Reagan, Congressman\nCharles Wiggins, came back and testified before the committee, and said\nthat if he were a Member of Congress today, he would vote against\nimpeachment.\n But there is even a larger issue here: Where are we going as a\nNation? Quite frankly, when I hear Members on the other side rise up in\nsuch opposition to this impeachment, I say, where were they during the\ntimes of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or John Tower?\n But two wrongs do not make a right. We are a Nation consumed by\ninvestigations, by special counsels. We are a Nation consumed by\nscandal. We are driving good people from government. What we are\ntalking about here in this case, the President's conduct, was illegal,\nit was immoral, it was disgraceful, it was indefensible, but the fact\nis, I don't believe rises to the level of treason or bribery.\n The principle we are setting that in the future, all of us, anyone\nwho assumes the office of the presidency, is subject to civil\ndepositions, subject to lawsuits, and then to have that deposition\nexamined and scrutinized by an Independent Counsel, how many of our\nformer presidents would we have lost if this was the case, if this rule\nof law, if this principle, had prevailed in prior times, and prior\ntimes of crisis?\n Also, I would ask my fellow Republicans, throughout the 1980s we saw\nthe abuses of special counsels by Lawrence Walsh and others as they\nwent against members of the Reagan and Bush administration. We saw good\npeople like Elliott Abrams brought down on the flimsiest of charges\ninvolving lying. All of us knew it was wrong, and we railed against it.\nBut today somehow we are willing to apply a different standard, a\ndifferent principle. That is wrong.\n This is a sad day for our country. It is a sad year for our Nation,\nbecause of the conduct of the President, but also because I believe\nthat as Republicans, we have failed to rise to our obligation. As a\nmatter of conscience I must vote against impeachment, and I rue this\nday.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Major Owens), an outstanding member of the committee.\n (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to pardon my ignorance,\nbut I am not a lawyer and I have not been impressed with the legal\ngymnastics of the Committee on the Judiciary hearings.\n Like the majority of the American people, I watched and listened, and\nin the end I concluded that in any court of common sense, this is a\ncase that would have been immediately dismissed. No man in America is\nabove the law. The converse should also be true, no citizen, even a\nfeared partisan enemy, should be denied the benefits of the law, of the\ndue process and of equal justice.\n Our defendant is an outstanding citizen who has done great service\nfor his people, for his government. On the basis of the charges before\nus, what prosecutor anywhere in America would press forward with this\ncase and a demand for such a harsh punishment?\n Examining the extenuating circumstances related to the outstanding\nperformance and the exemplary accomplishments of this defendant, what\nordinary judge in any court, in any county in America, would allow the\ntrial to go forward?\n This defendant, this President, has been denied his basic rights. He\nis not a beneficiary of the rule of law. This defendant is a victim of\norganized partisan persecution. It is not fair, it is not just. The\nmajority of the American people are angry, for good reasons. The voice\nof Shakespeare's King Lear is ringing in our ears: ``Fool me not to\nbear tamely. Touch me with noble anger.''\n Consider the record of the defendant. This is the education\nPresident, who has gone beyond lofty rhetoric and done more for\neducation than any President since Lyndon Johnson. In Haiti they have\ncheered him as the liberator. In the Middle East and Northern Ireland\nthey have hailed him as the great peacemaker. In Yugoslavia, Bosnia,\nSarajevo, they give him thanks as an angel of mercy who stopped the\nmass slaughter of innocent men and women and children. On Wall Street\nthis President is celebrated as a master of macroeconomic policy-\nmaking.\n In all endeavors where it has mattered most, this defendant has done\n\n[[Page H11804]]\n\nhis duty well. Why is this defendant before us? Why is the political\ndeath penalty being demanded? Our posterity will spit upon us for\nallowing this madness to reach this level.\n It is not too late for all Members to truly vote their conscience.\nGood men and good women can often be hypnotized momentarily by the\ncollective fervor of the crowd. Today in this proceeding extreme\npunishment is the only item that is allowed on the agenda. The majority\nis demanding excommunication. The loud cry is for banishment. This is a\npolitical crucifixion. Responsible decision-makers have temporarily\nlost their reason.\n I call upon every Member to break the spell. Forget we are under the\nglare of television cameras in Washington, and imagine that we are back\nhome in a local courtroom. The defendant before us deserves equal\ntreatment, equal justice. Let us be fair. Let us be reasonable. Let us\nconsider the extenuating circumstances. Let us dismiss this case now.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes, and I yield to\nthe gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).\n Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very briefly to the commentary\nfrom the gentleman who preceded the gentleman from Florida in the well.\nThe gentleman said that no reasonable prosecutor or judge would come\nforward on such an overwhelming case of perjury and bring this case\nbefore the court.\n I have some authority to speak on this, having spent 10 years as a\ndeputy district attorney in Los Angeles county and as a criminal trial\ncourt judge in Los Angeles county.\n Under the Clinton Justice Department, since President Clinton became\npresident, some 700 people have been tried and convicted for perjury\nand perjury-related crimes. As we speak today, Mr. Speaker, some 115\npeople sit in Federal prisons as a result of their conviction on\nperjury charges. Those are people that were prosecuted and convicted by\nthe Clinton Justice Department.\n In my own home State of California, since Bill Clinton became\npresident, there have been some 16,000 prosecutions for perjury. So the\nsuggestion that perjury charges would not be brought in an appropriate\ncase is incorrect.\n Further, the gentleman's comments go directly, once again, to the\npoint that we are debating here: whether the standard that we set\nduring Watergate, which was no person is above the law, will continue\nto be the standard for our Congress and our country, or whether we are\ngoing to make exceptions for people who happen to have high rank and\nprivilege, and share one's party affiliation.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important today for us to\nunderstand some perspective on what we are debating.\n First of all, those on this side of the aisle do not view this as a\nbipartisan issue. In fact, as Republicans it is not in our political\ninterest to see the President of United States impeached and removed\nfrom office. The last thing in the world we would want politically, on\na rational basis, is to see Mr. Gore, Vice President Gore, assume the\npresidency and be in the office for a while, and to have to combat\nthat, and to have established that position for the year 2000\nelections.\n We do believe in principle. We are concerned about what is going to\nhappen to our court system and what the message would be of failing to\nimpeach. That is why we are so ardent about this, for no other reason.\n Having seen what the President has done, the multiple crimes of\nperjury and obstruction of justice that I honestly believe he has\ncommitted, it would be an irresponsible act on my part to ignore it and\nto suggest that censure were an appropriate result and an appropriate\nway to address this.\n Having said that, let us go over for a minute the facts of where we\nare with this. What we are dealing with is a President who was sworn\ninto office, took an oath to uphold the laws of the Nation, then faced\na lawsuit, a civil suit, in a civil rights sexual harassment suit by a\nwoman named Paula Jones.\n Long before that suit had any witness list published, he and Monica\nLewinsky had an arrangement that they agreed to lie about the affair\nthat they were having if anybody asked them. Then somewhere along the\nway, in December a year or so ago, there was a subpoena prepared and a\nwitness list appeared for Monica Lewinsky.\n The President called her and told her in a telephone conversation\nthat she was on the witness list, and they talk about their cover\nstories that they had previously discussed about what they would say\nabout what they were doing, so they did not have to reveal the\nrelationship.\n In that same phone conversation, the President suggested she could\nfile an affidavit in order to avoid testifying. He suggested that, I\nsubmit, knowing full well that it was going to be a false affidavit.\n\n {time} 1345\n\n What Monica Lewinsky said, and she said this under oath, and I\nbelieve very credibly, to the grand jury, she said, ``It wasn't as if\nthe President called me and said, you know, Monica, you are on the\nwitness list, this is going to be really hard for us. We are going to\nhave to tell the truth and you will be humiliated in front of the\nentire world about what we have done, which I would have probably\nfought him on. That was different. And by him not calling me and saying\nthat, you know, I knew what that meant.''\n They knew that that affidavit was going to be false, and from that\nmoment on is when the serious nature of this matter came before us.\nBecause at this moment the President committed the crime of obstructing\nthe law, obstructing justice. And the path was set for a scheme in\nwhich he engaged with Monica Lewinsky and others to conceal the truth\nfrom the Paula Jones case and deny Paula Jones her rights and then\nlater to lie to the grand jury, to conceal the truth from a criminal\ngrand jury as well as from the public.\n What happened next is fairly straightforward. During the period of\nthe month of December, there came up the issue of gifts because Monica\nLewinsky had a subpoena to produce any gifts the President had given\nher in the Jones case. And the President and she had a conversation\nabout that shortly after Christmas, in which she suggested maybe she\nshould hide those gifts or give them to the President's secretary to\nkeep. The President said, ``I don't know, I have to think about that.''\n A couple of hours later the evidence shows that is before us, Monica\nLewinsky received a call from Betty Currie. We have the President's\nsecretary, we have a telephone record showing that call, even though\nMs. Currie did not recollect that she made the call. She thought Monica\nmade it to her. We have a record showing it came from Ms. Currie who\nsaid, according to Ms. Lewinsky, and I believe Ms. Lewinsky on this,\nthat the President suggests that I call you to pick up something. And a\nlittle while later, Ms. Currie went over to Lewinsky's home, picked up\ngifts that Lewinsky packaged and put them under her bed. Another\nobstruction of justice.\n Then in early January, in early January the President was talking to\nVernon Jordan, who is his good friend and counselor, and arranged for\nMonica Lewinsky to have an attorney to prepare that affidavit we talked\nabout. Along the way, in the process of preparing that affidavit,\nfinally on January 7, she signed it. And Vernon Jordan testified he\ninformed the President of that. What do you know, the next day, on\nJanuary 8, for the first time Mr. Jordan, although asked much earlier\noften to help get a job for Monica Lewinsky by Monica finally made a\ncall to the head of Revlon Corporation and secured a job for Monica and\nreported that fact back to the President.\n And then what happens next? The President goes to testify. The\nPresident goes to testify in the deposition he gave in the Paula Jones\nlawsuit. And during that deposition, we all saw some of the television\nfilm of that deposition in the Committee on the Judiciary the other\nday. The President observed his attorneys referring to the affidavit\nthat he knew was false and he affirmed the truth of that affidavit that\nhe knew was false. He affirmed the fact that in that affidavit it said\nthat he and Monica essentially were never alone, not just that they did\nnot have particular relations. He went on to lie\n\n[[Page H11805]]\n\nthen about the specific acts that he engaged in with her. He was given\na definition. And even taking his interpretation of the definition the\ncourt in that case gave him and assuming that that rather far out\ndefinition was accurate, if you believe Monica Lewinsky, and she has\nbeen corroborated by 7 contemporaneously told friends and relatives who\nwere witnesses in this under oath that what she said is correct, they\nengaged in sexual activity under the definition in that report and the\ncourt, and the President lied about. He lied about a lot of other\nthings in that deposition.\n He then went on after that, while he, in that deposition, referred\noften to his secretary Betty Currie, to then call Betty Currie to come\nover to visit him the following day right after he had left the\ndeposition. And he talked to Betty Currie. Why did he call her up? He\ncalled her in his office and he said to her, to corroborate, he says,\n``You were always there when she was there; right? We were never really\nalone. You could see and hear everything. Monica came on to me and I\nnever touched her, right? She wanted sex with me and I can't do that.''\n Well, Ms. Currie twice testified under oath the President said this\nto her. Any interpretation is ridiculous other than one that assumes\nthe President expected her to be a witness, even if she wasn't on the\nwitness list. That is a crime of witness tampering or obstruction of\njustice, and the list goes on.\n The sad fact is, I do not want to be here any more than you do. I do\nnot want to impeach this President any more than you do. This is not a\nhappy day for me or anyone else here. But the President of the United\nStates committed multiple felony crimes, not just one instance, not\njust having some relationship which we would have no business being\nconcerned with on impeachment, but he committed multiple felony crimes\nof perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice. The evidence is\nvery clear about it.\n And to fail to impeach him would send an awful message to the\ncountryside that we have a double standard in this country, that the\nPresident, who is the chief law enforcement officer, the Commander in\nChief of the uniformed services of this country, is allowed to get away\nwith perjury. I submit if we do not impeach him, we will send a message\nthat will result in more people lying in court and committing perjury\nthan they do already. And that is on the rise. It is a very, very\nserious matter.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).\n Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?\n Mr. JEFFERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan),\na prosecutor, has indicated for the first time in all of our hearings\nthat there were 16,000 cases of perjury in the State of California\nalone. I would beg him to supply at any time at his convenience any\nindication for the Record what source he uses for that statement. There\nare some that question whether there are 16,000 cases a year in all of\nour courts much less one State.\n My friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has now brought\nforward a matter that has been aired sufficiently in the Committee on\nthe Judiciary that he could not possibly have forgotten, that the cell\nphone incident occurred 1\\1/2\\ hours after the gifts were returned.\nNow, perhaps he has a lapse of memory. The record is clear in our\nhearings and why this would be introduced at this time is beyond this\nMember.\n I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.\n Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, at what point shall we expect the\napproach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we\nexpect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us\nat a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined\nwith all the treasure of the earth in their military chests, with a\nBonaparte for a commander could not by force take a drink from the Ohio\nor make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.\n So spoke President Lincoln in 1838 about the power of America. But he\ncoupled this declaration of our world dominance with a warning and\nadmonition of how we could lose it, which is apropos here. He said\nthen, at what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I\nanswer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us, it cannot\ncome from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its\nauthor and finisher.\n I hope as Lincoln hoped against hope then that I am overwary today\nabout the wounds we are inflicting upon ourselves, our Constitution and\nour body politic by this unfair rush to judgment against our President.\nLike Lincoln then, I worry now about the wild and furious passions\naimed to bring this President down rather than an exercise of sober\njudgment to lift up the true meaning of our Constitution.\n Like Lincoln, I worry that even though we are the preeminent power in\nthe world today, that this grating, this chipping away at the high\nideal of impeachment leads us further down the road to constitutional\ndeath by suicide of a free society. High crimes and misdemeanors, not\nall crimes and misdemeanors, is what our constitution holds as grounds\nfor impeachment. There are no high crimes shown here. But there is a\nbase and basic perversion of the rule of law into a rule of hot blood\nand a rule of political convenience by a majority bent on getting\nPresident Clinton.\n Today you may have the votes but you do not have the high ground. But\njust remember, as we say in Louisiana, what goes around ultimately,\nunfailingly and always comes around.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nArkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentleman\nfrom Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who raised the issue about the\ncorroboration of Monica Lewinsky's testimony in the cell phone call. In\nfact, Monica Lewinsky gave a statement 7 months after the December 28\nincident concerning the gifts. And in her testimony she was asked how\nshe knew that Betty Currie was coming over. She thought there was a\ncell phone or a telephone call, and it was my cell phone. The records\nwere checked that corroborated the testimony of Monica Lewinsky even\nthough it was 7 months later. The telephone call was about 3:37. I\nthink there is documentary corroboration of her testimony.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from\nTennessee (Mr. Bryant), a member of the committee.\n Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, let me also respond regarding an inquiry\nthat our colleague from California made on the statistics of perjury\nfrom that State. I too have seen those numbers. I think rather than an\nannual one-year listing of some 16,000, I think the more accurate\nstatement would be that over the last 5 years some 16,000 people have\nbeen prosecuted for perjury in the State of California on a rising\ntrend, unfortunately, for this country.\n Also fortunate for this debate for the most part the facts of this\ncase have been conceded. We have dwelt our time on higher things such\nas are these impeachable offenses. And that is a good statement; that\nis a good question. That is a good area of debate for us.\n Had the President limited his conduct to the oval office and not\nstepped outside to participate in the cover-up, I would suggest, and I\nthink most of my colleagues would agree on the House floor, that we\nwould not be here today. Certainly we do not agree with what he did in\nthe oval office, but that does not rise to the level of impeachable\nconduct.\n This is not about sex. This is about what happens when you take a\npoll and that poll tells you whether or not to tell the truth. That\npoll tells you that they will not accept your perjury. And the\nPresident says, well, we will just have to win. And this case, this\nimpeachment proceeding is about what occurred after that, the cover-up.\n One of the charges in this article, series of articles is obstruction\nof justice. That concerns many of us who heard the evidence. That not\nonly involved the President but that involved this President of the\nUnited States, the chief law enforcement officer of this country,\nbringing additional people into this, causing additional innocent\npeople to commit crimes. I cite to you the filing of a false affidavit\nby Monica Lewinsky, the hiding of evidence, the\n\n[[Page H11806]]\n\nbringing of people, staff members, cabinet members into his office,\ntelling them his version of the story, knowing that they would repeat\nthat story when they were called to the grand jury. That is a serious\ncharge, when you not only commit the crimes yourself but you bring\nothers into that and cause them great, great distress.\n Perjury is also very important in this case. This President did not\nhave a lapse of judgment. On many occasions, through a pattern and\npractice he gave false testimony, in the grand jury, the deposition, in\nanswering written interrogatories and to this very Congress in this\nvery proceeding when he answered the 81 questions.\n This President is a lawyer. He is a former law professor at the\nUniversity of Arkansas. He is the former Attorney General for the State\nof Arkansas, and he very well knows how important people telling the\ntruth is in our court proceedings, how it underpins our judicial\nsystem. Courts have agreed. And yet he continues to parse his words.\nAnd his own lawyers come in before the committee and say, yes, he\nmisled, he evaded questions. He gave incomplete answers. That is their\ndefense. He parsed his words. And the courts uniformly say that is not\nright. You cannot focus on the precision of a question and ignore what\nthe defendant knows.\n The law is clear that the perjury, the real perjury, the issue is you\nhave to look to the defendant's intent to testify falsely and thereby\nmislead questioners, which has been the intent of this President\nconsistently throughout this process.\n It is unfortunate that we still have that perception of this\nPresident. Because of the very events we are involved in today, many\npeople call into question, is he giving us complete answers about what\nwe are doing over in the Middle East? Is he evading questions. Is he\nmisleading? I do not know, but again that is the pattern and practice\nthat we have had to deal with, and that is one of the concerns that\nbrings many of us to this point where we feel it is necessary.\n The office of presidency, the stature to which it is entitled has\nbeen eroded by this President and this involvement in this process,\nnecessitated by the commission of his own conduct, not the Congress's\nconduct, but his own conduct with the United States Constitution.\n\n {time} 1400\n\n If I might say, there is great stress and turmoil and angst on the\nfloor today. There should be. This is a serious, solemn event,\nsomething that we all, all would rather not have occurred. But as a\nCongress, we cannot ignore our constitutional responsibility and turn\nour head and say let's just forget about this. We have to move forward\nwithin the authority we have, and our only authority is to decide\nwhether to impeach or not to impeach, whether to charge or not to\ncharge.\n We have no authority to invent sanctions such as censure or\nreprimand. If anybody has that authority, it is the Senate. But we\ncannot do that. But let me assure all the Members of Congress, I think,\nof a fact that we all understand and others that are listening who are\nconcerned about this debate. The office of presidency is bigger than\nany person that occupies that office for 4 or 8 years. This office will\nsurvive. This office will stand. And what we are doing today in\ndebating this process is coming to the point of what conduct we will\naccept from the President of the United States, from the office of\npresidency.\n We have heard a lot today about we do not want to dumb-down, we do\nnot want to lower the standards for impeachment. I submit to my\ncolleagues that the better question that we all ought to be concerned\nabout as Members of Congress, as American citizens, do we want to dumb-\ndown, do we want to lower the expectation of the conduct of the chief\nlaw enforcement officer of this country, the Commander in Chief of this\ncountry who sends our soldiers off to foreign lands in harm's way, the\nPresident of the United States? Do we really want to lower that\nexpectation of conduct?\n I say we do not. And I say at the end of this day, perhaps at the end\nof tomorrow's day that we vote, we will have made that final decision.\n Since the inception of this inquiry, a division has been created as\nto what allegations rise to the Constitutional standards of ``high\nCrimes and Misdemeanors.''\n To assist my own interpretation, I look to the words of Justice Louis\nBrandeis from 1928 which read:\n\n In a government of laws, existence of the government will\n be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our\n government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good\n or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime\n is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it\n breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law\n unto himself; it invites anarchy.\n\n The intersectional collision of President Clinton's deplorable\nconduct with our Constitution has set in motion this Inquiry of\nImpeachment. Each member must now match his or her action with only the\nauthority the Constitution delegates to the House of Representatives.\nNo more, no less.\n As such, we must not invent, for the purpose of expediency, a remedy\nwhich does not exist. The House can not and should not be able to\nreprimand, censure or fine the other two branches of government--the\nJudiciary or the Executive.\n Rather, members must be prepared to vote their conscience on whether\nor not to impeach, that is to charge the President with an impeachable\noffense. This is our single role in this process.\n Further, impeachment is not a part of the criminal law. It is not\ngoverned by the criminal rules of procedure, court precedents, nor\nnecessarily, the rules of evidence. Impeachment is truly a unique\nConstitutional process combining elements of the legal and political\nsystems.\n Numerous scholars have come forward suggesting not every crime is\nimpeachable. Likewise, it is clear that an impeachable offense does not\nrequire a criminal law violation. The distinguished Senator Robert Byrd\nfrom West Virginia stated, ``An impeachable offense does not have to be\nan indictable offense of law.''\n Before we begin our evaluation of the charges, let's be clear that\nthe standard that we must attain before we can impeach is not--I\nrepeat--is not the same case as that against President Nixon's in 1974.\nSome intimate that Nixon is the magic threshold and anything less\nshould not be considered for impeachment.\n That is simply, as the President's legal team put it, ``a misleading\nstatement.'' Analogize this situation to the prosecutor at law who\nfails to indict the bank robber who robbed five banks because the\nprosecutor had previously only indicted a robber of 20 banks.\n As for our own evaluation, our first task is to ascertain the facts.\nThe second task is to determine if the facts support an impeachable\noffense.\n As for the facts:\n President Clinton was sued by Paula Jones in a civil sexual\nharassment suit. In her case, Mrs. Jones tried to establish a\nparticular pattern and practice of behavior by the President. This was\nnot unique to her case, most sexual harassment cases establish such a\npattern.\n After former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was listed as a\npotential witness a series of illegal acts ensued. The evidence\nestablishes the President engaged in the following misconduct, in an\napparent effort to prevent Ms. Jones from recovering a monetary\njudgment against him and to protect his Presidency.\n The facts surrounding these unlawful acts are:\n Perjury. The President through a series of calculated lies over a\nperiod of months attempted to evade, mislead and provide incomplete\nresponses to Paula Jones, the judiciary system and the American people.\n Disregarding the recognized legal standard of a ``reasonable man''\nused in all courts, the President repeatedly used verbal gymnastics to\nredefine words and phrases, such as ``alone,'' ``is'' and ``sexual\nrelations.'' The latter interpretation, as admitted by his lawyer,\nresults in the ridiculous conclusion that one party to a particular sex\nact may be involved in a sexual relation while the other party is not.\n Obstruction of Justice. Once the question arose concerning an\n``improper affair'' with Miss Lewinsky, suddenly there was another\nseries of incidents to cover the tracks of this, including ridding the\nimmediate area of evidence in the Jones case and Miss Lewinsky. While\nthe President's ``fingerprints'' aren't clearly on these actions,\nalmost by magic the President is benefitted by physical evidence\ndisappearing from Miss Lewinsky's apartment and reappearing under his\npersonal secretary's bed. Ms. Lewinsky lands her long-sought job with a\nNew York Fortune 500 Company within 24 hours of signing a false\naffidavit supportive of the President in the Jones Case. How lucky can\none man be?\n Abuse of Power. Any claim the President had that this affair was a\nprivate matter, and at worst grounds for divorce, changed when he\nbrought the powers of his high office into play. The facts show that in\nthe President's zeal to keep this affair from the Jones lawsuit,\n\n[[Page H11807]]\n\nhe allowed his government-employed White House Counsels, policy\nadvisors, Cabinet members and communications team to defend him and\nperpetuate the lies. He continued to use his staff for a period of more\nthan seven months to deny, stonewall and lie to those investigating his\nactions.\n We must use a common sense approach to this evidence and look at the\nresults of this series of calculations and incidents. Washington is a\n``wink and nod'' community, where people do not need to say exactly\nwhat they want in order to get what they want done. Nor can we judge\neach act in a vacuum. The context--the big picture--must also be\nconsidered. Just look at the time line, look at the actions and the\nresults would all benefit the one person who says he had nothing to do\nwith anything,\n\n Throughout this process, we have had the daunting task of determining\nwhether these charges meet the standard of ``high Crimes and\nMisdemeanors,'' and whether the Rule of Law could be interpreted to\ninclude these criminal offenses.\n Surely, one cannot seriously argue perjury and obstruction of justice\nare not impeachable. They are fraternal triplets of bribery which is\nspelled out in the Constitution. Each of these have the effect of\nthwarting the truth in our court system. As former Attorney General\nGriffin Bell has testified:\n\n The statutes against perjury, obstruction of justice and\n witness tampering rest on vouchsafing the element of truth in\n judicial proceedings--civil and criminal and particularly the\n grand jury.\n\n Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington Law School told\nCongress that:\n\n The allegations against President Clinton go to the very\n heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of\n the political system.\n\n For those remaining few who persist that this is merely private or\ntrivial conduct, I draw your attention to the testimony before this\ncommittee of John McGinnis, a Professor of Law from the Benjamin H.\nCardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, who said:\n\n Integrity under law is simply not divisible into private\n and public spheres. . . . It would be very damaging for this\n House to accept a legal definition of ``high Crimes and\n Misdemeanors'' that created a republic which tolerates\n ``private'' tax evasion,'' ``private'' perjury and\n ``private'' obstruction of justice from officials who would\n then continue to have the power to throw their citizens into\n prison for the very same offenses.\n\n In addition, Stephen B. Presser, of the Northwestern University\nSchool of Law stated:\n\n They are not trivial matters having to do with the private\n life are thus impeachable offenses. The writings and\n commentary of the framers show that they would have believed\n that what President Clinton is alleged to have done, if true,\n ought to result in his impeachment and removal from office.\n\n Harvard Law professor, Richard D. Parker, also stressed the Rule of\nLaw in his testimony saying:\n\n Now, consider another hypothetical situation: Suppose the\n President were shown to have bribed the judge in a civil\n lawsuit against him for sexual harassment, seeking to cover\n up embarrassing evidence. As bribery, this act would be\n impeachable, despite its source in the President's sex life.\n What is the difference between that and lying under oath or\n obstructing justice in the same judicial proceeding--to say\n nothing of before a federal grand jury--for the same purpose?\n By analogy, both sorts of behavior would seem grossly to\n pervert, even to mock, the course of justice in a court of\n the United States.\n\n And finally, when one wants to blame Congress for all of this, I\nissue the reminder that it was President Clinton and only President\nClinton whose consistently made wrong choices instead of the right\nchoices who has brought us to the point of national exhaustion.\n Also, remember the additional words of Professor McGinnis about our\nforefathers' paramount concern with the integrity of our public\nofficial:\n\n They recognized that the prosperity and stability of the\n nation ultimately rest on the people's trust in their rulers.\n They designed the threat of removal from office to restrain\n the inevitable tendency of rulers to abuse that trust.\n\n Since these allegations were brought to the attention of the\nCommittee, my office has been inundated with phone calls and mail. In\nmy office, I have received an overwhelming number of calls in support\nof impeachment, however, I understand the concerns of both sides. I\nlook forward to the end of this debate and getting back to the\nimportant issues of social security, health care and others. But I want\nmy constituents to understand, I do not relish this vote or this\nposition our President has put us in. This will be the toughest vote I\nwill make as a Congressman and I only wish I never had to make it.\n There are no winners or losers here today. America has truly\nsuffered. The facts remain, our President has placed himself before the\nlaw and the nation.\n As such, I join the more than 100 newspapers and numerous other\nAmericans to call upon the President to do the right and honorable\nthing--resign from the Office of the Presidency.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Manton), a distinguished attorney and Member of the House.\n (Mr. MANTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.\nSpeaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of impeachment before the\nHouse.\n Mr. Speaker, after 14 years representing the citizens of the 7th\nCongressional District of New York, these will likely be my last votes\nthat I cast as a Member of the House of Representatives. They will,\nironically, certainly be the most significant and the ones which will\ngarner the most attention from historians.\n Mr. Speaker, there is no question that what the President has done is\nreprehensible. No one condones his actions. No one excuses his conduct.\nWe all wish that he had conducted himself in a more responsible manner.\nWe all want him to be more forthcoming in confronting the charges\nagainst him. We cannot, however, vote to overturn the two national\nelections and impeach the President simply because of a perceived lack\nof contrition on his part.\n Mr. Speaker, we must take into consideration the consequences of our\nactions and weigh them against the purported misdeeds of the President.\nWhile I do not agree with the President on each and every issue, I\nbelieve he has done a good job as our country's steward over the past 6\nyears.\n Mr. Speaker, I for one am particularly proud and humbled by his\nunceasing efforts to bring peace to Northern Ireland and the Middle\nEast, succeeding where many before him have failed or did not even\nattempt to act.\n In closing, I turn to the words of one of our Founding Fathers,\nThomas Jefferson, who said, ``Common sense is the foundation of all\nauthorities, of the laws themselves and of their construction.'' I put\nto my colleagues that to vote for impeachment flies in the face of\ncommon sense and good judgment. We should avoid a dangerous precedent\nand vote against these articles of impeachment.\n Our descendants would be ill served by an impeachment vote which\nalters the standard for removing a president. In the end we must\nremember that the perfect can be the enemy of the good. The right\ndecision, the just conclusion is a vote for censure.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nPennsylvania (Mr. McHale)\n Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to\nsalvage any sense of nobility in reviewing the allegations before us.\nBut there is one truth. The most basic rights of the people will be\npreserved only so long as public officials at every level of government\ntremble before the law.\n As a deeply disheartened Democrat, I will be voting yes on\nimpeachment articles I, II, and III.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\\1/2\\ minutes to the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a dear friend of mine from the\nold Government Operations Committee.\n Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Michigan (Mr.\nConyers) for yielding time to me.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise as the only Member in the history of the Congress\nwho has lived under and fought against both fascism and communism.\nEvery day I enter this hall I do so with a feeling of humility and\npride, as one who has suffered the pain of living in a police state and\nnow enjoys the exhilaration of living in a free society.\n The question I want to raise today is, what distinguishes this\nCongress from the legislatures of despotic countries? It certainly is\nnot the taking of votes. Because there are always votes, plenty of\nthem, in totalitarian parliaments. Nor is it the eloquence or the\nerudition or the IQ level of Members. Mr. Speaker, what distinguishes\nthis House from\n\n[[Page H11808]]\n\nthe fake parliaments of police states is procedural fairness.\n What we ask is the opportunity to vote on censuring the President in\naddition to the opportunity to vote on impeachment. Democracy not only\nmeans the rule of the majority, it also mandates respect for the\nminority. If our Republican colleagues allow a vote on censure and even\nif that vote fails, they will give respect and legitimacy to these\nproceedings. Should a censure vote prevail, they will allow the voice\nof the true majority to triumph.\n Some of my very best friends sit on the other side of the aisle and I\nwould defend their right to vote their conscience with my life if\nnecessary. I find it unbelievable that they want to limit my right to\nvote my conscience.\n The censure vote we are seeking is supported by our former Republican\ncolleague, the former Republican President of the United States of\nAmerica, Gerald Ford, who is renowned for his fairness. The censure\nvote we seek is supported by the former Republican leader of the United\nStates Senate and the Republican candidate for President in 1996,\nSenator Bob Dole. The censure vote we seek is supported by the large\nmajority of our fellow citizens.\n Mr. Speaker, compromise is the currency of a free society. Self-\nrighteous certitude is the antithesis of democracy. I respect all of my\ncolleagues who will ultimately vote for impeachment, but I ask that\nthey respect the right of those of us who wish to express our\ndisapproval but who deeply believe that the impeachment and the removal\nof our President would be a travesty to the principle of\nproportionality, it would be unfair to him and to his family, and it\nwould be damaging to our national interest.\n When this debate is over, I hope they will allow all of us to feel\nthat we have participated in a real vote of a real legislature. I ask\nthat we have the opportunity to vote on a motion to censure the\nPresident. If the impeachment vote succeeds in this House, come\nJanuary, President Clinton will be on trial in the Senate. But today,\nmy friends, it is this House that is on trial.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n It is important to address that issue of censure. We discussed this\nin the committee and there were numerous constitutional experts that\naddressed this. Stephen Presser, professor of legal history at\nNorthwestern University School of Law, wrote a letter to the gentleman\nfrom Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) disagreeing about censure and saying\nthat censure would not be constitutional. He said, ``In my opinion,\nimpeachment is the remedy for misconduct.''\n We go to the University of London, a similar response by Gary\nMcDowell noted that censure was not a proper constitutional remedy and\nwould violate the separation of powers. And on to John Harrison,\nUniversity of Virginia School of Law by a letter to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) Saying that, ``My view at this point is\nthat there are serious constitutional difficulties with congressional\ncensure.'' And for that reason, because of the constitutional problems,\nthat was not presented.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).\n Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding.\n The technicalities have been debated ad nauseum and ad infinitum.\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the\ngentleman's point was also on fairness. And, as has been read earlier\ntoday, going back to 1974 on this House, the Democrat Speaker refused\nto allow a vote on censure in reference to President Nixon; and so,\nthere is a precedent for what has transpired as well as constitutional\nconsideration.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California (Mr.\nLantos) 1 minute.\n Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nConyers).\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could I point out to my distinguished\nscholars and members of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are not\ntrying to solve this problem within this debate. Let's bring up the\nmotion and we can debate its constitutionality or its\nunconstitutionality. You surely must know that there have been censures\nin our American history.\n Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is not a person in\nthis body on either side who does not clearly understand that this body\nhas every right to censure the President, and to hide behind these\nphony technicalities demeans this House.\n My colleagues know as well as I do that a censure vote could be\ntaken, would be legal, would be constitutional and would carry.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nArkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity. But censure\nis being used in this case as a marketing tool to the American public\nto sell them on the idea that there is a simple, easy way to avoid our\nconstitutional responsibility; and I think that we should stick with\nthe Constitution.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Riggs).\n Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to interject at this point in\nthe debate, colleagues, that as part of my own personal deliberations,\nin the last 48 hours I have spoken to both former President Ford and\nBob Dole. Both men emphatically told me, and of course both are former\nHouse members, that they would vote to impeach, that they felt it was\nthe duty of the House, barring a public acknowledgement, an admission\nof the President that he had lied under oath and perjured himself, it\nwas the duty of the House to vote for the articles of impeachment.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nUtah (Mr. Cook).\n Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for\nyielding time to me.\n Mr. Speaker, the argument has been made that lying about sex is\ndifferent and does not qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor. I am\nnot a lawyer, but I do not think that the law requiring us to tell the\ntruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth means we can tell the\ntruth that is convenient or the truth only about certain things.\n A lie is a lie. A lie to a grand jury and a lie in a sworn deposition\nis equally a lie and equally a violation of the law, whether it is\nabout sex or whether it is about national security.\n Others who have lied under oath have been criminally charged. In the\nlast 2 years, 3 people in my State of Utah have been charged, convicted\nand sentenced for lying under oath. They faced the consequences of\ntheir actions and they took their punishment. How can we now tell the\nAmerican public that a lesser standard applies to the President of the\nUnited States, the chief administrator of the laws of this country?\n Some have argued that by voting for impeachment we are lowering the\nbar for impeachment. I disagree. I think we are instead affirming\ndemocracy as truly the cornerstone of this great country. We are saying\nthat the American people who have, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.\nHyde) so eloquently put it this morning, believed, fought and\nsacrificed this past 227 years for the rule of law, believe that all\nare subject to that law, not just the poor, the minorities or those\nwithout affluence or influence, as some cynics have claimed in recent\nyears, but all, including the man who holds the most powerful and\ninfluential office in this country.\n\n {time} 1415\n\n To me that does not lower the bar for impeachment; it raises the\nstandard for democracy.\n\n Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all\npersons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and\nthat any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a\nviolation of the House rules.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nFlorida (Mrs. Meek), who has waited patiently for her turn.\n (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand to voice my dissent and my\ndisagreement, and I rise to give my strong opposition to the articles\nof impeachment that have been brought before us today.\n\n[[Page H11809]]\n\n I know what has caused this to happen; I have watched it.\n It took me 129 years to get to this Congress because of some folks\ninterpreting the Constitution. I have heard a lot about the\nConstitution today. But the same people that are interpreting it\nwrongly today were obviously there long many years ago when it was\nmisinterpreted and when some folks were left out.\n How many more good people are going to have to lose their reputation\nbecause of what I am seeing here in this Congress? Good men are losing\ntheir reputation every day here. Who will be next because of this\nstrive, this strive for gonadal agony?\n We are going in the wrong direction here in this Congress. Because of\nthis biased interpretation a man who has served this country very well\nis now up for impeachment.\n Too many of my colleagues have a gotcha syndrome. They want to do\ntheir best to get Mr. President. I saw it from the very beginning with\nevery kind of gate there was in government reform. There was a\ntailgate, there was a post office gate. Every gate imaginable was\nbrought before that committee long before this impeachment started, but\nit was the beginning of impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.\n My colleagues have not liked him from the very beginning. I have\ntried to find out why. They dislike him, but they cannot get him in the\nmanner which they tried before, so now they are going to use this gonad\nshriveling impeachment process to try and get him. It is unfair, it is\ntainted.\n I have some familiarity with this unfairness and injustice that we\nsee in this country. My colleagues cannot escape it. Every American\nknows that this impeachment process is partisan if they looked at the\nvotes of the very good Committee on the judiciary hearings we had. I\nwatched it. I read everything I could. It is partisan. It goes against\nthe history of this country.\n The Republican majority has chosen time and time again to exclude the\nDemocrats. We are asking only for a chance for censure. That is what we\nare asking for. It does not mean we are going to win that, but at least\nthey could give us that opportunity.\n Mr. Speaker, our colleagues are out of touch with the people of the\ncountry, they are out of touch with the Constitution, and I say to the\nrest of them: Now is the time to try and give censure to a man who has\ngiven something for this country and give all of us who seek fairness\nand justice for this country. It was not only set out for certain\npeople; it is for all the people.\n Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues believe in the Constitution so\nstrongly, they should act on it.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nVirginia (Mr. Goodlatte).\n (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this\ntime to me, and I ask that a letter received from Senator Bob Dole\ndated today be placed in the record. I will read a part of that:\n It is entirely appropriate for the U.S. House of Representatives to\ndebate and vote on articles of impeachment at this time.\n He later says, I also believe that quick positive action in the House\ncould improve chances for a timely resolution of this matter in the\nU.S. Senate.\n So to those on the other side who have been invoking the name of\nSenator Dole, I would point out that he believes that it is appropriate\nfor us to take the action we are taking today.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nNorth Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).\n Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, just before the November 3 election my 5-\nyear-old grandson, Jake, asked his mother if we were going to be\nelecting a new President, and upon being told, no, we already have a\nPresident, Jake replied: No, we do not; he lied.\n As my colleagues know, such principle from the mouths of babes. As\nsad as this is for our Nation, this action is necessary so that all of\nus can continue to not only uphold but teach those basic truths and\nbasic right and wrong in our houses and, most assuredly, in this House.\n Yes, to err is human, but to lie and deny and vilify; rather than\nthat we need to confess and repair and repent.\n Just remember, the children are watching.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Illinois (Mr. Jackson).\n (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Republicans say the underlying\nissue is not about sex, it is about perjury. Democrats say the\nunderlying issue is about sex, a private consensual relationship, and\nthe President lied about it, possibly committing perjury in the\nprocess. But since lying about sex is not an act involved using his\nofficial position against the state as Nixon did, Democrats say\nClinton's sins do not reach the constitutional standard for\nimpeachment. That is the essence of the arguments we have heard\npresented by Members of Congress and the Committee on the Judiciary,\nbut underlying the pending Clinton impeachment is neither sex, nor\nlying, nor perjury, but American history itself. Essentially the same\neconomic and political forces that drove the presidential impeachment\nprocess against Andrew Johnson in 1868 are driving the impeachment\nprocess 130 years later. There has been a role reversal. The\nRepublicans of 1998 were the Democrats of 1868, but the underlying\nissue is essentially the same:\n Reconstruction. The first reconstruction was at issue in 1868; the\nsecond reconstruction is at issue in 1998.\n It could not possibly be about the standard. Congress determined that\nMr. Nixon's failure to pay taxes and his lying about failure to pay\nthose taxes did not meet the constitutional standard while felonious.\nMr. Clinton's actions, while potentially felonious, does not reach the\nconstitutional standard. So we look to history for the answer.\n People keep asking me every time I step outside of this Congress why\ndoes the African American community keep sticking with Bill Clinton?\nWhen legal slavery ended, this is why. There were 9 million people in\nthe old Confederacy which was led by the Democrat Party. Then the\nDemocratic Party was defined in exclusive terms, as slave holders\nprotected by States rights governments. Four million people,\nsoutherners, were uneducated, untrained former slaves who wanted to be\nbrought into the mainstream of America, that it include poor and\nworking class whites who wanted to be brought in. The identification of\nLincoln and the Republican Party with ending slavery led southern\nDemocrats to refer to Lincoln as the black President and the Republican\nParty as the black Republican Party. Former Democratic confederates\nopposed and resisted the big centralized Republican federal government\nand wanted to get the government off of their States' backs so they\ncould get right back to their old States rights ways. Senator Andrew\nJohnson was a Tennessee Democrat who had refused to join his southern\nDemocratic Confederates and stayed with the northern Unionists.\nLincoln's concern about preserving and re-unifying the Union, the\nNation following the war led him to appoint that Democrat to become\nVice. When Lincoln was killed, President Johnson focused on putting the\nUnion back together but not on building a more perfect union for all\nAmericans. And unlike Lincoln and the Republicans, he was willing to\npreserve the Union by leaving some Americans behind, sacrificing the\nrights and interests of the former slaves. This is why. As a result\nthose northern angry Republicans investigated a vulnerable Johnson, who\nnot unlike Bill Clinton had personal foibles, to try to come up with an\nexcuse to impeach him. It was a partisan attack by Republicans on a\nDemocratic President in order to preserve undertaking the Republicans'\nfirst reconstructive economic program. Today's conservative based\nRepublicans' target is not Bill Clinton, it is second reconstruction,\nespecially the liberalism of Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson,\nbut also ultimately including the big government economic programs of\nFDR.\n Let us not be confused. Today Republicans are impeaching Social\nSecurity, they are impeaching affirmative action, they are impeaching\nwomen's right to choose, Medicare, Medicaid, Supreme Court Justices who\nbelieve in equal protection under the law for all Americans. Something\ndeeper in history is happening than sex, lying about\n\n[[Page H11810]]\n\nsex and perjury. In 1868 it was about reconstruction, and in 1998 it is\nstill about reconstruction.\n Republicans say the underlying issue is not about sex, it's about\nperjury. Democrats say the underlying issue is about sex--a private\nconsensual sexual relationship--and the President lied about it,\npossibly committing perjury in the process. But since lying about sex\nis not an act that involved using is official position against the\nstate, as Nixon did, Democrats say, Clinton's sins do not reach the\nConstitutional standard for impeachment.\n That is the essence of the argument we heard presented by members of\nthe House Judiciary Committee and voted on along partisan party lines\nto impeach President Clinton. That is what the current Republicans and\nDemocrats are saying. What will history say?\n Underlying the pending Clinton impeachment is neither sex, nor lying,\nnor perjury, but American history itself. Essentially the same elitist\neconomic and political forces that drove the president impeachment\nprocess against Andrew Johnson in 1868 are driving the impeachment\nprocess 130 years later. There has been a ``role reversal''--the\nRepublicans of 1998 were the Democrats of 1868--but the underlying\nissue is essentially the same: reconstruction. The First Reconstruction\nwas at issue in 1868, the Second Reconstruction is at issue in 1998.\n Congress determined that Mr. Nixon's failure to pay taxes, while\nfelonious, did not meet constitutional standards. Mr. Clinton's action\nwhile potentially felonies, does not reach the standards so we look to\nhistory for the answer.\n The end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 13th Amendment to\nthe Constitution on December 18, 1865 ended legal slavery, Slavery, the\nDemocratic Party, its geography and its ideology were all defeated. But\nLincoln's assassination five days after Appomattox denied him and the\nRepublican Party the opportunity to pursue a ``Big Federal Government''\npolicy of economic reconstruction and political enfranchisement for all\nAmericans, leaving no American behind.\n People keep asking me why the black community sticks with Bill\nClinton.\n When legal slavery ended, there were nine million people in the old\nConfederacy, which was led by the Democratic Party. Then, the\nDemocratic Party was defined in exclusive terms--as slave holders with\nprivate property rights (slaves) which were protected legally by\n``States' rights'' governments. Four million of the southerners were\nuneducated and untrained former slaves who needed to be educated,\ntrained and brought into the economic mainstream and politically\nenfranchised with the right and ability to vote. That didn't include\npoor and working class whites who had similar needs and had been\nexploited, manipulated, misused and politically diverted with a focus\non social issues (then, perpetuating the fear of interracial sex) by\nthe slave owners to preserve and protect their elite economic system of\nspecial interests.\n Just eight years earlier, in 1857, in the Dred Scott decision, the\nCourt had ruled that blacks had no rights that a white man must respect\nand that Congress could not outlaw slavery anywhere in the U.S. The\nConfederacy--its economy, religion, family, social customs, mores and\npolitics--was based and built on the institution of slavery. The Civil\nWar ended slavery, but it did not create a more perfect Union because\nthere were still two outstanding problems: (1) How to bring four\nmillion former slaves into the economic mainstream? And (2) How to\npolitically enfranchise them? That was the goal of the First\nReconstruction and it's goal has never been realized. Those twin\nproblems have never been completely fixed!\n The identification of Lincoln and the Republican Party with ending\nslavery led southern Democrats to refer to Lincoln as the Black\nPresident and the Republican Party as the Black Republican Party. So\nthe Rep. J.C. Watts' Republican Party has gone from being known as the\nBlack Republican Party to one Black Republican. ``Former'' Democratic\nConfederates opposed and resisted the ``Big Centralized Republican\nFederal Government'' and wanted ``the government off of their states'\nbacks'' so they could go back to their old ``States' Rights'' ways.\n Senator Andrew Johnson was a Tennessee Democrat who had refused to\njoin his fellow southern Democratic Confederates and stayed with the\nnorthern Unionists. Lincoln's concern about preserving and reunifying\nthe nation following the war led our first Republican President to\nreward Johnson's loyalty by nominating him for Vice President in the\n1864 campaign.\n Lincoln fought a Civil War to preserve the Union and to end slavery.\nHe defeated the southern slave forces militarily at a national cost of\n620,000 lives and was prepared to reconstruct the nation with a\nRepublican program of economic inclusion and political enfranchisement.\n When Lincoln was killed, President Johnson focused on putting the\nUnion back together, but not on building a ``more perfect Union'' for\nall Americans. Unlike Lincoln and the Republicans, he was willing to\npreserve the Union by leaving some Americans behind, sacrificing the\nrights and interests of the former slaves. As a result, angry northern\nRadical Republicans investigated a vulnerable Johnson--who was not\nunlike Bill Clinton in terms of his personal foibles--to try to come up\nwith an excuse to impeach him. It was a partisan Republican attack on a\nDemocratic President in order to preserve undertaking the Republicans'\nFirst Reconstruction economic program. It was in this context that the\nhistorically black colleges and universities were founded.\n The struggle between these radical progressive northern Republicans\nand these radical conservative southern Democrats continued following\nthe Civil War, and finally came to a head in the 1876 presidential\nelection and Tilden-Hayes Compromise of 1877--which ended\nreconstruction. Rutherford B. Hayes, a Republican, was finally elected\nPresident by one vote in the House, but in exchange for pulling out\nFederal troops protecting the newly freed slaves in the South, and\nagreeing to appoint conservative Democrats to the Supreme Court. New\nDemocratic Confederates, with the help of new ``black laws'' of\ndiscrimination, psychological intimidation, physical violence and\nmurder, were now on their way back to being in power in the South.\n By 1896, the Supreme Court appointments resulted in Plessy, which\nushered in Jim Crow, and by 1901 the first Congressional Black Caucus\nwas completely eliminated from Congress, not to return for three\ndecades.\n\n Blacks remained loyal to the Republican Party until 1936, FDR's\nsecond term. African Americans were attracted to his New (economic)\nDeal. Roosevelt defined a new more inclusive Democratic Party by\noffering an economic agenda that appealed to every American.\n It is the same white elitist southern forces and their continuing\nanti-Federal government ideology--except today they are called\nRepublicans--who want, this time, not to preserve but to undue the\nnation's effort at reconstruction, a Second Reconstruction begun in\n1954 with Brown, continued with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965\nVoting Rights Act, affirmative action and majority-minority political\ndistricts. The southern Democratic Party, with the legacy of the\nConfederacy, generally found itself on the wrong side of history again\nin the 1960s. Governors George Wallace of Alabama, Lester Maddox of\nGeorgia and Orville Faubus of Arkansas were all Democrats. Renowned\nsegregationists like Senator Richard Russell of Georgia and Congressman\nHoward Smith from Virginia were Democrats. Today's Senators Strom\nThurmond of South Carolina and Richard Shelby of Alabama were\noriginally Dixiecrats, but are now Republicans.\n Today's conservative southern-based Republicans' target is the Second\nReconstruction, especially the ``liberalism'' of Democratic President\nLyndon Johnson's Great Society, but also ultimately including many of\nthe ``Big Government'' economic programs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's\nNew Deal. The real underlying dynamic of this impeachment proceeding is\nnot the removal of Bill Clinton, but the removal of the social and\neconomic programs of the New Deal and the Second Reconstruction of the\nGreat Society, a weakening of the Big Federal Government generally, and\nthe destruction of liberalism as a viable political ideology in\nparticular.\n Whether these conservative anti-Federal government Republicans are\nsuccessful or not will be determined by history. There will be a few\npro-impeachment Democrats thrown in for good measure because,\npolitically, they must factor in the old Democratic forces in the\nSouth, now controlled by the Republicans. The Republican impeachment\nstrategy can only be measured by future elections. Will the American\npeople be led astray again by the Republicans' new sex diversion or\nwill a strong political leader be able to get them to focus on their\nreal economic interests of full employment, comprehensive and universal\nhealth care, affordable housing and a quality public education?\nHistory--not President Clinton or the current crop of Democrats and\nRepublicans--will render that judgment!\n The political and ideological roots of this anti-reconstruction and\nanti-more-perfect-union crowd is in the South, though its tentacles\nhave spread beyond the South. This Republican impeachment effort allows\nus to look at the roots, dynamic and current political structure of\nthis conservative political movement.\n Begin with the Judiciary Committee. Ten of the eighteen Republican\nmembers of the Judiciary Committee are ultra-conservatives from former\nConfederate states. In the middle of the impeachment hearings, one of\nthem, Bob Barr of Georgia, was exposed for having recently spoken\nbefore a white supremacist group.\n Move on to the House Republican leadership. The Speaker is Newt\nGingrich (R-GA), whose history is laced with not-so-subtle new racial\ncode words, and the Speaker-elect is\n\n[[Page H11811]]\n\nBob Livingston (R-LA). There styles are different, but their substances\nis essentially the same. Both abdicated their leadership roles in the\nimpeachment crisis only to have another southern conservative, Rep. Tom\n``The Hammer'' DeLay (R-TX), fill the void. He is intimidating and\nforcing Republicans, not to vote against censure, but to vote with\ntheir party on a procedural vote--which, in essence, is a vote to kill\na vote of conscience for censure.\n In addition, call the roll of House leadership and committee\nchairmanships in the 105th Congress: Richard Armey (TX), Majority\nLeader; Bill Archer (TX), Ways and Means; Bob Livingston (LA),\nAppropriations; Floyd Spence (SC), National Security; Thomas Bliley\n(VA), Commerce; Porter Goss (FL), Permanent Select Committee on\nIntelligence.\n Add to that the 105th Republican controlled Senate: Trent Lott (MS),\nSenate Majority Leader; Strom Thurmond (SC), President Pro Tem (3rd in\nline to be President), Chairman, Armed Services; Jesse Helms (NC),\nSenate Foreign Relations; John Warner (VA), Rules; Richard Shelby (AL),\nSelect Committee on Intelligence. Today in Congress there are more\npeople arguing on behalf of states' rights than there are people\narguing on behalf of building a more perfect union.\n But don't stop there. Look at who will preside as Chief Justice over\nan impeachment trial in the Senate--the ultimate conservative states'\nrighter, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Nominated to\nthe Court by Nixon and elevated to Chief Justice by Reagan, this\nintellectually gifted conservative, when clerk for Justice Robert H.\nJackson between 1952 and 1953, wrote a memorandum arguing in favor of\nupholding the ``separate but equal'' doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson in\npreparation for the 1954 decision on Brown. As a conservative Phoenix\nlawyer, he appeared as a witness before the Phoenix City Council in\nopposition to a public accommodations ordinance and took part in a\nprogram of challenging African American voters at the polls.\n From 1969 until 1971, he served as assistant attorney general for the\nOffice of Legal Counsel. In that position, he supported executive\nauthority to order wiretapping and surveillance without a court order,\nno-knock entry by the police, preventive detention and abolishing the\nexclusionary rule, that is, a rule to dismiss evidence gathered in an\nillegal way.\n As a member of the Burger Court, Rehnquist played a crucial role in\nreviving the debate regarding the relationship between the federal\ngovernment and the states. The consequences of Rehnquist's state-\ncentered federalism surfaced dramatically in the area of individual\nrights. Since the 1960s, the Court had held that nearly every provision\nin the Bill of Rights applies to the states through the Due Process\nClause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rehnquist voiced his disagreement\nwith such a method of determining the constitutional requirements of\nstate action, particularly in the context of criminal proceedings,\nurging a return to an earlier approach whereby the states were not\nrequired to comply with the Bill of Rights but only to treat\nindividuals with ``fundamental fairness.''\n Likewise, Rehnquist narrowly construed the Fourteenth Amendment's\nmandate to the states not to deny any person the equal protection of\nthe laws. He contended that all that the framers of the Fourteenth\nAmendment hoped to achieve with the Equal Protection Clause was to\nprevent the states from treating black and white citizens differently.\nThe most important value for Rehnquist is his state-centered\nfederalism, followed by private property and individual rights. In\nother words, his current views are consistent with the core of the\nstates' rights legal philosophy a century-and-a-half ago, where the\nindividual right to own property (slaves) was to be protected by a\nstates' rights government!\n To capture a new political base, Republicans abandoned the essence of\nLincoln and decided to go after Dixie, using social issues as cover for\ntheir narrow economic interests. Barry Goldwater launched this modern\nconservative anti-Federal government movement with his 1964\npresidential campaign. Ronald Reagan picked it up and sent the same\nsignal by launching his southern campaign from Philadelphia,\nMississippi in 1980, in the name of states' rights, where two Jews and\na Black were murdered in the name of states' rights fighting for the\nright to vote. Now Republicans want to complete Mr. Gingrich's 1994\n``Revolution of Devolution'' by defeating and eliminating the twin evil\nforces of ``liberalism'' and ``Big Government'' in the 2000 election.\n The Republicans know that if the President is impeached in the House,\nhe will not be convicted in the Senate. They don't want him convicted\nand out of office, with President Al Gore given two years to solidify\nhis hold on the White House. They want an impeached, but not convicted,\nPresident twisting in the wind for two years leading up to the 2000\nelection. This is a continuation of the November 3, 1998, strategy of\nthe Republican hard liners to motivate and build their conservative\n``social values'' political base as a dimersion from economic justic\nissues.\n What the Republicans want out of this impeachment crisis is a\n``family values'' issue for the 2000 presidential campaign. They want\nto say that Clinton's sexual misconduct is the result of the ``decadent\nvalues'' of the 1960's and liberalism generally. In other words, in\nsome form, the Lewinsky matter will become a Republican ``wedge issue''\nin the 2000 campaign. The fact that African Americans are so closely\nidentified with both President Clinton and liberal ``Big Government''\nprograms fits perfectly with their consistent use of race to divide the\nelectorate in presidential campaigns. They can send the subliminal race\nsignal while publicly denying they are using race as an issue in the\ncampaign. So far the Republicans have gotten away with it and they have\nnot been impeached for lying about it.\n The Republican goal in 2000 is to use this strategy to retain control\nof the House and Senate and to gain control of the White House. They\ncan then appoint their hardcore conservative right wing friends to the\nSupreme Court after 2001. We will be treated to Kenneth Starr clones as\nnominees to the Supreme Court. Remember, Kenneth Starr's ambition\nbefore being sullied by the Lewinsky affair was to be appointed to the\nSupreme Court.\n Republicans in control of the executive, legislative and judicial\nbranches of the Federal government could turn the clock back to a\ntwenty-first century version of the good old States' Rights days of the\n1850s and the 1896 ``separate but equal'' days of Plessy v. Ferguson.\n By putting impeachment in the legislative rather than the judicial\nbranch of government, the Constitution deliberately made it a\npolitical-legal affair. Republicans have done in 1998, what Democrats\ndid in 1868. They have used the political-legal nature of the\nimpeachment process to turn it into a political--political affair to\nfurther their anti-Big Government aims.\n Republicans are trying to impeach reconstruction. President Clinton\nrisked all of that history of social and economic progress by lying\nabout an issue of personal satisfaction. He has not committed treason\nas defined by the Constitution as an impeachable offense. His treason\nis against our cause of building a more perfect union.\n After economic and socially conservative Presidents Nixon, Ford,\nCarter (an economic conservative, but more liberal socially), Reagan\nand Bush, a moderate-to-conservative southern Democrat, President\nClinton, has helped to prepare an economic bridge which would allow us\nto again begin to work on some of the unfinished and unreconstructed\ntasks of the Civil War. Monica Lewinsky has now reduced the defense of\nthat agenda to a defense of him.\n Today Republicans are trying to impeach Social Security, affirmative\naction, the right to choose, Medicare, Medicaid, Supreme Court justices\nwho believe in equal protection under the law for all Americans, public\neducation for all over vouchers for some, universal and comprehensive\nhealth coverage over medical savings accounts for the few, affordable\nhousing for all, versus mansions for a select few in an effort to win\nelections.\n Clinton launched a dialogue to talk about race, but the real race\ndialogue is what could potentially happen to economic reconstruction in\n2001 if this reactionary Republican strategy works. Clinton has worked\nhard to separate the race dialogue from the economic dialogue--joining\nwith the Republicans in 1997, and ignoring his strongest liberal\nsupporters today, by cutting a budget deal to balance the budget with\nthe conservative Republicans. That deal assures that there will not be\nenough money to fix our historic problem. He has reduced his own\ndefense to a personal defense instead of a defense of history.\n Something deeper in history than sex, lying and perjury is at issue\nhere--just as something deeper in history than the removal of a cabinet\nsecretary was a stake in 1868. At stake in 1868 was the First\nReconstruction. At stake in 1998 is the Second Reconstruction. The\nstruggle taking place in Congress and nationally today is between those\npolitical forces who want to build a more perfect union for all\nAmericans, leaving no American behind, and those who want to return an\nelitist economic program of more perfect ``States' Rights'' for the\nfew. That is what underlies the impeachment crisis.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).\n Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the twentieth session in which I\nhave been casting votes in legislative chambers in this status. I\nsubmit a statement on behalf of all four articles of impeachment for my\nside.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Canady).\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is much in the statement of\nthe gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to which I could respond. I\ndo\n\n[[Page H11812]]\n\nwant to focus on one particular point that he made which we have heard\nrepeated time and time again concerning the impeachment proceedings\nagainst President Nixon.\n It is claimed that the Committee on the Judiciary decided that tax\nfraud by President Nixon was not an impeachable offense. The record\nsimply does not bear that out. It is true that the committee rejected\nan article of impeachment based on tax fraud against President Nixon,\nbut it is equally clear that the overwhelming majority of the members\nof the committee who expressed an opinion on that subject said that\nthey were voting against that article because there was insufficient\nevidence to support tax fraud.\n Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote what the subsequent chairman of\nthe Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Brooks, a Democrat, said in that\ncontext. He said that no man in America can be above the law. It is our\nduty to establish now the evidence of specific statutory crimes and\nconstitutional violations by the President of the United States will\nsubject all Presidents now and in the future to impeachment. No\nPresident is exempt under our U.S. Constitution and the laws of the\nUnited States from accountability for personal misdeeds any more than\nhe is for official misdeeds.\n I think that we on this committee in our effort to fairly evaluate\nthe President's activities will show the American people that all men\nare treated equally under the law.\n Now that was a view that was adopted by the gentleman from Michigan\n(Mr. Conyers) also, who supported the tax fraud article, the gentleman\nfrom New York (Mr. Rangel) and various other Members on the Democrat\nside.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Horn).\n (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, censure did not change Andrew Jackson. We have\nheard a lot about censure during the Jackson administration. When the\nSupreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Indians, Jackson was heard\nto say about the sitting Chief Justice, ``Well, John Marshall has made\nhis decision, let us see if he can enforce it.'' Obviously the Court\ncould not enforce the order. The Court does not have the Army. The\nCourt does not have the Federal marshals. So much for censure.\n Censure would have about as much effect on the behavior of Presidents\nas a parent yelling and shouting at a teenager. As we know, shouting\ndoes not usually change teenage behavior.\n\n {time} 1430\n\n The other point that I would make is we have heard an awful lot of\ntalk about the repeal of the 1996 election. We have heard a lot of talk\nin the Shays town meeting about a coup occurring in America. This is\nutter nonsense. After all, the President of the United States picked\nhis Vice President in 1992 and 1996, and he picked him for issue\ncompatibility, and certainly Vice President Gore would have that,\nshould the Senate vacate the office of President. I would suggest that\nthe ``repeal the 1996 election'' argument falls.\n The President must subject himself to the rule of law that effects\nall of our citizens. This should be a warning to all presidents, that\nwhen you break the rule of law, you violate Federal laws--be it\nperjury, suborning witnesses, whatever it is--that you might endanger\nyourself with impeachment.\n Let us do the right thing. Let us vote for the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: my weekly column\nentitled ``Two Challenges for Our Country.''\n\n Two Challenges for Our Country\n\n This week, our nation has been confronted with two crucial\n challenges--Saddam Hussein again has blocked weapons\n inspections in Iraq and the House of Representatives is\n preparing to decide whether President Clinton should be\n impeached. The collision of these events should reaffirm for\n us that we can unite in dealing with foreign threats even as\n complicated domestic matters are under consideration.\n First, I strongly support our armed forces in current\n operations to reduce Saddam Hussein's ability to produce\n weapons of mass destruction. Although I believe we should\n have acted earlier, when Saddam repeatedly thwarted United\n Nations efforts, it is clear that we must deter Iraqi efforts\n to obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.\n On the domestic challenges before us, the American people,\n and their Representatives in Congress, are confronted with\n one fundamental issue: Are all Americans, including the\n President of the United States, equal before the law? My\n answer to that question is Yes, and so I will be voting for\n the articles of impeachment of President Clinton.\n I have reached this decision after many weeks of reviewing\n all the evidence. I have also waited for the President to\n rebut the facts or take responsibility for his actions.\n However, the President has steadfastly refused to address\n these charges.\n The impeachment of a President by the House does not remove\n him from office. The House judges whether or not there is\n ``clear and convincing evidence'' for the Senate to conduct a\n trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the United\n States. That was the standard used by Watergate-era Judiciary\n Committee Chairman Rodino in 1974 and by Chairman Hyde in\n 1998.\n I have paid close attention to the telephone calls, mail,\n faxes, and e-mail. I have received thousands of\n communications--most of which come from organized groups\n outside our district. Within our district, the often\n passionate communications have been closely divided between\n those who favor and those who oppose impeachment.\n Most Americans know there is powerful evidence that\n President Clinton deliberately testified falsely under oath\n in both a federal sexual harassment case and a federal\n criminal grand jury proceeding. They know there is\n substantial evidence that the President attempted to tamper\n with witnesses and obstruct justice.\n What should be done in response to President Clinton's\n actions is, and should be, a matter of conscience. Despite\n news reports to the contrary, on this issue there has been no\n arm-twisting by either the White House or the Republican\n leadership. I respect the views of my colleagues who will\n vote differently, and those of my constititunts who will\n disagree with my position.\n It would have been easy to vote against impeachment.\n According to the polls, a majority of the public is against\n it. Additionally, I have voted against a majority in my party\n a number of times--on such issues as protecting a women's\n right to choose, sensible gun control, the patients' bill of\n rights, campaign finance reform, and equal rights for gays\n and lesbians.\n In this case, there is simply overwhelming evidence that\n the President has committed serious crimes such as perjury. I\n realize that the President is popular. But being popular does\n not excuse his breaking of the law. Any other person--a\n teacher, soldier, a businessperson, a newspaper editor--would\n long ago has lost his or her job for such actions.\n The President refuses to take responsibility for his\n actions. That refusal has brought him, and all of us, to his\n point. There any many myths regarding the President's\n defense. Here are just a few of the main ones:\n (1) ``These are Not High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' This is\n not Watergate. But, no committing watergate-style crimes\n should hardly be the minimum standard we ask of out\n Presidents. There have been only two other Presidents who\n have faced the serious prospect of impeachment, but other\n officials, primarily judges, have been impeached for actions,\n such as perjury, that had nothing to do with their officials\n duties.\n (2) ``Censure is the Proper Punishment'' It has been said\n that instead of impeachment, the House should censure the\n President. First, the Contitituion does not provide for\n censure, and even many scholars who support President Clinton\n say that it would be unconstitutional for the House to do it.\n The House does not determine the ultimate punishment of those\n impeached. That is the Senate's role. Second, censure at this\n point really comes down to passing a meaningless resolution\n condemning the President either for unspecified bad\n behavior or for crimes that he refuses to admit. Censure\n would be like shouting at a teenager and thinking that\n loudness will change his behavior. However, if the Senate\n should decide on other measures short of removal, then\n censure might be proper. The role of the House is to\n ascertain whether there is enough evidence to have the\n Senate conduct a trial.\n (3) ``It's a Coup Overturning the 1996 Election'' If the\n President should actually be removed from office by the\n Senate, then he would be succeeded by Democratic Vice\n President Al Gore, not losing Republican candidate Bob Dole.\n President Clinton picked Gore as his running mate in 1992 and\n 1996. He picked Gore because he felt that they would agree on\n public policy. To say that this ``overturns'' the 1996\n election is no more accurate than saying that the forced\n resignation of Richard Nixon overturned the 1972 election.\n When President Nixon resigned, his own hand-picked Vice\n President, Gerald Ford, succeeded to the office.\n (4) ``It's Just Sex'' What we should not forget is that\n President Clinton is accused, not of having an affair, but of\n lying in a sexual harassment case in an effort to defraud an\n American citizen of her rightful day in court. Plaintiffs in\n sexual harassment cases are permitted by law to inquire into\n the behavior of defendants in order to establish a pattern\n and practice of behavior (such as giving benefits for sex).\n If President Clinton is\n\n[[Page H11813]]\n\n permitted to lie, will every other defendant in a sexual\n harassment lawsuit be permitted to lie?\n If we fail to hold the President accountable, we inevitably\n confront these questions: (1) Do we believe that the\n President is above the law? (2) Do we believe that such\n actions are acceptable and deserving of no more than a\n meaningless and nonbinding censure resolution? (3) Do we\n believe that the President should be held to a lower standard\n than anyone else in our society?\n Our nation will survive this crisis, regardless of the\n ultimate fate of President Clinton. I am far more worried\n about our future if, as a society, we give the wrong answers\n to the above questions. By his actions, the President has\n answered Yes to all of these questions. By my vote, I will be\n answering each of them No.\n\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the\ngentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a ranking Member of the House.\n (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe this is the worst day for\nthis institution in this century, and history will see it as such. The\ntool of impeachment was inserted in the Constitution to protect the\ncountry from irreparable harm, not to punish the President. Under our\nsystem, the proper institution to punish the President if he violated\nthe law is the court system, a legal institution, not the Congress, a\npolitical institution.\n The House Republican leadership has said that this is a vote of\nconscience. It is denying the right to cast that vote of conscience to\nthose of us who believe that the proper course is to censure, not\nimpeach. That decision dooms this House to go down in history as\ntragically lacking in both perspective and fairness.\n To those who say censure has no bite, my response is this: I come\nfrom the State of Joe McCarthy. Tell him censure has no bite. It\ndestroyed him.\n Whether the President has committed perjury or not is a legal,\ntechnical question that can be decided by a jury and a judge and our\ncourt system at the proper time.\n There is no question that the President has misled the country and\nthe Congress. That is unacceptable. But, in my view, it does not rise\nto the level of an impeachable offense, because the lies essentially\ngrew out of sex, not public acts. If the House ignores that\ndistinction, it fails in its obligation to put the President's acts in\nperspective.\n Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said earlier in\nthis debate that there cannot be one law for the ruler and one law for\nthe ruled. I agree. But I would say, respectfully, that this House\nshould not have one standard of judgment for truth telling for the\nleader of the Executive Branch, and another for the leader of this\ninstitution, who was found not to have told the truth to this House. In\nthat case there was no removal from office; there was not even censure.\nThere was simply a reprimand and then reelection by the Republican\nHouse majority to the Speakership.\n Mr. Speaker, for the House Republican leadership to, in effect,\npredetermine the outcome of this vote by refusing to allow a conscience\nvote on censure in this instance is a massive failure of fairness. If\nthe House leadership can only win this vote by denying any alternative,\nit will have failed the country as much as Bill Clinton has.\n Mr. Speaker, because of time limits imposed on debate today I would\nlike to extend my remarks at this point updating the thought on the\nissue that I expressed earlier in the year, to place my conclusion in\nfull context.\n Mr. Speaker, three months ago, as I tried to wade through my copy of\nthe Starr Report, and as I came again and again to gratuitously graphic\nand voyeuristic descriptions of ``sexual encounters'' contained in that\nreport, I reached the point where I could read no more. I had voted to\nrelease that report earlier that day, but I really began to wonder\nwhether I would have done so if I had known it was so graphic. I say\nthat because while reading the report I was continually asking myself\nwhat we had done to our own children, to the President's privacy and\ndignity (and that of Monica Lewinsky) and even to the dignity of the\nnation itself by the placement of that report on the Internet.\n Putting down the report, I turned on the t.v. set to see, as an\nunreconstructed Cub fan, if I could find out if Sammy Sosa had hit\nanother home run or not. The tube came on and within seconds I heard a\nCNBC reporter describing the Starr report, using language I never\nexpected to hear on the nation's national news programs or what passes\nfor them these days.\n At that moment I reached the same conclusions that millions of\nAmericans have probably reached. I have had it--not just with this\nstory, but with something far more disturbing.\n What I felt was a conclusion that has been building within me for\nmonths, even years. I was overwhelmed with the feeling that this report\nis a phenomenally gross verification that our society and our country\nis faced with nothing less than the accelerating failure of\ninstitutions that are central to our functioning as a decent society\nand as a democracy that works the way our Founding Fathers wanted it to\nwork.\n Please do not misunderstand. This is a great country. In many ways it\nis a good country. There is much that is good in our society, and we\nhave had much good economic news in recent years.\n Nonetheless, I believe that the most crucial institutions and\ninstitutional arrangements in this country and in this society are\nfailing in their responsibilities. That failure is affecting our\neconomy, our culture, our political system, our long-term environmental\nsecurity, and even our own spirituality.\n The evidence of the failure of our most important institutions is all\naround us--in this and in other events. At the moment that our nation\nis transfixed on the most pornographic document ever produced by\ngovernment, global challenges face us everywhere.\n The world's economy is in turmoil. We have almost no tool but\npersuasion to move the Japanese government off a course of economic and\nfiscal impotence and incompetence that threatens the economic health of\nall of Asia and indirectly threatens our own as well.\n International financial institutions such as the International\nMonetary Fund are being overwhelmed by changes in the world economy,\nchanges in currency relationships, changes in capital flows that each\nday weaken the ability of the major institution the world has to\nstabilize economic relationships between nations.\n The nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons that could\npossibly one day be arrayed against us (Russia) is experiencing\npolitical and economic chaos. Much of Europe is focused on that chaos,\nbut here in America we give it only intermittent attention and\nanalysis.\n The most irrational, paranoid and dangerous government in the world\n(North Korea) is facing military, political, and economic instability\nthat could easily threaten the lives of 50,000 American servicemen and\nwomen stationed in South Korea and hundreds of thousands of others.\n Our ability to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons has been brought\nto the edge of failure by events on the Indian subcontinent and in\nKorea. And yet, the discourse in this country about how to deal with\nthat issue is shallow and in some cases downright dangerous.\n The best change in a generation for peace in the Middle East is\nslowly but surely sliding away.\n This decade has produced the hottest known global temperatures in 200\nyears with huge potential consequences for worldwide agriculture,\nfisheries, economic dislocation, public health, and environmental\nstability. Yet commercial disputes about profit levels are threatening\nour ability to take even marginal action to minimize potential\ncatastrophe.\n On the home front, the Supreme Court, the institution that we, in the\nend, rely upon more than any other to preserve the balance of forces\nthat protect our democratic processes and our liberty, has handed down\ntwo very different sets of decisions that have crippled the ability of\nour political system to function as a democracy should.\n (1) The spectacularly myopic decision in the Paula Jones case that\nthe government would not be distracted if that case went forward now\nrather than two years from now when the President was out of office and\nhis private activities could be handled as a private civil matter\nrather than as a national governmental soap opera.\n (2) The mind-bogglingly naive decisions that the constitutional\nrights of Americans to have a political system that functions for them\nwould be protected by a series of naively libertarian decisions that\nequate money with speech, establish absurd legalisms about campaign\nfinancing that have no relationship to reality, that have turned\npolitics into a money chase and political campaigns into the\ncompetition of dollars rather than ideas.\n\n And other domestic institutions are also failing in their fundamental\nresponsibilities.\n Large sections of corporate America are making economic decisions,\ndevoid of any values except the maximization of financial benefit to\nthe management and investment elite of this country--in almost total\ndisregard of the impact of those decisions on loyal workers, their\nfamilies, and their broader communities which have nurtured them.\n These decisions, and policy decisions by government, have together\nproduced the greatest disparity between the economic well-\n\n[[Page H11814]]\n\nbeing of the wealthiest 5 percent of our people and everyone else in\nthe modern history of the country. If we as a people are concerned with\nmoral outcomes, should we not be just as concerned about how the nation\ndeals with poor people and sick people as we are about how we deal with\neach other on matters of sexual intimacy?\n The political elite has largely debased what passes for political\ndialogue on many crucial issues.\n It has allowed its reliance upon the community of pollsters and\nconsultants to produce lowest common denominator discourse in which\nwinning and holding power drive out any consideration of the need to\neducate and enlighten the public on almost every front. We should ask\nourselves: Are there no lengths to which we will not go to seize or\nhold power? Is there no amount of pain we will not inflict on each\nother for political gain?\n More and more, individuals are entering Congress and other political\ninstitutions who see issues not as problems to be confronted, but\nconcerns to be manipulated and toyed with around the margins in order\nto seize and hold power. So many debates are split along party lines\nand driven by ideological enforcers (the modern day American\ncounterparts of Michael Suslov, the old guardian of the purity of\nSoviet Orthodoxy) that when bipartisanship does occur, we are almost\nstartled by its appearance.\n And the focus and limits of much of that debate are set by political\nelites in both parties who rub shoulders with the financial and\neconomic elites of the nation far more often than they do with every\nday working people.\n The press itself, with all too few lonely and valiant exceptions, has\nfallen into the same bad habits it legitimately criticizes in the\npoliticians it covers. The press too (especially the electronic media)\ndrawn by the realities of the marketplace, has often become little more\nthan the public affairs entertainment division of profit making\ncorporations who will do almost anything to preserve market share\ninstead of responding to the public's need to understand the substance\nof issues before the country. The press, driven by market surveys and\npolls, produces story after story that portray politicians as\ngladiators and celebrities rather than problem solvers--responding to\nand strengthening some of the most unhealthy public biases on the\nlandscape.\n\n For every question I get from a reporter about the substance of an\nissue, I get five from other reporters about the politics of that same\nissue--reflecting both a laziness and a shallowness that the country\ncannot afford. And worst of all, some reporters cannot resist using any\ndevice to win a point, no matter how much damage they do to the country\nand innocent individuals in the process. One need look no further than\nthe incident last Sunday in which a report from a Sunday talk show,\nduring his interview with the President's lawyer, David Kendall,\nsnidely asked Mr. Kendall what Mr. Kendall's wife's definition of sex\nwas. That reporter owes his own profession, his viewers, and Mrs.\nKendall a public apology for his inability to resist his ``Dennis the\nMenace'' impulses which have increasingly made that reporter a\ncaricature of himself. Is there no length to which some segments of the\npress will go to humiliate other human beings in the name of ``news\nvalues''?\n Even religious institutions have allowed themselves to fail the\nNation in too many instances and have allowed politicians to manipulate\nreligious concerns, more to find political advantage than to find\nspiritual answers.\n Debates and discussions about the nature of humankind, our origins,\nour purpose, and our relationship with our creator are essentially\nconversations about the unknowable--at least in this life.\n And yet the certitude with which some political and religious figures\nattack those who have legitimate differences of belief are\ndisheartening and appalling and border on the sacrilegious. Too many\npolitical and religious leaders alike have allowed religion--or the\nsuperficial reference to religion--to be used for nonreligious\npurposes. They wrap political commercial and ideological preferences in\nreligious ribbons and desecrate both religion and politics in the\nprocess.\n The Ten Commandments represent a guide for living and for the\ntreatment of others. God did not give them to us to provide a roadmap\nfor human beings and politicians to destroy each other. They are not a\npolitical program or an economic platform. As Mario Cuomo once said,\n``God is not a celestial party chairman.'' To the best of my knowledge,\nGod has not yet taken a position on capital gains or other tax plans,\nbut you would never know that by listening to some of the self-\npromoting political manipulators who pass themselves off as the\n``Clergy of the Tube.''\n Politicians have no special qualifications to judge the private lives\nof other people. In the end, only God can do that. The Nuns at St.\nJames taught me a long time ago that we have enough to do worrying\nabout the stewardship of our own souls to pass judgment on the private\nlives of others.\n\n Neither do religious leaders have any special competence to judge the\nspecific mechanisms by which elected officials in a democracy\naccomplish decent public ends. Those of us in public life owe due\nconsideration to their opinions, but we have, after all, taken an oath\nto uphold the Constitution in accordance with the dictates of our own--\nnot someone else's--conscience and that is our own sacred public duty\nunder the Constitution.\n We--religious and political leaders alike--have allowed debates about\nreligious truths and values to be used all too often as weapons to\ninflict pain and gain political advantage rather than as tools to find\nmoral answers that take decent account of the moral values of others as\nwell as ourselves.\n We have all too often allowed the substitution of moralizing for\nmorality and have allowed the search for God to become a journey that\ndevelops hatred and contempt rather than love for our fellow searchers.\nExample: On abortion, perhaps the most agonizing, troubling, and\ndivisive of all moral debates in the public realm, both sides have\nallowed their own certitude about the will of God or their dedication\nto unbending individualism, their desire for tactical advantage, to get\nin the way of their responsibility to recognize good intentions and\nhonest nuances of conscience. And so that debate has become more and\nmore a political manipulation of the legislative process rather than a\nsearch for areas of agreement that would reduce the world's acceptance\nof abortion at the same time that it recognizes the dignity of\nindividual conscience.\n All of these institutional failures are rooted in two shortcomings.\n One, simply a lack of knowledge or understanding about how the world\nand institutional relationships are changing. The other is the triumph\nof a ``me-first'' rampant, materialistic individualism that prevents\nthe leaders of almost all of our social, political, commercial,\ninformational, and religious institutions from really focusing on the\nanswer to one simple question: ``In addressing whatever decisions\nconfront us, how can I, or we, take into fair account the needs,\nconcerns, and interests of those who are not `just like us' in social\nor economic standing, cultural outlook, or political or religious\nbeliefs?'' We desperately need to address our key institutional\nshortcomings because institutions are the major tools available to any\nculture, to any nation, to any society to shape its future. Yet we\ncontinue to be transfixed on the Starr-Clinton-Lewinsky soap opera.\n The nation has been moved to this focus because of two people:\n (1) Mr. Starr: On a number of accounts Mr. Starr's report grossly\nrepresents the overreaching zealotry of a personally upright, but\nideologically and politically partisan, individual who, before he was\nappointed special prosecutor, was already contemplating filing a court\nbrief on behalf of Paula Jones and who had indicated that he was\nplanning to join Pepperdine Law School, and institution financed in\nlarge part by a person who has contributed millions of dollars to try\nto bring down the President. Mr. Starr from all reports is a fine,\nupstanding human being, but a person of his partisan and ideological\nmind set should never have been appointed to a position that called\nfor, above all, unquestioned fairness balance and judgement.\n\n (2) President Clinton: Up to this point, he has been the most\npersonally talented politician of his generation. He appears to be a\nperson of good heart and courage who wants to do good things for the\ncountry. But his career has been both promoted and crippled by a\ntendency to manipulate language in ways that are technically in\nconformance with the truth, but often are designed to obscure rather\nthan clarify!\n For example: As frustrating as I feel the President's lack of candor\nto be in this episode, I'm even more unhappy about the lack of candor\ndemonstrated by both the President and congressional leaders in jointly\nobscuring the real effect of the budget agreement they both sold to the\nnation last year on our ability to meet our domestic responsibilities\nin strengthening education, health, environment, housing, and social\nservices. Why does that frustrate me more? Because the lack of candor\nin the first instance was meant to hide private, personal conduct, but\nthe second was a public event which had direct substantive consequences\nfor American citizens and their families.\n After finishing reading Mr. Starr's submission of opinion and the\nresponse of the President's lawyers some things are clear to me and\nsome things are not. I cannot really reach a final judgement on this\ndepressing matter until I have had an opportunity to evaluate the\nthousands of pages of backup material which are still to be released.\nBut my first impressions of what I read are these.\n First, after four years and the expenditure of over $40 million since\nMr. Starr was first appointed to review the facts surrounding the\nWhitewater land deal in Arkansas in the 1970s, we still have no finding\nof illegal conduct by the President in Whitewater, no finding\n\n[[Page H11815]]\n\nof illegal conduct by the President in the investigation of the White\nHouse travel office which Mr. Starr subsequently undertook, no finding\nof illegality by the President on the matter relating to the FBI file\ncase. All we have is a document which is largely focused on what\nactions the President took to hide sexual conduct that had not even\noccurred when Mr. Starr was first appointed Independent Prosecutor.\n There's no doubt that some conduct cited in the allegations is indeed\ntroubling. Many other allegations clearly overreach.\n Mr. Starr's allegation that the President acted illegally by\nmisleading his own staff about his sexual activity is a real stretch as\nis his allegation that the President acted illegally by pursuing\nlegitimate questions of Executive Privilege. Mr. Starr's active\nadvocacy of impeachment, going so far as to draw up potential articles\nof impeachment, is, as the Washington Post has said, an ``arrogant''\nact that claims for Mr. Starr a responsibility that is solely the\nprerogative of Congress. Mr. Starr's job is to lay out the facts in\n``Joe Friday style''--as Mr. Starr himself has on occasion pointed out.\nIt is not to reach a conclusion about what actions Congress should\ntake. That is our job.\n\n But, Mr. Starr's overreaching does not obscure the fact that the\nPresident appears at this moment to have provided information to the\npublic in the Paula Jones suit and possibly to the grand jury that\nobscured the truth, even if it did not technically violate it. If that\nproves to be the case, the question we will then have to answer is:\n``What is the proper action for Congress to take?''\n The actions taken by President Clinton, regrettable though they may\nbe, are far different from the actions President Nixon took in\nWatergate. The actions in Watergate involved burglarizing and\nwiretapping political opponents, attempting to use the IRS to\nintimidate political opponents, financial payoffs to defendants in\ncriminal cases, and other uses of the levers of governmental power to\nsubvert the very democratic process that underlies the essence of\nAmerica.\n In contract, this case is largely about actions taken by the\nPresident to obscure personal conduct. They are not in the same league\nas Mr. Nixon's.\n That does not necessarily mean that some action by Congress may not\nbe warranted. If it is, based on what we know now, the case of Speaker\nGingrich may be instructive.\n In the case of the Speaker, the House determined that the proper\naction for the House to take was to reprimand the Speaker for having\nmisled the House in the ethnics investigation of his political\nactivities. Because the essence of the charges against the President\nseem to be similar--that his actions also appear to have been designed\nto obscure the truth--a congressional reprimand or sanction of some\nsort, rather than removal from office, may prove to be the most\nappropriate action. It would be especially so if it allowed Congress to\nend this matter in a much shorter period of time so that the Congress\nand the Presidency can refocus our attention and our activities from\nthe past private misdeeds of this President to the future public needs\nof the nation and the people we are supposed to represent.\n I do not know how this sad chapter will end, but I do know that this\nepisode and the way it has been handled by the leadership circles of\nour major institutions demonstrates a desperate need to examine how we\ncan renew those crucial institutions.\n In two years the millennium will draw to a close. This nation's\ninstitutions are simply not ready to lead this country into a new one.\n I would never in three lifetimes call for a new Constitutional\nconvention because this generation of political leadership is highly\nunlikely to improve on the work of the Founding Fathers; it is much\nmore likely to muck it up.\n But I do believe we need to have Millennium Conventions convened for\nthe purpose of examining ways to reshape, redirect, and refocus almost\nall of our institutions--economic, corporate, political, communication,\nreligious, and even our international institutions such as the IMF, the\nU.N., and NATO.\n In the political area, we need special attention paid to the\npresidential nominating process to try to find ways to reduce the\nimportance of candidates' media skills and increase the role of peer\nreview by people who know them best, if both parties are to produce\ncandidates with the qualities necessary to lead the nation.\n I do not know how we can change the human heart, but we need to find\nways to reshape the major institutions of this society so that there\nare more incentives to produce a new focus on selflessness. That is the\nmajor task that we each face as individuals on life's journey, and we\nneed more help--and less hindrance--from the institutions that dominate\nour lives along the way.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from\nGeorgia (Mr. Barr).\n Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, while I sincerely doubt that those\nwho continue to bow down before the holy grail of censure will let the\nhistorical record of precedent interfere with their support for this\nnotion of censure, I would direct those Members who still trust\nhistorical precedent, I would direct their attention to a communication\nfrom President Andrew Jackson, the last President who was censured, as\nhe at great length and eloquently set forth in a communication to this\nbody, printed in the official records of this body, ``Censure, although\nit may have a place in certain procedures in the Congress, it has no\nplace if it is used as a substitute for impeachment.''\n The precedent that applied back in the 1830's, in 1834 when that took\nplace, which was the basis for its later expungement in the very next\nCongress, are just as relevant today. Censure is unconstitutional if in\nfact it is used or attempted to be used as a substitute for\nimpeachment.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).\n (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me\ntime.\n Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that I am witnessing something very\nsimilar to-day that I witnessed 25 years ago when I first ran for this\noffice, a Vice President forced out of office and a President forced\nout of office. But then I am also reminded of the beauty of our system.\nNothing happened seriously. The system operated beautifully. Life went\non. No crisis. But, again, we are back to something very similar to\nwhat happened then.\n I began the day by reading an article in a New York newspaper, and I\nquote: ``Two more cops were arrested yesterday on Federal charges of\nlying when questioned by the FBI.'' They were not before a grand jury.\nThey were two highly decorated officers.\n Then I turned to the sports page from one of the Washington\nnewspapers, and I read the following: ``A former Northwestern football\nplayer pleaded not guilty and denied lying to Federal grand juries.''\nThe article also said two other players have been charged with lying.\n There are more than 100 people in prison today, in Federal prisons,\nfor perjury. Some of those were prosecuted by this administration, and\nsome of those dealt with sex. Our constitutional system of government\ncannot survive if we allow our judicial system to be undermined, and,\nagain, giving you the three illustrations that I just gave, what are\nthey to think? How are they to be treated differently than anyone else,\neven if it is the President of the United States?\n This vote will be the most monumental I will cast in all 24 years of\nCongressional service. Our republic has weathered two centuries, a\ncivil war, but it cannot weather corruption of its basic tenet, the\noath of office. The oath of office is that invisible bond which links\nthe people to their elected representatives, and, upon its strength,\nthe virtue of this republic stands.\n Similarly, the virtue of our legal system rests upon a simple oath,\nto tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help\nyou God.\n I believe the President violated this oath, and, by violating the\noath, Mr. Speaker, I think he has violated the oath of office, and we\nmust proceed with these articles of impeachment. The Constitution\nclearly states the course for this body to follow, it clearly tells us\nwhat that course is, and it would be an abdication of our duty not to\nfollow that course.\n Our republic and its institutions must be defended, and this House\nmust send the message that no man, not even the President, is above the\nlaw. Therefore, it is my duty to defend the rule of law and support the\narticles of impeachment.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if I might, the requests on our side are so\nnumerous, we still have over 40, I want to read the names of my\ncolleagues, and, with apologies to some of the Members who have been\nwaiting all morning, I would like to indicate that the next Members\nthat will be recognized on this side of the aisle are Ms. Slaughter,\nMr. Kildee, Mr. Filner, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Klink, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr.\nHastings, Mrs. Lowey,\n\n[[Page H11816]]\n\nMr. Wynn, Mr. Kucinich and Ms. Pelosi.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman\nfrom Illinois (Mr. Yates).\n (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks, and include extraneous material.)\n Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to the House of Representatives\nfor the first time in 1948 and 23 times thereafter. For that reason, I\nam frequently asked by the press these days whether this Congress\ndiffers from the early ones to which I was elected.\n I answer yes--there is a difference. There is a difference in the\nambience, in the relationship between Members of the two parties. I\nhave the impression that in the earlier Congresses Members were\nfriendlier than now and I regret that. And they were friendlier towards\nthe Presidency.\n Nobody thought of impeaching a President. In the 81st Congress, the\nRepublicans did not like Harry Truman--they criticized him. They voted\nagainst his Fair Deal programs, they abused him for firing General\nMacArthur, they called him a tool of the Prendergast machine in Kansas\nCity--but there never was one mention of impeachment.\n But that was prior to the special prosecutor law. That changed things\nand now we have a special prosecutor, Mr. Starr, who investigated and\nfound nothing to blame on Mr. Clinton on Whitewater, Travelgate,\nFilegate, his original charges. Then he stumbled on Monica Lewinsky.\nThat gave him his chance.\n Starr is determined to drive Mr. Clinton out of the Presidency--and\nin this bill, the Republicans are taking his recommendations to impeach\nhim--as the Chicago Tribune said--for ``low crimes and misdemeanors.''\nThere are no high crimes and misdemeanors that either Mr. Starr or the\nRepublicans can cite. It is unfortunate that the Congress should even\nconsider the bill.\n Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune, not a liberal newspaper, but rather\nthe paradigm of Republican conservatism over the many years it has been\nin existence, published an editorial entitled, ``There Is No Case for\nImpeachment.'' Its arguments were sound and well-reasoned. Its\nexcellent editorial concludes:\n\n But impeachment is a very different matter. It is a\n constitutional sword meant to be unsheathed only in the\n gravest, most unusual circumstances and to be wielded only to\n preserve the security and integrity of the republic.\n Use it in this instance, against Clinton and for these\n offenses, and it will instantly become one more tool, one\n more bludgeon, in the partisan wars that are turning our\n politics into a wasteland and turning our people off. Like\n the independent counsel law that has become Richard Nixon's\n revenge, the promiscuous political use of impeachment will be\n Bill Clinton's.\n There are no ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' in this case.\n There is no basis for impeachment. Let the House vote down\n these proposed articles, and vote up a stern, historically\n indelible resolution of censure.\n\n Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that my last vote as a Member of this\nHouse should be on a bill like the bill under consideration. It should\nnever have been approved in committee. It must be voted down by the\nHouse. I shall vote against the bill--there is no case for impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I include the editorial from the Chicago Tribune of\nDecember 17, 1998, with my remarks.\n\n [From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 17, 1998]\n\n There Is No Case For Impeachment\n\n From the beginning, our editorial concern in the Clinton-\n Lewinsky episode has been to see a sense of proportion\n maintained. ``What's it worth to get Clinton?'' we asked\n repeatedly, as Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr hauled in\n Monica Lewinsky's mother to put the squeeze on her daughter,\n as he subpoenaed Secret Service agents, as he challenged the\n posthumous validity of the lawyer-client privilege.\n The issue, in our view, was never simply what it was legal\n to do in pursuit of Clinton, but what it was wise to do. And\n too much that has been done, we regret to say, has been\n terribly unwise. But nothing that has been done to this point\n is as unwise as what the House of Representatives will do if\n it votes to impeach the president.\n That we stand this morning on the verge of a presidential\n impeachment--for only the second time in our nations\n history--is evidence of how utterly the sense of proportion\n has been lost.\n The first time a president was impeached--Andrew Johnson in\n 1968--it arose out of actions he took in the wake of the\n Civil War, actions having to do with the terms of\n Reconstruction and the political status of newly freed blacks\n and rebellious whites in the restored union. Even if the case\n ultimately was meritless, it at least was about a matter of\n real moment.\n In the current instance, the impeachment turns on whether\n Bill Clinton, in a lawsuit of dubious merit but indubitably\n mischievous intent, lied about a tawdry, illicit--but\n consensual--sexual affair with another adult.\n The issues in the two instances are not even close to being\n of the same gravity, and any member of the House who dares\n suggest they are deserves the contempt of his constituents\n today and of history in the future.\n There still is time for the House to escape that judgment\n and for the nation to escape the descent into political hell\n that an impeachment vote in this instance would represent.\n But it will demand a measure of courage and statesmanship\n that so far has been conspicuously missing.\n It has been missing most prominently in the House\n Republican leadership, which has refused adamantly to allow a\n vote on censure--the penalty most Americans say is\n appropriate for Clinton's offense, the alternative many GOP\n House members would like to have, the course recommended by\n such party elders as Gerald Ford--and insisted instead that\n the only allowable vote must be on impeachment.\n In this regard, Robert Livingston, the speaker-elect of the\n House, already has failed his first great test of\n leadership--possibly the greatest test he ever will face. We\n must accept that Livingston is sincere when he says he\n believes that the House, which routinely passes resolutions\n praising everything from peanuts to Ping-Pong players and\n condemning bad actors from all over the world, is\n constitutionally barred from censuring Clinton. We accept\n Livingston's sincerity, but question his wisdom--and marvel\n at how neatly this judgment coincides with the rank,\n poisonously partisan nature of this entire proceeding.\n Of course, we would not be in this fix if it were not for\n William Jefferson Clinton, as amazing a human being as has\n ever occupied the presidency. Brilliant, charming and\n immensely talented, Clinton also is a pathetic creature,\n slave of his enormous sexual appetite and addicted to lying.\n It is those last two attributes that have brought him to this\n current, perilous pass.\n Whether or not it meets the technical definition of\n perjury, Clinton lied under oath--first in his deposition in\n the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, again in his\n testimony to a federal grand jury.\n Without question, those are serious matters. Any attempt to\n subvert the justice system is serious, especially if made by\n the person charged by oath to ``take care that the laws be\n faithfully executed.''\n But context is everything. Clinton lied to avoid deep\n personal embarrassment, not to seize, maintain or subvert the\n power of the state. His were the pathetic lies of a man\n caught in marital infidelity, not those of a traitor or a\n trader in government influence. His were low crimes and\n misdemeanors, not the high crimes and misdemeanors that the\n Constitution sets as the threshold for impeachment.\n Again, it's a matter of proportion. When the House\n Judiciary Committee was considering whether to impeach\n Richard Nixon, it rejected an article citing Nixon's perjury\n in signing a fraudulent income tax return. That offense, the\n Democrat-controlled committee concluded, did not rise to the\n level of an impeachable offense. It ought to be likewise in\n this instance for Clinton and his sorry lies.\n Three months ago, in the wake of the Starr report to\n Congress, we called on Clinton to resign--as a matter of\n honor. He has not, however, elected to oblige us and given\n his character, that's no surprise.\n But impeachment is a very different matter. It is a\n constitutional sword meant to be unsheathed only in the\n gravest, most unusual circumstances and to be wielded only to\n preserve the security and integrity of the republic.\n Use it in this instance, against Clinton and for these\n offenses, and it will instantly become one more tool, one\n more bludgeon, in the partisan wars that are turning our\n politics into a wasteland and turning our people off. Like\n the independent counsel law that has become Richard Nixon's\n revenge, the promiscuous political use of impeachment will be\n Bill Clinton's.\n There are no ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' in this case.\n There is no basis for impeachment. Let the House vote down\n these proposed articles, and vote up a stern, historically\n indelible resolution of censure.\n\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nNew York (Ms. Slaughter).\n (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nher remarks.)\n Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, most of us feel a surreal atmosphere here\nin America's capital. I envision the dome of this magnificent building\nswathed in black, because this is truly a day of mourning, and history\nwill not judge us well.\n The process that brought us to this point was so fatally flawed that\nno one can reasonably feel that justice has been done. The Independent\nCounsel's investigation has gone on for five years, although we find he\ndid not personally participate in much of it. The investigation itself\nwill be debated for years to come. The role of the perfidious friend,\nLinda Tripp, who worked in collusion with both the Independent Counsel\nand the civil case lawyers, shows how amateurish and unfair Kenneth\nStarr's stewardship was to the Office of Independent Counsel. The harm\nit has done to due process, the lawyer-client relationship. And the\nsecrecy of\n\n[[Page H11817]]\n\nthe grand jury. Will be lasting and destructive.\n The Committee on the Judiciary did not fulfill its responsibility to\nindependently hear from material witnesses to assess their credibility\nand to allow the President the opportunity to cross-examine them.\nInstead, it has brought to the floor this highly-charged partisan\nresolution.\n Impeachment has always been reserved as a last resort as the check of\nan executive's abuse of power. It was not intended to be invoked\nlightly.\n In the Federalist Papers No. 65, Alexander Hamilton warned that the\nprosecution of impeachments ``will connect itself with the pre-existing\nfactions and will list all their animosities, partialities, influence\nand interest on one side or the other; and in such cases there will\nalways be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more\nby the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations\nof innocence or guilt.''\n History tells us that Hamilton's fear was realized in the 1868\nimpeachment of Andrew Johnson, impeached because Republicans did not\nlike his personal habits and his sympathy for the defeated Southern\nstates. History records his real crime was disagreeing with the\nmajority party.\n I fear that history will view this 1998 impeachment inquiry\nsimilarly. A total control majority urges impeachment, not for treason,\nbribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors, but because they disdain\nthis President for his moral flaws, ranging from military service\nevasion to flagrant infidelity.\n Scholars disagree on whether the Constitution requires an indictable\ncrime. But most agree that at minimum, an impeachable high crime or\nmisdemeanor is one, in its nature or consequences, that is subversive\nof some fundamental or essential principle of government.\n The allegations against President Clinton, even if proven, are not\nsubversive of our government. The President is not accused of abusing\nthe power of his office or attacking a fundamental freedom of any\nAmerican. He is accused of lying about, and attempting to prevent the\nrevelation of, his consensual activities with a White House intern.\nWere they wrong? Undeniably. Can they be punished through the legal\nsystem? Absolutely. Should he be impeached? No.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman\nfrom Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).\n (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nher remarks.)\n Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, our courts of law and our legal system\nare the bedrock of our democracy and of our system of individual\nrights. Lying under oath in a legal proceeding and obstruction of\njustice undermine the rights of all citizens who must rely upon our\ncourts to protect their rights. If lying under oath in our courts and\nobstruction are ignored, or they are classified as merely minor\noffenses, then we have jeopardized the rights of everyone who seeks\nredress in our courts.\n Lying under oath is an ancient crime of great weight because it\nshields other offenses, because it blocks the light of truth in human\naffairs. It is a dagger in the heart of our legal system, and, indeed,\nin our democracy. It cannot, it should not, it must not be tolerated.\n We know that a right without a remedy is not a right, and if we\nignore, allow or encourage lying and obstruction of justice in our\nlegal system, then the rights promised in our laws are hollow.\n\n {time} 1445\n\n Our laws promise a remedy against sexual harassment, but if we say\nthat lying about sex in court is acceptable and indeed, even expected,\nthen we have made our legal harassment laws nothing more than a false\npromise, a fraud upon our society, upon our legal system, and upon\nwomen.\n All that stands between any of us and tyranny is law. The rule is\ncontemplated in our social compact and backed up by our courts. If we\ntrivialize the role of truth in our judicial system by simply assuming\nthat everyone will lie, then we trivialize the courts themselves, we\ntrivialize the rule of law.\n The office of the presidency is due great respect, but the President,\nwhomever may hold that office, is a citizen with the same duties to\nfollow the law as all of us, as all of our citizens. The world marvels\nthat our President is not above the law, and my vote will help ensure\nthat this rule continues.\n With a commitment to the principles of the rule of law which makes\nthis country the beacon of hope throughout the world, I cast my vote in\nfavor of the four counts of impeachment of the conduct of the President\nof the United States. As a Representative in Congress, I can do no less\nin fulfilling my responsibility to the Constitution and to all who have\npreceded me in defending the Constitution from erosions of the rule of\nlaw.\n Each of the impeachment counts concerns the public conduct of the\nPresident, including allegations of lying under oath in grand jury and\ncivil judicial proceedings, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.\nThe supporting evidence is clearly sufficient to warrant impeachment.\nThe Constitution, the rule of law, and truth should be our only guides.\n These allegations of lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and\nabuse of presidential power are not about private conduct, but instead\nabout public conduct in our courts of law and in exercising\npresidential responsibilities. Public duties and public power are\ninvolved--and therefore the matters are of the greatest public concern\nwhen those public duties are violated and those public powers are\nabused.\n Our courts of law and our legal system are the bedrock of our\ndemocracy and of our system of individual rights. Lying under oath in a\nlegal proceeding (whether criminal or civil in nature) and obstruction\nof justice undermines the rights of all citizens, who must rely upon\nthe courts to protect their rights. If lying under oath in our courts\nand obstruction are ignored or classified as ``minor'', then we have\njeopardized the rights of everyone who seek redress in our courts.\nLying under oath is an ancient crime of great weight because it shields\nother offenses, blocking the light of truth in human affairs. It is a\ndagger in the heart of our legal system and our democracy; it cannot\nand should not be tolerated.\n We know that ``a right without a remedy is not a right''. If we\nallow, ignore, or encourage lying and obstruction of justice in our\nlegal system, then the rights promised in our laws are hollow. Our laws\npromise a remedy against sexual harassment, but if we say that '`lying\nabout sex in court'' is acceptable or expected, then we have made our\nsexual harassment laws nothing more than a false promise, a fraud upon\nour society, upon our legal system, and upon women. Therefore, I must\nvote in favor of counts one, two and three of impeachment.\n The greatest challenge of free peoples is to restrain abuses of\ngovernmental power. The power of the American presidency is awesome.\nWhen uncontrolled and abused, presidential power is a grave threat to\nour way of life, to our fundamental freedoms. Clearly improper use of\nexecutive power by the President to cover-up and obstruct\ninvestigations of his public lying in our courts cannot be tolerated.\nIf not checked, such abuses of power serve to legitimize the use of\npublic power for private purposes. Mankind's long struggle throughout\nthe centuries has been to develop governmental systems which limit the\nexercise of public power to public purposes only. Therefore, I must, in\nexercising the public power entrusted to me, act to restraint the\nexercise of public power to public purposes alone; and I must vote in\nfavor of count four.\n In reviewing this grave matter of impeachment, we must seek guidance\nin first principles. These principles are all based on the recognition\nof the social compact under which we as citizens join together in the\nAmerican Republic. Each of us have given up many individual\nprerogatives (use of force, private punishment, etc.) in return for\npromisers, the commitments, the elements of social compact. The central\npromise or commitment of our compact is that our laws will be enforced\nequally with respect to all, that our civil rights and civil grievances\nwill be fairly adjudicated in our courts, and that the powers we give\nup to government will be used only for governmental purposes related to\nthe common good.\n When these elements of the social compact are violated, the\nlegitimacy of the exercise of governmental powers is brought into\nquestion and the underlying compact itself is threatened. Each members\nof the compact--each citizen--received the guarantee, received the\npromise from his or her fellow citizens, that the compact would be\nhonored and that the laws would not be sacrificed on a piecemeal basis\nfor temporary harmony or immediate gain of some (even in a majority)\nover others (even a minority). None of us are free, for any reason of\nconvenience or immediately avoidance of difficult issues, to ignore our\npromises to our fellow citizens. Our social compact does not permit the\nbreaches of these commitments to our fellow citizens, and to do so\nwould directly deprive those citizens (whatever their voting strength\nor numbers) of our solemn promise of the rule of law.\n\n[[Page H11818]]\n\n All that stands between any of us and tyranny is law--the rule as\ncontemplated in our social compact--backed up by our courts. If we\ntrivialize the role of truth in our judicial system by simply assuming\nthat everyone will lie, then we trivialize the courts themselves, we\ntrivialize the rule of law. In doing so, we trivialize the eternal\nsearch for justice for the weak under law, in place of exploitation of\nthe weak under arbitrary private power of the strong. I will not be a\nparty to such demanding of the most fundamental struggles of\nhumankind--and I will not be a party to the attempt to escape the\nconsequences of his public acts by the President through such\ntrivialization.\n The Office of Presidency is due great respect, but the President\n(whomever may hold the office), is a citizen with the same duty to\nfollow the law as all of our citizens. The world marvels that our\nPresident is not above the law, and my votes will help ensure that this\nrule continues.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).\n (Mr. HOLDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution--not\nbecause the President did not do wrong and should not be punished--he\ndid do wrong and should be punished. But I do not believe this rises to\nthe level of high crimes and misdemeanors our Founding Fathers\nenvisioned. They talked about crimes against the country--that is why\nthey specifically cited bribery and treason. This does not rise to that\nlevel.\n I believe the President should be punished and should be censured.\n Mr. Speaker, I have never made a partisan speech on the floor of the\nHouse in my six years in Congress. But today, I cannot believe that the\nMajority party has not given me the opportunity to vote my conscience\nby allowing a vote of censure.\n It is wrong and it is unfair.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nMichigan (Mr. Kildee), a comrade.\n Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, most Members of this House serve their\ncountry without ever being called upon to address two of the most\nawesome questions that could come before this body, and they are the\nquestion of war and the question of the impeachment of the President of\nthe United States. During my time in this House, I have been handed\nboth bitter chalices.\n However, in our consideration of the Gulf War, this House rose to its\nvery best. Full, fair and thorough debate took place, and no matter how\none voted at the end of that debate, everyone agreed that it was one of\nthe finest hours of this House.\n Today, our deliberations lack that fundamental element of fairness.\nMost of us believe that the President's behavior and actions were wrong\nand deserve censure. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to consider and\nvote on a resolution of censure of the President of the United States.\nThis unfair gag rule deprives us of the right to vote for the solution\nwhich the majority of our citizens support.\n Someone quoted Tip O'Neill from Breslin's book. I want to remind my\ncolleagues that that was a private conversation, not the rule of the\nHouse, a private conversation long before Tip O'Neill became Speaker.\nHe became Speaker in 1977, the first vote I cast.\n This unfairness in this rule, the unfairness in depriving us of the\nright to vote on censure is in sharp contrast to our moment of\ngreatness when we debated the Gulf War in 1991. This House deserves\nbetter, and the American people deserve better.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Ewing).\n (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heart that is heavy and filled with\nconcern for our presidency, concern for our system of basic justice,\nand concern for our great Nation. The charges against the President are\nserious, and they are substantiated. Perjury by lying to a Federal\ngrand jury, perjury by lying in a deposition, obstruction of justice,\nabuse of power. The evidence in support of these charges is clear,\noverwhelming, and, for the most part, undisputed.\n The Oval Office is a part of the people's House, which is the symbol\nof American honor, of America's dedication to what is right, and to\njustice for our people and all people throughout the world. Our\nPresident's conduct in many ways impacts our Nation, impacts the\nability to lead at a time when leadership is needed, perhaps as much as\never in our history.\n While I recognize that this country and yes, my legislative district\nin central Illinois is deeply divided on what we should do here, no\nthoughtful person who has visited with me about this grave question\nreally questions the facts surrounding the President's conduct. But the\ndecision is very difficult. How, then do I come to a decision in this\nmatter?\n Well, as I look into the eyes of my grandchildren or as I attempt to\nstand tall in the counsels of my own family with my adult children, I\nknow that I can follow but one course. That course allows me to put\naside all fear for my own political future or that of my party. I must\nvote for what I believe is right, what is fair, what is appropriate,\nand what is demanded to address the consequences of the actions of\nPresident Clinton. I must vote for impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart filled with concern for the\npresidency, with concern for our system of basic justice, and with\nconcern for our great nation. Only once before in our history has this\nHouse been called to vote upon articles of impeachment against a\nPresident. That vote was some 145 years ago. We can find little\nguidance from that far away and very different time. Instead, we must\nrely on the Constitution, our system of justice, and our conscience.\n Why are we here today? Because the Republican majority or the\nDemocrat minority willed it? I believe not. Because the majority of\nAmerican people desire this? That doesn't appear to be the case. For\npolitical, partisan advantage? I don't think so. No, there's only one\nreason for this national nightmare, and that's the actions and conduct\nof President William Jefferson Clinton.\n No other person, party, group, or body can or should accept the\nresponsibility for this day and the four articles of impeachment before\nus. No one else, especially the Members of this Congress, willed or\nwished for this ignoble day to dawn on this great land.\n The charges against the President are serious and they are\nsubstantiated--Perjury by lying under oath to a federal grand jury;\nperjury by lying under oath in the deposition of the Paula Jones civil\nlawsuit; obstruction of justice through witness tampering, relocating\nof evidence, and frivolous claims of executive privilege; and abuse of\npower by misleading his staff, cabinet, and other operatives in an\neffort to destroy the reputations of innocent people.\n The evidence in support of these charges is clear, overwhelming, and\nfor the most part undisputed, notwithstanding an unprecedented attempt\nto confuse the issue and divide the country. Those who refute this\nevidence would have you believe this is only about a personal sexual\ndalliance between consenting adults, and that it has no impact on our\ncountry--and that this is a private affair. Nothing could be further\nfrom the truth.\n This is not about some seamy sexual encounter in some remote part of\nthis urban city, but it is about our Commander in Chief and his conduct\nin the Oval Office--conduct that included having sexual relations with\na young intern while at the same time, having a conversation with a\nsenior member of Congress about whether or not to send our young men\nand women into harm's way in Bosnia.\n Just take a step back and think about that. What if this was your son\nor daughter, your husband or wife? If it was, would you still consider\nthis conduct to be private?\n The Oval Office is part of the ``People's House,'' which is the\nsymbol of American honor, of America's dedication to what is right, and\nto justice for our people and all people throughout the world. This is\nfar from a private affair. Our President's conduct in many ways impacts\nour nation, impacts his ability to lead at a time when such leadership\nis needed, perhaps as much as ever in history.\n While I recognize this country and yes, my legislative district in\nthe heartland of Illinois, are deeply divided on what we should do\nhere, no thoughtful person who has visited with me about this grave\nquestion really questioned the facts surrounding the President's\nconduct. Most condemn his conduct and say it was wrong, wrong, wrong.\nSome question the penalty that is deserved for his actions.\n Many would have us think first of what the political ramifications\nare for the Republican majority, the first Republican majority in over\nhalf a century to last for more than two years. Some believe it is\nvindictiveness against our President. Others say we should decide this\nquestion based on what is easiest or expedient, what's best for the\neconomy, what's in\n\n[[Page H11819]]\n\neach Member's best political interest, or what the latest polls say.\nThe answer is we should not allow any of these reasons to guide our\nthinking.\n Instead, we must put America first, along with what's right for our\npeople--no matter the risk, no matter what the polls say, no matter the\nmost politically popular or expedient. We must support the rule of law,\none law for all our people, no matter how powerful or popular. No one\nelse in America could retain their position and status who have\ncommitted similar acts. In fact, most would face felony criminal\ncharges. The honor of our judicial system is at stake, and it must be\nupheld for sake of future generations.\n How do I come to a decision in this matter? As I look into the eyes\nof my grandchildren, or as I attempt to stand tall and just in the\ncounsels of my own family, with my adult children, I know that I can\nfollow but one course. And that course allows me to put aside all fear\nfor my own political future or that of my party. I must vote for what I\nbelieve is right, what is fair, what is appropriate, and what is\ndemanded to address the consequences of the actions of President\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton.\n As one of the leading newspapers in my district recently said, and I\nquote, ``President Clinton should be a model for law and order, not an\nexception. Due process needs to be carried out and the President should\nstand trial before the Senate.''\n I know for myself, and I would imagine for many here, we have sought\nguidance through prayer and many others have prayed for us. There is no\ndoubt as to the seriousness of our actions, in what certainly will be\nthe most difficult vote of my political career. Yet I have been able to\nreach but one inescapable decison--that President William Jefferson\nClinton has indeed committed high crimes and misdemeanors against our\nnation, and therefore I must support the findings of the House\nJudiciary Committee and vote for impeachment.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Filner).\n (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to vote ``no'' on impeachment.\nIn this way, I am voting ``yes'' to protecting our Constitution. It is\nwe who oppose this travesty today who are in fact supporting our\nConstitution.\n In the view of the Framers, impeachment is reserved for those who\nundermine the fundamental political and constitutional structure of our\nunion. While President Clinton's behavior was both reckless and\nindefensible, it is not impeachable. It is this Congress that is\nsubverting the Constitution by trivializing the impeachment process.\n We have heard much today about the rule of law. All of us here today\nrespect the rule of law, but the aim of the rule of law is justice, a\nword that I never, ever heard from the majority Members on the\nCommittee on the Judiciary or here today. In this case, justice demands\nsomething in between no action and the national agony of impeachment.\nThat something has been called censure, and it is a course of action\nsupported by most Americans. It is a course of action supported by a\nmajority of this House were we allowed to vote on it, yet the\nRepublican leadership is so obsessed with getting this President, they\nwill not even allow this alternative to be debated. Why do we not get\nour vote of conscience? Where is the rule of fairness?\n Our vote today must not only produce justice, it must bring America\ntogether; it must heal America. The questioning of the President's\nmotives in Iraq are only the beginning of a distrust and a suspicion\nthat will engulf this Nation during a long impeachment trial.\n We must bring closure to this sorry chapter in our history as quickly\nas possible so we as a Nation can move on to deal with our domestic and\ninternational problems.\n I urge this Congress to immediately censure the President, begin the\nprocess to heal the breach of trust that engulfs us. Vote ``no'' on the\nimpeachment resolution.\n Ken Starr has already spent four years and $40 million investigating\nevery aspect of the President's public and private life. It is\nirresponsible for this process to go any further and tie up our nation\nfor who knows how long. The world economy is collapsing, our health\ncare system needs major reform, our whole campaign finance system is\ncorrupt--and we will be talking for months about who touched who where!\n We've heard much today about ``the rule of law.'' All of us here\ntoday respect the rule of law. But the aim of the rule of law is\njustice--a word that I never, ever heard from the majority members on\nthe Judiciary Committee or here today.\n In this case, justice demands something in between ``no action'' and\nthe national agony of impeachment. That something has been called\n``censure''--and it is a course of action which is supported by most\nAmericans. It is a course of action that is supported by the majority\nof this House--were we allowed to vote on it. Yet the Republican\nleadership is so obsessed with getting this President, they won't even\nallow an alternative to be debated and voted on. Why don't we get our\n``vote of conscience''? Where is the rule of fairness?\n Our vote today must not only produce justice, it must bring America\ntogether, it must heal America. The questioning of the President's\nmotives in Iraq are only the beginning of the distrust and suspicion\nthat will engulf this nation during a long impeachment trial.\n We must bring closure to this sorry chapter in our history as quickly\nas possible--so we as a nation can move on to deal with our domestic\nand international problems. I urge the Congress to immediately censure\nthe President--and begin the process to heal the breach of trust that\nengulfs us now.\n Vote ``no'' on this impeachment resolution.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a member of the committee.\n Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.\n Two quotes of relevance, my colleagues. Wendell Holmes said,\n\n Sin has many tools, but the lie is the handle which fits\n them all.\n Nearly a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt observed,\n\n We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariffing and\n foreign policy, but we cannot afford to differ on the\n question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to\n endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute\n prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man\n is honest,\n\nhe said,\n\n we have no right to keep him in public life. It matters not\n how brilliant his capacity.\n Some anti-impeachment proponents, Mr. Speaker, have accused those who\nplan to vote for the articles before us of hating the President. I have\nno hate toward President Clinton, but it is my belief that the\nPresident did, in fact, commit perjury, and we can ill afford to turn a\nblind eye to this offense. If we do so ignore it, what sort of\nprecedent do we establish when subsequent matters involving perjury\narise and must be resolved in a fair and impartial manner?\n Much anxiety has been expressed, Mr. Speaker, about tying up the\ncountry if this matter is transferred to the Senate for adjudication.\nThis, in my opinion, is not well-founded. If the House impeaches, the\nSenate has wider latitude and more flexibility than we in the House.\nThe Senate is obliged to commence the trial, but it could terminate\nprior to conclusion. The Senate could impose a penalty, it is my\nopinion, without removal; or, the Senate could convict and remove. The\nSenate is capable of discharging the duty in one of several ways in\nlimited time.\n The people's House is the body charged with the duty of accusing, and\nthis is the duty we will discharge. If the impeachment articles before\nus fail, it will have been the will of the House. If the impeachment\narticles before us are passed, the Senate will then discharge its duty.\nThe process will have been well served.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to the\ngentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).\n Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have spent most of my adult life\ndedicated to public service. Twenty-one years ago I began my work in\nthe Congress, first as an intern in the other body for George McGovern\nof South Dakota, and later as a staff member for the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and now as a Member of the House from\nMassachusetts.\n I am proud to serve my country. I have enormous respect for this\ninstitution, and I consider it a high honor and a great privilege to\nserve in this body. I have tried, to the very best of my abilities, to\nuphold the great traditions of this Congress and the Constitution of\nthe United States.\n Unfortunately, those traditions and that Constitution are under siege\ntoday. They are victims of an ill-timed, unfair and partisan process\nthat does a great disservice not only to the President of the United\nStates, but to the people of this country.\n\n[[Page H11820]]\n\n The timing of this debate is wrong. It is wrong for this Congress to\npublicly and purposely attempt to weaken the Commander in Chief at the\nvery moment the young men and women of our Armed Forces are engaged in\nbattle. Waiting just a few days until the bombs have stopped falling\nwould not have denied the Republican majority the opportunity to go\nafter this President. But it would have meant a great deal to the\nsoldiers half a world away who are putting their lives at risk for our\nfreedom.\n Mr. Speaker, every American is deeply disappointed with the\nPresident's behavior. There is no debate about that. But that is not\nthe question before us today. The question is whether or not the\nPresident's misconduct warrants tossing aside two national elections,\nignoring the will of the people we represent, and cheapening the\nConstitution. I believe very strongly that it does not.\n I believe the President's behavior warrants a tough censure, but the\nleadership of this House, in a deliberate and cynical and partisan\nmaneuver, has refused to allow Members of Congress to even consider a\ncensure resolution. I want to vote my conscience, not the conscience of\nthe political arm twisters and the Republican leadership.\n Mr. Speaker, the American people want Congress to act on the real\nissues that face our country. A Patients' Bill of Rights, school\nconstruction, saving Social Security. Instead, the majority in Congress\nwill continue their partisan drumbeat of scandal, scandal, scandal.\nThey will use the impeachment vote as a weapon to try to force the\nPresident to resign. Their goal is not to conduct the business of this\ncountry, the goal is not the pursuit of justice; the goal is the\nelimination of Bill Clinton by any means, and that is wrong.\n This destructiveness, this vindictiveness, this blatant partisanship\nhas to end. This entire process, by its inherent unfairness, has\nbrought out the worst in the Members of Congress. It has made the\nAmerican people feel more cynical and frustrated and powerless.\n Throughout our history, this Congress has risen to enormous\nchallenges and acted with integrity. This is not one of those moments.\nThe American people are angry because they know this process has not\nbeen fair. Regardless of their opinions of the President's actions, the\npeople expect us to vote responsibly. Vote ``no'' on these impeachment\narticles.\n\n {time} 1500\n\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Missouri (Mr. Talent).\n Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr.\nSpeaker.\n Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question before the House is whether\nthe President has acted in integrity in this matter. With all due\nrespect, I think in our hearts we all know the answer to that. The\nquestion is whether we have the integrity to do our duty under the\nConstitution and laws, and to stand up for what is right, or whether by\nfailing to do that we are going to become part of what is wrong.\n Public officials commit private wrongs. We know that happens. The\nissue is whether, when they are called to account for it in some forum,\nthey act honorably and live up to the consequences of what they do, or\nat least they act accordingly the minimum standards that we are\nentitled to expect and insist upon from people who occupy positions of\ntrust.\n Mr. Speaker, on this record it is impossible not to conclude that the\nPresident obstructed justice, that he perjured himself, that he flouted\nhis oath of office, that he abused the powers of his office, that he\nmanipulated other high officers of government, and that he did all\nthese things, first to obstruct a sexual harassment lawsuit against\nhim, and then to cover up the fact that he had committed perjury.\n Impeachment is a hard thing, Mr. Speaker. But again, what is at stake\nhere is our integrity. If we do not stand up for something that is\nclearly right when we have an inescapable obligation under the\nConstitution to do it, we become part of what is wrong. I am not going\nto vote for these articles because I want to, I am going to vote for\nthem because I see no other honorable alternative for me to follow than\nto support these articles calling for the impeachment of the President.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Stearns).\n (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I take to the\nfloor to express my support for approving these articles of impeachment\nof the President, sorrow because we have come to this point in our fair\nand wonderful country where we have to debate these articles.\n Mr. Speaker, we are bound together as citizens of this great Nation,\nand as citizens, we are all answerable to the same laws, including\nPresident Clinton. The President is more than America's chief law\nenforcement officer. He is also the trustee of the Nation's conscience.\n It is a fact that sworn testimony can literally mean the difference\nbetween life and death. Should we betray the rule of law by sweeping\nthe President's activities under the rug?\n If the opponents of impeachment wanted to avoid this process, they\nshould have mounted a vigorous, vigorous defense of the President by\nrefuting the facts in the Starr report. The Minority Leader, the\ngentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) mentioned trust, fairness,\nforgiveness, and values. But I did not hear him mention the word\n``truth.'' Those against impeachment have not contradicted one word of\ntestimony contained in over 60,000 pages of sworn evidence, not one\nscintilla.\n Those against impeachment should make their case based upon the\nfacts. Are we to conclude that the actions outlined in these four\narticles of impeachment are permissible behavior for a chief executive\nofficer? Any military officer, from general to private, would be court-\nmartialed. Any private citizen would risk prosecution. Any church\nleader, CEO of a Fortune 500 company, high school faculty member, or\ncommunity leader, would not face censure, they would be fired for\nsimilar conduct.\n Impeachment does not determine the guilt or innocence of the\nPresident. We do not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in\norder to move forward. Our duty in the House is to decide if the\navailable evidence indicates that the Senate should consider removing\nthe President from office.\n I believe that there is sufficient evidence to approve these articles\nof impeachment and to send this process to the next step. Through this\nvote, we shall announce how we stand on the Constitution and the rule\nof law. Are these outdated concepts to be ignored when convenient, or\nare they the guiding principles of our American civilization?\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the\ngentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), whose district borders my\nown and who has waited very patiently.\n (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nher remarks.)\n Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, on January 3rd, 1997, I stood in this\nChamber, this wonderful House of Representatives, and took the oath of\noffice to uphold the Constitution from both foreign and domestic\naggression, I am happy to say to the Members as I stand before them,\nentering my second term, as I did in the Michigan legislature for 18\nyears of upholding the Constitution.\n This act that we are doing today is unconstitutional. The\nConstitution is very clear. This is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It\nbothers me that some of my colleagues on the other aisle have said we\nare using a marketing tool by asking for censure. Most of the American\npeople want the President censured. Most of the American people, nearly\n70 percent, do not want him impeached. Why, then, do we, who represent\nthe people of these United States, come before the House with four\narticles of impeachment? I think it is a travesty.\n It is the wrong day. We have troops, young men and women under 25\nyears of age, risking their lives on foreign soil today for us to\nuphold justice for all of us. It is the wrong day that we are before\nthe House with these articles of impeachment.\n It is the wrong way. We are not even allowed to vote, to debate the\nissue of censureship. Is this a democracy, or are\n\n[[Page H11821]]\n\nwe moving towards a totalitarian country, where our rights are taken\naway from us? This is a very serious moment in our history. Let us not\nbe trivialized, or trivialize the process.\n A marketing tool? I do not think so. Censureship is what we want the\nopportunity to debate, censureship is what we want the opportunity to\nvote on. Unfortunately, the Republican majority will not let us have\nthat opportunity.\n Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to vote no. Vote no on this\nridiculous, insane affront to our Constitution.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong, adamant and stern objection to\nthe articles of impeachment of our President, William Jefferson\nClinton. This recommendation to overrule not one, but two democratic\nelections and remove the President from office for alleged ``high\ncrimes and misdemeanors'' is one of the two most grave votes that a\nmember of Congress must cast. As other Members of Congress have\nerroneously stated, this is not a symbolic gesture, an expression of\nmoral sentiments, or a ``free vote'' with no consequences. This is the\nfirst of a two-part process that removes the President from office. The\nHouse should unequivocally vote no on these resolutions, and end, once\nand for all, what has been a sordid, tawdry issue. The American people\ndeserve better than to have a Congress consumed with the personal, not\npublic, behavior of our President. I oppose the impeachment of our\nPresident for the following two reasons.\n\nThe Allegations of the Independent Counsel Do Not Rise to the Level of\n Impeachable Offenses\n\n First of all, many experts agree that the allegations made by\nIndependent Counsel Kenneth Starr to not rise to the level of\nimpeachable offenses. After spending close to $50 million over four\nyears, Judge Starr found the President innocent of any wrongdoing in\nthe Whitewater investment debacle; innocent of any wrongdoing in the\nso-called ``Filegate'' fiasco; and innocent of any wrong doing in the\nunfortunate suicide of former White House aide Vincent Foster. All of\nthese allegations were reasons the special counsel was originally\ndeposed. There has been no demonstration that the alleged wrongdoing by\nthe President approaches the magnitude of ``treason, bribery and other\nhigh crimes and misdemeanors,'' as stated in our Constitution.\nObviously, the framers of the Constitution intended that such ``other\nhigh crimes and misdemeanors'' must be in the nature of large scale\nabuses of public office such as treason and bribery. The President's\nadmitted wrongdoing in his inappropriate relationship with a former\nWhite House intern simply does not measure up to this standard.\n Historical precedent regarding impeachment clearly illustrates that\nfor offenses to be impeachable, they must arise out of a President's\npublic, not private, conduct. Former President Andrew Johnson was\nimpeached for his public duty regarding the termination of a member of\nhis cabinet, not for his private conduct of previously owning slaves.\n\nThe President Gave Misleading Statements, but they were not Perjurious.\n\n While I am not an attorney, I have reviewed the record as provided by\nthe Independent Counsel and the House Judiciary Committee. From what I\nunderstand, in order to prove perjury, it must be proven that the\nPresident made a false statement about a fact that was ``material'' to\nan issue that is under question. In the House of Representatives, we\ncall this ``germaneness.'' This means, for example, that I cannot bring\nup an agricultural issue when the bill in question or on the floor is a\nbanking bill. If I make false statements about what is in the\nagriculture bill, that has nothing to do with what is in the banking\nbill. Just like the agriculture false statements are not germane to the\nbanking bill, the alleged false statements about Ms. Lewinsky are not\ngermane to the Jones inquiry.\n Honestly and integrity are important, and vital, character traits of\nall public servants. The President has repeatedly admitted to this\naffair and to misleading the American public about it. The President\nhas apologized to God, his family, and the American people for his\nmisbehavior. Like my colleagues in the House and Members of the Armed\nServices, I have sworn to protect our Constitution against all enemies,\nforeign and domestic. I am in a fight to preserve what all Americans\nhold dear: the precepts and principles of the Constitution of the\nUnited States. I am not out to save President William Jefferson\nClinton; I am out to save the Presidency of the United States.\n Two of the most important things a Member of Congress can do are vote\nfor war or overturn the will of the poeple by impeaching a President.\nThe vote that is expected to take place on this is no window-dressing,\nglorified version of a censure. A vote on impeachment is not the end,\nit is the beginning. If this resolution passes, there will\nautomatically be a Senate trial, which could lasts for months,\nparalzying Congress and our nation.\n While the Republican leadership and majority in Congress were\nconsumed by this issue, we did not finish the work of ensuring that\npeople who need health care have it; that we have enough elementary\nschools to educate our children for the next millennium; that Social\nSecurity will be around to protect our nation's senior citizens; that\nhealth maintenance organizations protect patients, not profits. We need\nto be about the people's business, and the people have said that while\nthey want the President to be punished, they do not want Congress to\nusurp their choice of leader.\n Some of my colleagues have compared President Clinton's behavior with\nPresident Richard M. Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal.\nNothing could be further from the truth. This is not Watergate. This is\nnot a case of the President directing the Federal Bureau of\nInvestigation and the Central Intelligence Agency in a cover-up. This\nis not a case of the President lying about the diversion of Iranian\narms-sales proceeds to the contras. This is simply about a President\nwho made a mistake in his personal life and who tried to save his\nfamily and himself from personal embarrassment. That is all.\n Again, in taking into consideration the weight of the President's\nactions, I am mindful that twenty-three months ago, members of the\n105th Congress took our collective oaths of office. In that oath, we\nhave sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.\nAs such, it is not our option but our obligation to the American people\nto deliberate the issues and information that is presented before us in\nhearings, Committee mark-ups, or during floor debate, and weigh them in\nan unbiased and clear fashion before voting the issue of the day. The\nRepublican leadership did not allow this non-partisan, unbiased\nanalysis of the evidence before the Members of the House Judiciary\nCommittee and now, the entire House of Representatives.\n Let me make clear that I do not condone the President's personal\nconduct. I must add, however, that it would be sheer folly not fo\nafford the leader of this great nation the same Constitutional\nprotections afforded every other member of our society. Our\nconstitution demands that we in Congress provide a fair and non-\npartisan venue for the consideration of impeachment. It was my sincere\nhope that we would have proceeded in the spirit of fairness so that we\ncan focus Congressional attention to issues like education, Social\nSecurity and health care, issues which truly impact the daily lives of\nthe American people. In the final analysis, we in Congress have let the\nAmerican people down with these articles of impeachment.\n I am adamently against impeachment. Impeachment is not mere\npunishment for Presidents who have behaved badly, behavior to which\nPresident Clinton has already admitted and apologized. Impeachment is a\nmechanism to protect our Republic against rogue Presidents who threaten\nour nation. For me, and for many Americans, the question is this: is\nour President a threat to our nation? The evidence gathered by the\nindependent counsel, and the President's scintillating public record of\nachievement, overwhelmingly says no. Based on the merits of the case\npresented to the House Judiciary Committee and before the United States\nHouse of Representatives, I cannot vote in support of on any of these\narticles for impeachment before me today.\n I only pray that the wisdom of our God prevails upon us during this\ntrying time of judgment. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress\nprevails in rejecting these unnecessary and overreaching articles of\nimpeachment against our President, William Jefferson Clinton.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nColorado (Mr. McInnis).\n Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for\nyielding time to me.\n Mr. Speaker, in this country we operate on what is called and our\nfoundation is built upon what is called the rule of law. We all know\nour history. Our history says that we came to this country to go away\nfrom a king. Under the rule of law in this country, we say that the law\nis the king. The king is not the law.\n We have one President. That position of President of the United\nStates demands the highest public trust. Why the highest public trust?\nBecause we have only one President.\n I have read with interest the Democratic censure, and I quote parts\nfrom it: ``. . . that the President violated the trust of the American\npeople, lessened their esteem for the office of the President, and\ndishonored the office for which they have entrusted to him.'' It goes\non, ``The President made false statements concerning his reprehensible\nconduct with a subordinate, and took steps to delay discovery of the\ntruth.''\n\n[[Page H11822]]\n\n And they say to me, after they draft that kind of document, that that\nindividual now qualifies for the position of the highest public trust?\nAny of these people there that are going to stand up and vote against\nthis, tell me what they would do in their community, what side they\nwould stand on, what kind of letter or report they would give to a\nnewspaper reporter if it were a local schoolteacher? There is not a\nschoolteacher in this country that would step into the classroom ever,\never again with this kind of conduct, with this kind of misleading\ninaccuracy.\n Take it from a schoolteacher, or take a police officer. Some Members,\nshow me, give me a demonstration, anywhere in this country. And those\nare positions of public trust, not positions of the highest public\ntrust.\n We owe it to our current generation and to future generations to\nretain the standards of the Presidency, and those standards rise far\nabove an individual. Let us comply and stick with the rule of law. The\nlaw is the king, the king is not the law.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to the\ngentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).\n Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this matter should never have been pursued\nby Ken Starr, it should never have been pursued by the Committee on the\nJudiciary, and it should never have reached the floor of the House of\nRepresentatives. This matter belongs in family court, not in the court\nof the United States Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United\nStates presiding.\n Yes, the President made a grievous personal error, to the detriment\nof his family. But no, it is not an offense against the State or our\nConstitution. We are now on the threshold of overturning the people's\nchoice for President through a perversion of the Independent Counsel\nlaw, a runaway partisan investigation of the most intimate, private\nactivity, having nothing, absolutely nothing to do with a real estate\ndeal in Arkansas. Ken Starr has twisted and warped his task from one in\nwhich he was out to find the truth to one where he went out to get the\nPresident and First Lady of this country.\n Now, Mr. Speaker, we are amending the Constitution of the United\nStates on the floor of the House of Representatives here today. Make no\nmistake about it, this is a constitutional amendment that we are\ndebating, not an impeachment resolution. The Republicans are crossing\nout the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and they\nare inserting the words ``any crime or misdemeanor.''\n We are permitting a constitutional coup d'etat which will haunt this\nbody forever. A constitutional clause intended to apply to a Benedict\nArnold selling out his country will now be expanded to cover every\npersonal transgression. Every future President, Democrat or Republican,\nwill be subject to harassment by his political enemies, who can\ncredibly threaten impeachment for the slightest misconduct.\n This is wasteful, it is foolish, it is dangerous. When we talk to\npeople in the supermarkets, on the streets, they believe that the high\ncrime against the Constitution is their families being cheated out of\ntheir government's ability to work on things that affect their\nfamilies: Medicare, social security, the democratization of access to\njobs and education for every family in our country.\n The ultimate Republican paradox is that they dislike the government,\nbut they have to run for office in order to make sure that the\ngovernment does not work. In 1995 and 1996, they tried to shut down the\nexecutive department. In 1997 and 1998 they shut down the Congress. Now\nthey are going for a political triple play. They are going to shut down\nthe executive branch, the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court of\nthe United States simultaneously.\n Mr. Speaker, we have become the laughingstock of the entire world\nbecause a sexual scandal is being allowed to consume our tax dollars,\nour media, our judiciary, and our opportunity to deal with the problems\nof ordinary families.\n We must censure the President for what he did wrong. We should be\ngiven the right to vote to censure him, to put this matter behind us so\nthat we can work on the problems of every other family in America. We\nhave worried about the President's family for an entire year. It is\nabout time we went back to the business of every other family.\n GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party.'' Now it just stands for\n``Get Our President.''\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I yield to\nthe gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman from\nMassachusetts that it was the President's own Democrat Attorney General\nwho appointed this Independent Counsel, believing there was credible\nevidence that needed to be investigated.\n In regard to the high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution\nspecifically mentions bribery. Perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor\nbecause just like bribery, perjury and bribery are unique threats to\nthe administration of justice, and that affects our society. That\naffects our government.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Illinois (Mr. Fawell).\n Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to\nme.\n Mr. Speaker, it may well be a myth that George Washington confessed\nto chopping down a cherry tree because he could not tell a lie. We do\nnot know if Abraham Lincoln as a young man actually walked several\nmiles to return a few pennies to a storekeeper who gave him incorrect\nchange.\n But Mr. Speaker, true or not, these stories of truth and justice hold\na special and a very deep place in our Nation's heart and psyche. There\nis a gift, however, that accompanies the President's problems. It is\nthe opportunity to now tell the truth about the violations of perjury\nand obstruction of justice laws. The truth-telling can resolve most of\nthe factual controversies, and it can introduce the potential for\nhealing as the impeachment resolution is forwarded to the Senate.\n\n {time} 1515\n\n I urge the President to tell the truth about his multiple perjuries\nand his efforts to obstruct justice, and I urge the Congress to deliver\nthis message of impeachment to the Senate in the knowledge that we are\nall victims, including the President himself. I support the impeachment\nresolution. It was a tough decision for me. I do not know, however,\notherwise how I can explain especially to my 8 grandchildren and to the\nyounger generation of this Nation why the President's willful and\nwanton violations of perjury and obstruction of justice of laws can be\nignored.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).\n Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the\ntime.\n Mr. Speaker, I have heard Member after Member get up on the other\nside and say this is not about sex. Let us make one thing very\nperfectly clear, the roots of this impeachment action are in fact in a\nsexual deed. I was reading Andre Maurois the other day, who said the\npath that leads from moral standards to political activity is strewn\nwith our dead selves. There is a lesson in that for all for all of us.\n This impeachment process is a partisan political activity. Do not\nmake a mistake about it. What the President did was wrong. His conduct\nwas reprehensible. It was appalling and, most of all, to those of us\nwho have worked with him, it is disappointing. But just as every crime\ndoes not justify the death penalty, neither should impeachment, the\npolitical equivalent of the death penalty, be the punishment for every\npresidential misdeed.\n The President of the United States had a consensual extramarital\nsexual relationship and did not want to divulge that to the public or\nto his political enemies. Is the President guilty of bribery or treason\nor other high crimes which threaten the future of our Republic?\nAbsolutely, positively not. We all agree the President should not be\nabove the law. However, just because he has been elected to the Office\nof President does not mean he should be below the law either. He should\nhave the same treatment that every other American does. The President\nshould face the same legal consequences anyone else does, and the rule\nof law should judge his actions as it would any other American.\n\n[[Page H11823]]\n\n Fairness should be our guiding force when we consider impeaching the\nPresident. Unfortunately, fairness has taken a back seat to partisan\npolitics during this very serious one-sided debate. The overwhelming\nmajority of Americans agree that the President deserves to be punished.\nBut the majority of Americans also agree the punishment needs to fit\nthe crime. The President's conduct, however reprehensible, is not an\nact of treason, bribery or other high crimes. In this, the biggest vote\nthat Congress can take next to a declaration of war, Democrats and\nlike-minded Republicans should at least be given the opportunity to\nmake this punishment fit the crime. And we have been blocked there.\n Let me just say, it was once said that the test of courage comes when\nwe are in the minority; that the test of tolerance comes when we are in\nthe majority. And I will say, this Republican Party has failed that\ntest of tolerance. During this process comparisons have been made to\nthe Watergate hearings 24 years ago. I see only one similarity between\nnow and during the Watergate. Back then it was a Republican President\nwho used subterfuge and criminal activities to gain control of a\nprocess as to who would decide who would be the President. And today it\nis a Republican Congress who is using their majority and their power to\ndecide who is going to be the President of the United States. In the\nname of the millions who have died to protect the sanctity of the\nballot box, I would say, may God have mercy on your souls.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nKentucky (Mr. Whitfield).\n (Mr. WHITFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, while I am not a member of the Committee\non the Judiciary, I came to this debate today with the great hope that\nthe advocates for the President would spend considerable time\naddressing specifically the articles of impeachment. Instead I have\nheard a lot about the Iraqi war. I have heard about Ken Starr. I have\nheard about Medicare, Social Security, but I have not heard any\nevidence refuting the articles of impeachment.\n Now we are not here today because of the political philosophy of any\npolitical party or an obsession to impeach the President. We are not\nhere today because of the private sexual activities of anyone. We are\nhere today because the President is charged with breaking criminal laws\nwhich for constitutional purposes are high crimes and misdemeanors. One\nof those crimes is perjury. And by committing perjury, the President\nharmed the integrity of our judicial branch of government, which is a\ncentral component of the government.\n Since 1993, when President Clinton took office, the U.S. Department\nof Justice has prosecuted and convicted over 400 people for perjury.\nMany of those people are in prison today or under house arrest. We\ncould go through a lot of individual cases. We have a psychiatrist at\nthe Veterans Administration who was convicted of perjury for lying in a\ncivil suit. She is under a jail sentence right today, and we could go\non and on. But our Nation has one legal standard that applies to all of\nits citizens. We do not have one legal system for the President and a\nmore harsh legal system for everyone else. High office does not allow\nanyone to be above or beyond the law.\n For those reasons, I will vote for three of the four articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Hastings).\n Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished\nranking member for yielding me the time.\n I would like to say to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield)\nand to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our\ndistinguished colleagues, that perjury is applicable to this President\nas it is to all people once he leaves office. So that confused argument\nof what political perjury is and what perjury is in a court of law\nneeds to be distinguished.\n Let me also make it very clear for you that if the President is\ncharged with perjury when he leaves office, I predict for you that no\none in this body can prove that he committed perjury. The gentleman, my\ndistinguished colleague from Arkansas, who has been extremely studious\nwith reference to these matters, indicated that censure was some kind\nof, and I apologize, some kind of fix he called it. I do not see it\nthat way.\n I would like for you to recall that in the very cases regarding\njudges that were cited to as examples, censure was used and also, as we\nknow, for two presidents. Additionally, the majority whip, the\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), proposed what amounted to censure of\nthe President over campaign finance issues just this past May.\n This House can work its will on censure and anything else. I was\nremoved from office after being found not guilty, and here we are\ntalking we cannot censure. Today we have reached the zenith of\nunfairness. Our military, under the aegis of our President, is\nattempting to downgrade weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we are\nen masse as a body degrading the institution of the presidency.\n It is not sad. It is irrational. I have appended to my remarks what I\nthink would be helpful to this body so that you will understand the\ndynamics that take place in the Senate. The pleadings and motions\nstage, the trial preparation stage, a Senate trial, all of this\ncertainly will take at least the 14 months that it took to remove me\nfrom office. And we are talking at least that amount of time, certainly\nas late as July, and probably all next year. And things regarding\nSocial Security and matters that all of us want to take up for this\nNation will be put on hold.\n The President has done a good job, and you have seen it. Consider\nbefore you vote what you might be doing to tie this entire Nation up.\nOur Nation is divided, and the House tomorrow will exacerbate that\ndivision. We are being unfair and unwise. We are being harsh to the\ninstitution of the presidency, harsh to our troops in harm's way, harsh\nto each other as colleagues and extremely harsh to this great country\nof ours.\n This is not a debate for the ages. Rather, it is a debate of the\nstages, partisan political stages. I ask you, how many of us have read\nthis report that came to my office last night after the close of\nbusiness? How many of us have read, other than Committee on the\nJudiciary, the evidence that supports the conclusion that the\nRepublicans ask us to reach? Most of us will be voting in an\nuninformed, unintelligent manner. This Nation deserves better.\n You may win today, but the Nation will lose today and tomorrow.\n Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the information to which I\nreferred:\n Ten years ago, on August 9th, 1988, this House voted to impeach a\nfederal judge from the southern district of Florida. It was not until\nOctober 20th, 1989, fourteen months later, that the Senate voted upon\nthose articles. By its vote ten years ago, the House decided to impose\nthe burdens of Senate trial proceedings on a man. Today, the House must\ndecide whether the charges and the evidence against the President\nwarrant imposing the burdens of Senate trial proceedings on the Nation\nand the world. All Members should understand the nature and extent of\nthe extraordinary burdens that a decision to impeach the President\nwould impose.\n Although other Members have served as one of the House managers in\nproceedings before the Senate, I am the only Member who has experienced\nthe burdens of developing a defense strategy and participating in its\nimplementation. I have borne the burdens and I have observed the\nprocedures in Senate impeachment trial proceedings. Professor Terence\nJ. Anderson of the University of Miami School of Law represented me in\nthe proceedings before this House and before the Senate. He has direct\nknowledge of what the Senate did and did not do there. I asked him to\nprepare a schedule projecting how the proceedings in the Senate might\nunfold. I have reviewed the projections he prepared and believe that\nthey are conservative. I have appended to these remarks a statement of\nthe ``Projected Proceedings Before the United States Senate if the\nHouse Votes to Impeach the President.'' That Projection provides a more\ndetailed schedule of the steps that would be required in this case. I\nreport and discuss the conclusions here.\n Under the best case scenario, the proceedings before the Senate are\nunlikely to be completed before late July and could extend until the\nend of the year.\n The proceedings in the Senate would unfold in three stages--a\npleadings, procedures, and\n\n[[Page H11824]]\n\nmotions stage; a trial preparation stage; and a trial and judgment\nstage.\n The pleadings and motions stage in my case lasted seven months--from\nAugust 1988 through mid-March 1989. That first stage would take at\nleast three months here.\n The second, the trial-preparation stage, took three-and-a-half months\nin my case; it would take three here.\n A Senate trial in this case, the final stage, would last at least\nseven weeks and could last for more than fourteen.\n The similarity between the way in which the House Judiciary Committee\nconducted the inquiry in my case and the way in which it conducted the\ninquiry here will require the Senate to accord to the President and his\ncounsel, at a minimum, pretrial rights comparable to those that it\naccorded me and my counsel. The principal similarity between the two\ncases is that in neither did the House Judiciary Committee examine or\ncross-examine the witnesses upon which the articles of impeachment\ndepended. In neither, did it call witnesses for the defense or seek\ndocuments that will be necessary to the defense. Instead, it relied\nprimarily upon a report and materials transmitted by officials in\nanother branch and upon the testimony of the author of that report, in\nmy case John Doar and here Kenneth Starr. As a result, the Senate\npermitted my counsel to conduct limited discovery proceedings to obtain\ntestimony and documents necessary to my defense. The Senate will,\nperforce, accord an accuse President liberal opportunities to use its\nsubpoena power to depose witnesses and gather documents that his\ncounsel seek as necessary for a fair trial.\n The two cases would be different in ways that would also influence\nthe conduct of the proceedings that the House seems prepared to launch\ntoday. In my case, the Senate appointed an Impeachment Trial Committee\nand delegated to it the power to control the pretrial proceedings and\nto conduct the evidentiary hearings. That would not happen in\nproceedings against the President. The Rules Committee might be asked\nto guide the pretrial proceedings, but either side would have the right\nto insist that any decision be reviewed de novo by the full Senate.\n The Impeachment Trial Committee appointed in my case heard live\ntestimony from fifty-seven witnesses and received more than 374\nexhibits. Those hearings took eighteen full, eight-hour days. The\nSenate rules for the trial of an impeachment provide that the full\nSenate shall convene as a court of impeachment at noon during the trial\nof an impeachment; they, in effect, provide for half-day trial\nhearings. It is unlikely that the Senate could hear, on average, more\nthan two witnesses a day. And it should be clear that witnesses such as\nMonica Lewinsky are likely to occupy the stand for several days.\n The materials submitted by Mr. Starr identify more than 120 potential\ntrial witnesses and some 390 trial exhibits. Those materials do not\nidentify, as witnesses, the FBI agents or OIC staff members who\nparticipated in the investigation and whose testimony will clearly be\nnecessary. For example, each of the OIC staff and FBI agents who\nparticipated in the initial and each subsequent interview of Ms.\nLewinsky had the opportunity to influence and shape her testimony in\nways that bear upon her credibility and the relevance of the so-called\n``corroborating'' detail offered by the Independent Counsel Starr.\nThose materials give little indication of the additional witnesses and\nexhibits the President would present in his defense.\n The debate in the Judiciary Committee makes it clear that the\nprospective House Managers would be unlikely to exercise restraint in\npresenting the case against the President. The presentations by counsel\nfor the President have made it clear that the defense will be\ncommensurately vigorous. Although the appended projections provide a\nmore conservative estimate, it seems unlikely that the number of\nwitnesses called to testify will be less that the 120 potential\nwitnesses identified in the Starr report. If that occurred, the Nation\nand the world would watch for sixty days as the Chief Justice of the\nUnited States presided, while the House managers and counsel for the\nPresident examined and cross-examined witnesses presented audio and\nvideo tapes and other evidence before the Senate in what will appear to\nmost viewers to be a tawdry, R-rated sex drama.\n Those who would vote to impeach the President should consider\ncarefully the consequences. Over the next eight months, the attention\nof the Nation, of the full Senate, and of the Chief Justice of the\nUnited States would be devoted to hearing the evidence and arguments in\nthis tawdry affair on at least thirty-five days. For at least eight\nmonths, a sword of Damocles would hang over the Nation, indeed over the\nworld.\n Over the past two years, the Nation has seen its President play an\nactive and intensive role in mediating a peace accord in Northern\nIreland, in brokering the Wye accords, in working with the Congress to\nproduce a balanced budget and reforming the welfare system, in\nprotecting the Nation's economy and addressing the threats posed by\ncollapse of economies elsewhere, and in acting to assure that Iraq's\nability to make war against its neighbors is degraded.\n Those who would vote to impeach the President should consider, before\nthey vote, what might have, or have not, happened had the President,\nthe Senate, and the American people been preoccupied with protracted\nimpeachment trial proceedings when any of those events occurred. Those\nwho would vote to impeach the President should consider, before they\nvote, what may, or may not, happen if all are similarly preoccupied for\nthe next eight months or more.\n\n Projected Proceedings Before the U.S. Senate If the House\n Votes to Impeach the President\n\n The proceedings in the Senate on the articles of\n impeachment that the House exhibited against then United\n States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings provide the most\n recent and comparable precedents to guide the Senate in the\n proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton that\n will take place if the House adopts articles of impeachment.\n The following outlines projects how the proceedings against\n the President would unfold if the House impeaches him based\n upon the proceedings in the Hastings case and the materials\n released by the Judiciary Committee during its inquiry into\n the President's conduct.\n\n Weeks\n I. Preliminary Proceedings\n Min. Max.\n\nA. The First Step. The House Managers would exhibit\n its articles to the Senate and the Senate would\n issue a summons to the President requiring him to\n respond within fifteen to thirty days and would ask\n the Committee on Rules and Administration to\n consider and report issues that need to be\n addressed and special rules that should be adopted\n for the conduct of the proceedings................. 1 1\nB. The Rules Committee. Since the Senate has not\n conducted proceedings against a President in the\n past century, the issues would be substantial. At\n least five steps would have to be taken before the\n committee could submit its report and\n recommendations to the Senate......................\n 1. The committee meets and authorizes the Chair\n and Ranking Minority Member to send a letter\n asking the parties to file memoranda addressing\n issues identified by the Committee and other\n issues that either believes the committee\n should consider, probably allowing twenty to\n thirty days for initial memoranda and ten to\n twenty days for responses...................... 1 2\n 2. Each of the parties file memoranda........... 4 6\n 3. Each of the parties file memoranda responding\n to the other................................... 6 9\n 4. The committee holds hearings on the issues\n raised......................................... 7 11\n 5. The committee deliberates and prepares its\n report and recommendations and any necessary\n resolutions.................................... 9 13\nC. Pleadings and Motions............................\n 1. The President. It is hard to anticipate the\n defense strategy the President will adopt, but\n the House Judiciary Committee's proceedings and\n recommended articles of impeach suggest that\n counsel for the President would file:..........\n a. Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Counsel\n for the President will raise at least one\n and probably two affirmative defenses--(i)\n the articles fail to allege facts\n sufficient to state an impeachable offense;\n and (ii) the misconduct of Independent\n Counsel Starr and the House's reliance upon\n the products of that misconduct require\n that the articles be dismissed............. 3 4\n b. Motion to Dismiss. The motion would\n enable the Senate to consider whether it\n should dignify the President's improper\n conduct alleged in the articles of\n impeachment by classifying it as ``high\n Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under the\n Constitution............................... 6 10\n\n[[Page H11825]]\n\n c. Demand for Bill of Particulars. The\n majority on House Judiciary Committee\n appear to shoot themselves in the foot by\n refusing to specify the precise statements\n made by the President that they claim were\n perjurious. If the pending articles are\n adopted, counsel for the President will\n demand and the Senate will almost surely\n order the House Managers to provide a bill\n of particulars. The real effect of the lack\n of specificity will further delay.......... 6 10\n d. Alternative Motion to Strike Particular\n Allegations. If the Senate does not dismiss\n the articles in their entirety, counsel for\n the President are likely to ask that the\n Senate, after the bill of particulars has\n been filed, strike specific allegations in\n the article that remains................... 6 10\n 2. The House. The House managers would be\n required to file a Replication to the\n President's Answer and Affirmative Defenses and\n responses to the motions. If they opposed the\n demand for a bill of particulars, there would\n be a second round of briefing and further\n argument before the Senate after the House had\n complied with the Senate's order, adding an\n additional two weeks to the process............ 8 14\n 3. The President's Reply. Counsel for the\n President would file a reply and any\n supplemental memoranda made necessary by the\n House's bill of particulars.................... 10 16\nD. Proceedings Before the Full Senate. The Senate\n would be likely to set aside two days to consider\n and act upon the report from the Rules Committee\n and to hear arguments on and decide the pending\n motions............................................ 12 18\n\n II. Trial Preparation\n\n In Hastings, the Rules Committee recommended that the Senate appoint an\n Impeachment Trial Committee to regulate the preparation for evidentiary\n hearings and to conduct those hearings. If the House adopts articles\n here, the evidentiary hearings will be conducted before the full\n Senate. It is likely that the Senate and the Chief Justice will agree\n that the trial preparation duties that were performed by the\n Impeachment Trials Committee should be assigned to the Rules Committee\n (or to a special impeachment committee appointed for that purpose).\n Although the counsel for the President would request that trial\n preparation be deferred until the Senate had ruled on the President's\n motion to dismiss, the Rules Committee might determine that necessary\n preparation should proceed concurrently with other trial matters.\n However those duties were exercised, the steps would likely be the\n same.\nA. Discovery Proceedings. The need for discovery\n would be far greater in this case than it was in\n Hastings. Here, as it did in Hastings, the House\n Judiciary Committee relied primarily upon the\n report and materials transmitted to the House by\n another branch and upon the testimony of the\n investigator who prepared the report. Here, as it\n did in Hastings, the committee did not call and\n subject to examination and cross-examination the\n fact-witnesses identified by the Starr referral or\n those who might testify on behalf of the accused or\n obtain from the Independent Counsel or elsewhere\n documents other than those included in the\n materials transmitted. It is hard to conceive that\n the Senate here would not afford the President the\n time and the use of its subpoena power to take\n depositions and obtain relevant documents. Based\n upon Hastings and the materials available here,\n discovery would proceed in three stages.\n 1. Submissions by the Parties. If any articles\n remained after the motions to dismiss or strike\n had been decided, the Senate or a committee\n would have to decide whether and what discovery\n should be permitted.\n a. Counsel for the President would promptly\n submit a memorandum identifying witness and\n sources of documents that were likely to\n produce relevant evidence and explaining\n why the President should be permitted to\n subpoena each of the witnesses and other\n source to obtain that evidence. At a\n minimum, it seems almost certain that the\n counsel would seek to depose (i) lawyers\n for Paula Jones about their initial\n conversations with Linda Tripp and with\n members of the Office of Independent\n Counsel (``OIC'') staff; (ii) the members\n of the OIC staff and FBI agents who met\n with or interviewed Linda Tripp and Monica\n Lewinski; and (iii) other technical\n witnesses, such as those reconstructed\n materials from the hard drive in Ms.\n Lewinski's computer. It also seems certain\n that they would want access to the\n documents that the Independent Counsel did\n not transmit with his referral............. 12 20\n b. The House managers would be directed to\n file a response agreeing with or objecting\n to the President's requests................ 14 22\n c. The Senate or its committee would examine\n the president's request and the House's\n response and hold hearings and enter the\n appropriate order directing the issuance of\n appropriate subpoenas...................... 16 23\n d. Independent Counsel Starr, Ms. Jones's\n lawyers, or others subpoenaed might object\n to some or all of the subpoena, in which\n event time-consuming enforcement\n proceedings would be necessary, at least\n three months............................... ........ 36\n e. The depositions would be conducted and\n the documents produced and examined........ 16-24 36-44\nB. Other Trial Preparation Proceedings.\n 1. The House managers and counsel for the\n President would propose stipulations or submit\n requests for admissions. The Senate or its\n committee would encourage the parties to\n stipulate at least to the authenticity and/or\n admissibility of various documents and other\n potential exhibits. Responses would be\n exchanged and negotiations would proceed....... 12 20\n 2. The Senate or its committee would direct the\n parties to file and exchange ten days after the\n close of discovery, pre-trial memoranda\n identifying witnesses each intended to call and\n exhibits each intended to introduce............ 25 45\n 3. The Senate or its committee would enter a\n final pre-trial order establishing the date for\n and procedures to be followed at trial......... 26 46\n\n III. The Trial of a President\n\n Rules XII and XIII of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting\n on Impeachment Trials provide that, unless otherwise ordered, the\n proceedings shall commence at 12:30 p.m. on the first day and at 12:00\n noon thereafter. In order to make it possible for the legislative and\n executive branches to tend to some of the government's business and to\n enable the Chief Justice to participate, in the oral arguments before\n the Supreme Court, it seems likely that the Senate would not schedule\n the evidentiary proceedings to begin before 12:30 or would permit them\n to extend beyond 6:30 p.m. on a regular basis.\nA. The Presentation of Evidence by the House\n Managers. The managers presented the testimony of\n thirty-seven witnesses in Hastings. Only twenty-\n seven appeared before the Impeachment Trial\n Committee. The managers were permitted to introduce\n transcripts of prior testimony for the other ten.\n The House managers are likely to call most if not\n all of the 120 witnesses whose statements or\n testimony are included in the materials transmitted\n by Independent Counsel Starr. Depending upon the\n success of pre-trial negotiations, it might have to\n call several more to establish necessary\n foundations and the like. Forty to fifty would\n appear to the minimum number necessary to support\n the allegations the proposed article have borrowed\n from the Starr Report. No prior testimony will be\n admitted. The videotaped deposition and the\n videotaped grand jury testimony will be shown in\n their entirety, and many of the Tripp tapes will be\n played given by the president. The examination and\n cross-examination of the twenty-seven witnesses the\n House presented in Hastings consumed more than ten\n full days. If the President is impeached by this\n House, the presentation of testimony and other\n evidence will consume twenty [if forty witnesses\n called] to forty [120 witnesses] partial trial days\n before the full Senate............................. 27-30 47-50\nB. The President's Case. It is impossible to project\n the number of witnesses that the President's\n counsel would call for his defense with any\n confidence. The Starr Report was not a balanced\n presentation of the available evidence. It seems\n clear that the number would be substantial and\n would include many of the 120 persons whom were\n identified in the Starr Report, but were not called\n by the managers. They would present all of the\n Tripp tapes that the managers did not introduce.\n They would call witnesses whose conduct might have\n influenced the testimony of Ms. Lewinski and other\n House witnesses and witnesses who had knowledge\n relevant to Ms. Lewinski's credibility. Twenty\n witnesses and ten days seems a safe minimum........ 31-32 51-52\n\n[[Page H11826]]\n\nC. The House Rebuttal. Given the passion and vigor\n displayed by Republican members of the Judiciary\n Committee, it seems likely the House managers would\n want to try to rebut the President's case, no\n matter how tired and angry the American people may\n have become. Might we hope for only a day or two... 33 53\nD. Argument, Deliberations, and The Vote. Given the\n nature of the issues and the length of the\n projected trial, it seems likely that Senate would\n allot at least four hours to each side for closing\n arguments. Past precedent dictates that the Senate\n would close its doors to deliberate in executive\n session until its members have expressed their\n views. The vote would follow. With luck, the\n denouement might be completed in less than a week.. 34 54\n\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nUtah (Mr. Hansen).\n (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, the sole responsibility for our actions\ntoday lies with the President. Only his actions, characterized by his\nown supporters, are wrongful and immoral, maddening and worthy of our\ncondemnation. President Clinton has violated his constitutional duty to\ntake care that the laws be faithfully executed by lying under oath in a\nduly convened judicial proceeding.\n President Clinton has violated his Constitutional oath of office to\npreserve and protect the Constitution by obstructing the proper search\nfor the truth and abusing the power of the presidency. His actions,\ndeliberate and willful, have brought damage to the dignity of the\noffice of the President and corrupted our sacred respect for the rule\nof law.\n The question before us today is whether we, too, will turn away from\nour long heritage of the rule of law, the love of truth, and instead\nplace our faith in the brutal role of power, the fickle winds of\nappetite and the manipulation of public opinion.\n The circumstances of history have our Nation facing two grave issues,\nimpeachment and war, at the same moment. President Clinton decided to\nunleash the awesome power of war. And why did he do this? One, because\nSaddam Hussein has lied to the United Nations. Another because Saddam\nHussein has obstructed justice by blocking the work of the weapons\ninspector, and another one is he violated the rule of law in defiance\nto the cease-fire resolution of the Gulf War.\n I support the President of the United States in his rightful action\nand pray for the safety of our troops. If we are willing to ask the\nultimate sacrifice in defense of the international rule of law, how can\nwe not act to defend its foundations at home? Our Nation is a strong\none and our Constitution is sound. Our peaceful and deliberate defense\nof the Constitution and its foundation in the rule of law will send a\nstrong and clear message, testifying to the power and resilience of our\ndemocracy. Tyrants, dictators and thugs around the world will see the\nstrength of our Nation lies not in one man but in a vast people, united\nin liberty and justice.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nNew York (Mrs. Lowey).\n (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the\nresolution. Our Founding Fathers viewed impeachment as a mechanism of\nlast resort to protect the Nation from a President who threatened the\nConstitution or the American people. Throughout our history, Members of\nCongress have appreciated the enormous gravity of impeachment and that\nis why, despite countless disputes, provocation, misdeeds and lies, the\nHouse has voted just once in its history to impeach a President.\n Indeed the delicate system of constitutional checks and balances\nestablished by the founders works only insofar as each branch of\ngovernment exercises its prerogatives responsibly. In the case of\nimpeachment, that means applying the most rigorous test to the use of\nour authority. The Constitution gives this body the ability to undo our\nonly national election, but we must use that authority judiciously and\ncautiously. To do otherwise imperils the stability of our democracy,\nreplacing the orderly transfer of power with the constant threat of\npolitical upheaval.\n A great Nation does not overturn two national elections and throw a\nPresident out of office because he denied having a consensual affair.\nLet us instead find a suitable punishment that fits the President's\noffense, censure. The President misled his family and his country and\nhe deserves the reprimand of the Congress and the enduring judgment of\nhistory.\n Unfortunately, in their zeal to impeach Bill Clinton, the GOP\nleadership has refused to allow this House to debate a tough motion of\ncensure, a censure that is overwhelmingly supported by the general\npublic over impeachment.\n\n {time} 1530\n\n Unfortunately, there is a determined minority in America and in this\nChamber who never accepted the legitimacy of this President. To them\nthis episode is mere pretext to accomplish what they could not during\ntwo separate elections. The majority is not here today to give the\nPresident his fair day in court. They are here to oust him. And Kenneth\nStarr was their instrument.\n By utilizing the vast prosecutorial powers of the government, Kenneth\nStarr abused his authority and broke his trust with the American\npeople. His dangerous and misguided inquiry has been unparalleled in\nour modern life, and impeachment merely serves to validate his methods\nand goals.\n And make no mistake, my colleagues, not all coups are accompanied by\nthe sound of marching boots and rolling tanks. Some, like today, are\nwrapped in a constitutional veneer, softened by pious assertions of\nsolemn obligation and duty. But the result is the same, defiance of the\npublic will and rejection of the regular political process.\n Mr. Speaker, what will impeachment mean? A trial in the Senate would\nonly deepen the Nation's wounds. Imagine the spectacle of the upper\nChamber of the world's greatest democracy, presided over by the highest\njudge in the land, gathered for weeks and months not to consider\nimportant affairs of state, but instead to hear the same tawdry\ntestimony, the same tiresome details, again and again.\n I am frankly amazed, Mr. Speaker, that the House stands poised today\nat the edge of a deep abyss. The American people, in their wisdom, have\nimplored us to leave the slippery road of impeachment and pursue\ninstead the measured course of censure.\n Such a prolonged re-hashing, illuminated by television lights and\naugmented by a thousand talking heads, would further alienate a public\nthat has already sent its representatives a clear message to end this\ndisgraceful episode in our nation's life. It would seriously compromise\nour capacity to wrestle with serious policy challenges. And it would\nweaken our international leadership at a perilous moment in world\naffairs. It would shut our government down at a time when the American\npeople are looking at us to solve the problems that affect their\neveryday lives.\n Let us honor our Constitutional obligations, heed the call of\nscholars and historians, and above all, keep faith with the men and\nwomen we serve.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nGeorgia (Mr. Barr).\n Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding\nme time.\n The other gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) brought up an\ninteresting point a moment ago asking rhetorically who has indeed read\nthe material and reviewed the evidence. It is interesting to note, Mr.\nSpeaker, that in the more than three months that the independent\ncounsel's material, some 60,000 pages, have been over at the Ford\nBuilding there remain, I believe, four members of the Democrats on the\nCommittee on the Judiciary that have not spent one minute reviewing\nthat material; and even though arrangements\n\n[[Page H11827]]\n\nhave been made through the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to have\nother Members of both sides of the aisle not serving on the Committee\non the Judiciary to review the material so they could answer any\nquestions or look at the material firsthand, I believe there has been\nat most one Member on the Democrat side who has gone over to review the\nmaterial.\n So the answer to the question posed by the gentleman from Florida is,\napparently, most Members on the other side are not interested in the\nevidence and, therefore, have not even reviewed it.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Canady).\n (Mr. CANADY of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point\nmade by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend.\n This is a process that we are following under the Constitution, and I\nam very disappointed that there has been a failure of those who are\nopposing these articles to focus on the facts of the case before us.\nNow these facts are inconvenient facts, they are very compelling facts\npointing to a pattern of perjury and obstruction of justice by the\nPresident of the United States. But all the passionate argument about\nthe independent counsel, all the passionate attacks on the process here\nin the Congress do not alter the stubborn facts of the case before us.\n Now, I would also like to bring to the attention of the Members the\nreport on ``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment'' which\nwas prepared in February of 1974 by the staff of the Nixon impeachment\ninquiry; and I would ask that all the Members consider this key\nlanguage from that staff report describing the type of conduct which\ngives rise to impeachment.\n The Democratic staff of the Rodino committee wrote, ``The emphasis\nhas been on the significant effects of the conduct--undermining the\nintegrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of\noffice, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse\nimpact on the system of government.''\n Perjury and obstruction of justice clearly undermine the integrity of\noffice. Their unavoidable consequence is to erode respect of the office\nof president. Such offenses are in obvious disregard of the President's\nconstitutional duties and oath of office. Moreover, they are offenses\nwhich have a direct and serious adverse impact on the system of\ngovernment.\n Obstruction of justice is by definition an assault on the due\nadministration of justice, which is a core function of our system of\ngovernment. And as the first Chief Justice of the United States, John\nJay, observed, no crime is more extensively pernicious to society than\nthe crime of perjury.\n The significance of the offenses committed by the President is not in\nany degree diminished by the fact that they do not directly involve the\nPresident's official conduct. Despite their argument that the President\nis immune from impeachment because of the underlying conduct which gave\nrise to his crimes was a private matter, the President's lawyers have\nthemselves proclaimed, and I would ask that my colleagues listen to\nthis, these are the words of the President's own lawyers, they said,\nand I quote, ``Any conduct by the individual holding the Office of the\nPresident, whether it is characterized as private or official, can have\nsubstantial impact on a President's official duties.''\n Perjury and obstruction of justice, even regarding a private matter,\nare offenses that have a substantial impact on the President's official\nduties because they are grossly incompatible with his preeminent duty\nto take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Perjury and\nobstruction of justice are not private matters, they are crimes against\nthe system of justice, crimes for which this President must be\nimpeached.\n In today's debate we have heard a convincing case made that the\nPresident engaged in a calculated and sustained pattern of perjury and\nobstruction of justice. The furious efforts of the President's\ndefenders cannot alter the stubborn facts of the case against the\nPresident. The facts cannot be wished away, they cannot be ignored,\nthey cannot be treated as trivial. But the President's lawyers have\nargued that even if the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice\nare true, the President's conduct does not rise to the level of ``high\ncrimes and misdemeanors'' for which he can be impeached.\n Although Congress has never adopted a fixed definition of ``high\ncrimes and misdemeanors,'' there is much in the background and history\nof the impeachment process that contradicts the position advanced by\nthe President's lawyers. Two reports prepared in 1974 on the background\nand history of impeachment are particularly helpful in evaluating the\nPresident's defense. Both reports support the conclusion that the facts\nbefore us make a compelling case for the impeachment of President\nClinton.\n There has been a great deal of comment on the report on\n``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment'' prepared in\nFebruary 1974 by the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. Those who\nassert that the charges against the President do not rise to the level\nof ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' have pulled some phrases from that\nreport out of context to support their position. In fact, the general\nprinciples concerning grounds for impeachment set forth in that report\nindicate that perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable\noffenses. Consider this key language from the staff report describing\nthe type of conduct which gives rise to impeachment:\n\n The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the\n conduct--undermining the integrity of office, disregard of\n constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of\n power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on\n the system of government. (emphasis added)\n\n Perjury and obstruction of justice clearly ``undermine the integrity\nof office.'' Their unavoidable consequence is to erode respect for the\noffice of the President. Such offenses are in obvious ``disregard of\n[the President's] constitutional duties and oath of office.'' Moreover,\nthey are offenses which have a direct and serious ``adverse impact on\nthe system of government.'' Obstruction of justice is by definition as\nassault on the due administration of justice--which is a core function\nof our system of government. And as the first Chief Justice of the\nUnited States, John Jay, observed, ``no crime'' is ``more extensively\npernicious to Society'' than perjury.\n The thoughtful report on ``The Law of Presidential Impeachment''\nprepared by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in\nJanuary of 1974 also places a great deal of emphasis on the corrosive\nimpact of presidential misconduct on the integrity of office:\n\n It is our conclusion, in summary, that the grounds for\n impeachment are not limited to or synonymous with crimes. * *\n * Rather, we believe that acts which undermine the integrity\n of government are appropriate grounds whether or not they\n happen to constitute offenses under the general criminal law.\n In our view, the essential nexus to damaging the integrity of\n government may be found in acts which constitute corruption\n in, or flagrant abuse of the powers of, official position. It\n may also be found in act which, without directly affecting\n governmental processes, undermine that degree of public\n confidence in the probity of executive and judicial officers\n that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a\n free society. (emphasis added)\n\n The commission of perjury and obstruction of justice by a President\nare acts which without doubt ``undermine that degree of public\nconfidence in the probity of the [the President] that is essential to\nthe effectiveness of government in a free society.'' Such acts\ninevitably subvert the respects for law which is essential to the well-\nbeing of our constitutional system.\n The significance of the offenses committed by the President is not\ndiminished by the fact that they do not directly involved the\nPresident's official conduct.\n The record is clear that federal officials have been impeached for\nreasons other than official misconduct. Two recent impeachments of\nfederal judges are compelling examples. In 1989, Judge Walter Nixon was\nimpeached and removed from office for making false statements before a\nfederal grand jury. The conduct of Judge Nixon which occasioned his\nperjury before the grand jury was not official conduct. In 1986, Judge\nHarry E. Claiborne was impeached and removed from office for making\nfalse statements under penalty of perjury on his income tax returns.\nHis misconduct was without doubt outside the scope of his official\nresponsibilities. Should we today, as the opponents of those articles\ndemand, set a lower standard of integrity for the President than we\nhave set for federal judges?\n There is nothing in the text, structure, or history of the\nConstitution which suggests that Presidents are subject to impeachment\nonly for official misconduct. Greater harm to the system of government\nmay in fact be caused by the criminal acts of a President committed\noutside the scope of his official responsibilities than by certain acts\nof official misconduct.\n Despite their argument that the President is immune from impeachment\nbecause the underlying conduct which gave rise to his crimes\n\n[[Page H11828]]\n\nwas a private matter, the President's lawyers have themselves elsewhere\nclaimed:\n\n Any conduct by the individual holding the Office of the\n President, whether it is characterized as private or\n official, can have substantial impact on a President's\n official duties. (emphasis added)\n\n Perjury and obstruction of justice--even regarding a private matter--\nare offenses that have a substantial impact on the President's official\nduties because they are grossly incompatible with his preeminent duty\nto ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Regardless of\ntheir genesis, perjury and obstruction of justice are acts of public\nmisconduct--acts which cannot be dismissed as understandable or\ntrivial. Perjury and obstruction of justice are not private matters;\nthey are crimes against the system of justice.\n Soon after the adoption of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote\nthat ``an inviolable respect for the Constitution and the Laws'' is the\n``most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic.''\nHamilton understood that respect for the Constitution itself grows out\nof a general respect for the law. And he understood the essential\nconnection between respect for law and the maintenance of liberty in a\nRepublic. Without respect for the law, our freedom is at risk. Thus,\naccording to Hamilton, those who ``set examples which undermine or\nsubvert the authority of the laws lead us from freedom to slavery . .\n.''\n President Clinton by his persistent and calculated misconduct has set\na pernicious example of lawlessness--an example which by its very\nnature subverts respect for the law. His perverse example has the\ninevitable effect of undermining the integrity of both the office of\nPresident and the judicial process. The maintenance in office of such a\nPresident is inconsistent with the maintenance of the rule of law.\n In light of the historic principles regarding impeachment, the\noffenses committed by the President demand that this House impeach\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton. Our Constitution requires that this\nPresident who has shown such contempt for the law and for the dignity\nand integrity of the high office entrusted to him by called to account\nbefore the Senate for his high crimes and misdemeanors.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the former Government\nOperations Committee, and ask that he yield to me briefly.\n Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nConyers).\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have just been advised that the chairman\nof the House Committee on the Judiciary has unilaterally permitted\nother Members other than committee members to visit the Ford Building\nto read other materials unbeknownst to me and we had not allowed any\nDemocratic Members to go over there because we did not know that they\nwere permitted to attend if they were not members of the Committee on\nthe Judiciary. And I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for\npointing that out to us. It is an incredible violation of our\ndemocratic rights, and I am deeply offended by it.\n Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, over and over again our\nRepublican colleagues have called for the rule of law. Let me suggest\nthat if the President has committed a crime, let him be tried in a\ncourt of law. There even he will have the protections of the law. Here\nin this House he is not getting the rule of law but the rule of\npolitics.\n This President has been subjected to an unprecedented and deliberate\nstrategy to use taxpayers' funded money to investigate him in order to\nget him impeached. Millions of dollars have been spent, many reckless\ncharges were investigated, investigated to death, and they were found\nto have no basis in fact.\n As a matter of fact, a resolution of impeachment was introduced\nbefore anybody had ever heard of President Clinton's affair with Monica\nLewinsky. There has been an impeachment in search of an impeachable\noffense. What has been presented to us today do not amount to\nimpeachable offenses.\n I call for the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\\1/4\\ minutes.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clear up\nthe record as a result of what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nConyers) had to say about access to executive session materials.\n Just so that all of the Members are clear, when the House passed\nHouse Resolution 525 in September, immediately after the receipt of the\nindependent counsel's report, only members of the Committee on the\nJudiciary had access to the executive session material. Section 4 of\nthat resolution was effective during the review of the referral from\nIndependent Counsel Starr.\n Pursuant to section 1 of H. Res. 525, rules relating to review by the\ncommittee was effective until there was a further order of the House.\nThen in October, when we passed our inquiry resolution, that superseded\nthe previous resolution's provisions relative to access to executive\nsession material.\n House Resolution 581, the inquiry resolution passed in October, had\nstandard executive session rules of the House obtained; and that meant\nthat all Members of the House of Representatives had access to those\nexecutive session materials.\n That has been what the rule is since October 8, and any Member has\nhad the legal right to go over to the Ford Building and examine the\nexecutive session materials.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom New York (Mr. Houghton).\n (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a little different tact\nhere. I stand here as a Republican. I am proud of my party. But I am\nopposed to impeachment, and have proposed my own censure motion, which\nsadly will die with this session.\n But this is today. What about tomorrow? Today we deal with the law.\nTomorrow we deal with people's lives. The famous parliamentarian which\nwe have all read, Edmund Burke, once said, ``The law sharpens the mind\nby narrowing it. But in a few, law has lifted the mind to a level of\ncomprehension and humanity.''\n So, Mr. Speaker, when all the arguments are done and when the votes\nare taken, this is what we must work for, the humanity, the healing of\nthis Nation.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to\nthe gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), and I ask him to yield a few\nseconds to me.\n Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly yield back to the ranking member.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, who\nis the ranking Member on the Judiciary, for his explanation.\n The one thing it did not include, of course, was that only Members\nwho were trying to have their minds made up were the only ones that\ncame over to the Ford Building that were not members of the Committee\non the Judiciary two days before this proceeding on the floor. And I am\nglad to know now that everybody could have come over but nobody\napparently availed themselves until this last minute twisting of arms\ntook place.\n Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the ranking member\nfor yielding.\n (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these articles\nof impeachment. We are perhaps at one of the lowest points in American\npolitics. We are in the midst of a parliamentary coup. The party in the\nmajority want to remove an elected president. And that is the\nparliamentary system. That is not the democratic system. They are doing\nso without legitimacy.\n Legitimacy demands bipartisanship. There is no bipartisanship on the\nfloor today, simply the will of this majority to drive out this\nPresident, a true parliamentary coup. This debate has brought out some\nof the worst features of man. I have to say it. First of all,\nhypocrisy. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Second,\nunfairness.\n The Members of this body on both sides would like to vote on a\ncensure resolution. The Republican majority will not allow that. The\nAmerican people believe censure is an appropriate response. The\nRepublican majority will not allow that.\n And third, there is a very unseemly obsession with this matter to the\nexclusion of what used to be called the war effort. It used to be we\ngot behind our young men and women, we focused on what they were doing.\nThis crowd now believes that their partisan agenda is more important.\n\n[[Page H11829]]\n\n At the bottom, this is about sex. Now, the Republicans also jump up\nand say, no, it is about lying. Well, even if you accept the\nallegations that they are making, it is about lying about sex. That is\nnot an impeachable offense.\n If, in fact, they want to make the argument that this is about the\nrule of law, then the President is not above the rule of law, the\nPresident can be prosecuted. Do not believe the President can escape\nprosecution for these offenses in a court of law.\n\n {time} 1545\n\n The President can be prosecuted after he leaves office. The Founding\nFathers left to us the question of impeachment, which is not legal; it\nis a political exercise which we are engaged in today. Unfortunately\nthe Republicans have lost all sense of proportion of judgment. They\ntalk about law, but they do not talk about justice. Justice looks at\nthe situation and fits the sanction to the crime. In this instance we\ndo not have high crimes and misdemeanors, we have low crimes and\nmisdeeds. In truth, we ought to have the sanction option, we ought to\nlook at another way to respond to the situation, but we do not have\nthat opportunity.\n Mr. Speaker, this crowd, this Republican leadership is forcing us to\nremove the President, and that is a tragedy, and that is in fact a low\npoint in American politics.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the\ngentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).\n (Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, first let me clear up a misconception of\nthe previous speaker about the situation internationally. May 18, 1972,\nwhen over 62,000 troops were on the ground in Vietnam, the gentleman\nfrom Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the\nJudiciary, introduced House Resolution 989 calling for the impeachment\nof the President of the United States of America.\n Now let me say this. As I have listened to this debate and listened\nto both parties, there is at least an emerging consensus that lies have\nbeen made, laws were broken and that the rule of law was undermined and\nsubverted. The question diverges on the matter of consequences; is this\nimpeachable? Some want censure, but the only constitutional remedy to\nthe House is impeachment. Should the Senate decide, they may be able to\ncensure. They have that option because only the Senate can decide on\npunishment; the House does not have that option. Our duty is to accuse,\nnot to punish.\n But since Democrats and Republicans have agreed that lies were made,\nis it a high crime or a misdemeanor? Lying under oath on a material\nmatter is perjury, and, under these circumstances, a felony. It has\nbeen serious enough that 700 people under the Clinton-Reno Justice\nDepartment have been tried and convicted of it; 115 are, in fact, in\njail today. What would happen to the court system if this were not the\ncase?\n Justice must be applied to all equally regardless of popularity,\nparty or position. I sadly must support these articles.\n After months of debate, a review of the evidence, and careful\nconsideration of the bipartisan hearings, I have decided to support all\nfour Articles of Impeachment. Not to do so would send a message to\nevery court and every trial in America that truth is relative, even\noptional. In short, America is a nation of laws and, as such, the law\nmust apply equally to all people, regardless of position.\n Throughout this debate, the first question that must be considered\nis, what are the facts? Based on 60,000 pages of testimony, affidavits,\nand tapes taken under oath, honest people regardless of party, should\nbe able to determine if laws were broken.\n Here are the facts with respect to the Articles of Impeachment which\nwere reported out of the House Judiciary Committee on December 16,\n1998:\n\n Article I--Grand Jury Perjury\n\n Article I charges that the President told a series of calculated lies\nunder oath, after swearing to tell the truth, before a federal grand\njury that was investigating his alleged misconduct.\n On August 17, 1998, seven months after being deposed in the Jones vs.\nClinton case, the President swore to tell the truth, and nothing but\nthe truth before a federal grand jury.\n Before the grand jury:\n The President swore that he did not want Monica Lewinsky to execute a\nfalse affidavit in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is\nnot true.\n The President swore that he did not allow his attorney to refer to an\naffidavit before the judge in the Jones vs. Clinton case that the\nPresident knew to be false. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he did not believe Monica Lewisky's\naffidavit was false. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he was trying to determine whether his\n``recollection was right,'' and he was ``trying to get the facts down''\nand ``understand what the facts were'' when he recited to Betty Currie\na false account of his interactions with Monica Lewinsky. The facts\nshow this is not true.\n The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his\ndeposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not\ntrue.\n The President swore that he did not talk to Betty Currie, his\nsecretary, about the retrieval of gifts he had previously given to\nMonica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he told the truth about his relationship\nwith Monica Lewinsky to his aides who he knew would likely be called to\ntestify before the grand jury. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he did not have sexual relations with Monica\nLewinsky. The evidence indicates that he lied, even according to his\nown interpretation of the Jones vs. Clinton court's definition of the\nterm ``sexual relations.''\n\n Article II--Civil Perjury\n\n Artlce II charges that the President lied under oath, after swearing\nto tell the truth, in answers to written questions asked in the Jones\nvs. Clinton case, in order to thwart that federal civil judicial\nproceeding.\n On December 23, 1997, the President signed an affidavit in which he\nswore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in\nanswers to written questions asked in the Jones vs. Clinton case. Such\nquestions are permissible under current law in civil rights lawsuits in\norder for the court and the parties to ascertain the true facts of a\ncase.\n In those answers:\n The President swore that he had not had sexual relations with any\nfederal employees. The facts show this is not true.\n The President also swore that he had not proposed nor sought to have\nsexual relations with any federal employees. The facts show this is not\ntrue.\n The President told a series of calculated lies under oath, after\nswearing to tell the truth, in a deposition given in the Jones vs.\nClinton case, in order to thwart that federal civil judicial\nproceeding.\n On January 17, 1998, the President swore to tell the truth, the whole\ntruth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given in the Jones vs.\nClinton case.\n In that deposition:\n The President swore that he was ``not sure'' whether he had ever\ntalked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked\nto testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not\ntrue.\n The President swore that he did not know whether Monica Lewinsky has\nbeen served a subpoena to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he\nlast saw her in December 1997. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that the contents of an affidavit executed by\nMonica Lewinsky in the Jones vs. Clinton case, in which she denied they\nhad a sexual relationship, were ``absolutely true.'' The facts show\nthis is not true.\n The President swore that he did not know that his personal friend,\nVernon Jordan, had met with Monica Lewinsky, a federal employee and\nsubordinate, and a witness in the Jones vs. Clinton case in which the\nPresident was named defendant, and talked about the case. The facts\nshow this is not true.\n The President swore that he could not recall being alone with Monica\nLewinsky. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he could not recall giving gifts to Monica\nLewinsky. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he could not recall ever being in the Oval\nOffice hallway with Ms. Lewinsky except perhaps when she was delivering\npizza. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that Monica Lewinsky gave him gifts ``once or\ntwice.'' The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that the last time he spoke to Monica Lewinsky\nwas when she stopped by before Christmas 1997 to see Betty Currie or at\na Christmas party. The fact show this is not true.\n The President swore that he did not have an extramarital affair or\nsexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true.\n\n article III--Obstruction of Justice\n\n Article III charges that the President engaged in a pattern of\nobstruction while the Jones vs. Clinton case was pending, and while a\nfederal criminal investigation into his\n\n[[Page H11830]]\n\nalleged misconduct was pending, in order to thwart those proceedings.\n The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file a sworn affidavit\nthat he knew would be false in the Jones vs. Clinton case.\n The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath if called\npersonally to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case.\n The President related to Betty Currie, a potential witness in the\nJones vs. Clinton case, a false account of events relevant to testimony\nshe might provide in the case.\n The President told lies to While House aides who he knew would likely\nbe called as witnesses before the grand jury investigating his\nmisconduct which these officials repeated to the grand jury, causing\nthe grand jury to receive false information.\n The President intensified an effort to provide job assistance to\nMonica Lewinsky, and succeeded in his efforts, at a time when her\ntruthful testimony in the Jones vs. Clinton case would have been\nharmful to him.\n The President engaged in a plan to conceal evidence that had been\nsubpoenaed in the Jones vs. Clinton case.\n The President, at his deposition, allowed his attorney to make a\nfalse representation to a federal judge in order to prevent questioning\nabout Monica Lewinsky.\n\n article iv--abuse of power\n\n Article IV charges that the President, in his constitutional role as\nPresident of the United States, lied under oath, after swearing to tell\nthe truth, in answers to written requests for admission asked in the\nimpeachment inquiry, assuming to himself powers reserved to the House\nof Representatives, in order to thwart that constitutional proceeding.\n On November 27, 1997, the President signed an affidavit in which he\nswore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in\nanswers to written requests for admission issued as part of the\nimpeachment inquiry in order to ascertain the true facts regarding the\nPresident's conduct.\n In those answers:\n The President swore that he had no specific recollections that he\ntold Monica Lewinsky on the same day he told her she was a witness in\nthe Jones vs. Clinton case that she could say to anyone inquiring about\ntheir relationship that her visits to the Oval Office were for the\npurpose of visiting with Betty Currie or delivering papers to the\nPresident. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he did not give perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony under oath when he stated during his deposition\nthat he did not know if Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify\nin the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he did not have a discussion with Monica\nLewinsky at the White House regarding gifts he had given to her that\nwere subpoenaed in the case of Jones vs. Clinton. The facts show this\nis not true.\n The President swore that he did not discuss with Betty Currie gifts\npreviously given by him to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not\ntrue.\n The President swore that he did not request, instruct, suggest to or\notherwise discuss with Betty Currie that she take possession of gifts\nhe had previously given to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not\ntrue.\n The President swore that he did not have knowledge that any facts or\nassertions contained in the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky in\nthe Jones vs. Clinton case were false. The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his\ndeposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he stated that he did not\nrecall giving gifts to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not\ntrue.\n The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his\ndeposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he responded ``once or\ntwice'' to the question ``has Monica Lewinsky ever given you any\ngifts?'' The facts show this is not true.\n The President swore that he did not attempt to influence the\ntestimony of Betty Currie. The facts show this is not true.\n\n it is apparent that the independent Counsel and Republican Members of\nthe House Judiciary Committee concluded the President perjured himself,\n but what have the some of the Democrats said?\n\n House Judiciary Committee Democrats:\n Rep. Charles Schumer: ``To me, it is clear that the President lied\nwhen he testified before the grand jury.'' House Judiciary Committee\nHearing on Oct. 5, 1998.\n Rep. Robert Wexler: ``The President did not tell the truth. He lied\nunder oath. That's something we have to deal with...His actions are\nindefensible.'' Washington Post; September 15, 1998.\n Rep. Barney Frank: ``I personally believe that the President\ntestified falsely when he said he could not remember being alone with\nMiss Lewinsky.'' The San Francisco Chronicle; August 17, 1998.\n Rep. Howard Berman: ``Even if one concludes the President's testimony\nis not truthful--which I have--that's not grounds for impeachment. I\nthink the best way for the country to move beyond this sad affair is\nfor Congress to have some sort of formal declaration of disapproval of\nthe President's conduct. I think that is clear. There needs to be some\npublic consequence for the President's despicable behavior.'' House\nJudiciary Committee Hearing; December 11, 1998.\n White House Counsels:\n Gregory Craig, Special Counsel to the President: ``I am willing to\nconcede that, in the Jones deposition, the President's testimony was\nevasive, incomplete, misleading even maddening, but it was not\nperjury.'' House Judiciary Committee Hearing; December 8, 1998.\n Charles F.C. Ruff, Office of the White House Counsel: ``I had no\ndoubt that he walked up to a line that he thought he understood.\nReasonable people--and you may be--have reached that conclusion--could\ndetermine that he crossed over that line, and what for him was truthful\nbut misleading, or nonresponsive and misleading, or evasive, was in\nfact, false.'' House Judiciary Committee Hearing, December 9, 1998.\n\n one can conclude there is at least some agreement that the President\n provided false information before the grand jury. Thus, laws were\n broken. Are these offenses impeachable?\n\n Some critics argue that perjury about sex in a civil case is trivial\nand not worth pursuing. In fact, prosecuting perjury vindicates the\nrule of law. A judicial system is in order, because it is fair and\ncivil to settle disputes through judicial means. Perjury is a crime,\nbecause a judicial system can only succeed if citizens are required to\ntell the truth in judicial proceedings. If citizens are allowed to lie\nwith impunity, the system cannot reach just results and it descends\ninto chaos. Some say that people lie under oath all the time and are\nnot prosecuted. To some extent, that is true, but consider how much\nworse the situation would be if there were no threat of a perjury\nprosecution.\n\n What does the Constitution say?\n\n The Constitution states, ``The President shall be removed from office\non impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high\ncrimes and misdemeanors.'' What constitutes ``treason, bribery, or\nother high crimes and misdemeanors?'' The Library of Congress defines\nthis clause as the following:\n\n Treason is defined in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 as\n follows: ``Treason against the United States shall consist\n only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their\n enemies, giving them aid and comfort.'' It is also defined in\n 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2381. Bribery is not defined constitutionally,\n but the term appears in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201.\n ``High crimes and misdemeanors,'' are not defined in the\n Constitution or by statute. U.S. precedents suggest that\n certain actions that are not crimes may be impeachable. Some\n interpreters of the impeachment clause place great importance\n on the words ``other'' and ``high'' when reading the phrase\n ``or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' They suggest that\n ``other'' means that the crimes and misdemeanors contemplated\n by the Framers must be of similar magnitude to treason or\n bribery. They also suggest that ``high'' modifies both\n ``crimes'' and misdemeanors,'' meaning that ordinary crimes\n and misdemeanors are not necessarily impeachable offenses.\n\n What do the scholars think?\n\n Eminent constitutional scholars testified before the House Judiciary\nCommittee about the meaning of impeachment, the impeachment standard as\napplied throughout American history, and what the Founders said about\nimpeachment when the issue was debated in Philadelphia in the summer of\n1787. Professor Stephen Presser of Northwestern University testified\nthat criminal interference in the legal process was an obvious ground\nfor impeachment. Indeed, Professor Presser argued that failure by the\nPresident to live up to the standards of honesty, virtue, and honor\nthought necessary for the office was precisely what the Founder\nintended the impeachment provision of the Constitution. When a\nPresident uses his office for personal rather than public ends, he has\nbetrayed his constitutional obligations to the Nation.\n Other scholar made arguments before the committee supporting this\nview. Professor John McGinnis of Yeshiva University Cardozo School of\nLaw pointed out that this matter is not about the President's private\nlife. It is about someone else's rights, rights which the President is\nsworn to protect. It is about a private citizen's civil rights and an\neffort to corruptly influence that citizen's due process rights. In the\nUnited States, civil rights, the right to a fair trail, and equity\nbefore the bar of justice are cherished rights, and the last person in\nthe Republic we should accept as a violator of them is the man charged\nwith enforcing them. Perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil case\nare a threat to the civil rights of every citizen, especially when that\ncitizen if confronted with a vast apparatus of government power\n\n[[Page H11831]]\n\n What is the Supreme Court's view?\n\n In this constitutional process of securing a witness's\n testimony, perjury simply has no place whatsoever. Perjured\n testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic\n concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restrains against\n the type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. The\n power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power of contempt\n for refusing to answer, drastic as that is--and the solemnity\n of the oath--cannot ensure truthful answers. Hence, Congress\n has made the giving of false answers a criminal act\n punishable by severe penalties, in no other way can criminal\n conduct be flushed in the open where the law can deal with\n it.\n Similarly, our cases have consistently--indeed without\n exception-allowed sanctions for false statement or perjury;\n they have done so even in instances where the perjurer\n complained that the government exceeded its constitutional\n powers making the inquiry--United States vs. Mandurano. 425\n U.S. 564, 576-77 (1976)\n\n The seriousness of perjury is reflected in the Federal Sentencing\nGuidelines, which classify perjury in the same category as bribery\n(2J1.3).\n Congress has reaffirmed the Supreme Court's words through the\nimpeachment process. All three of the federal judges who were impeached\nin the last twenty years (Claiborne, Nixon, and Hastings) were\nimpeached for some form of lying under oath.\n The United States Department of Justice prosecutes perjury occurring\nin civil cases. There are many cases similar to the one faced before\nour President today. For example, the Justice Department recently\ncharged Veterans Administration psychiatrist Barbara Battalion with\nobstruction of justice based on her denial in a civil case of a sexual\nrelationship. United States vs. Battalino.\n Diane Parker, a former employee of the U.S. Postal Service was\nsentenced to thirteen months in prison and three years parole for lying\nin a civil case about a sexual relationship that she had with a\nsubordinate. Ms. Parker was charged perjury. United States vs. Parker.\n In fact, the President and the Attorney General's Department of\nJustice has tried and convicted over 700 people for perjury. Of those\n700 people, 115 are now serving a prison sentence.\n The President is the chief law enforcement officer in the United\nStates. If the President has committed perjury and Congress allows him\nto do so without consequences, no other citizen can be expected to tell\nthe truth under oath. He sets an example that all Americans are\nexpected to follow. If every American feels that he can lie because of\nwhat the President represents, then the judicial system for settling\ndisputes will falter.\n\n why should the president be impeached and not censured?\n\n Many support censure, yet, the Constitution neither gives the House\nauthority to censure the President nor does it prohibit such action.\nWhat are the arguments against censure? The short answer is that there\nis no Constitution basis for it. One could perhaps make the argument\nthat the Senate has the Constitutional authority for such a measure,\nbecause they are in charge of punishment and have flexibility to decide\nwhat punishment is appropriate. But the Constitution does not give the\nHouse of Representatives any other option in the case of Presidential\nmisconduct aside from the provision of impeachment which sends the\nmatter to the Senate. The job of the House is not to punish but to\naccuse. The Senate must review the accusation and make a final\ndecision.\n Furthermore, should the House pass a censure resolution, it would set\na dangerous precedent for future Congresses, who will surely be tempted\nto use this act as a weapon against a President of an opposing party\nwhenever Congress has serious disagreements with the administration's\npolicy. The Founders did not believe that the House should have such a\nrole, unless presidential misconduct were so egregious as to warrant\nimpeachment.\n If censureship is not an option, what exactly is the House voting on?\nAgain, the Constitution interprets impeachment as an indictment. That\nis, does the House find probable evidence to send the matter to the\nSenate for a full trial and to make the final decision? Based on the\nfacts presented, the answer is ``yes'' if one believes the charges are\nimpeachable.\n Outside of the legal realm, many argue that impeachment is against\nthe will of the people. However, Members of congress have to make this\ndecision based on the Constitution and the oath of office, not\npolitical polls, party, or politics. But, to examine this idea of\npolling, should polls also be conducted on the government's policy in\nBosnia, the Middle East, on the government's income tax, on the\nInternal Revenue Service, on school choice? Those who insist on using\npolls for impeachment decisions are selectively oblivious to the ``will\nof the people'' on other matters which may or may not be in sink with\ntheir own political philosophies.\n\nShould the House of Representatives proceed with an impeachment vote at\n this particular time?\n\n Another argument against an impeachment vote is that it will disrupt\nthe nation while troops are being deployed to Iraq. Here is an example\nof what our nation was going through while President Nixon was in\noffice:\n As Henry Kissinger was engaged in negotiating a peace agreement with\nthe North Vietnamese in Paris in May 1972, 3 resolutions (H. RES. 975,\n976, & 989) were introduced in the House calling for Nixon's\nimpeachment based on Indochina military actions taken as part of an\neffort to strengthen the U.S.'s hand in the negotiations.\n\n On May 18, while there were still over 62,000 troops on the ground in\nVietnam, Mr. Conyers (who is now ranking Member on the House Judiciary\nCommittee) introduced H. Res. 989--together with Mr. Dellums, Rangel,\nand Stokes (also Members of the Judiciary Committee)--a resolution\nwhich called for:\n\n Impeaching Richard M. Nixon, for abuse of the office of the\n President and of his powers as Commander in Chief of the\n Armed Forces by ordering the mining of all North Vietnamese\n ports and the massive aerial bombardment without\n discrimination as to the lives of civilians in Indochina, and\n for other high crimes and misdemeanors within the meaning of\n article II, section 4, of the Constitution of the United\n States.\n\n On Oct. 12, 1972, four months after the break in, less than a month\nbefore the Presidential election, and while the United States was still\nbombing Hanoi and 32,000 troops remained in Vietnam, House Banking\nChairman Wright Patman attempted to have his committee initiate a\nCongressional probe of Watergate and announced that the GAO had acceded\nto a request for a ``full scale investigation'' of Watergate.\n On Jan. 11, 1973, while Henry Kissinger was in the final stages of\nnegotiating the peace agreement that was signed in Paris on Jan. 27 and\n21,500 troops remained in Vietnam, the Senate Democratic Caucus\nunanimously approved a resolution calling for an investigation of the\nWatergate affair. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield announced that\nSen. Sam Ervin had agreed to chair the hearings. Mansfield also\nreleased letters he had sent to the Senate committee chairman the\nprevious November calling for committee investigations saying: ``The\nquestion is not political, it is constitutional.''\n On February 7, 1973, as the U.S. bombing in Laos was increased to\nhelp force a wider peace in Indochina and just one week before the\nfirst planeload of American POWs were sent home by North Vietnam, the\nSenate voted to establish a select Committee to probe Watergate. The\nSenate acted based on a preliminary study and a report was released\nFeb. 1 by Sen. Kennedy which was the result of an investigation by his\nJudiciary subcommittee into Watergate. Over 10,000 troops were still in\nVietnam at the time.\n During the first week of May, 1973, 14 resolutions (2 by Rangel) were\nintroduced in the House calling either for the appointment of a special\nprosecutor or authorizing Watergate investigations by the House. On May\n1, the Senate passed a resolution calling for an outside prosecutor and\nSen. Ervin began his Watergate hearing on May 17. Archibald Cox was\nappointed Special prosecutor the next day. The Senate and House also\nvoted in May to prohibit the use of funds to ``finance combat\nactivities [bombing] in, over, or from off the shores of Cambodia or\nLaos by U.S. forces.'' At the time, over 6,000 military and civilian\nDOD personnel were still on the ground in Vietnam and the U.S. was\nbombing in Laos to force Hanoi to abide by the Laotian peace agreement\nand in Cambodia to halt a North Vietnamese-backed assault on the\nCambodian government.--[H. Res. 367, 368, 369, 373, 374, 376, 377, 378,\n380, 381, 384, 385, 386, 391]\n Furthermore, do Washington pundits believe that business will not\nfunction during an impeachment trial? Would they have us believe\nAmerica will quit buying and selling houses and cars? Will farmers stop\nproducing and consumers stop consuming? Those who fear disrupting the\ncountry's business either misunderstand or underestimate the American\npeople. Or, are they saying the Constitution is flawed? When it is\ninterrupted in a manner with which they disagree, then it becomes a\nConstitutional crisis. If this is in fact the case, then perhaps the\nPresident should consider doing what over 200 publications have called\non him to do (including The Savannah Morning News, The Brunswick News,\nThe Statesboro Herald, The Atlanta Constitution, The Augusta Chronicle,\nThe Marietta Daily Journal, The Waycross Journal Herald, the USA Today,\nand The Florida Times Union)--resign. This would allow the capable and\nexperienced Vice-President to take over as President Ford did in 1974.\n\n closing remarks\n\n The House voted on a bipartisan basis to proceed with an impeachment\ninquiry by the Judiciary Committee. Procedures were modeled after the\nDemocratic-designed Watergate\n\n[[Page H11832]]\n\nrules and time was given to all parties for witnesses, thus making this\ninvestigation fair and equitable.\n Our actions will stand the test of time. They must. This vote is not\nfor today or the next election, but for the next generation. We are a\nnation of laws and upholding those laws is the duty of all citizens,\nor, as it has been asked, should we be a nation that has one law for\nthe ruler and another for the ruled?\n This is a sad and serious situation, but to vote ``no'' would send a\nmessage that oaths to tell the truth mean little and a cancer would\nspread throughout our courts and eventually our nation itself.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentlewoman\nfrom California (Ms. Pelosi).\n Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today is a tragic day for our country\nbecause, while our young people are fighting in the Persian Gulf and\nbringing honor to our country, we are bringing dishonor to it with our\nhypocrisy here in this Chamber. Today the Republican Party is not\njudging our President with fairness but is impeaching our President.\n\n Parliamentary Inquiry\n\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his\nparliamentary inquiry.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the word ``hypocrisy'' in order on\nthis floor?\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California would have\nto yield.\n Ms. PELOSI. I do not have enough time to yield, Mr. Speaker.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may proceed.\n Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican majority is not judging\nthe President with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance. In the\ninvestigation of the President fundamental principles which Americans\nhold dear, privacy, fairness, checks and balances, have been seriously\nviolated, and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in\nthe House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton, and until the\nRepublicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer.\n I rise to oppose these unfair motions which call for the removal of\nthe President of the United States from office, and in doing so wish to\npoint out some difference between the investigation of the President\nand the investigation of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich).\n The first principle in our investigation of the gentleman from\nGeorgia (Mr. Gingrich) was that at the moment we found exculpatory\ninformation it would be reported immediately to the accused and be made\npublic. The independent counsel knew that the President was exonerated\nin Travelgate, Whitewater and Filegate, and he held that information\nuntil the hearing, indeed until after the election. This was not fair.\nIndeed, it is the responsibility of any prosecutor to immediately\nrelease information that is exculpatory.\n So it is not about Whitewater, it is not about Travelgate, and it is\nnot about Filegate. It is about sex. It is about a punishment searching\nfor a crime that does not exist.\n In the Gingrich probe we drew every inference in favor of the\naccused, but in this case it took a closing question from a member of\nthe grand jury to Monica Lewinsky to say: ``Is there anything you would\nlike to add to your prior testimony?'' for Monica Lewinsky to respond,\nand I quote:\n ``No one ever asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my\nsilence.''\n The point is why did the independent counsel not elicit that\nimportant testimony?\n In the Gingrich case we spent a major part of our report explaining\nthe laws which were violated. The Committee on the Judiciary has not\nproven perjury, it has not even defined perjury. Instead, it has kept\nthe subject intentionally vague. Whether one is violating a marital vow\nor some other aspect of his personal behavior, it is not an impeachable\noffense. Our colleagues have not proven perjury.\n In the Gingrich probe we had a bipartisan unanimous vote in our\nsubcommittee and an almost unanimous vote on the floor because we built\nconsensus and we tried to bring the matter to closure, and I will\nsubmit the rest to the Record where I say that censure is closure,\ncensure is constitutional. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Chief\nJustice of the United States testified that it was. How can the\nRepublicans, as we come to punishment, how can the Republicans exalt\nthe gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) to the highest post of\nSpeaker after he admitted lying to Congress and try to impeach the\nPresident of the United States for lying about his personal affairs?\n I urge my colleagues to vote no, stop this hatchet job on the\npresidency, stop this hypocrisy, stop this hatred and vote no on all\nfour counts.\n\n Responsibility in the Gingrich matter\n\n We had a bipartisan unanious vote of our subcommittee and a near\nunanimous vote on the floor because we build consensus and brought the\nmatter to closure. We have that opportunity today with a motion of\ncensure. Censure is constitutional. In 1800 Representative Livingston\nintroduced a motion of censure against President John Adams. The\nPresident was successfully defended by Congressman John Marshall of\nVirginia who would soon become Chief Justice of the United States.\nMarshall is the father of much of our constitutional law and he never\nargued in the Adams case that censure was unconstitutional.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I have been taking notes on my\ncolleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I would just ask them to\ntalk about the facts in the articles, four. We would love them to talk\nabout those. If anyone disputes the allegations of perjury, obstruction\nof justice, we would like to hear some specific allegations. The\nCommittee on the Judiciary conducted an independent review of this\nmatter. We are not bound by Kenneth Starr. All the exculpatory material\nwas made available to the President's counsel. He had an opportunity to\ncall witnesses. We urged him to. All the time was not taken by the\nPresident's counsel, and I think that is important to be noted.\n Mr. Speaker, I believe it is critical that we were fair through the\nCommittee on the Judiciary process, and I believe we accomplished that.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).\n (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we keep coming back to the rule of\nlaw question. I think standing for the rule of law includes the\nfollowing: that the Nation's chief law enforcement officer cannot\ncommit perjury and remain in office. The rule of law means that the\nCommander in Chief of our Armed Forces should not be held to a lower\nstandard than are his subordinates. The rule of law means that even the\nmost ordinary and humble citizens are entitled to their day in court,\nand they are entitled to expect sworn testimony in that court to be\ntruthful, even testimony from the President of the United States. The\nrule of law means recognizing that felonious criminal conduct by the\nPresident of the United States cannot be tolerated. The rule of law is\nmore important than the tenure in office of any elected official.\n During John Adams' second night in the White House he wrote these\nwords:\n ``I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this House and on\nall that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men\never rule this roof.''\n Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I conclude the current\noccupant of the White House has utterly failed to live up to this\nstandard. I cast my vote for impeachment to protect the long-term\nnational interest of the United States, to affirm the importance of\ntruth and honesty, and to uphold the rule of law in our Nation.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Deutsch).\n Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership's irresponsible\nactions today on impeachment is only met by the irresponsible behavior\nyesterday questioning the military action in Iraq.\n The President's conduct has been deplorable, indefensible, but his\nbehavior by any objective analysis does not rise to the level of\nimpeachment as defined by our Constitution.\n What did the President do? He misled, he manipulated and he lied to\ntwo specific questions under oath. The first question was whether he\nwas ever alone with Ms. Lewinsky.\n\n[[Page H11833]]\n\n The leading Supreme Court case on perjury I think really points out\nthe fact that that issue was not perjury. As distasteful as that might\nbe, that is the facts of the law. The leading Supreme Court case talked\nabout someone who testified under oath that he did not have, his\ncompany did not have, a Swiss bank account. He, in fact, did, but his\ncompany did not. He was prosecuted, convicted for perjury. The Supreme\nCourt overthrew that case because in fact that was not perjury by being\ndeceitful, by being misleading in his answer. That is exactly what the\nPresident did.\n But even if it were perjury, even if it were perjury, our\nConstitution talks about subversion of government as issues for\nimpeachment. Can anyone objectively say that the answers to those\nquestions were an attempt to subvert our government? Can anyone say\nthat objectively? Honestly? Obviously not. These misrepresentations\nwere lies, but absolutely not a subversion of our government.\n Clearly this is not an impeachable offense. Clearly again the\nconspiracy that my Republican colleagues say occurred in terms of the\nactions in Iraq; the British are involved in those actions. Are they\npart of the conspiracy that they allege? Are the 30 countries that are\npart of the UNSCOM U.N. team that did the investigation in terms of\nchemical and biological weapons in Iraq, are they part of this\nconspiracy as well? Obviously not.\n The irresponsible actions will be checked at the ballot box and by\nhistory.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Canady) for rebuttal.\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for\nyielding this time to me, and I want to compliment my colleague from\nFlorida for at least touching on the facts of the case, but I feel\ncompelled to respond to the points he has made about perjury.\n I think what we are hearing here are more of the legalisms, more of\nthe legal gymnastics, more of the hair splitting that we should not be\nhearing in this context, and I would also point out that the\nPresident's own lawyer in his presentation to the Committee on the\nJudiciary admitted that when the President answered the questions in\nthe deposition he intended to mislead by his answers. That was his\nintention.\n Let me read to my colleagues from a recent decision of the Sixth\nCircuit Court of Appeals. It says a perjury inquiry which focuses only\nupon the precision of the question and ignores what the defendant knew\nabout the subject matter of the question at the time it was asked\nmisses the very point of perjury. That is the defendant's intent to\ntestify falsely and thereby mislead his interrogators. Such a limited\ninquiry would not only undermine the perjury laws, it would undermine\nthe rule of law as a whole, as truth seeking is the critical component\nwhich allows us to determine if the laws are being followed, and it is\nonly through the requirement that a witness testify truthfully that a\ndetermination may be made as to whether the laws are being followed.\n\n {time} 1600\n\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).\n Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me\ntime.\n Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) made reference\nearlier in the debate to last-minute arm twisting of the undecided, and\nI feel compelled to comment.\n I made a commitment to myself and my colleagues, an unusual one, and\nthat is to come to this debate with my mind still available to\npersuasion. I am one of the last few holdouts undecided in this debate,\nand it needs to be said that not once, not once in this entire ordeal,\nhas a single member of my leadership, has a single colleague, has a\nsingle member of the Committee on the Judiciary, not only not asked me\nto vote one way, they have never even inquired as to how I would vote.\n We have big differences of opinion here, but it does the process an\ninjustice to argue that there has been arm twisting.\n I think the Whip has been maligned in this process. It has been\nalleged that he is twisting arms. I spent 3\\1/2\\ hours in the company\nof the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the entire\nelected leadership this week, and not once did any of them say a word\nto me about impeachment.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to the\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a former member of the Supreme\nCourt of his state.\n Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and an attorney, I have\nseen firsthand the corrosive effect on the justice system of lying.\nLying under oath is just as wrong when it is committed by your allies\nas when committed by your adversaries. I agree that no Republican made\nthis President lie, just as no Democrat influenced Newt Gingrich.\n When the House reconvened after the August recess, after the\nPresident's testimony to the grand jury and his statement to the\nNation, I was the first Member of this House on either side of the\naisle to come to this floor and condemn the President's lying and ask\nthat he be promptly punished.\n Then, as today, this Republican leadership had a choice: It could\neither bring us together in a collective condemnation of this conduct,\nor it could split us apart. Unfortunately, on the eve of an election,\nit took the latter course, and, in an unsuccessful effort, it tried to\nexploit this situation to its maximum political advantage. It\narrogantly rejected Democratic suggestions for how to conduct this\ninquiry, and it delayed for weeks getting the inquiry underway.\n When it finally convened, this same committee that comes today and\ntells us that this is the most important decision of this House, short\nof declaring war, failed to meet its burden of proof by calling one\nsingle witness who had firsthand knowledge of the facts involved.\nInstead, it relied almost exclusively on a fellow named Ken Starr, who\nis obsessed with getting Bill Clinton, no matter what the cost, in\neither wasted taxpayer dollars or in violated civil liberties and\nrights of privacy.\n So, I find myself today I think like many Americans, disgusted with\nthe whole situation. I find a situation that is so shameful, a\nsituation so shameful that neither Republican Speaker, either Mr.\nGingrich or Mr. Livingston, will even preside over this proceeding\ntoday.\n A new year that begins in this country with all three branches of our\ngovernment embroiled in the first Senate trial in 130 years will not be\na prosperous and productive new year for our people. The poison of\ndivision that infects this House today spreads throughout the American\npopulation. It is a poison that invades our body politic and thwarts\nour ability to come together as a Nation to resolve our problems.\n Do not rip our Nation asunder. Bring us together. Punish the\nPresident with a punishment that fits the offense. Do not punish the\nAmerican people by prolonging this dreadful episode. Censure and move\non.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).\n Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, with over 60,000 documents, in the\npresentation of the White House lawyer, Mr. Ruff, he made no challenge\nto the testimony of Betty Currie, Monica Lewinsky or anyone else in the\nfactual situation that we have had before us.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).\n Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I\nrise in support of the articles of impeachment before the House today.\n Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will make one of the most\nsolemn decisions it can make--whether to indict, or impeach, the\nPresident of the United States.\n The historical significance of this week's action does not escape me.\nThis is only the second time in our nation's history that Congress has\nvoted on an impeachment inquiry. As we approach the votes that will\noccur later this week, I feel a burden of responsibility as never\nbefore during my years in public affairs.\n Like most people in public service, President Clinton serves as a\nmentor to young people who come to the nation's capital with idealism\nand hope that they might learn the functions of government and\nparticipate in the legislative process. It is quite clear that the\n\n[[Page H11834]]\n\nPresident grossly violated his responsibility as a mentor to a young\nwoman working in the White House. As a parent, I find his behavior\nimmoral and highly offensive. It shows a fundamental lack of judgment\nand a total disregard for human decency.\n Truth is the cornerstone of our legal system; it must be upheld if\nour legal system is to endure. Lacking truth, our legal system means\nnothing. No man, not even the President, is above the truth or above\nthe law. From the very beginning, I have wanted to give the President\nevery benefit of the doubt. I have wanted to believe that he was\ntelling the truth. But it is now clear that he repeatedly lied to the\nAmerican people, to the Congress, to his staff, and to his own wife and\nfamily. The time this investigation has taken, and the toll it has\ntaken on our country, is a direct result of the President's efforts to\ndeny and evade the truth. He could have--and should have--told the\ntruth from the very beginning but instead he chose to lie.\n Anyone who has served in a court proceeding knows the significance of\nraising one's hand and taking an oath to tell the truth, the whole\ntruth, and nothing but the truth. A violation of that oath is perjury.\nIt is now evident that the President has lied--repeatedly lied--while\nunder oath. The first lie begot the second and the third lie which\nbecame a pattern intended to obscure the truth. He has also clearly\nviolated the oath of office he took upon becoming President.\n To maintain the fundamental integrity of our system of government,\nthe President, like every other citizen, must be held accountable for\nhis actions. His actions, detailed by the Judiciary Committee, provide\nsufficient evidence of obstruction of justice and represent an abuse of\npower. For this reason, I will vote to impeach the President on each of\nthe four articles of impeachment when this matter comes before the full\nHouse.\n President Clinton is an American President who has every political\ngift and who at one time had every opportunity to be one of the truly\ngreat presidents. Like most presidents, he could rightfully take credit\nfor the many good things that have occurred under his watch--a robust\neconomy, relative peace at home and abroad, and so much more.\nUnfortunately, this president will not be remembered for these things\nbut for his inability to speak the truth. The verdict of history will\ncast a shadow upon this once promising presidency. While history\nremembers that George Washington could not tell a lie, it now appears\nthat history may well remember Bill Clinton for his inability to tell\nthe truth. Imagine the difference telling the truth would have made\nupon the historical legacy of William Jefferson Clinton.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the\ngentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).\n Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress takes an oath of\noffice to uphold and defend the Constitution, and today we are\nchallenged to do our duty under that oath.\n No person in this House is without fault or without sin, but the\nquestion before us is not whether the President has sinned. The\nquestion before us is whether the President has committed illegal acts,\nincluding perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power.\n Under the Constitution that we swore to defend, these are serious\ncrimes, crimes that our constituents would go to prison for, and do we\nhold the President, the top-ranking law enforcement official in our\ncountry, to a lower standard?\n John Locke once wrote, ``Where the law ends, tyranny begins.'' Mr.\nSpeaker, if we believe in our Constitution, then the law does not stop\nat 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.\n In our constitutional democracy, no one, not even the President, is\nabove the law. None of us sought the burden of impeachment when we ran\nfor this office, but every one of us raised our right hand and swore to\nsupport and defend the Constitution of the United States. Who are we to\nignore that obligation by turning a blind eye to crimes by the leader\nof our government?\n I have no choice but to honor my oath of office. I have no choice but\nto impeach this President and send this matter to the Senate, as my\noath of office requires me to do.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from\nWisconsin (Mr. Kind).\n (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these articles\nof impeachment. As a former prosecutor and special prosecutor, if the\nrule of law and this process of impeachment is going to have any\ncredibility, it has to be applied fairly and consistently. But I am\nafraid the double standard against the President today is anything but\nfair, anything but consistent.\n In 1974, the House Committee on the Judiciary, when Congress was\ncontrolled by Democrats, drafted articles of impeachment against\nPresident Nixon based upon fraudulent tax returns. But the Committee on\nthe Judiciary in a bipartisan fashion determined that it did not rise\nto the level of an impeachable offense because it was private as\nopposed to public misconduct.\n Well, then, what is this all about, if it is not really about\nperjury? If it is just about punishing and holding the President\naccountable and retribution, we can do that, short of punishing the\ncountry as well and paralyzing this government for the next six to\neight months, we can punish President Clinton through censure and\nthrough private prosecution once the President leaves office. But we do\nnot even get a vote on censure, which is fundamentally unfair.\n I do not believe the Founders intended impeachment to be used as a\ntool of punishment, but, rather, to preserve and protect the country\nagainst a rogue president, who, through his public duties, is\njeopardizing the very structure and functioning of our government. No\none can claim that that is happening here today.\n Mr. Speaker, I have two young boys who are not old enough yet to\ncomprehend the gravity of this situation. My only hope is when they are\nold enough and are reading about this in the history books, that they\nare going to have confidence that every vote cast was done in the best\ninterests of the country, rather than short-term political gain. I am\nnot confident that is the story they will read.\n In fact, the one person in this country that probably has the best\nrealistic assessment of what is really going on is the young mother of\ntwo young children who told me, ``Listen, I can educate my own\nchildren, I can teach them not to lie. But I can't protect them against\nthe destruction of the presidency.'' Only we in this body can do that.\nI am afraid we are going to fail her in the next 24 hours.\n Please, do not destroy the 210 years of history in this country.\n Mr. Speaker, seldom in the course of our nation's history is a\ncongressional representative called upon to cast a vote of greater\nconstitutional significance than the possible impeachment of the\nPresident of the United States. Short of declaring war, there is not\ngreater constitutional obligation. It is a responsibility I do not take\nlightly.\n After a thorough review of the historical evidence of the intent of\nthe framers of our Constitution, the standard of impeachable offenses,\nprior precedents and the evidence so far collected surrounding the\nallegations against President Clinton, I have concluded that the\nPresident's conduct, as deplorable and indefensible as it is, does not\nrise to the level of impeachable offenses. Such conduct does not\njustify paralyzing our government indefinitely nor is impeachment\nneeded to hold him accountable. I will vote against all four articles\nof impeachment.\n Just once before in our 210 year history has the House of\nRepresentatives passed Articles of Impeachment. Impeachment is a\nconstitutional provision that has seldom been used and for good reason,\nimpeaching the President is the atomic bomb of American politics.\nBesides paralyzing our government during an impeachment trial, the\nprocess causes, by its very nature, great acrimony and division\nthroughout the country and within Congress. Ultimately, the end result\ncould mean overturning a national election and the will of the people.\n I am convinced, after a thorough review of history and analysis of\nour founding fathers' intent, that impeachment was never meant to be\neasily or frequently used. That is why our founders established a very\nhigh standard of misconduct and placed the judgement of that misconduct\nin the forum of representative democracy, the United States Congress,\nrather than in the political vacuum of the Supreme Court.\n\n standard of impeachment\n\n It is evident that our Founding Fathers intended impeachment to be a\nlimited, last resort remedy reserved for misconduct that affects the\nstructure of our government and our democratic process or for\nmisconduct so egregious that society needs to be protected against the\nindividual. At the outset, some delegates to the Constitutional\nConvention objected to including the power to impeach in the\nConstitution. Others were concerned that some process was needed to\nprotect the country against misconduct by the President that would\ndamage our government. The classic example was cited by George Mason\nwho\n\n[[Page H11835]]\n\nwas concerned about a President selling state secrets to an enemy\nduring time of war. Some process was needed to remove that person from\noffice in order to save the Republic.\n Some delegates, such as James Madison, objected to the use of broad\nimpeachment language. Madison noted that impeachment was only necessary\nto ``defend the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy\nof the chief magistrate.'' George Mason objected to the draft language,\nconcerned that it was limited to ``treason or bribery.'' He sought to\nadd the term ``maladministration.'' Madison objected to this vague\nlanguage and substituted ``or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors\nagainst the State'' (emphasis added). The narrow scope of the phrase\n``other High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was confirmed by the addition of\nthe language ``against the State.'' This language reflects the\nConvention's view that only offenses against the political order should\nprovide a basis for impeachment. Although the phrase ``against the\nState'' was deemed redundant and eventually deleted by the Committee of\nStyle, its deletion was not intended to have any substantive impact. I\nwonder how differently we would be debating President Clinton's conduct\ntoday if its was within the written context of misconduct committed\n``against the State.''\n The interpretation that ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' should\nbe limited to serious abuses of official power is further confirmed by\nthe commentary of both the framers of the Constitution and prominent\nconstitutional experts, contemporary and past. For instance, Alexander\nHamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65 that impeachable offenses ``proceed\nfrom the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or\nviolation of some public trust.'' He stressed that those offenses ``may\nwith peculiar proprietary be denominated political, as they relate\nchiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself''.\n Impeachment precedents also demonstrate that offenses should arise\nout of a President's public, not private conduct. In 1868, Andrew\nJohnson was impeached by the House Republicans after he removed\nSecretary of War Edwin Stanton. Those members disagreed with President\nJohnson's post-Civil War reconstruction plans, which were merely the\ncontinuation of President Lincoln's policies of moderation and leniency\ntoward the Southern States. The impeachment articles related to alleged\npublic misconduct only, and the Senate failed to convict President\nJohnson by one vote.\n The proposed impeachment of President Nixon also supports the view\nthat impeachment should be limited to threats that undermine the\nConstitution, not possible criminal misbehavior unrelated to a\nPresident's official duties. All three articles of impeachment passed\nby the House Judiciary Committee involved misuse of the President's\nofficial duties. They included using the CIA to obstruct an FBI\ninvestigation, using the IRS to target political opponents, ordering\nbreak-ins of private offices of political opponents, using slush money\nto silence witnesses, using slush money to influence the outcomes of\nfederal elections, and engaging in a course of conduct to obstruct the\nWatergate investigation.\n The Judiciary Committee actually rejected articles of impeachment\nagainst President Nixon relating to allegations of income tax evasion.\nThere was credible evidence that President Nixon had knowingly\ncommitted tax fraud when filing his federal income tax returns for the\nyears 1969 through 1972 (tax returns are filed under penalty of\nperjury). All seventeen Republicans were joined by nine Democrats to\ndefeat this article by a vote of 26-12. The primary reason for\nrejection was that the tax fraud article related to the president's\nprivate, rather than public, conduct.\n As a former prosecutor, I know that if the rule of law is to have any\ncredibility it must be applied consistently and fairly. The same is\ntrue with the standards of impeachment. I believe there is a double\nstandard being applied to President Clinton. How can we justify\nimpeaching President Clinton based on alleged perjurious statements\nabout his private life when a Democratically controlled Congress\nconcluded, in a bipartisan fashion, that President Nixon's perjured tax\nreturns constituted private, as opposed to public, misconduct, and\nwere, therefore, not impeachable?\n Based on this very high standard of impeachable conduct and the\nhistorical precedents, I am convinced that President Clinton's personal\nmisconduct and his attempt to lie about having a consensual sexual\naffair do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.\n\n forum of democracy\n\n II also do not believe our Founding Fathers meant for this country's\nelected representatives to disregard the will of the American people\nregarding such an important decision. If the Framers intended an\nimpeachment decision to be immune from public pressure, they would have\nplaced the process in the Supreme Court where unelected, life-tenured\njustices could determine the case. Instead they placed the initiation\nof impeachment in the House of Representatives. ``the People's House'',\nso the American people could have a say, through their representatives,\non the disposition of their President and consequences for the future\nof their country.\n There are some who say that we should pay little regard to the\nopinion of the American people on this important matter. I believe they\ndo so at their own peril. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state\nthat members of Congress are the embodiment of all the wisdom in this\ncountry. I submit that it will be extremely difficult to impeach and\nconvict a President unless there is some consensus throughout the\ncountry and bipartisan support in Congress to do so. Such a consensus\nhas failed to materialize. In fact, since the beginning of this\ninvestigation, public opinion regarding the President has not changed.\nOpinion polls show by a 2 to 1 margin that the American people oppose\nimpeachment and think the President is performing his duties well.\n How can this be explained? I believe the American people have made\nthe distinction between the President's personal wrongdoing and his\nconduct in discharging the duties of his office. Unlike Watergate, when\na consensus eventually materialized throughout the country and within\nCongress regarding President Nixon's public misconduct, most Americans\nfeel that the President's personal conduct, however disgusting and\ninexcusable, doesn't threaten our form of government or the process of\nour democracy.\n Those who defy the public will and vote for impeachment should\nunderstand that in their fervor to punish this President they will\nviolate a sacred covenant with the American people: this government is\nstill the people's government. They will betray a promise that nothing\nof enormous consequence in the life of our Republic will happen without\nthe consent and approval of the American people. A vote to uphold the\nconfidence of the American people in the democratic process will be a\nvote against impeachment. Such a decision will be a vote of confidence\nin the simple but sometimes forgotten founding principle of our\ndemocracy that this government should be ``of the people, by the people\nand for the people.''\n Without the support of the American public, how can we justify\nplacing the country in a constitutional quagmire over a tortured\ndefinition of sexual relations, one that even the presiding judge in\nthe case thought was confusing?\n How can we justify passing articles of impeachment which would\nrequire a lengthy trial in the Senate, presided over by the Chief\nJustice of the Supreme Court, about the sordid details of a consensual\naffair and whether the President lied about it?\n How can we justify calling a young woman to testify before one\nhundred United States Senators and the Chief Justice about embarrassing\nand intimate matters that transpired in a consensual relationship?\n When you envision what a trial in the Senate will look like--Monica\nLewinsky, Linda Tripp and Lucianna Goldberg all sworn in as witnesses--\none has to wonder: What in the world are members of Congress really\ntrying to accomplish?\n\n conclusion\n\n The votes we are about to cast will be among the most important votes\nany of us will be asked to make. Our decisions should be dictated by\nour conscience and what each of us feel is in the best long-term\ninterest of our country, rather than for any short-term political gain.\nI pray that we protect the impeachment process from being politicized\nand defined downward.\n The decisions we make today and throughout this process will set a\nprecedent for future Congresses and future Presidents. We must guard\nagainst making impeachment too easy or we could disrupt the important\nbalance of power that exists between the three separate but coequal\nbranches of our government. Just as Watergate has served as a model for\nour current proceedings, this impeachment proceeding will serve as a\nmodel in the future.\n One of the fundamental questions that each member of Congress must\nanswer is whether the President's personal conduct, as deplorable as it\nwas, justifies paralyzing our government for months and potentially\ndamaging our country in the process. There are many issues in which\nCongress needs to be engaged. From Social Security and Medicare reform\nto Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf and Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo,\nfrom a Russian economic meltdown to financial crises throughout the\nglobe, how will history record Congress' performance at this time of\ngreat domestic and international challenges?\n A fair reading of our founders' intent will lead to the conclusion\nthat they placed country above personalities, the preservation of the\nunion above personal retribution. Impeachment was never meant to be a\nform of punishment; it was intended to preserve and protect our\ncountry.\n There are other means of punishing Bill Clinton the person. One\noption is a censure resolution from the House and Senate which\n\n[[Page H11836]]\n\nwould require the President's signature to acknowledge the\ncondemnation. Such an alternative form of punishment has bipartisan\nsupport. Former President Gerald Ford and, most recently, former\nSenator Bob Dole have spoken in favor of this resolution. They\nrecognize the terrible cost our country will face if a trial goes\nforward and effectively shuts down the government. I would even favor\nimposing a fine to compensate the American people for the costs of the\nLewinski investigation. If there is to be any fairness in this process,\nthe Republican leadership should allow a vote on censure. Many members\nbelieve in good conscience that a censure is the appropriate rebuke. To\ndeny a vote on censure would be the height of partisan politics.\n Furthermore, the President can still be indicted and prosecuted as a\nprivate citizen once he leaves office in two years. The President Has\nalready indicated that he will neither pardon himself nor accept a\npardon from any future President. As a former prosecutor, I would hope\nthat if there is enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the\nPresident to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt before an unbiased\njury, a prosecutor would have the courage to indict and prosecute him\nin a court of law. The President can and should be treated like any\nother individual, neither above nor below the law, and the Constitution\nensures that will happen.\n We don't need to invoke the atomic bomb of impeachment to hold\nPresident Clinton accountable for any misconduct. We can spare the\nnation of the ordeal while still delivering the message to all our\nchildren that no matter who you are, whether a second grader at\nRoosevelt Elementary school or the President of the United States,\nthere will be consequences to lying.\n What we do today will serve as a lesson for future generations. I\nhope it is the right lesson. Churchill once said: ``We must learn the\nlessons of the past. But we must not remember today the hatreds of\nyesterday.'' It is time to begin the process of reconciliation in\nAmerican politics and find ways to restore civility and mutual respect\nto the democratic process. For too long now, the national political\nscene has been dominated by the politics of personal destruction and\npartisan bickering. That too is reflected in this impeachment process\nand it confirms Alexander Hamilton's worst fear when he wrote in\nFederalist No. 65: ``In many cases it will connect itself with the\npreexisting factions, and will enlist all their animosities,\npartialities, influence and interest on one side or on the other; and\nin such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the\ndecision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the\nparties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''\n As we move forward with this vote, let us all hope that our decisions\nwill be made in good conscience for the sake of our country rather than\nfor short-term political gain. My decision is based as so many of my\ndecisions are, through the eyes of my two young sons, who are not old\nenough to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Like so many other\nMembers, we all have to justify our decisions to our children and\ngrandchildren. We can teach our children not to lie. But we must\nprotect them from the destruction of the Presidency. My hope is that\nyears from now, when they are reading about this in their history\nbooks, they will be proud of our conduct and they will conclude: ``They\ngot it right.''\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Canady) for rebuttal.\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point again\nwhich I made earlier today that in 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary\ndid not, did not, determine that tax fraud is a unimpeachable offense.\nThey simply determined that there was insufficient evidence that the\nPresident of the United States was in fact guilty of tax fraud.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.\n (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks).\n Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, every Member of the House now recognizes\nwhat members of the Committee on the Judiciary have come to realize\nover the last few months: This is likely the most important vote that\nwe as Members of Congress will ever cast. It also comes at an\nespecially difficult time, a time when our Nation's brave sons and\ndaughters are actively defending our Nation's freedom overseas.\n I share many of my colleagues' concerns about this unfortunate\ntiming. But, just as we have a responsibility to our troops, we now\nhave a responsibility to keep our word to the American people and put\nthis matter behind the country as soon as possible.\n Throughout the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of this\nvery serious matter, I worked to uphold my constitutional duty to\nfairly and thoroughly investigate the charges brought against the\nPresident. Throughout the proceedings, I tried to keep an open mind,\ngiving the President every opportunity to refute the evidence. But the\nPresident made a calculated decision to avoid the facts. Instead, he\npresented witnesses that could offer little more than excuses, insults\nand historical perspectives tainted by partisan politics.\n The President's attorneys did not fare much better. They, too,\ndecided to hide from the truth, consistently adhering to the company\nline. ``The President did not really lie under oath,'' they testified.\n``It depends on how one defines the word `alone.' ''\n The President was not paying attention when his attorney offered\nfalse evidence to the court. The President has continued to rely on\nthese absurd explanations and linguistic contortions for one reason and\none reason alone; he cannot dispute the facts.\n The evidence against President Clinton is conclusive: The President\nlied under oath before a Federal grand jury. He lied under oath in a\nsexual harassment case. He obstructed justice, and he abused his\nconstitutional authority. Standing alone, each individual offense is\nextremely serious. Collectively, they are overwhelming.\n After months of painstaking review, it has become apparent to me that\nimpeachment is the only remedy that adequately addresses the\nPresident's illegal and unethical acts. The President's actions have\ngravely damaged the office of the presidency, our judicial system, and\nour country.\n This was not an easy decision to reach. Impeaching a President cannot\nbe taken lightly. But in this case, our constitutional duty is clear.\n Some of my colleagues have come to the floor today using inflammatory\nrhetoric and attacking Members for voting their conscience. This is\nunfortunate and does not reflect the dignity that we owe this debate.\nIt is the President, by breaking his oath to preserve, protect and\ndefend the Constitution of the United States, who has violated the\ntrust bestowed upon him by the American people.\n As to those who mistakenly claim that this body is seeking to\noverturn an election or we are involved in a coup d'etat, let me remind\nmy friends on the other side of the aisle that it is the Democratic\nVice President, Al Gore, who would become President if the Senate\ndecides to remove President Clinton because of his crimes and remove\nhim from office.\n I ask every Member of the House to consider the question I posed to\nmy colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary last week: What message\nare we sending to the youth of America if we abdicate our\nconstitutional duty and condone perjury, obstruction of justice and\nabuse of power by the President of the United States?\n I have two children at home, a daughter and a son. With the help of\ntheir teachers and their church, my wife and I have tried to teach them\nabout honesty and integrity. We have tried to instill in them a belief\nthat character does indeed matter. We have taught them to obey the law.\n Sadly, they have seen these principles corrupted by the chief law\nenforcement officer of this land, the President of the United States.\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton has disgraced his sacred office, he has\ncheapened the oath, he has disillusioned an entire generation of young\nAmericans, and he refuses to accept responsibility for his actions.\n Abraham Lincoln, perhaps our Nation's greatest President, once said,\n``Let us have faith that right makes might, and, in that faith, let us\ndare to do our duty as we understand it.'' Today, we must fulfill our\nconstitutional duty and vote to impeach the President.\n\n {time} 1615\n\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Ms. Woolsey), and I would ask her to yield to me.\n Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.\n Could I point out to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.\nCanady),\n\n[[Page H11837]]\n\nwho took exception to why the income tax charge was not brought against\nMr. Nixon in 1974, if he would read our report of the minority at page\n10, he would learn that it was not for lack of evidence, it was because\nwe determined that this was not a high crime or misdemeanor. And we\nwere joined by Republican Lawrence Hogan, Maryland, Wiley Mayne,\nRepublican--Iowa, and others.\n Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, while attending church in\nmy hometown of Petaluma, California, I was struck by how utterly sad I\nam. Sad about the President's behavior, sad about the Committee on the\nJudiciary's unfair decision to not allow censure as an alternative, and\nthe impact all of this will have on our Nation.\n Today, my heart is even heavier, because we are conducting this\ndebate while our troops are in harm's way. My heart aches for the\ndivision separating us in this House, the distraction from the work of\ngovernment that we were elected to do, the threat of this unfair\nprocess on our democratic system, and I am heartsick about the shame\nand waste of this impeachment process. Shamed because the President's\nconduct, while reprehensible, does not fit the definition under the\nConstitution. Waste, because while we carry on, we are not working for\nthe important business of our Nation, and we ignore our young men and\nwomen fighting abroad.\n With these thoughts in mind and these feelings, I would like to share\nwith my colleagues the prayer that I prayed Sunday in my church:\nPlease, Lord, give wisdom, strength, and compassion to every Member of\nthe House so that we do not turn against our country and our need to\npunish one man. Please help every Member of this House see that the\nreal mistake would be to push forward without the alternative of\ncensure to punish our Nation for one man's personal weakness. And\nplease, help us to remember the difference between partisan politics\nand leadership. So that we will not make a decision against the people\nof this country, we will make a decision for Americans based on\nfairness, based on forgiveness, not against one person, our President.\nDear Lord, help us, through compromise and conscience, heal our Nation.\nAmen.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Canady) for rebuttal.\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for\nyielding. I would yield to the gentleman from Michigan for a question.\n Is it not true, I ask of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers),\nas a member of the Committee on the Judiciary in 1974, that the\ngentleman voted in favor of the tax fraud article against President\nNixon?\n Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely true.\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman believes that\ntax fraud was an impeachable offense?\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct, and it does not\ncontradict what I corrected the gentleman about.\n Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to\nthe gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).\n Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I think that nearly all that\ncould be said has been. Across party lines we stand shoulder to\nshoulder with the principles and the values that brought us here.\n This should be neither personal nor a partisan decision. Its\ndifficulty lies in the rare, but important, conflict between what is\nexpedient and short term and what resonates as a guiding principle for\nall time. It is not about the fate of one man, but the value of truth\nitself, the principle that no man, no matter how rich or how powerful,\nis above the law. It is about the notion of accountability. It is about\nthe values of duty, honor, trust and sacrifice.\n When I was a Suffolk County prosecutor, my entire duty was based on\nthe integrity and the conduct of the men and women who took an oath to\ntell the truth. In many cases, it was difficult for these people to\ntestify honestly, sometimes even disastrous. But when they were sworn\nin, they understood that this was different, that here the truth was\nrequired; that upon their respect for their oath would ride many\nthings, including justice, our government of laws, equality of one\ncitizen with another, and not the least their own honor.\n These were ordinary people, Mr. Speaker. They understood. In many\ncases, they sacrificed. In many cases, they suffered. But they told the\ntruth.\n If an anonymous citizen can abide by his oath, what about a\nPresident?\n When a President fails in his duty as an ordinary citizen does not,\nthe failure is catastrophic. Should less be expected of the President\nthan of you or me?\n Here, the trustee of the greatest of world powers knows that he will\nbe in a sworn legal proceeding, consults with advisers and lawyers for\nmany months, has full notice, appears voluntarily before a criminal\ngrand jury, and can stop questions at any time, and still cannot bring\nhimself to do what the government he heads insists upon every day from\nthe people who take an oath: Tell the truth.\n With this vote we will help set a standard of acceptable presidential\nbehavior. Will we judge presidential perjury to be acceptable? Is it\nasking too much of the President that when he takes an oath he tell the\ntruth? With our votes we will send a compelling message one way or the\nother to the children in classrooms across this country who are\nwatching their democracy at work. We are going to teach them through\nour words and through our deeds either to respect or to have contempt\nfor the truth. This will be the timeless legacy of this Congress.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).\n (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to impeachment, and I am for\ncensure.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to this\nresolution.\n I can tell you that this was not an easy decision, in fact, it was\none of the most difficult decisions I have ever made.\n I believe the President's conduct was wrong.\n Absolutely wrong!\n However, after having watched the Judiciary Committee hearings\ncarefully, I remain unconvinced that the President's conduct, however\ndeplorable, rises to the level of impeachable offenses as intended by\nthe Framers of the Constitution.\n I have concluded that the President did not commit high crimes and\nmisdemeanors against the integrity of the state.\n Rather, the President committed low crimes against the integrity of\nhis marriage.\n Reprehensible?\n Yes.\n But, not impeachable.\n The Constitution dictates that impeachment be used to remove a\nPresident only when there is clear and convincing evidence of\nwrongdoing, and it must be related to large-scale abuses of public\noffice.\n It is clear that such a standard has not been met in this case.\n Today, we stand at the edge of a dangerous precipice.\n The votes we cast today will decide whether we send this great\ncountry over the edge, tumbling out of control, threatening our economy\nas well as the very system of government we hold dear.\n I am extremely concerned about the consequences for our country if we\nvote to impeach the President and the Senate undertakes a long\nimpeachment trial.\n I believe it will do untold damage to our country.\n An impeachment trial will divide this Nation deeply, so much so that\nwe may not be able to heal the divide for a long time after the trial\nconcludes.\n However, I am most concerned that a trial will threaten America's\nposition in the context of international relations and national\nsecurity.\n Given the many volatile political situations that exist across the\nglobe, we can ill afford to be distracted by a lengthy and divisive\nimpeachment trial.\n While I believe the President should be held accountable for his\nactions, I believe censure is the appropriate response.\n I am saddened that the Republican leadership denied this body the\nopportunity to vote on censure.\n This country was built on the principles of democracy and fairness.\n I regret that the majority in Congress chooses to ignore those\nprinciples and to dismiss the intent of our Nation's Founding Fathers.\n I beseech my colleagues to put aside partisanship and personalities,\nand to consider the gravity of the actions we take today.\n\n[[Page H11838]]\n\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett).\n (Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, it has taken me a while to digest the myriad and\nvoluminous data relevant to the impeachment proceedings involving\nPresident Clinton, and even longer to arrive at a decision with which I\nfeel at ease.\n When I started in this process, I wrote constituents: ``This\n(impeachment) is a grave and daunting issue that has the potential to\ndo great harm to our system of government if not prudently and\ncorrectly managed. Every aspect of the process must adhere scrupulously\nto constitutional requirements and meet established principles of\nfairness, due process and substantial justice. I intend to carefully\nand conscientiously review and weigh all facts relevant to the charges\nbefore arriving at a final decision, and assure you of my commitment to\nbring this matter to a conclusion as expeditiously as possible.'' I\nhave not deviated from these principles.\n Beginning for historical reference with the Federalist Papers, and\ntheir antecedents, and continuing through the Nixon proceedings to the\nevents of 1998, I have studiously and meticulously studied the facts\nand determined what I believe to be the law applicable to an\nimpeachment proceeding under the U.S. Constitution. There are many\npaths and side roads along the way, both factually and legally, that\nhonest and inquiring minds might follow to different conclusions which\nfor me has made the final decision of whether to support or oppose an\nimpeachment a close call. With the contending alternatives so\nrelatively balanced in my mind, prudence dictated that I err on the\nside of historically established constitutional principles and support\nthe institutional stability of our Government that is built upon the\nbedrock of predictable and consistent actions taken with the support of\nour people.\n Aside from my bias for ``law and order,'' it deeply disturbs me that\nthe House of Representatives has allowed a flawed process in its\nimpeachment proceedings that fails to meet the principles I noted at\nthe outset of this statement for ``fairness, due process and\nsubstantial justice.'' The events of the last few days have especially\nconvinced me that all pretense toward fairness, due process and\nsubstantial justice has now been abandoned and this whole matter is set\nto be resolved on the basis of partisan political alignment. No one has\nsuggested to me, let alone attempted to convince me, that this is right\nor good for our country as a whole.\n While my natural inclination to rely upon law and fact has led me in\nthe direction of opposing impeachment, the failure of the House in its\nproceedings to follow established principles of fairness, due process\nand substantial justice has for me removed any doubt and convincingly\ntipped the scales in favor of opposing impeachment.\n For my conscience, for my country, and to support the institutional\nunderpinnings of our constitutional democracy, I will vote against\nimpeachment.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to\nthe gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).\n (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, our challenge today is one of fairness and\nwisdom. A century ago, Justice Holmes advised the graduating class of\nthe Harvard Law School that the greatest service that one can do in a\ndemocracy is to see the future as far as one may, to feel the force\nbehind the details of that future, and then to make clear and sound and\ncompact decisions to make them first-rate, and to let the results speak\nfor themselves. He was counseling them and us to be wise and far-\nseeing, and to understand the consequences of our actions.\n Perhaps no figure in our tradition of English law and history so well\nportrays an impeachment on the charge of perjury as Sir Thomas More.\nThe author of A Man for All Seasons wrote that he was asked to testify\nin a form that required him to state that he believed what he did not\nbelieve and it required him to state it under oath.\n Oliver Cromwell, accusing More of accepting a small gift in return\nfor a favor said, ``He is going to be a slippery fish. We need a net\nwith a finer mesh. We will weave him one. It must be done by the law.\nIt is just a matter of finding the right law. Or making one.''\n Cromwell, in words too familiar to us today, in seeking to entrap\nhim, accused More of ``perverting the law, of making smokey what should\nbe clear light to discover his own wrongdoing.'' More replied, ``The\nlaw is not a light for you or any man to see by, it is not an\ninstrument of any kind; the law is a causeway upon which a citizen may\nwalk safely.''\n But that was not to be the way of the court, and in his closing, More\nmay have prefigured Holmes when he said, ``What you have hunted me for\nis not my actions, but for the thoughts of my heart. It is a long road\nyou have opened. God help the people whose statesmen walk your road.''\n It matters little whether the motive was base or high. An entrapment\nis an entrapment. It is a road that More knew was contrived and unfair,\nand it is a road that Holmes knew was unwise.\n Future historians will judge this Congress largely on this vote. Let\nus not go down in history as a deeply divided, vindictive Congress, but\nas a body that took an action that brought the country together and\nresolved this unhappy matter.\n It is a long road we open today. If we take it, it will change our\nlives and those of our children in lasting ways. God help the people\nwhose statesmen walk your road.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Georgia (Mr. Barr) for rebuttal.\n Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman\nyielding.\n Mr. Speaker, I would remind all of my colleagues who are listening to\nthis debate that references to the word ``entrapment'' are rather\nmisplaced. There is no such thing as entrapment for perjury or\nobstruction. It is a legal impossibility that is well-settled law in\nFederal courts and state courts as well, and it in fact is the learned\ntestimony of several witnesses that appeared before the Committee on\nthe Judiciary.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).\n (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of articles 1, 2, and 3.\n Mr. Speaker, this Member approaches these proceedings of the House\nwith sadness for what has befallen our country and solemnly, but with a\nfirm conviction that we must discharge our responsibilities under\nArticle I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution by considering\narticles of impeachment against the President of the United States of\nAmerica. This Member intends and will act in a manner required by and\nconsistent with his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the\nConstitution of the United States.\n Many people and leaders from other countries have spoken on the\nmatter before us today in a manner which reveals that they probably do\nnot understand the absolutely central role the Constitution and the\nconstitutional processes play in the governance of our country and\ntheir role in maintaining the very fabric of the American society.\nIndeed, even some of our citizens may not have focused on that central\nrole. Drawn from every corner of the globe, with a total diversity of\ncreeds, ethnicity, race, and heritage, America is the antithesis of a\nnation state. More than any other country on earth, we Americans are\nbound together and can function as a nation only because of our shared\nideals and ideas of governance as embodied in the Constitution and the\nDeclaration of Independence. That is why upholding and defending the\nConstitution, even with the controversies, inconveniences, and possible\neffects on the nation's economic affairs, our foreign responsibilities,\nand our domestic affairs and tranquility, must come before all other\nconsiderations.\n Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the partisan fervor that has marked the\nproceedings of the impeachment inquiry and this debate. As an elected\nRepresentative from what is by practice and nature undoubtedly the most\nnonpartisan state in our nation and having served previously in my\nstate's unique state legislature, which surely functioned in an almost\ntotally nonpartisan fashion, this Member once again finds it\nparticularly difficult to fathom or justify the highly partisan course\nthat this process of impeachment of the President has taken. It does\nnot serve this nation well nor reflect well on this institution.\n None of my Republican colleagues should be reaching a decision to\nimpeach the President for partisan reason. Indeed, there are very\nsubstantial reasons why progressing with these impeachment proceedings\nis not in the best interest of our party. None of us should\nmisunderstand that point and neither should the American people believe\nthat we do not\n\n[[Page H11839]]\n\nunderstand those immediate and long-term political consequences.\nNevertheless, we must pursue these impeachment proceedings and make our\nindividual decisions as Representatives in order to discharge our\nconstitutional responsibilities.\n Mr. Speaker, we ought to feel a particular sympathy for our Democrat\ncolleagues, for their natural instinct almost certainly is to defend a\nPresident of their own party. They must, and undoubtedly do, struggle\nto overcome those instincts in order to conscientiously perform their\nconstitutional responsibilities as demanded by our oath of office.\nHowever, if the impeachment inquiry has been, and this debate is,\nextremely partisan, if the partisan lines are very sharply drawn, it is\nnot one side which is to blame. Surely many of our Democrat colleagues\nby their actions and the votes which they will cast bear at least half\nof the burden for this unseemly and inappropriate partisan divide. To\nmaintain the trust of the American citizenry and to responsibly\ndischarge our constitutional duties we need to rise above such partisan\nconsiderations. Indeed, that is especially true in a matter of this\ngreat import and precedent.\n Mr. Speaker, in concluding these introductory remarks before directly\naddressing the articles of impeachment before us, this Member wants his\nconstituents to know that he received absolutely no pressure from party\nleaders in the House or elsewhere in deciding how to vote on the\narticles of impeachment before us. Nor did this Member receive\ninappropriate pressure from any quarter. Rather this Member has been\nable to conscientiously address the decisions before us on impeachment.\nFurthermore, this Member has attempted to avail himself of the views of\nnumerous distinguished Americans and especially of the arguments,\nviews, and sentiments of the constituents he represents in Nebraska.\n Obviously this has become a very decisive issue in America, made even\nmore so, no doubt, by the strong, conflicting views about the\nPresident's performance and conduct and by the timing of intervening\nevents related both to the impending end to the 105th Congress and to\nthe armed conflict with Iraq which began less than two days ago.\nNevertheless, it is important to say, this Member believes, that polls\nand the size, changes, and mixture in the tides of public sentiment\nshould have no effect upon whether this Member and the House faithfully\ndischarge their constitutional responsibilities related to impeachment\nor any other matter.\n Mr. Speaker, as for the specific matter before us in these\nproceedings, much emphasis in the public discussion of the President's\nactions has emphasized that impeachment is inappropriate, for it is\nargued that this is really only about sex and that as such it either is\nstrictly a private matter or does not rise to the level of misconduct\nwhich would justify impeachment. Mr. Speaker, the matter before us is\nemphatically not just about sex and no person should be confused about\nthat point.\n Certainly, the President has appropriately been condemned by perhaps\nall of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and by most Americans\nfor his sexual conduct in the White House and his intentional deception\nof the American public. Most would agree that it was reprehensibly\nexploitative, reckless, and morally and ethically inappropriate; that\nit discredited the President and the presidency; that it soiled the\nreputation of the White House which Most American's revere as a symbol\nof our nation; and that it damaged abroad the reputation of our\ncountry. As totally unacceptable as that conduct is, most Members of\nCongress and most of the American people understand that sexual\nmisconduct does not justify impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, of course, what is at issue here today is whether the\nPresident's actions or conduct constitute ``high crimes and\nmisdemeanors'' which would justify impeachment. The material in the\nreferral from the Independent Counsel and the investigative proceedings\nof the House Judiciary Committee made it abundantly clear to most\nreasonable persons that the President lied under oath to a Federal\ngrand jury. In the words of Impeachment Article I before us, he\n``willfully provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the\ngrand jury'' on several important matters. The President's perjurious\nstatements thus means that his sexual discretions are no mere private\nmanner.\n Similarly, it should be clear to most reasonable persons that the\nPresident in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a\nFederal civil rights actions brought against him, as stated in\nImpeachment Article II, ``willfully provided perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a\nFederal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with a\nsubordinant employee.'' Accordingly, his testimony can be seen as a\npossibly important factor in denying that citizen, Paula Jones, her\nlegal rights as a citizen.\n More importantly, however, for the purposes of both of these articles\nof impeachment, one must consider that the President is in effect the\nchief law enforcement official in our nation, charged by his oath of\noffice to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. By his\nperjurious statements the President, as charged by Impeachment Article\nI, ``impeded the administration of justice'' and ``acted in a manner\nsubversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of\nthe people of the United States.'' The same language and relevance is\nfound in Impeachment Article II. No one in this country is more\nimportant than the law or above the law, not even, indeed certainly\nnot, the President of the United States. If the President can lie under\noath it does, by example, great damage to the very basic element in the\nfoundation of the American justice system. In light of these\nconclusions of the House Judiciary Committee, my own reasoning and\nunderstanding of the facts, and as the elected Representative of my\nconstituents, I believe the President's perjurious statements do meet\nthe standards of misconduct--do meet the test of being a ``high crime\nand misdemeanor''--which require a vote to impeach the President under\neach of these two articles.\n\n Mr. Speaker, a review of the facts and testimony related to the\nmatter of the President's conduct and actions now before us, in part as\nprovided in the findings for Impeachment Article III, have convinced\nthis Member that in order to conceal the perjurious nature of his sworn\nstatement in a Federal civil rights case, the President, in the words\nof Impeachment Article III, ``in violation of his constitutional oath\nfaithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and,\nto the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the\nConstitution of the United States, and in violation of his\nconstitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,\nhas prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice,\nand has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates\nand agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede,\ncover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related\nto a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly\ninstituted judicial proceeding.'' By these actions, this Member\nconcludes, that the President, in the words of Article III, ``acted in\na manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest\ninjury of the people of the United States,'' despite his oath of office\nto take care that the laws be faithfully executed.\n Mr. Speaker, for these reasons this Member feels compelled, in voting\nto discharge our constitutional responsibilities in these impeachment\nproceedings, to vote in favor of Impeachment Article I, Impeachment\nArticle II, and Impeachment Article III, while concluding that the case\nfor impeachment under Article IV regarding the President's responses to\ncertain written requests from the House Judiciary Committee is not\nsufficiently convincing to warrant a vote for Article IV.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).\n (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all 4 articles\nof impeachment.\n I will stand by my oath of office to uphold this nation's laws and\nvote to impeach President Clinton on the charges of perjury.\n The evidence presented has demonstrated that President Clinton\nknowingly, willfully and repeatedly lied not only to a federal judge\nand grand jury, but directly to the American people. This act of\nperjury is a criminal and impeachable offense and directly violates the\noath taken by the President to serve the country within the legal\nboundaries set forth by the Constitution. Just as troublesome is the\nPresident's involvement in influencing other witnesses to provide false\ntestimony in the Paula Jones case and his attempts to refer to these\nknown falsities as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the\ntruth.\n Upon entering the office of President of the United States, William\nJefferson Clinton took the following oath: ``I do solemnly swear that I\nwill faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,\nand will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the\nConstitution of the United States.''\n Now, I ask these questions: Do actions such as lying under oath and\nto the American people, as well as suborning perjury from other\nwitnesses help to faithfully execute the Office of President of the\nUnited States? Do these actions represent the best of Mr. Clinton's\nabilities to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the\nUnited States? I believe that it is painfully obvious that not only do\nthese actions not help the President fulfill his duty and faithfully\nexecute his office, but they directly lead to a failure to uphold this\nsolemn oath and a direct betrayal of the American people.\n Title 18 of the U.S. Code designates perjury as the act of anyone\nwho, while under oath, ``knowingly makes any false material declaration\nor makes uses of any other information\n\n[[Page H11840]]\n\n(known) to contain any false declaration.'' Perjury is punishable by a\nmonetary fine and up to five years in federal prison, and perjury\ncertainly rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors necessary\nfor a charge of impeachment.\n After reviewing the over 60,000 pages of evidence submitted to the\nHouse Judiciary Committee by Judge Starr, I find it obvious that there\nis indisputable evidence that the President lied under oath, aided and\nallowed others to lie under oath and obstructed justice. There is no\ndoubt that these instances occurred, there is no doubt that these\ninstances are illegal and there is no doubt that they undermine the\nintegrity of the Constitution and the office of the Presidency.\n Even as the highest-ranking official in the country, President\nClinton is not above the law. I am proud of the House for honoring the\nConstitution and taking such a courageous stand in its vote for\nimpeachment. I have no doubt that the Senate will responsibly take on\nthis matter and I trust that justice will be served.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Goss).\n (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we are all public servants here today\nrepresenting our constituents and doing our duty.\n My beginning in public service outside the bounds of my immediate\nhometown began when I was appointed to a vacant county commission seat.\nThe seat was vacant because a good commissioner committed a single act\nof perjury, lying to a grand jury about a sexual escapade, to protect a\nrecently married friend. He lost his job, his reputation, his paycheck,\nhis pension, his rights, and his freedom. He went to jail.\n The judge noted that those in public service have a higher standard\nof behavior and that telling the truth is fundamental to public service\nin our free land. The sentence was considered just in my district. I\nwill support the articles of impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, sadly, some of our colleagues on the other side are, in\nthe interest of avoiding the issues at hand, seeking to deflect this\ndebate. Let me be clear: the work of this house in fulfilling our\nconstitutional obligation regarding the impeachment inquiry in no way\ndetracts from or diminshes our absolute support for the men and women\nof our Armed Forces doing their jobs in the Persian Gulf. Those of us\nwhose responsibilities in Congress involve oversight in the national\nsecurity arena continue to keep our eyes carefully on the ball of the\nmission in Iraq.\n The truth is that every one of us here today would rather not be\ndebating articles of impeachment against this President. The American\npeople would rather not be faced with this scenario. It is an\nexceedingly unpleasant set of events. I am most grateful for the\nsignificant, extremely thoughtful input I have received from hundreds\nof southwest Floridians who come down on both sides of this debate. The\nfact that so many people have taken the time to call and write\ndemonstrates the seriousness with which the country approaches this\ndebate and vote.\n Short of declaring war, there is not more solemn duty of this House\nthan to fairly and thoughtfully consider a judgment on impeachment when\nthe President stands accused of violations of law and his oath of\noffice. We must remember that it was this President's own actions that\nhave brought us to this point today.\n We must vote on whether or not President Clinton committed\nimpeachable offenses in his conduct. After careful review of the\nJudiciary Committee's work, I am convinced the President's conduct\nwarrant's impeachment by this House. Lying, perjury and obstruction of\njustice are serious business and this House has a duty to say so. I\nrefuse to submit to a ``dumbing down'' of our principles and the\nstandards of conduct for a President of the United States, just because\nthe specifics of this care are embarrassing and distasteful. Perjury\nand obstruction of justice in a legal proceeding are always wrong--\nthere's no room for situational ethics when it comes to respect for the\nrule of law by the Nation's Commander in Chief. We squirm about this\nentire matter because it began with a case of sexual misconduct. But\nwhat began there has grown into much more, a case involving very\nserious breaches of law. I take this position having lived through a\ncase many years ago--a case in which a county commissioner went to jail\nfor a single count of perjury in conjunction with a sex scandal--a\nscandal that did not even involve him, but about which he lied in order\nto protect a friend. Such lies were wrong then and they are wrong in\nthis case today.\n\n The conundrum that many people see in this matter comes from wishing\nto rebuke the President for his behavior but being hesitant about using\nthe ultimate sanction of impeachment to do so. But censure is not an\noption for this House--and even if it were, in my view it would not be\nenough of a sanction. History shows that censure can be fleeting since\nit can be reversed by a succeeding Congress--after all, Andrew Jackson\nwas censured and then had his record expunged and now his face adorns\neach and every American $20 bill in tribute to his memory. Clearly,\ncensure was not a permanent statement of rebuke in that case. The\nmessage this House sends today must be unmistakable and enduring. The\nPresident has stepped over the line and we must uphold our\nresponsibility to call him on it.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Green).\n (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for\nallowing me 2 minutes, but being from Texas, to just exchange greetings\nin 2 minutes will take plenty of time.\n Mr. Speaker, overturning an election in a democracy should not be\ntaken lightly. Our country's history in presidential impeachment\ninquiries is limited, due to the seriousness of overturning an\nelection. This current process smacks of partisanshipness and just\nunfairness.\n The presidential personal conduct cannot be defended and I am not\ngoing to do so. My concern is I am disappointed in his personal\nconduct, but this process has been based on partisanshipness, and\nelected officials should not be removed from office just because they\nwon an election or won reelection. Without an alternative to vote on, a\ncensure resolution, this whole process is unfair.\n One of our Founding Fathers, George Mason said, the phrase ``high\ncrimes and misdemeanors'' refers to ``Presidential actions that are\ngreat and dangerous offenses, or attempts to subvert the\nConstitution.'' Alexander Hamilton, who you will not hear me quoting\nvery often, said, ``Injuries done immediately to society itself.'' An\nimpeachment should only be undertaken for serious abuse of official\npower. The impeachment process should never be used as a legislative\nvote of no confidence on the President's conduct or policies.\n Not only our Founding Fathers, but, Mr. Speaker, I have a Christmas\ncard that I received in my family from a constituent that says, ``I\njust want you to know that my prayers have been with you and your\ncolleagues and also the President at this awful time in history. I am\npraying that God will bring an end to this soon.''\n The American people have recognized this, not only our Founding\nFathers, but in all of the polls that we have seen. And around the\ncountry, Mr. Speaker, the newspaper articles, the Lexington Herald\nLeader:\n\n It would mean, quite simply, the President, duly elected\n and reelected by a majority of voters, can be drummed out of\n office by the vehement hatred of his political and personal\n enemies.\n\n The Owensboro, Kentucky Messenger-Inquirer:\n\n Voting for impeachment when the wrongdoing is personal\n rather than a crime against the country would weaken the\n office much more than anything Bill Clinton has ever done so\n far.\n\n {time} 1630\n\n Also the Billings Gazette, and I can go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I ask\na no vote on all articles of impeachment.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) for rebuttal.\n Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, let me respond briefly that the Constitution\nitself talks about impeachment as well as election. The two processes\nare compatible, according to our forefathers, since they completely\nunderstood that you had first to be elected in order to be subjected to\nthe impeachment proceedings.\n As to the polls and newspapers around the country, more than 100\nmajor newspapers have called on the President to resign. If this\nPresident would put the country in front of himself for one time and\nfollow the advice of the same or many of the same newspapers to resign,\nand the polls show a majority of the Americans would like to see the\nPresident resign, I think we would all be better suited.\n\n[[Page H11841]]\n\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).\n (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to impeach\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton, the President of the United States for\nproviding perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal\ngrand jury and in a Federal civil rights action, for obstructing\njustice, and for abusing the Office of the Presidency by providing\nfalse and misleading statements to the Congress as the House of\nRepresentatives attempted to conduct a fair and thorough investigation\nof the President's actions. With the exception of voting to commit the\nnation to war, this is the most solemn and serious action which Members\nof the Congress must take.\n This action is not taken lightly. The rule of law and respect for the\nsanctity of our judicial system are two of the foundations upon which\nAmerican society and our system of government depend. While I find the\nPresident's personal conduct offensive and disgusting, it is clear to\nme that on legal grounds, the President's campaign of lies, half-\ntruths, and evasiveness have demonstrated a cavalier and flagrant\ndisregard for the rule of law in our society. The President stands\naccused of serious offenses which he has failed to refute.\n Chairman Henry Hyde and the Judiciary Committee have gathered\nsubstantial evidence and presented a strong case for which the\nPresident must answer. It is the constitutional duty of the House of\nRepresentatives to decide whether the body of evidence against the\nPresident merits a trial. Based on my 25 years of experience as an\nattorney, I firmly believe that the overwhelming evidence showing\nperjury and obstruction of justice provide sufficient grounds to\nsupport impeachment of the President. The President's actions certainly\ndo not reflect the respect that the office deserves. Indeed, he must be\nheld to a standard of conduct that is consistent with the rule of law.\n We must preserve the integrity of the Presidency and our judicial\nsystem by not allowing anyone, including the President, to subvert or\ndestroy the rule of law in the greatest country on Earth. I believe\nthat voting for impeachment of the President is the only reasonable\ncourse of action for the House to take in the current grave situation\nin which the President has placed us.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).\n (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.\n Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the rule of law and against this\npartisan attack on the Constitution of the United States. In America,\nthe rule of law is above any man and above politics. We don't have\nkingships in this country, we have publicly-elected officials. We\ncannot have one set of laws for our rulers, and another for the ruled.\nNo one, most especially the President, can escape the rule of law.\n Impeaching the President is an awesome responsibility, and one that I\ndo not take lightly. After careful review of the Independent Counsel's\nReport to Congress, and in accordance with the findings of the\nCommittee on the Judiciary, I will support all four articles of\nimpeachment that are before us. The evidence of perjury, obstruction of\njustice and the abuse of power is clear and convincing.\n We owe it to each and every American, especially those who have\nfought and died for our freedoms, to restore the integrity of Office of\nthe Presidency. If we do not take this action, our democracy will\nbecome hollow and the rule of law meaningless.\n Some have suggested that we should withhold action until Operation\nDesert Fox is completed in Iraq for the sake of our men and women in\nuniform. Our military is doing its job of protecting our Democracy, and\ntherefore we must also do our job to uphold the integrity of the\nConstitution and the foundation of our Democracy. That means a vote for\nimpeachment.\n I cannot articulate the pain and sorrow that this President has\nsubjected the Nation any better then two of my constituents. I have an\nopen letter to the President from retired Army Colonel Eric Jowers and\nan Op Ed piece by high school junior Kimberly Gilley that ran in the\nDothan Eagle, and ask that they be included in the Record at this\npoint.\n The material referred to is as follows:\n\n Dear Mr. President: It's not about sex. If it were about\n sex, you would be long gone. Just like a doctor, attorney or\n teacher who had sex with a patient, client or student half\n his age, you would have violated the ethics of your office\n and would be long gone. Just like a Sergeant Major of the\n Army, Gene McKinney, who though found not guilty, was forced\n to resign amid accusations sexual abuse.\n Remember the Air Force General you wouldn't nominate to be\n Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he freely\n admitted to an affair almost 15 years before, while he and\n his wife were separated? Unlikely you, he was never accused\n of having a starry-eyed office assistant my daughter's age\n perform oral sex on him while he was on the phone and his\n wife and daughter were upstairs.\n If it were about sex, you would be subjected to the same\n horrible hearings that Clarence Thomas was to because of the\n accusations of Anita Hill. The only accusation then was that\n he talked dirty to her, he didn't even leave semen stains on\n her dress.\n No, it's not about sex. It's about character. It's about\n lying. It's about arrogance. It's about abuse of power. It's\n about dodging the draft and lying about it. When caught in a\n lie by letters you wrote, you concocted a story that nobody\n believed. But we excused it and looked away.\n It's about smoking dope and lying about it. ``I didn't\n inhale,'' you said. Sure, and when I was 15 and my buddies\n and I swiped a beer from an unwatched refrigerator, we drank\n from it, but we didn't swallow. ``I broke no laws for the\n United States,'' you said. That's right, you smoked dope in\n England or Norway or Moscow; where you were demonstrating\n against the U.S.A. You lied, but we excused it and looked\n away.\n It's about you selling overnight stays in the White House\n to any foreigner or other contributor with untraceable cash.\n It's about Whitewater and Jim and Susan McDougal and Arkansas\n Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and Vincent Foster and Gennifer Flowers\n and Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey and nearly countless\n others. It's about stealing the records from Forster's office\n while his body was still warm and putting them in your\n bedroom and ``not noticing them'' for two years. It's about\n illegal political contributions.\n It's about you and Al Gore soliciting contributions and\n selling influence at Buddhist temples and in the same Oval\n Office where Abraham Lincoln and Frank Roosevelt led their\n countries through the dark days of wars that threatened the\n very existence of our nation. But we excused you and looked\n away.\n It's about hiding evidence from Ken Starr, refusing to\n testify, filing legal motions, coaching witnesses,\n obstructing justice and delaying Judge Starr's inquiry for\n months and years, and then complaining that it has gone on\n too long. The polls agreed. Thank goodness that Judge Starr\n didn't read the polls, play politics or excuse you and look\n away. He held on to the evidence like a tenacious bulldog.\n Your supporters say that you've confessed your wrongdoings\n and asked for our forgiveness. Listen, what you said on TV\n the night you testified to the grand jury was not a\n confession. Confession in the face of overwhelming evidence\n is not a confession at all. Not that it would make a lot of\n difference. A murderer who contritely confesses his crime is\n still a murderer. When your ``confession'' didn't sell, even\n to your friends, you became more forthcoming.\n Maybe someday you'll confess more, but probably not. You've\n established such pattern of lying that we can't believe you\n anymore. Neither can your cabinet, the Congress or any of the\n leaders of the nations of the world.\n When a leader's actions defame and emasculate our country\n as profoundly as yours have, it's no longer a personal\n matter, as you claim. It's no longer a matter among you, your\n family and your God.\n By the way, I don't believe for a minute that Hillary was\n unaware of your sexual misadventures, abuses of power and\n pattern of lying. She has been a party to your wrongdoings\n since Whitewater and Gennifer Flower just as surely as she\n lied about the Rose law firm's billings and hid the Vincent\n Foster evidence in your bedroom for two years. Why? So she\n could share in the raw power that your office carries. The\n two of you probably lied to Chelsea but that is a matter\n among you, your family and your God.\n Remember the sign over James Carville's desk during the\n 1992 campaign? It said, ``It's the economy, stupid!'' Place\n this sign over your desk: ``It's about character, stupid!''\n No, it's not about sex. Mr. President. If it were, you would\n be long gone. It's about character; but we have to live with\n your lies and arrogance for a while longer. Your lies,\n amorality and lack of character have been as pervasive as\n they have been despicable, so we have no reason to believe\n that you will quietly resign and go away. You'll count on\n half truths and spin doctors to see you through, the country\n be damned. It has always worked before. We excused you and\n looked the other way.\n No more, we've had enough. You betrayed us enough. You have\n made every elected official, minister, teacher, diplomat,\n parents and grandparent in the country apologize for you and\n explain away your actions. Now go away, and let us show them\n that our country was not without morals. It was just that you\n were.\n Let us show them that America was not the problem. William\n Jefferson Clinton was. Go away, Mr. President. Leave us\n alone. And when you leave, know that your legacy to the\n United States of America will be a stain on the Office of the\n President that is as filthy as the stain on Monica's dress.\n It will\n\n[[Page H11842]]\n\n take a lot of scrubbing to make it clean again.\n Eric Jowers.\n ____\n\n To Save America--Impeaching Clinton Is a Must\n\n On June 13, 1996, William Jefferson Clinton, president of\n the United States of America, said ``One thing we have to do\n is to take seriously the role in this problem of older men\n who prey on under-age women. There are consequences to\n decisions, and one way or the other, people always wind up\n being accountable.''\n A year and a half later, Clinton himself is being held\n accountable for actions he meant to be kept secret. These\n ``secrets'' are why Mr. Clinton should be impeached.\n Impeachment--the constitution states that high officials may\n be removed from office on impeachment ``for, and conviction\n of, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and\n misdemeanors.'' High crimes and misdemeanors can mean\n anything but one thing for sure is that with the charges\n against Clinton, morally and politically, he is not fit to be\n the leaders of our country and therefore should be impeached.\n Jan. 26, 1998, is a day I'm sure we all will never forget.\n On that day Clinton had the audacity to wag his finger in our\n faces and declare, ``I did not have sexual relations with\n that women,'' meaning former White House intern Monica\n Lewinsky. This was an intentional and calculated falsehood\n meant to mislead us, the public, and Congress.\n How can we trust this man who is supposed to be the moral\n and political leader of our country? The fact is we can't.\n Anyone who can go on national television and without blinking\n an eye deny what he knows is the truth is a liar and an unfit\n moral leader. While the president may say that he through\n ``sexual relations'' meant having actual intercourse, the\n Bible and other sources say differently. They state that\n ``sexual relations is when a person knowingly engages in or\n causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner\n thigh or buttocks of any person with the intent of gratify\n the sexual desire of any person.''\n This graphic definition is one that we have always accepted\n and known. A grown man like Clinton surely knew he was lying\n to everyone that day, for we have been taught that oral sex\n is sexual relations. What if he found out that Chelsea, his\n own daughter, was having oral sex with here boyfriend? As a\n dad, I'm sure that he would consider it sexual relations.\n Although he has twisted all his lies around to sound like he\n was telling the truth, we all know that he can never be trust\n again.\n Another reason for impeaching Clinton is that he is not to\n be the role model high standing officers are meant to be.\n What does this tell our children? That it's okay to lie\n because the president does?\n ``I remember when President Clinton gave that swearing-in\n and promised to tell the truth,'' says Philip Sperry, 10, of\n Clifton, Va. ``Well, he lied to us that time and he lied to\n us again.'' Even the children know it is wrong to lie and\n that he should be punished. Some of the things the president\n has done are so disgusting and irresponsible that just in\n watching reports of it on the news young children need to\n cover their ears. When the president is sworn into office, it\n is his responsibility to act appropriately and be the kind of\n leader that kids can look up to.\n How many children do you think are going around wanting to\n be the next president? In this time of scandal, I'm sure that\n the numbers are slim. His behavior is a horrible example to\n the younger generation. It is telling children that it's okay\n to lie. If we don't impeach him, they will think you can get\n away with it, also.\n\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the\ndistinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).\n (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, until now I have declined to pass judgment\non the President over these last several months because I strongly\nbelieved that it was improper to do so before the process secured\nevidence through a rigorous investigation where both sides presented\ntheir cases.\n That process is now complete, and we are now in receipt of the\nresults of that investigation, as well as the specific recommendations\nmade through the articles of impeachment. Today Congress is not\nstanding in judgment of President Clinton's character, nor are we\ndebating the issue of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Rather, we are\nbeing asked to determine whether or not he broke the law.\n As many know, I have had great respect for the presidency on foreign\npolicy. I recognize the Constitution gives foreign policy to him, and\neven though I have disagreed with him on many issues, respecting the\npresidency, I have gone along with him.\n It would make no difference to me if it were Ronald Reagan being\ntried today or George Bush. If evidence is submitted to this Congress\nthrough the proper Committee on the Judiciary channels that compels me\nto vote up or down when there is substantial, justifiable evidence to\nsend a message to the Senate to make a determination of punishment, I\nwould vote the same way I am going to vote on this particular matter in\nvoting for these articles of impeachment.\n It is a sad day for me, it is a sad day for the President, it is a\nsad day for the country. It is a responsibility that gives us no\nalternative; that if indeed in our hearts we believe that the committee\nreports are substantial, that they justify returning a message or\nsending a message to the Senate. We have absolutely no alternative but\nto send that message to the Senate so they can sit in judgment of his\npunishment.\n We are not removing the President from office today, we are sending a\nmessage to the Senate.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.\n Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) announced a moment\nago that the perjury trap is a legal impossibility. I refer him to the\nNinth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which said in 1991 that a\nperjury trap is created ``. . . when the government calls a witness to\ntestify for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in\norder to prosecute him later for perjury.''\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Ms. Eshoo).\n (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today, December 18, 1998, is a day of infamy\nin the House of Representatives. History will record that on this day\nthe House of the people, through searing, brutal partisanship,\ndisallowed the right of each Member, and this Member, to express their\nown conscience.\n Today impeachment and only impeachment counts. It is a day when the\noverwhelming voices of the American people are turned away. It is a day\nwhen the Framers' intent for removal of the chief executive of our\nNation, treason, bribery, high crimes against the people, is ignored.\n I shall vote against the articles of impeachment, because I believe\nthat the case that has been brought against the President has not been\nproven by the Committee on the Judiciary. I do not believe that the\ncharges rise to what the Framers intended.\n Mr. Speaker, the flag is the symbol of our Nation, but the\nConstitution, as Barbara Jordan invoked over and over again in 1974,\nthe Constitution is the soul of our Nation. Today this House is set on\na course that tears at the very soul of our Nation. It is wrong, it is\nimprudent, it is not wise, and it is harmful to the Nation.\n By his actions, Bill Clinton has brought shame as president. But\ntoday this body has set itself on a treacherous course where it is not\nonly weakening the presidency, but diminishing our Constitution.\n\n {time} 1636\n\n Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair notes a disturbance\nin the gallery, in contravention of the law and rules of the House. The\nSergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the\ndisturbance and restore order to the gallery.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Georgia (Mr. Barr) for rebuttal.\n Mr. BARR of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.\n Mr. Speaker, I would say to the distinguished ranking member on the\nCommittee on the Judiciary that when President Clinton or any person\nappears before a grand jury or before a court, they have three, count\nthem, and only three choices: They can tell the truth, they can take\nthe fifth amendment, or they can lie. President Clinton chose the last\noption, he lied.\n It is a legal impossibility for somebody to be forced to lie before a\ngrand jury or in court, and that is the essence of what entrapment is.\nThe President chose voluntarily to tell a lie; to conduct perjurious,\nmisleading, and untruthful statements. He cannot be forced to do that.\nThat is what he did.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Utah (Mr. Cannon), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.\n\n[[Page H11843]]\n\n (Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to a couple of key\npoints. First, I would like to create the context by sharing with my\ncolleagues two statements, one by Founding Father John Jay and the\nother by President Kennedy.\n John Jay said, ``When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most\nvaluable rights become insecure.''\n Four days before his death, President Kennedy visited Florida. There\nhe made the following statement: ``In this country I,'' referring to\nthe presidency, ``carry out and execute the laws of the United States.\nI also have the obligation of implementing the orders of the courts of\nthe United States. I can assure you that whoever is president of the\nUnited States will do the same, because if he did not,'' that is, he,\nthe President, ``He would begin to unwind this most extraordinary\nconstitutional system of ours.''\n The President's ability to unwind the constitutional system is\nsignificant. The President is the only individual charged with ensuring\nthat our laws are faithfully executed. He is one of the few Americans\nwho always is an example for good or ill. If a president can lie before\na grand jury during a civil deposition, engage in obstruction of\njustice, and abuse power, others will follow.\n Article III sets forth that the President willfully and deliberately\nallowed his attorney to make false statements to the court about the\naffidavit of Ms. Lewinsky. The President's defenders, including his\nattorney, Mr. Ruff, have said he was not paying attention at the time\nwhen Mr. Bennett raised the affidavit, but the videotape of the\ndeposition shows otherwise. He was alert, attentive, and engaged.\n The President's official defense was that he thought Ms. Lewinsky\nthought her affidavit was true, and he was just affirming her belief.\nFirst, the affidavit was not a statement of beliefs. It was a statement\nof the facts under oath. The President's response was evasive.\n Second, in the affidavit Ms. Lewinsky stated she had not received any\nbenefit from her relationship with the President. The facts are\nindisputable. There was an intense effort by Mr. Jordan on behalf of\nthe President to get her a job.\n Third, in the deposition, after reading from the affidavit, Mr.\nBennett asked the President, ``Is that a true and accurate statement,\nas far as you know it?'' The President answered, ``That is absolutely\ntrue.''\n We know today that it was absolutely false. President Clinton's\ndeliberate effort to mislead Judge Wright is a clear obstruction of\njustice. Others have been prosecuted for less. Under the Constitution,\nthe President is held accountable by the mechanism of impeachment.\nImpeachment is serious and weighty.\n My friends on the other side have repeatedly argued that the\nPresident's offenses do not rise to the level of high crimes and\nmisdemeanors. The essence of their argument is that perjury,\nobstruction of justice, and the abuse of power are not equivalent to\ntreason or bribery.\n They are wrong. Perjury and obstruction of justice are akin to\nbribery in many ways. Perjury and obstruction go to the corruption of\nthe judicial system. Bribery amounts to the corruption of a bureaucrat.\nBoth prevent citizens from enjoying their rights under the rule of law.\n Their treatment by the United States Sentencing Commission, the only\nthing that helps set forth penalties for Federal crimes, supports the\ncomparison. Under the guidelines, bribery of or by a public official is\nan offense of base level 10. For a first-time offender, that would\ntranslate to 6 to 12 months in a Federal penitentiary.\n Under the guidelines, perjury and obstruction are base level 12, two\nlevels beyond bribery, and that means for a first-time offender a\nsentencing range of 10 to 16 months. Someone convicted of perjury, and\nremember, there are 100 Americans sentenced every year for perjury, can\nface up to 10 months more in jail than someone convicted of bribery.\nBased on the U.S. sentencing guidelines, not only are perjury and\nobstruction of justice in the same ballpark as bribery, they are\ntreated as more grave.\n I appeal to my colleagues. Let us not allow the President to begin\nunwinding our constitutional system. Let us protect the integrity of\nthe oaths that underpin our judicial system. Let Congress protect our\ndearest and most valuable rights by impeaching this president, who has\ndemeaned the sacredness of his oaths.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).\n (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the four articles of\nimpeachment, and I request that my colleagues vote against it, and that\nwe start the healing process for our country.\n Mr. Speaker, throughout this whole unseemly matter of impeaching a\nPresident who lied about deplorable conduct, I have clung to the\ndignity of the instruction of the Constitution to guide my actions. I\nre-examined all the evidence offered to the House: the Referral from\nthe Office of Independent Counsel (OIC), the President's taped\ntestimony, the reams of evidence in support of the OIC Referral,\ntestimony (limited though it was) before the Judiciary Committee, and\nthe Committee's deliberations.\n As the equivalent of a judicial and legislative grand juror in this\nprocess, evaluating this evidence carefully, and privately, is\nconsistent with my constitutional role. As a Member of the House of\nRepresentatives in the U.S. Congress, I am acutely aware that our\nactions today represent half the precedent in our entire history with\nregard to the sacred duty associated with impeachment, as this is but\nthe second time in U.S. history that the full House has been asked to\nact on articles of impeachment.\n Our constitutional process is not one that can be suspended or taken\nlightly. Once begun, it must be completed. This process began when the\nOIC referred its findings to the House. I voted earlier this year to\nhave the Judiciary Committee conduct a hearing to discover if these\noffenses were indeed, as the OIC alleges, sufficient for impeachment of\na President. I agreed with Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde who,\nwhen he spoke of impeachment in September, said that if the effort to\nimpeach President Clinton were not bi-partisan then it would be\nultimately unsuccessful. That is where we are now. The effort has been\nunsuccessful.\n As the rough equivalent of a grand juror, I exercised the real\nstrength of the United States grand juror: the common sense to let\nprudence guide my actions. What the President did was immoral, first\nthe behavior then the lie. But this is not a vote on morality; it is\nsetting dangerous new constitutional precedent in a partisan setting.\nGrand jurors in our judicial system today have to exercise good\njudgment about stopping a bad case when the evidence is not there to\nfortify it legally. In our role today, we have the added weight of\nexercising good constitutional, democratic, and political common sense.\n Our country's Founders put the impeachment clause in our governing\ndocument for a very specific reason, to have a democratic mechanism for\nthe removal of a President who has grievously injured the country.\nPresident Clinton certainly injured the national trust, as does any\npublic official when they lie; but he has not injured the U.S.\nConstitution, our democracy, our government, or any political movement\nin our country. His actions were outrageous. His lies about it were\ndisheartening and alarming. But his behavior itself, even when\ncompounded with lies under oath, was not impeachable.\n We should take a lesson from this long and difficult drama. No lie\nfrom a public official is acceptable. It is all the more appalling when\nit is the chief executive, under oath, about an affair in the White\nHouse. Those who seek the public trust of the presidency must be ever\nvigilant to conduct themselves truthfully. Those who seek the\npresidency should be on notice that the rules are forever changed: the\nimpeachment bar has been lowered and can be invoked far easier than our\nFounders intended.\n Those in Congress must be a careful watchdog of executive behavior,\nand today's vote is a strong message that this body will not shy from\nour duty, but we are not willing to let impeachment become a partisan\nendeavor. I hope this exercise, while difficult and unnecessary, shows\nthe world the ultimate strength of the U.S. Constitution and the innate\ncommon sense of the American people in the world's most sophisticated\ndemocracy.\n I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the\ngentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).\n Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the four articles of\nimpeachment against President Clinton, because I do not believe that\nsuch a\n\n[[Page H11844]]\n\ngrave step is in the best interests of our country.\n All of us in public life have to be accountable for our actions, and\nthere is no question that the President's conduct was deplorable.\nHaving reviewed the evidence, however, I do not believe that the case\nhas been made with sufficient clarity that the President's conduct\nwarrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.\n Heavily weighing in my decision are the charges made in greatest\ndetail by the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, addressing conduct\nunrelated to the President's public and official duties. During the\nimpeachment proceedings against President Nixon, my predecessor, Tom\nRailsback, noted that there was ``a serious question as to whether\nsomething involving the President's personal tax liability has anything\nto do with his conduct in the office of the president.'' Later, the\nCommittee on the Judiciary rejected the article of impeachment against\nthe President on those grounds.\n Today a majority of the public continues to approve of President\nClinton's ability to perform his duties, and does not wish for him to\nbe impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. I do not believe we\nshould impeach President Clinton based on misconduct not clearly\nrelated to the President's official duties.\n Let me be clear, a decision by the House not to impeach will not\nexonerate the President. He will remain subject to indictment and\nprosecution for his conduct in the court of law when he leaves office.\n I do believe that the Congress should fashion an appropriate response\nto his actions, which places the national interest first. I am greatly\ndisappointed that excessive partisanship on the part of the Committee\non the Judiciary prevents us from discussing censure.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\3/4\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).\n Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in the name of the American people, who\noppose this impeachment as being manifestly unfair, behold the\nprophetic power of the Biblical injunction, ``Judge not, that you not\nbe judged.'' In the name of all the people who have suffered a dark\nnight of assault, feel the might of the warning, let he who is without\nsin cast the first stone.\n\n {time} 1645\n\n In the names of Washington, of Jefferson, of Lincoln, and all those\nwho fought to create one Nation indivisible, do not cleave this Nation\nwith a partisan impeachment, for a House of Representatives divided\nagainst itself shall not stand. We speak of one Nation under God. In\nGod's name do not tear apart this House and this Nation with a low-rent\nimpeachment.\n There is much misunderstanding about just what impeachment means. It\nis not a form of censure. Impeachment is not a punishment. It is part\nof a process for removing a President. It has been reserved for the\nhighest crimes, not low crimes. And I submit that if we vote to impeach\nPresident Clinton for his offenses, we have committed an offense more\ngrievous because we will have nullified the votes of 97 million\nAmericans. Do not take away the people's voice. Do not nullify the\npeople's choice. Punish the President with censure if you must, but do\nnot punish the American people by canceling their vote.\n Some day a generation far into the future will look at this moment\nand ask why and they will conclude that in impeaching a President, this\nHouse chose partisanship under the cover of patriotism and sanctimonius\nsalutations to that all hallowed and selectively perceived rule of law.\nAnd that cloak of shame prepared for the President will also cover\nthose carrying the cloak. For at this moment we are troubling our\nAmerica. We are troubling our common bond. We are troubling our\nAmerican community. We are troubling our American unit.\n The sun will rise and the year 2000 will soon come. And those who\ntroubled their own House will have inherited the wind.\n The die is case. The President is about to be impeached. His offenses\nnot high crimes, but low. His conduct, yes, beneath the dignity of the\noffice but also beneath the requirements of what the Founders intended\nto rise to a standard of impeachment. His shortcomings for all the\nworld to see, we must correctly review our own. The shortcomings of the\ninvestigation by the Independent Counsel, the shortcomings of the\npartisan Judiciary proceedings, the shortcomings of a day where\nimpeachment, which is no alternative, is the only alternative. We have\nentered Wonderland with Alice and we have seen the Queen pronounce\n``Sentence first--Verdict afterwards.''\n In the name of the American people who oppose this impeachment as\nbeing manifestly unfair, behold the prophetic power of the Biblical\ninjunction: ``. . . Judge not, that ye not be judged.'' In the name of\nall those people who have suffered a dark night of soul, feel the might\nof the warning: ``. . . Let he how is without sin cast the first\nsome.'' In the Names of Washington, of Jefferson, and of Lincoln, and\nof all who fought to create one nation, indivisible, do not cleave this\nNation with a partisan impeachment, for a House of Representatives\ndivided against itself shall not stand. We speak of one nation, under\nGod. In God's name, do not tear apart, this House and this Nation with\na low-rent impeachment.\n There is much misunderstanding about just what impeachment means. It\nis not a form of censure. Impeachment is not a punishment. It is part\nof a process for removing a President. it has been reserved for the\nhighest crimes, not low crimes, and I submit that if we vote to impeach\nPresident Clinton for his offenses we will have committed an offense\nmore grievous, because we will have nullified the votes of 97 million\nAmericans. Don't take away the people's voice. Don't nullify the\npeople's choice. Punish the President with censure if we must. But\ndon't punish the American people by canceling their vote.\n Let me talk for a moment about high crimes. It is a high crime that\nforty three-million Americans are without health care. It is a high\ncrime that forty-four million Americans must worry about their Social\nSecurity. It is a high crime that wealth is being distributed upward.\nThat the top 1% of the people hold more wealth than the bottom 90% of\nthe people. And this act today redistributes the political wealth of\nthe country. The Founders did not put impeachment in the Constitution\nso that a majority party some day could topple a President of the\nopposite party just because they had the votes. This process, when it\nis partisan, becomes an ad hoc, back-door transition to a parlimentary\nform of government.\n Someday a generation far into the future will look back on this\nmoment and ask: ``Why?'' Why did they impeach a president when it was\nclearly partisan? Why, When it was less than a high crime? Why, when\nthey knew it would fail in the Senate? Why, when they knew a trial in\nthe Senate would shut down the government? Why, when they had a clear\nalternative of censure? Why, did they choose the harsh judgement and\ncondemnation of impeachment over the forgiveness and redemption of\ncensure?\n And they will conclude that, in impeaching a President, this House\nchose partisanship under the cover of patriotism and sanctimonious\nsalutations to that all hallowed and selectively perceived Rule of Law.\nAnd the cloak of shame prepared for the President will also cover those\ncarrying the cloak. For at this moment we are troubling our America. We\nare troubling our common bond. We are troubling our American community.\nWe are troubling our American unity. The sun will rise and the year\n2000 will soon come. And those who troubled their own House will have\ninherited the wind.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\3/4\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).\n (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, this is a totally prejudged and partisan\nprocess that denies the majority of the Members of this House of\nRepresentatives and the majority of Americans a vote on a bipartisan\ncompromise, a vote of conscience to censure the President.\n Mr. Speaker, the American people, in their collective electoral\nwisdom that we all submit to, have twice elected President Clinton. The\nAmerican people support the President's performance of his official\nduties, and they do not want him removed from office. Three months ago\nwhen I first reviewed the Starr report, I looked for evidence of\ntreason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, the only\nconstitutional grounds for impeachment. No such thing appears in the\nStarr report.\n Instead I found evidence, gathered at great public cost, in dollars\n$50 million, and in destruction of privacy that Americans cherish,\nevidence of a consensual sexual relationship of the tawdriest nature\nwhich the participants tried to hide for its tawdriness. Weeks of\nhearings in the Committee on the Judiciary have uncovered nothing more\nexcept the partisan close-mindedness of the proceedings. The Republican\nobsession to impeach President Clinton on the flimsiest of\nconstitutional grounds and against the will of\n\n[[Page H11845]]\n\nmost Americans will cause long lasting divisions in America.\n The Republicans know that they cannot get 67 votes in the Senate to\nremove the President from office so this is a purely partisan exercise\nin this House designed to humiliate and weaken a twice-elected\nPresident of the United States.\n To my Republican colleagues, by your efforts today, you show the\nAmerican people once and for all that you should not be in the majority\nin this Congress, and that, I believe, will be your reward.\n Mr. Speaker, this is a totally prejudged and partisan process that\ndenies a majority of the Members of this House, and the majority of\nAmericans, a vote on a bipartisan compromise--a vote of conscience to\ncensure the President.\n Mr. Speaker, every one of us submits every 2 years to the collective,\nelectoral wisdom of the people we serve.\n Mr. Speaker, the American people in their collective, electoral\nwisdom have twice elected President William Clinton. The American\npeople support the President's performance of his official duties, and\nthey do not want him removed from office.\n Three months ago when I first reviewed the Starr report, I looked for\nevidence of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors--the only\nconstitutional grounds for impeachment. No such thing appears in the\nStarr report.\n Instead, I found evidence gathered at great public cost--in dollars,\n$50 million, and in the destruction of privacy that Americans cherish--\nevidence of a consensual sexual relationship of the tawdriest nature\nwhich the participants tried to hide for its tawdriness.\n Weeks of Judiciary Committee hearings have uncovered nothing more\nexcept the partisan, closed-mindedness of the proceedings.\n The Republicans' obsession to impeach President Clinton on the\nflimsiest of constitutional grounds and against the will of most\nAmericans will cause long-lasting divisions in America.\n The Republicans know they cannot get 67 votes in the Senate to remove\nthe President from office. So, this is a purely partisan exercise in\nthis House designed to humiliate and weaken the twice-elected President\nof the United States.\n To my Republican colleagues, by your efforts today you show the\nAmerican people once and for all that you should not be the majority in\nCongress and I believe that will be your reward.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) for purposes of a rebuttal.\n Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago my dear friend from\nCalifornia made commentary in her argument as to why she would vote\nagainst articles of impeachment. In doing so she invoked the name of\nour venerated late former colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas,\nDemocrat Barbara Jordan.\n I wanted to share a quote of Barbara Jordan's from the Nixon\nimpeachment hearing that directly replies to the very issue which the\ngentlewoman from California raised a few minutes ago.\n Barbara Jordan, Members will recall, was a Democrat member of the\nHouse Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Nixon.\nShe made the point that the Constitution gives each House of Congress a\nspecific duty. The House serves as an accuser; the Senate serves as a\njudge.\n Barbara Jordan understood the difference between the House having the\nrole of filing the indictment and not bringing the evidence to an\nultimate conclusion in trial. That is the purpose of a jury trial,\nwhich would be held in the Senate.\n Congresswoman Jordan said during the Nixon hearing, ``It is wrong, I\nsuggest it is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to\nassert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means\nthat the member must be convinced that the President should be removed\nfrom office. The Constitution does not say that. The powers relating to\nimpeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the\nlegislature, against and upon the encroachment of the executive. In\nestablishing the division between the two branches of the legislature,\nthe House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and\nto the other the right to judge, the framers of the Constitution were\nvery astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same\nperson.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).\n (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the\narticles of impeachment.\n I ran for Congress in order to pass laws--not to pass judgment. But\nevents have transpired over the past year that have put me in a\nposition to decide whether President Clinton lied under oath,\nobstructed justice and violated the powers of his office. There's no\nquestion that this is the most difficult decision I will have to make\nas a Member of Congress.\n In my judgment, Bill Clinton has disgraced the Presidency and is no\nlonger fit to hold the highest office in the land. For that reason, I\nwill vote in favor of all four articles of impeachment to be considered\ntoday by the House of Representatives.\n If impeached, it is my hope that President Clinton would spare the\nNation a trial in the Senate by resigning as soon as possible. In the\nevent he does not resign, I am hopeful that the Senate would quickly\ncomplete his trial and vote to remove him from office.\n Like most Americans, I wish the President had not lied under oath and\nhad not urged others to do so--but he did. Unfortunately, he can't\nsimply wish that away, and neither can I.\n Our system of justice is built on the principles of truth and\nhonesty. That's why charges of lying under oath and obstruction of\njustice are so serious. They are an assault on the basic rule of law\nthat cuts to the very core of our system of government.\n Some suggest that lying under oath and obstructing justice by the\nPresident under certain conditions are different--and even acceptable--\nthan lying under oath and obstructing justice by an ordinary citizen.\nIn my mind, there are not certain conditions that meet this test.\nNobody is above the law, including the President of the United States.\nThat goes to the heart of the decision we will make today.\n That decision should not be one that is judged 25 or 50 days from\nnow. Instead, it should stand the test of time to be favorably judged\n25 or 50 years from now because the decision sends a message that\neither supports or compromises the rule of law.\n Let's remind ourselves that we are only here temporarily and the\nPresident is only here temporarily. The office of the 4th District\nCongressman from Washington and the office of the President will endure\nafter its present occupants leave. But these offices will only have\nmeaning if the basic rule of law is sustained. This is not personal, it\ntranscends that.\n In fact, it is impossible to enter the Supreme Court building in\nWashington, DC, without being struck by four words above the entrance:\n``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Those words, more than any others, have\nguided my decision.\n After all, since its founding more than two centuries ago, ours has\nbeen a government of laws and not of men--which means, in essence, that\nunlike most other countries, here in the United States no man or woman\nis above the law. Not you. Not me. Not this President. Not any\nPresident.\n This ordeal has gone on long enough. The President has had his say,\nand his critics have had theirs. Now, the rule of law means the law\nmust rule.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).\n (Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, today I will join a majority of my colleagues in the\nHouse of Representatives and vote in favor of impeaching the 42nd\nPresident of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton. I did not\nreach this decision lightly. After reviewing the documents and articles\nof impeachment put forth by the House Committee on the Judiciary, I\nreached the unhappy but necessary conclusion that there is enough\nevidence to warrant forwarding these articles to the Senate. I do so\nwith the best interests of California's 43rd congressional district,\nand all Americans, foremost in my mind.\n We have heard from the other side of the aisle the constant plea for\ncensure as an alternative to the vote today. I do not believe, however,\nthat censure is an option for the House. The Framers of the\nConstitution did not provide for censure as an alternative to\nimpeachment, therefore it would be irresponsible and unconstitutional\nto bring such a motion to the full House for consideration. The House\nhas never censured a President before, and it would be a horrible\nprecedent to set. It is the responsibility of the United States Senate\nto decide President Clinton's guilt or innocence and punishment.\n The President has twice taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of\nthe United States. He also took an oath before a Federal grand jury to\ntell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he\nbroke both of\n\n[[Page H11846]]\n\nthese oaths. The President is the nation's chief law enforcement\nofficer and is subject to the same rules and laws as every American.\nWithout a clear and strong rule of law, the United States would be\nnothing more than a banana republic. Simply put, the evidence is clear\nthat William Jefferson Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of\njustice while serving as the President. In the best interest of our\nnation, the rule of law should be upheld and this President should be\nimpeached, and face trial in the Senate.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the\ndistinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).\n Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to talk today. I have\nmade my decision and told my constituents. But some of the comments\nmade on the floor have caused me to reconsider my silence.\n It appears that some of our Members believe or would have others\nbelieve that those of us who will vote to impeach the President are\ndriven by some kind of blind partisanship or are doing it because our\narms are being twisted. I am the junior Member of this House. The\ndistrict that I love is more Democrat than Republican. And not once,\nnot once has any leader of this House even so much as asked me how I\nwill vote.\n I read the evidence. I must admit that I was looking for some\nexplanation, a rebuttal of the facts, some justification to spare the\ncountry from impeachment. I could not find it. I cannot turn from the\ntruth and the evidence that supports it.\n I have reached my decision with a profound sense of sadness. I am\nconstantly reminded of the symbol of justice in America. Justice\nholding the scales is not blind because she looks away or because she\nwill not see. Justice is blind so that every citizen, regardless of\nrace or creed or station in life, will be treated equally under the\nlaw. And that includes the President of the United States. It is a\npowerful symbol. And today it is one we must live up to, even when it\nwould be easier to look away.\n You may challenge the facts, you may challenge my reasoning, but do\nnot challenge the integrity of my purpose.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I profoundly apologize to those of my\ncolleagues on this side of the aisle who have been waiting so very long\nto be recognized. We have the exigencies of the evening. We have still\na lot of Members, and our time is running shorter. I am going to have\nto reduce to 1\\1/2\\ minutes many of my colleagues whom I had intended\nto give a much larger amount of time. I apologize for it.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland\n(Mr. Cardin).\n (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, by the President's own admission, his\nconduct was wrong. He misled his family and our Nation. The President\nhas gravely disappointed and embarrassed our country.\n The question presented to Congress is not whether the President's\nconduct is reprehensible but whether his actions warrant his\nimpeachment and removal from office. Short of a declaration of war,\nthere is no more solemn responsibility for a Congressman in acting on\nthe possible impeachment of the President.\n I was never so proud to be a Member of this House during our debate\nof our participation in Operation Desert Storm. That debate helped\nbring our Nation together. Regardless of what side one was on that\nissue, the debate consolidated our country, and everyone felt good with\nthe results.\n Unfortunately, the process used in the House impeachment inquiry has\nbrought about just the opposite result in our Nation. However, each of\nus must be guided by what the Constitution dictates as far as\nimpeachment. Our decision will not only affect this President but will\naffect the future of our presidency.\n The Constitution and the historical record indicates that the words\nin the Constitution were clear to our framers of the Constitution, that\nthey apply only to fundamental offenses against the system of\ngovernment. President Clinton's misleading statements have nothing to\ndo with the official duties of his office. They were designed to\nconceal an embarrassing, highly inappropriate personal relationship. As\nsuch, they do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.\n I urge my colleagues to reject each of the four articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, by the President's own admission his conduct in the\nLewinsky matter was wrong; he misled his family and our nation. The\nPresident has gravely disappointed and embarrassed our country. The\nquestion presented to Congress is not whether his conduct is\nreprehensible, but whether his actions warrant his impeachment and\nremoval from office.\n Short of a declaration of war, there is no more solemn responsibility\nfor a Congressman than acting on the possible impeachment of our\nPresident. I was never so proud to be a member of the Congress as when\nwe debated and acted on the U.S. participation in Operation Desert\nStorm. That debate helped bring our nation together. Regardless of what\nside of the debate one believed was right, the democratic process used\nby Congress to debate our involvement was healing for Congress and for\nthe American people.\n More recently, I had the responsibility to serve on the House\nCommittee on Standards of Official Conduct during the investigation of\nSpeaker Gingrich. The members of the Investigatory Subcommittee in that\nprocess took great pains to proceed in a bipartisan manner. We\nspecifically defined and limited the charges against the Speaker, and\nextended every opportunity to the Speaker to respond to our work. The\nfairness and bipartisan nature of that process was confirmed by the\noverwhelming vote of the House, 395 to 28, to fine and censure the\nSpeaker.\n Unfortunately, the process used in the House Impeachment Inquiry has\nbrought about just the opposite result. The Judiciary Committee has\nproceeded in a very partisan manner. The Committee has denied the\nPresident basic fairness in the proceedings. As a result, the\nrecommendation has broken down strictly along party lines.\n Last January, Chairman Henry Hyde observed that for this process to\nsucceed, it was absolutely essential that the process be bipartisan.\nThat has not happened. Now, whatever action Congress takes will be\nviewed by the public with disdain. We will not be able to bring our\nnation together. I believe Congress has greatly disappointed our\ncountry.\n What the committee has done cannot be undone. It is now time for the\nfull House to act. In making my decision as to whether to vote for or\nagainst an Article of Impeachment, I must be guided solely by what the\nConstitution requires. Our decision will affect not only this\nPresident, but the future of the Presidency. Therefore I must make that\njudgment regardless of the actions of the Judiciary Committee, my party\naffiliation or the popular sentiment of the people of my district.\n In order to vote for an Article of Impeachment, I must be convinced\nfirst that the record establishes the offenses alleged, and second,\nthat the offense rises to the standard prescribed for impeachment under\nthe Constitution. Having reviewed much of the material included in the\nStarr referral and having read much of the testimony of witnesses\nbefore the Judiciary Committee, I have reached the following\nconclusions:\n Of the four articles voted by the Committee, one alleges obstruction\nof justice. The record of evidence presented by the Independent\nCounsel--which the Judiciary Committee failed to examine through\ntestimony of material witnesses--in my opinion does not support this\narticle. The charge of obstruction of justice rests on an\ninterpretation of events, surmises and speculations that the evidence\ndoes not support.\n The three remaining articles allege that the President committed\nperjury in his testimony in his deposition in the Jones case, to the\ngrand jury, and to the Judiciary Committee. In my opinion these\narticles raise more serious questions. As the President has conceded,\nit is without question that his responses to questions in the\ndeposition were misleading and incomplete. He did not offer direct and\nclear answers to the questions.\n But proof of perjury requires more than misleading, incomplete, or\nevasive statements. During the Judiciary Committee's hearings, numerous\nexpert witnesses, including legal scholars and former prosecutors,\ntestified on the perjury issue. There was no disagreement in their\ntestimony that the record compiled in this case would not, in the hands\nof a responsible prosecutor, justify a perjury charge.\n Even if we set aside that judgment, however, and assume that the\nPresident in fact lied under oath, we must answer a second question. Do\nthe false and misleading statements in question rise to the level of an\nimpeachable offense under the Constitution?\n Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that ``the\nPresident * * * of the United States shall be removed from Office on\nImpeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high\ncrimes and Misdemeanors.'' The historical record of these words\n\n[[Page H11847]]\n\nmakes clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended them to apply\nonly to fundamental offenses against the system of government.\n The delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved James\nMadison's suggestion that the language read ``* * * high Crimes and\nMisdemeanors against the United States.'' After this language was\napproved, it was referred to the Committee on Style, which had\ninstructions to make no substantive changes. In removing the words\n``against the United States,'' the Committee on Style was clearly\nmaking the judgment that the words were unnecessary because they were\nredundant. Thus, it is clear that the Framers intended that the\nPresident should only be impeached for offenses against the structure\nof our government.\n President Clinton's misleading statements had nothing to do with the\nofficial duties of his office. They were designed to conceal an\nembarrassing, highly inappropriate, personal relationship. As such,\nthey do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.\n Our recent historical experience supports this view. In 1974, the\nJudiciary Committee considered an Article of Impeachment based on\nPresident Nixon's tax fraud. President Nixon had filed tax returns that\nfailed to report certain income and claimed deductions that were not\nauthorized by law. The President had signed his tax returns under\npenalty of perjury. There was credible evidence that President Nixon\nhad committed perjury.\n The Committee on the Judiciary, by a bipartisan vote of more than a\n2-1 margin, rejected the tax fraud article. By that vote, the Committee\nheld that even if President Nixon had committed perjury in the filing\nof his personal tax returns, that conduct did not rise to the standard\nof an impeachable offense under the Constitution.\n Mr. Speaker, the question of impeachment of a President of the United\nStates is a grave constitutional matter. It is designed to address\ncircumstances in which the President has violated the trust of the\nAmerican people through fundamental abuses of his office and serious\nmisconduct.\n Mr. Speaker, nothing in the articles approved by the Judiciary\nCommittee approaches the historical and constitutional tests for\nimpeachment of a President. Even if one assumes that the strained\ninterpretation imposed by the committee on the facts of this case is\nreasonable, the sad efforts of a President to avoid getting caught\nhaving a consensual extramarital affair does not threaten our system of\ngovernment. It does not justify the impeachment of the President by the\nHouse. Therefore, I will vote against each of the four articles\napproved by the Judiciary Committee.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentlewoman\nfrom North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).\n Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for this House and\nthis country. I rise in opposition to these articles of impeachment.\n What we say today will be soon forgotten but what we do will be\nremembered throughout history. We are considering articles of\nimpeachment of a President of the United States based on standards of\nour personal preference, selected interpretation of the law and\npartisan politics. Yet we use the Constitution, the rule of law for our\nreckless action.\n The Constitution clearly states what constitutes an impeachable\noffense, and we must not here attempt to substitute our personal views.\nWe are establishing a dangerous precedent when we move to lower the\nstandards below treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.\nWe should follow the Constitution, not use it as a tool for public\nexecution, but we should use it to extol the high virtues and the\ngreatness of this Nation.\n Much is said about the rule of law and that the President is not\nabove the law. The rule of law, however, must be based on justice, if\nit is to survive. The inscription that appears upon the United States\nSupreme Court says, equal justice under law. It should read, equal law\nunder justice.\n Justice is a higher authority. The process of impeachment that we are\nnow undertaking is permitted by law, but each of us must ask the\nquestion, what does justice require of us?\n The law says we indeed can impeach the President. Justice says we\nmust consider the greatness of this country. And what he has done does\nnot move to an impeachable offense. We are breaking the law. We are\nviolating our oath when we do not consider the Constitution.\n Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for this House and this Country.\nI rise in opposition to these Articles of Impeachment.\n What we say will soon be forgotten.\n But what we do will be remembered throughout history.\n We are considering Articles of Impeachment of the President of the\nUnited States based upon standards of our personal preference,\nselective interpretation of law and partisan politics.\n Yet, we use the Constitution and the Rule of Law for our reckless\nactions.\n The Constitution clearly states what constitutes an ``impeachable\noffense.''\n And, we must not here attempt to substitute our personal views.\n We are establishing a dangerous precedent when we move to lower the\nstandards below treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.\n We should follow the Constitution and not use it for a public\nexecution, but use it as an instrument to extol the greatness of our\nnation.\n Much is said about the Rule of Law and that the President is not\nabove the Law.\n The Rule of Law, however, must be based on Justice if it is to\nsurvive.\n The inscription that appears above the United States Supreme Court\nBuilding states, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''\n It should state, ``Equal Law Under Justice.''\n Justice is a higher authority.\n This process of impeachment that we are now undertaking is permitted\nby law.\n But, each of us must ask the question, what does justice require of\nus?\n At one time in this Nation, women could not vote, blacks could be\nenslaved and young people could fight and die in wars, but could not\nelect those who sent them to war.\n That was the law.\n But, it was not just.\n Throughout the proud history of this Nation, rigid thinking has\nyielded to conscience and adamant attitudes have yielded to compromise.\n That is the greatness of our Country.\n And, I believe, Mr. Speaker, in this instance, this Resolution of\nImpeachment should yield to the compromise and conscience of censure.\n We should have the option of censure to consider if we are about\nfairness and justice.\n The impeachment of a President is a grave and serious matter.\n When this debate ends, and the dust clears, and we vote, we must each\nreach deep down inside of ourselves and ask the question, what does\njustice require of us?\n The President will be judged, both for his greatness and failures,\nwhen he leaves office.\n And, if he has violated the law of committed perjury, the courts will\ndecide his fate for his deeds.\n But, the question to us is simply this--Does what the President has\ndone rise to the level of treason or bribery?\n Should we remove a President from office because he was not faithful\nto his wife, lied about it and was admittedly not truthful to his\nCountry.\n His acts are reprehensible and should be sanctioned.\n Mr. Speaker, this Congress has the power to impeach our President,\nand the majority has the votes to do it.\n That is the law.\n But, what does justice require of us?\n The oath each of us has taken requires us to put the interest of the\nNation above our partisan politics.\n History will record what we do here today, and history will judge us\nharshly.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Farr.)\n (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today is the wrong day and this\nis the wrong way. When our side asked this morning why are we doing\nthis today, the Republican leadership responded, because we want to\ndemonstrate democracy at work. Democracy at work? I served this country\nin the United States Peace Corps. I know how to demonstrate democracy\nat work. And this is not it.\n No one, anywhere in the world today, can explain why a Congress would\nimpeach the most popular elected President in the world at a time when\nthat President is engaged in a conflict in Iraq. What you see here\ntoday is not a demonstration of democracy; it is a demonstration of a\npartisan political coups.\n\n {time} 1700\n\n This is not only the wrong day, this is also the wrong way. Mr.\nSpeaker, we cannot claim that a democracy is working when we deny the\nminority a voice. There are no options here today. There will be no\nvote for censure. That is not even allowed nor offered. There are\nabsolutely no alternatives, no nothing, just plain meanness.\n ``There is no fancy way to say I've sinned.'' That was Bill Clinton,\nPresident of the United States, in an apology to his fellow citizens--\nthe people who elected him.\n\n[[Page H11848]]\n\n And, generally, it seems, the people who elected him accept that\napology and want to move on. They do not favor impeachment. They do not\nfavor removing him from office.\n The Framers of our Constitution were wise men. They rightly\nconstructed the House of Representatives to be the legislative body\nmost reflective, most responsive and most connected to the citizens.\nThis is the reason why House members have very short terms and face re-\nelection every two years. This is the reason why the Framers required\nHouse members be directly elected by the people but not Senators (who\noriginally were elected by state legislatures) or the President (who\neven today is affirmed by the Electoral College). The Framers wanted to\nstrongly impress upon House members that they held the power of the\npeople in their hands and were responsible for representing it\nfaithfully and truthfully.\n I must be true to this obligation. I have listened to the impeachment\nhearings. I have read the Starr report. I have sought out legal experts\nand constitutional scholars for guidance on the technical aspects of\nthe impeachment conundrum. I have noted the national polls. But mostly,\nI have listened hard and long to persons in this Central Coast\ncommunity on their views of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.\n I will not vote for impeachment because I believe the majority of\npeople living in our area do not want it.\n Since August, when the President appeared before the Grand Jury, I\nhave been accused of being silent on this matter. Silent, no. Keeping\nmy counsel, yes. I have been reticent until just recently to commit\nmyself on the matter because we are dealing with grave constitutional\nmatters that impact the very fabric of our government. These are not\ndecisions to be taken lightly and I wanted to be sure of all the facts\nof the matter before declaring a position.\n Having held my tongue now for these many months I must relate to you\nthat I believe as almost everyone, that what Mr. Clinton did was wrong.\nBut impeachable? No. Impeachment is a punishment to be used only in the\nmost extreme cases when the action of the President is such that it\nundermines our government. It is a punishment to be used in cases when\nthe action of the President is such that he has turned the institutions\nof the government against the very people that it is supposed to serve.\nIt is a punishment to be used when the people of the country must be\nrelieved of the President's--their President, the President they\nelected--leadership because his continued tenure would be harmful to\nthe citizenry.\n Impeachment is not a tool to be used to express one's displeasure in\nthe personal foibles of a man regardless of his position. It should not\nbe used to rain retribution on one's political opponents or used for\npolitical gain. It is not the way to treat the American people who have\nchosen their leader--not once, but twice--a leader in whom they have\nplaced their confidence, knowing even then of his propensities to\nuntoward personal behavior.\n The crimes of which Mr. Clinton is accused do not rise to the level\nthat demand he be removed from office. They are such that in the normal\nworld, it is unlikely they would be prosecuted. Common crimes call for\ncommon justice. They do not call for extraordinary means outside the\ntraditional justice system.\n Our country was founded on the principles of fairness. This whole\ninvestigation and impeachment proceeding has not been fair and it has\nnot been founded on a search for real justice. I cannot condone Mr.\nClinton's actions in the Lewinsky affair. But neither can I condone\nabuse of a hallowed constitutional procedure that makes a mockery of\nall our nation stands for. I will vote no on the impeachment.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).\n Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a\nstatement. It will be available on my web page for constituents and the\npress as well.\n Inspired by Providence, our Nation's Founders foresaw today's awesome\ncircumstances. They provided a fail-safe mechanism in the Constitution\nto peacefully resolve the crisis created by a President's reckless and\nillegal actions. As a Member of Congress I feel deeply the weight of\nhistory and the need to provide additional guidance to future\ngenerations.\n After painstakingly reviewing the testimony and the documentary\nevidence, after giving the President every reasonable benefit short of\nsuspending common sense itself, I have decided that I will vote for\nimpeachment. As excruciating as this has been, there is no escaping the\nconclusion that President Clinton ``willfully provided perjurious,\nfalse and misleading testimony to the grand jury'' and ``in sworn\ntestimony to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights\naction brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony'', as stated in the impeachment articles.\n The Declaration of Independence, which Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg\ninformed us was the Nation's birth, calls upon us to have a ``decent\nrespect'' for the ``opinions of mankind'', which we today call public\nopinion. A ``decent respect'', not slavish pandering, not abdication of\nour Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, and not relinquishment\nof our solemn obligation to filter opinion through our own value\nsystems. I have that decent respect, and am grateful to all those who\nhave taken the trouble to communicate their views to me and my office.\n As difficult a task as it is, we must take this issue outside the\nrealm of current public opinion. What we are struggling to insure is\nthat we have an objective standard of public conduct for public\nofficials. We would descend into chaos if we had one standard of\nconduct when the economy is good and another when the economy is not\ngood--one standard for a popular president, another for an unpopular\none.\n The Constitution of the United States provides in Article 1 that\n``The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of\nImpeachment'', that ``The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all\nimpeachments'', and that ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not\nextend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold\nand enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:\nbut the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to\nindictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'' As is\nnow well known, the Constitutional standard for judges and the\npresident alike is treason, bribery, and other ``High Crimes and\nMisdemeanors.''\n\n It is a matter of great concern to me that the process appears to be\nbreaking down along partisan lines. This is not healthy, and I believe\nthat the Framers would not want it so. But that does not diminish one\niota my own responsibility to stand and be counted.\n I reject categorically the argument that there are different\nstandards for impeachment where the President is concerned. We can not\nbe guided by situational ethics that can destroy one constitutional\nofficer and absolve another from the consequences of destructive\nconduct. Over the past decades at least 2 federal judges have been\nimpeached for perjury unconnected to their judicial duties. The\nconstitutional standards for impeachment are not lower for the\nPresident and we must not allow them to become lower for the President.\nMy reading of the case law does not support the conclusion that we have\na double standard for federal judges who are appointed, and another for\nthe President, who carries an election mandate with him.\n My vote will reflect my conclusion that the President committed\nperjury before a federal grand jury, and that this is an impeachable\noffense. The President's statements were perjurious, not just\nmisleading. I have read and re-read the President's testimony before\nthe grand jury and in the Paula Jones civil rights case. There is no\nblinking at the fact that the President lied under oath. Ironically,\nthis conclusion is supported by many of the President's defenders who\nhave argued in effect that a full admission cannot be made for fear of\nlegal exposure. Moreover, many of the President's supporters concede\nthe President perjured himself, but argue that such perjury didn't rise\nto the standard of impeachment.\n Moreover, the President was appropriately admonished by Senator Orrin\nHatch, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that whatever false\nstatements were made in the Paula Jones case would be forgiven, if he\nmerely told the truth in his Grand Jury appearance. Despite this\n``second chance'', the President failed to do so.\n I have given the most serious consideration to the suggestion that\ncensure is a more appropriate punishment for the president and a better\noutcome for the nation. It is in my nature to find common ground where\ncompromise is possible. The Constitution simply does not permit the\nHouse to take a convenient way out, nor should we. Under the Separation\nof Powers mandate we are forbidden to impose sanctions on the President\nshort of impeachment. Also, strictly from a common sense standpoint, a\nresolution of censure would carry all the legal weight of a\ncongressional designation of ``National Sweet Potato Week''. And\nhistorically, the House has never passed a censure resolution against a\nPresident. With no sanction, as censure resolution is a toothless\ntiger.\n\n What about a sanction the President agrees to? At this stage in the\nprocess the House can not permit the President to be in effect his own\njudge, and to set the terms of his own punishment and the amount of his\nown fine. That would be the very height of cynicism. By voting for\nimpeachment the matter will be moved to the Senate for what I hope will\nbe an expeditious resolution, and one that will be fair to the Nation\nand the Chief Executive.\n This is a vote for the children and for the future. Somewhere in\nAmerica today is a young person just becoming interested in government\nwho will one day be President of the United States. This vote is for\nthat future\n\n[[Page H11849]]\n\nPresident as much as for the current occupant of the White House. This\nvote reaches across the generations, across the barriers of time and\nplace to let that future president know that there are consequences for\nillegal conduct and parameters of illegal activities. We are setting\nthat example as we light the constitutional torch for a new generation.\nI would also note that the President's private conduct is not the\nissue. Private conduct between consenting adults is in no way the\nbusiness of congressional impeachment action. It is his public conduct\nthat is at issue.\n This vote is a signal to our armed forces, whose Commander-in-Chief\nthe President is, that we the peoples representatives are holding the\nPresident himself to the same standard of conduct that we expect from\nthem.\n This vote is a signal to civilians, that we representatives will\nuphold their rights as we hold the President to the high standard the\ncountry expects from all its free citizens.\n As this solemn vote approaches, it is important for the world to\nrealize that the underlying stability of our free Nation is stronger\nthan ever. I am confident that history will view our actions as\nconsistent with the high ideals so many generations have struggled to\nachieve.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).\n Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise this\nafternoon in support of impeaching our President, William Jefferson\nClinton. But make no mistake about it, it is Bill Clinton who has\nbrought us to where we are today. And the issue here is not the\nrelation that Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky but rather the\ncredibility and the honor under oath that must exist within the\ninstitution of the Presidency and which has been squandered by the\ncurrent occupant of this high office.\n There are absolute applicable standards by which we all must live. If\nwe do not live up to those standards, we will no longer be that nation\nwhich stands as a beacon of hope for all the world. This President has\nbacked up his words of repentance with action that can only be\ncharacterized as stonewalling.\n There are many who say that the President, what he has done, is no\nbig deal and that anyone would do the same. As a relatively young man,\nI remember a time in this great Nation when those endowed with public\ntrust and those that were elected to public office were held to a\nhigher standard. Today, with this vote, we take a step toward\nrestoration of honor and responsibility.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, once again the exigencies of time have\nrequired me to apologize in advance to my colleagues because I am now\ngoing to have to limit all of them to 1 minute. I recognize my friends\nthat have been waiting so long.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.\nWeygand).\n (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. WEYGAND. About two months ago, Mr. Speaker, I rose with 30 of my\nDemocratic colleagues to support the Republican request for an inquiry.\nI did so because I really had grave reservations about what the\nPresident had done. I truly believed that there may be indeed an\nimpeachable offense. I listened with an open mind and hoped for\nfairness and openness in the hearings.\n Unfortunately, I was very disappointed because I looked for clear-cut\nevidence that would show me and my people in Rhode Island that indeed\nthere was an impeachable offense. We did not come to that conclusion.\n So I researched and looked back, and back just 211 years Alexander\nHamilton said in regard to impeachment, ``In many cases it will connect\nitself with preexisting factions and will enlist all the animosities,\nthe partialities, the influence and the interest in one side or the\nother. And in such cases it will always be dangerous that the decision\nwill be regulated more by a comparison of strength of the parties\nrather than the demonstration of innocence or guilt.''\n Mr. Speaker, I ask all of you to consider that because today it is\nthe impartiality of partisanship and we should be really considering\nthe evidence. It is not there. Please do not vote for these articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nMaine (Mr. Baldacci).\n (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the majority has sought to\nclaim for themselves the mantle of the rule of law. In fact, however, I\nbelieve they have strayed far from the mandates of the United States\nConstitution, the supreme law of the land. They have tried to make the\ncase that if we do not impeach President Clinton, we will be sending a\nmessage that the President will not be held responsible for his\nactions.\n Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether or not Congress\nvotes to impeach or convict President Clinton will be subject to both\ncriminal and civil prosecution when he leaves office.\n In addition, the Constitution explicitly states that a person who is\nimpeached and convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to\nindictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to the law.\n Regardless of what action the Congress does or does not take,\nPresident Clinton, like every other citizen, will be held accountable\nin court for his alleged violations.\n Forget not that when President Nixon stepped down from office he\nstill had to be pardoned because of the crimes he committed. He could\nhave been held responsible for it. The President, under the\nConstitution, is the only one that is allowable for double jeopardy.\n I ask my colleagues that this matter is so important that we do not\nwant to lessen the standard for future generations.\n This week, the House of Representatives will vote on four Articles of\nImpeachment that the House Judiciary Committee, on party-line votes,\nhas adopted concerning the actions of President Clinton with respect to\nhis improper relationship with Monica Lewinsky.\n This is am important matter. What President Clinton did was wrong. He\nwas wrong to have an affair with an intern and he was wrong to mislead\nthe Grand Jury and to lie to the American people about his conduct with\nMiss Lewinsky. He must be punished appropriately.\n I say this because I firmly agree with the assertions that have being\nmade that no one is above the law. My colleagues in the Majority have\nsought to claim for themselves the mantle of the rule of law. In fact,\nhowever, I believe that they have strayed far from the mandates of the\nU.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land. They have tried to make\nthe case that if we do not impeach President Clinton, we will be\nsending the message that the President will not be held responsible for\nhis actions.\n Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether or not the Congress\nvotes to impeach or convict him, President Clinton will be subject to\nboth civil and criminal prosecution when he leaves office. In addition,\nthe Constitution explicitly states that a person who is impeached and\nconvicted ``shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment,\nTrial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'' Regardless of what\naction the Congress does or does not take, President Clinton--like\nevery other citizen--will be held accountable in court for his alleged\nviolations of the law.\n When the Founding Fathers were drafting our Constitution, they\nconsidered carefully the provisions for impeachment. In fact, in the\nFederalist Papers No. 65, Alexander Hamilton talks about the concern\nthat a House of Representatives dominated by one political party would\nimpeach a president of the other political party without sufficient\ncause or proof. He expressed concern about the shock and disruption\nsuch an act would cause to our political system.\n The Framers set a very high threshold for presidential impeachment.\nThey considered--and rejected--several lesser standards for\nimpeachment, including ``maladministration'' and failure to display\n``good behavior.'' Instead, as we all know, they defined impeachable\noffenses as ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors.''\n Impeachment of the President is a profound action. It should be\nreserved for the most serious of cases, where the wrong-doing by the\nPresident represents an abuse of the power of the office. The matter at\nthe root of this situation is a private one, not related to the\nPresident's conduct of his official duties. I am convinced that the\nFramers' intent in developing the standards for impeachment was to\nlimit impeachable offenses to those that represent a threat to the\nrepublic. I do not believe that standard has been met in this case.\n When Independent Counsel Starr presented his report to the Congress,\nI supported moving forward with a focused inquiry. While I did not\nendorse the precise resolution that passed the House, I agreed that\nthis was a serious matter that should be further considered by the\nJudiciary Committee.\n Since the beginning, I have said that above all, we must conduct our\ninquiry in a fair and\n\n[[Page H11850]]\n\ndeliberate manner that is worthy of the seriousness of the situation\nand that will not set precedents that will weaken the Office of the\nPresidency in the future. I regret that did not happen. The party-line\nvotes on the Articles of Impeachment expose the partisanship that has\nbeen present throughout this case. When the full House votes on the\nArticles, I expect that it will be one of the most partisan and\ndivisive votes we will have had on any controversial issue in this\nCongress.\n In fact, we seem to be right back at the place feared by the authors,\nof the Federalist Papers, where one political party is seeking to\nimpeach the popularly elected President who is of another party on\npartisan grounds. The Majority, while claiming to embrace the rule of\nlaw, is in fact going against the highest law of the land, the\nConstitution. They are also ignoring the clearly articulated wish of\nthe American people: that President Clinton be condemned for his wrong-\ndoing, but that he not be impeached. I do not expect that history will\nlook kindly on the Majority's handling of this matter.\n I have examined the evidence in this case carefully. I have read the\ngrand jury testimony and the report of the Independent Counsel. I have\nspoken to many of my constituents personally, and have read the\nletters, e-mail messages and records of phone calls from hundreds more.\nI have studied the Constitution and listened to scholars argue both\nsides of the issues. I have weighed the matter in my own mind and\nwrestled with it in my own conscience.\n I have reached the conclusion that I must oppose the Articles of\nImpeachment that are before the House. The potential impeachment and\nremoval from office of a popularly elected President is a very serious\nmatter. I have carefully considered the President's conduct, and have\ndetermined that, in my mind, it does not rise to the level of ``high\ncrimes and misdemeanors.'' What President Clinton did was wrong, and I\nbelieve that he should be punished. But I do not believe that his\nmistakes warrant his removal from office.\n I believe that a more rational response to the President's actions\nwould be a strongly worded resolution of censure. It is often said that\nthe punishment must fit the crime. I simply do not believe that\nimpeachment, which nullifies the vote of the people in a popular\nelection, is an appropriate punishment for a matter that does not\ninvolve an abuse of power.\n For those reasons, I will cast my votes against impeachment. I would\nonce again urge my colleagues in the Majority to put aside\npartisanship, and to bring to this House a bipartisan censure\nresolution with which we can lay this matter to rest and get on with\nthe business of the American people.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nVermont (Mr. Sanders).\n Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I have never fully appreciated before just\nhow out of touch this institution is with the needs of the American\npeople.\n Forty-three million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of\nsenior citizens cannot afford their prescription drugs. And this House\nis going to vote to send to the Senate for a trial to go on month after\nmonth after month to discuss where Bill Clinton touched Monica\nLewinsky.\n The global economy is volatile. The average American today is working\nlonger hours for lower wages. We have the widest gap between the rich\nand the poor, and we are voting today perhaps to paralyze our\ngovernment as the Senate explores the President's extramarital\nrelations and his lies and his cover-up of that relationship.\n Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton acted deplorably in his personal behavior.\nBut what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is, let's\nget on with the business of the American people.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the only Independent in the House--\nsomeone who is not a Democrat or a Republican.\n There is a great political instability in the world--wars and famine\nin Africa, tensions in the middle-east, in Bosnia, in Latin America, in\nIreland--and a war being fought as we speak in Iraq. There are weapons\nof mass destruction in place all over the world--nuclear weapons,\nbiological and chemical weapons--all of which can destroy the world.\n And we are voting today to impeach a President has extra-marital\nsexual relations, lied about them and attempted to cover them up.\n Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton acted deplorably in his personal behavior\nwith a 22 year old intern. What he did was wrong--and he should be\ncensured. He should not be impeached, however, and the United States\nCongress should get on with the business of the American people.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nNew York (Mr. Nadler) a member of the committee.\n Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) a\nfew moments ago said that an impeachment vote is not a vote to remove\nthe President but simply to charge him.\n I read from the resolution: ``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton,\nby such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from\noffice''; in addition to which we are already being told he should\nresign rather than face a trial.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.\n We have heard all of these prophets of economic doom and gloom if the\nHouse discharges its constitutional duty today in impeaching the\nPresident. The Nasdaq hit an all-time high. I think the markets are\nsmarter than some of the people who are making these accusations.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).\n (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.).\n Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for\nyielding.\n I rise in support of all four articles of impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration of the facts reported by the\nJudiciary Committee, I have decided it is my constitutional duty to\ncast my vote in support of all four Articles of Impeachment. I have not\nreached this decision lightly, but with the full understanding of the\neffect my vote will have on the future of our country. I am not pleased\nto cast these votes. I regret it has come to this.\n The polls overwhelmingly show political support for the President,\nbut I cannot be governed by the polls in this matter. The\nconstitutional framers did not place this decision in the hands of the\npollsters; they placed the question of impeachment in the hands of the\nHouse of Representatives, and ultimately the decision to let the\nPresident remain in office with the Senate. In their phone calls,\nletters, e-mail, and in personal conversations, my constituents are\noverwhelmingly in favor of a vote to impeach the President. But even if\nthey were not, I would still be duty bound to support all four Articles\nof Impeachment.\n At the beginning of the process, Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde asked,\n``Based on what we now know, do we have to look further, or look\naway?'' At that time, I voted to look further, because I believed the\nallegations of perjury and obstruction of justice were serious and\ncredible. Nothing we have heard or seen since has changed my mind about\nthose allegations.\n Since the actual impeachment hearings began, I have heard many\nwitnesses engage in legal hairsplitting over the meaning of the words\n``is'' and ``alone.'' I have also heard the President's own lawyer\nacknowledge that a reasonable person could conclude the President did,\nindeed lie under oath.\n Some witnesses have testified that, even if true, the alleged\noffenses of President Clinton are not as serious as the alleged\noffenses of President Nixon. I do not believe that, but even if I did,\nit would not matter.\n We need to ask ourselves whether the President is only required to\navoid abusing the power of his office to avoid impeachment? Should we\nallow the President to avoid impeachment even with substantial evidence\nindicating he has committed multiple felonies? Should we allow the\nPresident to avoid impeachment even if these felonies go to the very\nheart of our judicial system?\n Although I am disappointed by the personal conduct of the President,\nI want to make it clear I am not voting to impeach the President for\nhaving an extramarital affair, or even for lying about having an\nextramarital affair.\n But a president does not have the right to lie under oath. A\npresident does not have the right to obstruct justice. A president does\nnot have the right to obstruct a congressional inquiry. A president\ndoes not have the right to lie to the Ameican people who elected and\ntrusted him. We have the obligation to send a clear message to the\nPresident, to the American people, and to the world that no one is\nabove the law.\n We are all tired of this process. There are so many issues out there\nneeding our attention. But we can't just wish this away.\n All the evidence we have before us clearly indicates the President's\nconduct demonstrates a willful contempt of the judicial system of the\nUnited States, the essential foundation of our democracy. The\nPresident's conduct demonstrates a willful contempt of the House of\nRepresentatives. The President's conduct demonstrates a willful\ncontempt of the people of the United States. The President's conduct\ndemonstrates a willful contempt to the office he holds. It is for these\nreasons that I\n\n[[Page H11851]]\n\nmust vote to support all four Articles of Impeachment.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).\n Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD the following\nstatement supporting the articles of impeachment:\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the impeachment of President\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton as recommended by the House Committee on the\nJudiciary. This is a decision that I have not reached lightly.I have\ncarefully reviewed the evidence against the President, and I am\nconvinced that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition and\nbefore the grand jury. Furthermore, the President has lied to this\nHouse and to its Members and continues to mislead the American people\nin a clear attempt to subvert and obstruct justice under the very laws\nthat every American President takes a solemn oath to execute.\n The President has violated his oath and has violated federal law. If\nCongress turns away and does nothing, the meaning of the Presidential\noath and the strength of the rule of law in this country will be\npermanently diminished. The oath will, in effect, be reduced to a\ncasual commitment to administer and enforce the laws only when hey\nserve the President's personal and political ends. The law will apply\nonly to those who do not have the political power and influence to\nescape its requirements.\n I have spent six years in the house working to insure that the laws\nthat are applied to every American taxpayer and business are applied\nequally to the Congress and agencies of the federal government. This\nwas a central idea in the Contract with America, and I am not prepared\nto abandon it today.\n It is also important to note that we have troops stationed around the\nworld to protect peace and civil order in nations in which the rule of\nlaw has failed. The primary threat to stability on the Balkan\npeninsula, for example has been lack of respect for the rule of law. I\nbelieve such respect starts from the top. If a nation's leaders will\nnot abide by the law, why should the rest of that nation do so? I find\nthe President's hypocrisy striking. The President seems to find it\nacceptable to send Americans to fight for the rule of law around the\nworld, but he will not even respect it at home.\n Some Members have made the responsible argument that this impeachment\nis a partisan ``witch hunt,'' but I believe the division between\nMembers supporting impeachment and those supporting censure is about\nmuch more than partisan politics. Honestly, this proceeding is not\nabout overthrowing the government. We are not discussing taking power\nfrom the hands of one party and giving it to another. If President\nClinton is removed from office, he will be succeeded by Vice President\nGore--not exactly stunning Republican victory. Furthermore, I'm sure\nthat most of us on the Republican side of the aisle understand politics\nwell enough to know that President Gore will be much more difficult to\ndefeat in 2000 than Vice President Gore would be. Therefore, describing\nthe actions of those who support impeachment as politically motivated\njust does not make sense. There is no political advantage to be gained\nby unseating the President.\n I believe the division we are experiencing is a true reflection of\nthe differences in Republican and Democratic approaches to the Federal\nGovernment. As a Republican, I believe in a Federal Government of\nsharply limited powers. The limits to these powers are clearly\nexpressed in the Constitution. Each of the three branches is granted\nclear, limited powers to serve specific governmental functions.\n With regard to the powers of the legislative branch relative to he\nexecutive branch, the Constitution is clear. While Article I of the\nConstitution provides both the House and the Senate the open-ended\nauthority to ``punish its Members for disorderly Behavior,'' the\nprovisions for impeachment are much more strictly limited. Article I\nstates ``Judgment in Case of Impeachment shall not extend further than\nthe removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any\nOffice of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.'' Unlike the\nprovision dealing with Members of Congress, this provision specifically\nlimits Congressional sanctions to removal and disqualification.\nTherefore, it seems clear to me that censure is a valid option for\npunishing Member of Congress, but should not apply to the President.\n If this House were to pass a censure resolution, there is no\nguarantee that it would not be expunged by a future Congress (as well\nas done in the case of Andrew Jackson) or overturned by the Supreme\nCourt. They only action that this House can take that will be both\npermanent and Constitutional is impeachment.\n Many of us on both sides of the aisle agree that the President has\nnot been honest in answering legitimate questions asked under oath. In\nspite of the President's dishonesty, some Members, lawyers, and\nprofessors suggest that because the President's statements may not meet\nthe strict legal standard for perjury, he should not be impeached. I\ndisagree.\n While I may not be a lawyer or a history professor, I do have a fair\nshare of common sense. Common sense tells me that if some is dishonest\nwhile giving legal testimony under oath, that person has violated the\nspirit, if not the letter. If the perjury law. The law is there to\nprovide for the fair administration of justice by insuring he legal\nprocess is based on accurate information. There is no doubt in my mind\nthe President has frustrated this goal by consistently providing\nincomplete and inaccurate information after promising explicitly ``to\ntell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.''\n In 1974, the Arkansas Gazette quoted then Congressional candidate\nClinton saying there was ``no question that an admission of making\nfalse statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI\nand CIA is an impeachable offense.'' He did not say false statements\nwere impeachable only if they met the strict standard of perjury. He\ndid not say that they were impeachable only if the answers addressed\nissues of public policy. He said that making false statements to\ngovernment officials is impeachable, and he was right.\n Speaking of President Nixon, Candidate Clinton argued, ``there's not\nany point in his putting the country through an impeachment since he\nisn't making any pretense of innocence now.'' Today, even some of the\nPresident's strongest supporters in Congress no longer make the\npretense that the President has been honest in his sworn testimony. The\nPresident should hold himself to his own standard and resign. We know,\nhowever, that the President does not intend to do so, so Congress must\ndo its duty.\n It is clear to me that the President has done and continues to do\neverything in his power, both legal and otherwise, to derail the legal\nprocess and to obstruct the pursuant of justice. Now, the House must\ndecide if it will legitimize the President's actions or condemn them in\nthe only manner provided by the Constitution--impeachment. The demands\nof both my conscience and my constituents re clear. I will cast may\nvote in favor of impeachment.\n I would like to close by again submitting for the Record the\nfollowing words of President Theodore Roosevelt.\n\n We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and\n foreign policy; but we cannot afford to differ on the\n question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to\n endure. Honesty is * * * an absolute prerequisite to\n efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we\n have no right to keep him in public life, it mattes not how\n brilliant his capacity. Without honesty the brave and able\n man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by\n every lover of righteousness. No man who is corrupt, no man\n who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty\n to his community. If a man lies under oath or procures the\n lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns\n perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. Under the higher\n law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is\n precisely as guilty if instead of lying in a court, he lies\n in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability the\n evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread\n and more pernicious. We need absolute honesty in public life;\n and we shall not get it until we remember that truth-telling\n must go hand in hand with it, and that it is quite as\n important not to tell untruth about a decent man as it is to\n tell the truth about one who is not decent.'' (from The\n Strenuous Life)\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).\n (Mr. PAPPAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the four articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, over the past few months I have paid careful attention\nto the testimony, statements and reports regarding the charges against\nthe President of the United States.\n After reviewing all of the information available, I have come to the\nconclusion that in fact the President did commit perjury by lying under\noath and he did obstruct justice and abuse his power by allowing White\nHouse officials to perpetuate his inaccurate statements to them.\n This by no means was an easy decision for me. It is a decision based\non principle and facts and not on poll numbers. It troubles me that the\nCongress is forced to deal with these issues instead of working on\nissues that would improve the quality of life for the people of my\ndistrict in Central New Jersey and of our nation.\n This issue has had quite a stir in my district and I am sure almost\nevery other district around the nation. It would be easy to poll the\nissue and vote the ``politically popular'' way, but I was elected to\ncast votes based on principle and upholding the Constitution. I will do\njust that today. Some have said that those who cast votes in favor of\nimpeachment may\n\n[[Page H11852]]\n\npay a political price in the future. While that may in fact be true,\nour nation, our Constitution and the rule of law will pay an even\ngreater and lasting price if we do not do the right thing.\n Time spent on this could have been spent on saving Social Security,\nimproving our education system or seeking additional tax relief. But\nlet me make it very clear that there is one person who is ultimately\nresponsible for where we are today and the person is the President\nhimself.\n It was President Clinton who misled the people of our country, his\ncabinet and the Congress since last January. It was the President\nhimself who chose to commit perjury while under oath. So let me be very\nclear on why I have come to my decision. It is not about sex.\n The President's personal behavior--albeit reprehensible and\ninappropriate--is not the issue at hand nor is itself an impeachable\noffense. Rather, my decision to support the articles of impeachment\nrevolves around the President's public behavior. The President made his\nprivate life and private inappropriate actions public when he lied\nabout them under oath in a public court of law.\n As I said, my decision is not based on sex and not based on the\nPresident's private life. There are elected officials in both parties\nthat have committed indiscretions. The difference however is very\nclear. In the case before us the President lied under oath in court.\nWhat if he had lied about another issue? Would that and should that\nmake a difference? I maintain that lying under oath is lying under oath\nno matter the subject matter. An elected official's private life and\nactions are just that--private. But an elected official's public\nactions are just that as well--they are public.\n Some have suggested that the House should censure the president. What\nthen would we say to the American citizens that this very day are in\njail for committing perjury in civil cases? I am sure that they too\nwould like to have had censure as an option. But as I said before, we\nare a nation of laws that each and every one of us must abide by.\n I think that most Americans, including many of my colleagues on both\nsides of the aisle agree that the President did in fact lie under oath\nand commit perjury. With that as the conclusion, there is no choice but\nto support impeachment.\n It has been said that history will judge our actions. Before history\njudges us though we must ensure that the youth and citizens of our\nnation respect the principle that that no one is above the law. I spend\na great deal of time speaking with young people who often ask me about\nthis. I tell them that we can and should forgive each other because no\none is perfect and we all make mistakes. Yet, there are consequences of\nour actions.\n I have made my share of errors and will make more in my life.\nHowever, it is important to come to terms with our shortcomings,\napologize, admit our wrongdoings and ask to be forgiven. A cleansing\nfrom within can then begin and healing can occur.\n We are a nation of laws--laws that must be followed by each of the\ncitizens of our nation. Realizing that there is not one law for the\nelected and one for the non-elected, one for those with power and\nanother for those without, I have concluded that I have no choice but\nto support the articles of impeachment.\n I do want to take exception to the statements from both sides that\nthis is the most difficult vote a Member of Congress will ever cast. I\ncompletely disagree. I believe voting whether we send young Americans\nto face an enemy on distant shores is far worse. A vote for war is much\nmore grave. I would urge all of my colleagues to refrain from this\ninflammatory statement to keep things in proper perspective.\n A vote for impeachment is very serious but the Constitution creates\nthe outline for this vote. It creates a process of succession. If Bill\nClinton is impeached and removed, his vice president Al Gore assumes\nthe responsibilities of the presidency. This is peaceful. During World\nWar II we lost our president and still won the war. After a terrible\ncivil war, our presidency survived the loss of President Lincoln. This\nwas peaceful. Our Constitution and the American people's resolve to see\nan orderly transition vitiate any argument I have heard about how\ndisruptive a potential impeachment would be.\n It is clear that our three-branch form of government as created by\nthe Constitution was done so in order to establish a set of checks and\nbalances. The framers did not want a King. We created lots of checks on\nthe President in order to ensure this. If we give in to the line of\nargument that a President who commits crimes is above the law, simply\non the basis of polling, we have completely destroyed the framers'\nintent and done irreparable damage to the future of our nation and the\nrule of law. Today some would argue that perjury and obstruction of\njustice do not rise to impeachable offenses, but if we let this slide\nthen what will we let slide the next time and the time after that. This\nis a slippery slope that a nation of laws cannot tolerate.\n Across the nation, lawyers and legal scholars are watching how we\nproceed. They are waiting to find out if it is acceptable to lie under\noath. If it is alright for the President then how can we possible hold\nanyone else to a higher standard?\n I am one of the few members whose voters sent someone else back for\nthe 106th Congress. However, I sincerely believe that the majority of\nNew Jersey's 12th district residents do not want our President to be\nabove the law or given special treatment. If we did what the president\ndid, would we be treated the same? I do not think so.\n The constituency that worries me the greatest in this debate is the\nschool-aged children. Recently, a student from the Montgomery Middle\nSchool reminded me of the story about George Washington never telling a\nlie, cutting down the cherry tree and then taking responsibility for\nit. What will the meaning of that story be if President Clinton lies,\nis caught and is then excused for it? How should I answer these\nstudents?\n As such, I reluctantly rise today to say I will vote for impeachment.\nI am hopeful that Mr. Clinton will still resign before this vote is\ncounted; however, should he not, I refuse to allow my last vote in this\nCongress to be a vote to allow a man in charge with enforcing the laws,\nfrom being above the very same laws.\n I want to close with a quote from Abraham Lincoln. He said, ``Let\nevery man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood\nof his father and to tear the character of his own and his children's\nliberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American,--let\nit be taught in schools, in seminaries and in colleges--let it be\npreached from the pulpit and proclaimed in legislative halls and\nenforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the\npolitical religion of the nation * * *.''\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins), a member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)\nand others in this House tonight have made a very good point about the\ndefense that has been made in this case.\n In the committee and again here today, the defense employed does not\nconsist of a denial of the charges or an explanation of the behavior\nthat is involved but rather it is an admission of the acts by many\ndefenders and it is coupled with almost certainly attacks on the\nspecial counsel, attacks on the Committee on the Judiciary, and attacks\non the entire Congress. And today that defense has been expanded to\nplead that our military forces would not want us to consider this\nmatter at this time.\n A great Air Force officer, our colleague the gentleman from Texas\n(Sam Johnson), who spent 7 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, who\nsurely earned the right to speak to and refute that defense, refuted it\nvery capably here today.\n Now let us hear from another great American soldier who uttered these\nwords. And these words were reprinted in Roll Call magazine today.\n``Duty. Honor. Country. These three hallowed words reverently dictate\nwhat you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. The\nunbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant\nphrase. Every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every\ntroublemaker will try to downgrade them, even to the extent of ridicule\nand mockery. But they build your basic character. They mold you for\nyour future roles as the custodians of the Nation's defenses. The long,\ngray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in\nolive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray would rise from their\nwhite crosses thundering `duty, honor, country'.''\n These are excerpts from General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's\nfarewell to the Corp of Cadets at West Point on May 12, 1962.\n Eleven years earlier, he was invited to address a joint session of\nCongress, ending his 52 years of distinguished military service. He\nspoke of the courage and the sacrifice of so many Americans who did not\nfail us, including those who gave their lives defending our values and\nour way of life.\n I would ask my colleagues, please remember the words of this great\nsoldier as they consider the merits of the allegation and the defenses\nto the allegation of this case.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\n\n[[Page H11853]]\n\ngentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).\n (Mr. KLECZKA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I have spent a great deal of\ntime carefully reviewing the Judiciary Committee testimony and\nevidence. Let me make absolutely clear that I do not in any way condone\nthe President's behavior. He lied to his family, his Cabinet, and the\nAmerican people.\n But the Framers made clear that the constitutional act of impeachment\nis not meant to punish a president for deplorable behavior but to\nprotect our Nation from acts which jeopardize our democratic system.\nWhat the President did was wrong, both personally and morally, but his\nacts did not threaten our democracy and thus do not rise to the level\nof impeachable offenses as defined by our founding fathers in the\nConstitution.\n As Mr. Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional law and impeachment expert at\nYale University, testified before the Judiciary Committee, ``Once we\nlower the impeachment standard to include conduct that does not amount\nto a clear and present danger to our constitutional order, we will do\ngrievous damage to the independence of the Presidency. [T]here can be\nlittle doubt that the present case falls short of the standard set by\nthe Framers when they insisted on `high crimes and misdemeanors against\nthe state.' ''\n I do believe that the President should be held accountable for his\nactions, and support an alternative to impeachment that would both\ncondemn his actions and fine him. The Judiciary Committee considered a\ncensure resolution which we in the full House are being denied the\nopportunity to debate and vote on.\n Many of my constituents have called and been resolute in their belief\nthat the President should be held accountable for his actions, and I\ncould not agree more. President Clinton is not above the law and is\nstill subject to indictment, trial, and sentencing in the same manner\nas all other citizens who do wrong. He will be fully subject to\ncriminal prosecution for his wrongful acts when he leaves office.\n Our founding fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the\nnation from grave harm from a Chief Executive who clearly endangers our\nconstitutional democracy. I do not believe the President's actions meet\nthis test. The penalty for his misconduct should be exacted not through\nimpeachment, but through indictment in our criminal court system and a\nstern censure by the Congress.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with apologies to my colleagues, I am now\nreduced to only 1 minute for each of them.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.\nStokes).\n Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, for 30 years I have served in this\ninstitution. It is an institution which I have always loved, honor and\nrevered. I have taken pride in being able to speak from this well on\nmany historic occasions. But it is no honor today to speak and cast the\nlast votes of my career against a resolution to remove from office the\nPresident of the United States. This is, in my opinion, the saddest day\nin the history of the House of Representatives. It is also a sad day\nfor America.\n As one who long before coming to Congress practiced and studied\nconstitutional law, I am convinced that the Framers of the Constitution\nbelieve that they could entrust to this elected body the responsibility\nof determining what constitutes treason, bribery, or other high crimes\nand misdemeanors. I firmly believe that they trusted us to place the\ninterest of the American people on such an exalted plane that they\nnever envisioned this House removing a President from office except for\ngrievous transgressions against the government which elected him.\n I believe the Founders never envisioned this provision of our\nConstitution being used in such an unconstitutional and unfair manner\nas to overthrow an election where the American people have gone to the\npolls to vote and elect their President.\n The action being taken in the ``People's House'' today makes a\nmockery of the Constitution and the electoral process which the\nAmerican people have fought and died to preserve. Those esteemed\nFounders, those architects of our Constitution, never envisioned what\nis being done here today. I caution you that the act of impeaching this\nPresident today, while perhaps serving some narrow political purpose,\nwill have consequences far beyond the comprehension of any of us here\ntoday. The impeachment of this President by the House and his\nsubsequent trial in the Senate will be tantamount to once again\nshutting down the American government. This is the message that you\nsend the American people today. The gridlock, disarray, chaos, crisis\nand paralysis which will envelop this government while the U.S. Senate\ntries a United States President is going to be wrenching and appalling.\nThe American economy and world markets are going to be affected by a\nCongress which will be stalemated in its inability to pass any\nlegislation into law because 100 Senators are sitting in a room trying\nthe President of the United States from January through June or July of\nnext year.\n The people in my congressional district are angry and enraged over\nwhat is happening to their President. They are good, decent, hard-\nworking people who love this country and care deeply about a President\nwho has shown concern for them. The people in my district have heard\nthe same evidence you have heard and while they do not approve of what\nhe did, they do not feel that he has harmed them or this Nation, by\nwhat he did. In their opinion, his actions did not meet the\nconstitutional standard for impeachment of bribery, high crimes, or\nmisdemeanors. Through every means of communication, they have said to\nme, we are embarrassed and ashamed of the House of Representatives.\nThey do not want their President impeached. Many constituents deem the\nact of a special prosecutor spending $40 million to bring impeachment\ncharges based upon sexual activities to be loathsome and reprehensible.\nIt defies everything this Nation stands for.\n Lastly, as I cast my last votes in this Chamber and end my career as\na Member of Congress, I am mindful that history will record forever\nboth what we say and do here today. Neither history nor the American\npeople will look kindly upon those who here today shunned the American\npeople and the U.S. Constitution. As I vote to oppose the impeachment\nof the President, my conscience is clear. It is important to me that\nhistory record me as a Member of Congress who did not do what was\nexpedient, but what was right.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nRhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).\n (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, we have no right to stand\nhere and debate the rule of law if we cannot even extend to the\nPresident of the United States that same right of due process as\nrequired by our Constitution.\n The majority has replaced the notion of due process with a notion\nthat if we just say something long enough it will become true. Today we\nwill be remembered for impeaching a president for punishment that does\nnot fit the crime. Today we will be remembered for a political mutiny\nof our Commander in Chief when our troops are in the field. And today\nthis Congress sends a message that the constitutional scales of justice\ncan be tipped to one side if it suits the purpose of one political\nparty.\n Four hundred respected historians have said that the presidency will\nbe permanently disfigured and diminished by today's vote. Over 200\nconstitutional scholars have argued that the sentiment of these\noffenses does not rise to the level of impeachment. And two-thirds of\nthe American public have said the same thing.\n Mr. Speaker, Republicans, put our country before your party.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Davis).\n (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I call this the nightmare before\nChristmas. And the American people find it difficult to believe that\nhere we are on this day talking about impeaching a president who just\ncame back from the Middle East almost with a peace accord.\n This is not about impeaching Bill Clinton. This is about trying to\nroll back the clock. This is about impeaching affirmative action,\nimpeaching women's rights. This is about taking America back rather\nthan moving it forward.\n I know how I am going to vote. My people have told me. I will not\ndisregard the people who elected me. Seventy percent of them have said\nto me, protect the President, vote to keep this President in office.\n\n {time} 1715\n\n So, Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this nightmare before Christmas,\nI will not vote for this lynching in the people's House, I will vote\nagainst these resolutions.\n\n[[Page H11854]]\n\n Mr. Speaker, this is a serious time for our country. I urge my\ncolleagues to do what is right and I ask that history be kind to us.\n I rise in strong opposition to the articles of impeachment presented\nby my colleagues from the Judiciary Committee.\n This resolution is an attempt to do through parliamentary means what\ncould not be done in the last two elections: unseat the President of\nthe United States of America.\n I ask my fellow colleagues, is this a high crime or just an act which\nlacks moral judgement? Did he really abuse his power.\n Let me state here on the floor of the House what most Americans\nalready know.\n The impeachment of a sitting President of the United States of\nAmerica is an ominous and sober predicament that we as Members of\nCongress face. This formal expression of the United States of\nRepresentatives should not be about sexual indiscretion. We have\nallegations of Presidential sexual indiscretions, some going back 200\nyears and involving slave women who certainly had no defense against\npredatory relationships. But no such impeachment inquiry has been\ninitiated before.\n This is not about lying. We have had allegations of Presidential\nlying about the trading of munitions for covert foreign aid and\nPresidential lying about personal federal income taxes. But no such\nimpeachment inquiries were initiated in response.\n Mr. Speaker, there are some in this House who have campaigned for the\nimpeachment of this President for more than six years. Their campaign,\nfueled by $40 million spent by the Office of Special Council, tens\nmillions of spent by private sources, and millions more spent by\nassorted Congressional Committees, and the inevitable accompanying\nleaks have yielded us only a sad, sordid marital infidelity and an\nendless supply of headlines.\n These relentless campaigns to impeach the President now hold their\nsponsors hostage to their own rhetoric. Having failed to find an\nimpeachable offense, there is now relentless pressure to make do with\nthe $60 million scandal--to make the scandal fit the bill.\n Mr. Speaker, our Constitution contains a number of examples of\npurposely ambiguous language in addition to the phrase ``high Crimes\nand Misdemeanors.'' Consider such language as ``due process.''\n It is precisely such elegant and flexible language which has enabled\nour democracy to develop, to encompass ever broader sectors of\nAmericans, in ever deeper and more empowering ways.\n It is reasonable to expect that as the process of electing our chief\nexecutive has become more and more democratic, enfranchising more\nAmericans, more and more directly, that the process for removing that\nchief executive, of undoing the will of the people, would demand higher\nand higher standards. It is reasonable to expect that the Congress\nshould not take unto itself the power to limit a President, in James\nMadison's words ``. . . to a tenure during the pleasure of the\nSenate.''\n When we ``dumb down'' the Constitution to meet the needs of partisan\npolitics we inflict deep and lasting harm on our political and\nConstitutional system. This is the real Constitutional crisis. I do not\nbelieve it is accidental that all of our nation's encounters with\nPresidential impeachment come following periods of great national\nturmoil--either the executive or legislative branch attempting to use\nextra-constitutional means of imposing its will on the policy of the\nnation.\n Like the attempt to impeach President Johnson in the wake of the\nCivil War and the debate over how to incorporate African Americans into\nthe body politic or the attempt of President Nixon to undermine his\npolitical opponents in the closing days of the War in Vietnam; current\nattempts to undo the results of two Presidential elections will leave\ndeep, lingering wounds on our nation, but, in the long run, will fail\nin their attempt to make an end run around the will of the people.\n Undoing our Constitution will not advance the search for solutions to\nthe great national and international problems facing America: global\neconomic crisis and growing economic inequality, the undoing of decades\nof struggle for racial equality in America, the resurgence of national\nstrife around the world, the need to address fundamental problems in\nhealth care, education, environment and housing, preserving social\nsecurity and a host of other critical issues.\n I urge my colleagues to oppose this insidious attempt to use, or\nrather misuse, the power of impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, to the horror, outrage and disbelief of America, this\nCongress is about to molest, to assault, the central pillar of our\nDemocracy, the right of the people to choose their representatives in\ngovernment, and vote to remove the President of the United States.\n Why? I am convinced, and the American People are convinced, that\nthere are those who want to impeach the President as a means of\ncontaining, delaying or terminating his efforts to carry out the\nmandate which the American People have twice given him. Those driving\nthe process to remove him are frustrated by his mandate, and obsessed\nwith their fanatical desire to block programs from affirmative action\nto energy assistance, to de-fund programs from summer jobs to one\nhundred thousand new teachers.\n I reject, and more importantly, the American People reject, the pious\nhand wringing and piteous mutterings about the crime of perjury. Read\nthe articles of impeachment as closely as you want. You won't find the\nactual words alleged as perjury with a divining rod.\n Why? The American People know that the allegations do not rise to the\nlevel of impeachment.\n We do not allow such unspecified charges on the floor of this House.\nAny Member of this body who would accuse another would have his words\ntaken down for judgment by the body. Why weren't the President's words\ntaken down so they could be judged? Because the process is not meant to\nbe fair. The process is meant to destroy. Every month, every week,\nindeed every day, brings new examples of the hypocrisy of these\ncharges.\n When, in the name of this House, secret grand jury testimony was\nreleased, in contradiction to every understanding we have of individual\nrights and due process, the claim was made that we had to inform and\ninvolve the American People about the process.\n But now, when the American People demand an end to the outrage of\nthis impeachment process, their voices are ignored. Suddenly their\ninformed opinion is no longer relevant.\n Why? Because the process was never meant to be fair or democratic.\nThe process was meant to destroy.\n I reject, and the American People reject, the pathetic whining about\nupholding the rule of law. An unchecked prosecutor, accountable to no\none, with an unlimited budget, and a witch-hunting committee have\nshredded any semblance of rule of law. They have undermined, in a few\nshort years, the protections that have taken our nation over two\nhundred years to perfect.\n And, in using and abusing the law on sexual harassment, the witch\nhunters have created gaping holes in the law protecting women from\nharassment.\n How ironic that President Clinton who brought together the people of\nNorthern and Southern Ireland, who brought together the people of\nIsrael and Palestine is a victim of rending and division of the\nAmerican political system.\n But he is not the only victim. We are perverting and destroying the\nAmerican constitutional system, based on the wisdom of the people--a\nsystem we should be using to solve our real problems: saving social\nsecurity; creating jobs with a living wage; lifetime education;\naccessible health care for all.\n This is our last chance to stop the ``Nightmare Before Christmas.''\n Some 50 years ago in the last days of Joe McCarthy, Senator Fulbright\nstood in the Senate and reflected on the fact that a small group had\nset a prairie fire which rapidly grew out of their control and\ndestroyed everything in its path.\n Today, we have a chance to stomp out another prairie fire, another\nwitch hunt, which threatens to grow rapidly out of control.\n Mr. Speaker, the American People are calling on this Congress, on\nevery member of this Congress, to rise above the shrill voices of\npartisanship.\n Therefore, if I might paraphrase Winston Churchill, let us feel the\nwisdom of the people, and the strength of our ancestors.\n Let us stop the madness of those who seek to use impeachment to\nimpose their political will. Let us undertake our duty, and so bear\nourselves, that if America lasts for a thousand years, men and women\nwill still say, ``This was their finest hour.''\n\n Projected Proceedings before the United States Senate If the\n House Votes To Impeach the President\n\n The proceedings in the Senate on the articles of\n impeachment that the House exhibited against then United\n States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings provide the most\n recent and comparable precedents to guide the Senate in the\n proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton that\n will take place if the House adopts articles of impeachment.\n The following outlines projects how the proceedings against\n the President would unfold if the House impeaches him based\n upon the proceedings in the Hastings case and the materials\n released by the Judiciary Committee during its inquiry into\n the President's conduct.\n\n[[Page H11855]]\n\n Weeks\n\n Min. Max.\n\n I. Preliminary Proceedings\n\nA. The First Step. The House Managers would\n exhibit its articles to the Senate and the Senate\n would issue a summons to the President requiring\n him to respond within fifteen to thirty days and\n would ask the Committee on Rules and\n Administration to consider and report issues that\n need to be addressed and special rules that\n should be adopted for the conduct of the\n proceedings...................................... 1 1\nB. The Rules Committee. Since the Senate has not\n conducted proceedings against a President in the\n past century, the issues would be substantial. At\n least five steps would have to be taken before\n the committee could submit its report and\n recommendations to the Senate....................\n 1. The committee meets and authorizes the\n Chair and Ranking Minority Member to send a\n letter asking the parties to file memoranda\n addressing issues identified by the Committee\n and other issues that either believes the\n committee should consider, probably allowing\n twenty to thirty days for initial memoranda\n and ten to twenty days for responses......... 1 2\n 2. Each of the parties file memoranda......... 4 6\n 3. Each of the parties file memoranda\n responding to the other...................... 6 9\n 4. The committee holds hearings on the issues\n raised....................................... 7 11\n 5. The committee deliberates and prepares its\n report and recommendations and any necessary\n resolutions.................................. 9 13\nC. Pleadings and Motions.\n 1. The President. It is hard to anticipate the\n defense strategy the President will adopt,\n but the House Judiciary Committee's\n proceedings and recommended articles of\n impeach suggest that counsel for the\n President would file:\n a. Answer and Affirmative Defenses.\n Counsel for the President will raise at\n least one and probably two affirmative\n defenses--(i) the articles fail to allege\n facts sufficient to state an impeachable\n offense; and (ii) the misconduct of\n Independent Counsel Starr and the House's\n reliance upon the products of that\n misconduct require that the articles be\n dismissed................................ 3 4\n b. Motion to Dismiss. The motion would\n enable the Senate to consider whether it\n should dignify the President's improper\n conduct alleged in the articles of\n impeachment by classifying it as ``High\n Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under the\n Constitution............................. 6 10\n c. Demand for Bill of Particulars. The\n majority on House Judiciary Committee\n appear to shoot themselves in the foot by\n refusing to specify the precise\n statements made by the President that\n they claim were perjurious. If the\n pending articles are adopted, counsel for\n the President will demand and the Senate\n will almost surely order the House\n Managers to provide a bill of\n particulars. The real effect of the lack\n of specificity will further delay........ 6 10\n d. Alternative Motion to Strike Particular\n Allegations. If the Senate does not\n dismiss the articles in their entirety,\n counsel for the President are likely to\n ask that the Senate, after the bill of\n particulars has been filed, strike\n specific allegations in the article that\n remains.................................. 6 10\n 2. The House. The House managers would be\n required to file a Replication to the\n President's Answer and Affirmative Defenses\n and responses to the motions. If they opposed\n the demand for a bill of particulars, there\n would be a second round of briefing and\n further argument before the Senate after the\n House had complied with the Senate's order,\n adding an additional two weeks to the\n process...................................... 8 14\n 3. The President's Reply. Counsel for the\n President would file a reply and any\n supplemental memoranda made necessary by the\n House's bill of particulars.................. 10 16\nD. Proceedings Before the Full Senate. The Senate\n would be likely to set aside two days to consider\n and act upon the report from the Rules Committee\n and to hear arguments on and decide the pending\n motions.......................................... 12 18\n\n II. Trial Preparation\n\n In Hastings, the Rules Committee recommended that the Senate\n appoint an Impeachment Trial Committee to regulate the preparation for\n evidentiary hearings and to conduct those hearings. If the House adopts\n articles here, the evidentiary hearings will be conducted before the\n full Senate. It is likely that the Senate and the Chief Justice will\n agree that the trial preparation duties that were performed by the\n Impeachment Trials Committee should be assigned to the Rules Committee\n (or to a special impeachment committee appointed for that purpose).\n Although the counsel for the President would request that trial\n preparation be deferred until the Senate had ruled on the President's\n motion to dismiss, the Rules Committee might determine that necessary\n preparation should proceed concurrently with other trial matters.\n However those duties were exercised, the steps would likely be the\n same.\n\nA. Discovery Proceedings: The need for discovery\n would be far greater in this case than it was in\n Hastings. Here, as it did in Hastings, the House\n Judiciary Committee relied primarily upon the\n report and materials transmitted to the House by\n another branch and upon the testimony of the\n investigator who prepared the report. Here, as it\n did in Hastings, the committee did not call and\n subject to examination and cross-examination the\n fact-witnesses identified by the Starr referral\n or those who might testify on behalf of the\n accused or obtain from the Independent Counsel or\n elsewhere documents other than those included in\n the materials transmitted. It is hard to conceive\n that the Senate here would not afford the\n President the time and the use of its subpoena\n power to take depositions and obtain relevant\n documents. Based upon Hastings and the materials\n available here, discovery would proceed in three\n stages.\n 1. Submissions by the Parties. If any articles\n remained after the motions to dismiss or\n strike had been decided, the Senate or a\n committee would have to decide whether and\n what discovery should be permitted.\n a. Counsel for the President would\n promptly submit a memorandum identifying\n witness and sources of documents that\n were likely to produce relevant evidence\n and explaining why the President should\n be permitted to subpoena each of the\n witnesses and other source to obtain that\n evidence. At a minimum, it seems almost\n certain that the counsel would seek to\n depose (i) lawyers for Paula Jones about\n their initial conversations with Linda\n Tripp and with members of the Office of\n Independent Counsel (``OIC'') staff; (ii)\n the members of the OIC staff and FBI\n agents who met with or interviewed Linda\n Tripp and Monica Lewinsky; and (iii)\n other technical witnesses, such as those\n reconstructed materials from the hard\n drive in Ms. Lewinsky's computer. It also\n seems certain that they would want access\n to the documents that the Independent\n Counsel did not transmit with his\n referral................................. 12 20\n b. The House managers would be directed to\n file a response agreeing with or\n objecting to the President's requests.... 14 22\n c. The Senate or its committee would\n examine the president's request and the\n House's response and hold hearings and\n enter the appropriate order directing the\n issuance of appropriate subpoenas........ 16 23\n d. Independent Counsel Starr, Ms. Jones'\n lawyers, or others subpoenaed might\n object to some or all of the subpoena, in\n which event time-consuming enforcement\n proceedings would be necessary, at least\n three months............................. 36\n e. The depositions would be conducted and\n the documents produced and examined...... 16-24 36-44\nB. Other Trial Preparation Proceedings:\n 1. The House managers and counsel for the\n President would propose stipulations or\n submit requests for admissions. The Senate or\n its committee would encourage the parties to\n stipulate at least to the authenticity and/or\n admissibility of various documents and other\n potential exhibits. Responses would be\n exchanged and negotiations would proceed..... 12 20\n 2. The Senate or its committee would direct\n the parties to file and exchange ten days\n after the close of discovery, pre-trial\n memoranda identifying witnesses each intended\n to call and exhibits each intended to\n introduce.................................... 25 45\n\n[[Page H11856]]\n\n 3. The Senate or its committee would enter a\n final pre-trial order establishing the date\n for and procedures to be followed at trial... 26 46\n\n III. The Trial of a President\n\n Rules XII and XIII of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When\n Sitting on Impeachment Trials provide that, unless otherwise ordered,\n the proceedings shall commence at 12:30 p.m. on the first day and at\n 12:00 noon thereafter. In order to make it possible for the legislative\n and executive branches to tend to some of the government's business and\n to enable the Chief Justice to participate in the oral arguments before\n the Supreme Court, it seems likely that the Senate would not schedule\n the evidentiary proceedings to begin before 12:30 or would permit them\n to extend beyond 6:30 p.m. on a regular basis.\n\nA. The Presentation of Evidence by the House\n Managers. The managers presented the testimony of\n thirty-seven witnesses in Hastings. Only twenty-\n seven appeared before the Impeachment Trial\n Committee. The managers were permitted to\n introduce transcripts of prior testimony for the\n other ten. The House managers are likely to call\n most if not all of the 120 witnesses whose\n statements or testimony are included in the\n materials transmitted by Independent Counsel\n Starr. Depending upon the success of pre-trial\n negotiations, it might have to call several more\n to establish necessary foundations and the like.\n Forty to fifty would appear to the minimum number\n necessary to support the allegations the proposed\n article have borrowed from the Starr Report. No\n prior testimony will be admitted. The videotaped\n deposition and the videotaped grand jury\n testimony will be shown in there entirety, and\n many of the Tripp tapes will be played given by\n the president. The examination and cross-\n examination of the twenty-seven witnesses the\n House presented in Hastings consumed more than\n ten full days. If the President is impeached by\n this House, the presentation of testimony and\n other evidence will consume twenty [if forty\n witnesses called] to forty [120 witnesses]\n partial trial days before the full Senate........ 27-30 47-40\nB. The President's Case. It is impossible to\n project the number of witnesses that the\n President's counsel would call for his defense\n with any confidence. The Starr Report was not a\n balanced presentation of the available evidence.\n It seems clear that the number would be\n substantial and would include many of the 120\n persons whom were identified in the Starr Report,\n but were not called by the managers. They would\n present all of the Tripp tapes that the managers\n did not introduce. They would call witnesses\n whose conduct might have influenced the testimony\n of Ms. Lewinsky and other House witnesses and\n witnesses who had knowledge relevant to Ms.\n Lewinsky's credibility. Twenty witnesses and ten\n days seems a safe minimum........................ 31-32 51-52\nC. The House Rebuttal. Given the passion and vigor\n displayed by Republican members of the Judiciary\n Committee, it seem likely the House managers\n would want to try to rebut the President's case,\n no matter how tired and angry the American people\n may have become. Might we hope for only a day or\n two?............................................. 33 53\nD. Argument, Deliberations, and The Vote. Given\n the nature of the issues and the length of the\n projected trial, it seems likely that Senate\n would allot at least four hours to each side for\n closing arguments. Past precedent dictates that\n the Senate would close its doors to deliberate in\n executive session until its members have\n expressed their views. The vote would follow.\n With luck, the denouement might be completed in\n less than a week................................. 34 54\n\n I call this the nightmare before Christmas and Mr. Spaker, it is\ndifficult to believe that we are here today; But we are debating\nwhether or not to bring charges of impeachment against the President\nwho has just returned from the Middle East where he was able to bring\ntogether Palestinians and Israelis, where he was able to bring together\nNetenyahu and Arafat. This President who was able to bring together\nNorthern and Southern Ireland, India and Pakistan. A President who has\nopened up new avenues and relationships with the African Continent,\nwith China, and with other nations throughout the world.\n During these proceedings we have heard a great deal of legal argument\nbut I submit to you that this is as much about politics as it is about\nlaw. It's not just an attempt to impeach the President, it is an\nattempt to undermine and dismantle the policies and programs of this\nadministration. This is an attempt to impeach and hold back Affirmative\nAction, women's health rights, new teachers, summer jobs for\ndisadvantaged youth, energy assistance for low income people, community\nhealth centers, treatment programs for victims of aids and HIV, clean\nair, and raising the minimum wage. No Mr. Speaker, this is not just\nabout Bill Clinton it is about dashing the dreams and the hopes of one\ngrowing up in a small state, an average citizen, in an average family,\nno pedigree, no major wealth, but growing up with hope, drive and\ndetermination, growing up with the idea that you can rise to the top\nand that you can make a difference. This vote today is a prime example\nof the contradictions with which we operate.\n We talk justice and operate in an unfair and unjust manner. We talk\ndemocracy and disregard the will of the people.\n We talk forgiveness and practice retribution.\n We talk unification and practice division--we talk about morality and\ncommit the immortal act of fundamental unfairness.\n Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to disregard the will of the people, I\nam not prepared to say that their feelings are irrelevant. I am going\nto vote my conscience. I am going to vote with my people. I am going to\nvote against impeachment. I am going to vote against this nightmare\nbefore Christmas.\n I am going to vote against this attempted lynching in the people's\nhouse.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nIndiana (Ms. Carson).\n (Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, we have dispatched and asked some of\nAmerica's women and men to place themselves in harm's way and degrade\nSaddam Hussein's capacities in weapons of mass destruction.\nSimultaneously, we placed the citizens of America in harm's way by\nutilizing political weapons of mass destruction to degrade and destroy\nthe President of the United States. Lyndon Johnson said, ``The\ndifference between Democrats and Republicans is that we don't hate your\nPresidents.''\n Some say this is not about sex; it is about lying under oath. Lying\nunder oath about sex is still about sex, and the only reason it is\nabout sex is that our colleagues could not find anything else to get on\nhim.\n Any extramarital affair, whether by a president or a Member of\nCongress, is lying under oath, the most sacred of oaths, the marriage\nvow. Any lie told by a president about the people's business is under\noath, the presidential oath of office.\n It is not just one poll, but in all polls, by a two to one margin the\nAmerican people say that when it comes to people's sex lives even\npresidents' sex lives, government should mind its own business.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.\n Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) says the\nPresident was not given due process, and exactly the opposite is true.\nThe chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), gave the\nPresident a standing invitation to appear before the Committee on the\nJudiciary. He did not accept that offer.\n Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No.\n Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has named me\nand my----\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.\n Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Is not perjury a legal term? Has the\ngentleman defined perjury in a court of law, or is it just his constant\nrepetition that the President has lied?\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Rhode Island\nis out of order.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the President's lawyers had up to 30\nhours to present their defense. Mr. Starr had 12\\1/2\\ hours.\n\n[[Page H11857]]\n\n Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the\ngallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any\nmanifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation\nof the rules of the House.\n The gentleman may proceed.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats had almost two-thirds\nof the witnesses before the committee. They called 28 witnesses, the\nRepublicans called 15, and they shared two. The chairman, the gentleman\nfrom Illinois (Mr. Hyde), asked the White House to present evidence\nthat would exonerate the President, and they did not.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman\nfrom New York (Mr. Boehlert).\n (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of that enduring\ndocument, the Constitution that has stood the test of time.\n When this debate is concluded, I will reluctantly vote for at least\none article to impeach President Clinton.\n I make this announcement with profound sorrow, and with deep concern\nabout the consequences for our country, but, in the final analysis,\nwith firm conviction that this is the only fitting and proper course\nfor me to take.\n This has been by far the most difficult, even tormenting, decision I\nhave had to make in my 16 years in Congress. I have spent a great deal\nof time assuring myself that in this case we are using the Constitution\nas a shield, not a sword. The purpose of impeachment is to protect the\ninstitutions of our Government--and through them, the people--not to\nattack or punish a particular political figure. I am convinced that in\nthis case we do indeed need impeachment as a shield to protect the\nintegrity of our institutions.\n I simply have not found the means to rationalize away the fact that\nour President lied under oath; that he has tried repeatedly to game the\njudicial system. Whatever the origins of this case, whatever the\nmotives of his questioners, the President had an obligation--a legal\nand Constitutional obligation--to tell the truth under oath. No voter\never elected to exempt the President from the demands of our system or\nto weaken the Judiciary established in Article III of the Constitution.\n I regularly visit high schools in my district, and I keep asking\nmyself, ``How am I to answer the high school student who asks me why he\nwas expelled for cheating, or what do I say to the average citizen who\nis punished for lying in a court proceeding or the West Point cadet who\nmust live under the honor code?'' The answers I come up with all seem\nlike thin and transparent excuses that would appease no one, least of\nall me.\n And let me say that this is not about determining whether the\nPresident has been sufficiently contrite, although contrition is\ncertainly in order. Congress was not established as a body of clerics\nor therapists. This is about how to keep a system intact that is based\non law and trust, a system that cannot countenance attacks on those\nfoundations regardless of how sorry one is after having been found out.\n Much time has been spent during this prolonged ordeal comparing the\nsituation to Watergate, only for most to conclude correctly that the\ntwo scandals have little in common. But they do have one aspect in\ncommon that I think has been overlooked. In a rare moment of personal\ninsight, Richard Nixon concluded that he had destroyed himself by\nhating his enemies back. I am afraid that President Clinton fell into\nthe same, all too human, trap. Blinded by his contempt for people who\nhe thought were out to get him, the President forgot his larger\nobligations to his Office, to the Constitution and to the American\npeople. He let his personal feelings interfere with fulfilling his\nConstitutional obligations.\n In making my decision, I have tried hard to put personal feelings and\npolitical concerns aside and to focus solely on my Constitutional\nobligation. And I have come to the difficult, heart wrenching, almost\nunbearably sad conclusion that I am obligated to vote to impeach the\nPresident.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).\n (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad and difficult day,\nbut those of us elected to lead in this great representative democracy\nmust act and vote based upon our consciences even in the most difficult\nof situations. I would like to make just a few points.\n First of all, the founders of the republic did not create the remedy\nof impeachment to change the results of presidential elections but\nrather as a great check and balance to redress patterns of delinquent\nconduct by chief executives.\n Secondly, all democratic governments must have both the legitimacy of\norigin and the legitimacy of conduct. President Clinton obviously\nenjoys the legitimacy of origin, having been elected to the Presidency.\nHis serious violations of the law, however, including his breaking of\noaths in judicial proceedings to tell the whole truth and nothing but\nthe truth, have lost for him the legitimacy of conduct.\n Thirdly, the matter before us today has nothing to do with the\nPresident's private life, which should be of interest to no one. This\nhas to do with perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power,\nviolations of the law. Failure to impeach President Clinton would\nincrease the likelihood that perjury would be committed in future legal\nproceedings, it would increase the likelihood that future Congresses\nwould hesitate to impeach Federal judges for perjury or obstruction of\njustice. In short, it would do grave harm to the integrity of the\njudicial system and the United States.\n The essential point of the action that we are now taking is that no\none in the United States is above the law, not even the President.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nNew York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee.\n Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans say we are not contesting\nany fact allegations. The fact is there were no fact witnesses brought\nbefore the committee, there were no specific perjury quotes, no\nspecific alleged lies cited in the articles, and I ask the Republicans\ndo they deny the President admitted to an inappropriate relationship to\nthe grand jury? Is their beef that he was not graphic enough about who\ntouched him where?\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nColorado (Mr. Skaggs).\n Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, censure of a President as a remedy available\nto us to deal with the misconduct of a President was used in 1800\nagainst President Adams. Then Representative John Marshall, a future\nchief justice, made an argument against its constitutionality. If it\nwas good enough for him, it should be good enough for us. In denying us\nthat option the majority undermined its claim of conscience because the\nessence of conscience is the freedom to choose among reasonable\nalternatives. This is a political solstice with a cold darkness to\nmatch the winter solstice. I pray that a new and better season of our\npolitics will come. I so want the speakership of my friend, the\ngentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) to succeed and to nurture a\nrenewal of this House. We owe him and ourselves and the country that\nopportunity. I want nothing more than for this House to fulfill the\naspiration of its Members and the people that it be a great and decent\ndeliberative body serving in honor the great purposes of a great\nNation.\n This is my last speech here. I leave my colleagues with the plea to\nbe good to each other so that they may do their best for the country\nthat we love.\n I love this House. This is my last time to speak here. How I wish it\nwere not such a sad occasion. And how I wish we were able to conduct\nthis grave business at a better time, in a better way.\n The dishonorable and reprehensible behavior of the President of the\nUnited States deserves our strong condemnation. We have a\nresponsibility to act in this matter, and to act with a dignity and\nfairness and soberness fitting the enormity of the decisions we will\nmake.\n The President got himself into this awful fix by having a tawdry\nsexual affair and then almost certainly lying about it under oath. In\nboth respects, his conduct is immoral and indefensible. It is also\nunderstandable that he tried to save himself and his family from shame,\nembarrassment and humiliation by lying to cover it up. In all this, his\nbehavior was abominable, self-indulgent, incredibly reckless and\naltogether human.\n Probably no American other than the President could or would have\nbeen subjected to the extraordinary circumstances of multiple testimony\nabout a sexual affair. First, he was compelled to testify in a civil\ndeposition about this sexual affair, about facts themselves immaterial\nin a lawsuit later found to be without merit. Then, he testified before\na grand jury about this deposition testimony about this same, legally\nimmaterial sexual affair. This grand jury process would not be used to\ninvestigate any ordinary American regarding\n\n[[Page H11858]]\n\nsuch civil deposition testimony; it is only available against someone\nlike the President, subject to a special prosecutor like Ken Starr.\nNonetheless, he should have told the truth. And, depending on some\ntechnical but legally important considerations, he may have committed\nperjury.\n Now, what do we do about it?\n The Constitution makes a President who's committed ``Treason,\nBribery, or other high Crimes or Misdemeanors'' liable to impeachment\nby this House of Representatives, trial by the Senate and possible\nremoval from office. Each house of Congress also has plenary and\nunrestricted power to express its views and sentiments about any matter\nby the passage of resolutions.\n The law would subject the ordinary American charged with violations\nsuch as the President's to some civil fine or forfeiture in connection\nwith the civil deposition testimony. Recall that the President has\nalready paid a substantial amount to settle the Paula Jones case. And\nthe ordinary American would face the fairly unlikely possibility of\ncriminal prosecution for perjury in connection with the grand jury\ntestimony. Prosecution would be unlikely because the case turns\nfundamentally on a swearing contest between witnesses and because the\nsubject of the possibly perjurious testimony was not itself criminal\nconduct, but rather a tawdry, though not unlawful sexual affair.\n So, if the objective is to treat the President as other Americans\nwould be treated, there's your answer. If the objective is to insure\nthat the President is not above the law, there's your answer. And if\nthe objective is to vindicate the rule of law, there's your answer.\n Of course, the President is not an ordinary American. His wrongful\nconduct occurred in the White House and implicates his high office. The\nresponsibilities and authority and stature of the Presidency require\ntheir own vindication and deserve to be cleansed somehow of the taint\nof this wrongful conduct. So, it is entirely appropriate to consider\nsanctions that go beyond what an ordinary American would face. But how\nmuch beyond?\n Consider impeachment. From the words of the impeachment clause, it's\nobvious this remedy was intended for serious offenses. The historical\ncontext, the debates at the Constitutional Convention, Alexander\nHamilton's explanation in ``The Federalist'', and the debates during\nstate ratification generally support the proposition that impeachment\nis to be reserved for very serious offenses that are themselves\ndestructive of the government or constitutional order, and that any\ndecision to impeach necessarily calls for a sober political judgment,\nnot a legalistic one. It's apparent from the same sources that\nimpeachment is not to be used as a device to get rid of a President\nwhom a sufficient majority in Congress happens to disapprove of,\nhowever adamant their disapproval.\n The debate we've had about what's an impeachable offense has been\nonly marginally helpful, because it's seemed to assume--wrongly, I\nthink--that impeachability requires impeachment. In the abstract, no\ndoubt perjury may qualify as an ``impeachable'' offense. It's a serious\ncrime. However, a proper reading of the Constitution and of our\nresponsibility under is leads, I believe, to a sober judgment that\nwhile perjury may be impeachable, the perjury in this case (if it\noccurred) does not warrant impeachment. That judgment recognizes the\nimportant moral space between ``impeachability'' and ``impeachment''\nand fills it with a reasoned and principled application of historically\ngrounded standards for impeachment to the facts and circumstances of\nthis case.\n If impeachment were the only choice, the only way to hold the\nPresident to account as President, there would be a greater temptation\nto risk its use in this case. But there's another choice. It is\ncensure. A strongly worded censure resolution was offered in the\nJudiciary Committee by Mr. Boucher, appropriately condemning the\nwrongful acts of the President. And given it, and so moot any issue\nof passing a bill of attainder, censure could move beyond words to\ninclude a fine.\n\n Congress has the plenary authority to pass resolutions about any\nsubject. Serious people nevertheless argue that impeachment states the\nexclusive remedy available to us.\n That argument quickly bumps into history and practice to the\ncontrary. The most compelling example is the first. In 1800, the House\ntook up a resolution of censure against President John Adams.\n One Representative argued that Congress didn't have the power to\ncensure, but only to impeach. Others saw no such problem, and raised\nthe point that it would be unfortunate to have no way to express\ndisapproval of misconduct not serious enough to justify impeachment.\nRepresentative John Marshall, the future Chief Justice, was in charge\nof Adams' defense, and he did not challenge the constitutionality of\ncensure.\n This happened when the House was comprised primarily of many Members\npolitically active at the time the Constitution was drafted only 13\nyears earlier, including several Members who had been members of their\nstates' ratifying conventions. This is as close as you can come to an\nobject lesson in ``original intent.'' If John Marshall accepted the\nconstitutionality of censuring a President, even as he worked to defeat\nit, who are we to object?\n This gets us to the matter of ``conscience''. Conscience is best\nexercised through freedom. Freedom in turn suggests choices and\nalternatives. The denial of freedom to choose among legitimate\nalternatives is a denial of full freedom of conscience.\n Now, we are told that it would be wrong to have the freedom of making\na choice--yet that freedom is the essence of conscience.\n Stripped of its pretenses to constitutionalism and conscience-\nmindedness, the majority's manipulation of the impeachment process is\nrevealed an unfair act of raw majoritarianism by which they are\ndetermined to exact their one desired outcome: ending, or at least\nhobbling, the Clinton Presidency. I regret that the behavior of the\nmajority leadership in handling this matter contradicts their claims of\ndispassion and nonpartisanship.\n Let me say that my charge is against the majority leadership who have\nengineered the process today. I acknowledge and credit the sincerity of\nthe many who will vote for impeachment as an act of conscience. But do\nnot think that your definition of conscience can rightly be imposed on\nothers without, in doing so, diminishing the concept of conscience.\n Can there be a more compelling instance in which the people of the\ncountry, acting through their elected representatives, should be able\nto find a conclusion by letting a consensus emerge; by letting the\npreference of the greatest, not the smallest, majority prevail?\n This a political solstice with a cold darkness to match the winter\nsolstice. I pray that a new and better season for our politics will\ncome as spring will follow this winter. I so want the speakership of my\nfriend, Bob Livingston, to succeed and to nurture a renewal of this\nHouse. We owe him and ourselves and the country that opportunity.\n I want nothing more for this House than to fulfill the aspirations of\nits Members and the people that it be a great and decent deliberative\nbody, serving in honor the great purposes of a great nation. This is my\nlast address here. I leave my colleagues with a plea to be good to each\nother so that you may do your best for the country we love.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nNew York (Mrs. Maloney).\n Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, if an action by a President\nposes a threat to our government, then he may be impeached for that\naction. The President's behavior was reprehensible, insensible, even\nunimaginable, but it is not impeachable. The punishment does not fit\nthe crime. The authors of the Constitution never intended this result.\n Even the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), said that\nhe intended to conduct bipartisan hearings. We have watched as these\nintentions have eroded into an unnecessary partisan battle.\n The President is accused of degrading his office. We must ask\nourselves is the proper response to degrade the process by lowering the\nstandard of impeachment?\n Our biggest responsibility is to the American people. The American\npeople elected this President, and they have made it clear that they\nwould like to keep him, warts and all. I join my Democrat colleagues in\ncalling for a lesser punishment than a political death penalty. It is\nunfair, it is partisan, it is wrong.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nJersey (Mr. Andrews).\n (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the articles of impeachment\nbecause I believe although the President's behavior was deplorable, I\nbelieve he has not committed a high crime and misdemeanor. So this\ndecision is wrong for today.\n But, Mr. Speaker, this decision is wrong for the ages because let me\npredict what is going to happen. Last year the United States Supreme\nCourt said: ``You can now proceed with a civil suit against a sitting\nPresident.'' The next time we have a polarizing President and a\nCongress from a different party, here is what is going to happen: There\nis going to be a civil suit launched against that President. He or she\nis going to be dragged into discovery, and his or her opponents in this\nCongress are going to try to categorize anything\n\n[[Page H11859]]\n\nthey can as perjury and obstruction of justice. Articles of impeachment\nwill be pursued, and the country will be weakened.\n It is my sincere prayer here tonight that our children will not bear\nthe bitter fruits of the reckless seeds that our colleagues are sowing\nhere today. The Constitution has worked well for over 200 years. Leave\nit alone.\n Mr. Speaker, allow me to explain my reasoning in voting against the\nimpeachment of the President. The Constitution recognizes a difference\nbetween misconduct--even criminal misconduct--and the High Crimes and\nMisdemeanors that are required for impeachment.\n My judgment is that the President's misconduct, though deplorable,\ndoes not rise to the level required by the Constitution for\nimpeachment.\n And my judgment is that we will set a dangerous precedent if the\nmajority in the House disagree with me, and decide to vote for these\narticles of impeachment which are before us. We will have lowered the\nbar to impeachment, and this action, coupled with the Supreme Court's\ndecision to allow sitting Presidents to be sued in a civil lawsuit\nwhile in office, will lead to more partisan mischief in coming years,\nwhich could gravely harm our government and our nation.\n The country would be best served by a return to the important\nbusiness at hand: education, health care, Social Security, and\ninternational problems.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nIndiana (Mr. Roemer).\n (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, John Page wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson\non July 20, 1776, which reads and I quote:\n ``We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong.\nDo you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this\nstorm.''\n I pray that Providence is with this body, this country and our\nConstitution for fairness and justice and honor today, and I fear my\nprayers will go unanswered.\n I voted with my Republican friends 68 days ago to initiate this\ninvestigation, to look at the facts and corroborate the evidence for a\nhigh crime and misdemeanor, and George Mason, who wrote that phrase,\nsaid, and I quote:\n ``It ranged from a great and dangerous offense to subverting the\nConstitution.''\n This does not pierce that high threshold, and when it comes to\npunishment, yes, the President did something reprehensible and immoral\nand sinful, and he should be punished by censure by this body and by\nprosecution like every other American would be when he leaves office.\n Now finally, Mr. Speaker, this is our rule book. This is our sacred\nscripture in this body. There is nothing in here, Mr. Speaker, that\nprohibits a censure; there is no impediment in our Constitution to a\ncensure. In fact we have censured and rebuked and criticized Presidents\nthree times, in 1834, in 1842, in 1860, and we have impeached a\nPresident once.\n There is precedent, Mr. Speaker. There is no prohibition or\nprevention to censure, and it is unfair and against our own rules not\nto let us vote.\n Finally, let me quote from Benjamin Franklin, who said after the\nConvention when he was asked what have you wrought with this\nConstitution? And he said:\n ``A republic, if you can keep it.''\n Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is sacred scripture, and it applies\nevenly and fairly to all of its people, all of its institutions,\nincluding the presidency.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for rebuttal.\n Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from\nIndiana (Mr. Roemer) and I would only respond by saying impeachment is\nthe only power in the Constitution granted to Congress to address\npresidential criminal misconduct in the derelict exercise of his\nduties. The censure resolution that was offered the Committee on the\nJudiciary in fact has findings of guilt with a punishment. It is\nprohibitive then of a bill of attainder and is therefore\nunconstitutional. A temptation to take the easy way out by assuming a\npower not specifically granted in the Constitution should be shunned.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).\n (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us.\nThis debate is not about the President, it is about the presidency. It\nis not about marital infidelity or contrition, as tragic as that might\nbe, but it is about lying under oath, and it is not about contorted\nlegalese to create the appearance of truth, it is about facing the\nunderlying facts, facing the reality of what we all know has happened\nhere.\n Mr. Speaker, no citizen should ever be above the law, and if my\ncolleagues believe, as I do, that President Clinton knowingly made\nperjurious, false and misleading statements under oath to a grand jury\nand in sworn affidavits, that he attempted to corruptly influence the\ntestimony of witnesses and potential witnesses, then we must support\nthis resolution.\n\n {time} 1730\n\n Let us pray that 1998 not be the year that we create a sovereign\nruler; rather, let it be the moment when we reaffirm the principle of\nequal justice for all. I urge support of the pending resolution.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman\nfrom Illinois (Mr. Hastert).\n (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that there is clear and\nconvincing evidence that the President lied under oath, obstructed\njustice and abused the powers of his office in an attempt to cover up\nhis wrongdoing. I regret that the President's behavior puts me in the\nposition of having to vote in favor of articles of impeachment and pass\nthis matter on to the U.S. Senate for final judgment.\n In facing this solemn duty, I look to the wisdom of our Founding\nFathers. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, impeachment\nconcerns ``offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or\nin other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust.''\n The evidence in President Clinton's case is overwhelming, that he has\nabused and violated the public trust. In this Nation, all men are\ncreated equal. Simply put, the President in our representative\ndemocracy is not a sovereign who is above the law. Tomorrow I shall\ncast a difficult vote.\n The President's inability to abide by the law, the Constitution and\nmy conscience have all led me to the solemn conclusion that impeachment\narticles must be passed.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nNew York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee.\n Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) says\nthat a censure resolution would be unconstitutional. The Congressional\nResearch Service says that a censure resolution is an exercise of the\nimplicit power of a deliberative right to express its views. The\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) offered House Resolution 433,\ndisapproving the President's conduct with respect to campaign\nfinancial.\n What is the distinction, why did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.\nHyde) make the censure resolution offered in committee in order? Was he\nexercising an unconstitutional prerogative?\n I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).\n Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I say that the censure resolution that was\noffered has specific findings of guilt and therefore makes it\nunconstitutional in its form.\n Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what about the\nresolution of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nIndiana (Mr. Roemer).\n Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Michigan for\nyielding me time.\n Mr. Speaker, in our House rules manual, it explicitly states, ``In\nthe modern practice, concurrent resolutions have been developed as a\nmeans of expressing principles, opinions and purposes of the two\nHouses.''\n Thomas Jefferson said principles, opinions and purposes could be\nexpressed in the form of resolutions.\n\n[[Page H11860]]\n\n What better person to go to than Thomas Jefferson?\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/4\\ minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).\n (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in America's\nhistory, especially because everything leading up to today's vote has\nbeen so unfair. Ken Starr's investigation was unfair. He even tried to\nentrap the President. His report was unfair, for he left out important\nexculpatory evidence. His presentation to the House Committee on the\nJudiciary was so unfair that his own ethics adviser resigned as a\nresult.\n The Speaker-designate's decision to deny the House and the American\npeople the right to vote on censure as an alternative is unfair. That\ndecision constitutes an obstruction of the justice that the American\npeople believe is warranted, censure; the justice that former President\nGerald Ford, who knows something about impeachment, believes is\nwarranted; that former Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole\nadvised this body; censure, not impeachment.\n You may have followed your conscience in deciding to vote for\nimpeachment, but you cannot be considered just if you deny those of us,\nI believe a majority of this body, I know a majority of the American\npublic, the right to vote on censure as an alternative to impeachment.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished\ngentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).\n (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the constitutional scholars testifying\nbefore the Committee on the Judiciary made it clear that there is a\nhigh threshold for impeachment.\n Not all crimes are impeachable offenses. The impeachment power is\nlimited to treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The\nword ``other'' means impeachment is limited to crimes similar to\nbribery and treason, threatening the basic integrity of government.\n The charges against President Clinton fall well below this standard.\nWhen you cut through the rhetoric about rule of law, abuse of power,\ncivil rights cases, at bottom the allegations are that the President\ntried to conceal an embarrassing private relationship. These efforts at\nconcealment came in the Paula Jones lawsuit, a civil lawsuit. The\nrelationship being concealed was that between the President and Ms.\nLewinsky, and it was only tangentially relevant to the lawsuit, which\nwas subsequently dismissed.\n In any event, in his grand jury testimony, the President admitted an\nimproper intimate relationship. For that, he deserves censure.\n As the majority in the House marches in lock-step to thwart the will\nof a majority of the electorate, it is worth recalling that the House\nRepublicans came to power claiming that the Congress was out of touch\nwith the real America. How hollow this claim rings today, when two-\nthirds of the electorate opposes removal of the President through\nimpeachment.\n If the Republican majority were truly concerned about the views of\nthe real America, they would support the remedy which a majority of the\npeople support, a censure resolution permitting the President to stay\nin office. But the Republican leadership, which in the past complained\nvociferously about limitations on the amendment process, is so\ndetermined to win, that it is unwilling to allow even a vote on\ncensure. Apparently they fear that they would lose this vote and that\nthe will of a majority of the electorate would prevail.\n What could be more contrary to the rhetoric of the Reagan and Bush\nAdministrations than this vote, in which Republican ``Washington\ninsiders'' will decide that they know better than the public outside\nthe beltway. Indeed, the Republicans' zeal to remove the President is\nso intense that they are willing to ignore not only the wishes of the\npeople, but the morale of our troops in combat, and even the letter and\nthe spirit of the Constitution.\n Under the separation of powers which is fundamental to our\nConstitution, the President and the Congress are separate and\nindependent. Ours is not a parliamentary system in which the\nlegislative and executive functions are merged. In a parliamentary\nsystem the legislature removes the executive when it disagrees with\nhim, and the legislative majority is expected to enact the executive's\nprogram without question. Under our system, the two branches are\nseparate, and only in extraordinary circumstances can the legislature\nbreach the independence of the executive and remove the President by\nimpeachment.\n The Constitutional scholars testifying before the Judiciary Committee\nmade it clear that there is a high threshold for impeachment. Not all\ncrimes are impeachable offenses; the impeachment power is limited to\n``treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The term\n``other'' indicates that impeachment is limited to crimes which are\nsimilar to bribery and treason in threatening the basic integrity of\ngovernment.\n The charges against President Clinton fall well below this standard.\nWhen we cut through all the high flown rhetoric about the rule of law,\nabuse of power and civil right cases (incidentally, when was the last\ntime the Republicans called a sexual harassment case a civil rights\ncase) we have, at bottom, allegations that the President tried to\nconceal an embarrassing private relationship. The first efforts at\nconcealment came in the civil lawsuit by Paula Jones. The relationship\nwhich was being concealed, that of the President and Ms. Lewinsky, was\nonly tangentially relevant to Paula Jones' lawsuit. In any event, Ms.\nJones' lawsuit was subsequently dismissed.\n In his grand jury testimony, the President admitted that he had an\nimproper, intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. At worst, the\nPresident lied about the exact nature of some of his intimate actions.\nIt is hard to see how these alleged lies could constitute ``great and\ndangerous offenses'' or ``attempts to subvert the constitution'' which\nshould be the basis for an impeachment, according to George Mason, one\nof our founding fathers.\n When I say that not all crimes warrant impeachment, I am not saying\nthat I approve of a President committing crimes. What I am saying is\nthat the purpose of the impeachment process is not to punish crimes,\nbut to remove a President who has misused the powers of his office. If\nPresident Clinton committed the crimes alleged here, these crimes\nshould be dealt with in a criminal proceeding or a judicial contempt\nproceeding after he leaves office. I emphasize that it is not clear\nthat crimes were in fact committed. Many of the scholars and\nprosecutors who testified before the Judiciary Committee concluded that\nthe evidence presented against President Clinton would not have\nresulted in the prosecution of an ordinary citizen.\n There are other means for the Congress to deal with misconduct by the\nPresident which falls short of the impeachment standard. Congress has\nthe power to pass a censure resolution, expressing our condemnation.\nThe impeachment process, which requires removal from office, must be\nreserved for extraordinary cases. If we lower the bar for impeachment,\nwe seriously weaken the Presidency by giving a Congress controlled by\nthe opposition party virtually unlimited power to subject a President\nto an all-consuming removal process.\n The majority party has tried since January to convince the people\nthat the President should be removed from office. Two thirds of the\npublic remains unconvinced despite being bombarded daily with the facts\nof this case. I am astonished and deeply distressed by the procedural\ntravesty to which the minority has been subjected: denial of our right\nto offer and have a vote on a motion of censure. What does the majority\nfear of a vote on censure? Are they afraid that it might pass, with\nsome of their own members voting for censure rather than impeachment?\nApparently fear of falling short of their objective of removing\nPresident Clinton from office is driving the procedural unfairness to\nwhich we have been subjected.\n The majority still has time to be fair so be fair so be fair to us\nand to the American people by allowing a vote on censure, which I would\nsupport.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished\ngentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).\n (Mr. DeFazio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Member after Member has risen on the other\nside and said the President should not be above the law. He is not. Ken\nStarr is free to prosecute the President, indict him, perhaps while in\noffice, but definitely after.\n It is not ordinary criminal or civil law in question in this debate,\nit is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution regarding impeachment.\nImpeachment is a special punishment reserved for the President of the\nUnited States and other Federal civil officers.\n The founders set an incredibly high bar for impeachment.\nConstitutional scholars all agree, the framers of the Constitution did\nnot want a President to be impeached simply because a majority of the\nMembers of Congress disagreed with his policies or found his morals\nrepugnant.\n The Republican majority has not raised and proven offenses that meet\n\n[[Page H11861]]\n\nthose standards. Rather they have met the standards met by Gerald Ford\n25 years ago. He said an impeachable offense is anything 218 Members of\nthe House will vote for.\n That is an unconstitutional and cynical standard. The alternative of\ncensure would serve as well in this matter. A near unanimous House\ncould deliver a stinging and historic rebuke to the President with a\nmotion of censure, and we will be denied that vote, and we are denied\nsufficient time to speak on the floor.\n Member after Member on the Republican side has stood to plead the\nforce of law--that no citizen no matter how powerful should be above\nthe law.\n There is total agreement on that point. The President should not be\nabove the law for purposes of criminal prosecution. Mr. Starr is free\nto attempt to indict the President for criminal wrongdoing--if not\nwhile the President sits in office he could certainly be prosecuted in\n2 years after leaving office.\n It is not ordinary criminal or civil law in question during this\ndebate. The law that binds the House of Representatives in this\nproceeding is the Constitution of the United States article 2 Section 4\nregarding Impeachment for ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and\nMisdemeanors.''\n Impeachment is a special punishment reserved for the President and\nother federal civil officers.\n The Founders set an incredibly high bar for impeachment: At the time\nof the Constitutional Convention, ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' had\n400 years of precedent in English law--it meant serious official\nmisconduct and abuse of the powers of the government by the King or one\nof his officers.\n Alexander Hamilton characterized impeachable offenses as\n``political'' actions that involve injuries done to the society itself.\nGeorge Mason spoke of ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.''\n Constitutional Scholars all agree that the framers of the\nConstitution did not want a President to be impeached simply because a\nmajority of Members of Congress disagreed with his policies or found\nhis morals repugnant. We do not have a parliamentary system of\ngovernment where a Prime Minister can be removed from office at any\ntime. A strong and independent Presidency is vital to our\nConstitutional order.\n Now the leaders of the Republican majority have puffed up with a\nbooming voice much like the puny wizard in the Wizard of Oz in an\nattempt to raise the President's outrageous, reckless and morally\noffensive behavior to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. He\nlied to the American people and offered misleading and possibly\nperjurious testimony in a civil trial and a grand jury proceeding.\nThese are not trivial matters. The question is simply whether the\nspecial Constitutional remedy of impeachment should be invoked for\nthese particular offenses.\n The Wizards on the other side have puffed up these offenses to Abuse\nof Power and Obstruction of Justice, and Perjury in their Articles of\nImpeachment.\n The Republican Majority has not raised and proven offenses that meet\nthe standards set by our founders. Rather they have met the standard\nuttered by Former President Ford a quarter of Century ago--that\nimpeachable offenses are whatever 218 Members of the House of\nRepresentatives say they are. That is an incredibly cynical and\nunconstitutional standard, yet that is what is revealed when we rip the\ncurtain of puffery from the rhetoric of the other side.\n The Alternative of Censure would serve us well in this matter. A near\nunanimous House could deliver a stinging and historic rebuke to the\nPresident with a motion of censure.\n But, after cutting the Constitutional legs out from under standards\nfor impeachment the Republican leaders would have the House believe\nthat the Constitution's silence on the issue of Censure means it is\nConstitutionally barred from consideration. It is not Constitutionally\nbarred it is politically precluded because the Republican leaders\nfeared that had the option of censure been before this House along with\nthe option of impeachment Censure would have garnered more support.\n The procedures followed in bringing these Articles of Impeachment to\nthe floor at this time, in this manner with no option for censure are\nabuse of power by the leaders of the Majority. This is a tragic day in\nthe history of the United States House of Representatives and a tragic\nturn of events for our sacred system of government. The repercussions\nwill reverberate in our society for decades to come.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished\ngentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).\n (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, halfway around the\nworld, our troops are engaged in battle, at a time that we are here\ntalking about doing in the commander-in-chief. I deplore that, because\nthey are trying to do away with a dictator who has weapons of mass\ndestruction that he will use. As a Vietnam veteran, a veteran of the\nVietnam era, I know what it means to serve and have the Commander in\nChief under siege.\n I voted in October for the committee to move forward. I am ashamed\nthat they did not come back with a joint resolution without it being\npartisan and unfair and politicized, and I am ashamed of this body. I\ncame here to do the people's business. Tonight we are not doing the\npeople's business, we are doing partisan business, and that is unfair.\nThe American people will recognize it is unfair, and they are going to\nmake us pay the price for being unfair and for being partisan.\n I say if we could vote our conscience, we would vote for censure. The\nSpeaker-elect said we should vote our conscience, and you are not\nallowing us to do it, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished\ngentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).\n Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very\nunfair attack on President Clinton and our Constitution. The partisan\nassault which we are witnessing today is especially painful to me,\nbecause when I was elected to Congress I had the privilege of taking\nover the seat which had, up until that time, been held by the Honorable\nPeter Rodino.\n During the Watergate hearings in 1974, Chairman Rodino won the\nrespect and admiration of the entire Nation for his insistence on\nfairness, his profound respect for the U.S. Constitution and his\nimpeccable sense of decorum. The Committee on the Judiciary and the\nCongress at this time have not done the job, and it has been done in a\npartisan way.\n Mr. Speaker, I think the American people see this action for what it\nis today. Is it not remarkable when a Democratic President engages in a\nsecret affair, the Republicans leap to impeach him, but when a\nRepublican leader engages in the same conduct, they leap on their feet\nto give him a standing ovation?\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).\n (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Articles I, II and\nIII.\n These votes today are defining votes--cast not for political position\nor popularity but for purposes of confirming the integrity of the most\nprecious and essential element of a free society--the right of all\ncitizens to trust and rely upon a system of justice which is blind to\ninfluence and oblivious to position or status. It is also a vote that\nhas implications for a modern society--that inextricably links our\nAmerican justice system with our political system. Justice and politics\nshould be linked. Our votes reflect our values and those of our\nconstituents.\n The evidence is persuasive to me that President Clinton's offenses\njustify my vote in support of articles 1, 2 and 3. The President's\nlegal breaches have a greater negative impact on our society than the\ninherent damage of his moral lapses. This is because our system of\njustice relies on the collection of evidence that leads ultimately to\nthe truth in legal proceedings. Only with truth and reliable facts can\njustice under the law be fairly dispensed. And a free people must have\nfaith in our legal system if we are to have an orderly and lawful\nsociety.\n Presidents have a high standard of conduct to uphold. By their deeds\nand words, they should encourage the rest of us to reach for that\nstandard, too. High standards include and embrace respect for the law.\nTelling the truth in a legal setting should be the unquestionable\nobligation of any President, and any person. President Clinton failed\nin that simple obligation too frequently for his actions to be\nconsidered an oversight or misunderstanding. His conduct should not be\nallowed to become the new standard for our nation which historically\nhas revered those who personify dignity, truth, self-sacrifice and\nhonor.\n We have no choice but to make this difficult judgment. To do\notherwise would be a breach of the trust that citizens should have, not\nonly in the President's standards, but in our own. My vote will be true\nto my Constitutional oath, and I pray to God that my judgment is right.\n\n[[Page H11862]]\n\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).\n (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the four articles of\nimpeachment.\n As a former law enforcement official, I have helped put people in\njail based on the strength of witness testimony. Our entire judicial\nsystem must rest on the sure and solid foundation that witnesses tell\nthe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under solemn\noath.\n Beyond a reasonable doubt, William Jefferson Clinton willfully and\npurposely committed perjury. He did so with alarming forethought,\nfrequency, and disregard for the law.\n In a separate solemn oath, his oath of office, William Jefferson\nClinton swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United\nStates and the laws of this nation. He has failed to keep his word,\nwhich has brought us to this sad and historic day.\n If you believe that President Clinton perjured himself, and I do, and\nif you believe that perjury is a serious matter, and we must, then we\nhave a duty to pass these painful but necessary articles of\nimpeachment.\n President Clinton and apologists for him have tried to make this a\ndebate about anything other than the rule of law. They want to make it\na debate about the man and the circumstances surrounding his actions.\nBut we are a nation of laws, and the fundamental question must be\nwhether William Jefferson Clinton violated the law.\n The facts of this case are well known. Neither the President nor his\ndefenders have countered them effectively. Indeed, on this fundamental\nquestion, the President's team has presented no real defense. They have\nsaid that it is just about sex. They have said that he misled, but he\ndid not lie. They have said that a reasonable person might conclude\nthat he lied, but he did not commit perjury. They have said that even\nif you believe that he committed perjury, it is not an impeachable\noffense. They have attempted to change the subject any number of times.\n However, Mr. Speaker, you cannot explain away that fact that there\nare people sitting in prison now for making perjurious statements under\noath. I have to ask my liberal friends if they have an elitist view of\nthe Constitution. Why should the President be treated differently? Is\nhe, alone, above the law?\n I have yet to meet the Democrat who believes that Republican\nPresidents are above the law, yet we seem to have an abundance of those\nwho believe that this President should be able to lie under oath and\nget away with nothing more than a stern lecture.\n That is what a resolution of censure would amount to--a stern lecture\nfrom Congress with no legal underpinning. It would be an extra-\nconstitutional concoction designed to make its proponents feel better\nwhile doing absolutely nothing.\n Censure may be an easy way out, but it is not a real option. The\nConstitution gave us no middle ground, which is as it should be. Either\nthe House votes to impeach and refer the matter to the Senate, or it\ndoes not. It is a bright line, and I know on which side I must cast my\nvotes.\n We have seen a lot of bright lines blurred in our society in recent\nyears. Moral relativism abounds. In this case, I have heard the most\namazing rationalizations: That it is wrong to lie under oath, unless\nyou are lying about sex. That it is wrong to lie about sexual\nharassment, unless the woman in question was asking for it. That it is\nwrong to commit perjury, but if you are really, really sorry, we can\nforget about it. This kind of logic only makes sense to those bent on\ndefending the indefensible.\n The scandals of recent years have desensitized our culture and\ndenigrated our society. Beyond the White House scandals, such\ntravesties as a celebrity former athlete literally getting away with\nmurder and a physician killing a patient on national television have\ncontributed to the notion that those with adequate legal defense funds\nare not accountable to the law.\n President Clinton lied repeatedly, with forethought, in civil\nlitigation, before a federal grand jury, and in response to questions\nposed by the House Judiciary Committee. He obstructed justice in\nnumerous ways. His deputies have systematically attempted to destroy\nthose who dare to oppose him. He has shown contempt for the truth, the\nlaw, the Congress, and his fellow citizens.\n Section 4, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the\nPresident ``shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and\nconviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors.'' The threshold question is whether the President, at a\nminimum, committed a high misdemeanor. Who can seriously doubt that he\nhas?\n President William Jefferson Clinton should be impeached by the House\nof Representatives and the matter referred to the U.S. Senate. It is\nour solemn responsibility, and we must not flinch from it.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Indiana (Mr. Pease), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.\n Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary, I have spent the greater part of the last several months\nreviewing the terms which were assigned to us by action of the House.\nIt has not been an easy task, especially as I struggled to maintain\nobjectivity in the face of intense pressures from across the political\nspectrum.\n It seemed that everyone had an opinion, usually very firmly held, and\nthat anyone of any other opinion was not only wrong, but wrongly\nmotivated as well.\n I accepted that, though I was discouraged with my own inability to\nconvey to others an understanding that people could hold strong\nconvictions without questioning the motives of those who differed with\nthem, and that all matters, but especially those as momentous as these,\nmust be approached with respect for all involved and the institutions\nwhich we cherish.\n As I have drawn the conclusions which my position on the committee\nrequired me to address, the level of rancor here and in my district has\nincreased, and again it has been across the political spectrum.\nEverything from my judgment, to my patriotism, to my motives, to my\nprofessional and personal life have been attacked by people who\nobviously feel passionately about the issues before us.\n I understand that too, but feel deeply my failure to persuade others\nthat issues of high importance, perhaps most especially issues of high\nimportance, can and should be debated, not free of passion, but\ncertainly free of vilification and personal attack.\n I have tried at all times to conduct myself accordingly. If nothing\nelse, I hope I have made that contribution to this conversation.\n Members of the committee have worked, I believe, honestly, sincerely\nand under extraordinarily difficult circumstances to do their jobs. We\nhave differed on many things, from the role of the committee, to the\nstandard of proof, to the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.\nOn several of them there was agreement, but I have never questioned the\nmotives of my colleagues or my constituents.\n Among the issues the committee addressed was that of censure. As we\nwent into that discussion, I did not know whether this was an\nappropriate option for us to consider, but I felt the instructions of\nthe House allowed us to review it. As one who hoped to find both the\nright answer and one that most of us could support, I felt that we\nmust.\n We did, and through the course of the discussion it became clear that\nthe meaning of censure and its place in a constitutional construct was\nunclear. Aside from the constitutional discussion of whether either the\nHouse or the Senate, neither or both, could impose a censure, there was\nnot even agreement on whether a resolution of censure was intended to\npunish or not.\n\n {time} 1745\n\n After long debate, my conclusion on that subject is simply this: If\ncensure is intended as a punishment of the President, it is\nspecifically constitutionally prohibited as a bill of attainder. If\ncensure is not intended as a punishment of the President, it is\nmeaningless.\n I have not researched the options available to the Senate, but for\nthe House, I am convinced that this option is not available.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Hinojosa).\n Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in our Nation's history.\nI say this because the stage has been set today to impeach our\nPresident against the will of the American people. This action is\npartisan, this action is wrong, this action is unconscionable.\n How can we say this is a political democracy when an overwhelming\nmajority of the American people have clearly stated they want our\nPresident to remain in office? How can we say this is a political\ndemocracy when an overwhelming majority of the American people have\nsaid they want to see us\n\n[[Page H11863]]\n\nnegotiate a compromise? How can we undo the last two presidential\nelections and say to the American people, your votes do not matter? Are\nwe a democracy or are we not?\n I do not intend to stand by idly and be a party to what I will again\nsay is quite obviously an unfair process. I was elected to this\nCongress to represent the people, and that is precisely what I intend\nto by casting my vote against impeachment.\n Compromise! Conscience! Censure! That is what must be the order of\nthe day. It is the only fair way the American people can be\nrepresented.\n Formal censure by the entire Congress is the only way to express the\ndisdain of the American people for the President's actions. It is a\nfitting and constitutionally valid punishment, and one, I should add,\nthat polls show a majority of the public prefers.\n Those who claim otherwise rely on the argument that the Constitution\ndoes not mention censure. There are those who say it's ``impeachment or\nnothing,'' when, in fact, a score of Constitutional experts called as\nwitnesses by both Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee\nagreed in writing--by a margin of almost 4 to 1--that the Constitution\ndoes not prohibit censure.\n The Framers of the Constitution, anticipating the political\nvulnerability of the Presidency to opposing factions in Congress,\nestablished a threshold for impeachment which is very high--``treason,\nbribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' This high threshold\nshould be maintained, and as I have said before, the President's\nactions have never compromised the security of this nation; so what\nwe're left talking about is private activity which reflects on moral\ncharacter. That is not what our Founding Fathers intended to be\nimpeachable offenses--unforgivable perhaps, but not impeachable.\n The conduct which is the basis for the Judiciary Committee's\nrecommendation of impeachment--perjury, and related actions regarding\npersonal sexual misconduct--is not of the same legal magnitude as the\ncrimes set forth in the Constitution. There is no credible evidence\nthat the President's actions undermined the integrity of our Democratic\ninstitutions, cast doubt on his loyalty to the country, or prevented\nhis ability to execute his duties as President. Again, while his\noffenses are real, they are not impeachable.\n To impeach the President for the offenses charged by the Judiciary\nCommittee would be to lower the threshold for impeachment for all\nfuture Presidents, and lowering the threshold in this way would pose a\nthreat to the system of checks and balances and separation of powers\nthat form the foundation of our system of Democratic governance. This\nwould indeed be grave.\n I said at the onset of this investigation that I would base my\nactions on the evidence of record. Based on the evidence, a\nCongressional action short of impeachment--such as censure for\nunacceptable conduct--seems to strike the right balance and to best\nserve the interests of our nation and its people.\n To not allow a vote on a censure resolution amounts to only one\nthing--a decision by the Republican leadership to ignore the will of\nthe American people. That is wrong. It is an example of the tyranny our\nforefathers sought to escape when they founded this great nation.\n I will vote my conscience today. I will vote to reflect the will of\nthe people. I will vote against partisanship and against impeachment. I\nwill cast my vote for Democracy.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nConnecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).\n (Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Republicans no longer\ncome to the floor to tell us they are for small government, because\nthey are involved in the ultimate big government act. They are\nattempting to take away from the people the decision of who will\npreside over this great country.\n When we saw Khruschev removed by the Politburo, no one ran tears. He\nwas not elected by the people; he was appointed by an unelected body.\nWhen we see coups and coups d'etat, the removal of elected presidents\nin Third World countries, we are saddened that they have not developed\nto a stage where they have the institutional instincts for debate\nwithout trying to criminalize the process of differing views.\n But here in this House today, the Republican Party ignores what the\nConstitution asks us to do. The President, for his criminal acts, if\nthey exist, is left to the normal criminal process. We are here to\njudge if he undermined the United States in his office. Did he indeed\ntake actions that were deemed necessary for removal? The answer is no.\nVote against this proposal.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Hinchey).\n (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in our recent history, Barbara Jordan gave\nus the best short definition of an impeachable offense during the\nimpeachment hearings on President Nixon when she said she would not\ntolerate the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the\nConstitution. President Clinton stands accused of something far short\nof that standard.\n By now I think most Americans have concluded that the President has\nnot subverted the Constitution. He has not undermined our system of\ngovernment. This impeachment punishes the country. It robs us of the\ntime and attention that we should be devoting to other matters. It\nsubverts the official duties of the President. It forces us to endure a\ntrauma that serves no practical purpose. It opens up the possibility\nthat the country will be forced to endure similar suspensions of the\nNation's business again and again if future Presidents face penalties\nfor any charges that a hostile prosecutor or a congressional majority\ncan find.\n Let us reserve impeachment for high crimes that betray the American\npeople and our system of democracy. The charges against the President\ndo not meet that standard.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTennessee (Mr. Clement).\n Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk today about the\nrule of law. I wish I could have heard talk about the rule of fairness.\nWhy could we not have debated and voted on Monday after the bombing\nceased in Iraq? Why could not the majority party let us vote on a\ncensure proposal where all of us in the United States House of\nRepresentatives could have voted our conscience?\n Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the majority party, it makes me wonder\nif they think the President had not been punished at all yet. The\nPresident has been punished. He has been humiliated. He has been\nembarrassed. He has paid a high price at home, as well as with the\nAmerican people, as well as the people all across the world.\n Mr. Speaker, where our finest hour has been is when we have known how\nto compromise. That is our finest hour in the United States House of\nRepresentatives. But how do we compromise when we just have one point\nof view?\n Vote against impeachment, and give us the opportunity to vote on\ncensure.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nOklahoma (Mr. Istook).\n (Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, the President was given the opportunity to\npresent witnesses or evidence which would dispute the facts. He did\nnot. His legal hair-splitting defense could not alter the simple truth:\nThe President lied, and lied under oath.\n Here is what convinced me that this perjury is an impeachable offense\nand not simply a moral failure. These were not lies told under sudden\npressure when he was unexpectedly asked embarrassing questions. The\nPresident's lies were planned well in advance. They were premeditated.\nHe knowingly acted to block justice, even after a Federal judge ruled\nhis behavior was relevant and material. He orchestrated a deliberate\nscheme to tell multiple lies under oath on multiple occasions many\nmonths apart. Even today, he has admitted only what he has been forced\nto admit and otherwise continues to stonewall.\n This was not a spur-of-the-moment decision to hide personal shame. He\nhad ample time to correct his course, but instead chose to defy the\nlaws of our land.\n Mr. Speaker, I will vote to impeach.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nJersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).\n Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.\nWe have before us the evidence as presented by all responsible parties,\nas well as the thoughts of so many constituents who feel strongly that\ntheir views should be reflected in the votes we cast.\n After reviewing so much of the evidence, I believe it is now clear\nthat the\n\n[[Page H11864]]\n\nPresident has violated both his oath of office and the oath he took to\ntell the truth. In doing so, Bill Clinton not only committed perjury,\nhe violated the public trust. I will, therefore, vote in favor of\nimpeachment.\n While I know that some will disagree, and strongly so, with my\ndecision, I reached it after much thought, deliberation and soul-\nsearching. When this sad chapter in our history is closed, I will have\nvoted the way I did because I have shared with my two teenage daughters\nand thousands of other school children the fact that the truth still\nmatters and always will and, finally, that a vote of conscience is\nalways the right vote.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that since\nbeginning the debate at 12:15, the Republican side has used 2 hours and\n16 minutes, and the Democratic side has used 2 hours and 26 minutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.\n Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond. The gentleman\nfrom Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) just said that we gave the President an\nopportunity to call witnesses, to prove his innocence. Since when is\nthe burden of proof in this country on the person being accused?\n You have the obligation to provide a case before the Committee on the\nJudiciary, and you did not provide a single material witness in this\ncase. Not one witness. And then they get up before this House and say\nthe President had an opportunity to bring witnesses to prove his\ninnocence. You had the obligation to provide the witnesses that would\nhave proved the charges before this House, and you did not provide one\nwitness.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nHawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).\n (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think I am perhaps the only Member\nhere who won an election and lost an election on the same day. I won a\nspecial election in 1986 and lost a primary on the same day. As a\nresult, I was the last person to be sworn into this body by Tip O'Neill\nbefore he retired.\n What I remember from that short time that I was here, not knowing\nwhether I would come back, is remarks from Tip O'Neill and remarks from\nthe gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Both of them said to me in the\nshort time I was here, whether you are here 3 weeks, as I was, or\nwhether you are here for 30 years, this is the people's House. This is\nthe House of democracy.\n That lesson was given to me by Tip O'Neill and the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Hyde). To not have the availability to us today to vote\non a censure motion is to take away the fundamental sense of fairness\nthat made me so proud to have been able to come to Hawaii 40 years ago,\nnever knowing that I would have the chance to serve in this House and\nto be denied the opportunity now to vote on an alternative, a\nreasonable alternative that was emphasized by the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Hyde) and Tip O'Neill is a travesty.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Gutierrez).\n Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich)\nwas always proud to remind us that he was a professor of history, so he\ncould tell us about the Constitutional Convention, where it was decided\nthat a President could be removed from office for high crimes and\nmisdemeanors, or he could tell us that censure was weighed and\nexercised against chief executives in the 19th century.\n Let me be clear. No one is condoning the President's behavior, and if\nwe had the chance, we would vote to condemn it. To take poetic license\nfrom Mark Anthony's words from Julius Caesar, I do not come here to\npraise Bill Clinton, but I do not intend to see him buried either,\nburied under an avalanche of innuendo and salacious scandal. Nor do I\nwish to see this Congress play the role of Brutus, reaching across the\ncenturies to stab in the back the founders of our democracy who\nentrusted us with their legacy.\n No one is attempting to defend the President. We are trying to defend\na historical precedent. The voters spoke and they said they were sick\nof this partisan political process, sick of this extraordinarily\nexpensive exhaustive examination of an extramarital affair. History\ntells us what to do. Vote against impeachment of the President of the\nUnited States.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nGeorgia (Ms. McKinney).\n Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with sadness in my heart. It\nis a sad day for our republic.\n Today, the Republican leadership in the House has proven that they\nare, in fact, the minority party. The Republican leadership represents\nthe minority view on impeachment, on health care reform, on tax cuts to\nbenefit the wealthy, and on protecting and preserving the social safety\nnet.\n Today, the Republican leaders have chosen to trample the Constitution\nwith partisan arrogance in order to strike a political blow against\nPresident Bill Clinton. Today, the American people clearly oppose\nimpeachment.\n But the Republican leaders, blind above their own sanctimonious piety\nand hypocrisy, have chosen to push our Nation to the brink, the brink\nof a constitutional crisis for their own political benefit.\n Today, House Republicans held Bill Clinton to a standard that neither\nthe current Speaker, nor the Speaker-elect could meet. Today, our last\nbest hope is that the Senate will be a place where reason takes the\nplace of revenge.\n I cast my vote against impeachment today because that is what my\nconstituents want, and because I know that that is the right thing to\ndo.\n Today, the Republicans decided that in order to save America, they\nhad to destroy it.\n\n {time} 1800\n\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nArkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time\nto me.\n Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts.\nHe did have one thing right, and that is the burden of proof is on\nthose going forward with impeachment. But that burden of proof was met\nwith 60,000 pages of documents, an independent review by the Committee\non the Judiciary, and the key point is that there has not been one\nchallenge to the evidence in the Committee on the Judiciary, nor\nchallenge to the facts today. Also, in addition to providing the\ntestimony of the witnesses, the President's counsel did not dispute it.\n The evidence has been established and not refuted. We have made our\ncase on that. Today, any dispute about that today----\n Mr. MEEHAN. Everything was challenged in the report.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is out of order.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTennessee (Mr. Duncan).\n (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these articles of\nimpeachment because of the very serious allegations of felonies\ncontained in them.\n I spent 7\\1/2\\ years as a criminal court judge trying felony criminal\ncases prior to coming to Congress. Many experts have pointed out that\nthe role of the House is really that of a grand jury. A grand jury is\nrequired to indict any time there is a reasonable possibility that a\ncrime has been committed.\n Like a grand jury, I believe the House has no choice but to impeach\nwhen we have a report, an official report of felony offenses having\nbeen committed. Jerome Siefman, the former Democratic chief counsel of\nthe Committee on the Judiciary, wrote recently that in his view,\n``There is now more than substantial evidence to consider that the\nPresident has committed impeachable offenses, and that the Congress has\na moral, ethical, and constitutional responsibility to vote to impeach\nin this situation.''\n As a speaker earlier this morning mentioned, the Justice Department\nduring this administration has prosecuted 700 people for perjury type\noffenses. One of our leading syndicated\n\n[[Page H11865]]\n\ncolumnists summed up by asking, are we people of the Constitution?\n Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these Articles of Impeachment\nbecause of the very serious allegations of felonies contained in them.\n Before coming to Congress, I spent 7\\1/2\\ years as a criminal court\njudge trying felony criminal cases.\n Unfortunately, I believe some Members of Congress are forgetting,\nignoring, or perhaps do not understand the proper role of the House in\nan impeachment proceeding.\n Also, I had lunch with former Senator Howard Baker this week, and he\nsaid many people are missing a very key difference between the\nimpeachment proceedings today and at the time of the Watergate\nhearings.\n Senator Baker said those who wishfully talk about the bipartisan\nnature of Watergate are forgetting or overlooking the fact that many\nRepublicans came forward then and put aside their partisanship even\nthough it went against a President of their own party.\n Today, not only are almost all Democratic Members siding with the\nPresident, they are adopting his strategy of attacking his attackers in\na very partisan, very aggressive manner.\n Republicans have been criticized by many on the national media for\nbeing partisan. However, in reality, we should take lessons from the\nDemocratic members of the Judiciary Committee on how to be partisan.\n We cannot hold a candle to the other party when it comes to\npartisanship.\n Democrats, almost in lockstep fashion, are saying they find the\nPresident's behavior reprehensive, But . . .\n This ``but'' is about as big as ``but'' can be and essentially means\nthe President should once again get away with things no once else could\nget away with.\n As to the House's proper role in an impeachment, it is really that of\na grand jury.\n Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University,\nsaid in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee:\n\n The roles of the House and Senate roughly resemble the\n classic grand jury and petit jury models. Under the\n Constitution, the House functions much like a grand jury.\n Like a grand jury, the House does not rule on the merits of\n impeachment allegations, a function given exclusively to the\n Senate.\n\n The Washington Times wrote:\n\n The Constitutional system of impeachment gives the House\n the role of grand jury. The only decision to make is whether\n the bulk of unproven information presents a prima facie case\n that needs to be tried by the Senate.\n\n The Atlanta Constitution stated that:\n\n The U.S. Constitution makes the House of Representatives a\n grand jury and the Senate a trial court for impeachment\n proceedings, but it does not spell out how each body should\n handle its responsibilities.\n\n I do not think the grand jury system is fair, and I believe it should\nbe changed or eliminated.\n However, unless or until the law is changed, a grand jury is required\nto indict someone if there is any reasonable possibility that a crime\nhas been committed.\n Our Founding Fathers envisioned that even some misdemeanors might\nrequire impeachment. Does anyone really believe they would have said we\nshould ignore or overlook felonies?\n We now have a report from the independent counsel, appointed by the\nPresident's own Attorney General, saying that the President has\ncommitted felony offenses.\n Jerome Ziefman wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal:\n\n As a lifelong Democrat and chief counsel of the House\n Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment\n inquiry, I believe I have a personal responsibility to speak\n out about the current impeachment crisis. And I believe my\n fellow Democrats on today's Judiciary Committee have a moral,\n ethical, and constitutional responsibility to vote to impeach\n President Clinton. Like most traditional Democrats--like most\n Americans--I have grave reservations about Mr. Clinton's\n morality and ethics. In my view there is now more than\n substantial evidence to consider our President a felon who\n has committed impeachable offenses.\n\n As one of our leading syndicated columnists summed up:\n\n Are we people of the Constitution? Are we a nation of laws?\n Do Americans believe that perjury, obstruction of justice and\n lying to a federal grand jury--all felonies for a private\n citizen are not felonies when done by a president? Is a\n president above the laws that bind other men?\n\n Senator Baker also told me at our lunch that the Senate could\nconclude this matter in one day if they really wanted to.\n I hope that if the House votes to impeach, the Senate moves quickly\nand that the President and his lawyers and supporters do not use the\nstall and delay tactics that have dragged this matter on too far\nalready.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Packard).\n (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, it is with heavy heart that I rise today in\nsupport of impeachment. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and\ndefend it against all enemies, and I would betray my conscience and my\ncountry if I were to ignore this oath. I rise in favor of impeachment\nbecause we all swore an oath, and I take my oaths very seriously, even\nthough the President does not.\n My first wish is that the President resign. Unfortunately, he has\nchosen to place his legacy ahead of our Nation's interest. Mr. Speaker,\nI will vote to send these articles of impeachment to the Senate.\n Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in support of\nthese articles of impeachment. Voting to impeach the President of the\nUnited States is not a responsibility I enjoy, and it is not one I take\nlightly. But I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend it\nagainst all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and I would betray my\nconscience and my country if I were to ignore this oath.\n I am not a lawyer. Nor am I an enemy of the President or a member of\nany ``right wing conspiracy.'' I am a father, a grandfather, and a\npublic servant. As a public servant, I cannot look away when those\nentrusted to enforce and uphold our laws choose instead to place their\npersonal interests ahead of the Nation's. And as a father and\ngrandfather, I cannot allow this President to escape accountability for\nviolating the laws he swore to uphold. To issue a ``slap on the wrist''\nto a leader who commits perjury, obstructs justice, and abuses his\npower would send a terrible message to American children. It would\nteach them that promises may be broken, that solemn oaths are no more\nthan mere words.\n Leaders should be worthy of the trust placed in them. President\nClinton betrayed this trust, and no hollow last-minute apologies or\nlegal hairsplitting can erase this betrayal. I remain convinced that a\nPresident cannot lead without the trust of the American people, and he\ncannot govern where he commands no respect.\n My first wish is that the President take responsibility for his\nactions and put a stop to this process. He should resign and allow us\nall to put this matter behind us. Unfortunately, he has chosen to place\nhis ``legacy'' ahead of our Nation's interests. As a result, Mr.\nSpeaker, we are bound by our oaths to fulfill our constitutional duty\nand vote to impeach him. The President of the United States broke the\nlaw, violated his oath, and dishonored himself and our country. No poll\nor posturing erases that fact. We must send a message that no one, no\nmatter how powerful or how popular, is above the law.\n Mr. Speaker, I will vote to send these articles of impeachment to the\nU.S. Senate for disposition. I do so because I swore an oath, and I\ntake my oaths very seriously. I do so because the President,\nunfortunately, does not.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Bilirakis).\n Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, but with\na solemn sense of duty, and that is to support all four articles of\nimpeachment against the President of the United States. I want to\nbelieve my president. I cannot. I hoped he would keep his promise to\nhave the most ethical administration in history. He did not.\n I want to accept his explanation that he did not lie under oath,\ncommit perjury, obstruction of justice, or abuse the power of his\noffice. However, his actions and comments over the past 11 months have\nshaken my confidence in his ability to distinguish truth from fiction.\n If you can't convince them, confuse them, President Harry Truman once\nquipped. Like many Americans, I have been confused by the President's\ndenials, admissions, declarations, and apologies over the past year. I\nhave no doubt, however, that the President has engaged in a clear and\ncalculated pattern of deception. The integrity of the presidency, Mr.\nSpeaker, must always take priority over the self-interest of the\ncurrent occupant of that office.\n Mr. Speaker, failing to hold the President accountable for his\nactions would create a dangerous double standard. To borrow a phrase\nfrom George Orwell's Animal Farm, we would be establishing a principle\nthat some Americans are more equal than others.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart--but with a solemn sense\nof duty--to support all four articles of impeachment against the\nPresident of the United States.\n Like most Americans, I have closely followed the Judiciary\nCommittee's proceedings in recent weeks. Over the past few days, I\n\n[[Page H11866]]\n\nhave carefully studied the Committee's findings and again reviewed the\navailable evidence. After serious consideration of these issues, I am\nconvinced that the President committed perjury, obstructed justice, and\nabused the power of his office.\n The Constitution of the United States empowers the House of\nRepresentatives to impeach public officials who engage in ``treason,\nbribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Impeachment is not a\npunishment. It is a process established by the Constitution to protect\nour democracy and preserve the rule of law.\n Historical writings on impeachment clearly define its role as a\ndemocratic safeguard. In Federalist Paper Number Sixty-Five, Alexander\nHamilton wrote that a President may be impeached for ``offenses which\nproceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the\nabuse of violation of some public trust.''\n James Madison explained the impeachment power at the 1787\nConstitutional Convention by stating that ``some provision should be\nmade for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or\nperfidy of the chief magistrate.''\n Our government is founded on the simple premise that ``all men are\ncreated equal.'' Equal justice under the law is more than a slogan. It\nis the bedrock principle that supports our democracy. It is too\nimportant to set aside simply to avoid unpleasant or inconvenient\nconsequences.\n Our President violated the public trust. His offenses arose from\nreckless personal misconduct, but they were very clearly public in\nnature. Perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power can hardly\nbe described as ``private conduct.''\n We do not have the option of simply ``forgiving'' the President's\nunlawful behavior. Failure to hold the President accountable for his\nactions would seriously undermine the rule of law. Under these\ncircumstances, the Constitution compels us to follow the impeachment\nprocess to its conclusion.\n I want to believe my President. I cannot. I hoped he would keep his\npromises to have ``the most ethical administration in history.'' He did\nnot. I want to accept his explanation that he did not lie under oath,\ncommit perjury, obstruct justice, or abuse the power of his office.\nHowever, his actions and comments over the past eleven months have\nshaken my confidence in his ability to distinguish truth from fiction.\n ``If you can't convince them, confuse them,'' President Harry Truman\nonce quipped. Like many Americans, I have been confused by the\nPresident's denials, admissions, declarations, and ``apologies'' over\nthe past year. I have no doubt, however, that the President has engaged\nin a clear and calculated pattern of deception.\n On January twenty-sixth, the President wagged his finger at the\nAmerican people and said: ``I did not have sexual relations with that\nwoman, Ms. Lewinsky.''\n On August seventeeth, the President stared us in the eye and said:\n``I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not\nappropriate.''\n Last weekend, the President again took to the airwaives to state that\nhe ``could not admit to doing something that I am quite sure I did not\ndo.'' He said all he can do now is ``the work of the American people.''\n I disagree. He can tell ``the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but\nthe truth.'' He swore to do so in the Paula Jones civil deposition and\nin his federal grand jury testimony. The evidence demonstrates,\nhowever, that he knowingly lied under oath.\n While President Clinton claims to be remorseful, he continues to\nignore the evidence and to deny his unlawful actions. His reliance on\nlegalisms and abrsurd grammatical constructions is an insult to the\ncommon sense of the American people.\n The President's defense was similarly unconvincing. Instead of\nrefuting the Independent Counsel's charges, the President's lawyers\nclaimed that his transgressions do not rise to the level of impeachable\noffenses. I believe they do, and the Constitution directs Congress to\nmake that determination.\n The President's lawyers argued that his conduct, even if admitted,\nwould never result in criminal prosecution. However, constitutional\nscholar Bruce Fein summarized studies of impeachment by concluding that\n``impeachable offenses were envisioned as political crimes against the\nnation, which might or might not be indictable under the criminal\ncode.''\n I believe the weight of the evidence is overwhelming. It leads me to\nconclude that the President committed perjury, obstructed justice, and\nabused the power of his office. He committed impeachable offenses by\nbreaking the very laws he twice swore to ``preserve, protect, and\ndefend.'' He knowingly subverted the judicial process and intentionally\ndeceived the courts, federal officials, his friends and family, and the\nAmerican people.\n\n As our nation's senior law enforcement official, the President must\nbe held responsible for his actions. Perjury undermines the rule of\nlaw. It cannot be overlooked or ignored. Over one hundred people are\ncurrently incarcerated in federal prisons for committing perjury in\ncivil cases. How can we demand responsibility from them while judging\nthe President by a different standard?\n The answer, of course, is that we cannot. The integrity of the\npresidency must always take priority over the self-interests of the\ncurrent occupant of that office.\n Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in 1946 that\n``If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every\nman can. That means first chaos, then tyranny. Legal process is an\nessential part of the democratic process.''\n Mr. Speaker, failing to hold the President accountable for his\nactions would create a dangerous double standard. To borrow a phrase\nfrom George Orwell's novel Animal Farm, we would be establishing the\nprinciple that some Americans are ``more equal than others.''\n This is one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made, or will\never make. Throughout this process, my constituents made impassioned\narguments both for and against impeachment. I spoke with many local\nresidents who offered their heartfelt opinions on how to resolve this\nmatter.\n In the final analysis, however, I alone must make this momentous\ndecision. After carefully reviewing all of the available evidence and\nlegal precedents, and after much soul-searching, I have decided to\nsupport the constitutionally prescribed remedy of impeachment.\n Webster's Dictionary defines the term ``impeach'' as follows: ``to\nbring an accusation against; to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; and\nto charge . . . with misconduct in office.'' The evidence demonstrates\nthat the President must be charged with perjury, obstruction of\njustice, and abusing the power of his office. He has exhibited gross\nmisconduct in office. He should now be held accountable for his actions\nand stand before the Senate in judgment.\n When I was sworn in as a member of the House of Representatives, I\ntook a solemn oath to ``support and defend the Constitution of the\nUnited States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . .'' I am\nconfident that history will judge my vote to impeach the President as\none borne not from malice, but out of love for my country, and in\ndefense of my sworn oath.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Meehan).\n Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman from Arkansas\n(Mr. Hutchinson), every single charge that is made by the majority was\nresponded to in our minority report. That is number one.\n Secondly, only under this system, with the majority railroading this\npresident, could we have a system where someone is accused of perjury,\nand they will not even tell us which words are perjurious. Nowhere in\nAmerica could they ever charge someone with perjury and not tell them\nwhat they said.\n Finally, there is no judicial proceeding anywhere in this country\nwhere we would not have a witness, a material witness, come before the\nbar; nowhere but under their majority.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Becerra).\n (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to\nme. Mr. Speaker, that is what we have been reduced to. We are reduced\nto 1 minute on perhaps the most important vote we will ever cast.\n Mr. Speaker, more than the President, we are on trial today. As we\ndebate whether to impeach the President, our actions will be judged by\nthe American people, not only today but for generations to come.\n The standard for impeachment is high: treason, bribery, high crimes,\nand high misdemeanors. These articles of impeachment degrade what our\nforefathers meant by high crimes and high misdemeanors. While the\nPresident's actions were reprehensible, they were wrong, and certainly\nthey deserve punishment, they do not rise to the level of offenses\nwhich meet the historical judicial standard of impeachment.\n If we approve these articles of impeachment today, we will demean the\ninstitution of Congress. We will have turned the most serious\nproceeding that Congress can undertake into a vicious example of\nobsessive politics.\n These articles do not represent justice, they do not represent the\njudgment of the majority of American people, and they certainly are not\nthe best\n\n[[Page H11867]]\n\nway for us to act as a jury. We demean the actions of a jury, the\ninstructions that any jury must follow, and certainly as a jury, we\nwill be judged into the future.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nthe District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).\n (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this impeachment is unfair on three counts.\nIt is unfair to the President, whose admitted misconduct in covering up\na private sexual affair cannot compare to the Nixon precedent, where\nhigh State crimes were not in doubt; it is unfair to the country,\nbecause the preference of the voters for censure of the President is\nbeing barred even from consideration; it is unfair to the people who\nlive in this city, whose 23rd amendment constitutional right to vote\nfor president has been denied, because they cannot vote for removal of\nthe President.\n We are converting a solemn constitutional process into a petty\npolitical proceeding. The people, acting officially on November 3rd,\nrepudiated impeachment, yet the majority has denied a vote on the\npublic preference for censure, defying its own announced standard that\nno impeachment could occur without bipartisanship. The majority is\nheaded for an incredible partisan party line vote to impeach the\nPresident. This impeachment is raw with unfairness.\n Mr. Speaker, this impeachment is unfair on three counts. It is unfair\nto the President whose admitted misconduct in covering-up of a private\nsexual affair cannot compare to the Nixon precedent where high stake\ncrimes were not in doubt. It is unfair to the country because the\npreference of the voters for censure of the President is being barred\neven from consideration. It is unfair to the people who live in this\ncity, who have a 23rd amendment constitutional right to vote for\nPresident but have been denied a vote on removal of the President.\n We are converting a solemn constitutional process into a petty\npolitical proceeding. The framers raised the bar as high as possible\nallowing impeachment not even for crimes, but only for high crimes. The\nRepublicans have lowered the bar as low as they can to reach tawdry\nprivate consensual sex.\n The framers sought to make partisan impeachment a contradiction in\nterms; the majority is making it a reality. The people acting\nofficially on November 3rd repudiated impeachment. Yet, the Majority\nhas denied a vote on the public preference for censure. Defying its own\nannounced standard that no impeachment could occur without\nbipartisanship, the Majority is heading for an incredible partisan,\nparty line vote to impeach the President.\n This impeachment is unfair to the people of the District of Columbia.\nThe Majority has relegated them to the functional equivalent of partial\ncitizens--good enough to vote for president, but not good enough to\ndecide whether to remove him.\n This impeachment is raw with unfairness. Only a repudiation of all\narticles can save us now.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nAmerican Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).\n (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, although I am denied the privilege of\nvoting on the floor of this great institution, on behalf of the\nthousands of Samoan Americans men and women who proudly wear with pride\nand honor the uniforms of our armed services wherever they are in the\nworld, I am grateful for at least the privilege to express an opinion\non this most serious issue that is now before this body.\n Mr. Speaker, if we proceed to vote on the articles of impeachment, as\nmandated or forced upon the Democratic Members by our friends in the\nmajority, I find it difficult to comprehend why procedurally the\nMembers on this side of the aisle are not at least afforded the\ncourtesy of voting, as a matter of conscience, to censure the President\nof the United States. They have the votes to impeach, but for the sake\nof fairness, why are Members so adamant in not allowing other Members\nwho also represent millions of our fellow Americans to vote for\ncensure?\n Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends in the majority, and they are my\nfriends, when all of this is over, with blood all over this floor, my\nfriends in the majority will have pounded and hammered some 218 nails\non the flesh of this man without even an ounce of blood as a cure.\n Mr. Speaker, although I am denied the privilege of voting on the\nfloor of this great institution, on behalf of the thousands of Samoan-\nAmerican men and women who proudly wear with pride and honor the\nuniforms of our armed services--wherever they are in the world--I am\ngrateful for at least the privilege to express an opinion on this most\nserious issue that is now before this body.\n Some twenty-four years ago Congress moved toward the impeachment of\nPresident Nixon. In that case, President Nixon directed the FBI and CIA\nto coverup illegal activity, used the IRS to investigate political\nenemies, and cheated on his personal income taxes. Those actions were\ngrave enough that it was expected that more than a two-thirds majority\nof the Senate would vote to convict. In contrast, the actions taken by\nPresident Clinton were of a personal nature and his attempts to save\nhimself and his family from personal embarrassment are not, in my\nopinion, impeachable.\n Some have argued that a resolution of censure is unconstitutional. I\nam not persuaded by that argument. For one reason, such resolutions\nhave been pursued on several occasions in the past, including a Senate\ncensure of Andrew Jackson in 1834, resolutions and statements of\ncensure against President John Adams in 1800, against President John\nTyler in 1842, against President James Polk in 1848, and against\nPresident James Buchanan in 1860 and 1862. In more modern times, two\ncensure resolutions were brought against President Richard Nixon, one\nin 1973 and one in 1974.\n The actions the Congress cannot take against a President, such as\nreducing his salary during a current term in office, are spelled out in\nour Constitution. No where does it say the Congress cannot express its\nopinion of actions taken by a sitting President. Mr. Jack Maskell,\nauthor of a recent CRS report on this issue notes that although there\nis ``no express constitutional provision regarding censure . . . there\nis also no express constitutional impediment'' for Congress to adopt a\nresolution expressing censure.\n It is also being argued that censure is no more than a slap on the\nwrist. In fact, strongly-worded resolution of censure is sure\npunishment which would have greater impact, in current terms and in the\nfuture, than this doomed-to-fail effort to remove the President from\noffice.\n In addition to being disproportionate to the wrongs committed, a\ntrial in the Senate based on articles of impeachment adopted by the\nU.S. House of Representatives will distract the Nation for months and\nmake it more difficult for the Congress to attend to its legislative\nduties. Such an action at this time lowers the standard for future\nimpeachments, and will encourage future Congresses to bring articles of\nimpeachment against future Presidents for offenses other than ``high\ncrimes and misdemeanors.''\n As a practical matter, a trial in the Senate on articles of\nimpeachment against President Clinton will likely not result--in my\nopinion--in a conviction by a two-thirds majority vote as required by\nthe constitution.\n Mr. Speaker, if we proceed to vote on the articles of impeachment as\nmandated or forced upon the Democratic Members by our friends in the\nmajority, I find it difficult to comprehend why, procedurally, the\nMembers on this side of the aisle are not at least afforded the\ncourtesy of voting--as a matter of conscience--to censure the President\nof the United States. You have the votes to impeach, but for the sake\nof fairness, why are you so adamant in not allowing other members, who\nalso represent millions of our fellow Americans, to vote for censure?\n Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends in the majority--and you are my\nfriends--when all this is over, with blood all over this floor, my\nfriends in the majority will have pounded and hammered some 218 nails\nor more on some 218 pounds of this man's flesh with your hands, without\neven an ounce of blood as a cure.\n Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for our American democracy. Instead of\nacting according to the highest principles of compromise, consensus and\nbipartisanship, the American people are witnessing the worst example of\nhow we, as representatives of the people, are acting in a most\npathetic, mean-spirited, adversarial, partisan process.\n Mr. Speaker, I submit--God definitely needs to bless America.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).\n (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, private sexual relations between consenting adults\nshould be just that--private. If President Clinton had simply been\nrevealed to have had an extra-marital affair,\n\n[[Page H11868]]\n\nthe U.S. House of Representatives would not be considering articles of\nimpeachment. Unfortunately, the President's troubles arise from a\nnumber of actions quite different from private, consensual sexual\nencounters.\n Before the President even knew Monica Lewinsky, he was the defendant\nin a civil lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state\nemployee, who claimed that, while she was a state employee, the\ngovernor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, made a crude and unwanted sexual\nrequest of her. Ms. Jones claimed in the lawsuit that she was\nemotionally upset by the governor's action and that she suffered in her\njob as a state employee as a result of her refusal to grant the\ngovernor's request for her to perform a particular sex act with him.\nThe subject of this lawsuit was not a consensual sex act, but an\nunwanted sexual advance by the male employer of a female.\n In any civil lawsuit, the plaintiff has the right to call witnesses\nto testify under oath as to the truthfulness of the claims being made\nin the lawsuit. Central to our civil justice system is the requirement\nthat witnesses under oath tell the truth, unless such testimony would\ntend to incriminate them, in which case the witness can claim the 5th\nAmendment to the Constitution and refuse to testify.\n President Bill Clinton was called to testify in the discovery phase\nof the Paula Jones lawsuit. Under oath, President Clinton made a number\nof statements which have since been shown to be false. Taken together,\nthese lies under oath were clearly calculated to thwart the Jones v.\nClinton federal civil judicial proceeding.\n Upon the discovery of evidence indicating the President may have\ncommitted perjury, a federal criminal grand jury was charged with\ninvestigating the matter. President Clinton testified under oath before\nthat grand jury and, once again, told a series of calculated lies. Good\nlawyers may quibble over whether the President's lies under oath\nconstitute perjury, but I believe no reasonable, unbiased person would\nconclude that the President did not lie under oath. I am convinced that\nthe lies under oath do constitute perjury, a felony criminal offense.\n In addition to the perjurious testimony given by the President, I am\nconvinced, after carefully studying the evidence, that the President\nengaged in a pattern of obstruction while the Jones v. Clinton case was\npending, and while a federal criminal investigation was pending, in\norder to thwart those proceedings. The pattern of obstruction consisted\nprimarily of tampering with witnesses whom the President knew would\nlikely be called to testify before the criminal grand jury. Those\nwitnesses included Monica Lewinsky, his secretary, Betty Currie, and\nnumerous White House aides.\n In summary, this impeachment proceeding is not about sex! It is about\nattempts to thwart proceedings in our civil and criminal justice\nsystems. It is about the President committing perjury in a civil\nlawsuit which concerned not consensual sex, but a crude and\ninappropriate sexual advance made by an employer toward an employee. It\nis about the President committing perjury before a criminal grand jury.\nAnd it is about the president having so little regard for the rule of\nlaw that he even sought to have others commit the crime of perjury in\norder to protect himself. Those acts constitute an attack by the\nPresident on our justice system, serve to undermine the orderly\nadministration of justice in this country, and are therefore\nimpeachable offenses. As a lawyer, had I committed the offenses the\nPresident committed, I would be disbarred. Should the President be held\nto a lower standard than that expected of lawyers in this country?\nSurely not.\n It is important, if not critical, for the U.S. House of\nRepresentatives to approve articles of impeachment against President\nClinton in order to send the message to the citizens of our Nation that\nthe rule of law is a crucial part of the foundation of our society, and\nthat no one, not even the President, no matter how popular he might be,\nis above the law.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Rogan).\n Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to\nme.\n Mr. Speaker, some now suggest that holding a President, accountable\nafter committing perjury in a criminal grand jury proceeding amounts to\na coup d'etat or will bring blood on the floor demeans the level of\nthis debate.\n I quote from Dr. Larry Arnn:\n\n Elections have no higher standing under our Constitution\n than the impeachment process. Both stem from provisions of\n the Constitution. The people elect the President to do a\n constitutional job. They act under the Constitution when they\n do it. At the same time they elect a Congress to do a\n different constitutional job. The President swears an oath to\n uphold the Constitution. So does the Congress. Everyone\n concerned is acting in ways subordinate to the Constitution,\n both in elections and in the impeachment process.\n If a President is guilty of acts justifying impeachment,\n then he and not the Congress will have ``overturned the\n election.'' He will have acted in ways that betray the\n purpose of his election. He will have acted not as a\n constitutional representative, but as a monarch, subversive\n of, or above the law.\n\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nNew Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).\n (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, we are all, all deeply saddened to be here\nin the midst of this constitutional crisis. But I am convinced that it\nis my constitutional duty to vote for the articles of impeachment as\npresented by the Committee on the Judiciary.\n Let us first be very clear. The case against the President is not\nabout sex or the privacy of the President and the first family. It is\nabout the very public legal action of perjury in a civil disposition\nand before a Federal criminal grand jury. These are matters of public\npolicy and the law, along with the questions of obstruction of justice\nand abuse of power.\n In this respect, I have determined that the evidence brought before\nus by the Committee on the Judiciary is credible and substantial, and\nwarrants sending, and listen to this, sending these articles to the\nSenate for trial. This is our constitutional obligation, and one that\nall of us Members of the House took upon us ourselves when we took our\nown oath of office.\n I would stress, and this is, I think, very important for all our\ncolleagues to remember, and for the public to remember, this House did\nnot arbitrarily choose to do this. This case was forced upon us as a\nconsequence of the President's failure to deal directly with the Paula\nJones lawsuit years ago, and then of course at the same time over the\nyears, including the 18 months under investigation, while under\ninvestigation by the Independent Counsel's office.\n The issue before us today is, can the House fulfill its\nconstitutional obligation and not yield to the spinmeisters or the talk\nshows. This is not a matter of a popularity or an uninformed poll. It\nis a matter of our constitutional obligation, and how we can turn this\nover to the Senate for trial.\n Mr. Speaker, I bear no animosity towards the President. I do not wish\nhim ill. Clearly, any sins that may have been committed are between him\nand the Lord, and any infidelities must remain between him and his\nfamily.\n But we cannot deny the damage that has been done to his office and to\nour Nation. He is the chief executive officer and our chief law\nenforcement officer of the United States, under the Constitution. It is\nthe obligation of this Congress and the Committee on the Judiciary to\nmake this case to the people so that they will understand that the\nbottom line issue is that no one is above the law. That has to be\ndetermined with a full trial in the Senate.\n\n {time} 1815\n\n Mr. Speaker, history will judge us. Our children and our\ngrandchildren will know whether we voted to endorse and buttress the\nrule of law and allow our constitutional process to work. That is our\nobligation under the law. That is the oath we took as Members of\nCongress.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nNew York (Mr. Nadler).\n Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is a coup d'etat when you impeach a\nPresident for allegations that even if true the overwhelming majority\nof constitutional scholars say are not impeachable offenses. It is a\ncoup d'etat when most of the prosecutors who testified in front of the\ncommittee said no prosecutor would seek an indictment because no jury\nwould convict on the evidence we have. And it is a coup d'etat when you\nseek to upset an election, to overturn an election without a broad\nconsensus of the necessity for doing so against the majority of the\nAmerican people. That describes a coup d'etat, Mr. Speaker.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nMinnesota (Mr. Vento).\n (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these articles\nof impeachment. Indeed I think it is time that we uphold our\nconstitutional responsibilities, not debase them. In fact,\n\n[[Page H11869]]\n\nwe have a solemn duty and judgment that we are to make.\n I think that the report that has come back and the duty charged to\nthe Committee on the Judiciary has been lacking. You have not done the\njob that is expected. Refusing a timetable and then jamming this into\ntwo weeks after the election obviously gives strong suspicion to the\nreasons that we are doing this.\n This does not stand the legal test. This does not stand the\nconstitutional test. This is turning this Congress upside down. This is\npartisanship carried to an extreme. It is now attacking the basic\nfundamental document, the law of the land, our Constitution and\nprocess.\n There is a reason that there have not been impeachments in the past\nof the President. The only time we can look to is after the Civil War\nwhen this country was in upheaval. The fact is, if this is the\ndirection that we are going, if you are going to lower the bar and set\nnew precedents such as this with regard to impeachment, we are going to\nkeep the Senate awful busy.\n This is an outrage, Mr. Speaker.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Articles of\nImpeachment before the House.\n These articles and conclusions are unfair and demonstrate very poor\njudgment and rank partisanship on the part of the Republican Majority,\nthe House Committee and Leadership. The House, on September 11, 1998,\nsent the Starr report to the Judiciary Committee with the charge to\ninvestigate and determine the validity of such assumptions.\n The Starr report, unlike the investigatory work from previous Special\nCounsels, went beyond a report on the proceedings before the Grand Jury\nand actually put forth conclusions. Rather than presenting the evidence\nand permitting the Congress to make its own judgement, the Starr Report\nsuperimposed the views of the Special Counsel upon the House. In fact,\nKenneth Starr's outspoken advocacy for impeachment finally resulted in\nthe resignation of Sam Dash, the famed 1970's Watergate Counsel, whom\nStarr had personally engaged as the Ethics Advisor for the Office of\nIndependent Counsel.\n The Judiciary Committee, with the authority of the House vote, had\nthe responsibility to fully evaluate this 450-page report, the\nseventeen boxes of testimony and the additional materials. The final\nproduct presented today as Articles of Impeachment has failed\nsignificantly to achieve an independent, credible, bipartisan consensus\nconcerning the conduct of the President. The standard of evidence is\nsecond hand and is far short of the Watergate criteria of clear,\nconvincing evidence.\n The Judiciary Committee and the Republican Majority permitted this\nmajor Constitutional role to languish, spending most of the limited\ntime debating which material should be made public. Unfortunately,\nthroughout the time period from September 11 until today, the Judiciary\nCommittee did not hear from a single direct witness and never subjected\nany witness to cross examination. Rather, this report rubber stamps\nnumerous allegations of the Starr report and sees fit to manufacture a\nfurther Article of Impeachment from the 81 questions put forth by the\nRepublican Majority.\n The Republican Majority motivations to rush to judgment today are\ntransparent. In mid-October, when the Democrat Minority sought to limit\nthe scope and timetable for the consideration of this Starr Report, the\nRepublican Majority refused. Subsequently, the Starr Report and\nJudiciary Committee investigation languished with not a single\nsubstantive hearing before the November 3 elections. In fact, the\nCongressional Republicans sought to employ the Starr Report to their\nadvantage in this election cycle. Despite the House spending $30\nmillion on investigations on varied topics and the Office of the\nIndependent Counsel expending in excess of $40 million, the American\nelectorate spoke loud and clear on November 3. They want a Congress\nthat will use its powers and time to address the concerns and the\nproblems that affect the American people rather than a GOP Congress\nwhich wields their power to undercut their political opponents as they\nhave since winning control in 1995. Most notably, Democrats and\nPresident Clinton have been the primary focus of most investigations.\nThe American voters saw through this unfair abuse of power and\nharassment and have become fed up with such antics. In an historic\nNovember 3, 1998 election, this year the GOP majority lost significant\nground and specifically lost on the issue of the Starr Report and the\nrelentless abuse of power by Starr and the Congressional GOP\ncounterparts.\n As Speaker Gingrich announced his intent to step down, light shone\nthrough the partisan clouds that have loomed over the Congress these\npast years. A ray of hope existed that this Congress would accept the\npeople's judgment. Instead, the GOP leadership quickly reverted to\nunfair partisan action. Recognizing that more Democrats would be in the\nCongress in January 1999, they set upon a scheme to jam through the\nlame-duck 105th Congress an impeachment vote before the new 106th\nCongress is sworn into office and seated. Within the Judiciary\nCommittee due process and fairness were cast aside, perfunctory\ntestimony and time limits were the order of the day and within a short\nperiod of two weeks, without one direct material witness relevant to\nthe accounts of the Starr report and trumped up allegations concerning\nquestions the Majority Republicans asked President Clinton. The end\nproduct--these four Articles of Impeachment are grossly unfair, and\nthat was insured by the manner and lack of deliberation that shaped\ntheir substance.\n That the President was evasive, unclear and uncooperative regards his\nrepresentations concerning an extramarital affair is clear. However,\neven assuming that President Clinton's testimony in these instances is\nunlawful--a point which has not been proven--this matter does not rise\nto the level of an impeachable offense. It is not treason, bribery, or\nother high crime or misdemeanor. It does not involve the official\nduties and role of the President. It is a personal matter as are the\nrelations of other public officials that do not touch upon their\nofficial duties. Certainly, this behavior and the subsequent\nquestionable conduct in giving testimony merits our strong reprimand\nand censure, not impeachment. Unfairly, a censure action will not be\nallowed by the Republican Majority today in this House. In an effort to\ninsure that these weak questionable Articles of Impeachment prevail,\nthe GOP Majority Leadership has steadfastly refused the opportunity to\npermit a censure vote on the floor, intent upon using its power to\nfrustrate and thwart the will of the American people who believe\ncensure--not impeachment--to be the appropriate penalty.\n Mr. Speaker, the President should be fully subject to the law.\nIndeed, when the court permitted the private civil suit to proceed in\n1997, President Clinton was subject to the law for alleged activities\nbefore he was even elected to his current office in 1992. Furthermore,\nif the participation in such legal process is improper, it can and\nshould be fully adjudicated with the full ability to exercise all\nrights and privileges accorded every citizen. The President isn't above\nthe law, neither should he be considered below the law. The debate\nabout the so-called legalisms employed in this instance are the essence\nof the ``rule of law'' even as some venerate the ``rule of law.''\nRepublicans seem all too willing to deny the President the opportunity\nto defend himself.\n The proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee have made a\nmockery of the important Constitutional role accorded Congress in\nregards to our impeachment role. The President was required to defend\nhimself against unknown Articles of Impeachment, the Articles were\ncomposed and presented after his defense was completed. Furthermore, no\nmaterial witnesses testified or were subject to cross examination. The\nHouse must not compound the unfairness that has characterized this\nprocess. This proposed action today on the Articles of Impeachment is\nan abuse of fundamental responsibility and duty of this House. Today's\naction indeed spells out a new order and degraded role, cheapening the\nhistoric meaning and purpose of the impeachment of a president.\n This important impeachment role and responsibility of the House\nshould be based on our best effort, not a matter to be compressed into\na political timetable with questionable substance and motives. The\nHouse, with this proposed action, risks significant harm to the\nhistoric role and duties accorded the elected Members by the\nConstitution should we act today to impeach. I urge the Members to vote\nno, to step back from the rush to judgement and partisan leanings that\nhave dominated this House and permit the Committees of this House to\nproperly do their job. The standard must be clear and convincing\nevidence--not second hand information, conjecture and a schedule of\nconvenience for the Members of the House. If such allegations have\nmerit, then take the time to do the task and exercise the\nresponsibility properly. Vote no on these articles and against this\nunfair procedure and process.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nFlorida (Ms. Brown).\n (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend her remarks.)\n Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Bible says, let he without sin\ncast the first stone.\n Let me tell you in this Chamber, it is full of sinners. I am here on\nbehalf of my constituents who want me to tell the President that they\nlove him and they are praying for him and the country.\n The Republicans say that their sin is different from the President's.\nThey\n\n[[Page H11870]]\n\nare hypocrites. What a shame that while the troops are fighting for us\nin the Persian Gulf, we are having this silly and stupid debate because\nof your hatred of the President. The President is like David from the\nBible. He is the favorite one. He is the favorite one because he does\nthe people's work. The Republicans hate him because he beat them on\nevery single issue.\n Let me tell you what the real crime and high misdemeanor is, my\nfellow Americans. In 1994, the leaders announced their Contract on\nAmerica. And today is the final agenda of that contract. They began\ntheir contract by attempting to cut school lunch, Head Start, food\nstamps, health care and Medicare for the elderly. These are the crimes\nthat should be punished.\n This is a modern day coup d'etat, Mr. Speaker. It is the final piece\nof their contract. You can fool some of the people some of the time,\nbut you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. And let me tell\nyou, the American people are not fooled by your motives.\n\n ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1998-12-18-pt1-PgH11774"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 134.94520192034543, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}