{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1998-12-18-pt2-PgH11879-2", "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", "H11879", "H11965", "[{\"name\": \"John Conyers, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Frank Mascara\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill McCollum\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Inglis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Zoe Lofgren\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Joseph Moakley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark W. Neumann\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jay Dickey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ken Bentsen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ed Pastor\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gary A. Condit\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert A. Brady\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Martin T. Meehan\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill Delahunt\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Ryun\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Barr\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Donald A. Manzullo\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Franks\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Wally Herger\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bart Stupak\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Earl Pomeroy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Nick Lampson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James A. Traficant Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Thune\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ralph M. Hall\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Christopher John\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Nydia M. Velazquez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles B. Rangel\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Bunning\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steve Buyer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rick Hill\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dave Weldon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard E. Neal\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James E. Clyburn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John S. Tanner\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Van Hilleary\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Brian P. Bilbray\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles W. Norwood\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Edward Porter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheila Jackson Lee\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael F. Doyle\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill Pascrell, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gregory W. Meeks\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Goodlatte\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Earl F. Hilliard\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerrold Nadler\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James P. Moran\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim McDermott\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John M. Spratt, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Fred Upton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John L. Mica\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael P. Forbes\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerry F. Costello\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"William O. Lipinski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ellen O. Tauscher\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sander M. Levin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Paul E. Kanjorski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ed Bryant\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bobby L. Rush\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert A. Borski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"William J. Coyne\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Asa Hutchinson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thomas M. Barrett\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sherrod Brown\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Melvin L. Watt\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Vic Snyder\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Loretta Sanchez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Marion Berry\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rod R. Blagojevich\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John F. Tierney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Joseph M. McDade\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark Sanford\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Frank Riggs\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James H. Maloney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Eddie Bernice Johnson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mrs. CAPPS\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David E. Price\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Schaffer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard Burr\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"J. D. Hayworth\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lucille Roybal-Allard\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Elizabeth Furse\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Turner\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Eliot L. Engel\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ralph Regula\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Joe Knollenberg\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James T. Walsh\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles W. \\\"Chip\\\" Pickering\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David Minge\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Estaban Edward Torres\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Karen L. Thurman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerry Weller\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Benjamin A. Gilman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dana Rohrabacher\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Wayne T. Gilchrest\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Howard L. Berman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Davis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Max Sandlin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Howard P. \\\"Buck\\\" McKeon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Joseph R. Pitts\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James A. Leach\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jack Metcalf\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David Dreier\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Gibbons\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dave Camp\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Brad Sherman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Darlene Hooley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Glenn Poshard\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"William M. Thomas\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Peter Hoekstra\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John E. Sununu\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Harold E. Ford Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Silvestre Reyes\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mike McIntyre\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill Redmond\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Nick Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Duncan Hunter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Constance A. Morella\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Marcy Kaptur\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patsy T. Mink\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gary L. Ackerman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Helen Chenoweth-Hage\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Floyd Spence\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rob Portman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Curt Weldon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Roscoe G. Bartlett\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard H. Baker\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Joe Scarborough\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jay W. Johnson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles W. Stenholm\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Peter A. DeFazio\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"George Radanovich\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Kolbe\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gil Gutknecht\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sam Gejdenson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Frank Pallone, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chet Edwards\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jose E. Serrano\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"C. W. Bill Young\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Herbert H. Bateman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Roger F. Wicker\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ciro D. Rodriguez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patrick J. Kennedy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Scott L. Klug\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Edolphus Towns\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rodney P. Frelinghuysen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Doug Bereuter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Philip M. Crane\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Cass Ballenger\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dan Miller\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"William (Bill) Clay\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mac Thornberry\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Frank R. Wolf\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"George Miller\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"George E. Brown, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ed Whitfield\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Calvin M. Dooley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Linder\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ileana Ros-Lehtinen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Nussle\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Greg Ganske\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mr. RICE\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"24\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"525\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"581\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"611\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3396\"}]", "144 Cong. Rec. H11879", "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 H11879-H11965]\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 (Continued)\n\n Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair reminds all persons\nin the gallery that they are here as guests of the House. Any\nmanifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation\nof the rules of the House.\n Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nPennsylvania (Mr. Mascara).\n (Mr. MASCARA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well today to express my\ndisappointment at the impeachment proceedings that are taking place on\nthe House floor today. I am deeply disappointed and disillusioned. As\ndebate continues tonight, I would like to ironically quote President\nNixon who said the Nation needs a sense of history more than a sense of\nhistrionics.\n As I listened to the Clerk reading the articles of impeachment today,\nI was both saddened and ashamed to be a part of these proceedings. It\nis an emotional time for me, to participate in this dark period of our\nhistory impeaching the President of the United States. I have\nconsistently defended the integrity of public service generally and\nservice in this House, specifically saying that in spite of the\ncynicism and the low regard, oftentimes, and hatred for elective\noffice, I am proud and honored to be a Member of the United States\nHouse of Representatives. Regrettably, those feelings have been\nsomewhat diminished and tainted as a result of these unfair\nproceedings.\n While the President's behavior was reprehensible, most constitutional\nscholars believe these charges do not rise to a level of impeachment.\n I oppose the House Resolution 611.\n Mr. Speaker, I seldom come to the House floor to speak unless I have\nsomething important to say. And I have never made disparaging remarks\nabout any Member of this House--Republican or Democrat.\n I come to the well today to express my disappointment at the\nimpeachment proceedings that are taking place on the House floor today.\nI am deeply disappointed and disillusioned. As the debate continues\ntonight I would like to ironically quote President Nixon who said ``The\nnations needs a sense of history more than a sense of historonics. As I\nlistened to the clerk reading the articles of impeachment this morning,\nI was both saddened and ashamed to be a part of these proceedings. It\nwas an emotional time for me to participate in a dark period of our\nhistory--Impeaching the President of the United States.\n I have consistently defended the integrity of public service\ngenerally, and service in this House specifically, saying that in spite\nof the cynicism out there regarding elective office, I am proud and\nhonored to be a Member of the House of Representatives. Regrettably,\nthose feelings have been somewhat diminished and tainted as a result of\nthese unfair proceedings.\n While the President's behavior was reprehensible most constitutional\nscholars, believe the charges here today do not rise to the level of\nimpeachable offenses.\n We have been asked to vote our conscience, yet the majority is\ndenying Members, both Democrats and Republicans, the right to vote\ntheir conscience in favor of censure. That is patently unfair. A\nmajority of the American people are being denied an opportunity for\ntheir voice to be heard on an issue overturning their electoral will.\nThis is deeply dividing our Nation. Polarizing our citizens.\n I ask our Republican friends to be fair! To do the right thing!\nPermit a vote on censure.\n I oppose House Resolution 611.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 40 seconds.\n I just want to respond to the charges of the coup d'etat again and\nwhat the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) said a while ago, that\nall the scholars we had before our committee said that these were\nnonimpeachable offenses, that prosecutors would not indict, that this\nwould overthrow an election.\n The fact is, there is a wide division over the impeachment question.\nWe had just as many scholars who said these are impeachable.\n I happen to believe deeply perjury is equally grave or more grave\nthan bribery and we in fact punish it more severely. As far as\nprosecutors, there are a lot of prosecutors who indict. We had one\npanel of the President's witnesses saying that.\n We are not about to overthrow an election. We are simply about to\nsend a matter to a trial in the Senate who might choose to do that if\nthey find the President guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.\n\n[[Page H11880]]\n\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina\n(Mr. Inglis), a member of the committee.\n Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this is the last time I\nwill be able to speak to the House of Representatives.\n I rise in support of the articles of impeachment because here tonight\nwe have to answer three questions: First, are we a people of\nconvenience or of conviction? Second, are we a constitutional Republic\nor a democracy? Third, are we a Nation based on truth or a Nation based\non moral relativisim?\n The first of those questions, a people of convenience or a people of\nconviction. I have heard a lot of discussion about how the stock market\nmay do this or that. We have heard refuting evidence that actually\nNASDAQ went up. We have heard about the disruption this may cause. So\nthe question is, has our instant gratification come to the place where\nwe need a microwave solution rather than a lasting solution based on\nprinciple and sound understanding of the Constitution?\n The second question that really has been fascinating to hear here\ntoday is whether we are a democracy or a constitutional Republic. I\nmust say that some of our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle\nhave misunderstood the name of their party with the basis of our\ngovernment.\n We are not a democracy. This is a constitutional Republic. If it were\na democracy, then if Baptists outnumbered Roman Catholics, Baptists\ncould decide legitimately in a pure democracy to ban masses on Sunday.\nBut thank goodness we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional\nRepublic. And therein lies the rub here today on the floor.\n Here on the floor today we are dealing with a Constitution, and we\nare dealing with the principles contained in the Constitution. And\nthose principles must hold sway over last night's overnight poll. That\npoll is insignificant compared to the lasting words of the\nConstitution.\n The third question we must answer is, are we a Nation based on truth\nor a Nation based on moral relativisim? This, I think, is the nub of\nthe question. Does the truth matter or is everything relative? Is there\nany truth or is my truth different than your truth? And we can have\ninconsistent truths, and there is really no truth.\n I hope that America will always be a place of commitment to essential\ntruths, the essential truths that Mr. Jefferson wrote about in the\npreamble to the Declaration of Independence: I hope that it will always\nbe a place of freedom coupled with responsibility. And that is what we\nare seeing here in the case of the President.\n I hope that it will always be a place of caring through families and\nlocal communities, a place of free enterprise within the context of\nfair competition, and a place of strength capable of defending freedom.\nThose things are what is at stake here tonight.\n I hope that the House of Representatives here tonight will vote to\nuphold the rule of law and to say that whenever our conduct, any of us,\nor any President's conduct contravenes the Constitution of the United\nStates, that the people's House will rise up and say, no matter what\nparty you are from, the Constitution must hold sway there rather than\nlast night's overnight poll or any temporary affection that the people\nmay hold for any particular officeholder.\n That is my hope. That is why I hope we pass articles of impeachment\nhere tomorrow.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Moakley).\n Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the\ntime.\n I was not planning to speak on this matter until tomorrow, but I\nheard repeated references to my old friend, Speaker O'Neill. And I feel\ncompelled to respond.\n Some Members have mentioned the impeachment of President Nixon and\nsaid that former Speaker O'Neill refused to consider a resolution\ncensuring him. Mr. Speaker, I was here back in 1974, when Richard Nixon\nwas being considered for impeachment. Thomas O'Neill was not the\nspeaker. Carl Albert was.\n Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, no resolution to impeach President Nixon\never came to the House. President Nixon resigned before that happened.\n Robert Healy, the noted Boston Globe writer, in an excellent op-ed\npiece which ran in the Boston Globe yesterday, compares the possible\nimpeachments of President Nixon and President Reagan and the country's\nresponses to them.\n His piece quotes a book by Robert Timberg which says, ``There were\nsimilarities between Watergate and Iran-Contra: abuse of authority,\nbunker mentality, cover-up, oval office tapes, National Security\nCouncil messages, televised hearings, world class stupidity.''\n But there was a difference. Tip O'Neill knew it. We all knew it. Mr.\nSpeaker, Speaker O'Neill knew the weight of impeachment. With Nixon,\nHealy says, ``a great majority of Americans had accepted the notion\nthat Nixon had to go. They believed he had committed high crimes\nbecause he had used agencies such as the CIA and the IRS against the\ncitizenry.''\n Some 12 years later, in the White House, Speaker O'Neill and\nPresident Ronald Reagan were alone in a meeting. Impeachment was in the\nair in Washington. The Iran-Contra story had broken with charges of\narms sold to Iran. The profit directed to the Contra movement in\nNicaragua. Healy says, and I quote, O'Neill cared only about two things\nthat day with regard to the Reagan presidency. First, the Nation had\nbeen through a presidential trauma for 2 years with Nixon and it was\nnot going to happen again.\n\n {time} 1830\n\n And second, O'Neill believed strongly in the proposition put forth by\nJames Madison in the 1787 debates at the convention that framed the\nConstitution, the people were king in America. Therefore, one should be\nextraordinarily circumspect about turning out a President who had twice\nbeen elected by an overwhelming majority.\n Mr. Speaker, I would advise my Republican colleagues to be\nextraordinarily circumspect about what they are about to do to a\npopular President who has been twice elected and should be censured and\nnot impeached.\n Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record Mr. Healy's op-ed piece.\n\n [From the Boston Globe, Dec. 17, 1998]\n\n GOP Could Learn From Tip O'Neill\n\n (By Robert Healy)\n\n On a hot, still night in August 1974, young and old walked\n around the White House, carrying flickering candles. Two\n uniformed guards stood watch outside the gates on\n Pennsylvania Avenue. There were no tanks, no show of guns.\n Earlier that day, in a one-sentence letter to Secretary of\n State Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon had resigned, the first\n president to do so. He would officially announce it the next\n day. Copies of the letter had been sent to House Speaker\n Thomas O'Neill and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield.\n Inside the White House, Chief of Staff Alexander Haig was\n trying to hold things together. Nixon's behavior was\n irrational: bouts of paranoia and drinking in the morning.\n Haig recalled later at a background dinner that he and\n Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger had talked to the\n commanding officer of the presidential Army troops stationed\n at Fort McNair, a short distance from the White House on the\n Potomac, and ordered him not to respond to any last-minute\n directions from the president.\n It was over. The candle bearers outside the White House,\n some of whom had opposed Nixon at Vietnam demonstrations and\n had been smoked with tear gas, knew it was over. Republicans\n and Democrats in Congress who were prepared to vote for\n articles of impeachment knew it was over. Kissinger, Haig,\n and Schlesinger knew it was over. After months of the\n Watergate storm, a sense of inevitability had settled in.\n It did not mean everyone in the world understood what was\n going on. At a Georgia Air Force base, Prince Bandar bin\n Sultan, later to be ambassador to the United States from\n Saudi Arabia, was training to fly jets and had been alerted\n by his government that the president would resign. He said he\n could not sleep that night because he thought at some time\n planes would be taking off from the base in support of a coup\n to retain the president.\n It didn't happen because the people in America, a great\n majority at least, had accepted the notion that Nixon had to\n go. The case had been made that he had committed ``high\n crimes'' by using agencies such as the CIA and the IRS to war\n against the citizenry.\n The scene shifts to the White House 12 years later. It is\n late 1986, Speaker O'Neill and President Ronald Reagan are\n alone in a meeting. Impeachment is in the air in Washington.\n The Iran-Contra story had broken: arms sold to Iran, the\n profits diverted to the Contra movement in Nicaragua.\n O'Neill cared about only two things that day with regard to\n the Reagan presidency. First, the nation had been through a\n presidential trauma for two years with Nixon and\n\n[[Page H11881]]\n\n it was not going to happen again. And, second, O'Neill\n believed strongly in the proposition put forth by James\n Madison in the 1787 debates at he convention that framed the\n Constitution: The people were king in America. Therefore, one\n should be extraordinarily circumspect about turning out a\n president who had been twice elected by an over-whelming\n majority.\n O'Neill's reasoning was a totally political decision, as\n Madison and the other framers intended. In fact, in Madison's\n notes on the Constitutional Convention, Governor Robert\n Morris, the host Pennsylvania governor, argued that should a\n president be reelected while under impeachment fire, ``that\n will be a sufficient proof of his innocence.''\n Robert Timberg's book, ``The Nightingale's Song,'' an\n exquisite profile of five Annapolis men shaped by Vietnam,\n including three Iran-Contra principals (North, Poindexter,\n and Robert McFarlane), draws a portrait of a coup in Reagan's\n National Security Council led and carried out by these three\n freebooters.\n It seemed, Timberg wrote, to be ``something out of `Seven\n Days in May,' a right-wing military cabal trying to take over\n the government'' with the military all over the terrain when,\n in reality, it was even more complex than that. ``There were\n similarities between Watergate and Iran-Contra. Abuse of\n authority. Bunker mentality. Coverup. Oval office tapes/\n National Security Council messages. Televised hearings. World\n class stupidity.'' Nixon, he noted, was smart and paranoid.\n ``Reagan, not nearly so smart, was charming and made a\n slicker getaway.''\n And the Annapolis men who served Reagan were different from\n the University of Southern California men who surrounded\n Nixon.\n But the real difference was the endgame. In his heart,\n O'Neill knew the popular Reagan would never be removed from\n office, and the speaker didn't want to put the country\n through a House impeachment and Senate trial that would close\n down the government for months.\n The lesson is there in the case of the impeachment of\n President Clinton. The Nixon and Reagan cases were\n distinctive, yet they both bowed to the public perception of\n the gravity of the facts and the president's involvement in\n those facts.\n Do the Republicans really want to put the nation through\n the agony of impeachment if, in the end, Clinton wins\n acquittal in the Senate?\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nWisconsin (Mr. Neumann).\n Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear on why it is that I\nam voting for impeachment. I would like to bring this whole discussion\nback to the facts in the case.\n What do we know here? We know we have a 50-year-old married man, the\nmost powerful man in the world, who had repeated sexual relations with\na woman, a subordinate, 27 years his junior. We know that he came on\nnational television and shook his finger in our face and said, I did\nnot have any such affair. We know that under oath in January he was\nasked, and I quote, ``Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica\nLewinsky?'' To which he responded, and again I quote, ``I never had\nsexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I never had an affair with\nher.''\n We know that in August, after careful consideration, he was asked\nthat question again and he again stated under oath, and I quote, ``My\nrecollection is that I did not have sexual relations with Monica\nLewinsky and I am standing on my former statement about that.'' And we\nknow the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress proved beyond any shadow of a\ndoubt that he did have sexual relations with this woman.\n There is no walk of life in the United States of America where this\nbehavior would be accepted. A college professor having consensual sex\nwith one of his students would be dismissed. A CEO guilty of an office\naffair with an intern would be fired. A physician, a counselor, a\npastor would lose their right to practice. A military officer would be\ndishonorably discharged.\n Finally, there is one last thing that needs to be brought out here.\nFor all of those that say that this is partisan politics and partisan\nbickering, I would like to read some quotes directly out of the draft\nDemocrat resolution for censureship. It says, and I quote, ``William\nJefferson Clinton made false statements concerning his reprehensible\nconduct with a subordinate,'' and continues to say, ``William Jefferson\nClinton wrongly took steps to delay the discovery of the truth.'' It\nwas read by my colleague from Wisconsin and I heard it on the radio and\nverified in writing afterwards. These are President Clinton's\ndefenders.\n I have listened carefully to this debate today. The words used by the\nother side, not the Republicans, by the people defending him that\nquote, ``reprehensible, deplorable, liar, misleading, manipulative and\nimmoral.''\n I sincerely hope that my vote sends a strong message to every young\nperson in America that extramarital affair, coupled with perjury, is\nnot acceptable behavior in this great Nation.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from\nArkansas (Mr. Dickey).\n Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I represent the Fourth District of Arkansas,\nthe district that includes Hope and Hot Springs, the birthplace and the\nboyhood home of President Bill Clinton.\n When I first decided that I would not declare my intentions on the\nquestion of impeachment, it was mainly for the reason that I wanted to\nmake sure of the charges and I wanted to encourage my constituents to\nassist me in this decision. Even though a substantial majority of the\npeople who have made contact with me are in favor of impeachment or\nresignation, almost all have a heavy heart.\n Why is this? Because so many people in my district have their own\nself-esteem intertwined with the well-being of their friend, Bill\nClinton. So while they have reason to be embarrassed, disappointed and\neven disgusted, they are in large part in denial.\n Abraham Lincoln has a story that illustrates this dilemma. There was\na farmer who had a tree by his house. It was a majestic looking tree\nand apparently perfect in every part, tall, straight and immense in\nsize, the grand old sentinel of his forest home. One morning, while at\nwork in his garden, he saw a squirrel run up the tree into a hole and\nthought the tree might be hollow. He proceeded to examine it carefully.\nAnd much to his surprise, he found that the stately tree that he had\nvalued for its beauty and grandeur to be the pride and protection of\nhis little farmhouse was hollow from top to bottom. Only a rim of sound\nwood remained, barely sufficient to support its weight.\n What was he to do? If he cut it down, it would do great damage with\nits great length and its spreading branches. If he let it remain, his\nfamily was in constant danger. In a storm it might fall or the wind\nmight blow the tree against his house and crush his house and his\nchildren. What should he do? As he turned away he said sadly, ``I wish\nI had never seen that squirrel.''\n Reasons for me to vote against impeachment are legion. But maybe the\nmost significant is that Arkansans have suffered enough and our young\npeople need for me, one more time, to stand up for the reputation of\nour State, to say to the rest of the world there are law abiding,\nchurch going, hard working people in Arkansas and our State does not\nlike what has had to be revealed by the harsh application of the\nmandates of the independent counsel statute.\n However, what I am about to do today is done because it has brought\nhome to me that I am first to represent America and not Arkansas. But\nas I state that I am an American first, I must tell my colleagues that\nthe issue today is no longer about the character of Bill Clinton, it is\nabout the character of our Nation.\n We must not let President Clinton hinder us as a nation in\nmaintaining the standards of conduct that we should expect from our\nleaders, especially as it relates to the rule of law. As he has been\nobsessed to keep his job, he has blindly asked us to bring our Nation's\nstandards down. He is a person of enormous gifts of communication and\nleadership, but we have to say sadly ``no'' to what he wants us to do\nin this regard.\n The law is king. The king is not the law. Though I have done this\nbefore and in my own way the good folks of Arkansas have directed me to\nforgive President Clinton for the mistakes he has confessed to and\nthose he has not admitted yet, I have shown him this individually and\nnow do this as a Representative of my constituents.\n I stand here today much like the schoolboy who wrote to the fabled\nand beloved Shoeless Joe Jackson of the Chicago White Sox of old. He\nwrote when he found out that Shoeless Joe was taking money to lose the\n1919 World Series, saying, ``Say it ain't so, Joe.''\n That young man was not bitter, was not drawing judgment. He just saw\nsomething he desperately did not want\n\n[[Page H11882]]\n\nto believe. And he cared so much for Joe that, as a last act of his\nhope, love and devotion, he wanted Joe to tell him.\n That, my colleagues, is the heart as I best can describe to you of\nthe proud and wonderful people of the Fourth District of Arkansas.\n Some people have directed me to a slogan that has the initials WWJD.\nI have applied what this acronym says, but we could also use the\ninitials WWALD. What would Abraham Lincoln do? Here is one of his\nquotations. ``Never add the weight of your character to a charge\nagainst a person without having it to be true.''\n Having tried repeatedly to find a way to talk my conscience into a\ndifferent conclusion, I have decided to vote for at least two articles\nof impeachment, Article I and Article III, keeping in mind that this is\na referral to the Senate for the finding of guilt or innocence.\n What I want my colleagues to know is that my heart is heavy but my\nconscience is clear.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).\n (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Hamilton, Madison and\nMason, I rise in opposition to all four articles of impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the four articles of impeachment\nagainst President William Jefferson Clinton.\n At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I strenuously object to this debate on\nimpeaching the President of the United States while our nation and our\nAllies, are engaged in a military confrontation. To do so brings\ndishonor upon this House.\n We are here because President Clinton had a consensual, extramarital\naffair and allegedly lied about it in a civil deposition and to a\nFederal Grand Jury. After 10 months of investigation, a federal\nindependent counsel recommended to the House Judiciary Committee that\nthe President's alleged legal infractions involving his truthfulness\nabout this affair rise to the level of impeachable offenses. The\nCommittee revised the Independent Counsel's recommendations and sent\nfour articles of impeachment to the floor.\n Now the full House of Representatives must weigh the evidence and\ndecide this fateful issue of whether to impeach the President. The\nissues, to me, come down to these questions: Do the President's\nactions, while clearly wrong and deserving of rebuke, amount to the\nhigh crimes and misdemeanors required by the Constitution for\nimpeachment? Do these actions warrant putting the country through the\nwrenching process of an impeachment trial in the Senate--a trial that\ncould take months and paralyze the legislative process to the detriment\nof the other issues before us?\n We must ask ourselves whether we are willing to overturn the 1996\nelections. We must ask ourselves if the precedent set by such\nimpeachment strengthen or weaken our system of government.\n To reach the right decision today, I believe we must step back from\nthe partisanship of the moment and place impeachment in the context of\nour system of government, as established in the Constitution. Our\nFounding Fathers could have established a Parliamentary system with the\nelection of the nation's leader by the Majority Party in the national\nlegislature. They did not. They established a system that at first\nindirectly elected a President; then that system evolved into one where\nthe people directly elected the President.\n Vacating the vote of the people strikes at the core of our republic\nand must not be taken lightly. While not determinative, we cannot forge\nthat opinion polls have shown that two-thirds of the American people do\nnot want the President impeached, but nearly the same number would\nsupport some form of public rebuked, which unfortunately, we will not\nconsider today.\n This issue is too complex to be partisan. Congress has to decide not\nonly what the majority wants, but what is in the best interest of the\ncountry and what is required by the Constitution. Congress should not\nsuccumb to the herd mentality of a fervent minority in Congress or the\nchattering opinion classes of Washington. Impeachment should be a\nresult of consensus, not partisan rancor. In fact, impeachment by a\nnarrow party line vote may well be viewed by history more on the basis\nof partisanship that the underlying issue of the alleged infractions.\nHistory may judge our actions today as partisan rather than principled\nand, thus, effectively exonerate President Clinton rather than punish\nhim for his conduct.\n Impeachment was designed to protect the country and its integrity\nagainst Political crimes. Impeachment is not a tool of punishment to be\nused against a President because his opponents personally dislike or\neven hate him. It is not a tool to use against a President for\nincompetence. In fact, the framers of the Constitution removed\n``maladministration'' as a category for impeachment. The framers felt\nthat ``maladministration'' would have made impeachment too easy.\n In Federalist Papers #65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachment\nis ``for those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public\nmen, or in the words, from the abuse or violations of some public\ntrust.'' Those crimes must be ``of a nature which may with peculiar\npropriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries\ndone immediately to the society itself.'' Hamilton's words define a\nvery high, but appropriate threshold for any impeachment test.\n As critical question that has been raised repeatedly is whether the\nrule of law has been threatened or has our political system been\nseriously injured by the President's actions? In short, what\nconstitutes a high crime and misdemeanor?\n Is allegedly lying under oath in a deposition regarding personal\nconduct in a civil case since dismissed and settled, which is the base\ncharge from which all other articles of impeachment flow, injurious to\nour political system? Does it undermine the rule of law?\n Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not. These are very abstract issues that\none could easily decide on the basis of whether or not they liked this\nparticular president. But, the real problem is once you decide it for\none, you have set a historical precedent for all others.\n Some, in particular the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep.\nHyde, have stated that if nothing else, lying in any context, whether\nunder oath or about a personal matter, undermines the rule of law and\nposes such a threat to American democracy that impeachment is warranted\nand necessary.\n But, does it undermine the rule of law more so that President Lyndon\nJohnson using falsified information to pass the Gulf of Tonkin\nResolution to expand U.S. involvement in Vietnam? Is it more so a high\ncrime that illegally bombing Cambodia or using the CIA to subvert an\nFBI investigation? Is it more so a high crime and misdemeanor than\nPresident Ronald Reagan and his administration willfully violating the\nBalanced Amendment, the law banning aid to the Nicaraguan Contras\nthrough arm sales to Iran? Is lying to Congress, hiding the truth from\nthe American people, and destroying evidence undermining the rule of\nlaw more than perjury in any instance?\n Chairman Hyde, in 1987, said of the Iran-Contra scandal, ``It just\nseems too simplistic to condemn all lying'' in the real world of geo-\npolitics. He further quoted Thomas Jefferson as stating ``strict\nadherence to the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a\ngood citizen but it is not the highest.''\n Based upon Rep. Hyde's defense of the Reagan Administration's alleged\nlying to Congress and subversion of Federal law, what basis then do we\nhave for ``the rule of law'' if a President who disagrees with a\ncertain law over legitimate policy reasons chooses to willfully ignore\nit or violate it?\n Let me be clear, I don't like what President Clinton did. It was\nwrong, reckless, and reprehensible. I am offended by the original act.\nI am angered that he chose not to fess up once he had been caught, and\nI am outraged that we spent millions on an investigation to chase\naround and find out if it were true, especially after the American\npeople had already figured it out.\n I am also appalled that prosecutors in the Independent Counsel's\noffice would actually spend public time and money questioning whether\nthe United States might seek to indict and convict a former President\nof perjury in a civil suit regarding sex in a case that has since been\ndismissed, while the world considers whether Augusto Pinochet, the\nformer Chilean dictator, can be extradited for alleged crimes against\nhumanity, involving scores of deaths including of an American on U.S.\nsoil.\n And, of course, as we all tell our children, just as our parent told\nus, in the end you are a lot better off if you tell the truth. But,\nultimately, we must ask whether taking the first step to remove a duly\nelected President to protect our political system because of a\npotential legal infraction of perjury in a civil case since dismissed\nand devoid of public policy is necessary?\n Based upon what I have read, I have come to the conclusion that NO,\nthis does not reach that level. The President's actions may well be\nfound to have constituted perjury but do not constitute crimes against\nthe state for which, I believe, impeachment was designed. If this House\nadopts articles of impeachment on the basis laid out by the Majority,\nthe precedent set here today will certainly, I believe, undermine 211\nyears of our system of government and democracy.\n It is truly a shame that the leadership of the Republican Majority is\neffectively forcing the hands of members in a process that is very\nunfair and undemocratic. It it the American way to stifle debate? Is\nthis just another procedure by the House Leadership not to trust\n\n[[Page H11883]]\n\nthe members to make up their own minds? Presenting the Congress with a\nvote on impeachment only is like saying to a jury, you can vote for\neither the death penalty or acquittal. To say that impeachment is\n``censure plus'' is a mistake. We don't know that the Senate won't\nconvict. We should not shrug our shoulders and hedge our bets that way.\nTo do so is fool hardy and irresponsible. Not only does that view lower\nthe bar for what may be impeachable offenses, but it cheapens\nimpeachment as well. In short, it makes folly out of the Constitution\nand undermines the very rule of law that we are all espousing that we\nuphold.\n The worst of Alexander Hamilton's premonitions is coming true. In\nFederalist #65, he wrote that ``In many cases, it [impeachment] will\nconnect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all\ntheir animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or\non the other; and in such cases their will always be the greatest\ndanger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative\nstrength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or\nguilt.''\n The President, not the nation, should be punished for his actions.\nCensure is entirely appropriate and Constitutional. Twice before in our\nhistory we have censured Presidents: Andrew Jackson, whose censure was\nrevoked by a subsequent Congress before he retired, and James K. Polk,\nwho was censured for his administration of the Mexican-American War.\n We also know that history and legacy are the currency of the business\nof public policy. I believe whatever Congress does, history, in large\npart, will judge President Clinton, no matter what his policy successes\nmay be, by this incident with Monica Lewinsky. The two names will be\nforever inseparable. But, this Congress will also have a place in this\nhistory. Will Congress be remembered as statesman-like or a partisan\ncircus that couldn't let go of a ``Get the President at any Cost''\nmentality. It seems that the anger and vitriol of a few members is\ngoing to stop the rest of the House from voting its conscience on this\nmatter by denying us the opportunity to vote on a Censure Resolution. I\nbelieve history will look upon this impeachment as it looks upon the\nimpeachment of Andrew Johnson; as a low point in our nation's history\nwhen we ignored our better angels.\n In the end, the alleged crimes or infractions of the President, as\noffensive as they are, do not meet the level of ``high crimes and\nmisdemeanors,'' nor do I believe it is in the best interest of the\nnation that we endure a trial in the Senate over these issues for the\nnext six to 12 months. On that basis, I rise to oppose impeachment.\nImpeachment, in this case, does not serve to protect the nation. In\nfact, it would serve to undermine the very rule of law that we are\ntrying to uphold by setting a precedent of a standard of impeachment so\nlow that future Congresses could intimidate the executive branch and\ncreate a shift toward a British style Parliamentary system of\ngovernment.\n Congress should publicly condemn the President's conduct through a\njoint resolution of censure, cosigning this President to history with\nthe undoubtedly indelible mark of scandal.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).\n Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following\nstatement detailing why I will be in opposition to the four articles of\nimpeachment.\n After reading and studying the written material available to me and\nviewing the House Judiciary Committee hearings, I cannot in good\nconscience support the impeachment of President William Jefferson\nClinton.\n I am very disappointed with the unjust and highly partisan manner in\nwhich the House Judiciary Committee hearings were conducted. The\nhearings lacked due process. The Committee did not take any evidentiary\ntestimony of material witnesses. The Committee's star witness,\nIndependent Council Ken Starr, was not a material witness and in fact\nwas not present when material witnesses were interviewed by the Grand\nJury.\n The Committee failed to produce ``clear and convincing'' evidence to\nsupport its articles of impeachment. It is my conclusion that the four\narticles of impeachment brought against the President do not reach the\nconstitutional standard of ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' even if\nproven. The lack of bipartisan support for any of the articles is a sad\nindication that they are based more on partisan politics than on any\nsubstantial evidence.\n President Clinton has unquestionably and admittedly done wrong.\nMembers of Congress should be given the opportunity to condemn his\nactions through an official resolution of censure. The President will,\nand should, pay for his wrongdoing in public esteem and tarnished\nlegacy. The nation, the Presidency, and the democratic process,\nhowever, need not bear the cost of continuing what has become little\nmore than a wasteful partisan drama.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Condit).\n Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.\n Throughout this difficult process I have worked very hard to remain\nobjective and have taken great steps to avoid prejudging President\nClinton, the work of the Independent Counsel, or the motives of others\nconcerned with this matter. I supported a thorough investigation and,\nin fact, was one of 31 Democrats to vote for an open impeachment\ninquiry by the Judiciary Committee. I wanted all the serious charges\nthat have been brought against the President investigated, resolved,\nand acted upon.\n Kenneth Starr presented his findings, ultimately dismissing the\ncharges regarding the Whitewater Development Company, White House\nTravel Office firings and handling of the FBI files.\n Following Judge Starr's actions, the Judiciary Committee determined\nthat alleged campaign finance abuses during the 1996 election season\nlacked merit and declined to take further action. After all was said\nand done the remaining charges centered on the President's personal\nbehavior.\n I expected the Judiciary Committee to conduct a meaningful,\nnonpartisan investigation of the President's conduct. However, what\nresulted was politically-driven drama which leaves me with serious\nreservations whether the case has been made for removing the President\nfrom office.\n Without question the President's behavior was inexcusable and\nindefensible. It was wrong. He has said so himself and apologized to\nthe American people. However, to overturn the electoral will of the\nAmerican people requires a much higher threshold than personal\nmisconduct.\n Impeachment is far too serious an issue to be decided along party\nlines, yet the proceedings in the Judiciary Committee were acutely\npartisan. At a time when truth should have been paramount, the\nJudiciary Committee drew lines in the sand. I am very concerned that\ngiven the historical magnitude of this vote, that is a precedent we\nought not to set.\n While the actions of the President cannot be condoned, I have grave\nreservations whether they meet the constitutional standards for removal\nfrom office. While the President may very well be forced at some point\nin the future to face civil charges for his actions, given the\ninformation currently available to us, removal from office isn't\njustified. Unfortunately, no alternative to impeachment was allowed\nconsideration. Instead, the House of Representatives was presented with\nan ``all-or-nothing'' choice.\n I have seriously considered these multiple investigations as well as\nthe President's personal behavior and have spent a great deal of time\nreflecting on them. To prolong this national ordeal is unthinkable. We\nmust bring it to an end and we must do so now. To draw this out further\nis not in the best interests of the country or the American people.\n We are in a period where the politics of personal destruction have\ntaken precedence. Millions of dollars are spent in seemingly endless\npartisan investigations whose only purpose is to discredit and\nembarrass political opponents. It poisons the debate and undermines\nsincere efforts to find solutions to the problems facing our nation.\n People of good will are sincerely divided by this issue. Regardless\nof the ultimate resolution, America and the American people are greater\nthan this and we will get beyond this trying time. Above all else, I am\nconfident we will rise above this.\n I have confidence in the American people and in our institutions.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).\n (Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to not impeach the\nPresident of the United States.\n Mr. Speaker, seven months ago next Monday, I was sworn in as a Member\nof this House. That was one of the proudest days of my life, but not\nbecause I had been elected to high office. It was a proud day because I\nthought I was becoming a part of something bigger than me, something\nwith dignity and honor. I thought I was joining a team.\n In my remarks that day, I told this House that, as far as I am\nconcerned, the team that I am on is the team of the United States of\nAmerica. Now I know that there is no Team USA in this body. There is\nonly team GOP. That majority in this body is about to drag this country\nthrough the mud in order to get revenge for losing the last two\nnational elections. The leadership of this House is willing to trample\nover the Constitution in order to punish our President for the crime of\nbeating their candidate.\n\n[[Page H11884]]\n\n Mr. Speaker, I am not proud to be a part of this body today. But, I\nam proud to support my President. I am proud to support him because\nthis is not just about Bill Clinton the man. It is about philosophies\nand the philosophies of the American people.\n President Clinton wants Social Security reform--for them. He wanted a\npatients' bill of rights and a good education--for them.\n You may, and probably will, impeach him this weekend. But you will\nnever impeach the will and the opinion of the American people. I urge\nmy colleagues to vote no on impeachment.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a member of the committee.\n Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I feel I need to respond to the gentleman\nfrom Wisconsin who totally misrepresented the President's grand jury\ntestimony. He said that the President did not admit to sexual relations\nwith Monica Lewinsky. In the grand jury testimony he admitted the\ninappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I wish he had done it\nearlier, but he clearly did it then.\n He did not give prosecutors all the details. The only conflict in the\ntestimony between the President and Monica Lewinsky is when and where\nthe President touched Monica Lewinsky.\n Now, let's be serious. Are my colleagues ready to send over to the\nUnited States Senate a trial on impeachment about when and where the\nPresident touched Monica Lewinsky? That is what this case is about.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the committee.\n (Mr. DELAHUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, no one excuses the President's behavior.\nIt deserves our censure and our condemnation. But I am just as\nconcerned about our behavior, about the effect our actions may have on\neroding public confidence and the rule of law and the principles of\nfairness and due process that are embedded in our Constitution that\nmake this nation, this America, so unique among the family of nations.\nI believe this is ultimately more important than the fate of one\nparticular president.\n When we began this inquiry, I expressed the hope that it would be\nthorough, fair, and respectful of the rule of law and so that our\nverdict would be respected as well and we would be found no less worthy\nof praise than those who conducted the Nixon inquiry nearly 25 years\nago. They managed to transcend partisanship, to set a standard of\nfairness and due process that earned them an honored place in our\nhistory. And I am truly saddened that we failed to measure up.\n It was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) who said that without\nbipartisan support any impeachment is doomed. And I agree. Yet the\nmajority has sacrificed the legitimacy of this impeachment by\nproceeding without that support.\n As we prepare to render our verdict on President Clinton, the\nAmerican people and history itself are sitting in judgment on us and I\nbelieve they will judge us harshly because we have failed in our duty\nto the rule of law. We failed the rule of law when we abdicated our\nconstitutional responsibility to an unelected prosecutor, when we\nrubber stamped his conclusions and failed to conduct our own\nindependent examination of a record replete with contradictions,\ninconsistencies and half truths. We failed the rule of law when we\ncould not summon the political courage to call real witnesses to test\ntheir credibility.\n President Nixon was afforded that opportunity. President Clinton was\nnot, and that was unfair. We failed the rule of law when we informed\nthe President's counsel of the precise charges only after he made his\nclosing argument. That was unfair. We failed the rule of law when we\nput the burden on the President to prove his innocence. That was\nunfair.\n Presidents are not above the law but they, no less than other\ncitizens, are entitled to its protections. That is what distinguishes a\nfree country from a totalitarian one. And let us hope that the freedom\nwe have struggled so hard to achieve will weather this storm for the\nsake of the country that we all love so dearly.\n I oppose the articles of impeachment as reported by the Judiciary\nCommittee. I agree with much of the reasoning included in the\nMinority's Dissenting Views. However, I write separately to clarify my\nown perspective on a number of matters, including the reliability of\nthe allegations upon which the case for impeachment is based.\n I neither condone nor excuse the President's admitted misdeeds.\nHowever, I agree with my Minority colleagues that the allegations, even\nif true, do not form a constitutionally sufficient basis for\nimpeachment. Whatever the Founders meant by ``high Crimes and\nMisdemeanors,'' it is well-established that impeachment should be\nreserved for situations in which the incumbent poses so grave a danger\nto the Republic that he must be replaced before finishing his term of\noffice. The Majority has utterly failed to establish that such is the\ncase here.\n As for the allegations themselves, however, I do not believe the\nMinority is in any better position to assess their accuracy than the\nMajority. The committee took no direct testimony in this matter. We\ncalled not a single witness who could testify to the facts. Instead, we\nrelied solely on the assertions contained in the referral of the\nIndependent Counsel. Those assertions are based on grand jury testimony\nand other information--much of it ambiguous and contradictory--whose\ncredibility has never been tested through cross-examination.\n Even absent such evidentiary problems, Article II of the Constitution\nimposes upon the committee a solemn obligation--which it may not\ndelegate to the Independent Counsel or any other individual--to conduct\na thorough and independent examination of the allegations and make its\nown findings of fact.\n By failing to do this--by merely rubber-stamping the conclusions of\nthe Independent Counsel--we have not only failed to establish a factual\nbasis for the charges set forth in the articles of impeachment, but\nhave abdicated our constitutional role to an unelected prosecutor and\nrecklessly lowered the bar for future impeachments. In so doing, we\nhave sanctioned an encroachment upon the Executive Branch that could\nupset the delicate equilibrium among the three branches of government\nthat is our chief protection against tyranny.\n A related casualty of our cavalier approach to this investigation has\nbeen the due process to which even our Presidents are entitled. We\nreleased the referral--including thousands of pages of secret grand\njury testimony--within hours of its receipt, before either the\nJudiciary Committee or the President's counsel had any opportunity to\nexamine it. We voted to initiate a formal inquiry against the President\nwithout even a cursory review of the allegations. We required the\nPresident's counsel to prepare his defense without knowing what charges\nwould be brought. And we released articles of impeachment--drafted in\nsecrecy by the Majority alone--before the President's counsel had even\nfinished his presentation to the committee.\n Having put before the public a one-sided case for the prosecution,\nsome member of the Majority actually suggested that the President had\nthe burden of proving his innocence. When he attempted to do so, those\nsame members accused him of ``splitting hairs.''\n This was perhaps the most disturbing aspect of our proceedings. We\nlive in a nation of laws, in which every person--whether pauper or\nPresident--is entitled to due process. This has nothing to do with\n``legal hairsplitting.'' It has everything to do with requiring those\nwho wield the awesome power of the State to meet their burden of proof.\nThat is what distinguishes this country from a totalitarian one. That\nis the genius of a Constitution crafted by men who knew and understood\nthe nature of tyranny. As one former United States Attorney testified\nduring our hearings, those who complain most loudly about such\n``technicalities'' are the first to resort to them when it is they who\nstand accused.\n Public confidence in the rule of law is ultimately more important\nthan the fate of one particular President. And the official lawlessness\nthat has characterized this investigation has done far more to shake\nthat confidence than anything of which the President stands accused.\n These proceedings stand in stark contrast to those of the Watergate\ncommittee--which the Majority had self-consciously adopted as its\nmodel. During the Watergate crisis, the Rodino committee managed to\ntranscend partisanship at a critical moment in our national life, and\nset a standard of fairness that earned it the lasting respect of the\nAmerican people. As the Judiciary Committee voted to launch this\ninquiry, I expressed the hope that our proceedings would be equally\nfair, thorough and bipartisan, and that--whatever our verdict might\nbe--our efforts would be found as worthy of praise.\n In at least one important respect, the committee did merit such\npraise. Chairman Hyde permitted us to offer a censure resolution\ndespite the extraordinary pressures that were\n\n[[Page H11885]]\n\nbrought to bear for him not to do so. In my view, the resolution which\nI sponsored, together with Mr. Boucher, Mr. Barrett and Ms. Jackson\nLee, was--and remains--the most appropriate means of condemning the\nPresident's misconduct while sparing the nation the further turmoil and\nuncertainty of a lengthy Senate trial.\n Contrary to the continuing claims of some that censure would be\nunconstitutional, a score of constitutional experts called as witnesses\nby both Republicans and Democrats on the Committee agreed in writing--\nby a margin of almost 4 to 1--that the Constitution does not prohibit\ncensure. And it would be a breathtaking departure from the democratic\nprinciples which are the soul of the Constitution to deny the full\nHouse an opportunity to vote on an alternative to impeachment.\n As we stand on the brink of an impeachment vote for only the second\ntime in our history, we can only hope that the democracy that has\nsurvived so many storms will weather this crisis as well, and that the\nirresponsible actions of this Committee will not do lasting damage to\nthe country that we all so dearly love.\n\nOpening Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts\nBefore the Committee on the Judiciary Regarding the Proposed Resolution\n of Inquiry--October 5, 1998\n\n Mr. Chairman, the issue before us today is not just the\n conduct of the President. The overriding issue is how this\n committee will fulfill its own responsibilities at a moment\n of extraordinary constitutional significance.\n Three weeks ago, the Independent Counsel referred\n information to Congress that he alleged may constitute\n grounds for impeaching the President.\n But it is not the Independent Counsel who is charged by the\n Constitution to determine whether to initiate impeachment\n proceedings. That is our mandate. He is not our agent, and we\n cannot allow his judgments to be substituted for our own.\n I am profoundly disturbed at the thought that this\n committee would base its determination solely on the Starr\n referral.\n Never before in our history has the House proceeded with a\n presidential impeachment inquiry premised exclusively on the\n raw allegations of a single prosecutor. Let alone a\n prosecutor whose excessive zeal has shaken the confidence of\n fair-minded Americans in our system of justice.\n It is the committee's responsibility to conduct our own\n preliminary investigation to determine whether the\n information from the Independent Counsel is sufficient to\n warrant a full-blown investigation. And we have not done\n that.\n If we abdicate that responsibility, we will turn the\n Independent Counsel Statute into a political weapon with an\n automatic trigger--aimed at every future president. And in\n the process, we will have turned the United States Congress\n into a rubber stamp.\n Just as we did when we rushed to release Mr. Starr's\n narrative within hours of its receipt, before either this\n committee or the President's counsel had any opportunity to\n examine it.\n Just as we did when we released 7,000 pages of secret grand\n jury testimony and other documents hand-picked by the\n Independent Counsel--subverting the grand jury system itself\n by allowing it to be misused for a political purpose.\n Just as we are about to do again: by launching an inquiry\n when no member of Congress, even now, has had sufficient time\n to read, much less analyze, these materials. Not to mention\n the 50,000 pages we have not released.\n For all I know, there may be grounds for an inquiry. But\n before the committee authorizes proceedings that will further\n traumatize the nation and distract us from the people's\n business, we must satisfy ourselves that there is ``probable\n cause'' to recommend an inquiry.\n That is precisely what the House instructed us to do on\n September 10. The chairman of the Rules Committee himself\n anticipated that we might return the following week to seek\n ``additional procedural or investigative authorities to\n adequately review this communication.''\n Yet the committee never sought those additional\n authorities. Apparently we had no intention of reviewing the\n communication.\n That is the difference between the two resolutions before\n us today. The Majority version permits no independent\n assessment by the committee, and asks us instead to accept\n the referral purely on faith.\n Our alternative ensures that there is a process--one that\n is orderly, deliberative and expeditious--for determining\n whether the referral is a sound basis for an inquiry.\n The Majority has made much of the claim that their\n resolution adopts the same process--indeed, the very\n language--that was used during the Watergate hearings of 24\n years ago.\n It may be the same language. But it is not the same\n process.\n In 1974, the Judiciary Committee spent weeks behind closed\n doors, poring over evidence gathered from a wide variety of\n sources--including the Ervin Committee and Judge Sirica's\n grand jury report, as well as the report of the Watergate\n Special Prosecutor. All before a single document was\n released. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the\n President's own counsel. Confidential material, including\n secret grand jury testimony, was never made public. In fact,\n nearly a generation later it remains under seal.\n It is too late now to claim that we are honoring the\n Watergate precedent. The damage is done. But it is not too\n late for us to learn from the mistakes of the last three\n weeks. If we adopt a fair, thoughtful, bipartisan process, I\n am confident the American people will embrace our\n conclusions, whatever they may be.\n If the Majority chooses to do otherwise, it certainly has\n the votes to prevail. Just as the Democratic majority had the\n votes in 1974. But the Rodino committee recognized the\n overriding importance of transcending partisanship. And it\n earned the respect of the American people.\n It is our challenge to ensure that history is as kind to\n the work of this committee.\n\n Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts\n Regarding the Release of Presidential Grand Jury Testimony--September\n 18, 1998\n\n Today, the House Judiciary Committee voted to release to\n the public several volumes of supporting material received\n from the Independent Counsel nine days ago, including grand\n jury transcripts and the President's videotaped testimony.\n In my judgment, the headlong rush to publicize secret grand\n jury testimony not only endangers the rights of the\n individuals involved in this particular case, but also\n undermines the integrity of one of the cornerstones of our\n system of justice--the grand jury system itself.\n Unfortunately, the readiness of the majority to ignore\n these perils also calls into question the fundamental\n fairness of our own proceedings.\n\n the pace accelerates\n\n On September 9, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr sent the\n House of Representatives a 445-page report, together with\n some 2,000 pages of supporting materials, telephone records,\n videotaped testimony and other sensitive material, as well as\n 17 boxes of other information.\n Within 48 hours, the House had voted to release the report\n and give the Judiciary Committee until September 28 to decide\n whether any of the remaining material should be kept\n confidential. While I agreed that we should release the\n report, I opposed our doing so before either the President's\n attorneys or members of the Committee had been given even a\n minimal opportunity to review it.\n That vote was seven days ago. Since then, the breakneck\n pace has only accelerated. Today, we were asked to vote--10\n days ahead of schedule--on whether to release what may well\n be the most sensitive materials of all--the grand jury\n transcripts, together with the videotape of the President's\n testimony.\n Those of us who serve on the Committee had been doing our\n best to review these materials so that we would be in a\n position to evaluate whether or not they ought to be\n released. I cannot speak for other members, but I have been\n as diligent as possible, and had managed by this morning to\n get through--at most--some 30 percent of this material.\n How can anyone make a considered judgment under such\n circumstances? How can we properly weigh the benefits of\n immediate disclosure against the harm it might cause? I have\n done my utmost not to prejudge the outcome of this\n investigation. I am prepared to follow the facts wherever\n they lead. But if the American people are to accept the\n eventual result of our deliberations, they must be satisfied\n that our proceedings have been thorough, disciplined,\n methodical and fair.\n I seriously doubt that an objective observer looking back\n on these past nine days could characterize our proceedings in\n that manner. The process continues to careen forward--without\n a roadmap--at a dizzying pace.\n\n fundamental fairness\n\n One portion of the Independent Counsel's report that I made\n sure to read--not once, but twice--was Mr. Starr's\n transmittal letter, which cautioned that these supporting\n materials contain ``confidential material and material\n protected from disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules\n of Criminal Procedure'' (the rule that provides for the\n secrecy of grand jury records).\n the implication of that warning is that the public\n disclosure of protected grand jury material could do serious\n and irrevocable harm--not only to the President, but to the\n many other individuals caught up in the vast web of the Starr\n investigation, including innocent third-parties, witnesses,\n and other potential targets of ongoing (and future)\n investigations.\n In the United States, those accused of criminal wrongdoing\n are presumed innocent--be they presidents or ordinary\n citizens. Yet if raw, unproven allegations are disclosed to\n the public before they can be challenged, the ``presumption\n of innocence'' loses all meaning. Minds are made up,\n judgments rendered, and the chance for a fair determination\n of the facts is lost.\n That is one reason why federal grand jury testimony--\n whether in printed or in audio-visual form--is explicitly\n shielded from public disclosure under Rule 6(e).\n But grand jury secrecy also serves the interests of the\n prosecution, by encouraging witnesses to come forward and\n ensuring that prejudicial material will not poison the jury\n pool and make it impossible to hold a fair trial. This is\n especially important when the targets and potential targets\n of an investigation are public figures.\n\n[[Page H11886]]\n\n The pre-indictment release of secret testimony compromises\n both objectives--trampling on the rights of the accused and\n jeopardizing subsequent indictments. Beyond this, it calls\n into serious question the fairness and integrity of the grand\n jury system itself.\n\n ``Laundering'' the Evidence\n\n Through its action today, the Judiciary Committee has\n engaged in an abuse of the grand jury process that has\n enabled it to accomplish indirectly what the Independent\n Counsel was prohibited from doing directly.\n The Independent Counsel has developed his case by using the\n grand jury to compel testimony from various witnesses.\n Although the grand jury voted to subpoena the President, the\n videotaped testimony was ultimately obtained under a\n negotiated agreement, under which the Independent Counsel\n agreed to treat the testimony as secret grand jury\n proceedings pursuant to Rule 6(e). It was solely on this\n basis that the President consented to testify.\n The Independent Counsel subsequently received permission\n from the court to release the videotape, together with the\n other grand jury material, to the Congress. But the court\n order did not authorize its further release to the public or\n the press.\n By releasing that testimony to the public, we are--in\n effect--laundering the evidence so as to nullify the express\n agreement under which it was obtained. This is an abuse of\n the grand jury that can only damage the public's faith in\n that institution and impair its ability to perform its\n essential role.\n And what are the benefits that justify these evils? We are\n told only that the public has a ``right to know''--an\n interest in the case that entitles it to the information.\n Some have even suggested that that interest is a financial\n one--that the public ``paid'' for this material and is\n entitled to it.\n To this, one can only respond that the public pays for the\n grand jury testimony in every case. The public has an\n interest in every case--especially where the case involves\n high officials or other celebrities. We accommodate that\n interest by requiring that trials be held in open court. But\n the public is no more entitled to secret grand jury testimony\n than it is to classified intelligence. Not even when the case\n is concluded, let alone while it is still going on.\n In an ordinary criminal trial, grand jury testimony is\n disclosable under Rule 6(e) only under certain specific\n circumstances. For example, criminal defendants are entitled\n to see grand jury proceedings in order to cross-examine\n witnesses or challenge their credibility on the basis of\n prior inconsistent statements.\n On the other hand, the public release of material of this\n nature would violate not only Rule 6(e), but Department of\n Justice guidelines, court precedents and ethical rules\n binding on prosecutors in every jurisdiction in this country.\n A party found to have disclosed the material would be subject\n to sanctions, and the material itself would be excludable in\n court. The court might even grant a defendant's motion to\n dismiss the case for prejudice.\n\n looking to precedent\n\n This is certainly not an ordinary case. But neither is it\n so exceptional as to justify our riding roughshod over\n precedent and due process.\n In the one historical precedent that is closest to the\n present situation, due process was scrupulously observed.\n Twenty-four years ago, a Republican president was under\n investigation by a Democratic House.\n The Judiciary Committee spent seven weeks in closed\n session, reviewing Judge Sirica's grand jury materials prior\n to their release. President Nixon's lawyers were permitted\n not only to participate in these sessions, but to cross-\n examine witnesses before their testimony was made public.\n While there are obviously major differences between the\n current controversy and the Watergate affair, President\n Clinton is entitled to the same due process protections\n afforded President Nixon in the course of that investigation.\n In fact, the case for preserving the confidentiality of the\n evidence is even stronger here than it was in the Watergate\n case. Mr. Starr's grand jury has made no findings whatsoever\n with respect to the evidence. The material we have consists\n merely of selected portions of what the prosecutor put before\n the grand jury, together with his interpretation of that\n material. The jurors were never asked whether they thought\n that the videotape--or any other testimony--provided credible\n evidence of perjury or other wrongdoing. Having used the\n grand jury as a tool to gather information, the Independent\n Counsel bypassed it as a fact-finding body.\n That is his prerogative. But the Judiciary Committee has a\n duty to see that the material provided to use is handled\n appropriately. If we act carelessly, and in haste, we will\n not only cripple this President, but will do lasting harm to\n the values and institutions we hold most dear.\n ____\n\n Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts\nRegarding House Resolution 525, Providing for Release of the Report of\n the Independent Counsel--September 11, 1998\n\n Mr. Speaker, two days ago, after months of speculation,\n leaks and revelations, the report of the Independent Counsel\n was delivered to the House of Representatives. If this\n resolution is approved this morning, the report will be in\n the hands of millions of people around the globe by three\n o'clock this afternoon.\n I certainly agree that the report should be released. That\n is not even an issue. It will be released. The only question\n is when and how it should be done. For in exercising the\n responsibilities that the Constitution has thrust upon us, we\n must be sure that we proceed in a manner that observes the\n principles of fundamental fairness that are at the heart of\n that document.\n Only then will the American people accept the results,\n whatever they may be. Only then will we begin to restore the\n shaken confidence of the nation in its political\n institutions.\n In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I consider the resolution\n before us today to be our first test. For in deciding the\n terms under which the highly sensitive material contained in\n the report should be released to the public, we must weigh\n carefully the benefits of immediate disclosure against the\n damage this might do to the fairness of the investigation.\n If the resolution is agreed to, the entire 445 pages of the\n report will be posted on the Internet this very afternoon.\n Not a page of it will have been examined beforehand by any\n member of the Committee. Not one page will have been seen\n first by the President and his attorneys.\n Some have argued that we should release the report because\n the essence of it has already been leaked to the press and\n appears in this morning's editions. If that is true, it is to\n be deplored, and the Independent Counsel should have to\n answer for it. But we should not endorse the unauthorized\n disclosure of pieces of the report by prematurely releasing\n the rest of it.\n Some have argued that the President already knows what is\n in the report because he is the subject of it. This argument\n suggests, at best, a poor understanding of what goes into a\n prosecutor's report.\n Some have argued that we should go ahead and release the\n report because there are still some 2,000 pages of supporting\n material that will not be released without Committee review,\n and this will be sufficient to prevent irreparable harm to\n lives and reputations. They cite Mr. Starr's request that we\n treat certain information in the supporting material as\n confidential, apparently inferring that the information in\n the report itself does not require such treatment. Yet Mr.\n Starr did not say this. And even if he had, it is for this\n House to determine what information should be disclosed. We\n should not abdicate that responsibility to the Independent\n Counsel.\n Apart from whatever damage the abrupt disclosure of the\n report might cause to innocent third parties, it will clearly\n be prejudicial to the President's defense. If the Independent\n Counsel has done his job, the case he has constructed will be\n a persuasive one. Prosecutors have enormous power to shape\n the evidence presented to the grand jury. And--at least at\n the federal level--they have no obligation to apprise the\n jurors of exculpatory evidence. The case will seem airtight.\n Yet until the evidence has withstood cross-examination and\n the allegations have been proven, they remain nothing more\n than allegations.\n Presidents, no less than ordinary citizens, are entitled to\n the presumption of innocence. They are entitled to confront\n the charges against them. Yet, if we adopt this resolution,\n by the time President Clinton is accorded that right, the\n charges against him will have circled the globe many times.\n They will be all the public reads and hears. They will take\n on a life of their own, and the case will be tried, not by\n Congress, but in the court of public opinion.\n Given these risks, why rush to judgment, Mr. Speaker? After\n so many months, what possible harm can come from allowing the\n counsel for the President a few days to review the report so\n that they can tell his side of the story?\n In the one historical precedent we have to look to, that is\n precisely what was done. Twenty-four years ago, a Republican\n president was under investigation by a Democratic House.\n President Nixon's lawyers were permitted to participate in\n seven weeks of closed sessions, as the Judiciary Committee\n conducted a confidential review of Judge Sirica's grand jury\n materials prior to their release. The counsel to the\n President was even allowed to cross-examine witnesses before\n their testimony was made public.\n Whatever the differences may be between the current\n controversy and the Watergate affairs, President Clinton\n should receive the same due process protections accorded to\n President Nixon in the course of that investigation.\n If the people of the United States are to accept our\n verdict--whatever it may be--they must have confidence in the\n fairness and integrity of our deliberations. That--far more\n than the fate of one particular president--is what is at\n stake.\n ____\n\nDissenting Views of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts\n Concerning the Resolution Relating to an Inquiry of Impeachment\n\n I oppose the resolution of inquiry as reported by the\n Judiciary Committee. I do so based on the concerns expressed\n in the Minority's dissenting views, and for the additional\n reasons set forth below.\n\n i\n\n On September 9, 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr\n referred information to\n\n[[Page H11887]]\n\n the House that he alleged may constitute grounds for\n impeaching the President. In the 30 days that have elapsed\n since our receipt of that referral, neither the Judiciary\n Committee nor any other congressional committee has conducted\n even a preliminary independent review of the allegations it\n contains.\n In the absence of such a review, we have no basis for\n knowing whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an\n inquiry--other than the assertion of the Independent Counsel\n himself that his information is ``substantial and credible''\n and ``may constitute grounds for impeachment.''\n I believe that our failure to conduct so much as a cursory\n examination before launching an impeachment proceeding is an\n abdication of our responsibility under Article II of the\n Constitution of the United States. By delegating that\n responsibility to the Independent Counsel, we sanction an\n encroachment upon the Executive Branch that could upset the\n delicate equilibrium among the three branches of government\n that is our chief protection against tyranny. In so doing, we\n fulfill the prophecy of Justice Scalia, whose dissent in\n Morrison versus Olson (487 U.S. 654, 697 (1988)) foretold\n with uncanny accuracy the situation that confronts us.\n\n ii\n\n The danger perceived by Justice Scalia flows from the\n nature of the prosecutorial function itself. He quoted a\n famous passage from an address by Justice Jackson, which\n described the enormous power that comes with ``prosecutorial\n discretion'': ``What every prosecutor is practically required\n to do is to select the cases . . . in which the offense is\n most flagrant, the public harm, the greatest, and the proof\n the most certain. . . . If the prosecutor is obliged to\n choose his case, it follows that he can choose his\n defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the\n prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should\n get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the\n law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a\n prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a\n technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.\n In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the\n commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has\n committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then\n searching the law books, or putting investigations to work,\n to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm--in which the\n prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to\n embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and\n then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse\n of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement\n becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being\n unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being\n attached to the wrong political views, or being personally\n obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.\n Morrison, 487 U.S. 654, 728 (Scalia, J., dissenting), quoting\n Robert Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, Address Delivered at\n the Second Annual Conference of United States Attorneys\n (April 1, 1940).''\n The tendency toward prosecutorial abuse is held in check\n through the mechanism of political accountability. When\n federal prosecutors overreach, ultimate responsibility rests\n with the president who appointed them. But the Independent\n Counsel is subject to no such constraints. He is appointed,\n not by the president or any other elected official, but by a\n panel of judges with life tenure. If the judges select a\n prosecutor who is antagonistic to the administration, ``there\n is no remedy for that, not even a political one.'' 487 U.S.\n 654, 730 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Nor is there a political\n remedy (short of removal for cause) when the Independent\n Counsel perpetuates an investigation that should be brought\n to an end: ``What would normally be regarded as a technical\n violation (there are no rules defining such things), may in\n his or her small world assume the proportions of an\n indictable offense. What would normally be regarded as an\n investigation that has reached the level of pursuing such\n picayune matters that it should be concluded, may to him or\n her be an investigation that ought to go on for another year.\n 487 U.S. 654, 732 (Scalia, J., dissenting).''\n Under the Independent Counsel Act, there is no political\n remedy at any point--unless and until the Independent Counsel\n refers allegations of impeachable offenses to the House of\n Representatives under section 595(c). At that point, the\n statute gives way to the ultimate political remedy: the\n impeachment power entrusted to the House of Representatives\n under Article II of the Constitution.\n\n iii\n\n Section 595(c) of the Independent Counsel Act provides\n that: ``An independent counsel shall advise the House of\n Representatives of any substantial and credible information\n which such independent counsel receives, in carrying out the\n independent counsel's responsibilities under this chapter,\n that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. 28 U.S.C.\n 595(c).''\n The statute is silent as to what the House is to do once it\n receives this information. But under Article II, it is the\n House--and not the Independent Counsel--which is charged with\n the determination of whether and how to conduct an\n impeachment inquiry. He is not our agent, and we cannot allow\n his judgments to be substituted for our own. Nor can we\n delegate to him our constitutional responsibilities.\n Never in our history--until today--has the House sought to\n proceed with a presidential impeachment inquiry based solely\n on the raw allegations of a single prosecutor. The dangers of\n our doing so have been ably described by Judge Bork, who has\n written that: ``It is time we abandoned the myth of the need\n for an independent counsel and faced the reality of what that\n institution has too often become. We must also face another\n reality. A culture of irresponsibility has grown up around\n the independent-counsel law. Congress, the press, and regular\n prosecutors have found it too easy to wait for the\n appointment of an independent counsel and then to rely upon\n him rather than pursue their own constitutional and ethical\n obligations. Robert H. Bork, Poetic Injustice, National\n Review, February 23, 1998, at 45, 46 (emphasis added).''\n We must not fall prey to that temptation. For when\n impeachment is contemplated, the only check against\n overzealous prosecution is the House of Representatives. That\n is why--whatever the merits of the specific allegations\n contained in the Starr referral--we cannot simply take them\n on faith. Before we embark on impeachment proceedings that\n will further traumatize the nation and distract us from the\n people's business, we have a duty to determine for ourselves\n whether there is ``probable cause'' that warrants a full-\n blown inquiry. And we have not done that.\n\n IV\n\n What will happen if we fail in this duty? We will turn the\n Independent Counsel Act into a political weapon with an\n automatic trigger--a weapon aimed at every future president.\n In Morrison, Justice Scalia predicted that the Act would\n lead to encroachments upon the Executive Branch that could\n destabilize the constitutional separation of powers among the\n three branches of government. He cited the debilitating\n effects upon the presidency of a sustained and virtually\n unlimited investigation, the leverage it would give the\n Congress in intergovernmental disputes, and the other\n negative pressures that would be brought to bear upon the\n decision making process.\n Whether these ill-effects warrant the abolition or\n modification of the Independent Counsel Act is a matter which\n the House will consider in due course. For the present, we\n should at least do nothing to exacerbate the problem. Most of\n all, we must be sure we do not carry it to its logical\n conclusion by approving an impeachment inquiry based solely\n on the Independent Counsel's allegations. If all a\n president's political adversaries must do to launch an\n impeachment proceeding is secure the appointment of an\n Independent Counsel and await his referral, we could do\n permanent injury to the presidency and our system of\n government itself.\n\n V\n\n If the House approves this resolution, it will not be the\n first time in the course of this unfortunate episode that it\n has abdicated its responsibility to ensure due process and\n conduct an independent review. It did so when it rushed to\n release Mr. Starr's narrative within hours of its receipt,\n before either the Judiciary Committee or the President's\n counsel had any opportunity to examine it. It also did so\n when the committee released 7,000 pages of secret grand jury\n testimony and other documents hand-picked by the Independent\n Counsel--putting at risk the rights of the accused,\n jeopardizing future prosecutions, and subverting the grand\n jury system itself by allowing it to be misused for political\n purposes.\n These actions stand in stark contrast to the process used\n during the last impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House--\n the Watergate investigation of 1974. In that year, the\n Judiciary Committee spent weeks behind closed doors, poring\n over evidence gathered from a wide variety of sources--\n including the Ervin Committee and Judge Sirica's grand jury\n report, as well as the report of the Watergate Special\n Prosecutor. All before a single document was released.\n Witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the President's\n own counsel. Confidential material, including secret grand\n jury testimony, was never made public. In fact, nearly a\n generation later it remains under seal. The Rodino committee\n managed to transcend partisanship at a critical moment in our\n national life, and set a standard of fairness that earned it\n the lasting respect of the American people.\n Today the Majority makes much of the claim that their\n resolution adopts the language that was used during the\n Watergate hearings. While it may be the same language, it is\n not the same process. Too much damage has been done in the\n weeks leading up to this vote for the Majority to claim with\n credibility that it is honoring the Watergate precedent. But\n it is not too late for us to learn from the mistakes of the\n last three weeks. If we adopt a fair, thoughtful, focused and\n bipartisan process, I am confident that the American people\n will honor our efforts and embrace our conclusions, whatever\n they may be.\n ____\n\n Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts\n Regarding H. Res. 581, Authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to\n Investigate Whether Sufficient Grounds Exist for the Impeachment of\n William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States--October 8,\n 1998\n\n Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to revise and extend my\n remarks.\n\n[[Page H11888]]\n\n Let me first express my affection and respect for my\n chairman, the Gentleman from Illinois. If Mr. Hyde says he\n hopes to complete this inquiry by the end of the year, I know\n he will do all he can to make good on that promise.\n But if we adopt this resolution, the chairman's good\n intentions will not be enough to prevent this inquiry from\n consuming not only the remainder of this year but most of\n next year as well.\n Nine days ago, I joined with Mr. Berman, Mr. Graham and Mr.\n Hutchinson in a bipartisan letter asking Chairman Hyde and\n our ranking member, Mr. Conyers, to contact the Independent\n Counsel--before we begin in inquiry--to ask him whether he\n plans to send us any additional referrals.\n They wrote to Judge Starr on October 2, and I wish to\n inform the House that last night we received his reply. He\n said, and I quote, ``I can confirm at this time that matters\n continue to be under active investigation and review by this\n Office. Consequently, I cannot foreclose the possibility of\n providing the House of Representative with additional\n [referrals].''\n There you have it, Mr. Speaker. Despite the fact that both\n Mr. Hyde and Mr. Conyers had urged the Independent Counsel to\n complete his work before transmitting any referral to the\n House, what he has given us is essentially an interim report.\n As the Starr investigation enters its fifth year, we face\n the prospect that we will begin our inquiry only to receive\n additional referrals in midstream. Under this open-ended\n resolution, each subsequent referral will become part of an\n ever-expanding ripple of allegations. With no end in sight.\n That is not a process, Mr. Speaker. It's a blank check. And\n I believe it's more than the American people will stand for.\n They do not want us traumatizing the country and paralyzing\n the government for another year when we don't even know\n whether there is ``probable cause'' to begin an inquiry. And\n they don't want us abdicating our constitutional\n responsibility to an unelected prosecutor and accepting his\n referral on faith.\n If we do that--if all a president's adversaries have to do\n to start an impeachment proceeding is secure the appointment\n of an Independent Counsel and await his referral--then we\n will have turned the Independent Counsel Act into a political\n weapon with an automatic trigger--a weapon aimed at every\n future president.\n What the people want is a process that is fair. A process\n that is focused. And a process that will put this sad episode\n behind us with all deliberate speed.\n The Majority resolution does not meet those standards. Our\n alternative does. It provide for the Judiciary Committee to\n determine first whether any of the allegations would amount\n to impeachment offenses if proven. Only if the answer to that\n question is ``yes'' would we proceed to inquire into whether\n those allegations are true. The entire process would end by\n December 31st--the target date chosen by Chairman Hyde\n himself--unless the committee asks for additional time.\n Mr. Speaker, that is a fair and responsible way to do our\n job. It is also the only way to ensure that when that job is\n done, the American people will embrace our conclusions,\n whatever the may be.\n ____\n\n Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts in\n Support of This Motion To Allow Counsel to the President Two Hours in\n Which To Question the Independent Counsel--Thursday, November 19, 1998\n\n Mr. Chairman, I have a motion at the desk and ask for its\n consideration.\n Mr. Chairman, the committee has given the Independent\n Counsel a full two hours to present his version of the case--\n a version with which most Americans are already fully\n familiar on the basis of the 60,000 pages of material he has\n already submitted.\n At the same time, the committee has seen fit to give the\n President's counsel all of 30 minutes to question Mr. Starr.\n This is meant to be the President's sole opportunity to\n confront his accuser during these proceedings.\n I believe this does a grave disservice, not only to the\n President but to the integrity of these proceedings. It is a\n complete and unwarranted departure from the precedents of\n this House.\n During the Watergate hearings of 1974, President Nixon's\n counsel, Mr. James St. Clair, was given all the time he\n needed to respond to the evidence and cross-examine\n witnesses. This is as it should be, Mr. Chairman. We are\n talking about the impeachment of the President of the United\n States, not a tariff schedule.\n I know that some members of the Watergate committee argued\n that the President's counsel, Mr. St. Clair, should be given\n limited time to speak. But those views were wisely overruled\n in the interest of fairness and decency. President Clinton is\n entitled to the same consideration and respect shown to\n President Nixon on the occasion. No more, and no less.\n The record of the Watergate hearings makes clear that at no\n time was Mr. St. Clair restricted to a particular time limit\n for his presentation or his examination of witnesses. Let me\n cite just three passages from the record. On June 27, 1974,\n Chairman Rodino noted that Mr. St. Clair had requested one or\n two days to make his oral response to the initial\n presentation of the evidence, but that St. Clair ``expressed\n to me that he hoped he might be able to conclude his\n presentation, if it is at all possible, today. This is not\n restrictive.''\n On July 18, 1974, Chairman Rodino recognized Mr. St. Clair\n for an additional response at the conclusion of the evidence,\n and noted--over the objections of some Democratic members--\n that ``he is going to take at least an hour and a half.''\n Finally, the record of the Watergate hearings makes clear\n that Mr. St. Clair cross-examined each of various witnesses,\n including William Bittman, Charles Colson, and John Dean, for\n as much as 1\\1/2\\ to 2 hours. On no occasion was he\n interrupted by the chairman, nor did he ever run out of time.\n Is there any legitimate basis for applying a different rule\n today? The majority may point out that the Watergate\n testimony was heard in closed session, while today we sit\n before the cameras and the public. Yet, that being true, it\n is more important, not less, that the President be given a\n full and fair opportunity to respond to the charges that are\n being leveled against him.\n They may argue--as they did in a recent letter to the White\n House--that the President and his counsel are here ``only as\n a matter of courtesy and not of right.'' In other words, ``be\n glad we are letting you testify at all.'' With all due\n respect, Mr. Chairman, if the goal is justice, this cannot be\n a satisfactory response.\n A 30-minute presentation is especially inadequate when one\n considers that Mr. Starr has been preparing for weeks a\n presentation that the White House saw for the first time last\n night. According to news accounts, the witness has spent the\n better part of the past several weeks conducting videotaped\n practice sessions. The President's counsel has had all of 16\n hours to prepare his response.\n I wish I could say that this sort of unfairness were an\n exception to an otherwise fair proceeding. But in fact it\n continues a pattern that has characterized this entire\n investigation. The Committee has abandoned precedent at\n almost every turn--rushing to release Mr. Starr's report\n within hours of its receipt, before either the Judiciary\n Committee or the President's counsel had any opportunity to\n examine it. Posting on the Internet thousands of pages of\n secret grand jury testimony without regard to the rights of\n the accused, the course of future prosecutions, and the\n integrity of the grand jury system itself. And abdicating its\n own responsibility to make an independent examination of the\n charges before voting to commence an impeachment inquiry.\n Enough is enough, Mr. Chairman. Let's do one thing right. I\n urge support for the motion and yield back the balance of my\n time.\n ____\n\n Opening Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt, Judiciary\nCommittee Markup of the Proposed Articles of Impeachment--December 10,\n 1998\n\n Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you to suppose you're an\n ordinary citizen summoned to defend yourself in court.\n You don't know what you're charged with, because there's\n been no indictment.\n The prosecutor has spent four years investigating your\n financial dealings. But when you get to the courtroom, he\n only wants to talk about sexual indiscretions.\n He sends the jury a 445-page report telling just his side\n of the story, and releases thousands of pages of secret grand\n jury testimony to the public.\n He calls none of the witnesses quoted in his report, so you\n can't challenge their veracity.\n In fact, he calls only one witness. Himself. Then it turns\n out he's never even met your chief accuser.\n The judge allows new charges to be raised in the midst of\n the trial, then drops them again.\n He warns that you will be convicted if you do not offer a\n defense. Then, when you do so, he tells you not to hide\n behind ``legal technicalities.''\n The scene I've just described wasn't dreamed up by George\n Orwell of Franz Kafka. It's not a Cold War account of a\n Soviet show trial. In fact, it's similar to what's taken\n place here--in America--during the course of this impeachment\n investigation.\n We are about to vote to impeach the President of the United\n States on charges that would never even have been brought\n against an ordinary citizen.\n We have delegated our constitutional duty to substantiate\n those charges to an unelected prosecutor.\n We have called no witnesses to testify to the charges--\n except the prosecutor himself. And he admitted he has no\n personal knowledge of the facts--and never even met Ms.\n Lewinsky.\n None of his witnesses were subject to cross-examination to\n test their credibility--despite Mr. Schippers' statement that\n they should be.\n Having put before the public a one-sided case for the\n prosecution, some members of this committee have suggested\n that the President has the burden of proving his innocence.\n When he has attempted to do so, those same members have\n accused him of ``splitting hairs.''\n We have required the President's counsel to prepare his\n defense without knowing what formal charges would be brought.\n And we released articles of impeachment to the press before\n Mr. Ruff had even finished his presentation.\n At our hearing the other day, one of my Republican\n colleagues alluded to those he considers ``real Americans.''\n To me, the real\n\n[[Page H11889]]\n\n America is a land where every person--whether pauper or\n President--is accorded due process of law.\n Due process has nothing to do with ``legal hairsplitting.''\n It has everything to do with requiring those who wield the\n awesome power of the State to meet their burden of proof.\n That is what distinguishes this country from a totalitarian\n one. That is the genius of a Constitution crafted by men who\n knew and understood the nature of tyranny.\n As former U.S. Attorney Sullivan testified, those who\n complain most loudly about such ``technicalities'' are the\n first to resort to them when it is they who stand accused.\n For weeks, members of the majority have cited the famous\n passage from A Man for All Seasons, in which Thomas More\n defends the rule of law against those who would ``cut down\n every law in England'' to ``get after the Devil.'' More says,\n and I quote, ``And when the last law was down, and the Devil\n turned round on you--where would you hide, the laws all being\n flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to\n coast--Man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down-- and\n you're just the man to do it--d'you really think you could\n stand upright in the winds that would blow then? . . .\n Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own\n safety's sake.''\n We would all do well to ponder those words, Mr. Chairman.\n For though we have invoked the rule of law, we have failed to\n embrace it. How can the American people accept our verdict,\n unless they are satisfied that we have conducted ourselves in\n as orderly, deliberate and responsible a fashion as did the\n Watergate committee in 1974?\n Chairman Rodino did not proceed with the Nixon impeachment\n until it was clear that it had substantial bipartisan\n support. Chairman Hyde began these proceedings by observing\n that without such consensus, impeachment ought not go\n forward.\n Yet this has been the most partisan impeachment inquiry\n since the infamous trial of Andrew Johnson five generations\n ago. It is like a runaway train.\n Within the committee, some of us have attempted to apply\n the brakes, developing a respectful--though ultimately\n unsuccessful--dialogue with our colleagues across the aisle.\n Elsewhere, growing numbers of thoughtful Republican leaders--\n from Governor Racicot of Montana to Governor Rowland of\n Connecticut--have expressed dismay. Yet the train continues\n to gather speed.\n From my own perspective, this isn't even about President\n Clinton anymore. That he deserves our condemnation is beyond\n all doubt. But as President Ford has written, the fate of one\n particular President is less important than preserving public\n confidence in our civic institutions themselves.\n Article II of the Constitution provides a mechanism for\n removing our Presidents. It's called an election, and it\n happens every four years.\n Whatever the Founders meant by ``high Crimes and\n Misdemeanors,'' the one thing that seems certain is that\n impeachment should be reserved for situations in which the\n incumbent poses so grave a danger to the Republic that he\n must be replaced ahead of schedule.\n Last year the House debated proposed term limits for\n Members of Congress. One of the most respected leaders of the\n House led the fight against that legislation, choosing\n principle over party.\n In his speech, he said, and I quote: ``The right to vote is\n the heart and soul, it is the essence of democracy. . . .\n [O]ur task today is to defend the consent of the governed,\n not to assault it. Do not give up on democracy. Trust the\n people''.\n The author of those eloquent words is my friend, the\n Honorable Henry Hyde of Illinois. I remind you of those words\n today, Mr. Speaker, not to throw them back at you, but\n because it seems to me that ``the consent of the governed''\n is again under assault, and we sorely need such eloquence\n again.\n The President committed serious indiscretions. In the\n effort to conceal his misdeeds, he compounded them, abusing\n the trust of those closet to him and deliberately, cynically,\n lying to the American people.\n Knowing this, the people went to the polls on November\n third and rendered their verdict. And it is illegitimate for\n a lame-duck Congress to defy the will of the electorate on a\n matter of such profound significance.\n The voters did not condone the President's behavior. Far\n from it. But they knew the difference between misdeeds that\n merit reproach and abuses of office that require a\n constitutional coup d'etat.\n Some have said we are just a ``grand jury,'' whose only\n role is to endorse the prosecutor's conclusion that there is\n probable cause to indict. And don't worry, they say--the\n Senate won't convict.\n This view is both dangerous and irresponsible. Impeachment\n is not some routine punishment for Presidents who fall short\n of our expectations. It's the political equivalent of the\n death penalty, with grave consequences for the nation that\n all of us--Republicans and Democrats--so dearly love.\n We should not use the ultimate sanction when there is an\n alternative at hand: the joint resolution which my colleagues\n and I intend to offer, expressing our disapproval of the\n President's misbehavior and censuring him for it.\n If the President really did commit perjury or other\n criminal acts, the law will deal with him in due course. Our\n job is to safeguard the Constitution. And the principal of\n popular sovereignty that is in the stirring words of Henry\n Hyde, its ``heart and soul.''\n There is still time to trust the people, Mr. Chairman. Let\n us do so before it is too late.\n\nStatement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt Regarding Article III of\n the Proposed Articles of Impeachment--December 11, 1998\n\n Mr. Chairman, during our hearing last week, we heard\n testimony from Charles Wiggins, a Federal judge who served as\n a Republican member of this committee at the time of the\n Watergate inquiry.\n Judge Wiggins testified that the Watergate committee heard\n directly from a multitude of witnesses, including Bob\n Haldeman, John Erlichman, John Dean, and other members of\n President Nixon's inner circle.\n That testimony enabled the committee to make its own\n findings of fact with respect to the allegations against the\n President.\n That is what distinguishes their investigation from our\n own. We have not heard from a single witness who can assist\n us in making findings of fact with respect to the allegations\n in the Starr report. Not one.\n Let me offer just one concrete example of why this concerns\n me.\n One count in the proposed Article of Impeachment alleges\n that the President ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or\n supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been\n subpoenaed'' in the Paula Jones case.\n Translation: the President asked his secretary, Betty\n Currie, to retrieve certain gifts which he had given to\n Monica Lewinsky, in an effort to conceal their relationship.\n It is undisputed that Ms. Lewinsky returned the gifts to\n Ms. Currie. She did so on December 28, 1997. The key question\n is whether the President asked Ms. Currie to retrieve the\n gifts, or whether Ms. Lewinsky made her own arrangements to\n return the gifts without Mr. Clinton's involvement.\n On Wednesday, the Independent Counsel released a statement\n to the press, taking issue with Mr. Ruff's presentation to\n this committee, and claiming that the President's involvement\n is substantiated by the billing records from Ms. Currie's\n cellular telephone account.\n The records--which Mr. Schippers used in his closing\n statement to the committee--indicate that a one-minute call\n was placed from Ms. Currie's cell phone to Ms. Lewinsky's\n telephone number on December 28, 1997 at 3:32 p.m.\n In his press release, the Independent Counsel claims that\n Ms. Currie placed this call for the purpose of arranging to\n pick up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky.\n In his closing statement to the committee, Mr. Schippers\n made much of this document. He said that it--and I quote--\n ``corroborates Monica Lewinsky and proves conclusively that\n Ms. Currie called Monica from her cell phone several hours\n after she had left the White House.''\n ``Why did Betty Currie pick up the gifts from Ms.\n Lewinsky?'' Mr. Schippers asked. And he answered, ``The facts\n strongly suggest the President directed her to do so.''\n That is his support for the charge that President sought to\n conceal evidence.\n But there's a problem with this evidence. It is directly,\n explicitly contradicted by the FBI report of the interview\n with Monica Lewinsky of July 27 of this year.\n That report, which appears in the first appendix to the\n Starr referral on page 1396, says, and I quote, ``Lewinsky\n met Currie on 28th Street outside Lewinsky's apartment at\n about 2:00 p.m. and gave Currie the box of gifts.''\n This raises the following question. If the gift exchange\n had already taken place at 2:00, how could the telephone call\n placed at 3:32 have been for the purpose of arranging it?\n This is an inconsistency--one of many troubling\n inconsistencies--in the documents themselves. Yet this\n potentially exculpatory fact--taken from materials in the\n possession of the Independent Counsel--was never acknowledged\n by Mr. Starr. Nor was it acknowledged by the Mr. Schippers.\n Both of them affirmatively led the committee to believe\n that the call was for the purpose of arranging for Ms. Currie\n to pick up the gifts.\n And now we are preparing to vote on an article of\n impeachment that is substantially based on that telephone\n call.\n What was the purpose of the call? We don't know. It appears\n that the investigators never asked. And we have never had the\n opportunity to ask. Because we have not heard from the\n witnesses themselves.\n This is no way to conduct an inquiry, Mr. Chairman. It is a\n disgrace. And it is an insult to the rule of law.\n\n Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt In Support of a Joint\n Resolution Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Censure of\n William Jefferson Clinton--December 12, 1998\n\n Mr. Chairman, over the past 24 hours this committee has\n voted along strict party lines to approve four articles of\n impeachment against the President of the United States.\n In my view, this was reckless and irresponsible.\n Impeachment is not a punishment to be imposed on Presidents\n who fall short of our expectations.\n It's last resort--an ultimate sanction--to be used only\n when a President's actions pose a threat to the Republic so\n great as to compel his removal before his term has ended.\n Impeachment should be considered only when there is no\n alternative. In this case, we had an alternative. The House\n still does.\n I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this\n resolution to come to a vote. I\n\n[[Page H11890]]\n\n have no doubt that you were under great pressure not to do\n so, and I applaud you for recognizing that it was the fair\n and proper thing to do.\n I can only hope that Speaker-Elect Livingston will emulate\n your political courage and allow us a vote on the floor as\n well.\n Because this resolution expresses the overwhelming\n sentiments of the American people--\n --That the President committed serious indiscretions with a\n subordinate.\n --That in the effort to conceal his misdeeds, he compounded\n them--abusing the trust of those closest to him and\n deliberately, cynically, lying to the American people.\n --That these actions warrant condemnation--but not\n impeachment.\n The resolution doesn't mince words. It denounces the\n President's behavior sternly and unambiguously. In plain,\n simple English.\n It acknowledges that the President is not above the law--\n like every citizen, he remains subject to whatever penalties\n a court might impose on him at some future date.\n This language may be too harsh for some; too lenient for\n others. But its purpose should be clear to all.\n Censure has been endorsed by no less a luminary than\n President Ford, who called it ``dignified, honest and, above\n all, cleansing.'' he added--and I quote--``at 85, I have no\n personal or political agenda, nor do I have any interest in\n `rescuing' Bill Clinton. But I do care, passionately, about\n rescuing the country I love from further turmoil and\n uncertainty.''\n Those are sentiments with which most Americans--including\n many prominent Republicans--agree. Yesterday, Governor Pataki\n of New York became just the latest to announce his support\n for censure.\n Yet some insist that a censure of the President would be\n unconstitutional. Why? Because the Constitution does not\n mention censure. It's ``impeachment or nothing,'' we are\n told.\n That's absurd. We have ample discretion to do either, as\n two-thirds of the constitutional experts called to testify by\n both Democrats and Republicans agreed.\n The Constitution--in the words of Justice Jackson--is not a\n suicide pact. It does not compel us to detonate a nuclear\n explosion when light artillery will do.\n Others oppose censure because they believe it's just a\n ``slap on the wrist.'' That was not how Andrew Jackson saw it\n when the Senate censured him in 1834. He was humiliated.\n Eventually, the Senate repealed its rebuke, and Jackson's\n proudest possession was the pen used to strike the words of\n censure from the Senate Journal.\n Finally, some have claimed that censure would ``short-\n circuit'' the impeachment process. They insist on going\n forward, but assure us that once we've launched our nuclear\n missile, we can rely on the Senator to destroy it before it\n hits its target.\n Saying, in effect, ``I would prefer that the President not\n be removed, but I am willing to put the country through the\n upheaval of a Senate trial nonetheless.''\n I submit that this is an abdication of a solemn duty--which\n cannot be delegated--to the Senator or anyone else.\n If we truly believe that the President should not be\n removed from office, we have a better option. Censure him.\n And preserve the Constitution.\n ____\n\nStatement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts in the\n Matter of the Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton--\n December 17, 1998\n\n Mr. Speaker, I neither condone nor excuse the President's\n admitted misdeeds. They are deserving of censure and rebuke.\n But they are not a constitutionally sufficient basis for\n impeachment. Those who are driving this runaway train have\n failed to establish that the President poses a danger to the\n Republic that requires his removal before his term has\n expired.\n What does endanger the Republic is a wholly partisan\n impeachment based on a slapdash investigation that has\n violated every rule of due process.\n Public confidence in the rule of law is ultimately more\n important than the fate of one particular President. And the\n official lawlessness that has characterized this\n investigation has done far more to shake that confidence than\n anything of which the President stands accused.\n The Constitution imposes upon this House a solemn\n obligation--which it may not delegate to the Independent\n Counsel or any other individual--to conduct a thorough and\n independent examination of the allegations and make its own\n findings of fact.\n Yet we have not done this. The committee did not call a\n single witness who could testify to the facts. Instead, we\n have abdicated that responsibility to an unelected prosecutor\n and rubber-stamped his conclusions. Conclusions based on\n grand jury testimony and other information--much of it\n ambiguous and contradictory--whose credibility has never been\n tested through cross-examination.\n This fraudulent investigation is insufficient--as a matter\n of law--to form a factual basis for the charges set forth in\n the articles of impeachment. If we impeach nonetheless--as\n some are determined to do--we will lower the bar for all\n future impeachments.\n We will sanction an encroachment upon the Executive Branch\n that could upset the delicate equilibrium among the three\n branches of government that is our chief protection against\n tyranny.\n Presidents are not above the law. But even Presidents are\n entitled to due process. This investigation has violated due\n process at every turn. Publishing the Starr referral--\n including thousands of pages of secret grand jury testimony--\n before either the committee or the President's counsel had\n any opportunity to examine it. Launching a formal impeachment\n inquiry without even a cursory review of the allegations.\n Requiring the President's counsel to prepare his defense\n without knowing what charges would be brought. And releasing\n these articles of impeachment--drafted in secrecy by the\n Majority alone--before the President's counsel had even\n finished his presentation to the committee.\n Having put before the public a one-sided case for the\n prosecution, some members of the Majority actually suggested\n that the President had the burden of proving his innocence.\n When he attempted to do so, those same members accused him of\n ``splitting hairs.''\n It isn't ``splitting hairs'' to insist that those who wield\n the awesome power of the State meet their burden of proof.\n That is what distinguishes a free country from a totalitarian\n one. And somehow it is those who complain most loudly about\n such ``technicalities'' who are the first to resort to them\n when it is they who stand accused.\n What a contrast between these proceedings and those of 24\n years ago! During the Watergate crisis, the Rodino committee\n managed to transcend partisanship at a critical moment in our\n national life, and set a standard of fairness that earned it\n the lasting respect of the American people.\n I had hoped that our proceedings would be equally fair,\n thorough and bipartisan, and that--whatever our verdict might\n be--our efforts would be found as worthy of praise.\n I do not believe that will be the case, Mr. Speaker. I\n believe history will judge us harshly for what we are about\n to do.\n There is still time--even at this late hour--to pull back\n from the brink. We can still spare the nation the turmoil and\n uncertainty of a Senate trial through a vote that censures\n the President of his misconduct. That is the alternative\n favored by a clear majority of the American people.\n We can register our support for censure by voting ``yes''\n on the motion to recommit which will be offered by Mr.\n Boucher at the conclusion of this debate--to return this\n matter to the Judiciary Committee and demand that they bring\n a censure resolution to the floor.\n As we stand on the edge of an impeachment vote for only the\n second time in our history, we can only hope that the\n democracy that has survived so many storms will weather this\n crisis as well. And that our reckless actions will not do\n lasting damage to the country that we all so dearly love.\n\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).\n Mr. RYUN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the four articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, regretfully I rise today to speak in favor of the\nImpeachment of the President of the United States, William Jefferson\nClinton.\n Impeachment and removal of the President was the remedy given to\nCongress to address a chief executive who attacked the Constitution and\nresulting rule of law that governs our society. The Articles of\nImpeachment against President Clinton deserve serious consideration\nbecause they arose out of the efforts of the President to delay, deny,\nimpede and obstruct (and later to cover-up that obstruction) the fair\nadministration of justice in a federal civil rights sexual harassment\nclaim. The President did so for personal exoneration and pecuniary\ngain. These actions constitute a direct attack on the Judiciary, the\nthird branch of government set forth in our Constitution.\n Specifically, the President is charged with wilfully lying under oath\non four specific occasions: on December 17, 1997, in response to\nwritten questions in a federal civil rights action; on January 17,\n1998, in a deposition for a federal civil rights action; on August 17,\n1998, in testimony before a federal criminal grand jury; and on\nNovember 27, 1998, in sworn responses to the House Judiciary Committee.\nThe President is also charged with obstructing justice in a federal\ncivil rights action during December 1997 and January 1998.\n I prayerfully considered each article and the supporting evidence. I\nhave come to the conclusion that under my duties set forth by the\nConstitution, with conscience as my guide, I must vote in favor of\nImpeachment because there is clearer and convincing evidence that the\nPresident committed these offenses and should stand trial on these\ncharges in the Senate. The Senate should be given the opportunity to\nexercise its Constitutional responsibility and hear evidence from both\nsides to determine whether the President should be convicted and\nremoved from office.\n If we choose to ignore these charges, we would set a dangerous\nprecedent that the President of the United States, the chief law\nenforcement officer, may wilfully ignore the rule of law that governs\nour society. The ruler cannot be above the rule of law.\n This is a somber time for our country. None of us, as citizens of\nthese great United States,\n\n[[Page H11891]]\n\nwants to see the Presidency under attack. Unfortunately, the attack\nagainst this Presidency came from within, and President Clinton must be\nheld accountable for his actions.\n Mr. Speaker, I ask each Member of this House of Representatives to\nput partisanship aside, to look at the law, to look at the evidence,\nand to vote in the way our Foundering Fathers intended when they\ncrafted our Constitution.\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.\n I would respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts that apparently\nhe is under the impression that the President admitted to the truth in\nhis grand jury testimony. He did not. He waived a statement. Each and\nevery time which he did that, this was not telling of truth, it was\nsimply one more count of false declaration before a grand jury or a\ncourt.\n He lied about his relationships with Monica Lewinsky in the\ndeposition in January. He lied again about it before the grand jury in\nAugust. There was nothing truthful about the President's statement to\nthat effect. While simply the fact that he issued a statement may be\nsufficient for the gentleman from Massachusetts, it is still not the\ntruth.\n\n {time} 1845\n\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Manzullo).\n (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution makes the President the\ncaretaker of the laws of our Nation. This means the President protects\nthe people by nurturing and supervising our legal system, plus he must\nlead by example. The facts show the President has lied under oath,\nobstructed justice and abused the power of his office. How can he\npossibly serve as the caretaking of our laws if he cannot abide by\nthem?\n Our legal system demands equal justice under law. To treat the\nPresident differently than other Americans brings grave consequences\nfor the sanctity of our judicial process.\n And everyone likes to talk about polls for what they are worth. Let\nus talk about this one. According to the Scholastic News, a weekly\nmagazine circulated in schools, 85 percent of fourth graders nationwide\nstated they believe a President who lies should lose his job. We have\ntaught our children the importance of telling the truth and the value\nof their word. We cannot afford to change that message now.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nJersey (Mr. Franks).\n (Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of\nsadness that I stand here this evening. We are called upon to decide\nwhat is right for the country and what is required to serve the\ninterests of justice. In making this decision, I recognize that the\npurpose of impeachment is not to punish a political leader, but to\npreserve the integrity of our institutions of government.\n In recent days I have written twice to the President asking him to\ncome to terms with the fact that he broke the law and to take\nresponsibility for his actions. On December 3, I urged the President to\ncome before the American people, admit that he committed perjury and\nindicate that he was prepared to face the consequences. If he did, I\ntold him, I believe this Congress could work out a remedy other than\nimpeachment. On the eve of this debate I wrote to the President one\nmore time and called upon him to tell the truth, the whole truth and\nnothing but the truth.\n Tonight I want to issue one final plea to the President:\n ``It is not too late to demonstrate true personal courage and moral\nleadership. Save the Nation the trauma of an impeachment trial, and\nsave your Presidency.''\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Herger).\n Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress this vote is one of\nthe most solemn, serious and important decisions each of us will ever\nmake and one I cast only under a profound sense of constitutional duty.\n In 1776, Thomas Paine in his pamphlet Common Sense wrote, quote:\n``For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries\nthe law ought to be king.''\n Mr. Speaker, our Nation was created in part because our founders were\nforced to live under one set of laws while our rulers lived under\nanother. The equal application of the rule of law has become the\nprinciple upon which our entire legal system is based. I believe the\nfacts clearly indicate that President Clinton has committed the very\nserious felonies of perjury and obstruction of justice and in so doing\nhas violated the trust of the American people.\n Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that all Americans, including\nand especially the President of the United States, obey the law. Bill\nClinton is our President, not our king. He is not above the law. To\nallow our chief law enforcement officer to commit these felonies\nwithout facing serious consequences is to send a dangerous message to\nall Americans that there are again two standards of justice in America,\none for the President and one for the rest of us.\n Mr. Speaker, we have a constitutional obligation to apply the law to\nthe President just as we would apply it to any other American. I\nbelieve we have no other choice but to vote aye on these articles of\nimpeachment.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Meehan).\n Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, if it is so clear that the President\ncommitted perjury, I wonder why the members of the Committee on the\nJudiciary did not tell us which words were perjurious.\n I am a former prosecutor. If anyone is charged in America with\nperjury they have to specifically say what was perjury. We did not do\nit in this case.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).\n Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I submit my statement and supporting\ndocuments in opposition to the articles of impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, in October we voted on whether to receive the Starr\nreport and to have the Judiciary Committee define the impeachment\nstandard on which to review these allegations and to guide us here in\nthis debate. But the Majority Party, the Republicans, said ``No, we\nwill not define the standard.''\n So what is the standard? Did President Clinton commit ``high Crimes\nand Misdemeanors'' warranting impeachment under the Constitution?\n The Judiciary Committee would not tell us, so 430 legal scholars\nspoke up and wrote to the Speaker, and here is what they had to say, in\npart:\n\n We write neither as Democrats nor as Republicans. Some of\n us believe that the President has acted disgracefully, some\n that the Independent Counsel has. This letter has nothing to\n do with any such judgment. Rather, it expresses the one\n judgment on which we all agree: that the allegations detailed\n in the Independent Counsel's referral and summarized in\n Counsel Shippers's statement do not justify presidential\n impeachment under the Constitution.\n No existing judicial precedents bind Congress's\n determination of the meaning of ``high Crimes and\n Misdemeanors.'' But it is clear that Members of Congress\n would violate their constitutional responsibilities if they\n sought to impeach and remove the president for misconduct,\n even criminal misconduct, that fell short of the high\n constitutional standard required for impeachment.\n ....It goes without saying that lying under oath is a\n serious offense. But even if the House of Representatives had\n the constitutional authority to impeach for any instance of\n perjury or obstruction of justice, a responsible House would\n not exercise this awesome power on the facts alleged in this\n case. The House's power to impeach, like a prosecutor's power\n to indict, is discretionary. This power must be exercised not\n for partisan advantage but only when circumstances genuinely\n justify the enormous price the national will pay in\n governance and stature, if its President is put through a\n long, public, voyeuristic trial. The American people\n understand this price. They demonstrate the political wisdom\n that has held the Constitution in place for two centuries\n when, even after the publication of Mr. Starr's report, with\n all its extraordinary revelations, they oppose impeachment\n for the offenses alleged therein.\n\n A majority of the American people are being denied through their\nelected representative an opportunity to cast a vote on a bipartisan\ncompromise--a vote of conscience to censure the President.\n\n[[Page H11892]]\n\n I wish to share with the nation the letter I am sending to my\nconstituents on this historic vote:\n\n Dear Constituent: Thank you for sharing your views, hopes,\n fears, and thoughts on the Articles of Impeachment pending\n against President Bill Clinton.\n My votes on impeachment were the most solemn and saddest\n votes I have ever had to cast. The constitutional importance,\n the solemn occasion, the division within the House of\n Representatives and indeed the nation itself cause me to\n pause and reflect on my personal, constitutional, national,\n political and family life. These were not easy votes. I read\n transcripts, watched the video deposition, reviewed\n testimony, and studied legal and historical briefs. I read\n numerous constitutional arguments and perspectives, the\n report of the Office of Independent Counsel, and\n documentation submitted by the President's attorneys, and I\n attended briefings by constitutional and legal experts. Most\n of all, I listened to you, read your letters and e-mails, and\n your messages left with my staff and on our answering\n machines.\n For only the second time in our nation's history of the\n House of Representatives voted on Articles of Impeachment.\n While impeachment is an integral part of our constitutional\n structure, the Founding Fathers made it clear it is a final\n recourse in dealing with a tyrant or a scoundrel whose\n actions clearly threaten our system of government. When an\n impeachment vote occurs, Congress usurps the power of the\n electorate. The removal of the President is reserved for the\n American people through elections, and Congress should only\n ``substitute'' or ``invalidate'' your vote and reverse the\n last presidential election through impeachment only when it\n is necessary to save the country from a President whose\n actions are of ``such a grave nature that they imperiled the\n structure of our government.''\n Becasue the U.S. House of Representatives failed to define\n the constitutional standard for impeachment, it then became\n possible for each members to devise his or her own\n impeachment standard that fits a personal perception of facts\n surrounding the President. Unfortunately, what individual\n members have perceived as impeachable facts run contrary to\n the facts perceived by two-thirds of the American people who\n have repeatedly stated they did not want this President\n impeached. The American people understand that a President's\n criminal or civil behavior should be addressed through normal\n judicial proceedings, that ordinary political wrongs can be\n addressed at the ballot box; and that impeachment should only\n be used for serious public misconduct which threatens our\n form of government.\n I believe the reason for the partisan split on each article\n of impeachment came about because the impeachment standard\n was never defined and the Republican leadership stated it was\n up to each member ``to vote their conscience.'' Many\n individual members, both Democrat and Republican, have\n confided to me that a true vote of conscience was to censure\n the President. Still, the Republican leadership refused to\n allow us to vote on censure.\n Prior to drafting Articles of Impeachment against President\n Richard Nixon, both Republicans and Democrats set forth an\n impeachment standard. The standard used in the Nixon\n impeachment was a constitutional standard, not a personal\n standard. To date, more than 430 legal scholars have written\n to the House Leadership and the Judiciary Committee stating\n that the President's actions must be ``gross[ly] derelict\n exercise of official power,'' a standard that is not met on\n the facts alleged in the Articles of Impeachment against\n President Clinton. ``If the President committed perjury\n regarding his sexual conduct, this perjury involved no\n exercise of presidential power as such.'' The scholarly\n letter went on to state that ``making false statements about\n sexual improprieties is not a sufficient basis to justify the\n trial and removal from office of the President of the United\n States.''\n I agree that the President's behavior was inappropriate and\n immoral and that he must be held accountable, but, as Bob\n Dole wrote in the New York Times, a bipartisan resolution of\n censure would be a proper Congressional response to the\n president's actions and it would allow Congress to rapidly\n resolve this issue and move forward to deal with the nation's\n other important business.\n Documentation submitted by the President's legal counsel\n echoes what the President has said publicly, ``there are no\n fancy ways to say that I [the President] have sinned.'' The\n document continues: ``The president has insisted that no\n legalities be allowed to obscure the simple truth that his\n behavior in this matter was wrong; that he misled his wife,\n his friends, and our nation about the nature of his\n relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He did not want anyone to\n know about his personal wrongdoing. But he does want\n everyone--the Committee, the Congress and the country--to\n know that he is profoundly sorry for the wrongs he has\n committed and for the pain he has caused his family, friends,\n and our nation.''\n As a member of the US House of Representatives, I am duty\n bound to differentiate between that which is sinful, immoral\n conduct and that which is impeachable under our Constitution.\n Based on all the information available to me, listening to\n your views, thoughts and opinions, I have determined that the\n President's actions did not reach the necessary\n constitutional standard for impeachment unique to the office\n of the President, and that his actions were not of such a\n grave nature that his personal actions imperiled our form of\n government.\n In closing let me share with you a comment that a\n constituent, a Dominican nun, shared with me about this whole\n impeachment. Sister Margaret reminded me of the Biblical\n story of how the men who would stone a prostitute were the\n very men that paid her for her services, and how they were\n challenged by Jesus, who said, ``Let he who is without sin\n cast the first stone.'' Of course, none of them could throw\n the stone. As Sister Margaret stated to me, ``I have a stone\n in my hand, but I am waiting to become perfect . . . then\n I'll throw it!''\n This does not excuse or exonerate the President for his\n actions. He remains liable for civil and criminal charges for\n his actions, and, should he be found guilty, he would justly\n face legal punishment. None of his actions, however, permit\n us to take the historically unwarranted step of invoking\n sections of our Constitution that will forever distort the\n intentions of the Founding Fathers, undo the last election,\n and forever change the relationship between Congress and the\n presidency. My votes were not cast to protect the President\n in any way. They were cast to protect the office of the\n presidency and the Constitution.\n Thank you for sharing your time, views, opinions, thoughts\n and prayers!\n ____\n\n Hon. Newt Gingrich,\n Speaker, United States House of Representatives.\n Dear Mr. Speaker: Did President Clinton commit ``high\n Crimes and Misdemeanors'' warranting impeaching under the\n Constitution? We, the undersigned professors of law, believe\n that the misconduct alleged in the report of the Independent\n Counsel, and in the statement of Investigative Counsel David\n Schippers, does not cross that threshold.\n We write neither as Democrats nor as Republicans. Some of\n us believe that the President has acted disgracefully, some\n that the Independent Counsel has. This letter has nothing to\n do with any such judgments. Rather, it expresses the one\n judgment on which we all agree: that the allegations detailed\n in the Independent Counsel's referral and summarized in\n Counsel Schippers's statement do not justify presidential\n impeachment under the Constitution.\n No existing judicial precedents bind Congress's\n determination of the meaning of ``high Crimes and\n Misdemeanors.'' But it is clear that Members of Congress\n would violate their constitutional responsibilities if they\n sought to impeach and remove the President for misconduct,\n even criminal misconduct, that fell short of the high\n constitutional standard required for impeachment.\n The President's independence from Congress is fundamental\n to the American structure of government. It is essential to\n the separation of powers. It is essential to the President's\n ability to discharge such constitutional duties as vetoing\n legislation that he considers contrary to the nation's\n interests. And it is essential to governance whenever the\n White House belongs to a party different from that which\n controls the Capitol. The lower the threshold for\n impeachment, the weaker the President. If the President could\n be removed for any conduct of which Congress disapproved,\n this fundamental element of our democracy--the President's\n independence from Congress--would be destroyed. It is not\n enough, therefore, that Congress strongly disapprove of the\n President's conduct. Under the Constitution, the President\n cannot be impeached unless he has committed ``Treason,\n Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''\n Some of the charges raised against the President fall so\n far short of this high standard that they strain good sense:\n for example, the charge that the President repeatedly\n declined to testify voluntarily or pressed a debatable\n privilege claim that was later judicially rejected. Such\n litigation ``offenses'' are not remotely impeachable. With\n respect, however, to other allegations, careful consideration\n must be given to the kind of misconduct that renders a\n President constitutionally unfit to remain in office.\n Neither history nor legal definitions provide a precise\n list of high crimes and misdemeanors. Reasonable people have\n differed in interpreting these words. We believe that the\n proper interpretation of the Impeachment Clause must begin\n by recognizing treason and bribery as core or paradigmatic\n instances, from which the meaning of ``other high Crimes\n and Misdemeanors'' is to be extrapolated. The\n constitutional standard for impeachment would be very\n different if different offenses had been specified. The\n clause does not read, ``Treason, Felony, or other Crime''\n (as does Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution), so\n that any violation of a criminal statue would be\n impeachable. Nor does it read, ``Arson, Larceny, or other\n high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' implying that any serious\n crime, of whatever nature, would be impeachable. Nor does\n it read, ``Adultery, Fornication, or other high Crimes and\n Misdemeanors,'' implying that any conduct deemed to reveal\n serious moral lapses might be an impeachable offense.\n When a President commits treason, he exercises his\n executive powers, or uses information obtained by virtue of\n his executive powers, deliberately to aid an enemy. When a\n President is bribed, he exercises or offers to exercise his\n executive powers in exchange\n\n[[Page H11893]]\n\n for corrupt gain. Both acts involve the criminal exercise of\n presidential powers, converting those awful powers into an\n instrument either of enemy interests or of purely personal\n gain. We believe that the critical, distinctive feature of\n treason and bribery is grossly derelict exercise of official\n power (or, in the case of bribery to obtain or retain office,\n gross criminality in the pursuit of official power). Non-\n indictable conduct might rise to this level. For example, a\n President might be properly impeached if, as a result of\n drunkenness, he recklessly and repeatedly misused executive\n authority.\n Much of the misconduct of which the President is accused\n does not involve the exercise of executive powers at all. If\n the President committed perjury regarding his sexual conduct,\n this perjury involved no exercise of presidential power as\n such. If he concealed evidence, this misdeed too involved no\n exercise of executive authority. By contrast, if he sought\n wrongfully to place someone in a job at the Pentagon, or lied\n to subordinates hoping they would repeat his false\n statements, these acts could have involved a wrongful use of\n presidential influence, but we cannot believe that the\n President's alleged conduct of this nature amounts to the\n grossly derelict exercise of executive power sufficient for\n impeachment.\n Perjury and obstructing justice can without doubt be\n impeachable offenses. A President who corruptly used the\n Federal Bureau of Investigation to obstruct an investigation\n would have criminally exercised his presidential powers.\n Moreover, covering up a crime furthers or aids the underlying\n crime. Thus a President who committed perjury to cover up his\n subordinates' criminal exercise of executive authority would\n also have committed an impeachable offense. But making false\n statements about sexual improprieties is not a sufficient\n constitutional basis to justify the trial and removal from\n office of the President of the United States.\n It goes without saying that lying under oath is a very\n serious offense. But even if the House of Representatives had\n the constitutional authority to impeach for any instance\n of perjury or obstruction of justice, a responsible House\n would not exercise this awesome power on the facts alleged\n in this case. The House's power to impeach, like a\n prosecutor's power to indict, is discretionary. This power\n must be exercised not for partisan advantage, but only\n when circumstances genuinely justify the enormous price\n the nation will pay in governance and stature if its\n President is put through a long, public, voyeuristic\n trial. The American people understand this price. They\n demonstrate the political wisdom that has held the\n Constitution in place for two centuries when, even after\n the publication of Mr. Starr's report, with all its\n extraordinary revelations, they oppose impeachment for the\n offenses alleged therein.\n We do not say that a ``private'' crime could never be so\n heinous as to warrant impeachment. Congress might responsibly\n take the position that an individual who by the law of the\n land cannot be permitted to remain at large, need not be\n permitted to remain President. But if certain crimes such as\n murder warrant removal of a President from office because of\n their unspeakable heinousness, the offenses alleged in the\n Independent Counsel's report or the Investigative Counsel's\n statement are not among them. Short of heinous criminality,\n impeachment demands convincing evidence of grossly derelict\n exercise of official authority. In our judgment, Mr. Starr's\n report contains no such evidence.\n Sincerely,\n Richard L. Abel\n (And 442 others)\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nNorth Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).\n (Mr. POMEROY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, impeachment in the Constitution was meant\nto be applied when the elected President misuses the office in a way\nthat threatens our structure of government. The conduct of President\nClinton at issue here was reprehensible but does not constitute a high\ncrime or misdemeanor as required for removal by impeachment. No\nPresident is above the law, but that does not mean every alleged crime\nis an impeachable crime. The crimes alleged here may warrant\nprosecution when the President's term expires, but they do not rise to\nthe standard required by the Constitution for impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I am bitterly disappointed the majority blocked this\nHouse from considering the option of censuring the President instead of\nthe false choice between removal by impeachment or no action\nwhatsoever. Basic fairness as well as basic respect for the deep\ndivisions and the thinking of Americans would have allowed all options\nto be before us.\n History will not be kind to this Congress for its handling of this\nmatter. I hope our country will never ever again have a congressional\nmajority as heedless of the spirit of justice and the Constitution as\nthis one.\n Impeachment as established in the Constitution was meant to be\napplied when the elected President was misusing the powers of the\nExecutive Branch in a way that was threatening to our very structure of\ngovernment.\n The conduct of President Clinton at issue here is reprehensible. It\ndoes not, however, constitute a high crime or misdemeanor as required\nfor removal by impeachment.\n No president is above the law but that does not mean every crime is\nan impeachable crime. The crimes alleged against President Clinton may\nwell warrant prosecution when his term expires, but they do not rise to\nthe standard required by the Constitution for impeachment.\n These proceedings represent an extremely important moment in the\nConstitutional history of this country. I'm bitterly disappointed the\nmajority leadership blocked this House from considering a full range of\noptions, including the option of censuring the President instead of the\nfalse choice between removal by impeachment or no action whatsoever.\n Basic fairness as well as basic respect for the deep divisions in the\nthinking of Americans on this matter would allow all options to be\nbefore us.\n The blind drive of majority leadership to win this impeachment vote\nregardless of any and all other considerations is revealed by their\nrefusal to delay this debate, even a few days, to allow the attack\nagainst Iraq to run its course. The brave men and women executing the\nattack on our behalf deserve our full focused support behind their\nbrave actions.\n History will not be kind to this Congress for its handling of this\nmatter. I hope our country will never again have a congressional\nmajority of either party as heedless of the spirit of justice and the\nConstitution as this one.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Lampson).\n (Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this morning I began to write a letter to\nmy daughters and future grandchildren to describe my feelings on this\nsad, yet historic day, and I wrote that I continue to be overwhelmed by\nthe fact that this Congress and, as a result, the American people are\nbeing denied the right to vote on an action that would unify our\ncountry, censure.\n To my majority colleagues, I implore them in the interests of\nfairness to stop the bitterness and rancor that currently controls\nCapitol Hill. As our country continues to polarize, I pray that\nCongress has not lost its ability to seek common ground, for if we\nhave, it will affect our ability to solve problems for decades to come,\nand I would like to be able to tell my children so that they can tell\ntheir children that this body came to its senses and put aside\npartisanship in favor of statesmanship. Let us be remembered for\nallowing the will of the American people to be heard through a vote on\ncensure. It is the only fair thing to do.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nOhio (Mr. Traficant).\n Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I do not question anyone's motives. Both\nparties agree to some degree that the President broke the law. We\ndisagree on the punishment.\n Now some say the Constitution does not allow censure. I say the\nConstitution does not prohibit censure. The founders left it up to the\nelected Congress, not to unelected judges. Therefore, we are to work\nour political will.\n Let me say this tonight. I believe precedents and history requires\nthat we work our political will. The standard is high crimes. Did he\nbreak the law? Probably so. But what were those laws? No charges on\nFilegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Chinagate, Vincent Foster. What did\nhe touch? Where did he touch it? When did he touch it? Did he cover it\nup?\n Does this offense warrant the death penalty? Make no mistake,\nimpeachment is tantamount to the political element of capital\npunishment.\n Mr. Speaker, an impeachable offense should be one that threatens\nliberty, not chastity. I advise the Congress to censure the President,\nwho would be prosecuted after he completed his terms, rather than\ndemean the status of high crimes.\n Take politics out of that really. The President broke the law, we are\nsure of that, but I do not believe it requires the death penalty.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nNebraska (Mr. Christiansen).\n (Mr. CHRISTIANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n\n[[Page H11894]]\n\n Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Mr. Speaker, last week my wife and I toured the CIA\nheadquarters, and chiseled in the granite as we walked in the door are\nthese words:\n ``You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.''\n I believe that every woman is entitled to the truth in a sexual\nharassment lawsuit. The American people are entitled to the truth. We,\nthe Congress, are entitled to the truth. Members of Congress told\nPresident Clinton, ``Do not lie in your grand jury testimony or you\nwill be impeached.''\n I support the articles of impeachment, not out of disrespect for\nPresident Clinton, but out of respect for our rule of law.\n A constituent of mine from Omaha told me last week, ``I wish it\nwasn't about sexual harassment, but the facts are he lied under oath,\nhe covered it up for as long as he could, and he used his office to try\nand obstruct the work of the independent counsel and the rule of law.''\nShe went on to say, ``We have men on death row that were sentenced\nbased on the sworn testimony of witnesses, sworn testimony of the\npeople who took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing\nbut the truth so help them God.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the same\noath that the President took raising his right hand, stating those\nsacred words in front of witnesses, a Federal judge and a grand jury.\nIf the President does not honor those words, how can we assure that\nother witnesses will honor those words?\n Some of my colleagues have said that we should not dumb down the\nimpeachment process, but I say we should not dumb down the rule of law.\nThe damage is done. The President cannot go back and he cannot change\nwhat has happened, and that is why we stand here today preparing to\nvote on the future of the most powerful man in the world, William\nJefferson Clinton.\n This is my last vote as a Member of Congress. I will not enjoy\ncasting this vote. The President's behavior and his subsequent denials,\nfalse testimony and obstruction of justice have brought us to this\npoint. Actions have consequences, and the consequences of the\nPresident's lies and obstructions these past many months must be for\nhim to personally address his conduct before the United States Senate.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nSouth Dakota (Mr. Thune).\n (Mr. THUNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks I have agonized\nlike most Members of Congress over the weight and the burden of the\nconstitutional duty that is facing the United States House of\nRepresentatives. This is one of the most difficult decisions I have\never had to make in my career, and it is not a decision I enjoy making.\nHowever, after much study, much thought and much prayer, I have come to\nthe following conclusion: Either we are a Nation of laws or we are not,\nand if we are, then those laws have to apply equally to all people.\n Our Declaration of Independence says it best. We hold these truths to\nbe self-evident, that all men are created equal. In America there is no\nemperor, and there is no Praetorian guard. There is one standard of\njustice that applies equally to all, and to say or do otherwise will\nundermine the most sacred of all Americans ideals.\n President Clinton has committed federal crimes, and there must be a\nreckoning or no American shall ever again be prosecuted for those same\ncrimes.\n There is one other important issue I would like to address, and that\nis the matter of trust. Lying to the American people is a betrayal of\ntrust. All of us, including our public leaders, make mistakes. We are\nall subject to the same universal truth. We all fall short. To err is\nhuman, to forgive is divine. But to err repeatedly and willfully with\nimpunity defies another universal truth, and that is the law of the\nharvest. In other words, one reaps what they sow, and the pattern of\ndeception and dishonesty that acts as a body guard to this President\nstrikes at the very core of his ability to lead. It is a matter of\ntrust.\n Those close to the President say he cannot admit to lying for legal,\npolitical and personal reasons. Fear of future prosecution and fear of\npolitical consequence gives explanation, albeit little excuse for his\ndenials. However, it is the President's assertion that he cannot tell\nthe truth for personal reasons that is most troubling.\n\n {time} 1900\n\n The President says he cannot tell the truth because he does not\nbelieve he lied, and yet even the President's most ardent defenders\nacknowledge he lied under oath.\n If the President genuinely believes he is telling the truth, we are\nleft with one of two equally miserable realities: Either the President\nchooses contempt and complete disregard for the truth, or his\nconscience is so diminished as to leave him unable to discern the truth\nfrom his lies. Both conclusions are ruinous to a constitutional\nrepublic, whose leaders must command the trust of those who lead.\n Our constitutional government will stand the test of time, my\nfriends, but only if we deal decisively with those who recklessly\nassault its foundations. Allegiance to our Constitution leaves us with\nno alternative but to vote in favor of impeaching the President.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).\n (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, in just a few hours I will join others in this chamber\nto cast one of the toughest and most momentous votes that a Member of\nthe House of Representatives can be called upon to cast--a vote to\nimpeach the President of the United States. This is an historic vote\nthat is not easily cast--and I take no satisfaction in doing so.\n I have always taken the position that I would not use any office of\npublic trust to hurt anyone--and if I could not help them, I would pass\nit by. I know that this is a hurtful process, but in this vote I had to\ngo back to the oath I took to uphold the law of the land. This I will\ndo.\n Having read the testimony, I will vote for articles of impeachment,\nfor it is clear that the transcript shows that the President committed\nperjury. Perjury is a felony offense--regardless of the subject matter\nor the circumstances--and there is no asterisk in the law books that\nexempts a President.\n I am sorry for the President and for our country. This is both a\npersonal tragedy and a national tragedy. Blame has been cast in all\ndirections--toward the President, the Office of the Independent\nCounsel, and the Congress. I have heard from thousands of Americans\nduring the course of this debate via telephone, letters, faxes, and e-\nmail. In the final analysis, I had to evaluate the evidence for myself,\nlisten to my constituents, and then call it as I see it.\n We must now see this through to closure--for better or worse--and we\nmust pull together as a nation after this is over. It will be\ndifficult, but Americans have a great capacity to overcome difficult\ntimes. This issue has distracted us and divided us, and now we must\ncome together and move ahead to address the many domestic and foreign\nissues that require our serious and undivided attention.\n Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to represent the Fourth District of\nTexas in this Chamber, and I have tried to do so to the best of my\nabilities. I am grateful to all those in my district who contacted me,\nand I hope they know that their views are important to me--whether they\nagree with my decision or not.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me\ntime.\n Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disturbed to hear speaker after\nspeaker come here and speak to the issue of obstruction of justice and\nsuborning of perjury. Let us listen to the testimony of the key\nwitness, Monica Lewinsky, where she said clearly and unequivocally,\n``No one asked me to lie and no one promised me a job.''\n Listen to the evidence. Let us not make this a sham and a shambles. I\nbeg you to listen to the evidence.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nLouisiana (Mr. John).\n Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I entered the House of Representatives two\nyears ago, and the first act I took was the oath of office to uphold\nthe Constitution. The matter now before us constitutes the most\nsignificant test of that oath.\n\n[[Page H11895]]\n\n At all times I have done my best to evaluate if the allegations\nagainst the President threatened our constitutional process. I have\nsaid repeatedly in my remarks, publicly, that I believe the President's\nactions were reprehensible and morally repugnant.\n However, after much thought and deliberation over the past few\nmonths, I have concluded that the constitutional threshold of treason,\nbribery and high crimes and misdemeanors that our framers enumerated\nhas not been reached in the situation to justify the removing of and\nthe impeachment of President Clinton. I purposely refrained from this\njudgment because of this. I was one of only 31 Democrats who voted to\ngo on with the inquiry.\n Let me be clear, the President should be held accountable for his\nreckless actions. However, impeachment is not the punishment. Let us\nmove on to the business of our Nation.\n Mr. Speaker, the President's actions were reprehensible, morally\nrepugnant and have brought shame upon the highest office in our Nation.\nI feel everyone in this Chamber shares this same sentiment. However,\nwhat we now disagree upon involves the most significant test to our\noath of office--whereupon we have all sworn to uphold our sacred\nConstitution.\n Mr. Speaker, our Nation and our Constitution face its most solemn\nhour since the House of Representatives last triggered an impeachment\nagainst the President of the United States some 130 years ago. While\nthe times have certainly changed, the magnitude of a vote to remove the\nhighest officer in our Nation has not.\n We have learned from our past that impeachment cannot be guided by\npassion nor partisanship but by the facts, our laws, and our deep faith\nin the Constitution. For impeachment centers not on our political\ndifferences but instead must be determined by the constitutional\nstandard of whether the President committed ``treason, bribery, and\nother high crimes and misdemeanors.''\n Mindful of this, I have spent the better part of this year seeking to\nfurther understand what the Framers had in mind when they conceived\nthis clause. As a result, I am convinced more than ever, Mr. Speaker,\nthat the Framers' impeachment clause empowers Congress with the ability\nto protect our citizens against an executive branch that grossly abuses\nits power by turning the arm of government against its citizens.\n In 1974, the Judiciary Committee recognized this fundamental ``abuse\nof power'' when they issued impeachable offenses against Richard Nixon\nthat involved his use of the Internal Revenue Service, the Central\nIntelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation against\nthe citizenry. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the impeachment of\nPresident Andrew Johnson itself proved to be an ``abuse of Congress'\npower'' as Mr. Johnson was attacked more for his political convictions\nthan his decision to oust a Cabinet member. Unfortunately, we now stand\nready to drag our tired country through a protracted trial in the\nSenate for something which does not reach the threshold of an\nimpeachable offense.\n The President's conduct in concealing a personal sexual relationship\ncertainly do not threaten our constitutional process nor pose a direct\nthreat to our citizenry. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a vote to lower\nthe bar on what is an impeachable offense would do more in fact to\nundermine our democracy than advance it.\n Let me be clear that I believe the President should be held\naccountable for his reckless acts, however impeachment is not the\nappropriate punishment in this instance. Consequently, I am greatly\ndismayed that the full House will not be given the same opportunity\npresented to the Judiciary Committee to consider alternative forms of\npunishment such as a censure motion and monetary fine. At a minimum,\nthe Congress needs to make it clear to the American people that telling\nthe truth does matter, that the President's deeds will not go\nunpunished, and that he remains subject to prosecution in a court of\nlaw when he leaves office.\n I know, Mr. Speaker, that I will ultimately have to answer to my\nconstituents after my vote on this matter. However, I will do so with a\nclear conscience knowing that I did what I thought was right, just, and\nin the best interest of our country.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the\ngentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).\n (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nher remarks.)\n Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only in opposition to\nthese impeachment articles, but to express my outrage and sadness over\na process driven not by fairness, but by a small minority obsessed with\nimpeachment. Instead of putting politics aside and coming together in a\nbipartisan manner to do what is right for our Nation, today we begin\nthe final steps in a process that, from the start, has never been about\nfairness. Rather, it has been to accomplish a predetermined result, to\nimpeach the President of the United States.\n No one is disputing that what the President did was wrong and he\nshould be held accountable. That is why an overwhelming majority on\nboth sides of the aisle want to vote on censure. But we will not be\ngiven the opportunity to vote on that today. To bar this body from that\noption is inexcusable and it is outrageous.\n The majority has said that they are simply voting their conscience.\nBut what about the conscience of the American people, who\noverwhelmingly said that the President should not be impeached, but be\ncensured? I ask myself, how did this body get to the point where the\nconscience of so many Members is so different from the conscience of\nthe American people?\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Rangel).\n (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am asking as many that can to reject the\nidea of voting for articles of impeachment, because 25 years ago I had\nthe opportunity to serve in this body when the question of impeachment\nwas seriously taken up, in 1974, and I can tell you that we may use the\ntype of language that sounds as though we are working within the\nConstitution, but this procedure is not on the level.\n You cannot have a political procedure where Republicans line up on\none side, like they are shooting fish in a barrel, and Democrats line\nup on the other side. We should not be talking about a Democratic\nPresident that for six years people have been trying to hound out of\noffice. Even before this deal goes down, where you already have the\nvotes, there are people asking the President to resign from office.\n What has this President done to cause so much hatred, so much\nanimosity? And for those of you that say this is not about sex, I agree\nwith you: This is about getting rid of the President of the United\nStates. Whether it is the FBI files, whether it is Whitewater, whether\nit is discussing something that Hillary has done, or whether it is\nLewinsky, the whole idea is a lynch mob mentality that says this man\nhas to go.\n You say, well, we have to vote our conscience here. Who determines\nthe conscience? What arrogance can the Republicans have in this body to\ndetermine what the punishment should be for the President of the United\nStates? Who has found the language in our Constitution to dictate that\nyou can take this wonderful instrument that allowed this republic to\nsurvive for so long, and twist it and bend it and say that we cannot\nhave censure as an option to what you are trying to do to the\nPresident, to this Congress, and to the country? And what do you leave\nfor the future, for the next Congress? What do you leave in terms of\nSocial Security, reforming the tax system, trying to make Medicare\nbetter, trying to get campaign finance reform?\n These are things that we refer to as bipartisan, working together,\ncooperation. You brought hatred to this floor. You can see it in the\neyes, you can see it in the language, and people will walk lockstep and\nvote as Republicans and not as Members of the United States Congress.\n Do you not think that as you keep talking about ``no man is above the\nlaw,'' do you not understand that no Member here is above the will of\nthe people of the United States of America? Do you not know they\nrespect the fact when they go vote, whether they vote for Republican or\nvote for a Democrat, they vote for a President of the United States?\n You have no right to get rid of him by saying ``the rule of law,''\nand then abuse the very rule of that law.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).\n (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of\nimpeachment.\n\n[[Page H11896]]\n\n Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Articles of Impeachment against\nPresident Clinton that have been recommended to the full House of\nRepresentatives by the Judiciary Committee.\n By now, the charges against the President are known to everyone;\nperjury in a civil matter--the Paula Jones case; perjury before a\ncriminal grand jury; obstruction of justice; and, abuse of the power of\nthe office of the presidency. These are grave and serious charges\nagainst the President, felonies in any court of law in our nation. As\nmany have pointed out in recent months, impeachment, and declaring war,\nare the most important matters that we in the House can ever consider.\n We are here today to debate impeachment, and under our Constitution\nthe House has the sole power to impeach a President. And I do think\nthat it's important to keep in mind exactly what impeachment is. Voting\nto impeach the President is quite different from voting to remove him\nfrom office. If the House does impeach the President, it only means\nthat we believe there is enough credible evidence to prove one or more\nof the charges against the President, and that the matter should then\nbe sent on to the Senate. Then it is up to the other body to conduct a\ntrial and to determine whether or not the President should be removed\nfrom office.\n After studying this matter, I believe the evidence against the\nPresident is strong on all of the four counts that have been lodged\nagainst him. There is certainly enough in the testimony and material\ngathered together by the Judiciary Committee to make a compelling case\nagainst him.\n Importantly, all during the Committee's deliberations, the\nPresident's defenders never even bothered to contest the evidence. They\ndid make many other arguments against impeachment; the Independent\nCounsel, Ken Starr had engaged in a partisan witch hunt; the charges\nbrought against the President did not rise to the level of ``high\ncrimes and misdemeanors'' required by the Constitution to impeach the\nPresident; and, the process followed by the Judiciary Committee was not\nfair.\n But, the essential evidence presented by the Committee to the House\nin support of the Articles of Impeachment have not been refuted. The\nPresident's supporters had numerous opportunities to knock down the\nfacts during the Committee's deliberations, or to provide exculpatory\nevidence of their own that would have cleared the President and\ndisproved the charges made against him. But, in nearly thirty hours of\nargument against impeachment before the Judiciary Committee, the\nPresident's defenders and lawyers were not able to dispel any of the\ndamning evidence against him or provide anything new that would point\ntoward his innocence.\n The facts and the evidence stand unchallenged, and as such they\nstrongly argue for impeachment.\n When talking about impeachment, one of the principle arguments the\nPresident's supporters have often made is about poll numbers and the\nwill of the people. They claim that since the President is popular\namong the American public and enjoys high poll numbers, he should not\nbe impeached and should be left in office to complete his term.\n It is true that the President is popular among Americans, and his\npoll numbers are strong. The public seems content and optimistic about\nthe future, and they give the President a great deal of credit for the\npositive mood of our nation and our vibrant economy.\n But, we are a nation of laws, not polls.\n As elected representatives in a democracy, we as members of Congress\ndo serve in large part to fulfill the will of the people. We have all\nbeen elected and reelected because we listened to the voters. But, the\nmatter before the House today is not simply a question of popular\nopinion; it is instead a question of constitutional duty.\n Each member of Congress takes an oath and swears to uphold the\nConstitution when they take office. They do not swear to uphold the\npublic opinion of the moment, or swear to follow the most current fad.\nWe all swore to uphold the fundamental principles that over the past\ntwo centuries have helped make America the greatest nation on Earth.\n When the Constitution grants the power to impeach the President to\nthe House of Representatives, there is no additional clause in the text\nthat reads ``only in times of high poll numbers'' or ``in times of low\npublic esteem.'' The question before us today is one we must address\nwithout concern for politics or popularity. Of course we must listen to\nthe people, but being a public servant does not mean that we use none\nof our own judgment or ignore the duties we swore to uphold.\nImpeachment and other grave matters are not to be decided like\npopularity contests or beauty pageants.\n Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying that I believe no one here today\ntakes any joy in this process or in the votes we are going to cast\nsoon. The past eleven months have hurt our nation and we need to begin\nto heal. But we cannot ignore our constitutional duty, and we cannot\nturn away from hard decisions. With a heavy heart, I will vote to\nimpeach President Clinton.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIndiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.\n Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, these issues about whether Ms. Lewinsky, in\nher statement, the President never explicitly told her to lie, the\nPresident and Ms. Lewinsky did have a scheme to mislead and deceive the\ncourt through the use of cover stories and the proffer of a false\naffidavit.\n Why? Because Judge Susan Weber Wright in the sexual harassment\nlawsuit said that they could get into the evidence of his past sexual\nbehavior. You see, Ms. Lewinsky's statements that no one told her to\nlie are not dispositive as to whether the President is guilty of\nobstruction.\n One need not directly command another to lie in order to be guilty of\nobstruction. One who proposes to another that the other lie in a\njudicial proceeding is guilty of obstructing justice. The statute\nprohibits elliptical suggestions as much as it does direct commands.\n Indeed, the facts cannot be taken in a vacuum. They must be examined\nin their proper context over the distance of the evidence.\n While Ms. Lewinsky and the President both testified ``I never asked\nher to lie'' and ``he never asked me to lie,'' the circumstantial\nevidence is overwhelming. The statement was not necessary, because they\nconcocted the cover story and they both understood the willful intent\nto conceal their relationship in order to impede justice in the Jones\nversus Clinton case.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.\n Mr. Speaker, I simply want to express concern over the gentleman from\nNew York's statement that there was hatred over here on our side of the\naisle with regard to the President. That is just not really true, in\nall honesty and sincerity.\n We have had Members who have agonized over the questions that are\nbefore us today. I have personally talked with Members who have made\ntheir decisions only in the last few days after they have gone over the\nrecord who really truly did not want to impeach this President and have\nno hatred at all. It is an objective concern that perjury and\nobstruction of justice and the crimes are so overwhelming this\nPresident committed that they made that decision.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr.\nHill).\n Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinarily solemn occasion. We\nare here today to consider serious and consequential questions. On\nthree occasions the President of the United States placed his left hand\non a Bible, raised his right hand, and swore to an oath to tell the\ntruth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In today's debate,\neven the defenders of the President accept the fact that the President\nviolated that oath in lying in a deposition in a Federal civil rights\ncase, before a grand jury, and his sworn testimony before the Congress.\n On two other occasions, the President placed one hand on a Bible,\nraised the other, and swore to faithfully execute the office of the\nPresident of the United States, and to the best of his ability\npreserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The\nPresident's conduct, lying under oath, obstructing justice, tampering\nwith the witnesses, abusing power, in my view represents a violation of\nthat oath as well.\n The fact is the President sought to undermine the civil rights of a\nUnited States citizen, denying that citizen due process of law and her\nrights to equal protection under the law. These are undisputed facts.\n If there is no consequence for the violation of an oath, then why\nhave an oath? In violating his oath before the courts and the Congress,\nthe President is guilty of perjury, a felony, a high crime; and in\nviolating his oath of office, I believe the President has sacrificed\nhis right to hold office. If the President conspired to undermine the\nconstitutional rights of a single citizen, that act erodes the\nconstitutional rights of every citizen.\n It is a tragic situation, but, like most tragic situations,\nresponsibilities lie not at the feet of others. It does not lie at the\nfeet of Paula Jones or Monica\n\n[[Page H11897]]\n\nLewinsky or Kathleen Willey or Judge Starr or Majority Counsel\nSchippers or Majority Whip Delay or Speaker Gingrich or Speaker elect\nLivingston or Chairman Hyde. The responsibility lies at the feet of\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton, and so must the accountability and so must\nthe consequences.\n For that reason, I will cast my vote ``yes'' on at least three of the\narticles of impeachment.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Weldon).\n Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, several people on the minority\nside have risen today and quoted the scripture, ``Judge not, that you\nnot be judged.''\n Careful reading of this scripture makes it quite clear that the\nmessage is not that we should never judge or exercise judgment. Most\nscholars interpret this verse of scripture to mean that we should not\ncondemn others for their faults and that we should forgive those who\noffend us.\n It has never been proposed by any reasonable person that this verse\nof scripture asserts that we are to let criminals go free or that our\nlaws should not be upheld.\n Bill Clinton is not being judged by the Members here as much as he is\nbeing judged by the law itself. The preamble to the Constitution tells\nus that the Constitution was created for, among other reasons, to\nestablish justice. To blithely forgive or ignore these offenses is to\nmake a mockery of justice.\n Our laws state that to lie under oath, to encourage others to provide\nfalse testimony or to conspire to conceal evidence is a felony\npunishable by imprisonment.\n Indeed, the committee took testimony from two individuals who lied\nabout sex before a grand jury. One received house arrest, the other\nactually went to jail. Every year in America, people go to jail for\ncommitting perjury.\n The Democrats wrote the statute creating the office of the\nIndependent Counsel and Janet Reno authorized the expansion of the\ninvestigation into the matters before us. The findings indicate felony\noffenses that could send the average American to jail.\n\n {time} 1915\n\n President Clinton, when he signed the reauthorization of the\nIndependent Counsel Act in 1993 said that the act would ``guarantee the\nintegrity of public officials and ensure that no one is above the\nlaw.'' To ensure that no one is above the law, the resolution must be\napproved and sent to the Senate for trial.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).\n Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. In\nresponse to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), let the\nRecord be clear. When Monica Lewinsky was confronted by Ken Starr in\nher proffer, she clearly and unequivocally stated that neither the\nPresident nor anyone in her behalf ever asked her to lie, and that is\nthe evidence.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Meehan).\n Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, just for the Record, Judge Webber Wright\nruled on 3 separate occasions that the Lewinsky matter was not relevant\nto the core legal issues in the Paula Jones case; 3 separate rulings,\nnot material to the core underlying legal issues.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Neal).\n (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while we grapple with this\nissue tonight, we are all a bit uncertain about what this is all about,\nbut we know what it is not about. It is not Watergate, it is certainly\nnot Iran-Contra, and astonishingly enough, after the expenditure of $56\nmillion and an investigation that has gone on longer than the Civil\nWar, it is not about Whitewater.\n Contrast the way the Republican leadership has handled this issue\nwith the way Tip O'Neill handled Iran-Contra, when he decided never to\nput the Nation through a trial when he knew Ronald Reagan would never\nbe removed from office.\n What we have seen in this Congress really is the occurrence of 2\nthings: One, the rise of the Intimidator Caucus on the Republican side\nwhere they have intimidated moderate Republicans into voting for this\nimpeachment proceeding. Secondly, we ask ourselves tonight, whatever\nhappened to moderate Republicans?\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nSouth Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).\n Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by associating myself with the\nstatement made earlier today by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.\nJackson).\n Mr. Speaker, my decision to vote against the resolution to impeach\nPresident Clinton is grounded in the words of the Constitution itself.\nAccording to the Constitution, a President is to be impeached for\ntreason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Nowhere in the\nConstitution does it say any or all crimes and misdemeanors.\n In November, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) specifically\nasked a panel of historians and constitutional scholars appearing\nbefore the committee, ``Does the phrase `bribery, treason and other\nhigh crimes and misdemeanors' cover all felonies?'' These scholars\nunanimously answered with a resounding no.\n It follows from their answers and from the very words of the\nConstitution, Mr. Speaker, that a President can be guilty of a felony\nand still not be impeachable. So the real question then is, what\nfelonies fall under the phrase, ``high crimes and misdemeanors''? I do\nnot know. And as of today, none of us in this body knows. But we do\nknow one thing. When this question came before the House in 1973 during\nthe impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, the answer\nwas that lying under oath is not one of them. The Committee on the\nJudiciary concluded by a better than 2-to-1 bipartisan vote the charges\nagainst President Nixon for lying on his income taxes to the tune of\n$500,000 were not impeachable.\n It follows, then, that if we obey the dictates of the Constitution,\nif we accept the testimony of experts, and if we follow the precedent\nof this body, we must vote against impeachment. A vote for impeachment\nflies in the face of history, ignores constitutional standards, and\nsignificantly lowers the bar for future impeachment proceedings.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).\n (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, many Members have spoken from the heart and\nout of their conscience on either side of this issue today, and I want\nto talk about the procedure, because I am deeply troubled by the\nprocedure that we are following here today on the House floor.\n This has been a very divisive issue in our country about what should\nbe done. People of just as good will as any of us in this room, people\nwho have the same purity of motive that we all claim for ourselves in\nthis room, people who have the intellectual honesty that we all claim\nfor ourselves, and who have exercised that, and people who are just as\npatriotic as any one of us, have reached a different conclusion in the\ncountry about what should be done.\n Now, we are not being allowed a vote on censure tonight. Let me read\nin the Constitution what it says: ``Judgment in cases of impeachment\nshall not extend further than to removal from office,'' et cetera. It\nsays nothing about censure; it says nothing about prohibiting it. And\nwhat troubles me is that there are millions of Americans of goodwill,\npurity of motive, intellectual honesty that have expressed their view\nthat censure is an appropriate remedy, and those voices are not being\nallowed to be cast tonight by a vote of their member, and that is just\nplain unfair.\n If the shoe were on the other foot, and we had a motion to only\ncensure and not impeachment, you would be right to scream that that is\nunfair, and I would agree with you.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary).\n\n[[Page H11898]]\n\n (Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I come to the well today with no joy in my heart over\nwhat this House is about to do.\n Throughout my time that I have been honored to serve the people of\nthe Fourth Congressional District of Tennessee, this is, by far, the\nmost important vote I've had to cast.\n This vote goes to the very heart of the oath of office I swore to\nuphold when I took my seat in this body--an oath that said ``I, Van\nHilleary, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the\nConstitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and\ndomestic.''\n I did not swear to defend the Constitution of the United States only\nwhen it was popular. I did not swear to defend the Constitution of the\nUnited States only when doing so was running ahead in the polls.\n I swore to defend it whenever it was under attack--when it was\npopular and when it was not.\n This has been a difficult decision for me. It is well known that I am\nno fan of President Clinton's ideological beliefs. I have serious\ndifferences with him on a broad number of issues. In fact, it was these\ndifferences that spurred me to run for this office in the first place--\nto try to change the direction where he was leading this country.\n But those are political differences, differences that are settled in\nthe democratic way which is the heritage of our great country. It is a\nheritage that has endured for more than 200 years because when our\ngreat Nation was founded, we agreed to a government based upon the rule\nof law and not the rule of men.\n I, like all of my colleagues here today and all of those who have\npreceded us in serving our nation in government service, are but\ntemporary caretakers of the people's trust. Because of the work of\nthose who came before us, we remain a government of laws and not men\ntoday.\n God willing, when I leave this office and turn it over to the next\ngeneration of leaders, this country will still be a nation of laws and\nnot men.\n I have had to set aside my differences with the President's policies.\nI have had to struggle with myself to ensure that I am basing my\ndecision on the facts of the case.\n What are the facts of the case?\n The President was involved in a civil case in which the U.S. Supreme\nCourt unanimously ruled that he was to be held to the same standard as\neveryone else in the country and must respond to the suit in a court of\nlaw while he was in office. The court ruled that the President is not\nabove the law, but subject to it like everyone else in the country.\n During that case, President Clinton's testimony was requested. The\nPresident had the right to enforce his 5th Amendment right not to\ntestify if it would incriminate him. However, he chose to provide\ntestimony. And when he testified, he swore ``to tell the truth, the\nwhole truth and nothing but the truth.'' That oath did not say he was\nallowed to tell part or half of the truth. That oath did not say he was\nallowed to tell the truth only when convenient. That oath did not say\nhe was allowed to tell only that part of the truth which would not be\npersonally embarrassing.\n The oath was ``to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the\ntruth.''\n The Judiciary Committee report clearly lays out the facts of the case\nthat President William Jefferson Clinton broke or ignored this oath\nwhen he gave his sworn deposition last January, when he gave sworn\ntestimony before a federal grand jury in August, and when he gave sworn\nanswers to the questions of the Judiciary Committee last month.\n The case is clear that President Clinton broke the law.\n Now we must ask ourselves, ``Can we ignore his crimes?''\n I believe that we would be setting a very bad and extremely dangerous\nprecedent if we ignore it. We would be saying that as long as a\npresident is popular, he can commit major crimes, undermine our shared\nlegal system and remain in office using the vast powers of the\nPresidency. In effect, we would be saying that the President is above\nthe law. We would be a nation of laws with a leader who could break the\nlaws.\n Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that\nthe President's offenses do not rise to the level of the high crimes\nand misdemeanors outlined by our Founding Fathers. They say that any\ncrimes which are committed must be committed against the State before\nan impeachable offense takes place.\n Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that lying under oath in a civil case\nis a crime against the State. Lying under oath to a federal grand jury\nis a crime against the State. Obstructing justice and tampering with\nwitnesses are crimes against the State. Lying to Congress by submitting\nfalse answers to the Judiciary Committee's 81 questions is a crime\nagainst the State. These crimes undermine our entire system of justice,\nwhich will crumble into ruins if we allow people to lie after they have\nsworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\n Contrary to what many of my friends on the other side of the aisle\nclaim, the framers did consider perjury an impeachable offense. The\nterm impeachment comes directly from English law, and the framers of\nour Constitution used the exact same definition as found in\nBlackstone's English treatise when they used the phrase ``high crimes\nand misdemeanors.'' Yet, Blackstone was even more exact in his\ndefinition by listing 22 specific offenses that constituted ``high\ncrimes.'' False testimony under oath to a civil or criminal prosecution\nwas one such offense.\n It would also be very dangerous if our laws would only apply\naccording to the whims of popular support.\n The Constitution and the rule of law for the foundation of our\ncountry. Simply because things are going well now is no reason to\nundermine this foundation. Because we need this foundation to be strong\nduring times of crisis--when things are not going well.\n We will have future crises that our nation must weather. We will have\ntimes that our economy turns downward, sometimes severely. We will have\ntimes of violent domestic unrest.\n We need the foundation of our country to be strong if we are to\nweather those rough times. It is our Constitution and rule of law which\nseparates us as a democracy and beacon of light in the world from a\ndictatorship.\n The truth is the truth. It is not subject to a popularity poll. The\ntruth must be upheld in our country. A President who cannot tell the\ntruth and respect the rule of law cannot be allowed to continue in\noffice. The President should have resigned his office long ago, but he\nhas refused to do so. That is why I will vote for the articles of\nimpeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton.\n I urge all my colleagues to support these articles of impeachment.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Bilbray).\n Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to address the body at\nthis time, but a colleague just impugned the moderates who have decided\nnot to vote their way, as if we are somehow being pressured. I would\nchallenge anyone on this floor to name the moderates who have come to\nyou and said, we have been pressured. I, for one, and my colleagues I\nhave spoken to have said this is a vote of conscience and respect our\nvote of conscience as much as you are asking us to respect yours.\n I think it is outrageous that my colleagues on the other side use a\npolitical maneuver to impugn our integrity just because they do not\nagree with the consideration that we have given.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from\nGeorgia (Mr. Norwood).\n (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for articles of\nimpeachment. Now, I do not like that. I am not happy about that. In\nfact, I am deeply saddened by that. I did not come here to impeach Bill\nClinton or any other President, as I imagine most of my colleagues did\nnot. So maybe we might take one other look at one other consideration\nin these last hours.\n Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to quote President Clinton:\n``There is no question that an admission of making false statements to\ngovernment officials and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable\noffense.'' President Clinton went on to say, ``If a President of the\nUnited States ever lied to the American people, he should resign.''\n Mr. Clinton was more than willing to apply these standards to a\nRepublican President in 1974, as was the Democratic majority on a\nsubstantial portion of the then Republican minority. Mr. Clinton was\ncorrect in 1974. Why was he correct?\n Consider the questions and answers of recent months: The question,\n``Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?'' And the answer,\nand I quote: ``You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did\nnot have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined.''\nWe now know the truth, but only because of a blue dress that says he\nlied.\n Consider the question and the answer: ``Did you authorize the\ntransfer of missile technology to the Red Chinese Army in exchange for\ncampaign\n\n[[Page H11899]]\n\ncontributions?'' The answer: ``No one can prove there was a quid pro\nquo.''\n Consider this question and the answer: ``Did you order air strikes\nagainst Iraq to influence these impeachment hearings?'' And the answer,\nand I quote: ``I don't believe any serious person would believe that\nSecretary Cohen, General Shelton and the whole rest of the national\nsecurity team would participate in such an action.''\n Do we have answers here that we or the world can trust? We cannot\ntell when the President is telling the truth, and unfortunately, he\ncannot tell when he is lying. And that leads to a tremendous loss of\ntrust. And when that person involved in that is the most powerful\nperson in the world, it is dangerous.\n Mr. Speaker, let us today bequeath to future generations that the\nlaws of this land apply equally to all, rich and poor, regardless of\nparty affiliation or ideology. Let this House today hold Mr. Clinton to\nhis own standards, the ones that he said that if you lie to the\nAmerican people, a President should resign.\n Mr. President, please do what is right. Do not do this to America. Do\nnot do this to your fellow countrymen. Do not do this to Congress,\nbecause as sure as the world, we are going to have a trial in the\nSenate. Resign today for a very good reason, because it is the right\nthing to do.\n Mr. Speaker, today we debate that which the Framers of the\nConstitution failed to define--the nature of impeachable offenses.\n Some argue against the precedent established during Watergate. They\nclaim that impeachable offenses must include a direct violation of the\nConstitution itself. However, the Founders did not state that position.\nThey instead left the definition up to future Congresses, based on the\nparticulars of the case.\n Only the most partisan supporters of the President still deny that\nMr. Clinton lied under oath. The majority of the Members of this House,\nand the American public at large, believe that Mr. Clinton lied under\noath to a grand jury in a Federal civil rights lawsuit, lied under oath\nto the Independent Counsel, lied under oath to the House Judiciary\nCommittee, and lied on national television to the American people.\n The only question left is: should that be an impeachable offense, and\nwhy? Let us address the issue.\n If the President had initially, and without qualification, simply\ndenied his improper relationship with a government employee; then later\nconfessed his perjury when physical evidence revealed the deception, we\nmight not be having this debate.\n Many people can show mercy to someone who made a horrible mistake in\njudgment, and didn't want it plastered across the front page of every\nnewspaper in the country, and then made a second horrible mistake by\nlying to cover up the first.\n But what deeply troubles so many people around the country is the\nnature and degree of the President's deception.\n He continues to deny not only the specifics of this case, but the\nvery nature of truth itself.\n He has said he misled us all, yet he says he wasn't lying. At other\ntimes, he has said he lied, but he didn't commit perjury.\n He admits he had sexual relations, but insists he was telling the\ntruth when he said he didn't.\n There has been speculation among members of this body in recent days\nthat if the President would just confess to perjury, that we should\ndrop these impeachment proceedings, issue a formal censure, and let the\nmatter drop.\n While I disagree with this proposal, I fully empathize with the\nsentiments behind it. Members of this body, myself included, do not\nwant to impeach Mr. Clinton or any President. We are grasping for\nplausible reasons to vote against impeachment--and we aren't finding\nany.\n For what really troubles the majority of this House is that the\nPresident doesn't recognize the truth. For many members, if they were\nonly assured that Mr. Clinton was capable of knowing when he was or\nwasn't lying, they would be willing to let him off the hook.\n They beg him: admit to perjury, perjury that even a child can\nrecognize. We'll forgive your indiscretion, and give you a second\nchance to earn the trust of the nation. They do that because we must\nhave assurances as to whether we can reasonably expect the President to\ntell the truth after this is over.\n For he remains incapable of recognizing that he lied under oath to\nbegin with.\n The President has established a principle in his mind that the truth\nis a technicality, dependent on wording.\n He has held throughout his testimony that if he convinces himself\nthat he is telling the truth, it doesn't matter if he lies. If he\ncarefully couches his statement in semantic deceptions, and then buries\nthe issue with the White House ``spin machine'', the truth has been\nserved.\n Consider the questions and answers of recent months: Did you have\nsexual relations with Monica Lewinsky? Answer: Not yes or no, but ``You\nare free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual\nrelations, as I understood this term to be defined.''\n We now know the truth, but only because of a blue dress that says he\nlied. He still doesn't recognize that he lied under oath.\n Why is it essential for a President to recognize the truth?\n Consider this question and answer, also from recent months: Did you\nauthorize the transfer of missile technology to the Red Chinese Army in\nexchange for campaign contributions? Answer: Once again, not yes or no,\nbut ``No one can prove there was a quid pro quo of missile technology\nfor cash.''\n Why not a simple yes or no? Could it be for the same reasons as in\nthis case before us today? How can we know? Is the President lying\nthrough semantic contortions again, with life-and-death consequences\nfor millions of Americans, and perhaps even the continued survival of\nour Nation at stake?\n The truth is, we don't know, and we can't know, because there is no\nblue dress.\n Consider this question and answer, from just yesterday: Did you order\nair strikes against Iraq to influence these impeachment hearings?\nAnswer: ``I don't believe any serious person would believe that\nSecretary Cohen, General Shelton, and the whole rest of the national\nsecurity team would participate in such an action.''\n We're not concerned with the motives of the national security team;\nwe're concerned with the motives of the President, and once again, do\nwe have an answer that we, or the world, can trust?\n These are the reasons the Founders left it to us to define\nimpeachable offenses. Is perjury in a civil lawsuit grounds for\nimpeachment? It depends on the particulars of the case.\n This case clearly exhibits that this President cannot be entrusted\nwith the security or well-being of the United States, evidenced by his\ninherent inability to acknowledge the existence of truth, even under\noath in a federal court.\n Would we allow a person with this proven inability to serve as Chief\nof Staff to our Armed Forces? Absolutely not. Then how can we tolerate\nit in a Commander-in-Chief? If we cannot trust Mr. Clinton as\nCommander-in-Chief, he can no longer perform the duties necessary as\nPresident.\n Mr. Speaker, fellow Members of the House, we need to forget parties\nand loyalties, and vote for the future and safety of the Republic. The\nFounders left us this discretion for the very reasons we face today.\n In conclusion let me quote the President once more, but this time\nfrom 1974, when the nation was last going through this agony.\n ``There is no question that an admission of making false statements\nto government officials and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable\noffense. If a President of the United States ever lied to the American\npeople, HE SHOULD RESIGN.''\n Mr. President, do not put America through this, do not put your\ncountrymen through this, do not put this Congress through this ordeal.\nHeed your own words and resign, because it is the right thing to do.\n My fellow members, we must do the right thing as well, because it is\nour duty. We must ensure that this ordeal is never repeated by a future\nPresident who is led to believe by our actions that they can repeat\nthese offenses and get away with it.\n Vote for a full trial in the Senate. Do your duty.\n Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Porter).\n Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the first, second and\nthird articles of the resolution.\n Mr. Speaker, let me first commend my longtime friend and colleague,\nthe gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his remarks. His words\nbrought tears to my eyes and moved me as no words I have heard in my 25\nyears of legislative service. I thank him for reminding us all of the\ndefining principles that form the bedrock of our free society and our\nsystem of government under the rule of law.\n Now, regarding our fighting men and women in the Gulf and the timing\nof this debate, I say to my colleagues, there was a large protest rally\nagainst impeachment on the West Front of the Capitol yesterday\nafternoon. Many of the members of the minority party attended and spoke\nat that rally. It was the right of all to attend and to raise their\nvoices.\n No one would suggest that the exercise of democracy outside this\nChamber denigrated the men and women of our Armed Forces in combat in\nthe\n\n[[Page H11900]]\n\nPersian Gulf. But neither does this exercise of democracy inside this\nChamber show disrespect for them.\n\n {time} 1930\n\n Indeed, the processes of democracy and our freedoms are exactly what\nthey are fighting to preserve.\n Mr. Speaker, the President has undermined the rule of law in a manner\nthat warrants his impeachment by the House. Early on I suggested\ncensure might be a way to avoid reaching the point we have reached\ntoday, but whatever opportunity existed to redress this matter by\nalternative means was lost as a result of the President's own conduct.\n By persisting in his efforts to avoid or minimize consequences for\nhis action, rather than to admit to the country that he lied in a court\nof law and attempted to obstruct justice, he has moved us beyond the\npoint where a strong and meaningful censure could be considered as a\nway to resolve this matter.\n Tragically, the President sends the American people the constant\nmessage that he believes himself to be above the law. That is a message\nthat a society founded on the rule of law cannot tolerate.\n Passage of this resolution will put to the Senate the question of\nwhether this President's conduct warrants his conviction, and if so,\nhis removal from office. No one had hoped more than I to avoid this\ntrauma. There can be no question that we are witnessing an American\ntragedy, a tragedy for the President, a tragedy for our country.\n It is with a heavy heart, but with confidence that my votes are\nright, that I will vote in favor of the first three articles of\nimpeachment.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from\nTexas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee).\n Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we only want a fair shake at\nbeing able to convince our good friends about our case on the\nPresident.\n I do not know if the gentleman from California would tell us if he\nhas been able to see private showings of nonrelevant material in the\nsecured room to influence their votes, and whether or not we have been\ngiven the same opportunity. We do not mean they have been beaten, but\nwe want to know whether or not the moderates have seen that. We have\nnot had the opportunity to share the information that we have that\nsuggests the President should not be impeached. This should be a fair\nprocess, Mr. Speaker.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nPennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).\n (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address these articles of\nimpeachment and the magnitude of what our actions today portend, not\nonly for the office of the presidency and the institutional integrity\nof the House, but for the well-being of our country.\n In my estimation, while the President's misconduct in this matter is\nboth reprehensible and indefensible, it does not rise to the threshold\nof impeachable offenses, as drafted by our Founding Fathers.\n Without question, the impeachment provisions of the Constitution were\ndrafted in word and spirit to provide recourse for crimes committed\nagainst the State. Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors cannot be indicated with the allegations outlined in the\nStarr referral. We must not allow the historical context and inherent\nmeaning of the Constitution to be subsumed by political passion and\nrhetoric.\n This is not to say that the President's misconduct does not deserve\ncondemnation. It does. Thus, I am profoundly disappointed that the\nRepublican leadership has thwarted consideration of a formal censure of\nthe President.\n Mr. Speaker, for all of the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to\nvote no on the articles of impeachment, and instead, support a strong\nand severe censure.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise to address these articles of impeachment, and the\nmagnitude of what our actions today portend not only for the office of\nthe Presidency and the institutional integrity of the House of\nRepresentatives, but for the well-being of our country.\n As with any serious matter, it is of the utmost importance to avail\noneself of all available information before reaching a conclusion.\nAccordingly, I did not arrive at a final determination on the articles\nof impeachment until I had the opportunity to thoroughly review the\nJudiciary Committee's final report. In my estimation, while the\nPresident's misconduct in this matter involving an adulterous affair is\nboth reprehensible and flat-out wrong, it does not rise to the\nthreshold of impeachable offenses as drafted by our Founding Fathers.\n Without question, the impeachment provisions of the Constitution were\ndrafted in word and spirit to provide recourse for crimes committed\nagainst the state. Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors can not be equated with the allegations outlined in the\nStarr referral and presented in the Majority's views contained within\nthe Judiciary Committee's final report. We must not allow the\nhistorical context and inherent meaning of the Constitution to be\nsubsumed by political passion and rhetoric, or subordinate the office\nof the Presidency to the whims of Congress.\n This is not to say that the President's misconduct does not deserve\ncondemnation. It does. Thus, I am profoundly disappointed that the\nRepublican Leadership has thwarted consideration of a formal censure of\nthe President. By doing so, the Leadership is effectively preventing\nmembers from having an opportunity to vote their conscience on what\nwill likely be the most significant decision during their public\nservice in the U.S. House of Representatives. To not be afforded the\nopportunity to consider a censure motion shifts the focus from\nappropriate punishment of the President to inflicting unwarranted\ndistress on the entire country. In my view, our actions should not\nresult in further upheaval for the American people, but should bring\nabout prompt resolution of the matter.\n I hold an enormous amount of respect for the institutional integrity\nof the House of Representatives, but seriously have to question what\nprecedent today's pending vote will set for the tenor of the 106th\nsession of Congress. While the 104th Congress was often marked by deep\nphilosophical divides and the 105th for missed opportunities for\ncompromise on social security and HMO reform, one must consider the\nshadow that will be cast on the potential for progress in the 106th\nCongress if we proceed further with the process of impeachment.\n As members of Congress we should be working to build consensus and\nsolve problems, not to encourage divisiveness and apathy. If the House\ndoes approve these articles of impeachment, it is my belief that we\nwill be doing a disservice to the office of the Presidency, the House\nof Representatives, and the country--not only in the short-term, but\nfor many years to come.\n For all of the above reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of\nthe aisle to vote no on all articles of impeachment, and to instead\nsupport a strong and severe censure resolution.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nJersey (Mr. Pascrell).\n (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have not, to this point, formally\nannounced how I would vote on the four articles of impeachment. In\nreaching my decision, I have weighed not only my constitutional duty\nand this President's fate, but I have weighed what vote is the right\nvote for the United States. I have concluded that this president can\nand should continue in office for the remainder of his elected term.\n In this famous passage in the Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton, who\nhas been quoted many times today, who founded the town I am from,\nPatterson, New Jersey, I am a patriot, too, Hamilton stated that a\npartisan impeachment ``threatened to agitate the passions of the whole\ncommunity . . . to divide it into parties . . . to connect itself with\npreexisting factions . . . and to enlist their animosities, their\npartialities, their influence and interest.''\n Ironically, our colleague on the other side, the gentleman from\nGeorgia (Mr. Linder) echoed Hamilton's warnings a few months ago when\nhe said, and please remember what he said, one party cannot impeach the\nother party's president. He said it, Members heard it. I ask them not\nto do what they are going to do.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Meeks).\n Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, when I won a special election in\nFebruary, little did I expect that 10 months later I would have to cast\na vote that was certain to become one of the most important in my life.\n\n[[Page H11901]]\n\n I intend to vote against each of these articles of impeachment. My\nreasons are neither partisan, nor do they reflect my distaste and\ndissatisfaction with the President's behavior. Instead, my votes are a\nprotest against an unfair process.\n The inequities of the impeachment process have been glaring. The\nRepublicans started with Whitewater, and they found nothing. Ken Starr\nthen went to Travelgate, he found nothing. He looked at Filegate, he\nfound nothing. Mr. Starr never made statements. He never released\ndocuments.\n In fact, he made no effort to publicly admit to the lack of evidence\nagainst the President. Instead, he developed relationships with the\nJones legal team, and withheld this information from the Justice\nDepartment. Rather than disclosing this bias to the proper parties, Mr.\nStarr was now working in cahoots with Jones, Linda Tripp, and others to\nset up the President.\n What we are doing here is not a prosecution, it is a persecution.\nIndeed, it is a political lynching. The Republicans have had no agenda\nfor over a year, and with this act today, they are signaling they have\nno agenda for the future, rather than working together in a bipartisan\nmanner on issues. The people want censure and move on.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\n (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is a somber day as we consider\narticles of impeachment against the President of the United States. As\nthe chief law enforcement officer of the Nation, it is incumbent upon\nthe President to uphold the laws and remain faithful to the\nConstitution.\n The question before the Congress is whether the President\nintentionally misled our judicial system and the American people as\npart of a calculated, ongoing effort to conceal the facts and the\ntruth, and to deny an average citizen her day in court in a sexual\nharassment lawsuit.\n Did the President betray the public trust by perjuring himself before\na Federal grand jury and obstructing justice? Virtually every public\nofficial in America, including our Nation's Governors and virtually\neveryone in private employment, would lose their job if they committed\nperjury or obstructed justice. In fact, many already have. The\nCommittee on the Judiciary heard from average Americans who have\nsuffered these consequences and even incarceration because they\ncommitted perjury.\n Millions of law-abiding Americans from all walks of life, including\nmy constituents, put in an honest day's work, follow the rules, and\nstruggle to teach their children respect for the law and the importance\nof integrity.\n When a factory worker or a doctor or a retiree breaks the law, they\ndo so with the knowledge that they are not above the law. This same\nprinciple must also apply to the most powerful in our Nation, including\nthe President of the United States. To lose this principle devastates a\nlegacy entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers, and protected for us by\ngenerations of Americans.\n Articles I and II deal with perjury before a Federal grand jury and\nin a civil deposition before a Federal judge. I would like to\nparticularly call to the attention of the Members Article III dealing\nwith obstruction of justice.\n The evidence shows that the President corruptly encouraged a witness\nin a Federal civil rights action to execute a sworn affidavit in that\nproceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false, and misleading.\n The evidence shows that the President corruptly encouraged a witness\nto give perjurious, false, and misleading testimony if and when called\nto testify personally in that proceeding.\n The evidence shows that the President corruptly engaged in and\nencouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence. The evidence\nshows that the President corruptly prevented the truthful testimony of\na witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of\nthat witness would have been harmful to him. And the evidence shows\nthat the President corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and\nmisleading statements to a Federal judge.\n I have a constitutional duty to follow the truth wherever it leads.\nThe truth in this case leads me to believe that the President knowingly\nengaged in a calculated pattern of lies, deceit, and delay in order to\nmislead the American people, impede the search for truth, deny the\nright of his accuser to have her day in court, and protect himself from\ncriminal prosecution. Therefore, I have no alternative but to support\narticles of impeachment against President Clinton.\n Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves what the President's failure to\nuphold the rule of law says to the Nation, and most especially to our\nchildren, who must trust us to leave them a civilized Nation where\njustice is respected. It is for them and for their future that we must\nact today.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard).\n (Mr. HILLIARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker. I rise to oppose the Articles of\nImpeachment against the President of the United States.\n The acts in which President Clinton engaged with Miss Lewinsky may\nhave been morally wrong, but they were not illegal.\n Whatever occurred between the President and Miss Lewinsky, the facts\nare uncontested and indisputable--there was no penetration of her\nsexual organ by his sexual organ--therefore, there was no sexual\nintercourse. When the President said that he did not have sex with that\nwoman--he did not lie. President Clinton, along with other southerners,\ncommonly defines sex or sexual relations as sexual intercourse or\ncoitus. He did not lie because he did not have sexual intercourse with\nMiss Lewinsky. Consequently, there is no legal basis for perjury, and\ncertainly no basis for impeachment.\n I am grounded in Christian values and have been, from the age of one,\ninvolved in my church in various capacities, such as Sunday school\nteacher, Chairman of the Trustee Board, and a Deacon. I have learned\nand have been taught that if one sins, only God can forgive him. Sin is\nbreaking God's laws as set out in the Ten Commandments. These laws\npertain to morality, not legality. Because I am not a God, I am not in\na position to judge the President. I leave that task to be dealt with\nby him and his God.\n I strongly feel that these impeachment proceedings, from the\nbeginning, have been too partisan to be objective. Feelings of hatred\nfor President Clinton have been evident since Independent Counsel Starr\nwas appointed to investigate matters totally unrelated to any of the\nalleged acts which are the basis of these proceedings. This is a\npolitical persecution of a President based on his views and his level\nof success as a President. I feel that the atmosphere the Republicans\nhave tried to create has been solely for the purpose of pressuring the\nPresident to resign. This cannot be condoned nor tolerated by me or any\nother Member of Congress! We should never let a party use its numbers,\npower, or influence to hound a popularly elected president out of\noffice.\n I truly believe that history will support the fact that President\nClinton's alleged acts did not rise to the level of impeachable\noffenses as contemplated by the Founding Fathers. We are to protect the\nintegrity of the Constitution at all times and in all ways--no matter\nhow distasteful or messy a situation gets. I feel that in this instance\nthe Republicans have used Kenneth Starr, their numbers and power in the\nHouse and Senate, and influence in the media to create a so-called\nConstitutional crisis. They have tried to make the President less\neffective in carrying out his duties and have tried to defeat him in\nCongress, through these impeachment proceedings. This is nothing more\nthan an attempt to do in Congress what they could not do at the ballot\nbox. Therefore, I adamantly oppose the articles of impeachment against\nthe President of the United States and will vote against each and every\none.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Meehan).\n Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, to go back to the last speaker, let me refer\nto Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony: ``No one asked me to lie, no\none offered me a job for my silence.''\n You do not impeach a president because of guesswork, or inferences,\nor what he might have said, what he could have said, who might have\nsaid something. That is the evidence. You do not impeach a president\nbased on this lack of evidence.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nNew York (Mr. Nadler).\n\n[[Page H11902]]\n\n Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, again, referring to the last gentleman,\nrepeatedly saying an untruth does not make it true.\n I will remind the gentleman, the judge ruled that the Monica Lewinsky\naffair was not material to the Paula Jones case, and the President\nconsequently did not deny her her day in court. Every prosecutor who\ncame before the committee said there was not sufficient evidence for\nany of these perjury allegations.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).\n Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the few Democrats to\nhave voted for the Republican-sponsored impeachment inquiry, but I rise\ntoday to urge my colleagues to vote no on all four impeachment\narticles. The President had an immoral and reckless sexual relationship\nwith a subordinate government employee. The President then lied about\nit under oath and to the American people.\n But we take an oath as well. We swear to uphold the Constitution, so\nhelp us God. The great Founding Fathers, on whose shoulders we stand,\nwould never have impeached a president over charges not related to the\nPresident's official duty to protect the national security and\ninterests of the United States.\n This vote is not about whether Mr. Clinton is subject to the Nation's\nlaws, as has been suggested. Of course he is. Mr. Clinton may still be\nprosecuted and convicted of criminal wrongdoing when he leaves office,\nbecause the President should not be above the law.\n We are all deeply disappointed with his conduct, but Congress has no\nconstitutional basis to impeach and remove the President over this type\nof illegal activity. In fact, no matter how strong our desire to punish\nthe President or to condemn his behavior, our constitutional duty\nrequires us to determine the answer to one question only, has the\nPresident committed treason, bribery, or other such high crimes. The\nanswer to that question is no.\n The American people and the Members of this House have heard an awful\nlot about this sad affair, but perhaps we have not heard enough from\nthe people who would not tell the majority what they want to hear, but\nrather, what they need to know.\n No one in this House has received direct testimony from the principal\nplayers directly involved. For example, after talking to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. McCollum) about his particular concern that Betty\nCurrie was used by the President to obstruct justice, a concern which I\nshared, I asked Betty Currie in the oval office this week directly\nabout my concerns. Unlike the rest of the Members of this House, I was\nable to gauge her credibility. I found her believable.\n Her perspective on what occurred is very much different than what we\nhave been led to believe. She suggests what we are doing is horribly\nwrong, but she was never called to testify before us. We must accept\nMr. Starr's report with no independent congressional fact-finding.\n It is wrong for the Republican leadership to oppose a harsh censure\nresolution precisely because they know it would pass. Alexander\nHamilton said that the danger of a partisan impeachment regulated by\nthe comparative strengths of political parties is wrong. That is what\nwe are doing. Vote no in defense of the presidency and our\nConstitution.\n\n {time} 1945\n\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Washington (Mr. McDermott).\n (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that the citizens of the\n7th congressional district and the American people are being treated\nunfairly. They are being denied the opportunity for their\nrepresentatives to vote for censure which will allow the country to\nmove on and begin a healing process which we all believe is necessary.\n Unfortunately, this unfairness is not new. It is typical of the whole\nprocess. It is so unfair that we can only speculate at the reason a\nsurrogate is the presiding officer for this momentous procedure, a vote\nsecond only in importance to a declaration of war. The fact that\nneither the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) nor the gentleman\nfrom Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is presiding today speaks volumes about\nthe leadership of the House at this historic moment. The lack of\nleadership reminds me of Pontius Pilate who washed his hands at the\ncrucifixion.\n Make no mistake, the President's acts should be condemned by the\nHouse, but they do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The\nimpeachment of the President without the support of the public will be\nextremely devisive.\n History has shown us that the wounds of the 1864 impeachment took\ndecades to heal. It took 100 years before we had the Civil Rights\nVoting Act in this House. I think it is clear the people want justice\nbut not the kind of justice you are eager to vote for. I urge you to\nreconsider your ill-advised actions and allow the House to have a fair\nvote that includes censure.\n Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:\n Seattle, WA, December 15, 1998.\n Hon. Jim McDermott,\n House of Representatives, Capitol Hill, Washington, DC.\n Dear Representative McDermott: Thank you so much for\n declaring your intention to vote no on impeachment.\n At one level I understand this to just be ``following the\n party line'', but (and I have also written the Washington\n state Republican representatives), more broadly I hope that\n you share my internal conviction that, legalese aside, the\n entire affair(!) simply doesn't rise to the level of ``high\n crimes and misdemeanors''. There has been no threat to the\n government, no clandestine arrangements with foes or allies\n on the part of the President. No one (including Mr. Clinton)\n argues that his behavior was proper, but only zealots seem to\n think it's an impeachable offense.\n The same can not be said for the activities of the House\n Leadership, which seems to me to have brazenly used political\n power to choreograph the entire process, frame the discussion\n and now (so we read) threaten ``dire consequences'' for\n anyone who votes against the Party Line. From the vantage\n point of Seattle, this black-and-white, do-as-we-tell-you\n approach doesn't seem much different from stories we used to\n hear about ``rubber stamp'' governments in the former Soviet\n Union.\n I realize that there is a clash of cultures here--Professor\n George Lakoff at Berkeley has uncovered a relationship\n between people who vote Republican and those who prefer\n Democrats, based on their perception of ``family values''.\n Republicans favor the ``strong father/single decision-maker''\n model of the family, while Democrats think of the family in\n terms of all its members. Hillary's ``It Takes a Village''\n view thus resonates with her supporters. Since these images\n are formed in our early years they tend to be inseparable\n from what we ``instinctively'' feel is True in later life,\n and thus, just as Deborah Tannen has shown that men and women\n live in different cultures, so too do Republicans and\n Democrats.\n One would think that Mr. Livingston might have learned\n something from the last election, but perhaps he continues to\n believe that constituents like myself are the exception. If\n my facts are correct, I believe that nationally 60% of the\n public wants Congress to vote for censure and ``move on''.\n Your mail ratio may be somewhat different--certainly the\n Religious Right and the Clinton Haters see this as a chance\n to advance their causes. But I know from having just talked\n to four of my friends that all of us have exactly the same\n opinion, yet 80% of this group felt that The Republicans were\n going to do whatever they liked, and that it was just a waste\n of time to even write. From my perspective, this attitude of\n hopelessness is a far deeper stain on our country than the\n one on the dress.\n I'm not a political activist, but I do feel strongly about\n my responsibility as an American citizen to raise my hand and\n say ``Stop'' when I see such a blatant, run-away abuse of\n power. I'm not saying that the President has done no wrong--\n even he admits his errors. But is covering up an extra-\n marital affair truly the kind of ``high crime and\n misdemeanor'' the Constitution had in mind? You know the\n historical facts--Clinton is not the first president to\n engage in such activity. ``Ah, but it's not the act, it's the\n perjury'' they say. Obviously lying is not a good thing, so\n I'm willing to let any Congressman who has never told a lie\n vote accordingly. But to me there is an enormous difference\n between lying about diverting funds for Iran-Contra fighters\n (which might have involved us in a war) and lying about\n having sex in the Oval Office. It doesn't take a PhD from\n Harvard to sort this out.\n Neither am I a Biblical scholar (I don't even go to\n church), but the vote on Thursday seems to come right out of\n the Old and New Testaments: there are the self-righteous\n Pharisees, couching their actions in the letter of the law,\n and, I hope, a larger number of those who remember ``do unto\n others as you would have them do unto you''. This is the\n struggle. Four hundred some people get to ``play God'' with\n the fate of our Nation's\n\n[[Page H11903]]\n\n highest elected leader. I hope they think long and hard about\n that, and seek God's guidance, not Mr. Livingston's, before\n they assume the role of Jack Ruby and pull the trigger. The\n House has the reins of history in its hands; it simply blows\n my mind to see this `Ultimate Constitutional Weapon' deployed\n in such a partisan, lock-step manner. This is the behavior\n that cults and unions are always accused of--not how\n reasonable people expect members of our highest Assembly to\n behave.\n Is there a sense of ``Well, it doesn't really matter--this\n is just a procedural vote--it's up to the Senate''? I would\n hope not--what an irresponsible example to set for our\n citizens. Yet I understand the enormous pressure that has\n been unfairly placed on the collective Republican shoulders,\n so if you can think of anything to do to encourage them, I\n would hope you would do so. Perhaps you can point out the\n opportunity to rise to the level of Statesman that few people\n ever attain, or to recall whom it is that History remembers\n from the Andrew Johnson impeachment proceedings. Then again,\n what we tell our children when they have to deal with peer-\n pressure situations is to ``just say No.'' That is my appeal\n as well: Just say No.\n Sincerely,\n James A. van Zee.\n\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nSouth Carolina (Mr. Spratt).\n (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to defend the President's\nconduct. It was wrong, and months of deceit only made it worse. But\nthat still leaves the question, was the conduct of such enormity that\nit can be compared to bribery or treason?\n I followed the hearings. I read the report last night. I have\nlistened to the debate today. I do not think this case meets\nconstitutional requirements. I come down on the side of President Ford\nand Senator Dole. I think President Clinton should be censored,\ncensored severely, and the censure should be imposed right here in the\nwell of the House. The President should be called to this spot and our\nrebuke read to him before the Congress, the cabinet and the whole\ncountry.\n So given the chance, I will vote to censure but not to impeach, not\nto inflict a remedy that has been invoked only twice in 210 years and\nused only once to remove a President.\n The majority argues that articles of impeachment are the proper form\nof censure. The problem is that a resolution of impeachment in the\nHouse requires a trial of impeachment in the Senate. And it could be a\npointless trial, as the majority well knows, because there is little\nchance today that two-thirds of the Senate will vote to convict.\n So what do we have? We have a country bitterly divided on this issue.\nBut let me tell you, I think everybody will agree with this, there is\nno clamor in the country to have this evidence replayed again, to see\nan instant replay of this trial. The people of this country want it\nover.\n The right way to get it over is to have a severe rebuke of the\nPresident, to bring him here, censure him in such a way that it will\nstain his legacy forever, but not leave a stain, not leave a precedent\nthat will weaken future presidents or a precedent for Article II\nsection 4 that will be unprecedented in history.\n That is the right action to take, and I urge this House to take it.\n Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to defend the President's conduct. I think\nhis conduct was wrong, and months of deceit only made it worse. But\nthat leaves the question: was his conduct impeachable? I have followed\nthe hearings and read the report, and I come down on the side of\nPresident Ford and Senator Dole: I think President Clinton should be\nseverely censured; and the censure should be imposed here in the well\nof the House. The President should be called to this spot, and our\nrebuke read to him before the Congress, the cabinet, and the whole\ncountry.\n Given the chance, I will vote to censure, but not to impeach, not to\ninflict a remedy so extreme that it has been invoked only twice in 210\nyears, and used only once to remove a president.\n The majority argues that Articles of Impeachment are the best form of\ncensure. The problem with their argument is that a resolution of\nimpeachment in the House requires a trial of impeachment in the Senate.\nAnd it could be a pointless trial, as the majority well knows, because\nthere is little chance that two-thirds of the Senate will vote to\nconvict. We could vote today, right now, on censure; pass it by a wide\nmargin and carry it out. But the majority would have a trial, and have\nthis cloud hang over the next Congress, as it has this Congress.\n The President's conduct was reprehensible, but the Constitution\nrequires more than reprehensible conduct before 67 members of the\nSenate can remove a President elected by 60 million people. To impeach,\nthe Constitution requires in Article II, Section IV that Congress must\nfind ``Bribery, Treason, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' These\nwords are so open-ended that some say the question comes down to\npolitical judgment, and in a way, it does. Congress has room to decide\nwhat are ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' But the language of the\nConstitution does have meaning, and we are obliged to follow it.\n The first drafts of the Constitution gave only bribery and treason as\ngrounds of impeachment. George Mason moved to add\n``maladministration.'' James Madison argued that ``So vague a term will\nbe equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.'' George\nMason, therefore, withdrew ``maladministration'' and substituted\n``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors .'' In the 65th\nFederalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton explained what they had in mind:\n``offenses which proceed . . . from the abuse or violation of some\npublic trust . . . [relating] chiefly to injuries done to society\nitself.''\n When the framers put powers to impeach in the Constitution, they\nwanted to protect us from ``great and dangerous'' abuses, offenses that\na president might commit against the state. In 1974, when the House\nJudiciary Committee was faced with a slate of charges against President\nNixon, it approved, on a bi-partisan vote, a rule of substantiality:\n\n ``Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds\nfor impeachment. There is a further requirement--substantiality . . .\nBecause impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it\nis to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with\neither the constitutional form and principles of our government or the\nproper performance of constitutional duties of the Presidential\noffice.''\n Almost all of the charges against the President stem from his\ntestimony in a deposition, taken in a suit brought by Paula Corbin\nJones. I do not think the President told the whole truth in that\ndeposition. He took refuge in a tortured definition of ``sexual\nrelations'' and when pressed for detail, he dodged, dissembled, and\nevaded. He said, for example, that he was never ``alone'' with Monica\nLewinsky. His testimony was deplorable, and he deserves rebuke. But I\nam not convinced that an ordinary citizen would be prosecuted for this\nsame sort of testimony for several reasons.\n First come the arguments put forth by the President's lawyers: that\nthe President exploited an odd definition of sexual relations approved\nby the judge; that the questions asked of him were ``vaguely framed;''\nand that his answers were evasive, incomplete, and even ``maddening,''\nbut not false. I am not satisfied with these defenses, but they might\nbe enough to fend off prosecution.\n Next comes the law of perjury. Lying under oath becomes perjury and a\ncrime if it is ``material'' to the suit in which the testimony is\ngiven. In the case brought by Paula Corbin Jones, Judge Susan Webber\nWright held that the evidence relating to Monica Lewinsky was ``not\nessential to the core issues in this case.'' When Judge Wright granted\nsummary judgment and dismissed the suit, she said, ``Whether other\nwomen may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such\nevidence has been suppressed, does not change the fact that plaintiff\nhas failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a\njury.'' As the Minority Report points out, ``When Judge Wright ruled on\nApril 1 that no matter what the President did with Ms. Lewinsky, Paula\nJones herself had not proved that she has been harmed, the court's\nopinion confirmed that the President's statements, whether truthful or\nnot, were not of the grave constitutional significance necessary to\nsupport impeachment.'' Report of the Committee on Judiciary to\nAccompany H. Res. 611, page 344.\n Finally, five former federal prosecutors told the committee that\nfederal prosecutions for perjury in civil actions do occur but are not\ncommon because ``federal prosecutors do not use the criminal process in\nconnection with civil litigation . . .'' Edward Dennis explained that\n``prosecutors are justifiably concerned about the appearance the\ngovernment is taking the side of one private party against another.''\nWilliam F. Weld, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, who\nran the Criminal Division of the Justice Department during the Reagan\nAdministration, told the committee that in the Reagan Administration\n``it was not the policy of the Justice Department to seek an indictment\nbased solely on evidence that a defendant had falsely denied committing\nadultery or fornication.''\n\n We cannot diminish the gravity of lying under oath, especially by our\nPresident. But before we impeach and remove him from office, we should\nnote the subject of his testimony. It was about personal and not\nofficial conduct. In a law suit dismissed by summary\n\n[[Page H11904]]\n\njudgment and later settled, it is not likely that an ordinary citizen\nwould be prosecuted for such testimony. I do not condone the\nPresident's evasive and dissembling answers, but I am reluctant to\nimpeach him for an offense that would probably not cause an ordinary\ncitizen to be prosecuted.\n If testimony in his deposition was not indictable, of course, the\nPresident should not have been called before the grand jury. But he was\ncalled, and according to the Independent Counsel, he perjured himself\nhere in three respects:\n First, by stating that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky began in\nFebruary 1996 rather than November 1995. To this, the President's\ncounsel points out that the Independent Counsel gives no proof for his\ncontention that the President avoided the earlier date because Ms.\nLewinsky was then an intern and chose the later date because she was\nthen an employee. Counsel argues that, in any event, no judge or jury\nwould find such a discrepancy material.\n Second, by stating that he believed oral sex was not covered by the\ndefinition of ``sexual relations'' approved by Judge Wright when his\ndeposition was taken. But the President admitted to the grand jury the\nkey fact: he had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky. He continued to argue\nthat ``oral sex'' was outside the judge's definition. His argument may\nbe tenuous but it was an argument over semantics rather than facts.\n Third, by saying that he had not engaged in certain types of sexual\nconduct in order to keep his grand jury testimony consistent with his\ndeposition. The President's sex with Monica Lewinsky probably was\n``reciprocal.'' He probably did touch her in ways he did not admit. To\nthis, the President's counsel raised one question for every member to\nask: ``Am I prepared to impeach the President because, after having\nadmitted he engaged in egregiously wrongful conduct, he falsely\ndescribed the particulars of that conduct?''\n\n Let's dismiss all of the above and assume that parts of the\nPresident's deposition were false and material to Paula Jones' suit.\nTwo distinguished lawyers, Professor Van Alstyne of Duke Law School\n(called by the majority) and James Hamilton (called by the minority),\ntestified that even so, these were ``low crimes,'' not the high crimes\ncomparable to bribery and treason which the Constitution requires for\nimpeachment.\n There are two remaining articles. One charges obstruction of justice,\nbut in the words of Governor Weld, the case is ``thin.'' The President\nlied to the public and to his staff and cabinet, but the proof stops\nshort of showing that he suborned them to lie. Monica Lewinsky told the\ngrand jury that no one asked her to lie or promised her a job if she\nremained silent. The other article charges abuse of power. It may be\nthe most troubling of the articles, because if passed, it could become\na threatening precedent for future president who find themselves in\ndisputes with Congress over their powers, prerogatives, and\njurisdiction.\n The majority argues that articles of impeachment are required by the\nrule of law. But the rule of law starts at the source, with the\nConstitution, Article II, Section IV. How the Congress removes a\nPresident elected by the people is vitally important to our democracy.\nThe framers of our Constitution did not choose a prime minister\nbeholden to parliament, but a president independent of Congress, so\nthat each could counter the other. Having made that decision, they did\nnot intend for the impeachment power to be used so that the president\nserves, in effect, as the will of Congress. They knew that impeachment\nmight be needed in extreme cases, so that Congress could remove a\npresident who took bribes or became a traitor or tyrant. For 210 years,\nCongress has regarded the impeachment power in that light, as\nextraordinary, and abused it only once, in the case of Andrew Johnson.\n President Clinton deserves censure. But as sordid and disgraceful as\nhis conduct has been, it does not rise, in my humble opinion, to a\n``high crime'' like bribery or treason. Not just for his sake, but for\nsake of the presidency, we should not impeach on the facts before us.\nWe have an option; we can rebuke this president and leave a black stain\non his legacy, without risking the constitutional balance of power.\nThat is why censure is the proper choice.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\\1/2\\ minutes.\n Mr. Speaker, we have heard an awful lot about the transactions\nrelative to what the President said at the deposition in the Paula\nJones lawsuit relating to Monica Lewinsky's affidavit. I do not think\nthe Members who thundered on denouncing what the gentleman from\nVirginia (Mr. Goodlatte) said have read page 63 of the committee\nreport. I shall do so.\n After reading from the affidavit out loud, the President's attorney,\nMr. Bennett, asked the President, is that a true and accurate statement\nas far as you know it? The President answered, that is absolutely true.\n That is at page 204 of the deposition of President Clinton in the\ncase of Jones versus Clinton.\n During the same deposition, Robert Bennett, the President's attorney,\nstated, Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Jane Doe No. 6 has filed, has\nan affidavit in which they are in possession of saying that there is\nabsolutely no sex of any kind, any manner, shape or form with President\nClinton.\n That is at page 54.\n Now, a few months later, the grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky,\nwhich was given under oath and following a grant of transactional\nimmunity, confirmed that the contents of her affidavit were not true.\n Question: Paragraph 8 of the affidavit says, I have never had a\nsexual relationship with the President; is that true? Answer: No.\n That is the transcript of the grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky\nat page 924.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nUpton).\n (Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I have never been hesitant to work with any\nMember, Republican or Democrat, to get things done for our country. I\ncount good friends on both sides of the aisle. To me, this vote is not\nabout politics, it is about respect, integrity, our laws and, yes, the\nConstitution.\n One of the highlights of my life was serving in the White House.\nThere was never a time that I have not had the greatest respect for the\noffice of the President.\n Etched in the marble fireplace under President Lincoln's portrait in\nthe White House is a quote taken from a letter written by President\nAdams to his wife Abigail in 1801. It reads, I pray heaven to bestow\nthe best of blessings on this House and on all that hereafter inhabit\nit. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.\n We have millions of public servants in this land, some serve as\ngovernors, some as legislators or school board members. In every one of\nthose roles, we will never agree always on the best course that they\nchoose for our Nation or community. But as Americans we need to respect\nthem and their decisions. That is what our democracy is all about. The\nkey bedrock of every public official is their oath of office. Integrity\ndoes count. I do not know of a single Michigan community that would\ntolerate a public official violating that oath. The charges and\nevidence contained in these articles are indeed most serious. Perjury\nto a grand jury, obstruction of justice, what kind of message do we\nsend to America if we set a lower standard for the highest public\nofficial in this land?\n You have to tell the truth, even when it is not easy, even when it is\nnot convenient. That is the basic tenet and foundation of our society.\n The question for us today is whether there is enough evidence for us\nto try this case in the Senate. I believe that there is sufficient\nevidence, and I will vote to impeach the President with a clear\nconscience.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Mica).\n (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, today is a difficult day for both the Congress\nand the country. I truly believe that if we could search the hearts and\nsouls of every Member of Congress, that none of us would like to\nundertake the impeachment of any President of the United States. We are\nnot here today because of the single action of any one individual\nexcept the President, William Jefferson Clinton. We are here because\nnearly every Member of the House of Representatives voted to conduct an\nimpeachment inquiry of this President. We are here because this\nConstitution requires us to do our job and faithfully adhere to its\nprinciples and our laws.\n Every Member of Congress knows exactly why we are here. We are here\ntoday because the President of the United States committed offenses\nthat leave us only to debate the question of an appropriate punishment.\n\n[[Page H11905]]\n\n The majority members of the Committee on the Judiciary and its\ndistinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) in my\nopinion have presented a very clear and factual documentation of acts\nby this President that to me constitute impeachable offenses.\n Today the action required again by this Constitution in fact defines\nthe very essence of our Constitution, that under our system all men and\nwomen are treated equally under the law. That means if you commit\nperjury or obstruct justice, you will be held accountable. If you are a\nMember of Congress or President of the United States, you will be held\naccountable. Even if you are popular, even if you do 1000 good deeds,\nyou will be held accountable. Whether you are powerful or powerless,\nrich or poor, our Constitution and law, under it no one is above the\nlaw. What we do today is not about politics or the next election. What\nwe do today is about the next generation.\n Millions have died to preserve and protect our democracy and system\nof justice and equality.\n Unfortunately, the actions of this President have threatened the very\nfoundation and basis of our progress, our justice and our democracy.\n What we do today is not about politics or the next election. What we\ndo today is about the next generation.\n Earlier today I heard the Minority Leader as he spoke and I would\nlike to respond to some of his comments.\n He said we are sending the wrong message to the world, our foes, the\nChinese and Russians. In fact I believe we are sending the most\nsignificant and important message that America has set an example of\ntrue democracy and equality under Constitutional law.\n He said this is the wrong time because our armed forces are in harm's\nway. This is the right message because those in uniform are serving to\nprotect and defend the tenets of our Constitution.\n He said this is the most radical act Congress could perform. I submit\nit would be radical for Congress to shirk its Constitutional\nresponsibility.\n He said we need to get back to values of decency, respect and trust\nbefore our nation is degraded. I submit that that is in fact why we in\nCongress are here today to return under the provision of our\nConstitution to the principles of decency, respect and trust. The\nsaddest part about this whole matter is how the actions of this\nPresident have so divided this Congress and the people of our great\nnation.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes).\n (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, the President has brought the Nation to this\nsad occasion. What we do here we should be able to explain to our\nchildren and our grandchildren.\n I include for the Record a letter that I wrote to my children this\nmorning:\n\n December 18, 1998.\n Dear Abby, Ted and Sam: Tomorrow, I will cast a difficult\n vote to impeach the President of the United States.\n Over the last couple of weeks, I have agonized over my\n decision, for this is a somber time in our Nation's history.\n But I decided the evidence is clear that President Clinton\n perjured himself by lying under oath, obstructed justice and\n directed others to assist his deceit and abused his office by\n misleading Congress in answers to questions submitted by the\n Judiciary Committee.\n In the end, I must vote for impeachment in order to fulfill\n my Constitutional duty to protect the integrity of the Office\n of the President.\n Two years ago, I made a painful decision when I opposed\n Newt Gingrich because of his admitted ethical mistakes. Then,\n as now, I based my decision on the principle that our\n national leaders must be held to the highest standards of\n honesty and integrity.\n There is much that is likable about President Clinton and I\n was proud to work with him on the environment, education,\n health care and other issues I deeply care about. I am also\n mindful of the abiding impact impeachment will have.\n This issue comes down to one basic principle: the President\n of the United States is not above the law.\n As Americans, we have every right to expect our President\n to be someone our children can look up to and someone who can\n be their role model. As your father, I have always tried to\n teach you to be responsible citizens and own up to your\n mistakes. In this regard, President Clinton failed our\n Nation.\n Nearly a year ago, when confronted with the accusation of\n an improper relationship with an intern, the President\n scornfully shook his finger at the Nation and lied to the\n American people.\n Even after is has been proven beyond doubt that these\n wrongdoings did occur, and that he lied about them under\n oath, President Clinton still refuses to admit the truth.\n As I have always told you, we must face the consequences of\n our actions.\n The basic laws upon which America was founded and that make\n it the greatest Nation in the world are now at stake. The\n United States is a beacon of hope and opportunity to the\n entire world and the President must reflect what is good and\n decent about our country.\n Perjury can never be excused. Congress has a responsibility\n to make it clear that perjury in any instance and by anyone,\n without exceptions even for the President, is illegal. Lying\n under oath is illegal. Multiple lies under oath are illegal.\n It is my sacred duty, as a Member of the House of\n Representatives, to uphold the Constitution and vote to\n impeach the President for lying under oath, obstructing\n justice and abusing the power of his office.\n I always taught you to tell the truth. You have never\n disappointed me and I am proud to be your dad. Years from\n now, when you look back on the vote your father cast, I know\n you will understand the importance of my decision. And, I\n hope you will understand that I did it for you--for the\n country you will inherit, live in and lead.\n Love,\n Dad.\n\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).\n (Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the articles of\nimpeachment filed against the President of the United States. While I\nstrongly oppose the articles of impeachment, I favor a motion to send\nthe resolution back to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to the\ncommittee to report a resolution censuring the President of the United\nStates for his reprehensible and inexcusable conduct.\n Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the history of our country. For\nonly the second time in the Nation's history, the U.S. House of\nRepresentatives is moving forward with articles of impeachment against\nthe President of the United States.\n Our Founding Fathers wisely concluded that the standards to impeach a\nsitting President should be very high. Most constitutional scholars and\nhistorians have clearly stated that impeachment was not intended as\npunishment, but to protect the Republic. These same scholars agree that\nPresidents should only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors,\nconduct by a President so dangerous and reprehensible that it poses\ninjury to the Republic.\n Mr. Speaker, I have carefully reviewed the four articles of\nimpeachment passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote.\nI have reviewed many documents, listened to the testimony and\nstatements made by Members of Congress, historians, and constitutional\nscholars. I have followed much of the hearing conducted by the\nJudiciary Committee, and I have concluded that the President's conduct\ndoes not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as intended by our\nFounding Fathers.\n Even if one assumes that the President of the United States is guilty\nof all or any of the activities described in the articles of\nimpeachment, his conduct--while reprehensible and inexcusable and\nperhaps in violation of the law--they did not and do not threaten our\nNation or cause injury to the Republic. If it can be proven that the\nPresident committed perjury before the grand jury, then the President\nis subject to criminal prosecution the day he leaves office in 24\nmonths.\n Mr. Speaker, the action that we take today concerning this President\nwill have a lasting effect not only on William Jefferson Clinton but\nmore importantly on the institution of the Presidency.\n\n If the House of Representatives impeaches the President of the United\nStates on all or any one of the articles of impeachment being\nconsidered today, I believe that we significantly lower the standards\nfor impeachment for our future Presidents, and further politicize a\nsolemn process. The Judiciary Committee heard from over 400 historians\nand over 200 constitutional scholars on the issue of impeachment. Mr.\nSpeaker, If the evidence to impeach this President on the articles\nfiled by the Judiciary Committee were clear and convincing, we would\nnot have historians and constitutional scholars deeply divided on this\nissue. The fact that most of the constitutional scholars do not believe\nthat the President's conduct rises to an impeachable offense should\ntell us to move forward with censure and to dismiss the impeachment\nproceedings.\n Mr. Speaker, I agree with former President Gerald Ford and the former\nmajority leader, Senator Bob Dole, that the Congress should censure the\nPresident of the United States for\n\n[[Page H11906]]\n\nhis conduct and move on with the business of the country.\n It has been 130 years since the U.S. House of Representatives voted\nto impeach President Andrew Johnson. Today, it is clear that the\nRepublican majority in this House intends to ignore the constitutional\nscholars, historians and the majority of the American people as they\nproceed to vote to impeach President William Clinton. If they, in fact,\ndo impeach this President, they will set in motion a process which will\nresult in articles of impeachment being filed by the political enemies\nof future Presidents.\n Finally, Mr. Speaker, the way in which the Republican leadership has\nhandled this entire matter has been grossly unfair and regrettably\npartisan. Many Members of the House believe, as I believe, that the\nPresident's conduct--while reprehensible and inexcusable--does not rise\nto the level of impeachment and therefore the House should censure the\nPresident. However, the Republican leadership refuses to let members\noffer a Resolution to censure and rebuke the President. That, Mr.\nSpeaker, is unfortunate and it is wrong.\n I urge my colleagues, for the sake of the institution of the\nPresidency and for what I believe is in the best interest of this\ncountry, to reject the articles of impeachment and to censure the\nPresident of the United States for his reprehensible and inexcusable\nconduct.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).\n (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in objection to the articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the articles of impeachment.\nThe President's behavior has been deplorable, reprehensible, and\nimmoral. He has disgraced the office of the Presidency. I think it\nwould be best for the country if he would resign and pass the office of\nthe Presidency to Vice President Gore.\n Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee's report does not convince me\nthat his offense rise to the level of impeachment. Consequently, I will\nvote ``no'' on the articles.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from\nNew York (Mr. Nadler).\n Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the affidavit that the\ngentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) referred to, a number of\npoints.\n Monica Lewinsky testified that no one asked her to file a false\naffidavit. There is no evidence that the President asked her to file a\nfalse affidavit, and the President did not see or ask to see the\naffidavit. There is no evidence to that.\n And finally, Monica Lewinsky's affidavit defined sexual relations in\nthe way she clearly understood it, as we know from the tape of her\nconversation with Linda Tripp. After she was threatened by Mr. Starr\nand her mother was threatened, then she made an immunity deal, then she\nchanged her testimony to what Mr. Starr wanted to hear. Starr admitted\nto the committee that he chose when to believe her and when not to\nbelieve her. To get at the truth, she has to be cross-examined to\ndetermine these contradictions and when she is telling the truth and\nwhen not.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from\nTexas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).\n Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in referring to the referral\nof the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Members to\npage 63, I would ask him to likewise refer the Members to pages 341 to\n342. Judge Webber Wright ruled the issue lacked materiality and all\nthat he said was totally irrelevant. If we just read pages 341 to 342,\nwe would find out that what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.\nSensenbrenner) said was totally irrelevant to this issue.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Mrs. Tauscher).\n (Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nher remarks.)\n Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, from the day that the Starr referral was\ndelivered to the House, I have said that the decision to impeach the\nPresident called upon me to consider the Constitution, my conscience\nand my constituents. I have reread the Constitution and the Federalist\npapers. I have heard from over 10,000 of my constituents. I have\nsearched my conscience.\n That is why I rise to urge my colleagues to strongly oppose the\nimpeachment of the President. Let me reiterate that the President's\nbehavior has been reckless and wrong. His efforts to mislead the\nAmerican people were inappropriate for the leader of our great Nation.\nBut my review of the Constitution leads me to believe that while what\nthe President did may be indictable, it is not impeachable.\n When I came to Congress 2 years ago, I said that while I could not\nagree with anyone 100 percent of the time, it was my responsibility as\na representative of the people to listen 100 percent of the time. My\ncolleagues, we were sent here to be our constituents' eyes and ears.\nAmericans want representatives that know more, not representatives that\nthink they know better.\n Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please stop and listen. The\nAmerican people say we must strongly censure the President and get back\nto their business. I urge you to vote no on impeaching the President.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nMichigan (Mr. Levin).\n (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the majority, you talk about the rule of law,\nbut you rig the rule today so there cannot be a vote on a strong\ncensure motion that so many of us support. You talk about a vote of\nconscience, but you will not let us, probably a majority, vote our\nconscience on this floor. I guess you were aware of your own Members.\n\n {time} 2000\n\n It was not long ago that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said,\n``This whole proceeding will fall on its face if it is not perceived by\nthe American people to be fair. But that is exactly what has happened,\nan unfair, highly partisan proceeding.\n This debate here stands in stark contrast to the debate in 1991 on\nthe Persian Gulf. The feelings were strong but it was nonpartisan and\nfair. Unlike today, the seats were filled and we came to deliberate, to\nexchange views, to listen to one another, not to pursue a set political\nagenda. In this decade, that was this House's finest hour. This is its\nworst.\n Today signifies the total complete breakdown of bipartisanship. What\nwe learned growing up takes on new meaning today. Two wrongs do not\nmake a right. The President was wrong, very wrong. To turn that today\ninto impeachment is also wrong, very wrong.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).\n (Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, few will remember what we say here but\nhistory will record forever what we do here. The vote of this House\nwill redefine the constitutional power of impeachment and restructure\nthe very nature of our government from three separate but equal\nbranches to a more parliamentary form.\n I have listened intently to the able arguments made on both sides of\nthe aisle. I know in my heart and in my mind that neither party\npossesses a claim on righteousness. So I am profoundly disturbed that\nso many Members on both sides of the aisle can be so certain of the\nvalidity of their positions.\n How is it that good men and women of conscience can come to such\nopposite conclusions on the same facts and circumstances? It appears\nthe only common thread that would account for this extreme difference\nwould be partisanship. I am not gifted or wise enough to discern which\nside possesses the superior wisdom to be right. However, it appears to\nme that the constitutional framers and our predecessors established the\nprecedent to solve this dilemma. And that is, the power of impeachment\nshould only be exercised when it has the benefit of broad bipartisan\nsupport.\n We worry about the rule of law, the example to our children, our\nConstitutional duty and other such high-sounding phrases, but few have\ncautioned us about the effect of our decision today on the American\nConstitution that posterity will inherit.\n Some may hate this President. Some may want him punished for sins or\ncrimes. But truly those of us who have sworn to uphold the Constitution\nshould pause at this moment to understand that the action we are about\nto take will profoundly affect the relationship of\n\n[[Page H11907]]\n\nour three branches of government for all time to come.\n My only prayer is that may God at this eleventh hour give everyone of\nus the power and insight to understand the consequences of our\nmomentous decision.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness because today we are\nconsidering whether to impeach a President. Under our Constitution,\nthere is no more somber occasion, except perhaps declaring war. In more\nthan 200 years, we have impeached only one President, and we have never\nconvened a lame-duck session of the House for this purpose.\n Just over ten weeks ago, I was one of only five Members of this body\nto vote against pursuing any form of an impeachment inquiry. At that\ntime, I also called for the Congress to firmly censure the President. I\nreached these decisions, in part, because I feared the slippery slope\nof partisan politics that has brought us here today. Careful analysis\nof the facts known at the time we voted to begin an inquiry led me to\nconclude none was needed then. Even assuming that the worst was true--\nnamely, that the President lied and delayed the discovery of truth--I\nconcluded that no misdeed rose to the level of an impeachable offense,\nand that an inquiry would unnecessarily prolong this painful National\ndrama. (Congressional Record, October 8, 1998, p. H10025)\n In reaching my conclusions, I looked to the Constitution. It states\nthat the President may be removed from office on impeachment for, and\nconviction of, ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors.'' Read in their entirety the debates of the\nConstitution's authors also firmly imply that the bar for impeachment\nis extremely high, and that Congress should use it to address only\nthose Presidential actions that threaten the stability of our\nDemocracy. Lying about shameful conduct in one's personal life does not\nmeet the standard envisaged by the Constitution's Framers.\n In the weeks since we voted to begin an inquiry, the House Judiciary\nCommittee has failed miserably in its mission to conduct a thoughtful\nand bipartisan investigation. Instead, it has developed a novel,\nwatered-down standard of what constitutes impeachment. The committee\nhas also neglected to interview material witnesses or subject them to\nthe rigor of a cross examination. Furthermore, although we have learned\nthat Miss Lewinsky told the grand jury that no one asked her to lie and\nno one ever promised her a job, the Committee has ignored such\nevidence. Of the four articles of impeachment approved on party-line\nvotes, two are ill-defined and two are unsubstantiated.\n Not only has a majority of the Judiciary Committee ignored the will\nof the people as expressed in an election just six weeks ago, but it\nhas also refused to support censuring the President, a more prudent\ncourse of action that would swiftly provide closure and allow us to\nregister our displeasure with the President's behavior. Instead, they\nhave argued that impeachment is the censure. We, however, should not\nmake that mistake. In voting today for impeachment we are not voting to\ncensure the President; we are, in fact, voting to remove the President\nfrom office.\n\n treat the president no better and no differently\n\n Although I may not agree with the Judiciary Committee's\nrecommendations on the matters before us today, I can agree with them\nin at least one respect. Namely, we should treat the President the same\nas any citizen. I also feel, however, that we should treat someone no\ndifferently just because he serves as our President.\n During the Judiciary Committee's proceedings last week, a majority of\nveteran, well-respected, non-partisan prosecutors testified that if the\nPresident were not involved--that is, if an ordinary citizen were the\nsubject of an inquiry into the same misconduct--no sincere thought\nwould be given to pursuing a criminal prosecution. If others would not\nbe prosecuted for such conduct let alone removed from their jobs, why\nshould we single out President Clinton? To me, it makes little sense.\n The Constitution fortunately offers us a way to obtain justice in\nthis matter without pursuing impeachment. It provides that a President\ncan be tried in criminal and civil courts, after leaving office, for\nany misdeed committed during his term. The courts can, therefore,\ndecide in the near future if President Clinton perjured himself. A\ncourt trial will also ensure that the President is treated as fairly as\nany other American.\n\n consequences of impeachment for these actions\n\n Proceeding with impeachment in this case will also cause significant\ndamage to the Constitution. A great number of Constitutional scholars\nhave concluded that an offense is not impeachable unless it corrupts\nthe government. The President's actions, although shameful, certainly\ndid not destroy the proper functioning of our government. In short, he\nhad an improper relationship with a subordinate, he lied about that\nrelationship in order to conceal it, and he delayed the disclosure of\nthe truth. But, he did not subvert our government by committing\ntreason, invading the civil rights of individuals, or accepting bribes.\n Second, lowering the bar for impeachment would forever erode the\npower of the Presidency and tip the delicate system of checks and\nbalances in favor of Congress. The result would be a de facto\nparliamentary system whereby the party in power in Congress could\nimpeach a President of another party if a sufficient number of members\nof the House and Senate simply disagreed with his policies or actions.\nOur Founding Fathers created a government with three separate, but\nequal branches. Because impeachment in this case would irreparably and\nseverely alter this balance, we would be wise to heed the counsel of\nthe Constitution's Framers and maintain a strong Presidency.\n Finally, if the House passes any article of impeachment, we must\nconsider how much it will harm the Nation. Such an outcome will likely\nparalyze the legislative branch for months. It will also disrupt the\nworkings of the Supreme Court because the Chief Justice will have to\npreside over the Senate trial. Moreover, it will divide the country and\nreverse the judgment of the people who twice elected Bill Clinton as\ntheir President.\n\n censure, the better option\n\n Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers intended us to use impeachment only\nwhen the Nation is seriously threatened by the Chief Executive. On an\nissue as important as impeachment, we should, therefore, not engage in\npartisan politics. We should be seeking bipartisan consensus and\nallowing Members to vote their conscience.\n From my perspective, there is a better course of action than what we\nare being offered here. Instead of only considering whether to impeach\nthe President or to exonerate him, a more sensible course of action\nwould find a middle ground that would avoid a polarized public,\ngovernment gridlock, and a Senate stalemate. As I stated at the time of\nmy vote on the impeachment inquiry, I believe that we should strongly\ncensure President Clinton for his reprehensible and immoral conduct.\nUnfortunately, the leadership of this House has denied us a vote on\nsuch an alternative.\n Opponents of this option contend that censure is not a\nConstitutionally-sanctioned procedure for Congressional condemnation of\nPresidential misconduct. If, however, impeachment is the only\nalternative available to Congress to register its opinion on every\noccasion of Presidential wrongdoing, then the threshold for impeachment\nwill fall too low. Although the Constitution remains silent on the\nissue of censure, Constitutional scholars generally agree that Congress\ncan do what it wants as an alternative to impeachment, so long as we do\nnot cross the lines that separate the three branches of government. In\nfact, by a margin of nearly four to one, the 18 Constitutional experts\ncalled as witnesses by both the Republicans and Democrats before the\nJudiciary Committee agreed in writing that the Constitution does not\nprohibit censure. Finally, the argument ignores the fact that Congress\nhas been censuring Presidents for more than 150 years, including\nPresidents Jackson, Tyler, Polk, and Buchanan.\n\n conclusion\n\n Based upon any fair reading of the Constitution, nothing in this case\njustifies overturning an election and removing our President. Instead,\nit is time to put the turmoil of the last eleven months behind us. The\nPresident misled his family, his friends, his colleagues, and Congress.\nHe also dishonored the office the American people entrusted to him. For\nthis inappropriate and disreputable behavior, we need to admonish the\nPresident, but not punish the Nation. The American people should not\nhave to endure a Senate trial about Presidential offenses that did not\nsubvert the government.\n Mr. Speaker, we should vote today to end this impeachment charade. We\nneed to move forward and address the Nation's real priorities. We\nshould give the people what they want a Congress focused on governing\nthe country and working with the President to address the pressing\nchallenges of our time. We should also begin to forgive. Congressional\ncensure will accomplish all of these goals. For these reasons and\nothers, I will oppose these articles of impeachment, but support\nsensible efforts to censure the President.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Georgia (Mr. Barr).\n Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n Every witness who appears before a grand jury has three options,\ncount them, three, and only three. The witness can tell the truth, the\nwhole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God; they can\nassert a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination; or three,\nthey can lie, they can mislead, and they can tell untruths.\n Despite being offered yet a fourth option, President Clinton chose\noption\n\n[[Page H11908]]\n\nthree. He lied. He misled. He told untruths. Even being afforded the\nunprecedented fourth option of submitting for the record a statement\nand referring to it some 19 times as opposed to answering questions\ntruthfully and fully, the President's grand jury testimony on August\n17, 1998, was replete, that is full of, lies, untruths and misleading\nstatements; misleading in that he never admitted the truth of his\nrelationship with a subordinate government employee; perjurious in that\nhe refused to admit having taken steps to suborn perjury, that is, to\ncause Monica Lewinsky to testify untruthfully and in a misleading way\nbefore the court in the Paula Jones case; perjurious, misleading and\nuntruthful in that he refused to admit the fact that, in return for her\ntestimony or her silence, he sought the services of Vernon Jordan to\nprovide a job, to find a job, to buy the silence of Monica Lewinsky;\nperjurious, misleading and false in that he refused to admit on a\npattern of activity designed to thwart justice and keep the grand\njurors from learning the truth about this relationship arising out of a\ncivil rights case. That is Article I.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).\n Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, the opposing side has made a point that Ms.\nLewinsky said that the President never specifically told her to lie.\nYet they had engaged in a very clear cover story for a number of months\nin terms of how she had access to the President when she was an intern\nand later from the Pentagon.\n Also, I would point out, while he may not have specifically told her\nto lie, which is very uncommon in the area of criminal law, there are\nother ways to get that point across. While the President did not\nexpressly instruct her to lie, according to Ms. Lewinsky, he did\nsuggest misleading cover stories. And when she assured him, now this is\na 22-year-old girl, when she assured him that she planned to lie about\nthe relationship, he responded approvingly.\n On the frequent occasions that Ms. Lewinsky promised that she would\nalways deny the relationship and always protect him, for example, the\nPresident responded, in her recollection, that is good, or something\naffirmative, not do not deny it. And once she was named as a possible\nwitness in the Jones case, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President\nreminded her of the cover stories.\n After telling her that she was a potential witness, the President\nsuggested that if she was subpoenaed that she could file an affidavit\nto avoid being deposed. He also told her that she could say that she\nwas working at the White House and she delivered letters to him and\nafter leaving the White House, she sometimes returned to see Ms.\nCurrie.\n In the grand jury testimony of the President, he acknowledged that he\nand Ms. Lewinsky ``might have talked about what to do in a nonlegal\ncontext to hide their relationship'' and that he ``might have said''\nthat Ms. Lewinsky should tell people that she was bringing letters to\nhim or coming to visit Ms. Currie. But he also stated that he never\nasked Ms. Lewinsky to lie. I think that is a classic example of the\nparsing of words that we have seen throughout this case.\n Let me add a word about the materiality issue of these statements.\nThose argue that the perjury cannot be prosecuted since the underlying\ncase has been dismissed. That is simply not the rule.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).\n Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia unintentionally\nhas misled this House. The President admitted before the grand jury of\nan inappropriate relationship. He stated that clearly and unequivocally\nhe did not want to get involved into the salacious details.\n At the same time, my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) knows that\nthe job search began months before Ms. Lewinsky was ever considered a\nwitness in any proceeding.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Rush).\n (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, the partisan politics being carried out by the\nRepublican majority is a travesty being inflicted upon the American\npeople. The Members of this Congress must not forget we were chosen by\nthe people to serve all the people.\n Like never before, I have heard from senior citizens, the poor, and\nthe working class who have flooded my office with a steadfast refrain\nagainst these articles of impeachment. They have overwhelmingly\nsupported and resoundingly pledged their support to President Clinton.\nThese people have spoken.\n The very fact that we are debating articles of impeachment flies in\nthe face of the will of all the American people. The pompous and\nelitist conduct of the Republican Party is clear evidence of the lack\nof concern for the welfare of our Nation. President Clinton has served\nas a ray of hope for forgotten Americans.\n As a consequence, this President continues to be bludgeoned by the\nRepublican leadership because of his relationships with minorities, the\nworking poor, and the disenfranchised of our Nation, the very people\nwho serve no useful purpose vis-a-vis the Republican agenda.\n Mr. Speaker, this is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the wrong way. It is\nthe wrong day. And it is the wrong play. I plead with the Members of\nthis House to vote against this atrocious and unconstitutional measure.\n\n Tyranny of the majority\n\n Tyranny of the majority was one of the most profound fears of our\nfounding fathers. This was the driving impetus behind the framing of\nthe constitution. The structure of our Congress is designed to ensure\nthat the interests of all citizens are given ample weight in the\ndeliberation of national affairs. The American people have made it\nclear that they do not approve of the partisan witch hunt that is being\nconducted by the Republican majority. The result of the November\nelections and numerous public opinion polls are proof positive of the\npublic's disdain.\n It is sad irony that the very institution entrusted with the welfare\nof the nation has sunken to a merky depth most find unfathomable. The\nactions of the Republican majority is in diametric opposition to the\nwill of the American people. This callous disregard for the will of the\npeople is exactly what Hamilton, Jay, and Madison sought to protect\nagainst. The conduct of the Republican majority is a casebook example\nof the abusive, self-absorbed behavior spoken against so vehemently by\nthe Federalists.\n\n History repeats itself\n\n The Gestapo-like tactics employed by the Republican majority are\nreminiscent of some the darkest chapters in history, as with the\nSpanish Inquisition and Nazi Germany. The independent counsel law was\npassed in order to facilitate into possible inappropriate conduct by\nthose entrusted with the resources of the American people. It is this\nvery law that has been used to advance a singular and impure purpose.\nThe resulting report was nothing more than tabloid paid for by American\ncitizens at the cost of approximately $50 million--and rising. It is\nfull of innuendo, rumor, and unproven allegations. The abuse of the\nindependent counsel law is sinister at best. It is this type of\nbehavior that lays the foundation for unchecked, unbridled, and\negomaniacal behavior experienced by other nations. The wounds inflicted\nby such actions remain on the fabric of each of those nations. Must\nhistory repeat itself?\n\n Trial without justice\n\n The efforts of the Republican party to discredit and smear the\nPresident borders on irrationality and absurdity. Their efforts have\nthe likely potential of tarnishing the American psyche for years to\ncome. Since becoming the majority party in Congress as a result of the\n1994 elections, the Republican party has repeatedly exploited its\nposition to advance the interests of its party and those sympathetic to\nits views. The concept of balanced deliberation with regard for the\noverall good of American people has been lost.\n Earlier in this century, the American people experienced a ravaging\nof our institution of government. Then, as now, the Republican party,\nproceeded with congressional inquires based upon often shaky, if not\ncompletely fraudulent, information. Then the charge was ``communism''.\nThe actions of the Republican majority parallel the reckless and cruel\nmanner in which the McCarthy proceedings were conducted.\n As in the beginning of American history, the Salem witch trials\ndemonstrate the tragic consequences of flawed judgment. The toxic\naccusations of false and self-serving witnesses, puritanical zealots,\nand various assorted moral arbiters led to some of the most heinous\nacts in our history.\n\n[[Page H11909]]\n\n Unfortunately, the conduct of the Republican majority is exactly that\nwhich Madison spoke against. In Federalist Paper No. 57, Madison warned\nthat the ``House of Representatives . . . will have least sympathy with\nthe mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious\nsacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few.'' As the\nRepublican party satisfies its political appetite, the welfare of the\npeople falls to the wayside.\n\n Spinning on its head\n\n The process by which this impeachment inquiry has been carried has\nspun the constitutional framework of our nation on its head. The\nRepublican majority has proceeded with an open-ended and arbitrary\nimpeachment inquiry. The behavior of the President, however\ndisappointing, does not rise to the caliber of an impeachable offense.\nAll efforts by Democrats to conduct a focused and fair hearing were\nspurned. The Republicans have proceeded with callous disregard for the\nconstitutional standards for impeachment. This process is contrary to\nthe constitutional framework upon which our nation is based.\n\n The will of the people\n\n The partisan politics being carried out by the Republican majority is\na travesty being inflicted upon the American people. The members of\nthis Congress must not forget we were chosen by the people to serve all\nthe people. Like never before, I have heard from senior citizens, the\npoor, and the working class have flooded my office with a steadfast\nrefrain against these articles of impeachment. They have overwhelmingly\nand resoundingly pledged their support to President Clinton. These\npeople have spoken. The very fact that we are debating articles of\nimpeachment, flies in the face of the will of the all American people.\n the pompous and elitist conduct of the Republican party is clear\nevidence of its lack of concern for the welfare of our nation.\nPresident Clinton has served as a ray of hope for forgotten Americans.\nThis President continues to be bludgeoned by the Republican leadership\nbecause of his relationship with minorities, the working poor and the\ndisenfranchised of our nation. The very people who serve no useful\npurpose vis a vis the Republican agenda.\n The Republican majority is out of touch with the American people. At\na time when our schools rank lower than those of most industrialized\nnations and the infant mortality rate in some of our major cities is\nhigher than that of some third world countries, the Republican majority\nhas chosen to put vicious partisan politics ahead of the concerns of\nthe American people.\n The Republicans will resort to anything to get their way--even\nshutting down the government, cutting medicare, and eliminating the\nsocial safety net of our most vulnerable citizens. This most recent\nmaneuvering is extreme, misguided and vindictive and will only result\nin a divided America whose government is paralyzed and crippled by a\nsmall band of right wing radicals.\n This is wrong, wrong, wrong. This is the wrong way, the wrong day,\nand the wrong play.\n I plead with the members of this House to vote against this atrocious\nand unconstitutional measure.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nPennsylvania (Mr. Borski).\n (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, last year this House was asked to set aside\npartisan interests and to bring to resolution the investigation of the\ngentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich).\n At that time, we rose above partisan and passionate emotions to\nproduce a just and fair punishment. As Members of Congress, it was our\nduty to do so. What we are confronted with today certainly deserves no\nless.\n Unfortunately, that bipartisanship is disturbingly absent from our\nproceedings today. As the people of this Nation cry out for appropriate\nsanction and closure, Republicans continue to press forth ignoring\ntheir voices. They have denied the representatives of the people a vote\non censure and will accept nothing less than the fruition of their\npartisan agenda.\n President Clinton's behavior, while reprehensible and indefensible,\nis not impeachable. His actions simply do not rise to the level of high\ncrimes and misdemeanors. By forcibly suppressing a vote on censure, the\nmajority has coerced this House to choose solely between a political\ndeath sentence or total absolution.\n Impeaching the President would damage the very foundation of\nrepresentation upon which our Nation rests. While I truly believe the\nPresident's actions warrant punishment, I cannot in good conscience\nsupport his removal from office.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the impeachment\nresolution. The vote before us is the most important that many of us\nwill ever cast.\n In my career the only vote of greater importance that I can recall\nwas that giving President Bush the power to enter this nation into the\nPersian Gulf War in 1991. On that day, I was one of 86 Democrats who\nproudly joined with Republicans to work in a bipartisan manner to\nsupport the actions of the armed forces.\n More recently, this House was asked to set aside partisan interests\nand bring to resolution the investigation of Speaker Gingrich. Serving\non the Ethics Committee was difficult for me personally--the time was\none that tested the good faith and will of the House as a whole. At\nthat time we rose above partisan and passionate emotions to produce a\njust and fair punishment. As members of Congress it was our duty to do\nso. What we are confronted with today certainly deserves no less.\n Unfortunately the bipartisan work and fairness which I have seen\nprevail when circumstances dictated they must, is disturbingly absent\nfrom our proceedings today. As the people of this nation cry out for\nappropriate sanction and closure, Republicans continue to press forth,\nignoring their voices. They have denied the Representatives of the\npeople a vote on censure, and will accept nothing less than the\nfruition of their partisan agenda.\n President Clinton's behavior, while reprehensible and indefensible,\nis not impeachable. His actions simply do not rise to the level of high\ncrimes and misdemeanors. By forcibly suppressing a vote on censure, the\nmajority has coerced this House to choose solely between a political\ndeath sentence or total absolution. Impeaching the President would\ndamage the very foundation of representation upon which our nation\nrests. While I truly believe the Presidents actions warrant punishment,\nI cannot in good conscience support his removal from office.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nPennsylvania (Mr. Coyne).\n Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution\nto these articles of impeachment and to these unfair partisan\nproceedings which deny Members the right to vote on the alternative of\na censure.\n Mr. Speaker, we are all disappointed in the President's actions. The\nPresident himself has admitted that he acted improperly. This debate\ntoday, however, is not simply about whether the President did something\nwrong or even whether he did something illegal. Rather, the issue\nbefore us today is what, if any, action Congress should take in\nresponse.\n Specifically, the Members of the House are being asked whether we\nbelieve that President Clinton's actions were so egregious that he\nshould be impeached and removed from office. I do not believe that\nthese misdeeds merit impeachment of the President. Impeachment is a\nstatement by Congress that the President is unable to carry out the\nresponsibilities of his office or that he cannot be trusted to do so.\n The Constitution specifies treason, bribery, or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors as the proper grounds for impeachment. Impeachment by\nremoving the Nation's highest elected official nullifies a vote mailed\nby the American people.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).\n Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the trustworthiness of the\nPresident to continue in office or the President's fitness for office,\nwith regard to Article III of the articles of impeachment, let the\nfacts be known. The evidence before this House indicates that the\nPresident engaged in a pattern of obstruction while the Jones v.\nClinton case was pending and while a federal criminal investigation\ninto his alleged misconduct was pending in order to thwart those\nproceedings.\n The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file a sworn affidavit\nthat he knew would be false in the Jones v. Clinton case. The President\nencouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath if called personally to\ntestify in the Jones v. Clinton case. The President related to Betty\nCurrie, a potential witness in the Jones v. Clinton case, a false\naccount of events relevant to testimony she might provide in the case.\n The President told lies to White 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\n[[Page H11910]]\n\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 v. Clinton case would have been harmful\nto him.\n The President engaged in a plan to conceal evidence that had been\nsubpoenaed in the Jones v. Clinton case.\n And the President at his deposition allowed his attorney to make a\nfalse representation to a Federal judge in order to prevent questioning\nabout Ms. Lewinsky.\n I do not see how anyone, anyone, can deny the seriousness of these\ncharges or the corrupting effect they have on the judicial system of\nthis country if we allow them to go unaddressed.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).\n Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a couple things that\nhave been raised, first of all that the charges in this case are not\nspecific enough.\n The charges are specific. They are detailed. And more importantly,\nthe specific charges are the same as has been followed in previous\nimpeachment inquiries of this House. And also, the report of the\nCommittee on the Judiciary has every page number that is necessary to\nput the President on notice.\n And now materiality. It has been raised that, well, the lies under\noath were not material in nature. Judge Wright at the time of the\ndeposition in Arkansas said that the questions were relevant and\ndirected the President to answer those questions. Materiality is\ndetermined at the time the questions are asked and not later. And that\nis the case of United States v. Holly, Fifth Circuit, 1991.\n But most importantly, no person should be so above the law that they\ncan determine when they are a litigant in a lawsuit what is relevant\nand not. The judge must determine that issue.\n\n {time} 2015\n\n Now I want to mention Article IV. Article IV talks about the\nmisstatements, the misleading statements to the United States Congress.\nWe have a pattern here where the President of the United States\nflaunted the truth seeking process of the civil courts, he flaunted the\ntruth seeking process of the federal grand jury. But I believe what is\nmost offensive in terms of the Constitution is that he failed to\nprovide truthful answers to the United States Congress to 81 questions\nthat were submitted to him. There is a role in the United States\nCongress in this. We are the charging party.\n Barbara Jordan from Texas has been cited, a great lady, and she\nreferred in 1974 the Constitution set up a pattern, that we are the\ncharging body in the House, that the Senate has a role to play. They\nare the adjudicatory body, and that is important, that distinction. We\ncharge, they try, they cross-examine, they hear evidence.\n I have a high standard before I will vote to impeach the President of\nthe United States, but I do remind myself that we have responsibility\nto charge but ultimately it is the obligation of the Senate to make the\ndetermination of the facts.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nNebraska (Mr. Barrett).\n Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia\nsaid let the facts be known, so I think it is important that we let the\nfacts be known.\n With regard to Betty Currie, she was not a witness in the Jones case,\nshe did not become a witness in the Jones case, she was never a witness\nin the Jones case. Yet they argue that somehow there is an obstruction\nof justice with the Jones case. She was never a witness.\n With regard to the job search the record could not be clearer that\nMonica Lewinsky was looking for a job long before December and got a\nlot of assistance long before December.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).\n (Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in protest against this unfair\nprocedure, asking for a censure, a vote on censure and against articles\nof impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise to call on the Republican majority to allow the\nmembers of the House of Representatives to vote on censure. The\noverwhelming majority of American people want this Congress to censure\nthe President, not impeach him.\n I support censure not because the President didn't do anything wrong.\nHis behavior was wrong and reprehensible. I support censure because the\nPresident's behavior doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable\noffense as outlined by our Founding Fathers. His actions were private\nmisdeeds that neither subverted the Constitution nor constituted abuse\nof the power of his office.\n I support censure because President Clinton didn't order the break-in\nof a building. He didn't use the IRS, the CIA, and the FBI against\nAmerican citizens. And he didn't lie to Congress about selling arms to\na terrorist state.\n Chairman Hyde allowed a vote on censure in the Judiciary Committee\nlast week. He allowed the members of his committee a conscience vote on\ncensure. We thank him for that. The House leadership must allow a\nconscience vote for all members on this question.\n In 1995, Republicans shut down the government. In 1998, they refused\nto pass the Patients' Bill of Rights, they refused to pass campaign\nfinance reform, and they refused to pass an increase in the minimum\nwage. Imagine what will happen next year if the House approves articles\nof impeachment. With a Senate trial, the people's government virtually\nwill be shut down for another year.\n It's time we censure the President and end this process so we can\nreturn to the issues that matter most to working people, including\nreducing prescription drug costs for seniors, protecting our\nenvironment, and helping local school districts rebuild their schools.\n In their zeal to undo two national elections, the majority has\ntrampled on the notion that this impeachment process should be\nbipartisan and fair. I urge my colleagues to allow a vote of censure\nagainst the President.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from\nNorth Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the committee.\n Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee\nI have had many opportunities to speak on this issue, and I hope to be\nable to yield back some of my time. But I wanted to express, after\nhearing the debate today, to my colleagues my deep appreciation to\nthem. I wanted to express that after hearing a good part of the debate\ntoday my opinion that the debate has been high quality and civil on\nboth sides, and there are two issues that I think from the debate so\nfar need to be still addressed that I thought might be worthy of\ntalking about.\n First of all, is lying under oath a serious offense if it is proven?\nI think we all ought to acknowledge that it truly is. Does it undermine\nthe rule of law? I think we ought to acknowledge that it does in much\nthe same way that lack of resources that people who come into the court\nand do not have good legal representation and resources and bias of\nwitnesses undermines the rule of law. Untruths also undermine the rule\nof law.\n But the thing that undermines the rule of law more than any other\nsingle thing is a disregard of the law, and I think to get to the real\nquestion we need to ask the question is lying under oath impeachable?\nBecause the standard for impeachment is treason. This is not treason.\nBribery; it is not bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors\ninterpreted as crimes against the state, crimes against the government.\n So in order for a misstatement under oath to be a crime against the\ngovernment it would have to be about some operation of the government,\nnot about some sex offense, not about speeding, not about something\nthat is unrelated to the operation of the government.\n Finally, does it mean that the President is above the law if he is\nnot impeached? Be clear on it, Mr. Speaker. The failure to impeach does\nnot exonerate the President. He can still be tried as any other citizen\nin this country. The Constitution specifically provides that. When his\nterm of office is up, if he has lied, if he has engaged in perjury, he\ncan be prosecuted and convicted and sentenced just like any other\ncitizen in this country.\n So this whole notion that somehow by failing to impeach this\nPresident we place him above the law is just inaccurate.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nArkansas (Mr. Snyder).\n\n[[Page H11911]]\n\n Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion in the\nlast several weeks about this being a vote of conscience over the next\n2 days. One of my friends from Arkansas was talking to me a few days\nago and said, ``What's all this talk about conscience? You all act like\nit's something new for the first time.'' He said, ``What the hell, all\nthe other votes you've been doing the last 2 years there?'' Well I\nthink impeachment is a vote of conscience.\n Mr. Speaker, my question for this side of the aisle is: What was the\ndecision-making process that led them to conclude that we should not\nhave a censure alternative on this floor? Was it a vote of conscience\nin their caucus that said we, their Democratic colleagues, should be\ndenied this right? Was it a vote of conscience amongst their leadership\nwhich said we, their Democrat colleagues, should be denied the right to\nvote for the alternative that we prefer?\n As my colleagues know, I am a doctor. I had the opportunity to dig\naround in people's bodies and cadavers in anatomy lab. I have looked\nfor the conscience in a cadaver, it is not there. I have decided the\nlast few days perhaps it was a Democratic cadaver I had who did not\nhave a conscience. Well, I cannot believe that is true. We also have a\nconscience; everybody in this body has a conscience. We would like\ntheir process that they all control to give us the same opportunity\nthey have.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Ms. Sanchez).\n (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness. My heart\nis heavy because I know what it is like to be the target of a blatantly\npartisan investigation. Remember, I spent the first year and a half\nhere defending my congressional seat from a very partisan investigation\nover the outcome of my election. They tried to undo that election, and\nnow they are trying to undo the President's election.\n But an overwhelming majority of Americans want this President to\nstay, and I can only echo my colleague and friend, the gentleman from\nGeorgia (Mr. Lewis), when he says, ``Beware the wrath of the American\npeople, beware. You will have only yourselves to blame when Americans\nrise up and hold you accountable for what you are doing today.''\n What is going on is unbelievable. Make no mistake about it. This is a\npartisan effort to remove the duly elected President of the United\nStates from his office. One can only fear the harm that they are doing\nto the presidency today. Every American should be very concerned about\nthe wisdom of impeaching our President without bipartisan support.\n Mr. Speaker, I am sad today because I know that in 20 years from now\nwe will look back and say that we have weakened our Constitution and we\nwill be remembered for failing the American people.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Indiana (Mr. Buyer).\n Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, there have been many who have come to the\nwell today and they have been requesting that this body take up the\nissue of censure of the President. As my colleagues know, it would be\nnice, I guess, if we could take the easy way out, cut and run, but we\ncannot do that, nor can Congress make it up as we go. I know it is a\nlegal technical term and people do not like lawyerly language, but it\nis called extra-constitutional. What that means is the Constitution\ndoes not specifically provide for censure as an alternative to\nimpeachment.\n See, we also, as Members of Congress, took an oath, and it was to\ndefend the Constitution. We have a duty to exercise legislative\ncompetence, and we cannot make it up as we go.\n President Andrew Jackson, who is known as one of the Founding Fathers\nof the Democrat Party, he was censured by the Senate. Then there was an\nelection, and then the next Senate, they expunged it from the record.\nPresident Jackson, I will repeat, his own words shed great light on\nthis challenge we have today, and he penned this over 150 years ago.\nPresident Jackson wrote that the very idea of censure is a subversion\nof the powers of government and destructive to the checks and\nsafeguards of governmental power. President Jackson rightly claimed\nthat censure was wholly unauthorized by the Constitution and is a\nderogation of its entire spirit. See, for us to make it up as we go, to\ncut expediently and to censure the President, we cannot make it up, it\nis not constitutional.\n Then what we did in the Committee on the Judiciary, a censure was\noffered. So we specifically looked at the language which was offered.\nThey said, ``Well, we can do it.'' No, they cannot do it because now it\nis unconstitutional because it violates what is called the bill of\nattainder. Congress cannot set as a legislative body an act as a\njudicial body and put someone on trial and have findings of guilt and\npunish him. That is what the censure does. We cannot do it. It is\nextra-constitutional, and it is unconstitutional in its form as\noffered.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).\n Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the obstruction of\njustice, Article III, and the charge of suborning perjury or witness\ntampering with regard to Betty Currie, everyone here should understand\nthat the issue is not whether or not Betty Currie was a witness. In\nfact, the law is very clear on that point. Title 18, Section 1512 of\nthe United States Code with regard to witness tampering says that for\nthe purposes of this section an official proceeding need not be pending\nor about to be instituted at the time of the offense, and the courts\nhave been clear on this. In United States v. Radolitz the Court said\nthe most obvious example of a Section 1512 violation may be the\nsituation where a defendant tells a potential witness a false story as\nif the story were true, intending that the witness believe the story\nand testify to it before the grand jury.\n So the issue was what did the President think was likely to occur\nwith regard to Ms. Currie, and in point of fact she later was called as\na witness, and in a civil deposition he referred to her time and time\nand time again. So it is clear to me that he thought she likely to be a\nwitness when he suggested to her that Ms. Lewinsky had come on to him,\nwhen he suggested to Ms. Currie that they were never alone, all of\nthese statements intended to influence Ms. Currie's future testimony.\n With regard to the issue of Ms. Lewinsky's employment, the question\nis whether the President's efforts in obtaining a job for Ms. Lewinsky\nwere to influence her testimony or simply to help an ex-intimate\nwithout concern for her testimony. The fact of the matter is the\nPresident assisted Ms. Lewinsky in her job search in late 1997 at a\ntime when she would have been a witness harmful to him in the Jones\ncase were she to testify truthfully.\n\n {time} 2030\n\n The President did not act halfheartedly. His assistance led to the\ninvolvement of the Ambassador to the United Nations, one of the\ncountry's leading business figures, Mr. Pearlman, and one of the\ncountry's leading attorneys, Vernon Jordan.\n I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there is no coincidence between the\nfact that Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit on the same day or\nthe day after she received a job in New York.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nWisconsin (Mr. Barrett), a member of the committee.\n Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this body has praised\nindividuals, it has commended individuals, it has criticized\nindividuals. No one gets upset about that. People on this side of the\naisle have offered motions to censure individuals. Not the President.\nSo the only reason we are hearing that the censure is extra-\nconstitutional is because it is based on the fear, the well-founded\nfear, that it would pass.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from\nTexas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).\n Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's comments from\nIndiana are absolutely without merit. Nowhere in the Constitution does\nit say censure is prohibited. If that were the case, we would not have\npostal stamps, we would not have education, we would not have Social\nSecurity.\n\n[[Page H11912]]\n\n We are not suggesting a bill of attainder, restraining the liberty\nand the property of the President. It is not unconstitutional. What is\nunconstitutional are the articles of impeachment that have no facts at\nall, but the censure is constitutional.\n\n Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would appreciate it\nif Members would abide by the time constraints that are allowed by the\nmanagers on each side.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the committee.\n Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to put on the\nrecord in response to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), Ms.\nCurrie appeared before the grand jury on eight different occasions. On\neach occasion, she testified that in no way was she pressured to make\nany statement exonerating the President of the United States.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nArkansas (Mr. Berry).\n (Mr. BERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I stand here tonight without reservation, I\nam against this impeachment. It simply does not rise to the level that\nthe Constitution requires. It is unfair, it is partisan, and it mocks\nfair play. We should not do it.\n For the good of this country, this partisan insanity must end.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Blagojevich).\n (Mr. BLAGOJEVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I walked into this Chamber\nwith awe. As the son of an immigrant, I was raised to believe in the\nmajesty of our democracy, and this is the citadel of that democracy.\n Today we are on the verge of weakening our democracy by abusing the\nmost extraordinary tool our Constitution affords us. Most\nconstitutional scholars and most of the American people simply do not\nbelieve that the President's offenses, as bad as they are, rise to the\nlevel of impeachment; yet we are about to set a dangerous precedent\nwhere future Congresses will use impeachment as a tool of political\ndestruction and not as the intended remedy for the grand abuse of\npower.\n If we proceed down this road, this Congress will forever be\nremembered not for defending the rule of law, but for defiling our\nConstitution. I ask you to look around and consider the weight of\nhistory all of us in this Chamber bear. Before you degrade the world's\ngreatest democracy, I ask you, I implore you, to please change your\ncourse.\n About 2 years ago, I walked into this chamber with awe.\n As the son of an immigrant, I was raised to believe in the majesty of\nour democracy.\n And this is the citadel of that democracy.\n I reflected on the brilliant, courageous leaders who crafted our\nconstitution, and those who followed them, here in this Chamber--men\nand women of vision and judgment who have guided our Republic through\ngood times and bad, informed by the precepts of our Founding Fathers.\n Today, I fear we are on the verge of sullying their work and their\nmemory, and weakening our democracy, by abusing the most extraordinary\ntool the Constitution affords us.\n It has been said over and over and over again, and we all agree, that\nthe President's behavior in this matter was indefensible. He misled the\nAmerican people, his Cabinet and staff, to cover up an affair.\n But most of the scholars we've heard from--and most of the American\npeople--simply do not believe that his offenses rise to the level of\nimpeachment.\n Nonetheless, the majority is poised to proceed, without ample cause\nor national consensus, to put us through a wrenching trial, for the\napparent purpose of unseating a President they could not defeat at the\npolls.\n We are setting a precedent that will embolden future Congresses to\nuse impeachment as a tool of political destruction, rather than the\nremedy for grand abuses of power it was meant to be.\n If we proceed down this road, this Congress will forever be\nremembered, Not for defending the rule of law, but for defiling our\nConstitution.\n I ask you to look around, consider the weight of history all of us in\nthis Chamber bear.\n Before you degrade the world's greatest democracy, whose ideals have\nattracted millions of immigrants to our shores, I ask you to change\ncourse.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Tierney).\n (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the easy way out is not an avoidance of a\ncensureship motion. That is the way to end the partisanship here. The\ncorrect way, the way to show some fairness, is to allow a vote on\ncensure; not to make some excuse that because it is not mentioned in\nthe Constitution, we cannot have that vote.\n Take the weight of conscience out. Do not deprive our right to vote\nour conscience so you can ram something through here. Spare us all the\nrighteous condemnations, spare us all the assertions of your desire to\nuphold the rule of law, and do a fair act here; put on this floor a\nmotion for censure, because certainly the fact that the conduct of the\nPresident is not impeachable does not mean it is being condoned.\n We have an argument here that he can stand for trial if it is decided\nthat is what should be done after he gets out of office, and we do not\nneed impeachment to teach our children the difference between right and\nwrong. Do not sell our parents short, do not sell our children short,\ndo not sell the minority here short and do not sell the American people\nshort. Give us the right, give us the fairness of a vote on censure, so\nthe American people can have their way.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the dean of the House\nRepublicans, who is retiring this year.\n (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the pending resolution.\n Mr. Speaker, these votes on the question of impeachment are difficult\nones for all of us. And my view of this sad situation is colored\nsomewhat by my personal knowledge of how prosecutors and investigators\ncan unfairly target and charge a citizen.\n But after reading the report of the Judiciary Committee, it is\nconclusive to me that the President violated his constitutional oath to\nthe people of the United States. He did so by intentionally misstating\nthe facts in sworn testimony, repeatedly. Likewise, he violated his\noath by perverting the system of justice, by concealing evidence and\nattempting to influence testimony, and by refusing to answer\nforthrightly the legitimate questions of a congressional committee.\n However, I am gravely concerned about the tactics used by the\nIndependent Counsel in this matter regarding the President. I am\nequally appalled by the tactics of another independent counsel in the\ncase of former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy. Mike Espy, in the\nread world, is now known as `former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.'\nBut Prosecutor Smaltz is still Prosecutor Smaltz--for bringing a false\ncase the prosecutor suffers no loss of position, no penalty for his\nmisconduct while his target loses his job and his good name. The\nprosecutor is unaccountable.\n These independent counsels are doing nothing out of the ordinary when\nthey intimidate witnesses or engage in other unfair tactics. The\ntactics used by independent counsels are the same tactics used by\nregular federal prosecutors every day against American citizens. The\nU.S. Department of Justice fights any attempt to bring accountability,\nto bring oversight, to punish prosecutors who engage in misconduct.\n Repeatedly, these tactics are given the seal of approval by the U.S.\nDepartment of Justice. Nobody at the Justice Department raises any\nquestion about this type of conduct, which violates the Constitution.\nIn my opinion, they contort the basic intent of the Constitution, which\nis to ensure the freedom of every citizen in this country.\n Earlier this session, I tried to pass legislation to reform the\nDepartment of Justice as it conducts its daily operations. I believe\nthe need is clear--just look at the normal investigative techniques\nused every day in this country by not only independent counsels, but by\nall federal prosecutors. They cry out for attention, because they\nthreaten the liberty and constitutional rights of our citizens.\n In carrying out their mission, overzealous prosecutors violate the\nrights of far too many\n\n[[Page H11913]]\n\nof our citizens. They represent a rogue element within the larger group\nof law enforcement, they must be curtailed. Their powers are enormous,\nthen conduct unaccountable, and their victims are the constitutional\nrights of our citizens.\n In 1940, then-Attorney General and future Supreme Court Justice\nRobert H. Jackson warned of the dangers of placing too much\nunaccountable power in the hands of a prosecutor. Anyone who reads his\nstatement should be deeply concerned about liberty in our country.\nListen to just two sentences:\n\n With the law books filled with a great assortment of\n crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least\n a technical violation of some act on the part of almost\n anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering\n the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who\n has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and\n then searching the law books, or putting investigators to\n work to pin some offense on him.\n\n That alert, given in 1940, should be regarded as a bright danger\nsignal in 1998. For the number of laws and regulations on the books\nhave increased a thousand-fold. And as they have grown, so does the\ndanger Jackson warned us about.\n Today, an overzealous and unaccountable prosecutor can target and\ncharge citizens on a huge variety of technical and substantive\nviolations of law. The power they unleash is beyond description. The\neffects on a citizen of our country are ruinous.\n Legislation which I offered (H.R. 3396 and the House overwhelming\npassed as part of the Commerce/Justice State appropriations bill on\nAugust 5 would have reined in the abuses of these overzealous\nprosecutors. Before and after passage of the bill in the House, the\nDepartment of Justice lobbied intently against it. And my question is,\nwhy?\n Title I of my bill requires the lawyers at the Department of Justice\nto abide by the ethics law which govern the actions of all other\nlawyers. The Department vehemently argued the need for their self-\nproclaimed exemption from ethics laws. They were opposed by the chief\njustices of all 50 states, the American Bar Association, and every\nprofessional group which took a position. Standing alone in favor of\ntheir own ethics exemption was the Department of Justice. Their\nposition was resoundingly defeated in a House vote.\n Title II of my bill set a series of bright lines and prohibited DoJ\npersonnel from crossing them. It also offered for the first time a\nremedy for a citizen aggrieved by untoward conduct by the Department of\nJustice. and conduct proscribed by the Act--such as withholding\nevidence that would exonerate a person, altering evidence misleading a\ncourt--was clearly stated. The Department of Justice intensely lobbied\nagainst this section of the bill. In the House, the Department's effort\nwas in vain, as once again, the ``people's branch'' overwhelmingly\nvoted for a newly-stated ethic. But the Department was successful in\nrecoving Title II in a conference with the Senate.\n Again, the question--why the white-hot lobbying effort to defeat it?\nWhy would they oppose simple codes of punishable instances of\nprosecutorial misconduct? It seems so self-evident that these codes are\nbasic to the constitutional protection of every citizen. Why would they\noppose and lobby so intensely? It may be because of the provision in\nTitle II which begins a system of accountability--real accountability\nwith an independent review of instances of prosecutorial misconduct.\n Much remains to be done in an area of grave consequences. While I am\ngrateful that Title I of my bill survived in the omnibus appropriations\nconference, our nation also needs Title II to bring accountability to\nthe Department of Justice. It is my hope that the 106th Congress will\ncontinue the work we started this year, to safeguard our citizens from\nprosecutorial misconduct.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman\nfrom South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).\n Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.\n Mr. Speaker, David Schippers, Chief Investigative Counsel for the\nCommittee on the Judiciary, lifelong Democrat and former head of Robert\nF. Kennedy's Task Force on Organized Crime in Chicago, summed up the\none thought that I would like to contribute to this debate. He said\nbefore the Committee on the Judiciary, ``The principle that every\nwitness in every case must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing\nbut the truth is the foundation of the American system of justice,\nwhich is the envy of every civilized Nation. If lying under oath is\ntolerated and when exposed is not visited with immediate and\nsubstantial adverse consequences, the integrity of this country's\nentire judicial process is fatally compromised and that process will\ninevitably collapse.''\n I met with Mr. Schippers in the Ford Building this afternoon and\nbecame all the more convinced on the need to do something about this\nprinciple that he talked about. For those of you in search of a\ncensure, I have come to believe that the constitutional way in which\nyou bring about censure is by sending articles of impeachment from the\nHouse to the Senate that go nowhere.\n But whether the Senate convicts or not, I think we have to get at\nwhat Mr. Schippers was talking about, because, if not, we leave in\nplace one of two very cancerous thoughts. The first would be the\nPresident lied, I can too. If people come to believe in a municipal\ncourt, a state court, a district court, that when they raise their\nright hand and promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the\ntruth, that they can do otherwise, we will have substantial harm to our\njudicial system.\n The other cancerous thought would be I do not know if he lied, but we\nhave two different systems of justice; one for important people like\npresidents, another one for the rest of us. If we let either of those\ntwo thoughts grow, cancerous thoughts grow, we will have substantial\nharm to our system.\n Scott Peck wrote a book several years ago called ``The Road Less\nTraveled.'' He talked about how often the right road was the hard road,\nand, therefore, the less traveled road. I think we are on that road\ntonight, and encourage a vote on impeachment.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Riggs).\n Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, the very first thing I want to do is\nrecognize and salute the members of the Committee on the Judiciary and\nthe staff for the very difficult and courageous work that they have\ndone.\n After a thorough review of the record, careful deliberation and a\ngreat deal of very painful soul searching, I have reached the\nconclusion that President Clinton lied under oath and encouraged others\nto lie under oath in a Federal Court proceeding. He has thereby\nviolated his fundamental constitutional responsibility to take care\nthat the laws be faithfully executed. That, in my opinion, is grounds\nfor the President's resignation, but it is also grounds for his\nimpeachment under the first three articles reported out by the\nCommittee on the Judiciary.\n Impeachment is essential to preserving the rule of law because, under\nour Constitution, a sitting President cannot be indicted for crimes.\nThe only way to make him subject to the law and preserve the rule of\nlaw is through the process of impeachment.\n More importantly, if the President can distort the truth, break the\nlaw and avoid accountability, what are the consequences for our Nation?\nDo we want to establish the precedent that presidents may with impunity\nhold the law in contempt? How can we expect anyone who is subpoenaed to\ncourt to have to tell the truth, when the head of our government has\nnot? In my opinion, such conduct would invite the abdication of\nmorality and accountability and it would breed contempt for the law.\n This truly is a vote of conscience. In a sense, it is a rare\nopportunity to put principle over politics. As George Washington said,\nlet us look to our national character and to things beyond the present\nperiod. We are duty bound by our solemn oath of office to defend our\ncountry and the common commitment to its political principles, the\nConstitution, the rule of law, the right-to-life, liberty and the\npursuit of happiness, that unites all Americans. We cannot, we must\nnot, fail in this duty.\n For the sacred purpose of preserving the rule of law and the\nintegrity of our Constitution, I will vote to impeach William Jefferson\nClinton, and I urge my colleagues to do so.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).\n (Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the\npending resolution.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).\n Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again, for the record, I think it is\nimportant\n\n[[Page H11914]]\n\nto note in terms of the constitutionality of censure that no less a\nfigure in our history than Abraham Lincoln, the father of the\nRepublican Party, supported a House resolution condemning President\nPolk for unnecessarily and unconstitutionally starting a war with\nMexico.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nTexas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).\n (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to\nrevise and extend her remarks.)\n Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the\narticles of impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, the articles of impeachment referred to the House by the\nCommittee on the Judiciary Republicans are the product of a partisan\nhearing process, a very unfair process. The majority party is obsessed\nwith destroying this President. I think it is because he represents the\nAmerican people's view; not the elitist view, but the people's view. We\nhave called this House the People's House, and, time after time after\ntime, I have seen these Republicans stand and ignore the people.\n It is unfortunate that we have come to this time, because it is\nclear, I have listened all day, and all I have heard are excuses trying\nto back up why they want to destroy this President. We have spent $40\nmillion of the taxpayer's money for the Republicans to be able to say\n``gotcha.''\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Mrs. Capps).\n (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I oppose\nthe impeachment of the President of the United States. I support\ncensure. We all know that the President's conduct was despicable. He\nshould be punished. I am deeply disturbed that we will not even\nconsider a bipartisan motion of censure. I am being denied the\nopportunity to vote my conscience and adequately represent my\nconstituents. This is terribly unfair.\n The question before us is whether the President's conduct was\nimpeachable. I have concluded that his misdeeds do not constitute high\ncrimes and misdemeanors. Impeachment is not meant to punish a\nPresident, but to protect the Nation against the abuses of power that\nwould undermine a system of government.\n We simply must not impeach the President under this partisan, unfair\nprocess. Let us censure the President, put this chapter behind us and\nmove on to heal the divisions in our Nation.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. Never did I imagine\nthat I would have to cast a vote whether or not impeach the President\nof the United States.\n Tomorrow I will vote against the four articles of impeachment.\n Instead, I favor censuring the President.\n The resolution offered by the Judiciary Committee minority, which\nstrongly condemns the President's behavior, would permanently and\nofficially record the shame he has brought upon his office.\n A Congressional censure is not a trivial slap on the wrist; it is a\npowerful, historic punishment.\n I am deeply disturbed that a censure resolution will not even be\nbrought to this Floor for a full and open debate.\n The will of the American people is being callously ignored by this\npatently unfair and starkly partisan process.\n Without the option of censure, not only am I being denied the\nopportunity to vote my conscience, but I am prevented from adequately\nrepresenting my constituents.\n I have not made these decisions lightly. But I have made them\nresolutely.\n The question before us today is not whether the President's\nmisconduct was immoral and despicable; of course it was.\n The question is not whether his behavior was criminal; that could be\ndecided in a court of law.\n The question is whether his actions are impeachable. After reviewing\nthe evidence presented by the Judiciary Committee, I have concluded\nthat they are not.\n The impeachment clause was not drafted as a means to punish a\nPresident. It was not even designed to teach our children a lesson in\nmorality.\n Instead impeachment is intended to protect our constitutional system\nof government. It is meant to protect the nation against Presidential\nabuses of power so great that they undermine the security of the\nnation.\n President Clinton's misdeeds, his lies, even his crimes, do not\nthreaten our democratic system. His wrongdoings stem from private\nmatters, not affairs of state. They do not rise to the level of\nimpeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.\n While opposing impeachment, I feel strongly that the President must\nnot escape punishment. A formal bipartisan Congressional censure is\npunishment that fits the crime.\n Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring this sordid chapter of American\nhistory to a close.\n The President deserves to be censured.\n The constitutional threshold of impeachment must be upheld.\n A President twice elected by the people must not be thrown out of\noffice without ironclad justification.\n And we should not impeach the President of the United States on a\nnarrow, partisan vote.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nNorth Carolina (Mr. Price).\n (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this institution is failing\nto live up to its responsibilities, just as surely as the President has\nfailed to live up to his, and the House's failure may well do the more\nlasting damage to our Constitution. Where there should be an\nextraordinary effort to work across party lines and find a consensual\nbasis for action, I see a hard charging majority bringing articles of\nimpeachment to the floor on a strictly partisan basis. Where there\nshould be scrupulous attention to the constitutional and historical\nbasis for impeachment, I see a cavalier willingness to define\nimpeachment down to get a favorable vote, in disregard of what the\nframers intended.\n\n {time} 2045\n\n And where there should be assurances that this is a vote of\nconscience, I see a cynical and unfair manipulation of the rules to\ndeny Members the right to vote on a motion of censure and to tilt the\noutcome in favor of impeachment.\n This shuts off consideration of the most appropriate sanction under\nthe Constitution for the behavior we are considering. It denies many of\nus the right to vote our consciences on the most serious question we\nare ever likely to face as Members of this body. It is manipulative, it\nis cynical, it is unfair. It is as though the Republican leaders of\nthis House have set out to confirm all of the worst suspicions\nAmericans have about politics and politicians.\n Mr. Speaker, this House is on the brink of a historic and tragic\nfailure. I beg my colleagues to take heed.\n Mr. Speaker, who among us would have thought when we ran for office\nor when the 105th Congress began, that this is where it would end?\n For the second time in the 209-year history of this republic, we are\ndebating articles of impeachment of a president on the House floor.\nThis is likely to be the most important vote any of us will ever cast.\nThe judgment of history should weight heavily on our minds.\n What has brought us to this point? The reckless, irresponsible\nbehavior of the president and his efforts to cover up that behavior,\neven when he was sworn to tell the truth. Many legitimate and troubling\nquestions have been raised about the way the independent counsel and\nthose working with him pursued this case, but this case is inescapably\nabout the president and his behavior, which violated basic moral\nstandards and is deserving of condemnation and reproach.\n That is not the end of the matter, however, for this case is also\nabout us, as members of the House of Representatives. We have had this\nmatter thrust upon us, and we must determine how to hold the president\naccountable in a way that is faithful to the Constitution, to the best\ninterest of our nation, and to the people we represent. I say to my\ncolleagues in all earnestness that we risk failing in this solemn task\nin a way that posterity will judge most harshly. Many have rightfully\ndescribed this as a sad time. But despite the circumstances that have\nbrought us to this point, I believe we could discharge our duty in a\nway that would uplift our nation and instill confidence in our people.\nUnfortunately, that is not what I see here today. I fear that this\ninstitution may fail to live up to its responsibilities as surely as\nthe president has failed to live up to his. And our failure, if we go\ndown the path the Republican leadership is attempting to drive us, may\nwell do the more lasting damage to our Constitution and our system of\ngovernment.\n Where there should be, in a matter of such gravity, an extraordinary\neffort to work across party lines and to find a consensual basis for\n\n[[Page H11915]]\n\naction, I see a hard-charging majority whipping its members into line,\nand bringing articles of impeachment to the floor after committee\napproval on a strictly partisan basis.\n Where there should be scrupulous attention to the constitutional and\nhistorical basis for impeachment, I see a cavalier willingness to\n``define impeachment down'' to secure a favorable vote, in disregard of\nboth what the Framers intended in placing this power in the hands of\nthe Congress and the constitutional mischief this action might\nencourage in the future.\n Where there should be assurances that this is a vote of conscience\nand that members will be given a full and fair opportunity to debate\nand vote on legitimate and differing proposals for holding the\npresident accountable, I see a cynical and unfair manipulation of the\nrules to deny members the right to vote on a motion of censure and to\ntilt the outcome in favor of impeachment.\n This rigging of the rules shuts off consideration of the most\nappropriate sanction, under the Constitution, for the behavior we are\nconsidering. It blocks off the most promising possibility for\nbipartisan accommodation and agreement. It denies me and many like me\nthe right to vote our consciences on the most serious question we are\never likely to consider as members of this body. It is manipulative, it\nis cynical, it is unfair. It is as though the Republican leadership of\nthis House has set out to confirm all the worst suspicions and fears\nAmericans have about politics and politicians.\n And all this is happening at a time when the House ought to be rising\nto this extraordinary historical and constitutional challenge. It is\nindeed a sad and anxious time, and we should not doubt that history's\njudgment not only of the president but also of ourselves hangs in the\nbalance.\n In consulting the views of our country's founders, particularly the\ndebate in the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent\nprecedents, I have come to the conclusion that seems to be shared among\nthe vast majority of constitutional scholars: the Framers viewed\nimpeachment of the president as a remedy reserved for protecting our\nConstitution and system of government from grave abuses that would\ndestroy them.\n The records of the Federal Convention make abundantly clear that the\nassumed grounds for impeachment were treason, corruption, and similar\ncrimes against the state. Some delegates desired to provide flexibility\nin the grounds for impeachment, while others opposed any impeachment\npower for the legislative branch whatsoever as a threat to the\nindependence of the executive. As a result, to the specified grounds\nfor impeachment, treason and bribery, were added ``other high Crimes\nand Misdemeanors against the State.'' (see Madison's ``Notes'' for July\n20 and September 8, 1787). The last three words were dropped by the\nCommittee of Style, but with no intent to broaden the application of\nthe terms.\n As Alexander Hamilton subsequently wrote in the Federalist (no. 65):\n\n The subjects of . . . jurisdiction are those offenses which\n proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other\n words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust . . .\n [relating] chiefly to injuries done immediately to the\n society itself.\n\n Presciently, Hamilton added that ``in such cases there will always be\nthe greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the\ncomparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of\ninnocence or guilt.''\n The one time the House impeached a president demonstrated Hamilton's\nforesight. I've always heard a great deal about Andrew Johnson: I grew\nup thirty miles from his home and tailor shop in Greeneville,\nTennessee, and I now represent the North Carolina district where he was\nborn. Members would do well to reflect on the circumstances of Andrew\nJohnson's impeachment and the consequences that flowed from it.\nAlthough Johnson was not convicted by the Senate, his impeachment\nushered in a period of congressional ascendance and hobbled the\npresidency into the next century. The republic survived: we were an\ninsular, agrarian nation, less in need of a strong executive than we\nare now. But while the grounds for impeaching Johnson were closer to\nthe constitutional standard than those we are considering today,\nhistory has not judged the perpetrators of Johnson's impeachment\nkindly.\n\n The profiles in courage in 1868 were not those radical Republicans\nwho pressed for impeachment; it was an easy vote for them, pleasing\ntheir political base and promoting their political ambitions. The\nprofile in courage we most remember, in large part because of John F.\nKennedy's book by that name, is Republican Senator Edmund G. Ross of\nKansas, whose vote prevented conviction by the Senate an who saw his\npolitical career ended by virtue of that vote. We would do well on this\nsolemn occasion to recall the example of Edmund Ross and the warning he\ngave:\n\n If . . . the President must step down . . . a disgraced man\n and a political outcast . . . upon insufficient proofs and\n from partisan considerations, the office of President would\n be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the\n government, and ever after subordinated to the legislative\n will. It would practically have revolutionized our splendid\n political fabric into a partisan Congressional autocracy.\n\n We have an appropriate alternative in a resolution of censure. I have\nhear the objection that censure is not constitutional merely because it\nis not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The overwhelming\nmajority of constitutional scholars disagree. The precedents for\ncongressional censure of presidents number at least four. The most\nfrequently cited case is the Senate's censure of President Andrew\nJackson in 1834. The House has taken similar action, such as the 1842\nreport--adopted by a vote of the House--finding that President John\nTyler abused his constitutional powers, or the 1848 resolution charging\nPresident James K. Polk with starting a war with Mexico in violation of\nthe Constitution. In 1864, the Senate condemned President Abraham\nLincoln for unconstitutional acts. Congress has censured civil officers\nof the United States beginning in 1822 and continuing throughout our\nhistory. For Republicans to call censure unconstitutional is simply a\nsmoke screen to cover their cynical and unfair manipulation of the\nrules to deny members a vote on the alternative which is favored by\nmost of the American people and which is the most appropriate way of\nholding the president accountable.\n Censure opponents also argue that such a resolution would upset the\nequilibrium of power between the legislative and executive branches.\nThis argument is a breathtaking display of crocodile tears, because\nthese same people are pushing the House toward adoption of articles of\nimpeachment which will weaken the executive far more than any\nresolution of censure. The Andrew Johnson impeachment shackled the\npresidency, requiring his successors to seek the permission of Congress\nto dismiss civil officers and cabinet officials. It was not until the\nadministrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that the\noffice regained the powers enjoyed by President Lincoln and many of his\npredecessors. In 1885, Wilson described a ``congressional government''\nthat entered ``more and more into the details of administration until\nit has virtually taken into its own hands all the substantial powers of\ngovernment.'' In portraying the approach the majority is taking today,\nProfessor Bruce Ackerman of the Yale University School of Law observed\nthat this ``cavalier approach to the impeachment process would\nradically change [the separation of powers]. Congress could regularly\nrespond to unpopular decisions by seeking to force the president from\noffice. The result would be a massive shift toward a British-style\nsystem of parliamentary government.''\n In the long run, history will judge not only this president, but this\nHouse of Representatives as well. The articles of impeachment we are\nabout to adopt, and from which I will strongly dissent, are\nincompatible with the intent of our Constitution's Framers and fly in\nthe face of the convictions of most of our citizens and of our\nhistorical experience. The process by which we are considering them is\na travesty. It denies to members the ability to vote our conscience and\nto the minority the right to propose alternative measures. It promotes\ndivision where there should be unity, distrust where there should be\nconfidence.\n Mr. Speaker, this House is on the brink of an historic and tragic\nfailure. I beg my colleagues to take heed.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer).\n Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, in the most fundamental\nterms, what Americans are fighting for today in Iraq is the truth. We\nfight for the self-evident truths upon which our Founding Fathers\nlaunched the greatest Nation on the planet. Yes, our history is replete\nwith examples of our failure to honor the truth. We have abandoned it\nplenty of times, but we have never lost sight of what is right in the\nworld.\n By relying on the protection of divine providence and by renewing of\nour minds, we have always tried to discern what is the will of God,\nwhat is good and acceptable and perfect. We have always been serious\nabout the truth.\n Today, there are 115 Americans who are confined behind Federal bars\nimprisoned by our society, by the law, for failing to tell the truth\nwhen it mattered most, when someone else's liberty stood in the\nbalance. Our response has been rather harsh, has it not? In America, we\nwill take away one's liberty and freedom when they lie under oath.\n Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are Federal prisoners who today serve as\nproof of this. How confused they must be. How confused all Americans\nmust be to observe this debate, to hear this Congress\n\n[[Page H11916]]\n\nof the United States say nothing of the 115 people in jail sentenced\nfor committing the Federal high crime of perjury. Yet, Members question\nwith passion the merits of applying the same law to the highest ranking\npublic official in America.\n On this next point, Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Our spiritual\ntradition in America also entails forgiveness. Indeed, the President\nhas asked for forgiveness, and I judge his sincerity to be genuine. As\nbut one American, I forgive him fully. If it is forgiveness the\nPresident seeks, I submit it will be freely granted by even the last\none of us, but if it is punishment he seeks to avoid, he will be\nterribly disappointed.\n Forgiveness is a sacred quality defining the relationship between\nindividuals. Punishment, in this case, is a civil response to breaking\nthe law. In America, we do both every day, and today should be no\nexception.\n So it is upon that custom that the holder of the office of the\npresidency should be impeached, to ensure that so long as he adorns the\ngreat presidential seal and the hallowed flag of the United States of\nAmerica, he shall deny justice no more. He shall never lie to us again.\nThat, too, is our solemn responsibility and obligation to the American\npeople.\n Mr. Speaker, most certainly at a time when America is called upon to\nlead the world to crush tyranny abroad, we must take inspiration from\nour brave soldiers whose courage lights the way of truth and provides\nhope for those in bondage. I want my children to know that when their\nfather lectures them to tell the truth, he means it. And when this\nUnited States Congress considers the rule of law, we are serious. But\nif we fail in our solemn duty to apply the constitutional law of our\ncountry today, please, Mr. Speaker, and I beg my colleagues, do not\nrisk the lives of our soldiers any longer. Let us never call upon them\nto demonstrate their abundant courage until we resolve to give the same\nof ourselves.\n Mr. Speaker, my precious remarks were trumicated due to time\nconstrains, I hereby submit my full remarks for the Record in the\nproper context.\n At this hour, Mr. Speaker, the House has now had under debate, the\nmatter of impeachment for nearly one full business day. All that needs\nto be said on this subject perhaps has been said.\n The Articles of Impeachment have been properly proposed, sufficient\nscrutiny of the Resolution has been rendered, the evidence before us\nhas been well established, succinctly presented, and not one among us\nso far has raised credible opposition or challenge to the facts.\n To the charges, Members of the House hold differing opinions about a\nsuitable remedy. Most favor impeachment as defined under Article II\nSection 4 of the Constitution. Others have invented a lesser remedy of\n``censure.''\n Some demand only a polite tap on the president's shoulder. But no one\ncan deny--that is, without emasculating the English language--that\nPresident William Jefferson Clinton lied under oath, committed the high\ncrime of perjury, and maintains, as a prosecutable felon, the office of\nthe Presidency.\n And while most of us at this point have solidified and justified the\nvotes we intend to cast in just a matter of hours, I ask my colleagues\nto consider the explanation of my vote that I have given to my children\nnow at home in Colorado.\n I am of the first generation of Americans which has never known the\ndraft. Now imagine that, I've never had to watch my friends or brothers\ndrafted into the nation's defense. I've never had to hear a friend's\nmother cry upon learning the fatal news of her son. I've never had to\nlive with the anxiety of wondering if, and when, my number would come\nup. And the thought of my children being called away seems remote even\nat the present time.\n Now that's a powerful statement of freedom, and a powerful testimony\nto 250 years of colonists, patriots, and American citizens who have\ndefined American valor. And I thank God every day for the liberty I\nenjoy today. I thank every American veteran, volunteer or otherwise,\nwho has placed his life on the line for my liberty and for that of my\nchildren. Today, Mr. Speaker, I'm especially thankful for the fine men\nand women who are fighting for America, half a world away from us here,\nthis very day, and for all their colleagues who maintain peace\neverywhere else. They represent the best of America, and they\nunderstand what it means to be an American.\n America is more than our history. America is more than the flag, more\nthan the Constitution, more than sea to shining sea. America is more\nthan the Supreme Court, more than this Congress--and more than the\nPresident of the United States. Actually, America is a concept--and a\nsimple one at that. America is, and has always been about the Truth.\n Now there's a concept that has challenged humanity from the Garden of\nEden to this very moment, and it will challenge us from here to\neternity. In fact, the greatest commandments of all the world's\ngreatest religions are about the Truth. The Almighty knows the heart of\nall men, and He knows how we struggle, and fail, and struggle again, to\nhonor the truth. I believe He knows we will all fail on occasion,\nsometimes very seriously, yet He holds out the assurance of His\nblessings to any man or woman--or Nation--that genuinely seeks the\ntruth.\n In the most fundamental terms, what Americans are fighting for today\nin Iraq is the Truth. We fight for the self-evident truths upon which\nour forefathers launched the greatest nation on the planet. And yes our\nhistory is replete with examples of our failure to honor the truth.\nWe've abandoned it plenty of times. But we've never lost sight of what\nis right in the world. By relying on the protection of Divine\nProvidence, and by the renewing of our minds we have always tried to\ndiscern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and\nperfect.\n Yes, the reality of tyranny in Iraq has resulted in human\ndegradation, misery, pestilence, and death, and that's what prompts our\naction in that region today. While soldiers, sailors, and airmen risk\ntheir very lives for Life, Liberty, and other self-evident Truths in\nthe Persian Gulf, don't you think we owe them the same kind of courage\nhere at home--to reaffirm that the Declaration they defend is real,\nthat America will not be led by false witness, but by the same truth\nthat sets us apart from the rest of the world? Life, Liberty, and\nPursuit of Happiness are the pillars of humanity, and to those truths\nwe have pledged our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. And when\nwe fail, we repair ourselves by fixing our bearing upon what we know to\nbe right, not in some errant direction.\n We have always been serious about Truth. Today, there are 115\nAmerican citizens confined behind federal bars, imprisoned by our\nsociety--by the law--for failing to tell the truth when it mattered\nmost--when someone else's liberty stood in the balance. Our response is\nrather harsh isn't it?\n In America, we will take away one's liberty and freedom when they lie\nunder oath. Yes my colleagues, there are federal prisoners in federal\nprison today who serve as proof of this. Perhaps some of them are\nobserving this debate from their cold jail cells. How confused they\nmust be. How confused my children must be. How confused all Americans\nmust be, to observe this debate--to hear the United States Congress say\nnothing of the 115 people in federal jail, sentenced for committing the\nfederal high crime of perjury--yet Members question with passion the\nmerits of applying the same law to the highest ranking public official\nin America.\n\n I cannot recall one Member objecting, on this floor, to the\nseparation of liberty from a single felon convicted of perjury. No\nspeeches fill our Journals, no entry, no extension or remark in the\nRecord. Yet we agonize over the disposition of one Mr. Clinton and his\nrelation to the highest office in the land.\n Mr. Speaker, unless any single opponent of today's Resolution has\nrisen to the defense of a single convicted, jailed perjurer in this\nHouse--they may all be regarded by their countrymen, with plausibility,\nas hypocrites.\n My concern is not for the comfort of felons, but for their souls\nnonetheless. Because we believe the rule of law to be so essential in\nAmerica, we should insist it be applied fairly to the least and\ngreatest among us, and with blind justice.\n On this next point, Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Our spiritual\ntradition in America also entails forgiveness. Indeed, the president\nhas asked for forgiveness, and I judge his sincerity to be genuine. As\nbut one American, I forgive him fully. If it's forgiveness the\npresident seeks, I submit it will be freely granted by even the last\none of us, but if it's punishment he seeks to avoid, he will be\nbitterly disappointed. Forgiveness is a sacred quality defining the\nrelationship between individuals. Punishment, in this case, is a civil\nresponse to breaking the law. In America, we do both, every day, and\ntoday should be no exception.\n Criminal punishment is about public safety and social order. The\nreason we incapacitate law breakers is to shield society from an\noffender's propensities and to ensure the unmolested liberty of law-\nabiding citizens.\n And so it is upon that custom that the holder of the office of the\nPresidency should be impeached--to ensure that, so long as he adorns\nthe great presidential seal and the hallowed flag of the United States\nof America, he shall deny justice no more, he shall never lie to us\nagain. That too, is our solemn responsibility and obligation to the\nAmerican people.\n This is a profound matter which must be resolved now. Mr. Speaker\njust yesterday, our\n\n[[Page H11917]]\n\nallies in the British House of Commons took to their Chamber to affirm\nEngland's commitment to use of military force in Iraq. One Member of\nParliament sharing Mr. Clinton's own political philosophy, said,\n``We're not being led into battle by Richard the Lion-Hearted, but by\nClinton the liar. I am disheartened.''\n Mr. Speaker, my children deserve a president who commands respect in\nthe great halls of democracy around the world, especially among our\ndiplomatic partners. My children deserve a leader whose commitment to\nhis oath is an international bond spanning the widest oceans.\n And Mr. Speaker, most certainly at a time when America is called upon\nto lead the world to crush tyranny abroad, we must take inspiration\nfrom our brave soldiers whose courage lights the way to truth and\nprovides hope for those in bondage, everywhere. I want my children to\nknow that when their father lectures them to tell the truth, he means\nit and when the United States Congress considers the rule of law we are\nserious.\n But if we fail in our solemn duty to apply the constitutional law of\nour country today, please Mr. Speaker, I beg my colleagues, do not risk\nthe lives of our soldiers any longer. Let us never call upon them to\ndemonstrate their abundant courage until, we resolve to give the same\nof ourselves.''\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom North Carolina (Mr. Burr).\n Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we stand on the floor of the\nHouse in the shadows of 23 men who in the course of human civilization\nhave written the basic principles that anchor American law, the concept\nof a Nation of laws, not men.\n Today, we have been charged with choosing between reaffirming these\nbasic principles, or sacrificing fundamental truths, so that one man\ncan be placed above the law.\n I have studied the thoughts of the North Carolinians who helped shape\nthe debate of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. James Iredell,\nwho later served in the Supreme Court, while debating the impeachment\nclause before the North Carolina Convention noted that an impeachment\nclause is necessary because, and I quote, ``If this power were not\nprovided, the consequences might be fatal. It will be not only the\nmeans of punishing misconduct, but it will prevent misconduct. A man in\npublic office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him, may be\nready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows that there is a\ntribunal for that purpose, although he may be a man of no principle,\nthe very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.''\n After reviewing evidence, I support Article I accusing the President\nof lying before the grand jury, and I support Article III, charging the\nPresident with obstruction of justice.\n I believe the charges outlined in I and III go to the very heart of\nour system of justice. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme\nCourt, believed that, and I quote, ``No crime is more extensively\npernicious to society'' than perjury. If we knowingly allow our\nPresident to break laws while some Americans sit in jail for having\nviolated the same statute, we weaken the very rule of law protecting\nus.\n One of North Carolina's most favorite sons, the late Senator Sam\nErvin, stated in his last newsletter, and I quote, ``If we seek truth,\nkeep faith and have courage, I have no fear that this Nation can\novercome all challenges from within or without.''\n Our country is strong. Our Constitution was written with wisdom and\ngrace. Regardless of the outcome of this sad chapter in our Nation's\nhistory, I am hopeful that we will live in peace with our conclusion.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nArizona (Mr. Hayworth).\n (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution\nstates, ``The executive power shall be vested in a President of the\nUnited States.'' Mr. Speaker, a President. Not a prince, not a\npotentate, but a citizen, a citizen who, like every citizen, must have\nrespect for the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, Article II, Section 4\nspecifically describes impeachment as the remedy before us.\n Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of censure in the United States\nConstitution, a document of limited and specified powers. To the\narguments from the minority side on censure, let me quote a senior\nmember of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Frank), in an article appearing in the Boston Globe\nin March of this year. He was talking about the majority party, and so\nhe offered a pot shot, but listen to the words; I quote them now.\n``Faced with a choice, they go for symbolism over substance. That is\nwhat censure is.'' The words of your colleague, my friends: ``Symbolism\nover substance, that is what censure is.''\n The Arizona Republic opines:\n\n Skip the evasions and inventions. If the President lied in\n his deposition and in his grand jury testimony, and then took\n pains to cover his tracks and to encourage others to mislead\n the grand jury, the constitutional remedy is to impeach and\n allow the truth to emerge in the resulting Senate trial.\n\n The Mesa Tribune editorializes, quote, ``It is a crime to lie under\noath, period.''\n I take no pleasure in this circumstance, but for those who want to\ncarve out an exception to the rule of law, it is as if we take the\nscales of justice from the hands of Lady Justice and take off her\nblindfold and ask her to put an eye on the opinion polls and a\nmoistened finger in the wind.\n I rise in support of impeachment with a heavy heart.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the\ngentlewoman from California, (Ms. Roybal-Allard).\n (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend her remarks.)\n Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this\nunfair process that does not allow me to vote my conscience.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise to denounce the unfair process that has brought\nus to this critical point in our Nation's history.\n I am outraged that the Republican leadership will prevent me and my\ncolleagues from voting our conscience on this grave issue, by refusing\nto allow us a vote on censure, which I believe, is the appropriate\npunishment for the actions of the President.\n In our democratic society what is so frightening is the unfairness of\nthe process that brought us to this point.\n The Republican agenda was clearly predetermined.\n Even before the hearings began, Republicans were calling for\nimpeachment.\n Although not one shred of evidence has been produced to prove the\nPresident's actions reached the level of high crimes and misdemeanors,\nthe Republican leadership continues to pursue its goal, not for justice\nand fairness, but for the removal from office of the President of the\nUnited States.\n Tragically, these unfair acts that have controlled this entire\nprocess, have chipped away at the freedoms of fairness and justice our\nmen and women in uniform are fighting to preserve even this very day.\n I still have hope, however, that my Republican colleagues will listen\nto the American people and change the unfair direction of this process\nby allowing us to vote on censure.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the\ngentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).\n Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to this unfair,\nuncalled-for impeachment.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from\nWisconsin (Mr. Barrett), a member of the committee.\n Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, several of the previous\nspeakers have said that no man is above the law. I passionately and\nfervently agree, as do the Members on this side, and that is why our\ncensure resolution specifically states that the President remain\nsubject to criminal and civil penalties after he leaves office. It is\nimportant to make that point, because the American people should know\nthat. It is a crime that our censure resolution cannot be heard on this\nfloor.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Turner).\n Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clinton's personal conduct was wrong,\nbut no amount of outrage or indignation can obscure the fact that the\nrule of law begins with the reading of the Constitution and a review of\nthe history of the Constitutional Convention debates of 1787, a\nprinciple well recognized by every court in our land.\n The framers of our Constitution and their forefathers had fled a\nmonarchy and wanted to be sure that the person serving in the newly\ncreated position of\n\n[[Page H11918]]\n\nchief executive did not usurp his powers and seek to reinstate the\nunlimited powers of the throne. Impeachment for high crimes and\nmisdemeanors gave Congress the power to defend the Constitution against\nacts that would destroy the constitutional order or extend the\npresidential power beyond its defined limits. For other crimes and\nmisdemeanors, the framers chose to again depart from the monarchial\ntradition and they left the President subject to the same laws and to\nthe same judicial penalties and punishments and protections as every\nother citizen.\n The President is not above the law, and today an independent counsel\nretains the power to indict the President and try him after he leaves\noffice for any crime he may have committed. My oath of office does not\nrequire that I defend the President, but I cannot fail to defend the\nConstitution.\n Under that solemn oath, I cannot vote in the present case to remove\nthe President from office.\n In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said ``Judge not, lest ye too be\njudged.'' God forbid that we would judge the President today by any\nstandard other than that set forth in the Constitution. This is the\nresponsibility each of us readily assumed when we raised our right hand\nand swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.\n The issue before us it not to be decided by what the polls say or\neven by what our colleagues say here today. In this moment, every\nMember must reach deep into their mind and soul and ask ``What does the\nConstitution say?''\n While we may all agree that Mr. Clinton's personal conduct was wrong,\nno amount of outrage or indignation can be allowed to obscure the fact\nthat the rule of law begins with a reading of the Constitution and a\nreview of the history of the Constitutional Convention debates of 1787.\nThat is fundamental to the rule of law as recognized by the common\npractice of every court in our land.\n I have carefully read the notes and records of the debates of the\nConstitutional Convention regarding the language of Article II Section\n4. The framers were careful to create a system of government with three\nseparate and independent branches of government--none with undue power\nover the other. They and their forefathers had fled a monarchy and they\nwanted to be sure that the person serving in the newly created position\nof Chief Executive did not usurp his powers and seek to reinstate the\nunlimited powers of the throne.\n The clear intent of the impeachment power was to give Congress the\npower to protect the Constitution and the office of the Presidency from\nacts that would destroy the Constitutional order or extend the\nPresidential power beyond its defined limits. For other crimes and\nmisdemeanors the framers chose to again depart from the monarchial\ntradition and leave the President subject to the same laws and to the\nsame judicial penalties and punishments--and protections--as any other\ncitizen.\n Yes, we should severely censure the President as an expression of our\ncollective disapproval of his actions. And we should not forget that\nthe Independent Counsel retains the power to indict the President and\ntry him after he leaves office for any crime he may have committed.\n I am not called upon by the oath that I took to defend the President\nbut I must defend the Constitution. Under that solemn duty, I cannot\nvote in the present case to remove a President elected by the people\nfrom the highest office in the land.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Engel).\n Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to impeachment. I\nrise in strong opposition to this attempt at a bloodless coup d'etat,\nthis attempt to overturn two national elections. The American people\nare ahead of the politicians; they are certainly ahead of the majority\nparty. They want censure. Why are we not given the opportunity to vote\nup or down for censure on the House floor? Why are we not allowed to\nrepresent our constituents on the House floor?\n No one believes that the President will ultimately be removed from\noffice, so we will have dragged this country through a 6-month trial in\nthe Senate and Bill Clinton will still remain President. What good does\nthat do?\n Let us put this behind us with a bipartisan censure. Let us get on\nwith the issues of importance to the American people, such as health\ncare, Medicare, Social Security, education, campaign finance reform.\n My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they have a\nconstitutional duty to move forward. I come from the Bronx, and we talk\nabout street smarts there or a little bit of common sense, and common\nsense means you do not move forward with blinders on, you do what is\nbest for the country. Please, do not move for impeachment. This will\nonly harm our country that we love.\n\n {time} 2100\n\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nGeorgia (Mr. Bishop).\n Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's conduct was wrong,\nindefensible, and disgraceful, and he should be punished. But after\ncareful review of the four articles of the impeachment and supporting\nmaterials and after prayerful deliberation, I must vote against\nimpeachment.\n I do support strong censure, which makes clear that the President is\nnot above the law, and remains subject to any penalties of law\nsubstantiated by the facts. While I cannot defend the President's\nconduct, it is my solemn duty to defend the integrity of the\nConstitution.\n The Founding Fathers made it clear in their deliberations that only\nthe most serious offenses against the Republic itself would justify\nremoval from office. Whether or not the facts alleged in support of the\narticles are true is questionable. None of the testimony given in\nsupport of the articles has been subjected to cross-examination. Even\nif we assume that the allegations are true, it is my judgment that they\ndo not rise to the high constitutional requirements for impeachment.\n I urge this body to take a course of action that is justified by the\nfacts, censure, not impeachment. Follow the will of the majority of the\nAmerican people.\n Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's conduct was wrong,\nindefensible, and disgraceful, and he should be punished. However,\nafter careful review of the four Articles of Impeachment and the\nsupporting materials and following prayerful deliberations, I have\nconcluded that my vote and the vote of the House should be against\nimpeachment of President Clinton. I reached this conclusion for several\nreasons:\n (1) Impeachment sets in motion a process to remove the President from\noffice which could necessarily reverse the result of our last\nPresidential election and cancel out the wishes of a majority of\nAmericans who cast their votes in that election. The constitutional\nrequirements for impeachment are ``. . . Treason, Bribery, or other\nHigh Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The founding fathers made it clear in\ntheir deliberations that only the most serious offenses against the\nRepublic itself would justify removal of the President from office.\nWhether or not the facts alleged in support of the Articles of\nImpeachment are true is questionable. None of the testimony given in\nsupport of the Articles has been subjected to cross-examination. But\neven if we assume that the allegations are true, it is my sincere\njudgment that they do not rise to the high constitutional standards for\nimpeachment and removal from the office of President.\n (2) There is unanimity in the Congress and throughout America that\nthe President's conduct was wrong, possibly illegal, immoral and\nreprehensible. Moreover, it is clear that the people of this country\nfeel the President should be held accountable for the violation of the\ntrust he owes to the American people. However, it is also clear that\nthey want punishment that will fit the offenses. They believe censure\nis the appropriate course of action. Constitutional scholars who\ntestified before the Judiciary Committee agree four to one that censure\nis constitutional and appropriate. Those of us who believe in the\nJudeo-Christian principles of repentance and forgiveness but who also\nfeel compelled to condemn the President's conduct should be allowed to\nexpress that as an alternative to impeachment through a vote on\ncensure. Unfortunately, the partisan majority in the House will not\nallow a censure vote in spite of the strong preference of a majority of\nthe American people.\n (3) The principles of the ``rule of law'' and accountability would\nnot in any way be abrogated if the House failed to impeach, voted for\ncensure or did neither. For the President is still subject to\nindictment, prosecution, trial, and conviction of any possible law\nviolation. He could face imprisonment just as any other\n\n[[Page H11919]]\n\nAmerican could, if found guilty. The President is therefore still\nsubject to and not above the long arm of the law.\n (4) Finally, I believe that a Senate trial of Impeachment with the\nattendance utilization of resources would hurt our District by\ndiverting the focus of the 106th Congress from critical issues such as\njob creation and economic development, farm relief, tax relief, school\nmodernization, Social Security and Medicare solvency, the Patient's\nBill of Rights, domestic and international terrorism, defense, crime\nand drugs, and veteran's benefits. Additionally, an impeachment trial\nwill punish the country by creating instability in our domestic\neconomy, losses for retirees with lifetime incomes invested in the\nstock market, and job loss and further economic downturn at home.\n While I cannot defend the President's conduct, it is my solemn duty\nto defend the integrity of the Constitution. It is my considered\njudgment that the integrity of the Constitution requires more than the\nallegation contained in the Articles of Impeachment. I believe that\ncensure would be a more appropriate course of action. Therefore, I must\nvote against impeachment.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).\n (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great disappointment in the\nPresident that I rise in support of the impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, no one here today is happy about our undertaking. It is\na sad occasion, one filled with sincere dismay and concern for the\nfuture of our country. And I believe this concern is shared by Members\non both sides of the aisle.\n After listening to my constituents, considering the Judiciary\nCommittee proceedings, and the responses from the Administration, one\nthought remained constant. That is the inscription on the mantel of the\nState Dining Room of the White House. It is the words written by John\nAdams, the first President to live in the White House, in a letter to\nhis wife Abigail.\n\n I pray Heaven to Bestow\n The Best of Blessings on\n THIS HOUSE\n and on All that shall hereafter\n Inhabit it. May none but Honest\n and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof.\n\n President Franklin Roosevelt had these words inscribed into the\nmantel as a constant reminder of the profound responsibilities of its\noccupants.\n Our nation and the freedom it represents--the freedom American\nservicemen and women are currently protecting--are based on the rule of\nlaw. A basic principle on which our system of government rests is that\nwe all stand as equals before the law. If we allow our judicial system\nto be eroded by not expecting the truth to be told, then we are putting\nour constitutional system of government at risk.\n If our nation is to remain strong, it must be based on a rule of law\nand a respect for the sacred trust that goes with public service.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).\n (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I know a number of Members have had\nsome great difficulty in coming to the conclusion, the struggle to come\nto a decision. One of those I thought did an outstanding job this\nevening, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Jay Dickey), who probably\nexemplifies greater difficulty than all of the rest of us. So I salute\nthe gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey) for those comments.\n In my opinion there is no doubt, however, that the President's\nconduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses. To protect his\npolitical livelihood, this President has subverted the rule of law,\nlied to the American people, and manipulated his staff and members of\nhis cabinet to perpetuate his lies. These crimes are felonies that\ndeserve the most severe penalty provided by the Constitution.\n Moreover, recent events have brought into the question the\nPresident's ability to lead. I have come to the conclusion that\nPresident Clinton does not possess the character or the judgment to\noccupy the highest office in the land.\n This president has violated his oath of office, betrayed the trust of\nthe American people, and demeaned the institution of the presidency. I\nimplore my colleagues to vote for the impeachment of William Jefferson\nClinton.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom New York (Mr. Walsh).\n (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, today I intend to vote for impeachment based\non the careful consideration of the charges, the facts in the case, and\nmany conversations with my constituents in central New York.\n My decision to vote for impeachment was difficult, but not on the\nfacts. There is no doubt in my mind that the President lied many times\nunder oath. I also believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he obstructed\njustice by coaching, indeed, suborning, potential witnesses in the\ngrand jury proceeding.\n I further believe that these crimes are clearly serious enough to be\ngrounds for impeachment. Weighing the public discomfort with this\nconstitutional process against the need to defend the rule of law, the\nscales tip to the truth.\n We must not allow the President of the United States to get away with\nlying under oath. Americans have the right to expect that everyone,\neven the President, must tell the truth while testifying in court, be\nit small claims, civil, criminal, or the Supreme Court of the United\nStates.\n If the truth is absent, justice cannot prevail for any of us.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman\nfrom Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).\n (Mr. PICKERING asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, it is with malice toward none and\nforgiveness of individual failures, but with a love of the law and our\ncountry, I will vote for the articles of impeachment.\n Yesterday my fifth son was born. I held before me my legacy. I\ncelebrated his birth. I wondered what country he will inherit. What\nstandard will we set for him, what example today?\n For each reaffirmation of the rule of law, we have a new birth of\nfreedom. But if we say with our actions that perjury and obstruction of\njustice and truth do not matter, then we lose our way. For all of these\nreasons and more that I will submit for the Record, I will vote for the\narticles of impeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, this week has provided me with the full range and\nintensity of emotions. Today, I mourn--our Nation mourns as we debate\nthe tragic and difficult question of impeaching our President.\n Yesterday my fifth son was born and with him all the wonder,\namazement and celebration of new life. The doctor allowed me the\nprivilege of actually guiding my child from his mother into this world.\nI was the first to touch and hold James Harper Pickering.\n Whenever we are confronted with the beginning--or the end of life it\nreminds us of a larger, transcendent force and causes us to evaluate\nand examine our purpose--our meaning--our legacy.\n What will be my son's future, what kind of country will he inherit,\nwhat values and standards will guide him, his generation, his future.\n In the same way--what guides me in this difficult decision before us\ntoday?\n In 1963 a young man at the age of 26 won the nomination to serve as a\ncounty (prosecuting) attorney in Mississippi's Jones County [from 1964-\n1968]. On his election day, his son was born.\n These were difficult and turbulent days for our Nation and in\nparticular for Mississippi. These were days filled with violence and\nlawlessness.\n In an act that was rare for elected officials at that time--he\norganized a group of local officials to publicly condemn the Klan\nviolence and intimidation and called upon the community to support the\nrule of law.\n During the trial of Sam Bowers, the imperial wizard of the KKK, for\nthe murder and fire bombing of Vernon Dahmers, this young county\nattorney testified against Bowers.\n He was threatened physically and politically. But he didn't back down\nfrom the principle of equal protection for all.\n In 1968 he lost his next race.\n The polls of that place and time were against him. But, his\nprinciples stood the test of time. His courage and conviction give me\nan example which makes me proud. His legacy guides me today.\n For that young county attorney, now a Federal judge--continues to\ndefend the rule of law, administer justice and ensure equal protection\nfor all--he is my father.\n As I held my son yesterday--I prayed I would provide him with he same\nlegacy. That\n\n[[Page H11920]]\n\njust as our founders and generations since fought to preserve the rule\nof law and with it our freedom, it is our duty today to honor their\nlegacy. And, for our sons and daughters our obligation to leave them a\nrich inheritance of which they can be proud.\n We must demonstrate that it does not matter if you're a civil rights\nworker or a working woman--struggling against sexual harassment--you\nare guaranteed equal rights under our Constitution, the right to a fair\ntrial--free of corruption of perjury, witness tampering and obstruction\nof justice.\n Abraham Lincoln stood at Gettysburg and called for a new birth of\nfreedom. From this tragedy--we can rededicate ourselves to the rule of\nlaw and the faith in our country to endure. We can send a message to\nall the Presidents that will follow, to ourselves and to our children--\ntell the truth--keep your oath--none is above the law.\n It is with malice toward none and forgiveness of individual failures\nbut with a love of the law and of our country, I will vote for the\narticles of impeachment.\n We hold our legacy before us. With each reaffirmation of the rule of\nlaw we have a new birth of freedom--but if we say with our actions that\nperjury and obstruction of justice and truth do not matter then we can\nbegin the long, slow death of our land and law. In the play ``Man For\nAll Seasons'' the following line captures the essence of this debate:\n ``The laws of this country are the great barriers that protect the\ncitizens from the winds of evil and tyranny. If we permit one of those\nlaws to fall, who will be able to stand in the winds that follow?''\n I believe by our action today and tomorrow we can stand in the gap\nand hold up the barriers that protect us all. Even if the polls of this\ntime may be against us--the principles of this action will stand the\ntest of history.\n And as my son holds his son or daughter--I pray, he too will thank\nthose who went before him.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nMinnesota (Mr. Minge).\n Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I joined 30 Democrats in casting a\ncontroversial vote last month. I voted to send the Starr report to the\nCommittee on the Judiciary without strict time or subject matter\nrestrictions. I was committed to avoiding partisanship. Tragically,\nhowever, that effort to advance nonpartisan consideration of this\nmomentous impeachment decision is today rejected.\n Three quick points. One, the people's body is denying the people a\nvote on the alternative they favor, censure.\n Two, proportionality demands consideration of the alternative of\ncensure, proportionality in the sense of the offenses alleged and the\nconsequences sought.\n Three, my Republican friends, they have even refused to accept the\nadvice of President Ford and Presidential candidate Dole that we\nproceed with a censure or rebuke alternative. This is a tragic day when\nthis option is denied us.\n Mr. Speaker, over the past several months, the news media has\ninundated us with continuous coverage of President Clinton's conduct.\nOver the past several weeks, the House Judiciary Committee has held\nhearings, considered evidence, and debated the merits of impeaching the\nPresident. Regretfully, the issue has distracted us from many serious\nproblems that confront our nation and the world. Equally regrettable is\nthe highly partisan nature that has characterized this process.\n I have endeavored to avoid this partisanship. Earlier this year I\nvoted for the Hyde resolution so that the Judiciary Committee could\nconsider all relevant information and determine the scope and the\nduration of its impeachment proceedings. This was a controversial\ndecision; I was only one of 31 Democrats that supported giving the\nCommittee that flexibility.\n I took Chairman Hyde at his word that this process would be completed\nin the House by the end of the year. I was gratified to see that my\ntrust was not unfounded. As the Judiciary Committee votes on articles\nof impeachment this week, and with votes expected in the full House\nnext week, I am glad to see this frustrating period in the House nearly\nbehind us.\n I want to again voice my anger with the President's initial conduct\nand frustration with his inability to clearly admit the wrongs he has\ncommitted and apologize for his deceptions. I believe that elected\nofficials, especially the nation's highest leaders, should observe the\nhighest standards of conduct. Both the President's improper\nrelationship and the subsequent reliance on rigid legalisms in his own\ndefense shows how out to touch he has been with the desire of the\nAmerican people for honesty and contrition.\n Although I was skeptical that the facts as they were known in August\nand September justified impeachment, I held judgment during the process\nof investigation and Committee consideration. I did not want to take a\nposition on this important matter without both knowing all the facts\nand having an opportunity to study the standards and grounds for\nimpeachment in the Constitution and in our nation's history. I also\nbelieve that since Congress is charged with acting in a judicial\ncapacity in marking this decision on impeachment, it was important to\navoid jumping to conclusions.\n Unfortunately, the partisan jabs that seem to characterize the\nJudiciary Committee's hearings and the expected party line voting gives\nthis proceeding the appearance of politics as usual. If the American\npeople were not cynical before this point, the Committee's behavior\nmust have pushed public opinion over the edge.\n In recent days, as I deliberated about my vote, five consideration\nwere important to me.\n First, the President's conduct is wrong and cannot be tolerated. It\ncontributes to undermining the moral fabric of our society. It gives\nyoung people the impression that anything goes. There must be\nconsequences to his behavior.\n Second, the facts are not really in dispute. The role of the House as\nthe determiner of probable cause has been altered by the recognition\nthat the real issue is the consequences of obvious actions.\n Third, the President's behavior, although immoral and deceptive, did\nnot in my opinion involve his official duties as President or\nconstitute dramatic and severe criminal conduct that demands\npersecution during his term in office. In my mind, the framers of the\nConstitution expected one of these thresholds to be met for impeachment\nto proceed. I do not believe he abused his powers in asserting\nexecutive privilege or obstructed justice through official channels.\nAlthough illegal and subject to prosecution, the perjury allegations in\nthis case do not demand immediate prosecution.\n Fourth, there are alternative consequences. There is public rebuke or\ncensure by Congress. There are monetary payments that can be required.\nThere is criminal prosecution for perjury. And there is the personal\ntragedy, the humiliation, the family embarrassment, and the destruction\nof the historical record of a talented, energetic man who has given\nmuch to his country.\n Fifth, finally, and most importantly, we cannot let the passion for\nvengeance overwhelm the best interests of our nation. Impeachment has a\ncheckered history. There have been eight attempts to use it against\nPresidents. In seven cases it was clearly political: John Tyler, Andrew\nJohnson, Grover Cleveland, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan,\nand George Bush. In October, former President Gerald Ford wrote a\npersuasive analysis of the Clinton impeachment question in which he\nstressed the damage to the institutions of government that can occur if\na president is forced out. As the Republican Vice President that\nsucceeded President Nixon, he concluded, ``I care more about preserving\nrespect of those institutions than I do about the fate of any\nindividual temporarily entrusted with office.'' I agree with that\nsentiment, and as someone who deeply respects these institutions, I\nwish to put this episode behind us without doing further damage to our\ngovernment and our nation.\n Mr. Speaker, I will not vote to impeach the President. I would vote\nto censure him, or as urged by President Ford, require him to stand for\npublic rebuke. This proceeding has distracted our nation long enough.\nIt is time we return to the challenges that confront America.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Torres).\n (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these\narticles of impeachment.\n\n[[Page H11921]]\n\n I come to the House tonight with great sadness and shame. I am sad\nbecause after 15 years, 16 years, actually, this will be my last vote\ntomorrow in the service of this great institution, I am forced to\nparticipate in a process which undermines the very ideals and fairness\nand justice upon which this institution was founded.\n I am ashamed because history will record that this body, driven by\nrank partisanship and ideological zealotry, sought to depose the\nPresident of the other party without due cause and against the wishes\nof the American people.\n As representatives of the American people, we cannot, we must not,\nuse our power to thwart the will of the people and trample upon their\nconstitutional rights to keep a President of their choice. Sadly, that\nis what is happening here tonight.\n James Madison said, a President is impeachable if he attempts to\nsubvert the Constitution. This President has not. We ought to not\nimpeach him. I oppose these articles.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nFlorida (Mrs. Thurman).\n Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton, being merely human,\ngave in to lust. With the shame and embarrassment of that flaw being\ndiscovered, he deceived us. Those of us who voted for this man can\nforgive him. We can see what he has done, not only for this Nation but\nacross the world. We can see that this President has much more to give\nas a President.\n But those on this floor who are calling for impeachment never voted\nfor him, never supported him. They have pursued him relentlessly, and\nthey cannot forgive or accept any imperfection in this man.\n Just as lust and deceit are sins, so are hate and envy. Just 2 years\nago, this House undertook disciplinary action against the Speaker for\nintentionally misrepresenting information to the House Ethics\nCommittee. The Ethics Committee recommended and this House adopted on a\nbipartisan basis reprimand over censure, a penalty which allowed the\nSpeaker to stand for reelection.\n I do not know how to reconcile the hypocrisy of the House in holding\nthe Speaker and the President to two different standards. Let us recall\nwhat one of my colleagues said in opposing the Speaker's reprimand:\n\n Let us stop using the ethics process for political\n vendettas. Let us not create precedents that will only serve\n to undermine the service of this country. Let us stop this\n madness. Let us stop this cannibalism. Let us not fall victim\n to unrealistic expectations that do not forgive the common\n flaws of normal Americans.\n\n That was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay).\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).\n (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of holding Bill Clinton\npersonally accountable for committing perjury before a Federal grand\njury.\n Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is now considering Articles\nof Impeachment against President Bill Clinton. This is clearly one of\nthe toughest and most significant votes of my career in public service\nand it carries major historical significance for our Nation. I do not\ntake this decision lightly nor do I believe any Member of Congress\nshould rush to judgment.\n Since the allegations against the President came to light in January\nof this year, I have reserved judgment until I learned all the facts.\nThis decision, on my part, to reserve judgment on the President's\nconduct required me to wait until the House Judiciary Committee\ncompleted its work.\n Over the past few months as the allegations against President Clinton\nbecame fact, many of my constituents raised real questions that I felt\ndeserved answers. These questions included: why has Congress been\nforced to review the charges against the President? whether Bill\nClinton should be held to the same laws and standards as other\nAmericans? whether Bill Clinton in his responsibility as our Nation's\nleading role model for America's children should assume personal\nresponsibility for his actions and how should I base my decision? on\nthe opinion polls? or the principle of what's right?\n Only one person is responsible for the vote we have scheduled this\nweek. It was Bill Clinton's reckless conduct that forced the Nation to\nconfront this issue. Had he come clean with America last January, a\nmajority of Americans easily would have forgiven him for his reckless\nconduct. Instead, he chose to stonewall and later lied to a federal\ngrand jury. Over the past several weeks, when several Members of\nCongress have urged him to tell the truth and admit he lied to a\nfederal grand jury, he's declined. Had he come clean in the beginning,\nwe would not be here today.\n President Clinton and his partisan defenders have suggested that he\nshould be held to a different standard than his fellow Americans. I\ndisagree and note that Congress, in the last ten years, has voted to\nimpeach and remove from office two federal judges who lied to grand\njuries of their peers. And only a few days ago, several Northwestern\nUniversity athletes were indicted for lying to a federal grand jury\nregarding illegal gambling activities. No American should be above the\nlaw and that includes the President of the United States.\n I've also had to respond to parents asking my advice on how best to\nrespond to their children's statements that it is okay to lie if the\nPresident says its okay to lie. Personal responsibility is a basic\nvirtue for all Americans and the President must take responsibility.\nAmerican school children have all learned the story of George\nWashington stating to his father that he could not tell a lie and\nadmitting to cutting down the cherry tree. Which example will they now\nremember?\n Now that the vote is scheduled on Articles of Impeachment against\nBill Clinton for lying under oath before a federal grant jury of his\npeers, obstruction of justice and abuse of office, there are those who\nsuggest I should base my vote, not on my convictions, but on the\nopinion polls. We must remember that early advocates of abolishing\nslavery, ensuring civil rights for all Americans and America's entrance\ninto WWII were not pursuing popular ideas. But Abraham Lincoln, Martin\nLuther King and Franklin Roosevelt did the right thing and adhered to\ntheir basic principles. I will not base my decision regarding this vote\non popular opinion polls but on what I believe is right for America.\n We must do the right thing for America. No one is above the law, and\nthat includes the President of the United States. It is in the best\ninterest of our Nation that the House vote to send to the Senate\nArticles of Impeachment against the President.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom New York (Mr. Gilman).\n (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I share the outrage and disappointment\nexpressed by my constituents. However, the President's actions violated\nour Nation's trust. The debate is no more about sex than the Watergate\ndebate was about a third-rate burglary.\n This is a difficult decision for all of us, probably the most\ndifficult of my tenure in the Congress. I thank my constituents who\nshared their views.\n While none of us should minimize the gravity of this impeachment\nprocess, we must bear in mind that the House does not have the final\nword in determining whether any official should be removed from office.\nReferral of this issue to the Senate is not removal, but merely a\nfinding of probable cause that a removeable offense may have occurred.\n Having fully considered the facts before us, reluctantly I have come\nto the conclusion that probable cause exists. Accordingly, I shall be\nvoting in favor of at least one of the articles of impeachment.\n In closing, I note that though I support the articles of impeachment,\nI am not convinced that the President should be removed. In fact, that\ndecision can only be made after a fair trial in the other body.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Rohrabacher).\n (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks).\n Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, during the impeachment inquiry, many of\nthose who have stood against the President have been targeted for\npersonal vicious personal attack. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan\nBurton), the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Helen Chenoweth), the\ngentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), a Democrat, the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Paul McHale), and yesterday the gentleman from\nLouisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) all have been made to suffer.\n What we have experienced on Capitol Hill is consistent with the\nthreats and\n\n[[Page H11922]]\n\nintimidation endured by each and every one of the women claiming to\nhave been used and abused by the President of the United States. I will\nsubmit for the Record the names of seven such women, the last being\nKathleen Willey, whose cat disappeared, and then had a skull of an\nanimal put on her front porch when she was supposed to testify. Then a\njogger comes by and starts talking about her children, and where is her\ncat, and then says, did you get the message?\n Mr. Speaker, I will vote for impeachment because the President is\nguilty of perjury and lying under oath, and lying to a grand jury, and\nall the rest. Impeachment is another way of reaffirming certain\nstandards and principles. America today is in dire need of\nreaffirmation of a commitment to truth, justice, and to fundamental\nhuman decency.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of all four articles of\nimpeachment against the President of the United States. My vote will be\nbased upon the Judiciary Committee's findings that our President\ncommitted perjury and lied under oath.\n Although the debate in which we engage is of monumental consequence,\nand being so, is to some degree contentious, let me suggest that I do\nnot sense a high degree of personal hostility in this chamber. Even for\na hothead like me, and I know I can be far too frank at times, I have\nnot sensed ill will between Members, and have instead had some friendly\nexchanges and given and received some heartfelt best wishes for the\nholiday season.\n One might note that between Members of the House of Representatives\nthis is about as amicable an impeachment as one could expect, all\nthings considered.\n With that said, however, there is another more sinister dimension to\nthe impeachment crisis. An ugly cloud of intimidation is evident here\nin Washington. Over these last few months many of those who have stood\nin opposition to the President have clearly been targeted for vicious\npersonal attack. This ruthless campaign of intimidation is\nunprecedented. The Government Reform and Oversight Committee had barely\nstarted its investigation when its chairman, Dan Burton, was put in the\nbulls eye. Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde, Democrat Paul McHale and\nyesterday Bob Livingston, all have been made to suffer. In the case of\nMcHale, the mudslingers couldn't even get their facts straight.\n What we've experienced on Capitol Hill is consistent with the threats\nand intimidation endured by women who may have been in a position to\nmake embarrassing allegations against the President. At first it was\nmade light of--the women were labeled as bimbos. But now it's more\nserious and no one is laughing. Each and every one of the women\nclaiming to have been used and abused by the President has been\nthreatened, smeared, or victimized.\n Former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen; former Miss Arkansas,\nSally Purdue; Paula Jones; Dolly Kyle Browning; Jennifer Flowers; and\nMonica Lewinsky.\n Kathleen Willey. Her cat disappeared and an animal's head appeared on\nher porch shortly before she was to testify. Then outside her home a\njogger came by and asked what happened to her cat and made mention of\nher children, then asked if she got the message.\n My fellow colleagues, I will vote for impeachment because I believe\nthe President is guilty of perjury, lying under oath, and lying to a\ngrand jury and the rest.\n Impeachment is another way of reaffirming certain standards and\nprinciples. America is today in dire need of a reaffirmation of our\ncommitment to truth, to justice, and to fundamental human decency. Thus\nI will vote for impeachment.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).\n Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the principle of\nequal justice under law, as the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde)\nso eloquently stated in his sad and magnificent speech. It is\nfundamental to our liberty that no one is above the law. It is absolute\ndespotism that a crime for one person is not a crime for another.\n The words in an oath in our judicial structure is an indispensible\npillar. No one can be selective when they are under oath to tell the\ntruth. It has been written that language is the essence of law, and law\nis the essence of liberty.\n The President is at the epicenter of this storm. Its duration and\ntenor have always been under his control. To quote Emerson, the last\nline of his essay, Self-reliance, ``Nothing can bring you peace but the\ntriumph of principles.''\n Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the principles of equal justice\nunder law.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Berman).\n Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if Members followed the Committee on the\nJudiciary proceedings, they already know that I strongly oppose\nimpeachment. Given the totality of the wrongdoing and the totality of\nthe context, the allegations of misconduct do not rise to the standard\nrequired for impeachment.\n With apologies to those who heard my statement in the Committee on\nthe Judiciary, I would like to repeat those remarks that address\nanother issue, whether a failure to vote impeachment could cause a\ndecline in the fabric of our culture and the strength of our legal\nsystem.\n\n {time} 2115\n\n The corrosive effects on American culture and America's legal system\nof allowing the President to serve out his term have been overstated.\nThe President's defense is very troubling. His grand jury testimony,\nhis public statements following the grand jury testimony, his agents'\npublic statements are more egregious than any wrongdoing that caused\nthis process to begin. Alice in Wonderland-like notions pop into my\nhead, watching someone so smart and so skilled, so admired by the\nAmerican people for his intellect and his talents digging himself\ndeeper and deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole, and us along with him.\n This spectacle troubles many and may motivate many of the calls for\nimpeachment. People do have a right to ask, what will America's\nchildren believe about reverence for the law, about lying under oath?\nMany thoughtful Americans wonder whether the deconstruction of our\nlanguage will damage the culture. What will happen if words no longer\nhave common sense meaning, if everything is equally true or not true\nbecause, after all, it depends on what your definition of ``is'' is. Of\ncourse, there has been and there will be harm to our culture and the\nlegal system. But let us keep it in perspective.\n While not above the law, the President, the most powerful man on the\nplanet, the man who has control over our nuclear weapons arsenal, the\nman whom we invest with the authority to protect and defend the\ninterests of the people of the United States, indeed protect all of\ncivilization, is a special case.\n Everyone is equal under the law, but we make special provisions for\none person only while he is serving as President. Few would dispute the\nfact that the President is immune from criminal prosecution during his\nterm of office. Many would argue that a wise Congress should pass\nlegislation to immunize future presidents from civil litigation during\nthe term of their office. We invest the Secret Service with the\nresponsibility of taking the bullet so our Commander in Chief will\nserve out his term.\n That the President's conduct is not impeachable does not mean that\nsociety condones his conduct. In fact, it does not mean that the\nPresident is not subject to criminal prosecution after he leaves\noffice. It just means that the popular vote of the people should not be\nabrogated for this conduct when the people clearly believe that this\nconduct does not warrant that abrogation.\n Most Americans know and will teach their children to know that\nconduct that may not be impeachable for the President is not\nnecessarily conduct that is acceptable in the larger society.\n Those who argue that the institutions of government or the fabric of\nour society will be irreparably harmed by a failure to impeach the\nPresident seriously underestimate the American people. America is too\nstrong a society, American parents too wise, the American sense of\nright and wrong is too embedded to be confused.\n We all know that the word ``is'' has a common sense meaning. We all\nknow that lying under oath is wrong and could get us in a lot of\ntrouble. I ask those of you who sincerely believe in limiting Federal\npower, in elevating the role of the individual and of individual\nresponsibility, do you really want to impeach a popularly elected\nPresident to teach our children a lesson?\n Former First Lady Barbara Bush said, your success as a family, our\nsuccess as a society depends not on what happens at the White House but\nwhat happens inside your house.\n\n[[Page H11923]]\n\n Impeachment is not a substitute for good parenting or personal moral\nvalues. I ask those who are open to a second thought to rethink this\nissue. Impeachment is not the proper vehicle for symbolic gestures.\nThese articles of impeachment must be opposed.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Davis).\n Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the\narticles of impeachment because I do not think the misconduct of the\nPresident was a threat to the Nation.\n I will respond to the understandable concern that has been expressed\nhere tonight by those who support the articles and those that oppose\nthem about the effect on the rule of law. This President, upon leaving\noffice, will be subjected to criminal prosecution for having lied under\noath. This is not just a theory. There will be accountability here. The\nindependent counsel statute, which Congress would do well to let\nexpire, specifically provides that the current office of independent\ncounsel will continue to exist past the duration of the Clinton\npresidency. This office of the independent counsel, who no one has\ncriticized as not being sufficiently aggressive, will in all likelihood\nbe charged with the responsibility of making that decision whether to\nprosecute.\n The President will be held accountable in a criminal court of law\nwhere a jury will have the right to determine whether he has committed\nperjury. That is a separate consideration from impeachment. We will\nuphold the rule of law by the President being subjected to criminal\nprosecution. But the President's behavior does not rise to the level of\nan impeachable offense. We will also be held accountable for having\ndeprived this body the opportunity to vote for censure in lieu of\nimpeachment.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Sandlin).\n (Mr. SANDLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, we either respect the Constitution and the\nrule of law or we do not. It is as simple as that.\n What is the test for impeachment? The test is not disappointment. It\nis not disapproval. It is not even moral outrage. The test is set out\nclearly in our Constitution. The Constitution says that one can be\nimpeached only for misconduct in the performance of official duties\nthat endangers our system of government. No such allegations have been\nmade, no such evidence has been presented. No such burden has been met.\n Certainly the President's conduct is disappointing. But ask yourself\nthis: What action has the President taken in his official capacity as\nPresident of the United States that endangers the government of the\nUnited States? I believe the answer is clear.\n We are in a defining moment in American history. We stand today a\nlame duck Congress poised to impeach a President for unconstitutional\nreasons, along partisan lines, in the middle of an armed conflict. What\ncould be more ridiculous than that?\n We are legislators, not investigators. Let us conclude this matter in\naccordance with the Constitution.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).\n (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the impeachment of the\nPresident.\n Mr. Speaker, today I rise to echo the words of our forefathers who\nonce held the highest office in our land. The advise that they have\nprovided is among the best that our nation has ever received. I would\nlike to share with you two phrases from our first two Presidents. I\nthink they ring true today more than ever.\n In his farewell address, President George Washington underscored the\nimportance of having leaders tell the truth. He said, ``Where is the\nsecurity for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of\nreligious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of\ninvestigation in the courts of justice?''\n On his second night in the White House, John Adams wrote the\nfollowing, ``I pray Heaven to Bestow the Best of Blessings on this\nHouse and on All that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but honest\nand Wise Men ever rule under this roof.''\n In my opinion the issue of impeachment is simple: should we have two\nsystems of justice, one for the President and one for everybody else?\nwhere is the fairness for the people who are convicted of perjury every\nyear and sentenced to detention?\n What a shame that today this Congress must revisit these issues\nbecause President Clinton failed to follow the advice of these very\nwise men. As I will be casting my vote to impeach on all four articles\ntoday, I will keep in mind these words. I will also keep in mind that\nthe impact of my vote today will ring true to generations for years to\ncome that perjury has no place in the highest office of the land.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).\n (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of\nimpeachment.\n\n duty, honor, country\n\n Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be,\nwhat you can be and what you will be.\n Over thirty-five years ago, General Douglas MacArthur spoke those\nwords to the United States Corps of Cadets.\n He spoke those words just a few short years before I went to Vietnam\nin support of a military action for which this body deemed it necessary\nto send troops.\n Not all Americans supported this action.\n Some Members of this respected Chamber may have even protested\nagainst Vietnam.\n But I, along with millions of other men and women of this country,\ndid my duty.\n Right now, men and women from all around this country are also doing\ntheir duty and serving their country.\n Yes--today there are service men and women in the Persian Gulf--\nputting their lives on the line in defense of freedom.\n There are also troops on the DMZ in Korea, in the former Yugoslavia\nand on military bases throughout the world.\n They are there today, they were there yesterday and they will be\nthere tomorrow--doing--above all else--their duty.\n Every day, they put their lives on the line for freedom, liberty and\ndemocracy.\n Every day, they uphold the values that we are reminded of every time\nwe see our flag.\n Every day.\n Now, let's evaluate how the Commander-in-Chief of those same soldiers\ntreats the words--Duty, Honor, Country?\n Let me first say. * * * Everyone makes mistakes.\n I have made many in my lifetime and will make many more.\n But----\n What we are faced with today is a President who, instead of embodying\nduty and honor--decided to cover up his mistakes and bring others along\nwith him to perjure himself.\n Very simply * * * he lied under oath.\n The president shirked the very duty that is encouraged and expected\nin our armed forces.\n Instead of admitting his mistakes and facing his duty as leader\nof this country, he has fallen to lies--upon lies--upon lies.\n\n Instead of retaining honor, he has thrown it aside and perjured\nhimself.\n The next excerpt from the MacArthur quote I shared earlier refers\nback to the three words--Duty, Honor and Country.\n He said, ``These are your rallying points--to build courage when\ncourage seems to fail * * * ''\n The issue we are confronted with today deals with this courage.\n It is about upholding our democracy, our rule of law and the very\nhonor and duty that U.S. military men and women fight for as we speak.\n It takes much courage to choose a painful and difficult right over\nthe simpler wrong.\n Mr. Speaker, oh, that it would be so simple to say that this matter\nis just about lying about a sexual affair.\n There is a much deeper issue at stake here.\n After all the talk of sending a message to our service people\nabroad--who have learned about duty and honor and sacrifice\nexperientially--is it not clear to us that tonight--and tomorrow--that\nthe most compelling message we can send to them is one that upholds the\nvery ideals for which they fight?\n Does the code of conduct in the military still matter?\n Is it just a bunch of empty words?\n Or does the Commander in Chief--not a king, not a sovereign, but one\nof us--a citizen of the United States--and indeed, even an officer of\nthe United States Military--have a code of honor and duty to uphold?\n I challenge my colleagues to consider this--the message that this\nbody will send to the United States Military overseas--must be an\naffirmation of the ideals that they live by and for which they are\nserving.\n\n[[Page H11924]]\n\n As our troops must preserve the freedom we enjoy, so this legislative\nbody is bound by the Constitution which has sustained this great nation\nin all of our 200 years.\n The President--the Commander in Chief's actions--compel us to act.\n We are not driven by politics--but by the only benchmark we have--the\nrule of law--our ultimate code of honor.\n These moments could not be more important--for our history--or to our\nfuture.\n These words never held so much meaning: Duty, honor, country.\n This is indeed a sad day for America.\n I intend to vote for the articles of impeachment.\n I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).\n (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of two of the\nfour articles of impeachment.\n For a long time I have thought the character issue surrounding this\nPresident deserved political and legal accountability, but assumed it\nfell short of requiring a Constitutional remedy.\n I have concluded, however, that I have no choice but to vote for two\nof the four Articles of Impeachment--specifically Articles I and II,\nthose dealing with perjury. My reasoning is straightforward.\n The President has committed crimes and misdemeanors. The question\nthat perplexes each of us as Members and the public at large is whether\nthese crimes and misdemeanors are ``high'' enough to meet the standard\nrequired by the Constitution.\n The defenders of the President have suggested that lying about a\nfundamental privacy issue--sex--and the issues surrounding sexual\nharassment do not rise to a constitutional level. While I respect\njudgments to the contrary, I have concluded that perjury in this\ninstance has been committed, not only to protect the President from\nembarrassment, but to deny an American citizen due process under the\nlaw. It must be considered a high crime, one against the state.\n The fundamental issue is that no individual is above the law and that\ndemocratic governance depends on trust, which in turn depends on truth-\nsaying.\n Leadership is a conjunction of good ideas and good character. One\nwithout the other is unsustainable.\n In America, process is our most important product. Winning does not\nvindicate taking shortcuts with public ethics, even if it can be\nsuggested that others may have followed similar or less defensible\npaths.\n In her philosophical treatise Lying, Sissela Bok, the Harvard\nethicist, notes that ``veracity functions as a foundation of relations\namong human beings; when this trust shatters or wears away,\ninstitutions collapse.'' Bok goes on to note that ``truthfulness has\nalways been seen as essential to human society, no matter how deficient\nthe observance of other moral principles.''\n This is why lying under oath is so serious and why the President's\nrefusal to acknowledge truthfully the factual circumstance that has\nbeen established so shatters the moral underpinnings of government. The\nfact that the President may face liabilities after he leaves office if\nhe states the truth is no excuse for continued obfuscation.\n At the core of the President's Constitutional responsibilities is his\nduty to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' It is hard\nto conceive of an offense that more clearly violates--and is more\nclearly relevant to--this core responsibility than perjury, which, if\nleft unchecked, would destroy the rule of law. By lying under oath in a\nfederal civil rights lawsuit and subsequently before a federal grand\njury, the President not only failed to ``take care that the laws be\nfaithfully executed,'' he acted to subvert the law itself.\n A situation simply cannot be tolerated in which the highest officer\nof the Executive Branch is called before a judge and orchestrates a\ncover-up constructed of fraudulent half-truths, misleading omissions,\nand deliberately spun webs of deceit. While the Judiciary has\nmechanisms by which it can defend the integrity of its processes, what\nis unusual in this particular impeachment proceeding is the prospect of\nCongress taking action to right the balance between two branches of\ngovernment, in this case the Executive and the courts.\n Because it is a referral of the Office of Independent Counsel which\nobligated Congress to assess whether actions of the President rise to\nimpeachment proportions, it should be understood for the record that it\nwas the Justice Department and the Courts, rather than Congress, which\nprecipitated the independent counsel's review of perjury related to the\nPresident's private life. While Congress called for, and the President\nexplicitly, though reluctantly, approved the appointment of an\nindependent counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter (which, to\ndate, has yielded convictions of 14 individuals on 41 criminal counts),\nit was the Attorney General who directed the Counsel to widen his probe\nto include aspects of the civil suit brought by Paula Jones, and it was\nthe Supreme Court which allowed the suit to go forward during the\nPresident's tenure.\n\n It is important to separate Congress from a call for a review of\naspects of the personal life of a President because of the terrible\nprecedent it would set. It is also important for Congress to ponder\nwhether the future presidents should be subject to civil actions during\ntheir terms for which intrusive depositions may be in order.\n The Independent Counsel's probe has been too long, too expensive, and\ntoo intrusive. I have great qualms about the seemliness and precedent\nof some of the tactics of the Independent Counsel's office,\nparticularly the use of and potential resort to further surreptitious\ntape recordings to gather additional evidence against the President.\nNonetheless, the results of the Counsel's probe cannot be dismissed.\n The underlying acts under review have demeaned the office of the\nPresident, debased the public dialogue, and eroded the President's\nmoral authority to govern.\n Impeachment should neither be used to punish the President nor to\nsettle political scores. Indeed, its consideration should only proceed\nwith the goal of protecting the office by replacing a sullied occupant\nwith an individual of unsullied character. This is the case today.\n Conviction by the Senate on impeachment charges at this time in this\ncircumstance would represent less an overturning of a democratic\nelection than a reaffirmation of the strength of the processes of\ngovernance, the putting in place of a new leader of the same party and\nphilosophical bent as the President.\n While the lines between the political parties may become accentuated\nin an impeachment vote, the end result of a successful impeachment\nwould almost certainly redound to the political advantage of the\nPresident's party and--more importantly--to the country.\n In fulfilling his Constitutional duty to lead the United States\ngovernment the President has an implicit obligation to stand as the\napotheosis of American values. While ethics are an integral part of the\nhuman condition and at bottom a matter of individual responsibility, an\nAmerican President must be above demeaning behavior and free of any\nshadow concerning allegiance to the law and to the truth. To hold\notherwise is to assume we are neither a nation of laws nor of moral\nvalues.\n In the final measure, what is at issue regarding the possible\nimpeachment of the President is the question of relativism versus\nabsolutism. Relatively speaking, there is little doubt that other\nPresidents have had inappropriate relationships, including one with an\nindividual who, as a slave not only worked for but was owned by a\nPresident.\n There is also no doubt that other Presidents have lied about public\nmatters, perhaps more serious than adultery--the U.S. role in the Bay\nof Pigs invasion, the true nature of Gary Powers' mission to Russia in\na U-2 spy plane, and the details of the arms-for-hostages transaction\nthat was at the heart of the Iran-Contra affair, to name a few.\n On the other hand, none of these circumstances involved Presidential\nfabrications made under oath. Since the country's founding, oaths have\nimplied a moral and Constitutional affirmation, moral in the sense that\nour founders justified the American revolution with an appeal to higher\nauthority than British civil law, establishing a Republic under, not\nabove, God; and Constitutional in the sense that oaths of office were\npremised on the notion that truth-telling was critical to the\nfunctioning of our judicial and political processes.\n What distinguishes President Clinton from his predecessors in this\nregard is that, relatively speaking, the acts under review may not\nrepresent as great umbrages to our system as certain others, but lying\nunder oath amounts to an absolute breach of an absolute standard.\n While it is never acceptable for elected officials to mislead those\nwho have given them a solemn public trust, it is the element of lying\nwhile under oath that raises the President's conduct to a\nconstitutional dimension. Future Presidents who raise their hand and\nswear an oath to God to tell the truth in a judicial proceeding and\nthen offer false testimony should recognize that the prospect of\nimpeachment would loom, because such conduct is an affront to the rule\nof law by which all citizens must abide.\n\n There is a view among Constitutional experts that perjury is an\nimpeachable offense but that it does not necessitate impeachment in\nevery instance. This is the case for a number of reasons. The issue of\nmotivation and of consequences must be taken into consideration.\n The philosopher Isaiah Berlin notes that in a pluralistic society\nvalues are often in conflict. It\n\n[[Page H11925]]\n\nis not the case that some must be true and others false. Rather,\ncollisions of values shape who and what we are. ``We are doomed to\nchoose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss,'' he argues.\n What makes the impeachment issue difficult is not just the problem of\nmeasuring how high the crimes under consideration are but how\njuxtaposed various values have become. For instance, the importance of\nholding the chief political officer of the land accountable for a\nbreach of the law and the public trust is in conflict with the\nimportance of respecting the result of a democratic election. If I\nthought the country would be worse off or the Presidency weakened with\na Constitutional transition to the Vice President, I might have to\nconclude that despite the perjury the President should not be\nimpeached. But I believe the opposite: the Presidency would be re-\nlegitimized and revitalized if Constitutional accountability occurred.\n The motivation behind the crime in this case is patently self-\nserving. Unlike certain other examples of Presidential mendacity, no\nnational interest rationalizations exist. For this and other reasons,\nmost notably the desirability of reestablishing trust between the\npublic and its government, the effect of an impeachment of a shamed\nPresident would be to reaffirm the rule of law and strengthen the\nPresidency.\n While I have reluctantly reached this decision, I respect the\ncontrary judgment reached by others and believe that out of fairness\nthose of a different mind should have been provided a rule allowing\nthem a chance to vote for a censure alternative. I recognize censure is\nnot envisioned in the Constitution and that there may be separation of\npowers and bill of attainder problems with certain censure approaches;\nnonetheless I believe a censure approach can be crafted which would not\nbe Constitutionally inappropriate. Indeed, as Constitutionally awkward\nas such an approach would be, future negotiations between the White\nHouse and Congress on impeachment alternatives, such as those proposed\nby Governor Weld and Senator Dole, cannot be ruled out.\n While no one should vote for impeachment unless he or she is\nconvinced that the conduct under review is of such a nature that the\nSenate should remove the President from office, the Senate is not\nconstitutionally required to carry the impeachment process to\ncompletion.\n Finally a note about citizen input and citizen attitudes. As this\nHouse today takes up the issue of impeachment the polls indicate\napproximately 40 percent of the people favor impeachment with 60\npercent in opposition. at the same time over 80 percent believe the\nPresident is not telling the truth. As an elected representative in our\nunique democracy I must acknowledge the imperfect circumstance at hand,\nbut I am obligated to measure my vote by the Constitution's standard as\nit relates to impeachment and by the Constitution's framework which\nrequires votes by made in conscience.\n This is my duty, but in reaching judgment I am also obligated to\nlisten respectfully to the best of my ability to the citizens of the\nDistrict I represent. In this regard, I would like to present for the\nrecord a summary of the letters and e-mail I have received and of the\ncomments I have been provided at farmsteads and in school yards\nthroughout the District.\n In setting these views forth, I would like to underscore that there\nhas been no issue in my time in public life in which the public has\nbeen more universally informed, nor more thoughtful in its judgments.\nThe evidence for this assertion is contained in the comments which\nfollow, the first body of which relate to those expressing sentiment\nfor impeachment, the second, sentiment against.\n\n For Impeachment\n\n ``I am a police officer in Cedar Rapids. As such, I know\n that if I were to give the type of testimony that President\n Clinton gave, I would be indicted for perjury.''\n ``I am a retired military officer, so integrity is an issue\n that I hold high. It was ingrained in me that I should never\n use my authority or position to engage in less than honorable\n behavior. I'm saddened to see the presidency undergo yet\n another assault on its powers and prestige due to the\n behavior of the very human incumbent.''\n ``Clinton was told unanimously by the Supreme Court that he\n could be sued by Paula Jones. Whether you think Jones had a\n case or not (personally I don't), he can't be allowed to just\n do whatever he wants in the courtroom.''\n ``I have in the past admired your ability to vote your\n conscience--please do the same here and respect the law as\n the standard to which we all must be held. To do otherwise\n will create the foundation for a cynicism that, I believe,\n will undermine the judicial system and all that our\n Constitution stand for.''\n ``If impeachment fails, we will have established a new\n class of criminally immune political elitists.''\n ``Allowing him, as the Chief Law Enforcement agent of the\n United States, to place himself above the law will set a\n terrible precedent for the future.''\n ``Bill has violated the trust of America.''\n ``Clinton has immolated himself.''\n ``To allow the impeachable actions of the president would\n cheapen the laws on perjury and obstruction of justice and\n hasten the disastrous moral decline of America. Censure is\n insufficient.''\n ``Even the President is not indispensable, especially one\n who lacks morality as well as good judgment.''\n ``My deep-rooted Midwestern values endorse impeachment\n since with responsibility comes accountability.''\n ``If he was any other person in the United States, he would\n have been charged.''\n ``Although it is very regrettable that events have come to\n this, I would urge you to vote for impeachment of the\n President.''\n ``Our leaders should be held to a higher standard, perhaps\n even higher than the regular citizen because of the high\n offices they hold.''\n ``Just because he is the President it does not give him the\n right to get away with breaking the law.''\n ``It is my strongest hope that you vote to send the case to\n the Senate. A felony is a felony no matter who commits it.''\n ``As a libertarian, I believe that we must impeach Clinton.\n A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the\n right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against\n another human being, or to advocate or delegate its\n initiation.''\n ``Follow your conscience and vote for principle instead of\n polls. Please do not buy into the fallacious arguments of\n `Everyone does it, `It's wrong but not impeachable,' and `The\n American people want censure.' ''\n ``I want you to know that as one of your constituents, I\n will respect your votes concerning the four articles of\n impeachment. I would rather not have a person holding the\n office of the President who has put himself above the law of\n this land.''\n ``Our country, our children, and our children's children\n simply cannot tolerate the precedent that would result should\n this President be allowed to get away with perjury,\n obstruction of justice, and bribery.''\n ``Whatever Paula Jones' motive was or whoever was behind\n her, she had a right to her day in court. I have no doubt\n that earlier presidents have gotten away with similar\n dishonorable actions (perhaps worse), but now we have sexual\n harassment laws, a civil right long overdue. The President\n should be held to task for his arrogant attitudes toward\n women in general.''\n ``If I were to commit perjury in a court of law, I would\n likely be punished for the act. I do not believe that even\n the President of the United States is above the law.''\n ``This is the first time I have communicated to any of the\n people who represent me in government, but I've had enough.\n This man does not deserve to be President of the United\n States. He broke the law--not once but on many occasions.\n He's made a mockery of the presidency and the law. He's\n supposed to be a role model--someone for my 6 year old son to\n look up to.''\n ``I believe he is a liar and a dodger of truth. If you vote\n ``NO'' on his impeachment, you can expect a ``NO'' from me\n when you next run for office.''\n ``As a former law enforcement officer, I have seen many\n criminals sent to prison for lesser offenses.''\n ``You who have made honesty the keynote of your public\n service and campaigns should demonstrate no less respect for\n truthfulness when you cast your vote. Republicans may not\n unite on every issue but they should all be able to stand for\n the principles of honesty and the rule of law.''\n ``We believe you are a man of integrity. We will always\n remember the way you handled the Whitewater incident. When\n the truth was being abused, you stood by your principles and\n called it as you saw it. Now I want you to know that the\n truth is being assaulted. I believe perjury is a big deal.''\n ``As the father of an 18-year old son, who does watch the\n news and sees the example set by all of you in the House, and\n needs to see that there is still a right and wrong in this\n country, I urge you to vote for impeachment because he\n lied.''\n ``We're offended by Clinton's actions. He continually side-\n steps the perjury and obstruction issues in each of his\n apology statements. To us, these actions show his arrogance\n and disrespect for the people, for the office, and for the\n system.''\n ``What are we to think about a person whose judgment is so\n skewed and who seems willing to do anything to remain in\n office? We cannot trust him any longer . . . His word is no\n good and his respect for the law seems to be completely\n gone.''\n ``I did not spend more than five years fighting WWII only\n to end up with a President of his manifest character. Please\n help Mr. Clinton step aside.''\n ``I haven't always agreed with your decisions, but I have\n always respected your ethical and moral stands on your\n decisions Please vote for impeachment. This is the ethical\n thing to do. If you do otherwise, you are saying to the\n people that there is a double standard before the law for\n those who are in power or have the money to muddle the\n truth.''\n ``I am urging you to vote for impeachment. I believe this\n is the only way to save the office of the Presidency.''\n ``If the law is to ever again of enforced in any court in\n the country, it is imperative that the president be held\n accountable for these actions.''\n\n[[Page H11926]]\n\n ``We feel that the question here is whether the President\n is a citizen who must live under the same laws that govern\n all the rest of us, or whether he will be treated like a\n king, too important to be bothered by the conventions, laws,\n and morals that shape the lives of everyone else. Are sexual\n harassment laws real laws with real consequences or can\n citizens lie under oath to protect their families without\n consequences since it's only about sex and every one lies\n about it?''\n ``In order to uphold the Constitution, the Law of the land,\n and preserve the integrity of the United States, I believe\n there are times in which Congress must follow the Law and not\n the majority wishes of its constituents. I believe this is\n one such time.''\n ``I feel the President must be impeached. I am now\n convinced that there isn't anything the man won't do or say\n to get what he perceives to be in his best interest. The man\n is completely without moral compass moral compass, a quality\n that should be one of the greatest strengths of this highest\n of offices.''\n ``After seeing the evidence, I believe that President\n Clinton committed the crimes that he is charged with, and\n therefore violated his oath of office to faithfully execute\n the laws. I believe that short-term inconvenience of the\n Senate trial is insignificant compared with the long-term\n damages to the rule of law and the constitution that not\n voting for impeachment would cause.''\n ``I'm a government and history teacher, and my students\n always feel honesty is one of the most important\n characteristics of a leader. What message will our government\n be sending our children if the President lies under oath and\n goes unpunished. He has violated the Constitution and should\n be removed from office.\n ``We feel there is nothing more important than to protect\n the integrity of the Constitution, the office of the\n President and the rule of law. Mr. Clinton has, over time,\n proven that he has little respect for any of these. His\n actions have defined his character. His actions have not just\n demonstrated his exceedingly bad judgment, they have been\n proven to be illegal. As such, a vote for impeach is the only\n right thing to do.''\n ``It is with great regard that I write to you to urge you\n to impeach our President. We simply cannot have the leader of\n our country take the office of the President with such little\n regard as to defile it with a lack of self-discipline. It is\n embarrassing as an American when I am abroad. It is\n disturbing as a woman to see our leadership demonstrate such\n disrespect towards women.''\n ``In this day and age, it is very difficult to raise\n children to be honest and trustworthy individuals, especially\n when so much that you see and hear and read is so full of\n wrong doings. I believe that when my President goes on\n national television and looks that camera in the eye and can\n boldface lie to his whole nation then he has just undermined\n everything that I have tried to teach my children.''\n ``His behavior exhibits an arrogance and disdain for our\n legal system. The president is a lawyer and clearly\n understood what he was doing. We believe his subversion of\n the legal system was intentional and premeditated.''\n ``As a parent, there are many times when you look for all\n the alternatives to punishing your child for all the things\n that he did. But as the child becomes more and more\n belligerent and insists ``I didn't do anything wrong'' you\n finally have to put your foot down and do what in your heart\n you know is right. Please Congressman Leach, show my thirteen\n year old daughter that this country still stands for\n something. She asks me every few days how come if a 13 year\n old kid can tell he is a liar, that adults can't.''\n ``Having put aside the rumors and allegations against Mr.\n Clinton prior to his first campaign for the office of\n president, we voted for Mr. Clinton. We were pleased with his\n performance in his first four years in office, and gave him\n our vote of confidence in his second election. It is with\n heavy hearts that we now ask that you vote for his\n impeachment. It is our opinion that he has abused the power\n of his office, obstructed justice and lied to the grand\n jury.''\n ``I voted for Bill Clinton and believe that, for the most\n part, he has done an excellent job as president. Although I\n find this position somewhat problematic, I would like to\n encourage you to vote for impeachment. My reasons for this\n are: (1) perjury undermines the judicial system which I view\n as the fundamental basis for our government; (2) the\n president is in an incredibly powerful position and should\n not use the power to his advantage (if a professor had a\n sexual relationship with a student, the professor would lose\n his or her job); and (3) the president should be expected to\n comply with the same laws as everyone else.''\n ``Many Clinton supporters seems to think the terms `high\n crimes and misdemeanors' are one and the same. I would think\n they are separate acts, and while he has perhaps not\n committed treason or what could be considered a high crime\n (such as murder or bribery), he has most certainly committed\n very serious misdemeanors against his office, his oath, and\n his country.\n ``Oaths are critical to the system of liberty in place in\n the Constitution. If we abandon them then liberty is in\n constant jeopardy; it has no support.''\n ``In committing perjury, Clinton deprived everyone entitled\n to the truth under the law of their eights. Please vote to\n impeach.\n ``I would like to add the five voters of my family to the\n list those of favor of impeachment, though, to me the real\n answer is for the President to resign. I have often told my\n daughters that if they told me a lie I would lose confidence\n in them, and it would take a long time to gain that back.''\n ``As a social studies teacher in Iowa City, Iowa, I feel\n strongly about the coming vote in the House. My personal\n perception is that there is obvious evidence of wrongdoing on\n the part of the President. Therefore believe impeachment is\n necessary. That being said, the punishment must fit the crime\n and something short of removal by the Senate seems\n appropriate''.\n ``He clearly broke the law, and refused to take\n responsibility for that part of it. This is exactly the\n opposite of what I am trying so hard to teach my children.''\n ``We are told that Kelly Flynn was court marshaled because\n she lied about her adulterous affairs. I am unable to\n understand why we cannot hold the chief law enforcement\n officer of this country, and commander in chief of the armed\n forces, to the same standards.''\n ``You were not elected to high office roll over and take\n the easy way out just because a well marketed President has\n public opinion polls in his favor.''\n ``Remember that truth must always be served first.''\n ``My 14-year old son just keeps saying, if this were me\n (being Clinton) I would be in jail.''\n ``If Clinton gets away with perjury, I will I will never be\n able to serve on a jury because we could not believe anything\n said in a courtroom.\n ``I want you to know there are a lot of silent voters out\n here in your district that want that liar out of office.''\n ``We all know that if any person's workplace conduct were\n similar to the President's they would be summarily dismissed,\n no questions asked. It would be reprehensible to send any\n different message to the American People just because he is\n the President. My children have already seen two significant\n legal dramas in their lifetimes. The message in the O.J.\n Simpson trial was that being celebrity is more important than\n personal behavior and the truth. Please don't reinforce the\n message by applying it to Mr. Clinton.''\n ``Bill Clinton's selfish desire to remain in office at all\n costs is a shinning example of why he should be removed. He's\n more interested in keeping his political power than in\n abiding by the law. I hope you will not make the same\n mistake.''\n ``In our country, no one should be above the law--we are\n all equal and have no monarchy.''\n ``As a twenty year-old Iowan from Cedar Rapids, I have\n always admired the way you have always took for setting\n standards in all that you do. That is why I am writing you\n Congressman Leach, to not back down from those standards. I\n believe it is in the best interest of everybody, especially\n young people like me, for [you] to vote for impeachment of\n President Clinton.''\n ``This impeachment vote is a chance for you and your peers\n to be moral leaders and not poll readers.''\n ``I believe that Mr. Clinton needs his day in court. In\n this case, that court should be in the United States Senate.\n It seems that anything short of giving Clinton his right to a\n trial is an injustice.''\n ``I work in the nuclear power industry. We have a `Fitness\n for Duty' regulation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.\n If I were to lie, or do anything that makes my integrity\n suspect, I could be fired. Why doesn't this president live\n according to the same standard? He is after all in charge of\n the entire nuclear arsenal of this country--I could only\n affect 1 nuclear power plant.''\n ``I have had to give depositions in product liability\n litigation and, although I would like to have told the\n plaintiff's attorneys that their questions were not relevant,\n I could not, and had to answer their questions truthfully.\n All of the questions put before Mr. Clinton in his deposition\n were legitimate and relevant to a citizen's legal\n grievance.''\n ``If Mr. Clinton's actions are allowed to stand unchecked\n by the remedy of the constitution, the office of the\n President is given extraordinary powers disproportionate to\n the other branches of government.''\n ``I also talk to my son about the laws of our land and\n about our government. When he asks what is happening to our\n president, I simply tell him that the president lied to all\n of us and that he lied under oath. He is in the Cub Scouts so\n he understands what an oath is.''\n ``Luckily, in both my military and civilian careers, I have\n worked for people of integrity and honesty. I have taken an\n Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the\n United States and I wish you strength as you proceed with\n your constitutional duty.''\n ``I, too, am a Gulf War veteran and served my country with\n honor for five years as a Marine. Before induction, I took an\n oath to defend the Constitution, an oath similar to that of\n Mr. Clinton's. Rarely are we forced to choose between\n fulfilling our oath or betraying it for personal gain or\n survival. I chose to risk my life and live up to the\n obligations of my oath rather than disgrace it.''\n ``How much lying does it take before we call it lying? Do\n we accept the arguments of a man who apologizes profusely in\n the face of duress, but offers no admission of guilt and no\n apologies for lying to a grand jury? It is no longer about\n the president, it's about us.''\n ``Please vote to impeach. It would be much easier to vote\n no. But the long term effects on our country would not be\n favorable.''\n ``As a single mother I am trying to teach my children\n values. What kind of an example\n\n[[Page H11927]]\n\n do we have in the White House? For him it is OK to lie to us\n and apologize for it later. NO--Whatever he did compromised\n the people of the United States. It boils down to he lied and\n he did it under oath. Period.''\n ``To lie and cheat on your wife is a despicable offense but\n none-the-less a somewhat personal offense. To repeatedly\n perjure yourself in a court of law or in any legal setting is\n simply put, a crime to be punished. Toleration of Bill\n Clinton's offenses will only lead us down a path of\n mediocrity and moral degeneration.''\n ``I am the mother of four children to whom I have preached\n that they should never tell a lie because eventually it will\n become known and the punishment for a lie is far greater than\n the lie itself. They are grown up now and of voting age and\n they are telling me that a lie is okay because the President\n of the United States, our role model, got by with it. Is this\n the message that you want to send to the American people and\n the world?''\n ``This should be a lesson to any persons in high\n government, that no one is above the law in this country.\n This is what sets us apart from other nations. You cannot\n have two scales of justice.''\n ``As my representative, I urge you to not ignore the laws\n of this country. All are subject to them. Vote to impeach\n President Clinton.''\n ``The President has lied to a Federal Judge, a Grand Jury,\n and the American People. If he can lie to all these people\n without any consequences why should the rest of us tell the\n truth?''\n ``Not to proceed with [impeachment] is doing a great\n disservice to the rule of law in this country. It will\n effectively set a double standard.''\n ``If Mr. Clinton were a member of the armed forces, he\n would have faced a court martial and have been dishonorably\n discharged a long time ago. As the Commander in Chief of our\n armed forces, shouldn't he have to adhere to the same\n standards as those he supposedly commands?''\n ``I am a freshman at the University of Notre Dame and have\n been following the impeachment process occurring in recent\n days, and I feel it is imperative that we as an American\n people show the world that we will not tolerate disregard for\n the law in the highest levels of our government.''\n ``My wife and I are both teachers. How do we explain the\n fact that the President of the United States can lie--and get\n away with it. Please represent us by voting to impeach Bill\n Clinton.''\n ``If [the President] were to be placed under oath today in\n a civil suit, I'm sure he would still bend all credible\n interpretations of the truth, misrepresent, prevaricate, lie,\n and do whatever he could to escape being responsible for his\n actions. So for both my wife and I, we say impeach him; don't\n vote for censure.''\n ``With great hubris, President Clinton has continued to\n dissemble and obfuscate. He has used the awesome power of his\n office to mold public opinion. For the President to get by\n with his lying and abuse of power would be a dangerous\n precedent for our highest office.''\n ``The idea that all Republicans are just voting along party\n lines is disturbing. Democrats do the same. As a first grade\n teacher and parent of four sons (along with my husband) I\n feel anything short of impeachment is giving our youth the\n wrong message about right and wrong, truth and falsehoods,\n and marriage vows.''\n ``I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath\n water, but if you can't see how this president has hurt our\n country, our reputation for moral leadership in the world,\n how he has damaged my children's respect for the law and the\n office of president, etc., then you have completely lost my\n future votes.''\n ``We are horrified that sexual encounters, lying under oath\n and his consistent lying in general is tolerated. His example\n is tearing down the fabric of an already unstable moral and\n responsible society.''\n ``This may not rise to some Ivy League professor's\n impeachment bar, but remember they got Al Capone for tax\n evasion.''\n ``If he lied to us once, what's to stop him from doing it\n again. What makes you think his whole life isn't a lie . . .\n Get rid of him.''\n ``If the President can't control his private life, what\n makes you think he can the public's?''\n ``The basis of a civil society is truth. If we cannot trust\n the President, we cannot trust the government.''\n\n against impeachment\n\n ``I believe the crimes--if indeed there were crimes--do not\n fit the punishment.''\n ``I do not wish to condone President Clinton's behavior;\n but his actions were of a private nature, and Mr. Starr\n should never have asked him to reveal his private\n activities.''\n ``I am a kindergarten teacher as well as a single parent.\n How can you people feel good about yourselves knowing that\n impeaching a president over his private life is a higher\n priority than crumbling schools, hungry kids, people going\n without health care?''\n ``I understand the moral injustice that he has committed. I\n feel however it is time for things to come to an end, and\n this must happen before we put our nation into a greater\n tailspin of turmoil, economically, politically and with\n foreign matters.''\n ``As the vote in the Judiciary Committee demonstrates this\n is a partisan exercise with no pervasive support. The\n Founders did not contemplate a partisan impeachment of the\n President.''\n ``I'm sure you don't want to be part of a congress that\n will go down in history as pulling off the first bloodless\n coup in our history.''\n ``I look back in time to President Johnson right after the\n Civil War, and read about the type of things they tried to\n impeach him on, and wonder what will people think 50 or 100\n years from now about the actions of our congress of today.\n Probably laugh when they discuss it.''\n ``Our household consists of two democrats and one\n republican. We are all in agreement that impeachment is not\n an appropriate action to take against our president.''\n ``If you impeach Clinton for this, you would have had to\n impeach 90% of our presidents.''\n ``Clinton has only two years to go. If he is removed from\n office, your party will soon face an incumbent Democratic\n president who will likely win re-election. Besides that, in\n terms of policy, Clinton is as good a Republican president as\n you could have found from within your own ranks!''\n ``He has degraded the judicial system. In a sense, however,\n he has merely been responding in a pragmatic manner to a\n judicial system that has already been degraded--in a more\n odious manner--by individuals and organizations that are\n willing and able to pursue their political agendas in a non-\n democratic manner through an endless series of lawsuits,\n investigations, and probes.''\n ``The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot on\n this one and I dare say that perhaps that fact alone is\n probably the only good outcome of all of this.''\n ``I am a physician at the University of Iowa Hospitals. My\n father served in the legislature and my grandfather as the\n assistant attorney general of Iowa. I am writing to\n encourage you to vote against impeaching our president, a\n man elected by many of the same people that elected you.''\n ``I urge you to vote against the impeachment of the\n President. I voted against him twice. On the other hand, our\n party was twice outvoted in fair elections.''\n ``I have forgiven President Clinton.''\n ``Keep in mind that the appropriate methods of removing\n someone from office is at the ballot box except under very\n extreme circumstances!''\n ``That Kenneth Starr came back with no incriminating\n evidence against Clinton regarding Whitewater, Travelgate and\n Filegate underscores the desperate need Clinton's enemies had\n to pin something, anything, on him.''\n ``I believe the matters of his infidelity and its cover-up\n are something he and his wife and his God need to handle--not\n Congress. Please do not set such a dangerous precedent by\n voting to remove this resident from office. Let morality be\n taught at home and in the schools lest we begin to set\n standards no mortal can reach.''\n ``I predict if the House votes to impeach the President,\n the Republicans will suffer such defeats in the next election\n they will lose control of the House by a large margin,\n possibly the Senate and most assuredly a Democrat will be\n elected President.''\n ``I'm sure you are familiar with the term Pyrrhic Victory?\n This will be what the Republicans achieve if he is\n impeached.''\n ``I listen to Republicans talk about how children are going\n to believe that it is OK to lie if the President can, and\n that children in classrooms all over this country are talking\n about this and asking serious questions. I teach fifth grade\n in Davenport, Iowa, and I have a pretty astute group of\n students. Never has this subject come up, even though we have\n the Quad City Times delivered to our classroom daily.''\n ``The last time impeachment was voted out of the house, in\n 1868, a few Senators placed the good of the republic ahead of\n narrow partisanship. The few Republicans who broke with their\n party are honorably remembered as statesmen. An Iowan--\n Senator Grimes--was one those select few statesmen.''\n ``We urge you to vote no on all articles of impeachment. We\n feel that a censure and a fine would by far serve our country\n better than to put the country through the impeachment\n process. We need to put an end to this and get back to\n helping the country.''\n ``Many Republicans have already stated that they are voting\n for impeachment, knowing full well that the Senate will not\n convict, as a sever form of rebuke and censure of the\n President. This, Mr. Leach, is an abuse of power that\n trivializes the process for future Presidents, including\n Republican presidents.''\n ``President Clinton has behaved poorly and has provided\n poor moral leadership. However, I do not believe that the\n crimes that he is alleged to have committed merit\n impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee did a poor job in\n adding any additional information to what was contained in\n Ken Starr's report.''\n ``If there are truly grounds for impeachment, then they\n should be clear to us, the people of this country, and to\n both parties in Congress. This is not the case.''\n ``Impeachment under these circumstances would do permanent\n harm to the Presidency, to the balance of powers, and to our\n Constitutional system.''\n ``I feel strongly that the Republicans are misapplying the\n laws of our land, and that impeachment without strong bi-\n partisan support would be devastating for our country.''\n ``Based on the party line votes, I would not consider this\n an objective evaluation of the facts and history and\n precedents. It is an attempt by the majority party to\n invalidate\n\n[[Page H11928]]\n\n the electoral process and the will of the people.''\n ``We all recognize the farce conducted by the hard-line\n conservative right to destroy and overturn a duly elected\n President. It is nothing more than a Lewis Carroll version of\n court without an Alice! Absurd and ridiculous! Where is our\n sense of proportion in all of this?''\n ``While I do think that some sort of punishment is called\n for, I cannot see the wisdom of an impeachment vote.\n President Clinton was weak to be tempted as he was, and I\n wish that it had not taken place but what good will it do to\n impeach him and throw out all of his ideas.''\n ``With so many people asking Washington to move on, why\n must this drag on? The American people know that Clinton was\n wrong in what he did. He admitted that, it has been shown, so\n let's have our politicians get to more important issues.''\n ``I agree that some form of censure should be meted out,\n but to put the country through a lengthy impeachment process\n would be painful to the country and without merit.''\n ``While we are thoroughly chagrined and disappointed at\n [the President's] lying to family, friends, party and the\n American people, we sincerely believe that such action falls\n considerably short of the `high crimes and misdemeanors'\n standard for impeachment.''\n ``Nullifying who the people vote in as President is very\n serious. I don't feel what he did rises to the threshold for\n impeachment.''\n ``To impeach this President is, to me, a terrible mistake.\n I do not condone what happened, but I believe he's human and,\n like everyone on this earth, he makes mistakes. I also\n believe it's human instinct to avoid the truth if you're\n married and having an affair. Censure is far more feasible a\n punishment.''\n ``Is this impeachment for crimes against the people or\n political hatred? All I see are Republicans using every\n method they can to impeach, then say it's the President's job\n to prove his innocence. Sounds backward to me.''\n ``I'm opposed to impeachment of the President. The\n allegations against him are not, in my opinion, `other high\n crimes or misdemeanors' as required by the Constitution. W\n hile Mr. Clinton's actions may be reprehensible and are\n certainly incredibly stupid, removing a president from office\n for lying to the American people about sex is, in my mind,\n absurd.''\n ``This affair was brought about by an over zealous\n investigator-prosecutor who didn't know when to stop and\n President Clinton whose human failings overcame his common\n sense. President Clinton has brought disgrace and shame on\n himself, his family and his office. The opposition has been\n guilty of using every method to embarrass and remove him from\n office. What Clinton has done doesn't measure up to wrong\n done in Irangate when the White House totally disregarded\n Congressional direction and lied about trading arms for\n hostages. I urge you to vote against impeachment.''\n ``I believe President Clinton failed to act with the moral\n and ethics appropriate to his office or a person. However, I\n do not believe his actions directly affected his official\n duties and decisions. I also do not believe he abused the\n powers of the presidency to the degree necessary for\n impeachment.''\n ``Please vote no on the impeachment articles. President\n Clinton has made a fool of himself, but he has not\n misconducted himself in office. The prosecutor created the\n conditions for the alleged perjury and obstruction of justice\n by relentlessly pursuing the man into his most personal and\n private life.''\n ``I hope you separate yourself from the mob mentality. If\n you step back and use that Iowa common sense that I know you\n have, you will decide that though the President's actions are\n deplorable they do not rise to an impeachable offense.''\n ``Anyone who thinks what Clinton did rises to the standards\n that our forefathers set is really kidding themselves. How\n many presidents do you think have lied to the people. This\n lie did not hurt the people.''\n ``I believe President Clinton has already suffered an\n enormous penalty. Do not penalize the future of democracy by\n sending the impeachment process to the Senate.''\n ``I look at the waste of time and money on this and it\n makes me angry. I am not angry at President Clinton. I am\n angry at the system that would let it get this far.''\n ``It is, as they say, not about sex. But it is also not\n about perjury. It seems to me to be about raw political\n power.''\n ``If the Republicans continue to pursue impeachment, the\n American people will remember it at the polls.''\n ``To have to debate at length whether or not we should\n impeach a president, seems ipso facto a reason not to\n impeach: a shadow of doubt.''\n ``To regard Clinton's behavior, shameful as it is, as a\n threat to the country or the government, is ridiculous. He\n may be a bad example, but his difficulties should serve to\n keep others from his personal excesses.''\n ``I am watching the Republican party march in lockstep\n toward a Constitutional crisis that seems more motivated by\n personal angst against Clinton than by any true understanding\n of the Constitutional standard for impeachment.''\n ``While I realize that Congress has the constitutional\n right to overturn the will of the people, I don't feel that\n it has the moral right to do so.''\n ``It is inexcusable to tie up the business of government\n for months over such a trivial matter.''\n ``The facts don't justify capital punishment for this\n president.''\n ``Enough is enough. Please stop this witch hunt.''\n ``Some form of condemnation for the President's actions\n surely must take place, but not impeachment.''\n ``I have always respected you as a fair and open minded\n representative who is not afraid to go against party lines on\n many issues. Impeachment is very serious business as I am\n sure you are aware, and that if followed through to\n completion would nullify a democratic election of the people,\n the majority of which do not support his process.''\n ``It is not what the people want, not what the country or\n the world needs.''\n ``This is an attempt by the majority party to reverse the\n vote of the people and remove the President from office. This\n has to stop.''\n ``The Republican House leadership has no intention to find\n a solution to this situation short of embarrassing the\n President, destroying him, and driving him from office. That\n is not the kind of moral leadership this country needs. A\n strong statement of censure would accomplish what this\n country needs.''\n ``I believe censure to be adequate. Clinton has proved\n himself to be a friend to those who need assistance in the\n areas of disabilities and education the most.''\n ``Nothing the President did will harm the country nearly as\n much as an attempt by one party to throw out the other\n party's president.''\n ``Stop the impeachment. Be inventive. Be a leader.''\n ``We suggest that our nation desperately needs wisdom at\n this tremulous point in its history. We ask you to step\n forward, possibly at risk to your own place within the\n Republican party, to vocally and strongly challenge what the\n Judiciary Committee has set in motion. You would be serving\n the country greatly by an adamant refusal to get on a train\n that is single-mindedly heading down a track toward an\n unknown tunnel.''\n ``For the good of the country, vote against impeachment.\n Time to forgive and get on with the business of our\n country.''\n ``Don't bend to the partisan politics of the black and\n white moralist Republicans who claim this is a vote of\n conscience. It is obviously meant solely to get Clinton since\n it couldn't be done in a free and open election by the\n people.''\n ``I think most of us who voted for him were well aware of\n this flaw and that is why most Americans oppose impeachment.\n Despite this flaw, he seems to be leading the country quite\n well. Infidelities are unfortunately common and should be\n resolved within family units not over the mass media.''\n ``This biased and unjust process is perhaps the biggest\n threat to our democracy in our history. When a president is\n impeached it had better be for an extremely serious offense\n against our constitution or our country. There are many\n people who have stated that they will never vote again if\n their president is removed from office. When people lose\n faith in their way of government, that way is doomed.''\n ``I met Clinton when he came to Davenport during the record\n floods that we had several years ago and I know that he feels\n for the common person.''\n ``Don't let a minority take over the country. We elected\n Clinton twice, let him finish his mandate.''\n ``It is my belief our president, in his wrongdoing, has\n been the beneficiary of fewer rights than any citizen would\n have in a court of law. It's questionable and I think for the\n sake of this country we should give him the benefit of the\n doubt.''\n ``I have been a Republican all of my life. I do not like\n President Clinton and never have. However, I don not think\n these articles meet the intention of impeachment.''\n ``I'm afraid that many people knew about Clinton's\n shortcomings in the area of his private life and voted for\n him anyway because they thought he would be a good president,\n and he has been. If you feel it necessary to punish him,\n please consider voting for censure and let him finish off his\n term. I think the country would be better served that way.\n Let this be over, please.''\n ``The world looks to our country for stability. What good\n is going to come from an impeachment? Will the people\n benefit? Let the courts deal with him after his term.''\n ``The process has been very unfair. If there is no chance\n to vote to censure, the unfairness will continue. Can Trent\n Lott and Republicans who didn't want Nixon impeached, vote to\n now remove a Democrat president for lesser offenses?''\n ``Impeachment should have the support of a strong majority\n and overwhelming evidence of a crime so high or so specific\n to governing that there is no redress in the courts for it.\n Impeachment cannot go forward with any moral authority if it\n is borderline, or below, on reaching the high crimes level of\n importance. Impeachment on a purely partisan vote and without\n public support is just frightening.''\n ``If the nation is crippled by a Senate trial, I believe\n the public will hold the GOP accountable in the year 2000.\n Issues that matter to most Americans will surely be put on\n the back burner for a trial that will certainly turn into a\n circus. Vote against impeachment so that the next Congress\n can work on saving Social Security and helping the farmers in\n the Midwest among other pressing issues.''\n ``If the President deserved to be impeached there would be\n many Democrats supporting\n\n[[Page H11929]]\n\n this effort. There are not. Impeachment as a political tool\n will undermine our entire political system and next time it\n could be a Republican president being forced out of office at\n the hands of partisan Democrats.''\n ``every prosecuting attorney makes the decision on whether\n a case is sent to trial, based on many items including the\n probability of winning the case. A persecuting attorney who\n sends a case to trial with no probability of success will\n soon be voted out as over burdening the court system and\n wasting money. This case falls into that category. There\n appears to be no question of the outcome in the Senate,\n but to try the case would burden the Senate, the Supreme\n Court, the While House, and all other parts of the\n government that depend on them. It would send the country\n into turmoil and add an undue financial burden.''\n ``While I in no way condone Clinton's behavior, I don't\n believe it is in the best interests of the U.S. to have this\n issue consume our agenda for the coming year.''\n ``You have always had my vote because of your thoughtful\n and reasoned positions on the issues. Please continue in the\n face of this controversy. Many of the Republican members of\n the House seem to be out of control on this issue and as such\n are not serving the people.''\n ``Please do your best within the Republican conference to\n push for the opportunity to vote for censure and stop the\n ridiculous partisan behavior of some members of your party.''\n ``Although I am personally disgusted by his behavior and\n disappointed in his refusal to admit his errors, I do not\n believe that his actions rise to the level of impeachable\n offenses. If we set the standard for impeachable offenses at\n the level required by these articles, what president would be\n safe from future attack? I believe that the Founding Fathers\n intended impeachment to be a last resort against a corrupt\n and dangerous executive who poses a threat to the nation, not\n a routinely utilized method for attacking an executive whom\n congressional opponents find truculent.''\n ``I wish to urge you to stop this pure political\n impeachment. I hear you Republicans intend to vote your\n conscience. I am here to tell you that if you Republicans had\n a conscience, you would never have started this travesty. The\n only sin that is unforgivable is deliberate maltreatment of\n another human. If you do this you are setting your party to\n henceforth always be the minority. I for one will never again\n vote for a Republican if you succeed in this pure political\n impeachment. STOP IT TODAY!!!''\n ``This is the first I have sent an e-mail to any\n legislator. I implore you to please vote `no' on the\n impeachment proceedings. I don't condone what he has done\n concerning Monica Lewinsky, but I don't feel he deserves to\n be thrown out of office.''\n ``The Republican majority of the Judiciary Committee has\n just flat refused to accept the apology of President\n Clinton.''\n ``This impeachment process is like a plot from George\n Orwell.''\n ``We know he is a person with negligible ethical sense, but\n we are also confident that he has not committed high crimes\n and/or misdemeanors that meet the level of impeachment.\n Please vote to end this nightmare.''\n ``Certainly what he did was awful but it was not a high\n crime or misdemeanor like treason or bribery.''\n ``Who among us has not done things which we are not proud\n of and have asked forgiveness from our family or our God. God\n forgives and it is time to admonish and forgive for the good\n of the country.''\n ``Shame on you for not standing up and stopping this\n shameful exhibition of party politics at the expense of our\n nation.''\n ``If 70% of the American people still approve of the job he\n is doing, I feel that as a representative of the people,\n there is only one way you can vote.''\n ``Clinton's actions were despicable and sophomoric, but\n this prolonged debate on impeachment is patently a rush to\n conviction.''\n ``President Reagan made more significant irreparable errors\n and caused harm to the United States in the Iran-Contra\n affair and he was not punished. President Reagan either lied\n or was the most stupid President our nation ever had.\n President Clinton did not cause harm to the United States.''\n ``I teach at the University of Iowa Law School I known\n there will be tremendous pressure on you from all sides on\n the impeachment vote. I just hope that, as you so often do,\n you stand up to it and vote a conscience that (a) supports\n censure, but (b) opposes impeachment because of its\n inconsistency, the dangerous precedent set by a partisan\n vote, the absence of fact-finding by the Judiciary Committee,\n the resulting impropriety of the House, essentially, serving\n as a mere conduit from the Starr report to the Senate, its\n imposition on the U.S. Senate, and the American people, of\n months of additional focus on issues which neither thinks are\n deserving of more money and time, and, deliberately last, its\n adverse impact on the political system.''\n ``Enough is enough!! I encourage you to work in whatever\n way you can to stop this impeachment movement.''\n ``I think that a yes-vote on impeachment shows more\n irresponsibility than Clinton's actions.''\n ``The President has done a fine job in governing the\n country and I do not feel that the private acts that have\n been focused on have any bearing on his ability to do the\n job.''\n ``I fear that the outcome of this impeachment will be that\n future president will be perceived as having fewer rights\n under the law than ordinary citizens, that in the future\n presidents--and other public officials--will be perceived\n as obstructing justice any time they are deemed\n insufficiently cooperative in their own destruction by\n legal proceedings.''\n ``You're a lame-duck Congress and you're about to impeach\n the president on a party-line vote, over clear public\n opposition. It reflects much worse on you than on Clinton.''\n ``This is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Rather it is a\n collateral, personal matter involving circumstances the\n founders did not contemplate as a Constitutional matter. * *\n * A lawyer cannot allow a client to admit to a crime. The\n President's defense under the law relates to arguments of\n materiality and ambiguity.''\n ``In my line of work [acting] no one thinks this is right.\n * * * The President needs to follow lawyers so he won't be\n jeopardized when he leaves office * * * He's been humiliated\n enough.''\n ``I'm calling as a friend of Hillary and as one in charge\n of providing opposition to you * * * I ask for your\n independent judgment. It is simply clear that this may be a\n Presidential embarrassment but it is not an impeachable\n matter.''\n ``The Republicans are hypocrites. They have Clinton envy.''\n ``The Republicans talk righteousness but their motives are\n partisan.''\n ``Ken Starr is as guilty as Clinton. Maybe more so because\n he makes me wonder if the F.B.I. can be asked to bug the\n President's private life, they can be asked to bug mine * * *\n I never dreamed of entrapment. Now I fear it.\n ``I do not believe in divorce * * * or impeachment.''\n ``Impeachment for lying about sex * * * you gotta be\n kidding!''\n ``If these articles pass, then virtually any future lack of\n presidential candor will be available as an excuse for one\n party in Congress to overturn the previous presidential\n election * * * the President's misconduct was neither a\n genuine attempt to undermine the judicial system, nor a\n corrupt deployment of executive power to unlawful ends.\n Absent serious criminality, presidential deeds that are\n virtually irrelevant to the conduct of the presidency cannot\n amount to ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' warranting removal\n * * * there is no variety of high crime or misdemeanor that\n legally obligates the House to impeach. Impeachment is always\n an exercise of the House's judgment and discretion. The\n matters about which President Clinton allegedly lied are\n trivial with regard to the conduct of the Presidency.\n Impeachment based on the statements involved will legitimate\n every future effort of one party in the House to impeach a\n President for alleged untruthfulness, without regard to\n seriousness or context.''\n ``While the President is clearly a scoundrel as far as his\n personal behavior goes, and he has lied about it to everyone\n including the courts, this simply does not rise to the level\n requiring his removal from office.''\n ``Many of us who voted for Bill Clinton understood that he\n was running for President and not the pope. We all have a\n right to privacy and I feel that everyone deserves privacy\n when it comes to intimate matters (not affecting the\n state).''\n ``If this behavior is impeachable, then the bar has been\n placed so low that voyeuristic, salacious invasions of\n privacy of elected officials will become the commonplace, and\n impeachment hearings the tool of parties disappointed at the\n ballot box.''\n\n neutral\n\n ``Vote your conscience on impeachment. I will support you\n no matter what your vote.''\n ``The issue is simple, Congressman. Make your decision\n solely on what you think you can defend to your kids.''\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf).\n (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the impeachment\nresolution.\n Mr. Speaker, my prayers go out to the servicemen and women and their\nfamilies during this difficult time, including the EA6-B squadrons from\nWhidbey Island, in my district, that are actively participating in\noperation Desert Fox. I am proud of them. They are professionals in\nevery sense. I'm sure their ability to execute their missions will not\nbe affected by our sad deliberations here. They know where their\nsupport comes from.\n President Clinton is a tremendously talented individual. Working with\nhim, we have achieved many fundamental reforms. We succeeded in\ndramatically reforming welfare, and over 3 million people have now\nmoved to productive work. We restored the highway trust fund providing\nrecord investment in safety and infrastructure. And we forced\naccountability on the IRS. All of these things we did together--A\nRepublican majority and Democratic President. I have personally met\nwith the President on vital issues before this nation and I agree we\nmust forgive the President.\n I will vote for the articles of impeachment with a heavy heart but a\nclear conscience. The President has perjured himself before a federal\ngrand jury. The central principle that\n\n[[Page H11930]]\n\ndefines this nation is the rule of law. I cannot walk away from my duty\nto hold the President accountable for his actions. I cannot hold the\nPresident to a lower standard than the federal judges who have been\nimpeached and American citizens who have been imprisoned for the crime\nof perjury.\n The President should follow his own suggestion during the Watergate\ntrial. Bill Clinton said of President Nixon in 1974: ``I think the\npresident should resign and spare the country the agony of this\nimpeachment and removal proceeding.''\n I regrettably urge the President to save this nation further pain and\nresign.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Dreier).\n Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was just talking to my dear friend, the\ngentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) about how uncomfortable this\nsituation is for all of us. Why is it that we are here? We are here\nbecause of our commitment to the rule of law and we are here because a\ngreat deal of courage has been demonstrated by a lot of people.\n President John F. Kennedy wrote a chapter in ``Profiles in Courage''\nabout Senator Edmund G. Ross, who stood against public opinion and did\nwhat he thought was right. And I will tell you, there are an awful lot\nof Members in this Congress who are doing the exact same thing.\n I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and all\nof the members, frankly, on both sides of the aisle of the Committee on\nthe Judiciary for the hard work and effort that they have put into this\nprocess. We are doing this because we subscribe to the Burkean view\nthat your representative owes you not his industry only but his\njudgment as well. And he betrays rather than serves if he sacrifices it\nto your opinion. This is about justice and the rule of law. Vote in\nfavor of these articles.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).\n (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this is truly a troubling and difficult\ntime for America as well as for each and every one of us in this august\nbody. The history of this Nation has clearly shown over the past that\nit is reluctant, as it should be, to remove any individual duly elected\nby a vote of the American citizens, and this is not an easy task. It is\nnot one that is done with any joy.\n But it is my responsibility, along with everyone else in this room,\nand should be done with the material, the evidence and the charges\nbrought to it. Like each of you, I take this very seriously.\n It is not my duty to judge this President nor the fate of his term in\noffice. That is left to the United States Senate. The Committee on the\nJudiciary has brought charges to the full House of serious allegations\nagainst Bill Clinton, which include perjury, obstruction of justice and\nefforts to suborn perjury, serious charges which I have poured over,\nstudied and reviewed and have come to the conclusion that they are\ntrue. They are in violation of the laws of this land, the laws that the\nPresident has sworn to uphold.\n To all of my colleagues, let me say that impeachment is the strongest\nform of censure in the United States. No person is above the law.\n For only the third time in the history of our nation, members of the\nUnited States House of Representatives are being asked to consider\nArticles of Impeachment against a sitting president. For only the\nsecond time in the history of our country, the Judiciary Committee has\nbrought these charges to the full membership of the House of\nRepresentatives to consider and duly vote upon their merits. The\nhistory of our nation clearly demonstrates a reluctance, as it should,\nto remove any individual duly elected by the citizens of America.\n This is not an easy task. It is not done with any joy--but it is done\nwith the knowledge that it is the responsibility of the United States\nHouse of Representatives to carry out the duties outlined by the\nframers of our Constitution. It is my responsibility, along with my\ncolleagues, to decide what should be done with the material and\nevidence brought to it. I take this responsibility seriously: I take it\nwith the full knowledge that our actions, as well as those alleged of\nour President, will be in the history books of our nation for hundreds\nof years.\n It is not my job to judge the President; the framers of our\nConstitution gave that role to the United States Senate. It is not my\nduty to ultimately decide the fate of this President's term in office;\nthat, too, is the obligation of the United States Senate. It is\nhowever, my duty and responsibility to determine (1) if the charges\nbrought before this body constitute impeachable offenses and (2) if\nsufficient evidence exists to warrant bringing the President to stand\ntrial in the Senate on those charges.\n The Judiciary Committee has brought to the full House serious\nallegations against President Bill Clinton. They are allegations which\ninclude perjury, obstruction of justice, and efforts to suborn perjury\non the President's part. Such actions are not simply ``personal\nwrongs.'' They are in violation of the laws of this land, the laws that\nthe President has sworn to uphold.\n President Clinton has talked numerous times about the average\nAmerican who works hard and plays by the rules. That is what this\nimpeachment proceeding is about. In the United States, no person is\nabove the law. Not the President, not myself, not the people who send\nus here. No one is above the law.\n I truly hate the idea of putting this country and its citizens\nthrough an impeachment proceeding. I know that the process distracts us\nfrom other duties. I know that casting a vote for impeachment is a\nserious and somber matter. However, the Constitution requires a\nspecific course of action when charges like this are made and brought\nbefore the House of Representatives. Therefore, I must follow through\nwith this because I believe it is the right thing to do.\n Unfortunately, accusations of partisanship have clouded this process.\nBut, clearly, the rule of law in our country is more important than any\npolitical party or any single individual, including the President of\nthe United States.\n Moreover, I recognize that impeachment is never politically popular.\nBut the day I let polls and popularity overrule my judgement and the\nway I vote is the day I leave Congress. Over 30 years ago, another\nPresident wrote a book titled ``Profiles in Courage'' about eight\nmembers of the Senate who didn't do the ``politically popular thing.''\nThe New York Times called his book ``A thoughtful and persuasive book\nabout political integrity.'' Political integrity must win over\npolitical popularity. Over 130 years ago, President Abraham Lincoln\ncertainly didn't do the ``politically popular thing'' when he signed\nthe emancipation proclamation, but he did what was right and just for\nAmerica.\n\n I am drawn to a quote that was made long ago by William Penn, who\nsaid: ``Right is right, even if everyone is against it. Wrong is wrong,\neven if every one is for it.'' And, just an importantly, my Mother\nalways told me: ``The truth is the truth, a lie is a lie, and not for\nlong do they exist side by side.'' Justice, like integrity, must always\ntake precedence over popularity.\n The House Judiciary Committee has brought four Articles of\nImpeachment against Bill Clinton for the full House to decide. And\nthroughout the course of this process I have judiciously and thoroughly\nreviewed all of the available evidence, researched the law, studied the\nConstitution, talked to legal scholars, attorneys and judges, and most\nimportantly, listened to the constituents of the Second Congressional\nDistrict of Nevada. Only after a great deal of reflection and\nthoughtful deliberation have I concluded that the following is the\nright course of action for the people I represent, the State of Nevada\nand the future of America:\n I will vote for Article 1 of the Impeachment Resolution, because\nthere is sufficient evidence to believe that President Bill Clinton\nwillfully provided false and misleading testimony to the grand jury and\nthe United States Congress. And that his perjury undermined the\nintegrity of the office of the President, brought disrepute on the\nPresidency, betrayed his trust as President, and subverted the rule of\nlaw and justice of the American people; and,\n I will vote for Article 3 of the Impeachment Resolution, because the\nevidence is sufficient to conclude that President Bill Clinton\nknowingly and wrongly encouraged witnesses to give false and misleading\ntestimony, attempted to secure employment for a witness in order to\nprevent the truthful testimony of that witness, engaged in and\nsupported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed by a\nfederal court. Through his conduct, President Bill Clinton attempted to\nobstruct justice in a manner subversive to the rule of law that has\nbrought disrepute on the Presidency and undermined the integrity of his\noffice; and,\n I will vote for Article 4 of the Impeachment Resolution, because\nthere is substantial evidence that President Bill Clinton misused and\nabused his office in failing to respond, and by making false and\nmisleading sworn statements in response to written requests as part of\nan authorized inquiry by the Congress of the United States. And that\nhis misuse and abuse of his office and power has brought disrepute of\nthe Presidency, betrayed his trust as President, subverted the rule of\nlaw and justice, all to the manifest injury to the people of the United\nStates; however,\n\n[[Page H11931]]\n\n I will not support, nor vote for Article 2 of the Impeachment\nResolution, simply because I do not believe that the false and\nmisleading testimony of President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones\nlawsuit constitutes an impeachable offense as defined by the\nConstitution.\n The rule of law is paramount in America. Each and every one of us\nmust abide by and play by the rules. It is my belief that there is\nsufficient evidence that clearly demonstrates this President has not.\nTherefore, I conclude, reluctantly that these charges should be\nconsidered by the United State Senate.\n This vote has not been an easy decision on my part. But, I was not\nelected to the United States House of Representatives to make the easy\ndecision. However difficult this decision is, it is a vote I cast as a\nmatter of conscience in the belief that no person is above the rule of\nlaw in our nation.\n Mr SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nMichigan (Mr. Camp).\n (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, under our Constitution, it is our duty and\nsolemn task to examine this matter in a way that will ultimately lead\nto the truth. After reviewing the evidence, I will vote in favor of\nimpeachment.\n Lying under oath, obstruction of justice and abuse of office are all\nvery serious acts that should not and cannot be ignored. It is my firm\nbelief the President has undermined the integrity of his office and\nbrought dishonor and disrepute on the Presidency of the United States.\nHe has denied Congress and, most importantly, the American people an\nopporutinty to reach the truth. The truth is the foundation of our\nlegal system. This foundation has been eroded by the President and his\nactions, and my conscience does not allow me to play a role in the\ncontinued deterioration of this system.\n This vote is between what is right and what is wrong. I cannot send a\nmessage to our children that would tell them it is OK to lie even if\nyou are the President of the United States.\n Mr. Speaker, we have been given the solemn task of conducting\nimpeachment hearings regarding the conduct of President Clinton. It has\nbeen a difficult process. However, under our Constitution, it is our\nduty and solemn task to examine this matter in a way that would\nultimately lead us to the truth.\n After reviewing all the public statements and legal documents, I will\nvote in a favor of impeachment. Lying under oath, obstruction of\njustice and abuse of office are all very serious acts that should not\nand cannot be ignored. It is my firm belief the President has\nundermined the integrity of his office and brought dishonor and\ndisrepute on the Presidency of the United States of America.\n He as denied a committee of the United States Congress, the House of\nRepresentatives and most importantly the American people, an\nopportunity to reach the truth. The truth is the foundation of our\ngreat legal system. This foundation has been eroded by the action of\nour President and my conscience does not allow me to play a role in the\ncontinued deterioration of this system.\n We cannot ignore the facts of this difficult case. By doing so, we\nwould set a dangerous precedent for generations to come. This vote is\nbetween what is right and what is wrong. I cannot send a message to our\nchildren that would tell them it's ok to lie if you are the President\nof the United States. This would not be fair for their future or the\nfuture of our great country.\n This is a trying time for our Nation but it is one that was\nenvisioned by our Founding Fathers. It is my hope this entire process\nwill soon be resolved and the strength of our Constitution and the rule\nof law will prevail in the final outcome.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Sherman).\n (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in 1973, the House Committee on the\nJudiciary concluded that it could not impeach Richard Nixon for tax\nperjury, even though Nixon fraudulently signed this 1969 tax return\nunder penalty of perjury. It then established a precedent, with then\nCongressman Trent Lott concurring, that impeachment of the President is\nnot warranted except for misconduct dangerous to the constitutional\nsystem.\n Some have erroneously claimed that the committee lacked sufficient\nfactual evidence. I have distributed to all Members an exhaustive\nanalysis of the 1974 hearings. The reason the Committee on the\nJudiciary rejected the tax article of impeachment against Nixon was set\nforth in 1975 by the very member of the House Committee on the\nJudiciary who authored the tax article. And he said, most opponents of\nthe tax article felt that the willful tax evasion did not rise to a\nlevel of an impeachable offense requiring the removal of the President.\n Mr. Speaker, I would call this House a kangaroo court but that would\nbe an insult to marsupials everywhere.\n Mr. Speaker, let me address the two issues that are on the minds of\nAmericans today.\n As to our action in Iraq, the President is doing the right thing, at\nthe right time, for the right reasons. That is why taking action at\nthis time is supported by the Republican Secretary of Defense, by the\nJoint Chiefs of Staff, and the British Prime Minister--none of whom\nwould risk the lives of American and British troops for the President's\npolitical purposes.\n Yesterday some extremists, blinded by partisanship, made statements\nimpugning the President's motives--statements which unintentionally\ngave aid and comfort to the enemy. I am pleased that some have\napologized for, or have withdrawn, their unfounded insinuations.\n As to these Articles of Impeachment, the partisan House majority is\ndoing the wrong thing, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.\n This House is doing the wrong thing because the Majority is ignoring\nthe precedent established in the Nixon Impeachment Hearings.\n In 1974 the House Judiciary Committee concluded that while there were\nother reasons to impeach Richard Nixon, it could not impeach him for\ntax perjury--even though he fraudulently signed this 1969 tax return\nunder penalty of perjury. It reached this conclusion based on the\ncorrect legal principle, which it established as precedent. That\nprinciple is: The impeachment of the President is not warranted except\nfor misconduct dangerous to the system of government established by the\nConstitution.\n Some have claimed that in 1974 the Judiciary Committee lacked\nsufficient factual evidence of Richard Nixon's tax perjury--but this is\nnot the case. I have reviewed the record of the 1974 hearings, and\nstatements made in 1975, and described these in a five page letter\ndistributed to all Members this morning--and I will make that letter\npart of these remarks.\n The reason the Judiciary Committee rejected the Tax Article of\nImpeachment against Richard Nixon was set forth in 1975 in the\nGeorgetown Law Journal where Edward Mezvinsky, the very member of the\nJudiciary Committee who authored the Tax Article of Impeachment against\nNixon wrote: ``Most opponents of the tax article felt that willful tax\nevasion did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense requiring\nthe removal of the President.''\n The House Majority has required us to address impeachment at the\nwrong time. The next week is critical for American diplomacy to secure\ninternational support for our efforts against Iraq, so that we can get\nthe landing rights our troops need. The Republican Majority insists\nthat we deal with this matter now because they want to use raw\npolitical power to insure what they call a matter of conscience is\ndetermined by lame duck consciences.\n\n Now I understand their partisan desire to achieve a political result\nbefore the new Congress takes over on January 3. But what I don't\nunderstand is this: Why didn't we adjourn today and convene on December\n29th--and thereby give our diplomacy the time it needs to line-up\nallies?\n And the House Majority is doing all this for the wrong reasons.\n The majority promised this matter would be decided on the merits,\naccording to conscience. But we all know Colleagues who have had one\narm twisted to affect their vote on impeachment, and the other arm\ntwisted to ensure their silence about the twisting of the first arm.\n And while we are told this is a matter of conscience, many of us are\ndenied the opportunity to express our conscience, because we are not\nbeing allowed to vote on a resolution of censure.\n It is argued that we cannot constitutionally censure the President.\nBut in 1834 a U.S. Senate censured President Jackson. That Senate was\ncomprised of individuals who had been actively involved in the process\nof ratifying our constitution. The men and women who lived through the\nadoption of our Constitution never doubted for a moment that it was\nconstitutional for either House to censure a President.\n This Majority ignores the standards of impeachable offenses developed\nin the 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings. This Majority, through its\ntiming of these hearings, places partisanship over the need to use\ndiplomacy to secure landing rights necessary to minimize American\ncasualties. And this Majority denies Members the right to vote for\ncensure, as their consciences dictate.\n\n[[Page H11932]]\n\n Mr. Speaker, I would call this House a kangaroo court, but that would\nbe an insult to marsupials everywhere.\n\n December 17, 1998.\n\n News Flash 1974: Judiciary Determined Lying Under Oath In Private\n Matter is Not Impeachable--a Review of Nixon Tax Perjury Article\n\n Dear Colleague:\n\n Summary\n\n In 1974 the Judicary Committee established a precedent that\n a crime committed in private life (i.e., Richard Nixon's tax\n fraud) does not warrant the impeachment of the President.\n 1969 tax fraud, the Committee was swayed principally by the\n legal principles defining an impeachable offense, not by the\n lack of factual evidence against Richard Nixon.\n The crimes which the Judicary Committee found did not\n warrant the impeachment of President Nixon are virtually\n identifical to the two perjury charges against President\n Clinton.\n\n Detailed Analysis\n\n President Nixon knowingly filed a 1969 tax return which\n fradulently claimed that he had donated pre-presidential\n papers before the date Congress eliminated the charitable tax\n deduction for such donations. President Nixon, knowing his\n return was false as to this $576,000 deduction, signed his\n name under the words: ``Under penalty of perjury, I declare\n that I have examined this return, including accompanying\n schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and\n belief it is true, correct and complete.''\n In July 1974 Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), a Member of the House\n Judiciary Committee, introduced an Article of Impeachment\n alleging that President Nixon had signed ``Under penalty of\n perjury'' a tax return which Nixon knew was false. While\n Mezvinsky argued that filing the tax return was an abuse of\n public power because Nixon knew his red-flag $576,000\n deduction would not trigger an audit because he was\n President. However, most Committee members believed that\n Nixon's false tax return was a ``personal,'' non-governmental\n crime, and thus did not warrant the impeachment of the\n President.\n The Judiciary Committee voted 26 to 12 against impeaching\n Nixon for his false tax return.\n Technically, Nixon committed ``tax fraud'' not ``perjury''\n and was subject to prosecution under the Internal Revenue\n Code. Yet Nixon's crime (covered by his pardon) was almost\n identical to the perjury of which Clinton is accused (and is\n referred to here as ``tax perjury'')\n 1. Nixon signed a document under the words ``Under penalty\n of perjury, I declare * * *.''\n 2. He presented false information to a federal agency.\n 3. Nixon lied when he had a legal obligation, enforceable\n by federal felony statutes, to tell the truth.\n 4. Nixon's false statements related to a private matter--\n his personal liability for federal taxes. (Clinton testified\n regarding his personal liability to Paula Jones.)\n 5. Nixon ignored the ``rule of law'' and his legal\n obligation to tell the truth.\n Some have argued that the Judiciary Committee did not pass\n a Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Nixon only\n because the facts were unclear. A review of the Committee\n Report shows that some members thought the factual evidence\n against Nixon was weak, while other Members thought that a\n criminal act in the conduct of personal affairs did not\n warrant the impeachment of the President. (See attached\n excerpt.)\n Most of the Members of the Judiciary Committee did not\n speak on the record on the Tax Perjury Article. So how are we\n to know the reason for their vote and the precedent the 26 to\n 12 vote established\n The person most aware of the reasoning of the Committee\n Members regarding the Article is its author Edward Mezvinsky\n (D-IA), who lobbied his colleagues on both side of the aisle\n to get his Article adopted. I called Mr. Mezvinsky yesterday\n and talked with him at length about his efforts in 1974 to\n convince his colleagues to vote for his Article. He told me\n that the clear majority of those who voted against his\n Article did so because they concluded that a crime committed\n in private life, which did not relate to an abuse of\n Presidential power and was not as heinous as murder or rape,\n did not warrant the impeachment of a President.\n Mr. Mezvinsky is a Democrat. Is he remembering or\n interpreting the vote on his 1974 Article of Impeachment to\n establish a precedent favorable to our current Democratic\n President? Has his memory faded with time over the last 24\n years?\n Fortunately, in 1975 Mezvinsky wrote an article for the\n Georgetown Law Journal describing the thought process of his\n colleagues and providing a contemporaneous statement of the\n legal conclusions reached in 1974 by the Judiciary Committee.\n Mr. Mezvinsky first explains the staff guidance the\n Committee received, and then the conclusion of the Members of\n the Committee, which followed that guidance. ``The staff\n nevertheless injected a requirement of substantiality into\n the impeachment formula: to constitute an impeachable\n offense, presidential conduct must be `seriously incompatible\n with either the constitutional form and principles of our\n government or the proper performance of constitutional duties\n of the presidential office.' [Staff of the Impeachment\n Inquiry, House Comm. On the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess.,\n Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 26-27\n (Comm. Print 1974).]''\n\n * * * * *\n\n ``Most opponents of the Tax Article felt that willful tax\n evasion did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense\n requiring removal of the President.''--Edward Mezvinsky,\n Georgetown Law Journal, 1975, Volume 63: 1071 at pages 1078-\n 1079.\n The record on the Nixon impeachment process further\n supports the conclusion that impeachment of a President is\n warranted only for an offense against our very system, an\n offense subversive of the government itself.\n A memorandum setting forth the views of certain Republican\n Members (including current Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott)\n of the Judiciary Committee in 1974 similarly emphasized the\n necessarily serious and public character of any alleged\n offense: ``It is not a fair summary . . . to say that the\n Framers were principally concerned with reaching a course of\n conduct, whether or not criminal, generally inconsistent with\n the proper and effective exercise of the office of the\n presidency. They were concerned with preserving the\n government from being overthrown by the treachery or\n corruption of one man. . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon\n this constitutional history, that the Framers of the United\n States Constitution intended that the President should be\n removable by the legislative branch only for serious\n misconduct dangerous to the system of government established\n by the Constitution.'' [Nixon Report at 364-365 (Minority\n Views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, Dennis,\n Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti and Latta) (final emphasis\n added).]\n\n Conclusion\n\n A 1975 law journal article tells the story. In 1974 a\n Judiciary Committee, dominated by Democrats, was confronted\n with a President who had lied on a tax return signed ``under\n penalty of perjury.'' That crime dishonored President Nixon,\n undermined respect for law, and called into doubt Mr. Nixon's\n credibility on public matters. However the Committee applied\n the following formula: seriously incompatible with either the\n constitutional form and principles of our government or the\n proper performance of constitutional duties of the\n presidential office.\n That same standard should be applied to President Clinton.\n The first two articles allege that President Clinton lied\n ``under penalty of perjury'' and through that action\n undermined respect for law, and his own credibility and\n honor. Yet President Clinton's actions do not warrant the\n impeachment of a President under the standards formulated by\n the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and applied by most Committee\n Members in rejecting the Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment\n against Richard Nixon.\n I urge you to follow the standard enunciated and followed\n by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and reject the first two\n Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton. I hope you\n will also join me in voting against the third and fourth\n Articles as well.\n Very truly yours,\n Brad Sherman.\n\nExcerpts From Hearings of the House Judiciary Committee, July 1974, on\n an Article of Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, Dealing With Tax Fraud/\n Tax Perjury\n\n Mr. Railsback (R-IL)--I suggest that there is a serious\n question as to whether something involving his personal tax\n liability has anything to do with his conduct of the office\n of the President. (Pg. 524).\n Mr. Hogan (R-MD)--The staff report on grounds for\n impeachment makes clear, and I am quoting: ``As a technical\n term high crimes signified a crime against the system of\n government, not merely a serious crime. This element of\n injury to the commonwealth, that is, to the state itself and\n the Constitution, was historically the criteria for\n distinguishing a high crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary\n one.'' (Pg. 541)\n Mr. Mayne (R-IA)--. . . even if criminal fraud had been\n proved, then we would still have the question whether its a\n high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the\n Constitution, because that is why we are here, ladies and\n gentlemen, to determine whether the President should be\n impeached, not to comb through every minute detail of his\n personal taxes for the past six years, raking up every\n possible minutia which could prejudice the President on\n national television. (Pg. 545)\n Mr. Waldie (D-CA)--I speak against this article because of\n my theory that the impeachment process is a process designed\n to redefine Presidential powers in cases where there has been\n enormous abuse of those powers . . . And though I find the\n conduct of the President in these instances to have been\n shabby, to have been unacceptable, and to have been\n disgraceful even, I do not find a presidential power that has\n been so grossly abused that . . . [it is] . . . sufficient to\n warrant impeachment. (Pg. 548)\n Mr. Thornton (D-AR)--I think it is apparent that in this\n area there has been a breach of faith with the American\n people with regard to incorrect income tax returns . . . But\n it is my view that these charges may be reached in due course\n in the regular process of the law.\n This committee is not a tax fraud court, nor a criminal\n court, nor should it endeavor to be one. Our charge is full\n and serious enough, in determining whether high crimes and\n misdemeanors affecting the security of our system of\n government must be brought\n\n[[Page H11933]]\n\n to the attention of the full House . . . (Pg. 549)\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman in\nOregon (Ms. Hooley).\n (Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend her remarks.)\n Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I am sick at heart as I stand\nbefore this body today. I believe in this institution of self-\ngovernment and that good people can disagree on issues and that we must\nrespect that disagreement.\n But I believe in order to have legitimate self-government that the\nprocess of making institution's decisions must be fair, and I am\nfrustrated with a process that is not fair and that will not allow some\nof us to vote our conscience, a vote on censure.\n Under the guise of rebuilding the public trust, this body is tearing\nit down.\n The vast majority of Americans are also frustrated by the process.\nThey want this to be over with and they have expressed their support\nfor a bipartisan solution, a vote on censure. What they do not want is\nfor us to make a decision of this historical magnitude purely on a\npartisan basis.\n\n {time} 2130\n\n It is very clear to me that the President's actions were wrong. But I\ndo not believe that they rise to the level of crimes against the state\nthat the Constitution requires in order to impeach. We are not voting\nto protect our democracy from clear abuses of power. We are voting on\nmisleading and lying statements relating to a private matter. It is\nwrong. It is reprehensible. But it is not impeachable.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Poshard).\n (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, as a young father, I learned something\nabout raising my children. I learned that there had to be rules and the\nrules had to be enforced and if my children chose to break the rules,\nthey had to be allowed to experience the consequences of their choices.\nI did my children no favor if I allowed them to escape those\nconsequences.\n But I learned some other things, things that were just as important\nas enforcing the rules to the letter. I learned that if a child\ndisobeys and the punishment is so much more severe than the offense\nthat we make an enemy out of that child. We may win the power struggle\nbut everything we hope that child will learn by enforcing the rules\nwith such severity will be lost.\n This principle never changes, even among adults. That is why we need\na censure here with appropriate punishment. The Nation knows that we\nhave overreached in this situation. If we have appropriate punishment,\nwe can learn, we can maintain respect and we can move on as friends and\nnot enemies.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Thomas).\n (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do think at this point we perhaps need to\ngo back to the basics. I keep hearing that somehow we are going to\nabrogate a vote.\n What we have before us are four articles. The question is whether or\nnot the facts examined by the Committee on the Judiciary meet the\narticles. I think anyone who looks at the information will clearly\nreach the conclusion that, in fact, the facts are not friendly.\n The question is, do oaths mean something? I think they do. Should\noaths mean something to the most powerful person in the United States?\nI think they should.\n The President had one opportunity not to lie. He had a second\nopportunity not to obstruct justice. He had a third opportunity. At any\nnumber of turns, the President of the United States would not have\nrequired us to be in the position we are in tonight.\n The question is simply, do the facts rise to the articles? We do not\nremove him. We simply agree.\n Mr. Speaker, the matter before us is not about a private matter as\nmost of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been alleging\nfor eleven months and throughout the debate today. This debate concerns\nthey very foundation of our system of government.\n I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about what we are doing\nin this hallowed chamber. We have been charged by the American people,\nour constituents, to serve to the best of our abilities swear to uphold\nthe Constitution. It is our duty to defend the laws and the rule of law\nand this is what we are debating here today.\n The House Judiciary Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman\nHenry Hyde, reviewed 60,000 pages of sworn testimony, grand jury\ntranscripts, depositions, statements, affidavits as well as video and\naudio tapes that they used to build a case and provide ample evidence\nfor four Articles of Impeachment. I have read this report and agree\nwith their findings.\n The Framers provide us with a guide, the Constitution. The Judiciary\nCommittee found that the President has indeed lied under oath,\nobstructed justice and abused the powers of his office. Impeachment is\nthe Constitutional remedy.\n The rule of law is paramount to our system of government. Should the\nPresident of he United States be exempt from this standard? Should he\nbe granted special treatment? Lying under oath lands other Americans in\njail. The President is not above the law.\n William Jefferson Clinton has twice taken the oath of Office of\nPresident of the United States where he swore to faithfully execute the\noffice and to the best of his ability ``preserve, protect and defend\nthe Constitution of the United States.'' President Clinton has broken\nthis solemn oath.\n If the House indeed passes one or several Articles of Impeachment to\nthe Senate, I renew my call to President Clinton to resign for the good\nof the country.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).\n (Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with strong evidence\nthat the President lied after swearing an oath to tell the truth. We\nhave only one legitimate remedy in front of us, impeachment. So with\ngreat remorse, I will vote in favor of impeachment.\n Some people have said that impeaching the President is an extremist\nor radical position. To those people I must ask, is holding the\nPresident accountable for his actions extremist? Is expecting the\nPresident to tell the truth radical?\n I submit to this House that the rational position and the moderate\nposition is to hold the President of the United States as we would any\nother American accountable to the law. Impeaching the President is\nsomething none of us should take lightly. However, neither should we\nshirk our duty to uphold the laws of our country and hold the President\naccountable for violating those laws and abusing his powers.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).\n (Mr. SUNUNU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the\nconstitutional principle that every American is guaranteed equal\nprotection under the laws of the United States.\n As our Nation's chief executive, the President is charged to defend\nthe Constitution and ensure a legal system that is untainted by\nperjury, by obstruction, and by witness tampering. These are crimes\nagainst the state and they strike at the heart of our judicial system\nand undermine its essential integrity.\n To defer accountability for these actions would be to hold the single\nindividual above the law and outside the boundaries of our judicial\nsystem. Some Members who wish to avoid casting a vote on impeachment\nremind us that the President would still be subject to criminal\nprosecution and they have included this reference in a meaningless\ncensure resolution.\n But this raises the troubling question, how can an individual that\nhas committed an act that warrants a prison term be fit to serve as\npresident? Others have argued that we should compromise principles in\nthis case. But I say, if we cannot stand on principle in matters of\ntruthful testimony, when will we ever stand on principle?\n\n[[Page H11934]]\n\n In his actions, the President has undermined his oath of office and\nundermined the rule of law. I will support the articles of impeachment.\n I rise today before my colleagues, mindful of the difficult task\nbefore us and the strong emotions that mark the differences in opinion\nregarding the grave and solemn matter of Impeachment.\n Two hundred and twenty-two years ago our country was founded upon the\nfundamental principle that ``all men are created equal,'' and,\ntherefore, that no individual is above the law. In applying our\nNation's laws equally to all citizens, the integrity of the judicial\nsystem is protected by the requirement that all witnesses swear an oath\nto testify truthfully and fully before the Court.\n As our Nation's chief executive, the President is charged to\n``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United\nStates,'' the document which establishes this framework of justice for\nall. He carries a unique responsibility to protect the preeminent\nrights granted by our Constitution including the guarantee to a fair\ntrial before a jury of one's peers and a legal system untainted by the\ncorrupting influences of perjury, obstruction, or witness tampering.\nThese very crimes, of which President William Jefferson Clinton now\nstands accused, strike at the heart of our judicial system and\nundermine its essential integrity.\n Against these allegations and during the past eleven months, the\nPresident has been given every opportunity to deal fairly and honestly\nwith the American people and with the Courts of the United States. In\npublic statements, in a sworn deposition, in grand jury testimony, and\nin written responses to the House Judiciary Committee, he has been\ncalled upon to provide a full and truthful account of facts pertaining\nto charges of obstruction of justice, tampering with grand jury\nwitnesses, and perjury. He has failed at every turn. Instead, the\nPresident has lied to the American people, lied to the Federal Court,\nand lied to a grand jury about key material facts. Moreover, the\nPresident has offered no information or testimony contradicting the\nevidence of these crimes outlined in the Independent Counsel's\nImpeachment Referral and Judiciary Committee Report.\n And so we have before us, the matter of the Impeachment of our\nPresident. The constitutional standard for impeachment of ``high crimes\nand misdemeanors'' is a broad one by design. In the Federalist Papers,\nit is described in greatest detail by Alexander Hamilton, writing that\n``The subject of [impeachments] jurisdictions are those offenses which\nproceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the\nabuse or violation of some public trust.'' Protecting the integrity of\ngovernment and ensuring accountability of public officials were of\nparamount concern.\n Given the breadth and weight of documented evidence against the\nPresident on the substantive issues before the House, I am compelled to\nvote in favor of the Articles of Impeachment presented here today. The\nevidence documented in the Impeachment Referral and Judiciary Committee\nReport describes an extensive pattern of behavior designed to obstruct\njustice and mislead federal prosecutors. The President has displayed\nparticular contempt for our legal system and the American people in\nseveral specific areas:\n In his deposition and testimony in the case of Jones v. Clinton, the\nPresident demonstrated a contempt for the judicial system by committing\nperjury and allowing a false affidavit to be entered into the court\nrecord.\n In his testimony before a federal grand jury, the President committed\nperjury.\n With full knowledge that subpoenas for physical evidence had been\nissued, the President participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice\nby encouraging witnesses to hide evidence.\n After he knowingly provide false testimony before the court, and\nidentified Ms. Betty Currie as a corroborating witness, the President\nattempted to intimidate her into providing false testimony.\n The President repeatedly and unequivocally lied to the American\nPeople about matters under investigation by the Office of the\nIndependent Counsel.\n These acts are not merely technical violations of Federal Law; they\ndemonstrate a broad and consistent pattern of behavior designed to\ncorrupt our system of due process. To withhold or delay swift and\nappropriate action would be to hold a single individual above the law;\nand, herein lies the tragic precedent which a vote against impeachment\ncreates. A vote against impeachment holds a single individual to a\nunique standard, above all other citizens, and outside the boundaries\nof our judicial system.\n Some members who wish to avoid casting a vote for impeachment remind\nus that the President will still remain subject to criminal indictment.\nIn fact, they have included reference to such prosecution in a\nmeaningless ``censure'' resolution offered before the Judiciary\nCommittee. This serves only to raise the troubling question: How can an\nindividual who has committed a crime that may warrant a prison term be\nfit to continue to serve as President? To allow a public official to\ncommit a series of felonies with impunity would constitute a violation\nof my own oath as a Member of Congress to uphold the Constitution.\nMoreover, it would send a clear and unacceptable message that each\nindividual is entitled to their own personal interpretation of when it\nis acceptable to lie under oath and whether obstruction of justice or\nintimidating witnesses is appropriate behavior.\n Some have also made a dangerous argument that principles should be\ncompromised in this case due to the nature of the underlying subject\nmatter. But, if we cannot stand behind principle on matters of truthful\ntestimony before our Courts, then when will we ever stand behind\nprinciple? As was stated so eloquently earlier today: the integrity of\nour democracy is ensured when even the most powerful public officials\ntremble before the law. And if we choose to establish a new standard\nthat defers accountability for felonies committed to avoid personal\nembarrassment, then those who argue against impeachment should come\nforward with a list of all topics and circumstances under which\nAmerica's elected Chief Executive may corrupt the judicial process,\nobstruct justice, and intimidate grand jury witnesses. The seven months\nof delay caused by the President's obstruction, and three months of\nCommittee hearings have been difficult and unpleasant for every\nAmerican. Creating a vague list of Presidential exceptions for perjury\nor obstruction of justice, however, may doom us to repeat this\nunsettling period in our Nation's history should future Presidents use\nPresident Clinton's unlawful actions to justify their own.\n Finally, what are the consequences for 270 million Americans who are\nstill expected to respect the principles of due process and\ntruthfulness under oath? No censure resolution or public criticism of\nthe President can ever justify the fact that he would remain in office\nafter committing acts for which other Americans would be subject to\nimmediate prosecution--and for which over 100 Americans are currently\nimprisoned. In fact, many of the federal judges who have been impeached\nwere removed from office specifically for committing perjury. What\nremains of the Constitution's delicate system of checks and balances\nwhen we decide to hold the executive branch to a different standard\nthan the judicial branch?\n Given that the President has offered no contradiction of the facts\npresented within the Independent Counsel's Impeachment Referral and the\nJudicial Committee Report, it is fair to conclude that each of their\nallegations are true. The weight of the evidence supports the finding\nthat the President of the United States committed not one, but a series\nof felonies, in an attempt to conceal evidence and information from\nfederal investigators. The President has undermined the judicial\nprocess, shown contempt for judges and officers of the court, and\nfailed egregiously to uphold his oath of office. The President should\nbe impeached. Those who will vote to exonerate a President who has\nshown such contempt for our judicial system either discard the\nevidentiary record, or willingly betray their own oath to uphold the\nConstitution of the United States.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTennessee (Mr. Ford).\n Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the left here do not\nlike this President or his policies. But their feelings about him or\nwhat he stands for are irrelevant this evening, for impeachment has\nstandards, for as Richard Davis, who testified before the committee so\neloquently said, cases cannot be brought simply to make a point, to\nexpress a sense of moral outrage.\n Kat Sunstate from the University of Chicago said so eloquently,\nimpeachment is reserved for a narrow category of cases, for this case\ndoes not rise to that standard.\n I intend to vote against impeachment because as sinful and as stupid\nas the President's conduct was, it is not impeachable. But I will not\nget that chance. I will not get the chance to vote for censure because\nmy colleagues over here do not believe we ought to have that chance.\n Finally, Mr. Speaker, my prayers go to Mr. Livingston and his family\nas they seek to heal and rebuild. I say to my friends in all of this\nCongress, when is this going to end? When is this going to end? God\nhelp this Congress. When will we find our dignity, our vision, and our\nwisdom? Give us a vote on censure. Give America the vote they want on\ncensure. This is not impeachable. It is stupid. It is sinful. It\ndeserves censure.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Reyes).\n (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n\n[[Page H11935]]\n\n Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the articles of\nimpeachment. I have had the occasion to walk back and forth to this\nCapitol building several times today. On one of those occasions, I\nremembered the words of the Speaker designate, the gentleman from\nLouisiana (Mr. Livingston), when he said that he was a sinful, regular\nperson.\n I am grateful that regular people get an opportunity to serve in this\nHouse because regular people all across America tonight have been very\nclear and very vocal about the issue of impeachment. Regular people\nprefer census over impeachment. And yes, Mr. Speaker, regular people\nwant regular business conducted in this House, not vindictive partisan\npolitics.\n Regular people are disgusted that we would be involved in this\nprocess at a time when this Nation's young men and women are engaged in\nits national defense.\n As a regular person myself, as a veteran, as an American, I am\nprofoundly disappointed at what we have done here today. History will\nultimately be our judge. And while I know and understand the concept\nthat majority rules, I have also lived long enough to take comfort in\nthe fact that majorities that are unfair do not last. My friends, from\nwhere I am standing, the clock is ticking.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the articles of\nimpeachment.\n I have had the occasion to walk back and forth to this capitol\nbuilding several times today. On one of those occasions I remembered\nthe words of Speaker Designate Livingston that he was ``simply a\nregular person.''\n I am grateful that regular people get an opportunity to serve in this\nHouse. Regular people all across America have been very clear and very\nvocal about the issue of impeachment. Regular people prefer censure\nover impeachment. And Mr. Speaker, regular people want regular business\nconducted * * * not vindictive partisan politics. Regular people are\ndisgusted that we would be involved in this process at a time when this\nnations young men and women are engaged in its national defense half a\nworld away. As a regular person, a Veteran, an American * * * I am\nprofoundly disappointed in what we have done here today.\n History will be our ultimate judge and while I know and understand\nthe concept of majority rules * * * I have lived long enough to take\ncomfort in the fact that majorities that are unfair don't last * * * My\nfriends from where I stand the clock is ticking.\n Like you, I am very troubled by the President's conduct. The\nPresident himself has acknowledged a serious lapse of judgment\nconcerning this matter. The President's actions were wrong. It was\nwrong for him to make false statements concerning his reprehensible\nconduct with a subordinate. And it was wrong for him to take steps to\ndelay the discovery of the truth.\n The question is: does this conduct rise to level of an impeachable\noffense? After a careful review of the testimony before the Judiciary\nCommittee and the report of the Committee about its findings, I am\nopposed to impeaching President Clinton. Let me tell you why I reached\nthat conclusion.\n I found arguments presented in the Dissenting Views of the\nCommittee's report convincing as it relates to the conditions under\nwhich impeachment is warranted: ``Impeachment is only warranted for\nconduct that constitutes `Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and\nMisdemeanors' as set forth in Article II, Section 4 of the\nConstitution. As virtually all constitutional scholars have noted,\nthere is an important distinction between criminal and impeachable\noffenses--impeachment serves to protect the nation, not to punish the\nwrongdoer * * * the remedy of impeachment should be reserved for\negregious abuses of presidential authority, rather than misconduct\nunrelated to public office. It is also clear that the President is\nsubject to civil and criminal punishment independently of the\nimpeachment process. The constitutional process of impeachment should\nnot, therefore, be used for punitive purposes.''\n On November 6, 1998, 430 Constitutional law professors wrote: ``Did\nPresident Clinton commit `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' warranting\nimpeachment under the Constitution? We believe that the misconduct\nalleged in the report of the Independent Counsel does not cross that\nthreshold.'' One week earlier, more than 400 historians issued a joint\nstatement warning that ``because impeachment has traditionally been\nreserved for high crimes and misdemeanors in the exercise of executive\npower, impeachment of President Clinton based on the facts alleged in\nthe [Independent Counsel's] referral would set a dangerous precedent.''\n I also agree with the view that ``the Framers of the Constitution\nintended that the impeachment language they employed should reflect the\ngrave misconduct that so injures or abuses our constitutional\ninstitutions and form of government as to justify impeachment.''\nFinally, I agree with the 1974 Watergate Staff Report, cited in the\nDissenting Views, that says, ``The purpose of impeachment is not\npersonal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain\nconstitutional government * * * In an impeachment proceeding a\nPresident is called to account for abusing powers that only the\nPresident possesses.''\n Finally, I believe the Republican leadership of the House of\nRepresentatives should allow the 435 members of the House an\nopportunity to vote on a strongly worded resolution of censure--one\nthat condemns the actions of the President and imposes a hefty fine on\nhim. However, the Republicans have denied us that opportunity.\n This decision was very difficult for me and one that was not made\nlightly. I do not expect everyone to agree with this decision but I\nbelieve it is the right thing to do.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nNorth Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).\n (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, there are three issues in this matter\nbefore us tonight. First on the question of values, the President has\nclearly failed. Second, on the question of law, the Constitution says\nthat regardless of what the Congress may do the President shall\n``nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and\npunishment according to law.''\n But it is the third question that we must decide, the constitutional\nquestion of removal from office. This is the only question that we are\npermitted to decide, and let us follow our Nation's charter in making\nthis decision. Let us make known our great respect for the Constitution\nby realizing that while President Clinton's behavior was wrong and\nunacceptable, impeaching him is the wrong punishment.\n Moving forward with impeachment is not consistent with the intent of\nthe Constitution and the duty we are charged to follow as the great\nstatesman and former congressman and senator Daniel Webster once said,\nhis words about the Constitution could not be truer today, ``We may be\ntossed upon an ocean where we can see no land or perhaps even the sun\nor the stars, but there is a chart and a compass for us to study,\nconsult and obey and that chart is the Constitution.'' May God help us\nkeep it strong and may we resolve to uphold it.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond).\n (Mr. REDMOND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all 4 articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Michigan (Mr. Smith).\n (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend his remarks.)\n Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the President's guilt in this\nmatter is undisputed. Even the Democratic-sponsored censure resolution\nstates that he has violated the trust of the American people and\ndishonored the office which they have entrusted to him.\n Mr. Speaker, we should not let the President off free for his\negregious conduct. We should not use the excuse of military conflict.\nWe should not use the excuse that some prefer censure. Impeachment in\nthe House is the constitutional method of censure.\n Impeachment will ensure that the President's misconduct is treated\nwith the seriousness it deserves. It is the formal judgment by the\nHouse that the President has committed crimes that deserve the\nattention of the Senate. It is an emphatic statement of censure and\ndisapproval and it is constitutional. In this case a vote for\nimpeachment is warranted.\n Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers said that the impeachable\noffenses are ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of\npublic men.''\n Mr. Speaker. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers that\nimpeachable offenses ``are those offenses which proceed from the\nmisconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or\nviolation of some\n\n[[Page H11936]]\n\npublic trust.'' It is clear that the perjury and obstruction of the\nlegal process by the President, who is our foremost law enforcer, does\nconstitute an abuse of his public trust. Mr. Speaker, the President's\nguilt in this matter is undisputed. Even the Democrat-sponsored censure\nresolution states that the President ``violated the trust of the\nAmerican people, lessened their esteem for the office of President, and\ndishonored the office which they have entrusted to him.''\n Some have suggested censure as an alternative to impeachment. A\ncensure resolution without a penalty is insufficient for his felonious\nmisconduct. On the other hand, a strong resolution which includes a\nfine or other sanction faces a severe Constitutional challenge. The\nConstitution specifically forbids ``Bills of Attainder''. Thus, any\nfine imposed on the President via the censure process, even with his\nconsent, could be successfully challenged after the fact.\n I respectfully ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are\nconsidering a vote against impeachment to reconsider. We should not let\nthe President off free for this egregious conduct. We should not use\nthe excuse of military conflict or the excuse that some may prefer\ncensure. We should do our duty under the Constitution. We should vote\nfor impeachment.\n Impeachment by the House is the Constitutional method of censure.\nImpeachment will ensure that the President's misconduct is treated with\nthe seriousness it deserves. It is a formal judgment by the House that\nthe President has committed ''High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' that\ndeserve the attention of the Senate. It is an emphatic statement of\ncensure and disapproval and is Constitutional. In this case, a vote for\nimpeachment is warranted.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Hunter).\n Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, equal justice means two things. First, every\ncitizen, including the least powerful, like the plaintiff in the first\ncivil case in which President Clinton perjured himself, has a right to\ndemand truthful testimony under oath even when the defendant is the\nPresident.\n Secondly, equal justice requires adherence to the rule of law by all\nAmericans, including the most powerful. Further, equal justice requires\naccountability by those who have committed perjury.\n In this case, accountability for perjury is provided by the\nconstitutional remedy of impeachment. I am going to vote for\nimpeachment against President Clinton because he committed perjury\nbefore a court and a grand jury. For us to do less might be a little\nmore comfortable in the short term, but I think it would do permanent\ndamage to our ideals of equal justice and constitutional government.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman\nfrom Maryland (Mrs. Morella).\n (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her\nremarks.)\n Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, the decision to impeach a President is\namong the most solemn responsibilities that we in Congress will ever\nface and one over which I have long agonized.\n As a mother and grandmother, I struggled mightly with what message we\nsend to all our children if the President does not bare serious\nconsequence for his dishonest behavior. But I would like to point out\nthat impeachment should be undertaken only with great reservation and\nmuch trepidation. It is an act that the founders intended not so much\nto punish an individual's wrongdoing but to preserve and protect a\nnation.\n Each Member today must seriously consider whether the charges against\nPresident Clinton do in fact constitute a threat to the Nation or its\nnational security. No doubt the President's actions, in both words and\ndeeds, have disgraced him, his family, his office. His legacy shall be\nindelibly scarred.\n However, putting the country through the turmoil and the tumult of a\nSenate trial that could last months while the many important issues\nfacing our Nation go unaddressed is wrong. It is clear that the\nAmerican people want us to close this sorry chapter in our history. I,\ntherefore, plan to vote against the articles and in terms of what I\nconsider in the best interest of my country, my conscience, and my\nconstituents.\n Mr. Speaker, the decision to impeach a sitting President is among the\nmost difficult and solemn responsibilities we in the Congress will ever\nface, and one over which I have long agonized. I come to the well of\nthe House to cast a vote that has occurred only once before in our\nNation's history.\n In reaching this difficult decision, I reviewed the Judiciary\nCommittee proceedings and the scholars' testimony, read the report and\nrelevant materials, and discussed the issues with colleagues and\nexperts. Most importantly, I listened to my constituents, considered\nthe effect on our Nation, and searched my conscience.\n I approach this moment as a mother and grandmother who cares deeply\nabout the difficulty parents face because of this ordeal. One of my\ngrandsons, Michael, is eleven years old, president of his student body,\nand his parents have taught him the importance of being honest and\ntrustworthy. I struggle mightily with what message we send to him and\nmy other grandchildren, as well as all children, if the President does\nnot bear serious consequences for his dishonest behavior.\n Ours is a solemn duty to determine whether the wrongdoing by this\nPresident rises to the Constitutional threshold of Impeachment as\nintended by the Founders of this great nation. The purpose of\nImpeachment is the removal and possible disqualification from office\nand should be undertaken only with great reservation and much\ntrepidation. It is an act that the Founders intended not so much to\npunish an individual's wrongdoing, but to preserve and protect a\nnation. Each Member today must seriously consider whether the charges\nagainst President Clinton do in fact constitute a threat to the nation\nor its national security.\n The President's actions in both words and deeds have disgraced him,\nhis family, and his office, and he shall forever be remembered not for\nthe many accomplishments that have occurred during his term in office,\nbut for his sordid behavior and his failure to take responsibility for\nthat behavior.\n I believe, however, that putting the country through the turmoil and\ntumult of a Senate trial that could last months while the many\nimportant issues facing our nation go unaddressed is wrong. It is clear\nthat the American people want us to close this sorry chapter in our\nhistory and move on to resolving the challenges that face us. I shall\ntherefore vote against these Articles of Impeachment. It is my sincere\nbelief that there should be severe consequences for the actions of this\nPresident, and if these Articles of Impeachment are approved, I hope\nthat the Senate will act expeditiously and vote on a severe Censure\nResolution that could then be brought back to the House. I would\nsupport such a resolution.\n While history will judge William Jefferson Clinton severely, I do not\nbelieve that his acts rise to the level of ``high crimes and\nmisdemeanors'' as specified by the Constitution. I know that some in\nthis body will come to a different conclusion than I do and I respect\ntheir decision. Many Americans too are deeply divided over this issue.\nMy decision to vote against these Articles of Impeachment is one that\ndoes not come easily, but in my service in the United States House of\nRepresentatives, and to the people of the Eighth District of Maryland,\nI have always tried to consider my constituents, my country and my\nconscience.\n\n Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all\npersons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and\nany manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a\nviolation of House rules.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nOhio (Ms. Kaptur).\n Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is faced with a very imperfect\nsituation, a President who has deeply disgraceed our Nation and an\nindependent prosecutor who has compromised the integrity of the\ninvestigative process.\n\n {time} 2145\n\n The damage both men have rendered is strewn across the American\nlandscape, and now the Committee on the Judiciary of this House has\nproduced a one-sided, rampantly partisan option for this membership to\nconsider.\n Healing our Nation must be the paramount consideration of this body,\nand our people must be spared from further division. Even though it\nappears that President Clinton lied under oath, which could be a high\ncrime, proving perjury in a court of law is a highly technical legal\nmatter not easily established.\n On the other hand, a Senate trial would not require the same level of\njudicial proof, but it is unlikely the Senate will be able to assemble\na working supermajority for any of the impeachment charges.\n The House of its own accord can act to resolve this situation\nassigning proper penalties and punishments but\n\n[[Page H11937]]\n\nlikely will fail to do so placing this entire matter in the netherworld\nbetween the Senate, unlikely to reach a conclusion and a legal system\nin which wrongdoing will be difficult to prove.\n Our Nation needs to move forward. I am left with no option but to\nvote against the committee's recommendations in spite of my disdain for\nthe President's actions.\n Mr. Speaker, this Congress is faced with a very imperfect situation.\n A President who has deeply disgraced our Nation, and an independent\nprosecutor who has compromised the integrity of the investigative\nprocess. The damage both men have rendered is strewn across the\nAmerican landscape. Now, the Judiciary Committee of this House has\nproduced a one-sided, rampantly partisan option for the membership to\nconsider.\n Healing our Nation must be the paramount consideration of this body.\nThe American people must be spared from further divisions.\n Even though it appears President Clinton lied under oath which would\nbe a high crime, proving perjury in a court of law is a highly\ntechnical legal matter not easily established. On the other hand, a\nSenate trial would not require the same level of judicial proof, but it\nis unlikely the Senate will be able to assemble a working supermajority\nfor any of the impeachment charges.\n The House of its own accord can act to resolve this situation,\nassigning proper penalties and punishments, but likely will fail to do\nso, placing this entire matter in the netherworld between a Senate\nunlikely to reach a conclusion and a legal system in which wrong doing\nwill be difficult to prove. To drag our nation through further partisan\nwrangling in the Senate seems very unwise.\n [Thus] I conclude further Congressional deliberations on this set of\ncharges are not in the nation's interests. Though the charges against\nPresident Clinton are serious, they are best adjudicated in the courts\nwhere regular rules of evidence and due process apply. Since other\nalternatives are not available to this House as a result of the\nJudiciary Committee's flawed proceedings, I am left with no option but\nto vote against the Committee's recommendation, in spite of my disdain\nfor the Presidents' actions and his failure to take responsibility for\nthem. Our Nation needs to move forward.\n Mindful of the strongly divided opinion of the American people and\ncitizens of my home district regarding the pending set of votes on the\nfour Articles of Impeachment against President Bill Clinton, it is my\nobligation to state publicly my reasons for voting as I will today. In\nthis regard, partisanship is irrelevant. Personalities are irrelevant.\nHealing our nation must be paramount. Carrying out the nation's regular\nbusiness must proceed. In regard to the Clinton charges, we must\nrespect the rule of law, administer it to preserve the integrity of the\nConstitution, and recommend proper judicial proceedings to resolve the\nmatter at hand. Throughout this process, I have weighted: ``To what\nextent do the President's actions, along with those of the\ninvestigative processes that have led to our current predicament in the\nHouse, undermine or strengthen the Constitutional standards I am sworn\nto uphold?'' In an expeditious manner, we must resolve this situation\nin the nation's best interests. I believe the nation must be spared\nfurther divisions on this matter.\n\n the process\n\n President Bill Clinton has deeply disgraced our nation by his\nconduct, and unwillingness to assume responsibility for his actions.\nOver one year ago, he should have exercised a more honorable course and\nspared our nation the wrenching that has affected every family in\nAmerica and politically split the nation into two warring camps.\nFurther, the behavior of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his\ncareless, and at times willful manipulation of the investigative\nprocess, has compromised the integrity of these proceedings, leaving\nthe American people and this Congress divided. Neither of these men has\nacted in the national interest. The damage they have rendered is strewn\nacross our landscape. Likewise, the Judiciary Committee in its\ndeliberations has been rampantly partisan. The recommendations it has\nproduced for House consideration are one-sided and only partly\nrepresent the courses of action deemed worthy of debate by the full\nHouse. So we are left with a very imperfect situation.\n President Clinton will have much accounting to do in the years hence.\nI have concluded in the national interest that final resolution of any\nlegal charges against him is best left in the courts. Here he should be\nafforded a fair and impartial trial by jury where proper rules of\nevidence apply, outside the limelight that has convoluted this entire\nprocess. Any penalties and punishments placed on the President should\nbe commensurate with proven charges.\n Regarding the role of the Independent Prosecutor, and the behavior of\nMr. Staff and his investigators, no instrumentality of our government\nshould be above the law. Accordingly, many questions arise as to the\npropriety and fairness of the Independent Prosecutor's investigative\nproceedings to date, as well as about the raw partisanship of the\nJudiciary Committee's deliberations. By whose authority and under what\nconstraints were key witnesses wired and testimony obtained by the\nIndependent Prosecutor? Why were there so many leaks of privileged\ninformation from the grand jury--everything from the evidence about the\nblue dress to a broadened investigation that began with Whitewater but\nled to the investigation of the President's personal affairs? In Ohio,\nbreaches of grand jury secrecy are prosecutable. Mr. Starr's own ethics\nadvisor Sam Dash resigned over concerns that the Independent Counsel\nhad exceeded his mandate to simply report to Congress on any\nimpeachable offenses he discovered. Dash said he had ``no other choice\nbut to resign'' because of the independent counsel's abuse of office.\nMuch of the behavior of the Independent Prosecutor was as irresponsible\nas the President's, and both have led to public cynicism about the\nintegrity of our political and judicial systems. Accordingly, Congress\nimmediately should examine the procedures employed by Mr. Starr to gain\nevidence and administer the duties of his office. He and future\nIndependent Prosecutors should be held accountable for the breaches of\nintegrity associated with the investigative process.\n\n legal options\n\n I hold the highest respect for our nation's judicial system. It is my\nduty to uphold it against all enemies foreign and domestic. My job\nincludes preventing its abuse. In this regard, President Bill Clinton\nhas much accounting to do. Yet, in spite of President Clinton's\negregious, dishonorable, irresponsible and, yes, alleged criminal\nbehavior, he should not be held to either a higher nor a lower standard\nthan any American in the administration of justice. He deserves his day\nin court with a judge and jury sworn to administer justice fairly. But\nas President, it is not unfair for us to expect more of him and hold\nhim to a higher moral standard.\n In my judgment, the crimes of which President Clinton is accused do\nnot meet the Constitutional standard for conviction based on ``bribery,\ntreason, or high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Though his dishonorable\nbehavior has wounded our nation's moral sensibilities and, tragically,\nhe has reduced the honor associated with the office of President--and,\nin fact, elected office as a profession--in my judgment these\ncircumstances do not rise to a ``high crime'' against the state as\nsuch, as I read the Constitution.\n However, reading the Starr Referral and the Committee documents and\nstudying the law has convinced me that the perjury charges are the most\nserious rendered against the President. They go to the heart of our\njudicial system's foundation--telling the truth, the whole truth, and\nnothing but the truth.'' Perjury is a felony, a crime against the\nstate, and strikes at the core of our judicial system. By his moral\nposition as the secular leader of our nation, President Clinton sets a\nstandard, whether he wishes so nor not. Even though it appears\nPresident Clinton lied under oath, proving in a court of law that he\nperjured himself if a highly technical legal matter not easily proven.\nIn a court of law, proving such would be fraught with inference,\ninnuendo, in the end likely yielding not enough proof with\ncorroborating witnesses to convict on the basis of perjury. On the\nother hand, a Senate trial would not require the same level of judicial\nproof, thus holding the possibility of placing penalties and\npunishments on the President commensurate with proven charges of damage\nto the republic. However, it is unlikely the Senate will be able to\nassembly a working majority for any of the impeachment charges. The\nHouse of its own accord could have acted in order to resolve this\nsituation, assigning proper penalties and punishments, but will fail to\ndo so, placing this entire matter in the netherworld between a Senate\nunlikely to reach a conclusion and a legal system in which wrong doing\nwill be difficult to prove. Yet, to drag the nation through more legal\nwrangling in the Senate seems very unwise, especially in view of the\npolitics and partisanship that will rue the day.\n For the record, let me point out the role of the House in impeachment\ndiffers from the Senate. The House acts almost like a grand jury, with\neach of us behaving like judges in a civil proceeding. Yet, the House\nis hampered Constitutionally in its ability to discover evidence, call\nwitnesses, and cross examine. Thus, the Committee, by it very nature,\nhas put forward a report that contains only partial findings of alleged\nwrongdoing. Our vote will be to refer those partial findings and\ncharges to the Senate for an actual trial. It is in the Senate that\nfull evidence is weighed, witnesses are called, and cross-examination\noccurs. No Member of the House has been afforded the benefit of a full\nrange of witnesses, with the opportunity to cross-examine, with rules\nof evidence being respected. Further, the partisanship of the Judiciary\nCommittee has\n\n[[Page H11938]]\n\nbeen extremely troubling with the end result being that the full House\nis not afforded a range of proposals on which to vote to apply the\nproper judicial remedy relating to the President. Unlike previous\nimpeachment hearings in the House--such as Andrew Johnson's in which\nthe Committee studied the referral for eight months and defeated the\nresolution by a two to one margin, and at the hearings relating to\nPresident Nixon in which the House deliberated for six months and\naccepted the Committee report on a vote of 412 to 3--this process has\nbeen fraught with raw partisanship. The Committee has deliberated for a\nmonth, votes in the Committee have been strictly along party lines, and\nfor the most part votes in the full House will mirror that pattern.\nThus, this Member has little confidence the Committee has acted\nresponsibly and with due process. Nonetheless, I believe the Judiciary\nCommittee's findings to be serious, particularly relating to the\narticles of alleged perjury and obstruction of justice.\n The allegations of perjury in Articles 1 and 2 are indeed serious\nsince perjury, if proven, is a felony and, in my opinion, rise to the\nConstitutional standard of a high crime. But, proving perjury is a\nhighly technical matter. Evidence and testimony in this regard are\ncritical. The House Committee report has not proven perjury. To commit\nperjury, an untruth must be knowingly stated, under oath at an official\nproceeding. And that statement must be material with regard to the\nmatter at hand. Since the Paula Jones case has been dismissed, the\nmatter at hand would only involve the Lewinsky situation. Regarding the\nPresident's testimony before the grand jury in this regard, the legal\nquestion, as aside from the moral question, becomes, Did President\nClinton lie, or did he simply exercise his rights under the law not to\nvolunteer more details? Just because he didn't testify as much as some\nmay have wanted, does not mean he perjured himself. The evidence\nagainst him in this care must be compelling and the judicial standard\nto measure perjury is not ``preponderance of evidence'', nor is it\n``clear and convincing evidence.'' But, rather, the standard is the\nhighest one of ``evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.'' The fact that\nthe House is wresting with the evidence means there is a reasonable\ndoubt, and thus a judicial finding of perjury will be difficult to\nobtain. In addition, some of the allegations in the Committee's report\nsuggest that the definition on ``sexual relation'' President Clinton\nused before the grand jury was one with the intent to give perjurious\nstatements. A lawyer would ask, where is the evidence of intent?\nDecisions of perjury cannot be made on the basis of conclusions nor\nsuppositions, only on the basis of fact. One cannot assume an inference\non an inference. Otherwise the evidence is inadmissible. Further, the\nreport charges President Clinton ``didn't recall'' matter on several\noccasions. But what evidence do we have that demonstrates this. Again,\nthis painstaking evidence must be collected, presented, rebutted.\nOtherwise, the charge cannot be sustained. In any case, the legal\nprocess will ensure for quite some time in resolving these questions.\nMoreover, convincing a defendant on perjury is most difficult where\nproof of falsity rests with contradictory statements of just one other\nperson other than the defendant. In such cases, the defendant cannot be\nconvicted. This means that just one other material witness with a\ncontradictory story would not be enough to prove falsehood by the\nPresident. Additional witnesses, unlikely to be found, would have to\ncome forward. This legal precedent actually dates back to Mosaic law.\nHowever, if the defendant changes his/her story and contradicts him/\nherself, then they can be convicted. This is not likely to happen,\ngiven the President's adherence to his original statement before the\ngrand jury.\n In anticipating the likely outcome of such a proceeding, if a jury of\n12 persons, knowing the strict legal standards for conviction on\nperjury, were faced with the evidence in this case and asked ``did he\nlie'', ``did he knowingly do it'', and coupled this with Monica\nLewinsky's testimony wherein the definition of sexual relations is\nbrought into question, it is doubtful a jury would convict him of\nperjury beyond a reasonable doubt because of the substantial weight of\ncircumstances evidence and lack of other credible witnesses. Again,\nthere is a distinction between what is legally provable and what the\npublic may demand as morally right.\n Further, in meeting the Constitutional test of conviction based on\n``bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors,'' the definition of\nhigh crimes and misdemeanors of open to interpretation. Most scholars\nagree that these crimes would gravitate to crimes against the state or\nthe government--such as bribery by a foreign interest, or outright\ntreason. But again the Constitution does not say outright high crimes\nagainst the state. So, much is left to interpretation, and this is why\nthis case is so important. Depending on how the House acts, a legal\nstandard and process will be established against which future\nConstitutional questions regarding impeachment for inappropriate\nconduct that may be morally reprehensible, but not necessarily\ncriminal, that affects the functioning of the apparatus of the state\nbeyond the ``bribery, treason and high crimes and misdemeanors''\nstandard.\n\n conclusion\n\n In summary, though President Bill Clinton has deeply offended the\nmoral character of the nation, his acts cannot be termed high crimes\nagainst the interests of the state. Further, proving perjury from a\nlegal standpoint will be exceedingly difficult in a regular court of\nlaw. But his case appropriately should be remanded there. Using the\nSenate as the venture for resolution risk further damaging to the\nnational interest. One certainly can question whether President\nClinton's personal, reckless behavior bordered on being a security\nrisk, and this is a serious matter. But no apparent weakening of the\nstate's direct interest resulted from his actions.\n Regarding the interests of the state and our nation, we have reached\nthe point where it becomes compelling for the public good for Congress\nto stop rendering this matter in public. Further proceedings in the\nSenate are unlikely to yield the 2/3 votes necessary to pursue any\nconclusive course of action.\n Thus, I conclude that further Congressional deliberations on this set\nof charges are not in the nation's best interests. Though the charges\nagainst President Clinton are serious, they are best adjudicated in the\ncourts where regular rules of evidence and due process apply. Since\nother alternatives are not available to this House as a result of the\nJudiciary Committee's flawed proceedings, I am left with no option but\nto vote against the Committee's recommendations, in spite of my disdain\nfor the President's actions. The nation needs to move forward.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nHawaii (Mrs. Mink).\n (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and\nextend her remarks.)\n Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, the essence of our debate resolves\naround the issue of perjury. In that context alone I believe the\narticles of impeachment are faulty and deficient. I agree with my\nconstituents who asked us to apply the same law to the President as\nwould be applied to ordinary people charged with that offense of\nperjury. Ordinary citizens would begin the specific basis underlying\nthe charge of perjury. The President has not been provided this\ninformation.\n To vote for these articles of impeachment is to vote to remove the\nPresident from office without any of us knowing what exactly he\ntestified to under oath which amounted to the legal definition of\nperjury. At the minimum this must be elaborated in the articles of\nimpeachment so that the public in general and the Senate specifically\nmay know what the specific charges are and so that the President may\ndefend himself.\n When I vote against these articles of impeachment, I will do so\nbecause I cannot allow this House to avoid its constitutional duty to\nenumerate the specific allegations of perjury before recommending\nimpeachment. None of us can call for the rule of law if it is an empty\ngesture and faulty articles of impeachment.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Ackerman).\n (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we embarrass the memory of our\nFounding Fathers as we torture the intent of the genius of their system\nof balancing the awesome powers of government. Mr. Speaker, under your\nleadership and that of your party we stand here, small men with petty\ncareers and partisan of purpose to diminish yet again our great\nRepublic. Devoid of a sense of proportion and overburdened with an\nexcess of hubris, you claim conscience as your exclusive domain and\ndeny us the right to offer the will of the people, a motion to censure.\nYour oligarchical act attempts to recreate a presidency that would\nserve at your whim rather than at the will of the people.\n To be sure, the President has shamed himself. To be clear, it is we\nwho are about to become the shame of the Nation.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume\nto the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).\n (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nher remarks.)\n Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of\nimpeachment.\n\n[[Page H11939]]\n\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of passage of the Articles of\nImpeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. As unpleasant\nas our task is to many, our task is an honorable one, for today we do\nhonor to the Constitution of the United States of America.\n As the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Judiciary Chairman\nHenry Hyde) said earlier, we today act in defense of the law.\n We Americans place our faith and the strength of our Nation not in\nindividuals but in the strength of our law. Our law protects our rights\nand keeps us free. It is our law which has made America the longest\nsurviving democracy in the history of the planet.\n Some would argue this matter is about personal conduct among\nconsenting adults.\n As the writer Mark Helprin has observed, these issues before us today\n``are no more about sex than the theft of money from a cash register is\nabout business.\n ``Perjury is not sex, obstruction is not sex, and abuse of power is\nnot sex * * * .''\n Indeed, they are not, Mr. Speaker, they are about the respect of and\nfor the law and of and for the high office our President holds.\n Our respect for the law and for the Presidency demands that we not\nturn that respect into a mockery. If we subject our standards for the\nconduct of our President to whim, polling data, and notions of popular\nbehavior, we will have done grave damage to our Constitution.\n If--on the other hand--we stand up for the rule of law, we draw the\nline and say, Yes, our President must obey those same laws he has sworn\nto uphold and defend.\n It's important for us to remember what has brought us to this point.\n We are here today because of the actions of the President.\n We are here today because the President placed himself above the law.\nHe lied to a civil court, then lied to the public, then lied to a grand\njury, then lied about lying, and finally lied to the impeachment\ninquiry itself.\n The President abused his power. And for what reason did he do this?\nThe President placed his own needs, his own desire to avoid\nembarrassment, and his own fear of facing the consequences and\nresponsibility for his actions above the interests of his Nation.\n How sad.\n How sad it is, for the heir to George Washington to place his\ninterests above those of the nation and law for which American blood\nhas been shed * * * and will undoubtedly be shed again. Perhaps Ameican\npatriot blood is being shed at this very moment.\n Of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson observed that ``The moderation\nand virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution\nfrom being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that\nliberty it was intended to establish.''\n What will the future generations say of President Clinton? And what\nwill they say of us?\n John Quincy Adams said ``Always vote for principle, though you vote\nalone, and you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never\nlost.''\n Mr. Speaker, I will vote for principle. I will vote to impeach\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume\nto the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).\n Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the matter before the House regarding\nthe four Articles of Impeachment that have been reported by the\nCommittee on the Judiciary. This is a situation that demands our most\ncareful consideration and devotion to duty as Members of Congress. It\nis a matter that is not to be taken lightly. Each Member of this body\nmust reason individually to reach the determination that must be made\nin order to fulfill our Constitutional responsibilities in the\nimpeachment procedure. This is a process that should not be partisan,\nas it should be based on the application of the rule of law.\n I believe that all of us recognize the seriousness of President\nClinton being charged with violations against the Constitution. Much\ntime and effort have been devoted to investigating and reviewing the\nactions on which this Resolution is based. I have followed the hearings\nof the Committee on the Judiciary concerning this matter with great\ninterest and I am in agreement with the Resolution (H. Res. 611) that\nhas been submitted by Chairman Hyde. H. Res. 611 outlines four Articles\nas the basis for impeachment, which I shall summarize:\n Article I--President Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony to a Federal Grand Jury. I agree.\n Article II--President Clinton willfully corrupted and manipulated the\njudicial process, in that, he willfully provided perjurious, false, and\nmisleading testimony in response to written questions seeking\ninformation in a Federal civil rights action, which was brought against\nhim, as well as in a deposition in that action. I agree.\n Article III--President Clinton prevented, obstructed and impeded the\nadministration of justice through a course of conduct or scheme in a\nseries of events between December 1997 and January 1998. I agree.\n Article IV--President Clinton has engaged in conduct that resulted in\nmisuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper\nadministration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and\ncontravened the authority of the Legislative Branch, in that he refused\nand failed to respond to written requests for admission, as well as\nwillfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in\nresponse to certain written requests for admission that were propounded\nas part of the impeachment inquiry that was authorized by the House. I\nagree.\n It is clear to me that convincing evidence has been presented in\nregard to each of the four Articles that have been reported by the\nCommittee on the Judiciary. Accordingly, I support the Articles as\nstated in H. Res. 611.\n Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address the assertion that I have\nheard today that the consideration by the Congress of the impeachment\nof President Clinton, who is the Commander in Chief of our Armed\nForces, would have a demoralizing effect on our men and women in\nuniform, especially while our Nation is engaged in military operations\nagainst Iraq. I can speak from experience, based on numerous\nconversations with Americans from all walks of life, who are now\nserving or who have previously served in our Nation's military, that\nsuch a charge has no merit. In this regard, I would like to submit the\nfollowing article by Major Daniel J. Rabil, of the United States Marine\nCorps Reserve:\n Mr. Speaker, I include the article entitled ``Please, Impeach My\nCommander in Chief,'' from the November 9, 1998 edition of the\nWashington Times.\n\n Please, Impeach My Commander in Chief\n\n (By Daniel J. Rabil)\n\n The American military is subject to civilian control, and\n we deeply believe in that principle. We also believe, as\n affirmed in the Nuremberg Trials, that servicemen are not\n bound to obey illegal orders. But what about orders given by\n a known criminal? Should we trust in the integrity of\n directives given by a president who violates the same basic\n oath we take? Should we be asked to follow a morally\n defective leader with a demonstrated disregard for his\n troops? The answer is no, for implicit in the voluntary oath\n that all servicemen take is the promise that they will\n receive honorable civilian leadership. Bill Clinton has\n violated that covenant. It is therefore Congress' duty to\n remove him from office.\n I do not claim to speak for all service members, but\n certainly Bill Clinton has never been the military's favorite\n president. Long before the Starr report, there was plenty of\n anecdotal evidence of this administration's contempt for the\n armed forces. Yes, Mr. Clinton was a lying draft dodger, yes\n his staffers have been anti-military, and yes, he breezily\n ruins the careers of senior officers who speak up or say\n politically incorrect things. Meanwhile, servicemen are now\n in jail for sex crimes less egregious than those Paula Jones\n and Kathleen Willey say Mr. Clinton committed.\n Mr. Clinton and his supporters do not care in the least\n about the health of our armed forces. Hateful of a\n traditional military culture they never deigned to study, Mr.\n Clinton's disingenuous feminist, homosexual and racial\n activist friends regard the services as mere political props,\n useful only for showcasing petty identity group grievances.\n It is no coincidence that the media have played up one\n military scandal after another during the Clinton years. This\n politically-driven shift of focus, from the military mission\n to the therapeutic wants of fringe groups, has taken its\n toll: Partly because of Mr. Clinton's impossibly Orwellian\n directives, Chief of Naval Operations Jay Boorda committed\n suicide.\n So Clinton has weakened the services and fostered a\n corrosive anti-military culture. This may be loathsome, but\n it is not impeachable, particularly if an attentive Congress\n can limit the extent of Clinton-induced damage. As officers\n and gentlemen, we have therefore continued to march,\n pretending to respect our hypocrite-in-chief.\n Then came the Paula Jones perjury and the ensuing Starr\n Report. I have always known that Clinton was integrity-\n impaired, but I never thought even he could be so depraved,\n so contemptuous, as to conduct military affairs as was\n described in the special prosecutor's report to Congress. In\n that report, we learn of a telephone conversation between Mr.\n Clinton and a congressman in which the two men discussed our\n Bosnian deployment. During that telephone discussion, the\n Commander-in-Chief's pants were unzipped, and Monica Lewinsky\n was busy saving him the cost of a prostitute. This is the\n president of the United States of America? Should soldiers\n not feel belittled and worried by this? We deserve better.\n When Ronald Reagan's ill-fated Beirut mission led to the\n careless loss of 241 Marines in a single bombing, few\n questioned his love of country and his overriding concern for\n American interests. But should Mr. Clinton lead us into\n military conflict, he would do so, incredibly, without any\n such trust. After the recent American missile attacks in\n Afghanistan and Sudan, my instant reaction was outrage, for I\n instinctively presumed\n\n[[Page H11940]]\n\n that Mr. Clinton was trying to knock Miss Lewinsky's\n concurrent grand jury testimony out of the headlines. The\n alternative, that this president--who ignores national\n security interests, who appeases Iraq and North Korea, and\n who fights like a leftover Soviet the idea of an American\n missile defense--actually believed in the need for immediate\n military strikes, was simply implausible. And no amount of\n scripted finger wagging, lip biting, or mention of The\n Children by this highly skilled perjurer can convince me\n otherwise.\n In other words, Mr. Clinton has demonstrated that he will\n risk war, terrorist attacks, and our lives just to save his\n dysfunctional administration. What might his motives be in\n some future conflict? Blackmail? Cheap political payoffs?\n Or--dare I say it--simply the lazy blundering of an\n instinctively anti-American man? It is immoral to impose such\n untrustworthy leadership on a fighting force.\n It will no doubt be considered extreme to raise the\n question of whether this president is a national security\n risk, but I must. I do not believe presidential candidates\n should be required to undergo background investigations, as\n is normal for service members. I do know, however, that Bill\n Clinton would not pass such a screening. Recently, I received\n a phone call from a military investigator, who asked me a\n variety of character-related questions about a fellow Marine\n reservist. The Marine, who is also a friend, needed to update\n his top-secret clearance. Afterward, I called him. We\n marveled how lowly reservists like us must pass complete\n background checks before routine deployments, yet the\n guardian of our nation's nuclear button would raise a huge\n red flag on any such security report. We joked that my\n friend's security clearance would have been permanently\n canceled if I had said to the investigator, ``Well Rick spent\n the Vietnam years smoking pot and leading protests against\n his country in Britain. His hobbies are lying and adultery.\n His brother's a cocaine dealer, and oh, yeah--he visited the\n Soviet Union for unknown reasons while his countrymen were\n getting killed in Vietnam.''\n\n * * * * *\n\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Ohio (Mr. Portman).\n (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is no joy in this task. This is a sad\nday for our country and for the Office of the President.\n I have listened carefully to the comments of my colleagues today just\nas I carefully reviewed the facts, the underlying articles of\nimpeachment and the report of the Committee on the Judiciary that came\nbefore us this week. I do not question the motives of my colleagues who\noppose impeachment, who do not find impeachable offenses, even as many\nof them have questioned the motives of those of us who will support one\nor more of the articles.\n For myself, I believe the evidence of serious wrongdoing is simply\ntoo compelling to be swept aside. I am particularly troubled by the\nclear evidence of lying under oath in that it must be the bedrock of\nour judicial system. I believe the long term consequence to this\ncountry of not acting on these serious charges before us far outweigh\nthe consequences of following what the Constitution provides for and\nbringing this matter to trial in the United States Senate.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).\n (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Committee on\nthe Judiciary, I am not an attorney, and I am not sure that the\nPresident's actions warrant his removal from office. But I am\nabsolutely unequivocally convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this\nPresident lied under oath, lied in a court proceeding and lied to a\ngrand jury, and that requires us to take action. Eighty percent of the\nAmerican people and many of my colleagues on that side have\nacknowledged the President lied under oath and in fact have said he\ncommitted perjury. In fact, this administration has convicted two\nwomen, two Federal employees who are serving jail time today for the\nexact same offense that the President has been charged with, exact same\noffense, no different.\n We must take action. The Constitution gives us one option in taking\naction. That option is basically to move on the impeachment, to charge\nthe President. The other body can take the appropriate action of what\nthe punishment would be.\n I would hope that the other body does not prolong the process. I\nwould hope the other body would consider the censure resolution. That\nis the appropriate response here. But we must do our response, and that\nis to charge the President and let the Senate take its action, and\nhopefully they will end this process quickly.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise on this sad day of our nation's history with a\nheavy heart. Today, we as Members of the House of Representatives face\na decision that I, in all of my twelve years of serving this body,\nnever thought that I would have to face--inarguably the most important\ndecision of our political lives. We must decide whether or not we are\ngoing to impeach the President of the United States.\n Like my colleagues, I have not come to my decision lightly. After\nmuch thought, deliberation, review of testimony and evidence, and\nconference with my colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that I\nmust represent my constituency by voting to impeach our President,\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton. I am joining my colleagues of the House in\nwhat I think will be, and hope will be, a bipartisan vote, as we make\nour public statement of rebuke.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my intention to vote for the\nfirst two articles of impeachment because like 80% of the people of our\nnation, I believe that the President lied under oath. These facts are\nnot in dispute, and yet the President refuses to admit this. He must\nadmit to what the American people already know.\n The fact of the matter is that the President lied. He took an oath to\ntell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and he\nbroke that promise. But more importantly, he broke a promise that he\nmade to the American people to uphold the laws that are the strength\nand the backbone of our democracy.\n In order for democracy to succeed, our judicial system must be\nvigilant--people cannot lie under oath, regardless of their\nmotivations. We cannot allow anyone to be above the law, and our laws\ncannot, and must not, be trivialized. The President's own\nAdministration takes lying to a grand jury seriously, as one hundred\nand fifteen people are currently serving sentences for perjury in a\nfederal court. Two of these very people are serving sentences of lying\nabout adultery in a court proceeding. The basic tenet of our democracy\nis that we are a nation of laws, not of individuals. To allow the\nPresident to break the laws, which the American people have elected him\nto uphold, would weaken our system of government. We must send a strong\nmessage today--no one has the right, for any reason, to lie under oath.\nOur system of law is fair and just for everyone.\n The President has admitted that he misled the American people, and he\nis remorseful. But remorseful or not, he must accept the consequences\nof his actions. The Constitution provides us with our framework for\ndealing with this very unfortunate situation, and I am concerned about\nthe Constitutional questions surrounding censure. I have come to the\nconclusion that the best course of action to rebuke the President is to\nvote in favor of impeachment. An article of impeachment passed by the\nHouse of Representatives is the equivalent of an indictment in a\ncriminal process--not a final judgement of guilt, but a formal\naccusation of wrongdoing. There is no doubt in my mind that any other\ncase where evidence existed that an American citizen had committed\nperjury would be indicted. The evidence exists, and I am voting to\nindict President Clinton.\n I am not convinced that the proper punishment for President Clinton's\nactions is removal from office, but that decision is not mine to make.\nMr. Speaker, we have serious problems in the world, and it's extremely\nimportant that we end this process soon. In conclusion, it is time to\nvote today, and to move on. We must move on to working on the other\nimportant issues which face our nation, and to do that without\ndistraction. And so it is with a heavy heart that I come to the floor\ntoday, but it is with a heart full of pride, and with hope for our\nfuture--because we are Representatives of the greatest country in the\nworld. It is a country so great that the laws of our nation supersede\nindividual circumstances. Our system can withstand political upheaval,\nand move on. Our system is bigger than you, and it is bigger than me.\nAnd it is bigger than our President, William Jefferson Clinton. He is\nnot above the law.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).\n (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise\nand extend his remarks.)\n Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, President Bill Clinton's\nreckless and reprehensible affair with Monica Lewinsky put him at risk\nfor extortion, undermining our national security. His subsequent words\nand actions have thrust upon us the grave duty to consider impeachment.\n\n[[Page H11941]]\n\n The Committee on the Judiciary report provides sufficient and\ncreditable evidence that William Jefferson Clinton abused his power as\nPresident and undermined the integrity of the coequal judicial branch\nby obstructing justice and lying under oath both in a civil deposition\nand before a federal grand jury. He perpetuated these lies in written\nresponses to the Congress.\n If we are to honor and uphold our Constitution, this behavior cannot\nbe tolerated. Without truth there is no justice. No man is above the\nlaw. These are the foundations of our government. Our entire system of\njustice is imperiled if we do not act and thereby establish the\nprecedent that a President nor anyone cannot pick and choose when he\nwill testify truthfully and when he will not.\n For these reasons I will vote for the articles of impeachment.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Louisiana (Mr. Baker).\n Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, it was the President's own decisions and\nactions which have brought us to this circumstance. It was the finding\nof his own Attorney General, Janet Reno, that resulted in the\nappointment of the special prosecutor. The findings of fact by the\nspecial prosecutor have not been disputed, and no one here tonight has\nrisen to defend the actions of this President. All that is in question\nis what punishment is appropriate given these facts?\n When this vote is closed, William Jefferson Clinton will still be\nPresident no matter whether the motion to adopt the articles of\nimpeachment is adopted or rejected. All that will be decided when this\nvote is closed is to determine whether there will or will not be a\ntrial giving the President his due process in the United States Senate.\nMr. Speaker, that would appear the least this House could do given the\nfacts that we have before us and if we are to uphold the rule of law.\n It is unfortunate, it is distasteful, it is regrettable, but it is\nthe actions of William Jefferson Clinton that bring this Nation and\nthis Congress to this distasteful moment in history, and we must do our\nconstitutional duty.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom Florida (Mr. Scarborough).\n Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, all day my Democrat friends have spoken\nof the treacherous waters our country would be thrown into should this\nimpeachment resolution pass and the matter be sent to the Senate, and\nwhile today's debate is momentous and its historical significance\ncannot be overstated, it is important to remember that America, its\ngovernment, is strong and will continue to thrive.\n See, the genius of the American experiment is not that our stability\nor our existence rests upon the shoulders of a few powerful,\nirreplaceable men, but rather that our civilization's order rests upon\nthe rule of law, and when those laws are undermined by the chief law\nenforcement officer in the land, the situation must be redressed or the\nvery chaos that our Democratic friends fear will come to pass.\n The President's personal life is just that, personal. But when his\nwords and deeds seriously undermine the rule of law, the issue becomes\npublic and the consequences dramatic.\n The chief law enforcement officer's actions have in fact undermined\nthe rule of law, and thus the articles of impeachment should pass and\nthe matter be sent on to the Senate.\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Bilbray).\n Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I think most of us prefer not to be here,\nbut the Constitution obligates us to be here, and the Constitution also\ndirects what we can do while we are here.\n As pointed out by Hamilton in 66 Paper, we do not have the right to\nbe punitive. Censure is a punitive action. We have the right and the\nresponsibility to refer this item to the Senate for their judgment.\n Now I know there are those who do not like to say that we have\njurisdiction here, but the fact is, as Ms. Jordan pointed out in 1974,\nit is a misreading of the Constitution for any Member here to assert\nthat a Member is voting to remove the President for impeachment and\nthat it does not give us the jurisdiction to be able to refer to the\nConstitution, which says clearly that we have the responsibility to\njudge; is there enough evidence to consider impeachment and that\npunishment not be rendered here in a censure in the House of\nRepresentatives but only, only in the Senate?\n That is our responsibility. The President has to live by the\nConstitution, and so do we as a body, Mr. Speaker.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for\ndebate be extended by 15 minutes.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the\nrequest of the gentlewoman from California?\n Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I\nwill object, Mr. Speaker, the time for debate was set as a result of\nvery delicate negotiations between the Speaker designate, the gentleman\nfrom Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the minority leader, the gentleman\nfrom Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the chairman of the Committee on the\nJudiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking\nminority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from\nMichigan (Mr. Conyers).\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request in\nview of the gentleman's objection so that I might yield to other\nMembers.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may recognize one additional\nspeaker. At that point it will be 10 o'clock.\n Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nWisconsin (Mr. Johnson).\n Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois\n(Mr. Hyde) stood before the body this morning and gave an eloquent\nspeech concluding that our flag is falling. Indeed our flag is falling.\nIt is being dragged through the mud of sex, lies and videotape.\n Even worse, our Constitution is being set on fire and torched and set\na blaze and bombed and blasted by some zealots who have had their\ntorches ready for some time. But unable to rally the majority of\nAmericans to their cause, they have turned their tortured view of the\nConstitution and their tortured view of the rule of law to the one\nplace where they can get a majority to this body, this 105th Congress.\n I came to this 105th Congress with pride. Now it will be my only\nCongress, and I leave with pride at having served with sadness that\npetty partisan politics raised to the highest level will torture the\nmeaning and torch the fabric of the Constitution. If we agree these\narticles rise to the level of impeachment defined in the Constitution,\ntreason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, these articles\nare not inclusive.\n I oppose the articles of impeachment, and I ask that they be voted\nagainst.\n\n {time} 2200\n\n (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these articles of\nimpeachment.\n Mr. Speaker, today is one of the most somber days I have known since\ncoming to Congress twenty years ago. We are poised to vote on whether\nor not to impeach the President of the United States at the same time\nthat uniformed men and women of our armed forces are engaged in\nconflict in the Middle East. It doesn't get much worse than this\n I have listened to the arguments that have been made about why the\nPresident's actions do not rise to the level of ``impeachable\noffenses'' under the Constitution. Despite these arguments, I am not\npersuaded. It is clear that the President's actions are sufficient to\ncharge him with high crimes and misdemeanors.\n Our President has admitted to wrongdoing. he has lied to his family,\nhis friends, and the nation. He has protected himself at the expense of\nthose around him. He has shown judgement so suspect that his actions\nare now called into question. It is clear that the President's deeds\nand words have placed an indelible mark on the Presidency of the United\nStates.\n It is not for us to judge President Clinton for his moral\ntransgressions; God will do that. His family will have to forgive him\nfor the pain he has caused them. He has already suffered tremendous\npunishment in regard to lost respect and credibility. Our duty is to\ndecide whether to charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors and send\nthe matter to the Senate to be tried and if convicted to determine what\npunishment is appropriate for his actions.\n I do not agree with those who suggest that the President's actions\nare a private matter that do not reflect on his fitness for office.\n\n[[Page H11942]]\n\nLying under oath and repeated disregard for decency by our nation's top\nelected official is a serious offense. The strength of a nation is\nultimately dependent upon the strength of its moral character. The\nconsequences of the President's actions go well beyond the details of\nperjury. They go to the heart of our national character.\n In considering the impeachment question, I have studied, listened and\nprayed for guidance. Throughout this process, I have been troubled that\nsome of those calling for the President's impeachment are not\ninterested in fairness and objectivity. They have been motivated by\ntheir own political blood lust. For example, I believe that all Members\nshould not be denied the opportunity to vote their conscience on\ncensure.\n I understand that my vote today will be unpopular with many of my\ncolleagues, my President and many of my friends and constituents. I\nalso realize that by voting with the majority, this is an issue some\nwill use for their own political purposes. My vote today in no way\ncondones the behavior of those supporting impeachment whose actions are\nmotivated more by political vendetta than the principles of the\nConstitution.\n Let me make clear that my sole motivation is to fulfill my\nConstitutional duty as I see it, no matter how unpopular that may be or\nat what personal cost.\n Those of us who have the honor of holding public office should hold\nourselves to a higher standard. I respect those who have come to a\ndifferent conclusion than my own. However, if I do not vote to impeach\nthe President for his actions dishonoring his office, I not only fail\nto carry out my Constitutional duty, but I also diminish the office of\nall elected officials, including my own. One of our Founding Fathers,\nJohn Jay, said, ``When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most\nvaluable rights become insecure.'' for these reasons, I will vote for\narticles of impeachment.\n Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, when the Constitution of the United\nStates was being debated throughout the new American states, many\npeople were concerned that, like the monarchy they had fought against,\na strong federal government would tend to ``elevate the few at the\nexpense of the many.'' Their concern was addressed by Alexander\nHamilton in the Federalist Paper Number 57, and that answer governs the\ndebate here today.\n Hamilton argued that, under the Constitution, our elected leaders\n``can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves\nand their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This\nhas always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy\ncan connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them\na communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few\ngovernments have furnished examples; but without which every government\ndegenerates into tyranny.''\n Then, as today, the belief that no one should be above the law,\nremains one of the distinguishing characteristics of our government. We\nare a nation with a multitude of economic circumstances, ethnic\nbackgrounds, and social distinctions. But no matter what our other\ndifferences may be, we are all equal before the law. It goes against\neverything we stand for to allow someone to escape justice simply\nbecause they hold a position of power. And while our system is not\nalways perfect, it is our duty, as representatives of the people, and\nas Americans, to do everything in our power to live up to this ideal no\nmatter what the cost. We are here today to perform our duty, not to\nbring a Constitutional crisis, as some have said, but instead to\nprotect the Constitution and the principles for which it stands.\n All the evidence presented by both sides in this case leads us to the\nconclusion that the President of the United States, violated his oath\nof office and committed perjury both in a civil deposition and again\nbefore a federal grand jury. Those opposed to this proceeding have\noffered virtually no evidence to refute this conclusion. Instead, they\nrely on the assertion that although the President committed perjury,\nsuch a violation of the public trust does not rise to the level of an\nimpeachable offense.\n The President has twice sworn before the American people to uphold\nthe Constitution and the laws of the United States and yet flagrantly\nand knowingly violated the very foundation of our legal system. More\nimportantly, the President's actions were expressly aimed at thwarting\njustice due a citizen who brought a legal case against him. I find it\ndifficult to comprehend how my colleagues, who purport to support the\nmost vulnerable members of society, can argue in favor of the President\nwhen he has illegally used the immense powers at his disposal to rob a\nperson, without his same rank or privilege, of justice.\n In this century, the Congress has voted overwhelmingly to impeach and\nremove federal judges for perjury, and at least 115 people are now in\nprison for lying under oath in civil cases not unlike the President's.\nEven a member of the President's Administration was recently convicted\nof lying under oath in a civil case stemming from a consensual sexual\nrelationship. Allowing the President to commit serious crimes against\nthe legal system with impunity tells these people that their mistakes\nwere not made in lying under oath, but rather in lacking the raw power\nto escape justice. Moreover, it sends a chilling message to all\nAmericans who previously believed they enjoyed the equal protection of\nour laws.\n I support a government based on integrity, morality, and respect for\nthe law, and while I find no pleasure in casting my vote to impeach the\nPresident today, I also see no other option. It is a grim moment we all\nface, but no matter how difficult this decision may be, the alternative\nwould be far worse. Equality before the law manifests itself not only\nin its protections, but also in its punishments. It defines us as\nAmericans, whatever side we are on, and I regret that, in this case,\nthe President is on the wrong side.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, impeachment of a sitting President is one\nof the gravest responsibilities and powers given to the Congress by the\nConstitution. Once it is undertaken it will throw the nation into\nturmoil and paralyze Congress and the Executive branch for months on\nend. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers,\n``[Impeachment] will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole\ncommunity, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or\ninimical to the accused.'' Impeachment is, in effect, the repudiation\nof a popular election. It is a constitutional last resort and should\nnot be undertaken lightly or in a partisan manner.\n There is no question that President Clinton's behavior has been\noutrageous, reckless and offensive. He lied to the American people and\noffered misleading and possibly perjurious testimony in a civil trial\nand a grand jury proceeding. These are not trivial matters. The\nquestion is whether they warrant the constitutional remedy of\nimpeachment.\n When I began serving in this office, I took an oath to uphold the\nConstitution of the United States. In order to understand and fulfill\nmy constitutional duty, I have studied the writings of the framers of\nour Constitution, as well as the opinions of many noted legal and\nconstitutional scholars. If the President's misdeeds meet the\nconstitutional standard for impeachment, my oath of office would oblige\nme to vote for his impeachment regardless of my party affiliation.\nHowever, if my best judgment is that his offenses do not cross the\nconstitutional threshold, I owe it to the Constitution, to history and\nto my own conscience to vote against his impeachment.\n The Constitution states that impeachment is to be used only in the\ncase of ``treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.''\nTreason and bribery are unambiguous and represent serious abuses of the\noffice of President and direct attacks on our nation and the integrity\nour constitutional system of government. By adding ``other high crimes\nand misdemeanors,'' the framers of our Constitution knowingly chose a\nphrase that had been in use in English impeachment trials for nearly\n400 years. ``High crimes and misdemeanors'' was historically understood\nto refer to serious official misconduct and abuse of the powers of\ngovernment by the King or one of his officers. This is clearly the\nmeaning the framers intended.\n Alexander Hamilton characterized impeachable offenses as\n``political'' actions that involve ``injuries done to society itself.''\nGeorge Mason stated that high crimes and misdemeanors are ``attempts to\nsubvert the Constitution.'' Impeachment is the constitutional remedy\nfor gross abuse of the official powers of the President's office or, in\nthe case of bribery, criminal actions in the pursuit of official power.\nCrimes that do not rise to this level are not impeachable, but can be\nprosecuted in criminal or civil court. (It is not clear whether the\nConstitution would allow the President to be prosecuted in criminal\ncourt while in office, but there is no doubt that he can be prosecuted\nafter his term expires.)\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 Presidence is vital to our\nconstitutional order.\n I have maintained an open mind throughout the Independent Counsel's\ninvestigation and the Judiciary Committee's hearings. I was prepared to\nconsider any new evidence or charges brought forth by Mr. Starr or the\nCommittee. As you know, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has spent\nnearly five years and more than $50 million investigating this\nPresident. His original charge was to investigate a dubious real estate\ndeal that happened before Mr. Clinton became President. Mr. Starr has\nproduced no evidence of wrongdoing in the\n\n[[Page H11943]]\n\nWhitewater matter. At least 15 congressional committees as well as the\nFederal Bureau of Investigation have undertaken their own\ninvestigations of Whitewater, ``Filegate,'' the administration's\ncampaign finance activities, and assorted other allegations of official\nwrongdoing by this President and his administration. But in the end, we\nare left with one charge and one charge only: that the President has a\nprivate, consensual sexual affair and lied about it.\n The House Judiciary Committee alleges that the President committed\nperjury. Perjury is a very serious matter. However, it is far from\nclear whether the President's misleading testimony in the Paula Jones\ncivil suit or before a grand jury fit within the law's narrow\ndefinition of perjury. Even if it can be proved that the President\ncommitted perjury, the question remains whether perjury about a private\nsexual affair is in the same league as treason, bribery or other gross\nabuses of the official powers of the office of the President. In the\nfinal analysis, I am forced to conclude that it is not and will vote\nagainst impeachment in the House.\n If the Independent Counsel believes he has a strong legal case\nagainst the President, he can and should bring criminal charges against\nMr. Clinton. Nothing in the Constitution prevents that outcomes. But\nimpeachment is not only inappropriate in this case, it is profoundly\ndamaging to the Constitution and our nation's interests.\n This has been a sad chapter in our nation's history and it's not over\nyet. As Alexander Hamilton predicted, it has aroused intense and\npassionate partisan feelings. In fact, I have received more mail, e-\nmail and phone calls on this matter than on any other issue during my\ntensure in office. It is safe to say that no matter how it ends, it\nwill leave a lasting mark on our democracy.\n Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, when I first ran for Congress I jokingly\ninvited President Clinton into my district to campaign for my opponent.\nClearly, we do not see eye to eye. I do intend to vote for his\nimpeachment though, not because of this; not because he had a\ndisrespectful relationship with a subordinate his daughter's age and\nnot because he deliberately lied for months about their relationship to\nevery American.\n I am voting for impeachment because he perjured himself twice, first\nin a civil case and then before a federal grand jury. These actions\nalone make him unfit for office.\n Perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power are clearly high\ncrimes and misdemeanors. They are a direct assault on the foundation of\nAmerica, the rule of law, and on the freedoms of every American.\n I don't want to do this, but I would cast this vote even if a\nPresident from my own party committed these acts.\n I don't appreciate having to be here on the House floor debating\nimpeachment while our troops are fighting in the gulf. But it is the\nPresident who, by his own actions and misdeeds, brought a vote on\nimpeachment to America for only the second time in our history. He\nalone must suffer the consequences.\n Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart but a clear\nconscience that I will vote for Articles of Impeachment against\nPresident William Jefferson Clinton. I know that some of my colleagues\nwho have spoken out in the President's defense have asserted that this\nimpeachment process is illegitimate and, by voting to impeach, this\nCongress will plunge our nation into a constitutional crisis. But, in\nfact, this is a legitimate process contemplated by the Constitution and\nduly authorized by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of House\nmembers. The only crisis we face now is the possibility that we might\nfail to do our duty as mandated by the Constitution.\n This is not about overturning the will of the American people as\nexpressed in the election of 1996. Great weight should be placed on\nprotecting the decision made by the voters, and only the most\nextraordinary circumstances can justify negating that decision. I\nbelieve the circumstances in this case are extraordinary.\n While most Americans find the President's underlying conduct in this\nmatter deplorable--and he himself has already admitted as much--such\nbehavior is not, in and of itself, impeachable. But this Congress is\nnot being asked to judge President Clinton's private sexual behavior or\nhis personal morality. Despite what some would have you believe, this\ncase is no more about sex than a bank robbery is about currency.\n A grand jury is at the very heart of our judicial system. It is the\nchief tool by which we ferret out felonious conduct that should be\nprosecuted. Lying to a Federal grand jury is a grave offense, and the\nPresident clearly lied before that grand jury. As our chief law\nenforcement officer--as a lawyer and officer of the court--President\nClinton knew all of this. And yet he chose to lie anyway.\n Ours is a nation that holds the rule of law as near to being sacred\nas any aspect of our form of government. We not only believe that all\nmen and women are created equal, but also that all are equal under the\nlaw. Our republic is a tapestry woven from many strands--a written\nConstitution, laws and statutes, and, just as important, a body of\nprecedents, traditions, and common law developed over more than two\ncenturies. That tapestry is surely worth preserving. Our\nresponsibility, as Members of this Congress, is to keep it from being\ntattered by the winds which blow against our Republic. I am confident\nthis House will not be found wanting.\n Mr. Speaker, I append my statement of December 17, 1998, to this\nstatement.\n\n Statement on the Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton\n\n The votes I cast tomorrow on Articles of Impeachment\n against President Clinton will surely be the most profoundly\n significant and momentous of my career in public service.\n During the past 14 years in Congress, I have participated in\n two other impeachment proceedings; I have voted to send our\n armed forces into combat in Desert Storm; and I have engaged\n in countless other political battles. Some of these battles\n bordered on the absurd, while others truly helped define who\n we are as Americans, and what we stand for.\n This is only the second time in our Nation's history that\n the House of Representatives will actually vote on Articles\n of Impeachment against a President of the United Sates. This\n is, indeed, an historic moment.\n As I depart today to carry out my solemn responsibility, I\n believe it is important for me to first share my decision\n with those I represent.\n Perhaps the greatest challenge I faced in reaching my\n decision was to cut through all the media punditry and\n relentless political spin, which has largely served to\n obscure--rather than illuminate--the facts and the law in\n this case.\n I know some argue that this process is illegitimate and, by\n voting to impeach, Congress will plunge our nation into a\n constitutional crisis. But, in fact, this is a legitimate\n process contemplated by the Constitution and duly authorized\n by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of House members. The\n only crisis we face now is the possibility that we might fail\n to do our duty as mandated by the Constitution.\n This is not about convicting the President of perjury,\n obstruction of justice, or abuse of power. That\n responsibility is reserved exclusively to the Senate. No\n aspect of this debate has been more misrepresented by\n mainstream news media, and thus so poorly understood by the\n public. As one of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton,\n said clearly in Federalist Paper No. 66:\n ``The division . . . between the two branches of the\n legislative, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the\n other the right of judging, avoids the inconveniences of\n making the same persons both accusers and judges.''\n This point is important, for it is a well established\n principle of our system of jurisprudence that the standard of\n evidence to bring charges is substantially lower than that\n required to convict. Granted, no prosecutor would bring a\n case to a grand jury without a reasonable expectation that a\n conviction could be obtained.\n While Congress does not operate as a court of law when we\n consider impeachment, this is nevertheless as close to a\n legal proceeding as Congress gets. And so, as a defacto grand\n juror, the question I must ask myself is this: Is the weight\n of evidence now sufficient to require the Senate to\n conduct a trial?\n This is not a vendetta against this President. I bear him\n no personal ill will. While I have differed with President\n Clinton on numerous questions of policy, we have also agreed\n on various issues. For example, I have worked closely with\n this Administration, and President Clinton personally, to\n pass NAFTA and build a bipartisan, free-trade coalition. And\n as recently as last week, I joined with President Clinton and\n other Congressional leaders at Blair House, trying to forge a\n bipartisan consensus on Social Security reform.\n Like the vast majority of my colleagues in Congress, and I\n dare say most Americans, I am terribly saddened by this\n entire, tawdry affair. I believe it has diminished respect\n for our nation and the Office of the President, if not all\n elected officials. President Clinton is, undeniably, a shrewd\n political leader who possesses enormous personal charm and a\n remarkable intellect. But I cannot allow my admiration for\n President Clinton's considerable skills to cloud my judgment\n in this matter.\n What else is this vote not about? It is not about\n overturning the will of the American people as expressed in\n the election of 1996. Great weight should be placed on\n protecting the decision made by the voters, and only the most\n extraordinary circumstances can justify negating that\n decision. I believe the circumstances here are extraordinary.\n And it is precisely for this reason that the Constitution\n invests in the Congress the power to impeach a President. The\n framers recognized that, while the judiciary could adjudicate\n most cases of public malfeasance, a special process was\n necessary to accuse, try, and remove a President from office.\n Impeachment and conviction are the only means by which a\n President, fatally corrupted or guilty of abusing the power\n of his office, could be removed. These are the only means by\n which our Constitution and all the institutions therein can\n be protected from further damage.\n Finally, this matter is most assuredly not about sex or\n lying about sex. While most Americans find the underlying\n conduct of\n\n[[Page H11944]]\n\n the President deplorable--and he himself has already admitted\n as much--such behavior is not, in and of itself, impeachable.\n Congress is not being asked to judge President Clinton's\n private sexual behavior or his personal morality. The\n spinmeisters' mantra notwithstanding, this case is no more\n about sex than a bank robbery is about currency. Rather, the\n Articles of Impeachment accuse President Clinton of lying in\n a civil deposition, committing perjury before a Federal grand\n jury, obstructing justice, and abusing the power and the\n office of the Presidency. And I have based my decision on a\n careful review of these articles and the supporting evidence,\n which I believe is substantial and credible.\n The heart of the case is perjury: Did President Clinton lie\n under oath when he gave testimony in his deposition in a\n civil rights lawsuit, and did he subsequently lie under oath\n to a Federal grand jury when questioned about that testimony?\n The evidence is overwhelming that he did lie. Even many of\n his most ardent supporters in Congress acknowledge that he\n lied and committed perjury in both instances. Some continue\n to assert, as the President does, that he only intended to\n ``mislead,'' and that does not conform to perjury as the\n Supreme Court defined it in 1973, in Bronston v. U.S. But the\n President's testimony exceeded even that high threshold of\n perjury.\n Listen to what the President said when questioned by his\n own attorney in the Paula Jones lawsuit deposition before a\n Federal judge:\n Robert Bennett, the President's lawyer, said: ``In [Monica\n Lewinsky's] affidavit, she says `I have never had a sexual\n relationship with the President . . . ' Is that a true and\n accurate statement . . . ?''\n President Clinton responded: ``That is absolutely true.''\n No reasonable person could conclude, from what we now know\n of what transpired between the President and Ms. Lewinsky,\n that this statement is anything other than a perjurious lie.\n So the only question which remains for me to ponder in\n considering the first two Articles of Impeachment is whether\n perjury in a matter of personal behavior rises to the level\n of an impeachable offense.\n A legal definition of treason can be found in the\n Constitution itself, and federal statutes give adequate\n judicial guidance with respect to the matter of bribery. But\n the framers left to future Congresses to decide what\n constitutes ``other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I believe\n there is ample evidence that felonious conduct--and perjury\n is a felony--falls well within the bounds of what our\n forefathers intended the phrase ``high crimes and\n misdemeanors'' to include.\n The Minority Counsel for the Judiciary Committee relied\n upon language used in the 1974 impeachment report dealing\n with President Nixon to suggest that these are not\n impeachable offenses. The committee that voted out Articles\n of Impeachment in the Nixon case said: `` . . . impeachment .\n . . is to be predicated upon conduct seriously incompatible\n with either the constitutional form and principles of\n government or the proper performance of constitutional duties\n of the Presidential office.''\n But ours is a nation that holds the rule of law as near to\n being sacred as any aspect of our form of government. We not\n only believe that all men and women are created equal, but\n also that all are equal under the law. Our republic is a\n tapestry woven from many strands, including a written\n Constitution, numerous laws and statutes, and--just as\n important--a body of precedents, traditions, and common law\n developed over more than two centuries. If our Star Spangled\n Banner is worth preserving, then certainly the tapestry of\n law and justice for which it stands is worth preserving, too.\n President Clinton solemnly swore to protect and defend the\n Constitution of the United States, and to see that the laws\n shall be faithfully executed. He is the principal law\n enforcement officer of the United States. What possible\n respect for the rule of law can any of us have--or demand of\n others--if our President is not to be held accountable for\n perjury, just because he is the President or because the\n underlying circumstances for lying relates to personal\n behavior?\n Is perjury relative? No. Does it only apply in some cases?\n No. Should we apply penalties selectively? No. Are some\n individuals more equal than others, and are we to treat them\n differently? Absolutely not. And I can think of no\n prescription more certain to undermine our system of\n jurisprudence than to answer affirmatively to these\n questions. I cannot.\n Stuart Taylor, writing in the National Journal, noted that\n ``Before President Clinton got caught, no constitutional\n expert had ever suggested it would be wrong to impeach a\n President for crimes such as lying under oath (even about\n sex), suborning perjury, or obstructing both a civil rights\n lawsuit and a criminal investigation.'' And, I would add, if\n we need a precise legal precedent for perjury as grounds for\n impeachment, I can refer to a vote I cast nine years ago to\n impeach Judge Nixon of Mississippi. The charge, then as now,\n was perjury.\n Having said all this, I do make a distinction between\n perjury before a Federal grand jury and lying in a civil\n deposition. Both are perjury. But a grand jury is at the very\n heart of our judicial system. It's the chief tool by which we\n ferret out felonious conduct that should be prosecuted. Lying\n to a grand jury is the graver offense, in my view, and the\n President clearly lied before that grand jury. As our chief\n law enforcement officer--as a lawyer and officer of the\n court--President Clinton knew all of this. And yet he chose\n to lie anyway.\n Lying in a deposition taken in a civil case strikes a more\n glancing blow at the integrity of our judicial system. Here,\n I believe the balance of other factors, including the\n imperative to respect the integrity of the electoral process,\n argues against impeachment. For me, this was a very close\n call. Therefore, I will vote for impeachment on Article I,\n but not on Article II.\n Turning to Article III, I believe the weight of evidence is\n sufficient to try the President on this article, dealing with\n obstruction of justice. I will vote to send this article to\n the Senate for trial.\n The President did encourage Ms. Lewinsky to file a false\n affidavit in the Paula Jones case. He had prior knowledge\n that she would be subpoenaed; he knew what her affidavit\n said; and he knew it to be false.\n Can a reasonable person come to any conclusion about\n President Clinton's post-deposition conversation with his\n personal secretary, Betty Currie, other than this: That he\n purposefully suggested to her--indirectly but with\n specificity--the gist of his testimony and desired that Ms.\n Currie should conform to it in the event she might be called\n as a witness? Ms. Currie testified that she believed this was\n the President's intent. And yet, the declaratory statements\n he made to her that Sunday morning were known by him to be\n false.\n How do we explain why Ms. Currie would suddenly be\n motivated to retrieve gifts President Clinton had given to\n Ms. Lewinsky--evidence which certainly would be subpoenaed by\n a federal court--and hide them under her bed? How do we\n explain why the President had such a intense personal\n interest in seeing to it that Ms. Lewinsky found a job in New\n York after--and only after--her name appeared on the witness\n list in the Paula Jones case?\n All of these actions--the false affidavit, the coaching of\n Betty Currie, the retrieval of the gifts, the effort to find\n Ms. Lewinsky a job--are at the core of the case to be made\n for obstruction of justice. The pattern of evidence clearly\n requires a complete examination in the Senate.\n The fourth and final Article of Impeachment deals with\n abuse of power by the President. To my mind, this is the most\n troubling, but also the most subjective.\n As chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that\n funds the Executive Office of the President I have\n experienced the Clinton Administration's ``stonewalling''\n efforts first hand. And I must say, as I listened to the\n testimony of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr before the\n Judiciary Committee, I found his litany about the lack of\n cooperation by the White House Counsel office distressingly\n familiar.\n Clearly, the evidence offered in support of Article IV\n suggests a pattern of abuse of power. Sending loyal cabinet\n members and White House aides before the cameras to proclaim\n the President's innocence, when he knew their statements to\n be false, is surely despicable. The President's aggressive\n efforts to undermine the Independent Counsel's investigation\n were outrageous. But are these offenses impeachable? I have\n concluded that they are not.\n I return to Washington today with a heavy heart, but I am\n buoyed by the wonderful expressions of support I have\n received from so many--friends and total strangers alike--who\n have urged me to do what I believe to be right, whatever that\n decision might be. I also want to commend the thousands of\n individuals who have contacted my district and Washington\n offices during the last several weeks to express their views.\n Having answered scores of constituent phone calls myself, I\n am well aware that the people of southern Arizona are deeply\n divided or the prospect of Impeachment.\n I said at the outset that this is a decision I must make\n alone, based on my conscience and best judgment of the facts\n and the law. No Republic Congressional leaders have contacted\n me of attempted to influence my votes. Should there be\n political repercussion as a result of the votes I will cast\n tomorrow, so be it. Whatever the outcome of tomorrow's votes,\n it will certainly be one of the saddest moments in our\n nation's history. But I will cast my votes with confidence\n that I have done what I believe is right, for the sake of our\n nation,\n Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, this is a solemn and sober occasion. It\nis day and a duty that all of us had hoped we could avoid. But, this\nday and that duty came. On historic days like this, we must draw\nstrength from the heroic figures who have gone before us.\n From Valley Forge, to Gettysburg, from Normandy to this very day,\nAmericans have found the courage to do what was required. And we, in\nour day, with God's help, will meet this challenge. We will stand today\nfor the rule of law, or we will submit to the rule of men.\n Mr. Speaker, the matters before us are difficult, but they are not\ncomplicated.\n Our friends on the other side offered no real defense for the\ncharges. Indeed, in their own resolution, they acknowledged that Mr.\nClinton failed to tell the truth to a Federal Grand Jury. They agree\nthat he has brought dishonor on himself and on the high office he\nholds.\n On several occasions, Mr. Clinton put one hand on the Bible and took\nan oath. Twice he pledged to ``preserve, protect, and defend the\nConstitution of the United States.'' As President, he has the\nresponsibility to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''\n\n[[Page H11945]]\n\n Subsequently, Mr. Clinton swore under oath ``to tell the truth, the\nwhole truth, and nothing but the truth.'' He was warned by his\nsupporters and his attorneys of the dire consequences of breaking that\noath. As an attorney himself, Mr. Clinton understood very well the\ngravity of perjury. He understood the seriousness of witness tampering\nand obstruction of justice.\n Our entire system of justice and indeed our very rule of law is built\non the bedrock that oaths are sacred. Were it not so, why would we use\nBibles? Or, why take oaths at all?\n The evidence is overwhelming, the Constitution is clear. My\nconclusion is inescapable. Bill Clinton violated his oath of office. He\nviolated his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but\nthe truth. He did willfully commit perjury, obstruct justice, and\nsubvert the legal process. His actions have brought dishonor upon the\nhigh office that the American people have entrusted to him.\n If we in Congress fail to act in this case, we will have set a\nterrible precedent. We will have said that there are two standards--one\nfor powerful politicians, and another for everyone else.\n Mr. Speaker, we must today rise to our Constitutional\nresponsibilities. We must do our duty. We answer to our conscience and\nto posterity.\n It is with a heavy heart but a clear conscience that I will cast my\nvote in favor of these Articles of Impeachment.\n Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, the full House meets today for only the\nsecond time in our nation's history to consider Articles of Impeachment\nagainst a sitting President. Other than declaring war, impeaching the\nPresident is the most solemn Constitutional issue Congress will ever\naddress. The seriousness of the issue is only compounded by the fact\nthat as a democracy, where power and authority flow from the people,\nthe citizenry--not the government--selects the nation's leaders. As a\nresult, it is a matter of utmost public concern when the government, in\nthe form of this Congress, takes steps to remove the people's choice. I\nknow that my Republican colleagues wholeheartedly agree that the\nConstitution is designed to specifically limit the authority of the\nnational government. I would remind the members who have brought these\nArticles to the floor that impeachment is the ultimate ``big\ngovernment'' action.\n The founding fathers envisioned that it might be necessary under very\nlimited circumstances for the government to take such action. They\nprovided Congress with the authority to remove the ``President, Vice\nPresident, and all civil Officers of the United States . . . on\nImpeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high\nCrimes and Misdemeanors.'' The issue before us today is whether or not\nthe President's actions meet the Constitutional threshold set for\nimpeachment and whether or not the process which has governed the\nactions of the House to date passes Constitutional and legal muster.\n Let me begin by saying that the President's conduct was wrong. I am\nmost disappointed that he mislead the American people for many months.\nHe should have told us the truth from the very beginning. I echo the\nPresident's conclusion that his conduct demonstrated a critical lapse\nof judgment and is deserving of public rebuke. With that said, I\nbelieve it is important to note that the President is continuing to do\nhis duty. I believe a case could be made for impeachment if the\nPresident stopped carrying out his responsibilities, ceased his efforts\non behalf of the American people and allowed the national security of\nthe United States to be jeopardized.\n The Constitution is the nation's organic act. It serves as the\nvehicle through which the American people grant certain powers to the\nnational government. It affords every American the greatest set of\nfundamental rights available anywhere in the world. It is a living\ndocument which is interpreted every day by the executive, legislative\nand judicial branches of our government. However, our entire system of\nConstitutional jurisprudence is based on ascertaining the intent of the\nmen who wrote the document and the citizens who approved it 210 years\nago. As a result, we must rely on contemporary accounts of the debate\nat the Constitutional Conventional and state ratifying conventions,\nearly Supreme Court decisions which articulated this intent, and\nscholarly analysis to inform us about events, points of view, areas of\nagreement and matters of contention which we can not directly observe.\nWith that in mind, the first step in our deliberation must be to\ndetermine how the framers intended impeachment to be employed in our\nsystem.\n The Judiciary Committee held a hearing in early November which was\ndesigned to help us understand the intent of the framers of the\nConstitution. Although the positions taken by the participants appeared\npolarized, even irreconcilable, at times, I detect a common thread\nwhich is absolutely crucial to our debate today. Many of the scholars\nwho testified made a point which goes to the heart of the\nConstitutional design of impeachment. Professor Mattew Holden explained\nthat impeachment is the ultimate check available to Congress in our\nsystem of checks and balances between branches. Impeachment is\navailable as a last resort if all other devices--laws, oversight or\noverriding Presidential vetoes--fail to ensure that the President\noperates within established Constitutional boundaries. Professor Holden\nstated that ``in ultimate defense, [the founding fathers] put in the\nimpeachment procedure, giving Congress some power to remove a President\nfrom office.'' Father Robert Drinan, who served on the Judiciary\nCommittee during Watergate, echoed this conclusion when he explained\nthat the `` * * * Congress has almost always understood that\nimpeachment was designed by the founding fathers to be a remedy\nintended only for a dire situation for which no other political remedy\nexists.'' He summarized his comments by describing impeachment as ``a\nfinal safety net in case somehow the separation of powers did not work\nand that a nearly tyrant in the executive branch could not be stopped\nby any means short of removal.''\n Under the Constitution, impeachment is designed as the ultimate check\non an errant executive who can not be constrained by any other means.\nImpeachment is not intended to be used as a device to express\ndisapproval of certain actions or to shame the President. There are\nother mechanisms to achieve this goal--mechanisms that this institution\nis currently employing with considerable effectiveness. I do not\nbelieve the use of impeachment by the House today conforms to this\nConstitutional standard.\n Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that the process which has governed\nthis gravely serious issue has been flawed from the very beginning. It\nhas been decidedly partisan and one-sided. As Professor Arthur\nSchlesinger testified before the Committee, the framers further\nbelieved that, if the impeachment process is to acquire popular\nlegitimacy, the bill of particulars must be seen as impeachable by\nbroad sections of the electorate. The charges must be so grave and the\nevidence for them so weighty that they persuade members of both parties\nthat removal must be considered.'' the party-line votes in the\nCommittee and the consistent finding that about 60% of the American\npeople do not support impeachment demonstrate that neither of these\nessential conditions has been met.\n Some members of the majority argue that to fail to impeach the\nPresident would hold him to a lower standard than any other American\nand put him ``above the law.'' This argument has two fundamental flaws.\nFirst, the President is fully subject to indictment and prosecution\nafter this term expires. The Independence Counsel is preserving certain\noptions which would allow the federal government to take this very\naction. Second, the President is subject to a form of punishment which\ncan not be imposed on average citizens--impeachment. However, the\nConstitution requires that he commit ``Treason, Bribery or other high\nCrimes and Misdemeanors'' in order to be impeachment. These are not\njust any criminal offenses, but offenses which threaten the very\nexistence of the state, our form of government, and the American\npeople's fundamental interest in exercising control over their leaders.\nThe standard to prove such offenses must be very high.\n Although impeachment takes place with the House of Representatives\nrather than in a federal courthouse, I do not believe that means\nfundamental legal standards which undergird our entire society become\nirrelevant. It is incredulous to agree that the President is entitled\nto a lower standard of legal protection than any other citizen. I agree\nwith my colleagues that ``no citizen is above the law.'' At the same\ntime, no one should be below it either. It is a fundamental premise in\nour system that someone can not be tried without being informed of the\nspecific charges against them. It is impossible to mount a defense\nagainst unknown or extremely vague charges. In addition, our legal\nsystem is based on the bedrock tenet that charges must be substantiated\nby an increasing level of proof based on the seriousness of the\noffense. Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious offenses\nindeed. As a result, federal law, the authority on which the\nIndependent Counsel bases his charges, request the government to prove\n``beyond a reasonable doubt''--the weightiest burden of proof in our\nsystem--that a defendant committed these offense.\n The Articles of Impeachment before the House today fail to provide\nthe President, or the members of the House with specific statements or\nactions which the majority contends constituted ``perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony.'' Article I states that the President provided\nfalse statements concerning the ``nature and details of his\nrelationship with subordinate Government employee'' and ``testimony he\ngave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.'' Article II\nstates that he President\n\n[[Page H11946]]\n\nprovided ``perjurious, false and misleading testimony in responses to\nquestions deemed relevant * * *'' about ``conduct and proposed\nconduct'' and ``the nature and details of his relationship [with Ms.\nLewinsky].''\n What specific statement does the majority believe are ``perjurious?''\nWhat were the ``relevant questions?'' Where are the specific statements\nwhich meet the legal requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?\nWith the stakes as high as they are, it is unacceptable for the\nCommittee to offer vague generalities as the grounds for impeachment.\nIf the Committee could meet the legal standard which applies in every\ncourtroom across America, a reasonable person would conclude that those\nstatements would be listed in the Articles. Failure to do so leads me\nto conclude that the majority can not meet the standard so it has\nrestored to vague generalities. This conclusion is buttressed by the\ntestimony before the Committee of five former Federal prosecutors who\nwere unanimous in their conclusion that the evidence supporting the\ncharges of perjury and obstruction of justice is extremely weak. In\naddition, they agreed that no responsible federal prosecutor would ever\ntake a case based on the evidence before this body to trial. Voting to\nimpeach the President of the United States requires that this\ninstitution have clear and overwhelming evidence that he engaged in\nspecific act of misconduct which undermine our system of government.\nAbsent this proof, it flies in the face of the intent of the founders\nto impeach the President.\n The fundamental weakness in the process extends to the Committee's\ninvestigation of and deliberation on this nationally significant issue.\nOne only needs to consider a few examples to understand the fundamental\nshortcomings of the process. First and foremost, the Committee did not\nconduct an independent investigation of this complex situation. It\nrelied exclusively on the evidence gathered, and packaged, by the\nIndependent Counsel. This evidence and the testimony of the witnesses\nwas never subject to across examination by the defendant--the President\nof the United States. Our legal system relies on an adversarial\nprocess--manifest most directly in the cross examination of witnesses--\nto discover the truth and to expose fundamental contradictions. The\nevidence and testimony gathered without the benefit of this process\nwould be considered suspect, and strongly challenged, by virtually any\nlawyer in this country.\n The fundamental weakness of the evidence has only been compounded by\nthe fact that the Committee did not hear testimony directly from any of\nthe central witnesses in this case. During the Watergate hearings, the\nHouse Judiciary Committee called several of the central figures in the\ndrama--John Mitchell, John Dean, Charles Colson and Alexander\nButterfield--to testify. The members of the Committee--Democrat and\nRepublican--were able to question these witnesses directly, follow-up\non vague answers or pursue lines of questions as they developed. The\nCommittee did not rely solely on an outside entity to gather evidence\nand question witnesses when considering whether or not to impeach the\nPresident.\n Quite to the contrary, the Judiciary Committee did not hear directly\nfrom a single witness who was a participant in any of the events in\nquestion. The fact witnesses today include Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp\nand Betty Currie. The majority on the Committee maintains that it would\nhave been too unseemly to call these witnesses, it would have been too\nembarrassing. These excuses fall far short of the mark. The House has\nthe Constitutional duty to consider impeachment. This is not an easy\ntask, it is not fun-- and it should not be. Nevertheless, the House has\nan obligation to hear from witnesses directly and to question them in\nan effort to get information which reflects all sides of the story. The\nfailure to do so dramatically undermines the credibility of the\nCommittee's findings because it abdicated its responsibility under the\nConstitution by relying exclusively on the evidence and testimony\npresented by the Independent Counsel.\n I believe it is absolutely critical for the House to conduct an\nindependent, direct investigation because members are acting on behalf\nof the American people. This body is considering taking step to\noverturn two national elections. In order to take this action, this\nbody has a solemn obligation to gather evidence, examine the central\nwitnesses and delve directly into all of the issues which could impact\non the decision to impeach. Accountability for this decision rests\nunequivocally with this institution--not the Independent Counsel, not a\ngrand jury, not even with the President. As a result, it is incumbent\non the House to take the predominate role in the investigation. This\nessential standard, which guarantees accountability to the American\npeople, has not been met.\n I would like to take a moment to review the Articles before the\nHouse. I have already commented on the weaknesses of Articles I and II\nfrom a legal standpoint. They consists of nothing more than vague\ngeneralities unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. It goes\nwithout saying that the Constitution demands that the President be\ncharged with specific acts of wrong-doing which are substantiated by\noverwhelming evidence before he can be impeached. Article III appears\nto be a catchall category where the majority piled on allegations. This\naction only serves to compromise the process further.\n\n Article IV is interesting both in terms of the charges it levels as\nwell as a historical sleight of hand the majority attempts. This\narticle maintains that the President ``contravened the authority of the\nlegislative branch . . . in that . . . [he] refused and failed to\nrespond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made\nperjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to\ncertain written requests for admission propounded to him. . . . As far\nas I know, the Committee sent the President 81 questions and he\nresponded to each of them. I read in the papers after the responses\nwere provided around Thanksgiving that members on the majority side of\nthe Committee found the answers to be ``arrogant'' and ``not contrite\nenough.'' Perhaps this Article should read that ``the President failed\nto provide contrite answers to the Committee's questions.'' This would\nbe a more accurate description than the President failed to respond to\nthe Committee's request for information.\n This article also includes what I referred to above as a historical\nsleight of hand. The third Article of Impeachment against President\nRichard Nixon stated that by refusing to comply with 8 subpoenas\napproved by the Judiciary Committee requesting more than 140 documents\nand taped conversations, the President had ``assum[ed] to himself the\nfunctions and judgements necessary to exercise of the sole power of\nimpeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of\nRepresentatives.'' The Committee levels this very same, profoundly\nserious charge against President Clinton regardless of the fact that he\nwas never served with any subpoenas from the Committee and provided\nresponses to questions submitted in writing.\n It strains credibility to maintain that the President ``assumed'' the\nauthority of the House in this area. The Judiciary Committee has moved\nwith considerable speed and little impediment to bring us to where we\nstand today. The Committee uses this language completely out of its\nhistorical context. The statement was appropriate 24 years ago when\nPresident Nixon defied multiple subpoenas and withheld documents and\nother materials which were crucial to the investigation. There is no\nparallel today by any stretch of the imagination. The decision appears\nto be yet another attempt to boost charges, which lack substantial\nfactual background, with rhetoric which suggests the President\ncommitted terrible offenses. This tactic further demeans an already\nflawed process.\n I would like to make one final point which illustrates that this\nprocess does not comport with the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 of\nthe Constitution states that the ``House of Representatives . . . shall\nhave the sole Power of Impeachment.'' Impeachment is the power to\ncharge--not judge. Article I, Section 3 grants the Senate this\nauthority. It states that the ``Senate shall have the sole Power to try\nall Impeachments'' and that ``judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall\nnot extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to\nhold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United\nStates.'' It is up to the Senate to determine whether or not the\nPresident should be removed and/or disqualified from holding any other\noffice. However, in each and every one of the Articles before us today,\nthe majority makes this very judgement. This is not the role of the\nHouse as set forth in the Constitution. Where is the indignation about\nthe rule of law or the lofty commentary about our duty to uphold the\ntenets of the Constitution? It is ironic that in an Article alleging\nthat the President usurped the authority of the House, the majority is\nusurping the authority the Constitution grants to the Senate.\n Mr. Speaker, the founders designed impeachment as a ``last resort''\nto remove a President who was impervious to any other method of\ncontrol. They set the bar very high in an effort to ensure that\nimpeachment would not become a weapon which could be deployed for\npartisan political gain. Removing a sitting President requires the\nproponents of such action to demonstrate clearly, convincingly and\nspecifically that the President has committed ``Treason, Bribery or\nother high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' It is clear to me that the\nproponents have not met this standard.\n Moreover, the gravity of the action demands that the House utilize a\ndecision making process which adheres to fundamental legal and\nConstitutional principles. Unfortunately, the process to date falls far\nshort on both. The burden of proof required to charge the President\nwith the offenses alleged has not been\n\n[[Page H11947]]\n\nmet and he has not been informed of the specific actions which have\nplaced him in jeopardy. In addition, in my opinion, the House has\nabdicated its duty under the Constitution to gather the facts and to\nhear from the witnesses directly. The independent Counsel statute does\nnot supersede the Constitution. It does not trump the obligation that\nthis institution has to the American people, and to itself, to conduct\nan independent investigation and to hear directly from material\nwitnesses before taking the momentous step of impeaching the President.\nThe House has failed in this regard and, in so doing, undermined the\nlegitimacy of the Articles before us today.\n Mr. Speaker, I know all too well what America symbolizes to the\nworld. My mother and father survived Hitler and Stalin and fled to the\nUnited States following World War II. To them, this country was a\nshining beacon of democracy, human rights an the principle that the\nrule of law is fixed by a constitution which cannot be changed by the\nwhim of one ruler, or, even, a legislature.\n The action of the Republican majority in bringing these Articles of\nImpeachment to the floor resembles a coup more than the Constitutional\nimpeachment process the founders intended. I do not use this language\nlightly, I do not make this point frivolously. I have come to this\nconclusion based on the fact that these Articles do not meet the\nstandards demanded by the Constitution and our legal system. It would\nbe understandable if a fledgling democracy in Latin America or the\nThird World was struggling to determine the practical operation of\nprovisions of a new constitution and erred in so doing. The United\nStates, as the world's oldest constitutional democracy, could not be\nfurther removed from this scenario. After 210 years, we know the\nintention of the framers concerning impeachment. The misuse of the\nprocess is sending a terrible signal to the nations of the world that\nemulate the United States because we are governed by a set of\nfundamental constitutional principles which are grounded in the intent\nof the framers.\n Due to Constitutional, legal and procedural shortcomings, I cannot\nsupport these Articles of Impeachment. In Federalist 65, Alexander\nHamilton used the following words to describe how he feared the\nimpeachment process could be misused: ``. . . There will always be the\ngreatest danger that the decision [to impeach] will be regulated more\nby the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations\nof innocence or guilt.'' Hamilton foresaw the abuse we witness today.\nMembers should heed his warning and vote against the Articles of\nImpeachment.\n Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying how wrong it is to\nconduct this debate while our troops are in harm's way. Saddam Hussein\nwill surely be emboldened by the Republicans' comments and conduct\ntoday and that will undermine our policy toward Iraq and our national\nsecurity interests.\n Since we have nonetheless decided to proceed, I want to take issue\nwith the opening remarks of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,\nMr. Hyde.\n I deeply regret his effort to characterize the impeachment of the\nPresident as necessary to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.\nHe is wrong, wrong, wrong.\n Equally offensive to me was Mr. Hyde's suggestion that the Radical\nRepublicans who seek to impeach our President today are carrying out\nthe legacy of Moses, ancient Greece and Rome, the Magna Carta and all\nthe precusors of Democracy, which we hold so dear.\n The Radical Republicans who seek to impeach the President are, in\nfact, the heirs of those who would undermine our democracy--their\nprecursors are those who would inspire a tyranny of the majority:\nCromwell and his Puritans who sought to use the British Parliament to\nabolish freedom of religion, Robspierre and the French National\nAssembly who initiated the Reign of Terror, and most analogous--the\nRadical Republicans, who contrary to the wishes of the assassinated\nPresident Lincoln, salted the wounds of a divided America after the\nCivil War and unjustly impeached President Andrew Johnson.\n Mr. Hyde said the Republican effort today is not a vindictive\npolitical crusade. I fact, that is exactly what it is--one of the\ndarkest days in the nation's history, and a blot on our democracy just\nas dark as the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson without cause.\n Why do I cite the tyranny of the majority? Because the Radical\nRepublicans will not let the Members of this House consider and vote on\na bipartisan compromise of censure. The Radical Republicans are guilty\nof thwarting the will of the American people\n Why do I say that the Radical Republicans are not honoring the\nConstitution? Because the President's conduct, while reprehensible,\ndoes not fit the definition under the Constitution as an act of\ntreason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, and therefore does\nnot rise to an impeachable offense to justify the removal of the\nPresident.\n I listened carefully to Mr. Hyde's remarks earlier and he seemed to\nsuggest that it was necessary to lower the bar for impeachment to\ninclude lying about sex because the President held such an important\nposition and needed to serve as a moral authority. But our job under\nthe Constitution is not to set moral standards, as Mr. Hyde suggests,\nbut to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.\n The Radical Republicans in seeking to impeach the President do the\nopposite. In the tradition of their predecessors after the Civil War,\nthey rip apart the Constitution in a politically vindictive tyranny of\nthe majority.\n Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, except for a declaration of war, a U.S.\nRepresentative can never be called upon to make a decision requiring\nmore serious or solemn consideration than on a vote to impeach a\nPresident of the United States.\n I believe what President Clinton did was indefensible and immoral,\nbut I do not think his actions, however, wrong, reached the high\nconstitutional threshold for impeachment and the overturning of the\nonly national election in our democracy.\n Over 200 years ago, George Mason proposed the language in Article II,\nSection 4 of the Constitution establishing the grounds for impeachment\nas ``treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' He\ndefined these actions to mean only ``great and dangerous offenses'' or\n``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' Having a private affair and\nhiding it are wrong under any circumstances, but I am not convinced\nsuch actions ``subvert the Constitution'' and justify nullifying the\nvotes of 47 million American citizens.\n I condemn the President's actions and believe bipartisan\ncongressional censure and the possibility of future criminal action\nwould be appropriate punishment for his affair and subsequent\nmisleading statements.\n Consider the chance that a Senate conviction would be extremely\nremote, the specter of a three to nine month Senate trial with tawdry\ntelevised testimony from Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, and Kenneth\nStarr would punish the nation and our families far more than it would\npunish Bill Clinton.\n The President should be strongly censured by Congress and then have\nhis day in court like any other citizen. He should not be above the law\nand he should not be below the law. History and God will be his\nultimate judge.\n The hindsight of history will be harsh on this Congress and this\nunfair process. For some to speak of their vote of conscience today\neven as they deny a vote of deep conscience for others is in itself\nunconscionable. A process whose goal was to emulate the Watergate\nlegacy, sadly, will leave a legacy more akin to the impeachment of\nAndrew Johnson, a legacy of partisanship, unfairness, and rush to\njudgment.\n In the name of the Constitution, this process trampled on the\nConstitution, Article II and VI. In the name of ``the rule of law''\nthis process ignored the fundamental principles of due process and\nfairness that form the foundation of that rule of law. In the name of\n``no person is above the law'' this process forgot that no citizen\nshould be below the law. In the name of justice, this process ignored\nthe pillar of justice that in our nation, a citizen is innocent until\nproven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. In the name of\nAmerica, this process raised the ugly debate of who is a ``real''\nAmerican. History will judge this process as a combination of Kafka,\n``To Kill A Mockingbird,'' and Keystone Kops.\n\n Mr. Speaker, if the Golden Rule were to be our guide, who among us in\nthis House would want to be a defendant in a case where the rules of\nlaw and fairness were ignored? Where secret grand jury testimony was\nreleased to the world? Where there was not one direct fact-witness?\nWhere your defense attorney was limited to one hour of cross-\nexamination of your chief accuser, who spent four years and forty\nmillion dollars investigating you? Where your attorney was forced to\ngive your final defense before even one formal charge had been\npresented against you? Where the charges of perjury that were finally\npresented at the 11th hour failed the test of decency to list which\nstatements were allegedly perjurious?\n Surely, Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House would ever want or\ndeserve to be a defendant in such a case. Yet, if we would not want to\nbe judged by such an unfair process, then what right do we have to\njudge anyone else by that process? To even suggest that such a process\nwas somehow fair because impeachment is not a trial would be to hid\nbehind a fig leaf of legalism for those who claim to revere the\nprinciples of ``the rule of law'' and ``equal justice under the law.''\n I will not question the final decision of any Member of this House\nfor these are votes of conscience. However, just as we are judges\ntoday, history will judge this Congress tomorrow and for generations to\ncome. Perhaps the ultimate justice is that history will judge that on\nthis matter, the Congress and the President both failed to meet the\nhighest standards in the sacred stewardship of the public trust.\n\n[[Page H11948]]\n\n As we end this Congress, regrettably, on a note of partisanship and\nill will, one week before Christmas, perhaps it would be good if the\nPresident and all of us of all faiths, myself included, paused in the\ndays ahead to reflect on the values of a small child born in Bethlehem\nwhose life taught the world the power of love, forgiveness, and\ncompassion. Maybe then the next Congress and our President could share\nthe common bond and highest ideals of public service.\n Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution providing\nfor the impeachment of the President of the United States and to\nprotest this very unfair and partisan process. The Republican majority\nin this House is railroading President Clinton, thwarting the will of\nthe American people, and setting dangerous precedents for the use of\nimpeachment against future Presidents.\n It is particularly outrageous that you Republicans insist on moving\nforward with this proceeding at the very time the United States is\nleading military strikes against Iraq and U.S. military personnel are\nin harm's way. It cannot help our service members' morale nor bolster\nour authority in the world that the Commander-in-Chief is under attack\nby rabid partisans who don't seem to care what other harm they cause if\nthey can drag this President down.\n I was one of five Members who voted against any investigation of the\nPresident and I will not vote to impeach him. I honestly believe that\nwhat President Clinton is accused of doing does not reach the threshold\nthe Framers established for impeachment. The President by his actions\nhas not threatened the nation's stability or brought an attack on the\nConstitution or presented problems for our Constitutional process.\n Short of declaring war, a vote on Presidential impeachment is the\nmost serious vote a Member of this House can cast. But not all Members\nare taking this historic duty seriously.\n Many on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, seem to forget that the\nStarr referral tells only one side of the story. It appears many have\nrefused to seriously consider the presentations of the President's\nlawyers or any other information that might support the President's\ncase against impeachment.\n In fact, much of what we see today is the result of the desire of a\ngroup of people, including many House Republicans, to destroy this\nPresident. Within weeks of his election, I was seeing ``Impeach\nClinton'' bumper stickers. And now, as columnist Richard Cohen put it\nin a Washington Post op-ed on Tuesday, Republicans have made impeaching\nPresident Clinton ``a matter of party discipline, not of conscience,\nnor, for that matter, of logic.''\n How else to explain how an investigation that began with Whitewater\nbecame an impeachment process based on a private consensual affair? Or\nwhy the Judiciary Committee failed to set a standard for impeachment or\nto investigate the charges by calling witnesses with knowledge of the\nfacts, but instead just swallowed the Starr report whole? Or why the\nRepublican leadership will not let the House vote on censure?\n Of the articles of impeachment, the two alleging perjury are\nconsidered the more plausible--most experts believe the evidence does\nnot support allegations of obstruction of justice or abuse of power--\nbut I am very concerned about how loosely the term ``perjury'' is being\nused in this process.\n I am old enough to remember when offenses like loitering or vagrancy\nwere used to harass poor people, minorities, antiwar activists, and\nother undesirables, until the courts threw them out as too broad and\narbitrary. Now, ``perjury'' is being used broadly to refer to\nincomplete, misleading, even false statements, but ``perjury'' has a\nmuch more specific legal meaning, and I don't think the Republicans\nhave proven that it occurred in this case. But rather than criticize\nthe President's team for ``legalisms'', we should remember that the\nprecise language of the law is a protection of our liberties.\n The Founders did not provide for impeachment to punish a President\nfor behavior Congress doesn't like, for refusing to confess in public\nto an offense he doesn't believe he committed, or for not being\ncontrite enough.\n Mr. Speaker, any offenses the President may have committed were not\nagainst our Constitution or our republic. Nothing he is accused of\namounts to bribery, treason, high crimes or high misdemeanors. A\nprivate consensual relationship is not an impeachable offense. Nor does\nany element of this sorry situation justify overturning a national\nelection and disenfranchising millions of Americans.\n The American people are smart enough to understand what is going on,\nand they say ``Stop!'' They continue to support the President, and that\nis what we should do. I will continue to support President Clinton and\nhis efforts to make life better for all Americans.\n There is still a lot of work to do, and Bill Clinton has the ability,\nintelligence, and understanding to handle crucial issues before us.\nThat is what is important and this is what the American people want.\n Mr. Speaker, the nation has had enough. Impeachment is overkill in\nthis case. We don't need the spectacle of a Senate trial to divert\nattention from the nation's business for second year, or even part of a\nyear. We don't need the long-term political warfare a near party-line\nvote will surely generate.\n For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against\nimpeaching President Clinton.\n Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have spoke today about the legal\naspects of the impeachment procedure and I want to speak on this matter\nin terms that the people of this great nation understand. I will speak\nabout the real reasons why the Republicans want to impeach President\nClinton. Mr. Speaker, a short time after Bill Clinton was elected, I\nbegan to see ``Impeach Clinton'' bumper stickers along certain parts of\nI-95. It dawned on me than that his Presidency was one that was going\nto come under attack regardless of whether or not it turned out to be a\ngood one. Since that time the right wing has not given up on its desire\nto destroy his Presidency. Talk shows hosts quickly began to insult him\nand show a lack of respect for him and his office. It should be clear\nto anyone who has paid attention that the right wing has not gotten\nover the fact that the President has been elected and re-elected. And\nso here we are today in the middle of a right wing coup. It does not\nmatter what they tell you here this weekend, the fact is that the\nmajority party is trying to undo the last two elections. The Republican\nright-wing has not gotten over Bill Clinton's success as President. And\nso what we are seeing here today is an attempt to use the Constitution\nas a bully's weapon. You Republicans may have the votes to overthrow\nthis President but you do have the support of the same American people\nwho you always hold up as the people we, in the Congress, should listen\nto. You may have the votes but the American people will not let you get\naway with it. An investigation about a land deal called Whitewater came\nback to us as an impeachment having to do with the private life of the\nPresident. This investigation consisted of illegal tape recordings,\none-sided testimony, and no provisions for the President to mount a\nproper defense. You knew that, but you still decided to release all of\nthis information in order to build opinion against the President and\nset out to finally get him. But it backfired. The American people have\nnot bought your bullying tactics. They have told you over and over\nagain to leave this alone. Just because you have the majority of the\nvotes you don't have the right to overthrow this President and abuse\nthe powers you get from the Constitution. You think you are going to\nget away with this but it won't work. You are going to hear from the\npeople in a way like never before. This is a mean, unfair thing you are\ndoing and it will come back to haunt. In the meantime we will all have\nto try to undo the damage you have done to this nation in this Chamber\nhere tonight.\n Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I share the outrage and disappointment\nexpressed by my constituents and colleagues. The President's actions\nviolated the trust we accord our Nation's leader.\n Moreover, Mr. Speaker, several of our distinguished colleagues have\ncontended, during the course of the debate in the Judiciary Committee,\nand then during this debate today, that this action has revolved solely\naround sex. That is not accurate. This debate is no more about sex than\nthe Watergate debate was about a third-rate burglary.\n The debate then, as now, is about the coverup efforts subsequent to\nthe initial act: The perjury, the suborning of perjury, the obstruction\nof justice, and abuse of power. These are the grave issues we must\nconsider, and we must judge as worthy of impeachment.\n It is against that background that our decision whether or not to\nvote for impeachment must be taken.\n This is a difficult decision for all of us, probably the most\ndifficult of my career in the Congress. I thank my constituents who\nshared their views. I recognize that there has been a great deal of\nserious thought, and soul searching on both sides. I am deeply\nimpressed, and grateful, by the sophistication and sincerity of the\narguments my constituents have shared with me.\n While I have been closely following the committee's proceedings, I\nhave just recently had the opportunity to review the 400 page Judiciary\nCommittee's report, to listen to floor debate, and the arguments by\nconstitutional authorities. Most importantly, I have searched my own\nconscience, and weighed my 48 years of experience as an attorney,\nincluding my 35 years of public service in reaching my decision.\n While none of us should minimize the gravity of the impeachment\nprocess, we must bear in mind that the House has no final word in\ndetermining if any official should or should not be removed from\noffice. Under our Constitution that role is assigned to the other body.\nAn impeachment vote in the House is equivalent\n\n[[Page H11949]]\n\nunder the law to an indictment. Essentially, our vote in the House is\nan accusation. Referral of this issue to the Senate is not removal, but\nmerely a finding of probable cause to believe a removable offense may\nhave occurred.\n Having fully considered all of the facts before us, reluctantly, I\nhave come to the conclusion that probable cause in fact exists.\nAccordingly, I shall be voting in favor of at least one article of\nimpeachment.\n There is little doubt that perjury has taken place. The President's\ndefenders do not deny this, but have confined their argument to\ncontending that such perjury, while regrettable, does not rise to the\nlevel of impeachment.\n I respectfully disagree with that analysis. Perjury is a serious\ncrime in all 50 States. In most States, perjury by an attorney leads to\nautomatic disbarment. There have been eight Federal judges impeached on\ncharges of perjury in this century. Today, over 100 Americans are\nimprisoned for the crime of perjury. The argument that perjury\ncommitted by our Commander in Chief, or perjury which deals with\ncertain subjects, is somehow exempt from the law is disingenuous.\n I have considered the allegation of the President's perjury in\ncontext, and have concluded, to my distress, that a pattern of\nobstruction has emerged. At no time did the President cooperate with\nthe Special Prosecutor's office but in fact worked to delay, obstruct,\nand frustrate the work of the Special Prosecutor. This is in marked\ncontrast with Presidents Reagan and Bush, who cooperated fully at all\ntimes with the Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate allegations\nagainst their administrations, despite the fact that it has been argued\nthat the Special Prosecutor in those cases was less than impartial.\n Along with the millions of Americans, I was distressed that the White\nHouse and its supporters adopted a strategy of attacking the motives\nand character of the Special Prosecutor rather than responding to the\nspecific charges made by his office. This attitude persisted until\nnearly the end of the Judiciary Committee hearings and was, I believe,\ngrossly inappropriate for an investigation of this gravity.\n Some of our colleagues have also contended that a trial in the Senate\nwill consume our Government for months. In fact, one of our colleagues\nstated that it would take up the better part of next year. Mr. Speaker\nthis is not accurate. There is no reason whatsoever that action in the\nother body cannot be promptly and speedily concluded. Both the majority\nand minority on our Judiciary Committee have issued a final report. In\nfact, the only possibility that action will be dragged out is if the\nPresident desires to do so. It is hoped that the President and his\nadvisors will opt not to do so, and will acquiesce in a prompt\nconsideration and conclusion of this matter.\n Let me make it clear that though I support the articles of\nimpeachment by the House, I am not convinced that he should be removed\nfrom office. In fact, that decision can only be made after a fair trial\nin the other body. The Senate will have the opportunity to consider the\npenalty of censure.\n Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, our action will send a message to all\nAmericans and to the entire world that no one in our Nation can\nconsider themselves above the rule of law, particularly our Nation's\nchief law enforcement official.\n Mr. Speaker. I request that for my colleagues attention, an editorial\nby one of the leading dairy newspaper in my congressional district,\n``The Journal News'', dated December 15, 1998, entitled ``Impeachment\nVote,'' Be inserted at this point in the Record.\n\n [From the Journal News, White Plains, NY, Dec. 15, 1998]\n\n Impeachment Vote--House Must Vote to Send Clinton's Fate to a Trial\n Before the U.S. Senate\n\n Impeaching President Clinton--putting him on trial in the\n Senate--is the only responsible course left to the House of\n Representatives.\n The House should vote to impeach, not because the charges\n against the president have been proved, but because they\n remain serious and believable, and because a Senate trial\n becomes the last chance of ferreting out the truth.\n The House Judiciary Committee did nothing to advance the\n case against President Clinton, other than to give\n independent counsel Kenneth Starr a forum to make a good case\n for his own findings. In choosing not to conduct an\n independent investigation of its own, the committee failed to\n grapple with the substance of the most serious charges: that\n the president lied under oath and coached other witnesses to\n do the same.\n The committee's failure was a lost opportunity, to be sure.\n It did not make the decision by the full House any easier.\n The evidence against Clinton does not make the kind of open-\n and-shut case that had been made against Richard Nixon by the\n time his impeachment proceeding had reached this stage.\n But if the case against Clinton was not clinched in the\n committee, it was not derailed either.\n For one thing, the president's defenders did nothing to\n disprove or to lessen the seriousness of the charges. They\n also left substance largely untouched. Instead, they tried to\n impugn Starr's credibility and to belittle his accusations,\n even while conceding the truth of some of them.\n More important, the Constitution does not equate the\n committee's inquiry to a trial of the president. Despite\n Democrats' arguments to the contrary, the committee's vote on\n articles of impeachment did not constitute a conviction, only\n a recommendation that the Senate conduct a trial leading to a\n finding of guilt or innocence. Yes, a more energetic inquiry\n would have been helpful toward that ultimate decision, but\n the disappointments of the committees' inquiry did not remove\n the need for that decision to be made.\n The question of the president's fitness to hold office\n remains a disturbing and viable one, which the House must now\n pass to the Senate.\n Many still hope to deflect the orderly process dictated by\n the Constitution. They would have Congress decide now on a\n meaningless nonexistent punishment--censure--rather than\n reach a decision on whether the president has committed\n wrongdoing sufficient to remove him from office. Clinton, to\n no one's surprise, has now publicly joined those clamoring\n for this nonconstitutional cop-out.\n The Judiciary Committee's Republican majority was right to\n reject that option. The full House should also heed the words\n of committee Chairman Henry Hyde, that ``a resolution or\n amendment proposing censure of the president in lieu of\n impeachment violates the rules of the House, threatens the\n separation of powers and fails to meet constitutional\n muster.''\n That means that Hyde, who would be instrumental in\n preparing the case to be brought against the president in the\n Senate, must be prepared to get to the core of this case,\n finally.\n Clinton continues to insist that he did not lie under oath\n in denying certain details of Monica Lewinsky's descriptions\n of their sexual encounters. Hyde chose not to probe the\n credibility of those two key figures in his committee\n inquiry. He will have to do so before the 100 senators-\n turned-judges, who must not pre-judge and who will need more\n than assumptions and circumstantial evidence to make their\n own momentous decision.\n\n Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is with great\nsadness that I rise to speak in support of this resolution. I would\nlike to confine my remarks to the issue of judgment. Several speakers\non the minority side have risen today and quoted the scripture ``Judge\nnot, that you be not judged.''\n It is very appropriate that our members should be quoting this verse.\nFor it tells us that when we appear before the throne of God, God will\njudge us by the measure we have used to judge others here on earth.\n Careful reading of the scripture, however, makes it quite clear that\nthe message is not that we should never judge or exercise judgment.\nIndeed, in the same chapter of the Bible that my colleagues have been\nquoting, Jesus goes on to warn the people to exercise judgment and\n``not cast pearls before swine'', and ``to beware of false prophets.''\n Most scholars interpret this verse of scripture previously quoted\nabout not judging to mean that we should not condemn others for their\nfaults, and that we should forgive those who offend us.\n However, it has never been proposed by any reasonable person that\nthis verse of scripture asserts that we are to let criminals go free or\nthat our law should not be upheld.\n Bill Clinton is not being judged by the members here as much as he is\nbeing judged by the law itself. The preamble to the Constitution tells\nus that the Constitution was created for among other reasons to\nestablish justice. To blithely forgive or ignore these offenses is to\nmake a mockery of justice.\n Our laws state that to lie under oath, to encourage others to provide\nfalse testimony, to conspire to conceal evidence, or otherwise impede\nor obstruct an investigation is a felony punishable by imprisonment.\n Indeed, the committee took testimony from two individuals, one who\nactually went to jail, the other received house arrest for lying about\nsex before a grand jury.\n Every year in America people go to jail for committing perjury. Our\nlaws do not specify that consensual sex is a subject that it is OK to\nperjured yourself about.\n When we think of the verse of scripture quoted, ``Judge not and you\nwill not be judged'', I believe the important question we should be\nasking ourselves as members is how would we be voting on this\nresolution if Bill Clinton were a Republican.\n To my Democratic colleagues on the, I ask would you still be\nclamoring for censure, or would you be calling for resignation of\nimpeachment?\n To my Republican colleagues, I ask a similar question: would you be\ncalling for a ``no'' vote on this resolution or a motion of censure\ninstead of impeachment?\n Pollsters tell us that if you bother to include the question in your\nsurvey, the issue that the American people are most concerned about in\nour nation is the state of America's moral condition with up to 87\npercent indicating that something is wrong.\n\n[[Page H11950]]\n\n The very essence of national morality and virtue is a citizenry that\ncan exercise sound judgment. Sound judgment dictates that the President\nbe impeached, and tried in the Senate. The only middle ground in this\nsituation is acquittal in the Senate, not a meaningless\nunconstitutional motion of censure.\n The Democrats wrote the statute creating the office of the\nindependent counsel, and Janet Reno authorized the expansion of his\ninvestigation into the matters before us. The findings indicate felony\noffenses that could send the average American to jail.\n President Clinton himself when he signed the reauthorization of the\nindependent counsel act in 1993 issued a statement in which he said:\n``It ensures that no matter what party controls Congress or the\nexecutive branch, an independent, nonpartisan process will be in place\nto guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that no one\nis above the law.''\n To ensure that no one is above the law the resolution must be\napproved and sent to the Senate for trial.\n\n Statement by President William J. Clinton Upon Signing S. 24\n\n (30 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 1383, July 4, 1994)\n\n I am pleased to sign into law S. 24, the reauthorization of\n the Independent Counsel Act. This law, originally passed in\n 1978, is a foundation stone for the trust between the\n Government and our citizens. It ensures that no matter what\n party controls the Congress or the executive branch, an\n independent, nonpartisan process will be in place to\n guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that\n no one is above the law.\n Regrettably, this statute was permitted to lapse when its\n reauthorization became mired in a partisan dispute in the\n Congress. Opponents called it a tool of partisan attack\n against Republican Presidents and a waste of taxpayer funds.\n It was neither. In fact, the independent counsel statute has\n been in the past and is today a force for Government\n integrity and public confidence.\n This new statute enables the great work of Government to go\n forward--the work of reforming the Nation's health care\n system, freeing our streets from the grip of crime, restoring\n investment in the people who make our economy more\n productive, and the hard work of guaranteeing this Nation's\n security--with the trust of its citizens assured.\n It is my hope that both political parties would stand\n behind those great objectives. This is a good bill that I\n sign into law today--good for the American people and good\n for their confidence in our democracy.\n William J. Clinton\n The White House,\n June 30, 1994.\n\n Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as one of 23 members of this House\nwho served in the 93rd Congress, the last time the House was presented\nwith articles of impeachment against a President of the United States,\nI know there is no joy on either side of this issue. There certainly\nwill be no joy, whatever the final outcome, when the House completes\nits deliberations.\n It is never a pleasant situation to sit in judgement of another\nperson, but that is our Constitutional responsibility when it comes to\nthe President. Each of us took an oath of office to ``support and\ndefend the Constitution of the United States'' and ``to faithfully\ndischarge the duties of the office.'' Therefore, we are obligated to\ndebate and consider the four articles of impeachment before us today as\nreported by the Judiciary Committee.\n Likewise, President Clinton took an oath of office to ``faithfully\nexecute the office of the President of the United States'' and ``to the\nbest of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of\nthe United States.''\n With allegations and charges as serious as those that have been made\nagainst President Clinton, it is obvious that they cannot be\noverlooked. Even my Democratic colleagues are demanding a resolution of\ncondemnation. Clearly we must do something and the Constitution tells\nus that is to follow the procedure established by the Constitution to\nconsider articles of impeachment.\n If we fail to follow proper procedure, future generations of\nAmericans may see our lack of resolve as a precedent that in some way\nexcuses or overlooks serious lapses of public trust or criminal acts\ncommitted by future Presidents. This lack of resolve could tempt future\nPresidents to bend or violate the rules of law.\n Some of our colleagues suggest that the House consider a resolution\nto censure the President, saying that impeachment is too severe an\naction. The problem with censuring a President is that it becomes a\nprecedent that could be used anytime a majority of the members disagree\nwith any actions of a President. Those actions might simply be a\npolitical difference of opinion, not something related to the law or to\na President's conduct.\n This would move our relationship between the legislative and\nexecutives branches more towards that of Parliament, where votes of\nconfidence are in order that can lead to a dissolution of the\ngovernment. That was not the intent of the authors of our Constitution\nand as our colleague Henry Hyde, the chairman of the Judiciary\nCommittee has said, threatens the separation of powers that is the\ncornerstone of our government as provided for by the Constitution.\n Mr. Speaker, the United States has been the target of many enemies\nover the past 222 years of our nation's history. Those enemies have\nattempted to destroy our nation with force and ultimately our system of\ngovernment. Every attempt, though, has failed and the Constitution\nremains the standard by which all other forms of government are\nmeasured.\n The single greatest threat to the Constitution may come from within\nour nation, from those who might one day fail to uphold the\nConstitution that we have sworn to protect. Such a failure would\nundermine the very basis for our government, rendering it to be nothing\nmore than mere words on a piece of parchment. In other words, the best\nway to preserve and protect our Constitution is to abide by it.\n The debate today is as much about the erosion of this trust that has\nbeen placed in each of us as it is about the trust of the American\npeople that a single President has betrayed.\n Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot allow truth, justice and the rule of law\nto be sacrificed on the altar of political expedience. When future\ngenerations review our actions today, they will not be as concerned\nwith the actions of this President as they are with the actions of this\nHouse to uphold the Constitution and ensure it remains the world pillar\nof freedom, liberty, and democracy.\n Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who believe that the\nHouse of Representatives has no constitutional authority to censure or\nreprimand a President in the course of deliberations with respect to\nthe issue of impeachment of that President.\n In my view, we could pass a resolution respecting the Sense of the\nHouse--or in a Joint Resolution the Sense of the Congress--if the\njudiciary Committee had not by its report, presented us with a\ntranscendent and unavoidable responsibility to lay to rest the question\nof whether or not Articles of Impeachment should be approved or\ndisapproved.\n Many of us might wish that we did not have to meet that issue and\nthat the duty we have could go away. But it will not because duty\ncannot go away or be put aside.\n The question before us is compound. It is whether there is clear and\nconvincing evidence that the President has engaged in conduct that\nconstitutes in the terms of our Constitution ``high crimes and\nmisdemeanors.'' Under the Rules of the House, and in the discharge of\nthe constitutional duty now imposed upon us, we must first determine\nthat issue, and that issue only. If we determine that the President\nshould be impeached, the constitutional responsibility of the Senate\ncomes to bear because we have concluded there is clear and convincing\nevidence that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors,\nand the Senate should proceed on the proper constitutional course of\naction.\n While this issue is unavoidably before us, we cannot by our Rules or\nour duty divert our attention to the issue of should the President be\ncensured, and if so for what, and whether or not by his agreement or\notherwise some penalty should be expected. This is a diversion, a\ndistraction, and an evasion. We are not presented with this luxury.\n If at some point in time we in this body, having approved an Article\nor Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate thereafter determines that\nthe President should not be removed and offers instead a Resolution of\nCensure, we in the House can and should take it up. Then we could do so\nfor there would no longer be pending before us the solemn and\ninescapable duty to determine without diversion, distraction, or\nevasion, the question that now looms before us.\n Before we charge the Judiciary Committee to proceed with an inquiry\nas to whether the President had committed impeachable offenses, we\ncould have acted on a resolution to voice our displeasure with conduct\nof the President as a sense of Congress. No one, I repeat no one, now\nclamoring for censure chose to do so then and I don't think that fact\nis without significance.\n With distraction, diversion, or evasion we must face our solemn oath-\nbound duty to resolve the question we cannot evade: is there clear and\nconvincing evidence that the President is guilty of the commission of\n``high crimes and misdemeanors'' which are grounds for impeachment?\nUntil we perform this duty, our Rules and duty dictate that any action\nto censure the President be put aside.\n Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is a profound and complex\nprocess. In recent weeks, we have heard constitutional experts and\nhistorians testify at length about the standard for an impeachable\noffense. Debate has ranged from the finest points of law to the\nloftiest intentions of our founding fathers.\n For decades and even centuries to come, learned scholars will pore\nover every word of\n\n[[Page H11951]]\n\nthese proceedings to discern their meaning and to analyse the\nprecedents and implications of our actions today. For me, However, it\ncomes down to one simple principle--this Nation must uphold the rule of\nlaw.\n Standing for the rule of law includes recognizing:\n That the Nation's chief law enforcement officer cannot commit perjury\nand remain in office.\n That the commander-in-chief of our armed forces should not be held to\na lower standard than are his subordinates.\n That even the most ordinary and humble citizens are entitled to their\nday in court, and they are entitled to expect sworn testimony in that\ncourt to be truthful--even testimony from the President of the United\nStates.\n That felonious criminal conduct by the President of the United States\ncannot be tolerated.\n The rule of law is more important than the tenure in office of any\nelected official.\n The facts in this case are not really in dispute. Even some of his\nmost vocal defenders do not deny that this President repeatedly lied\nunder oath. He also obstructed justice and abused his office. He has\nviolated his solemn oath and squandered the trust the American people\nplaced in him.\n During John Adams' second night in the White House, he wrote, ``I\npray heaven to bestow the best blessings on this House and on all that\nshall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule\nthis 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 and that his Commission of felony crimes constitutes grounds\nfor impeachment.\n I reach this conclusion with no malice toward the President, but with\nresolve and confidence that this action preserves the principles which\nare the foundation of our constitution.\n I cast my vote for impeachment to protect the long-term National\ninterest (United States) to affirm the importance of truth and honesty,\nand to uphold the rule of law.\n Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, as we speak hundreds of our fine young\nmen and women from our bases in San Antonio and across this nation are\nen route to he Persian Gulf to defend our nations's national interests.\n How can we assemble here today to debate impeachment at this time?\nHow dare we undermine the authority of the President while our brave\nsoldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are in harm's way?\n Today is a sad day for this country and this House of\nRepresentatives.\n Like many Americans, I cannot believe that this is happening, that we\nare in fact here debating whether to impeach our president for lying\nabout a personal matter.\n The debate is not whether President Clinton committed wrongdoing; he\nhas admitted as much.\n The question is whether the Congress should exercise its\nconstitutional authority to overturn two popular, democratic elections.\n* * * whether we should set in motion the process of removing the\nPresident for ``high crimes and misdemeanors.''\n However much we may dislike what the President has done, his action\nwere private; they had nothing to do with his role as President.\n Indeed, the Supreme Court, in ruling that the civil litigation\nagainst the President could continue, reasoned that he should be\ntreated like any other private citizen.\n What the President did was not a high crime or misdemeanor.\n None of his actions created a constitutional crises, they did not\nthreaten the separation of powers, nor did they represent a corruption\nof the political process.\n Those on the other side of the aisle say this is not about sex, but\nit is all about sex. That is the context of the allegations; that is\nthe subject of the alleged perjury.\n It makes all the difference in the world\n Indeed, it seems to me and many others that this debate is merely the\nculmination of any effort that began when President Clinton took\noffice--to undermine his authority as President and to saddle him with\nthe baggage of constant investigation and insinuation.\n Those who have pursued the President have turned justice on its head.\nWe have been investigating the person, not the crime.\n The House's actions today undermine the Constitution; they undermine\nthe balance of power that has protected us for more than 200 years.\n Those who are so fervent in seeking to get the President have lost\nperspective. Not all crimes or misdeeds deserve impeachment.\n We must distinguish between those actions which threaten our\nconstitutional system of government and other acts of wrongdoing.\n Our Founding Fathers chose the words--high crimes and misdemeanors--\ncarefully and after long debate. They did not want the president\nimpeached for any crimes, only high crimes.\n They did not want the Congress to have the authority to impeach the\npresident for personal defects and shortcomings or even for horribly\ninappropriate personal conduct. And they certainly did not want him\nimpeached for partisan gain.\n High crimes are those that impact the functioning of the republic,\nlike treason or bribery. Lying, or even perjury, about a personal\naffair, simply does not rise to the level of a high crime as envisioned\nin the Constitution. His conduct, wrong as it was, did not put the\nnation in danger nor did it corrupt the political process.\n Just because it does not amount to a high crime does not mean that it\nis right--only that it does not meet the high threshold set forth by\nour Founding Fathers in the Constitution for impeachment. And that is\nthe question before us.\n Many have argued that the President should not be above the law; he's\nnot. He has been sued and investigated for 6 years. He has been pursued\nand chased. And he will be subject to legal action after the leaves\noffice.\n Our Presidents are not perfect individuals. There will always be some\nfault we can find, and if we proceed with impeaching this president, we\nwill have opened the door in the future to the disruption of our\npolitical system and the balance of power.\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 the same due process as is required for\neven the vilest criminal. The majority has replaced the notion of due\nprocess with the notion that if you just say something enough times, it\nbecomes true.\n Whether or not the President did what he was accused of, this process\nis the legacy we leave to our children, and to impeach the President\nwithout allowing him due process does far more damage to our democracy\nthan any act one man may, or may not, have committed. The golden spike\nin the transcontinental railroading of this President is that the\nmajority will not allow us to even vote on censure.\n Four hundred historians said that the presidency will be permanently\ndisfigured and diminished by today's vote. Over two hundred\nConstitutional scholars echoed the sentiment that these offenses, even\nif proven true, do not rise to the level of impeachment. And two thirds\nof the American people are saying the same thing: don't impeach.\n You say that you are adhering to Constitutional process. But if you\ntalk the Constitutional talk you better walk the Constitutional walk.\n I don't want to hear, although I suspect I will, you say that in\norder for us to get out of this crises ``the President must resign.''\nIf you do, you will short circuit the Constitutional process that you\nstand here today advocating for. I want to get your word today that you\nwill not do that and that you will take responsibility, for what you\nare beginning today by bringing this country's government to a halt?\n Today we will be remembered for an impeachment when the punishment\nclearly does not fit the crime. Today we will be remembered for a\npolitical mutiny of our Commander in Chief when our troops are in the\nfield. And today this Congress sends a message that the Constitutional\nscales of justice can be tipped to one side when it suits the purpose\nof one political party.\n And everyone will know how we got there because you, the Republican\nmajority, did not allow this democratic institution to work its will on\na motion to censure and end this national nightmare.\n When you are finished doing this, don't come to the American public\nand say the President should resign and get us out of the\nConstitutional crisis. You got into it when you refused a censure\nmotion as alternative to this constitutional crisis.\n Mr. SPENCE. Mr . Speaker, I rise to address the matter before the\nHouse regarding the four Articles of Impeachment that have been\nreported by the Committee on the Judiciary. This is a situation that\ndemands our most careful consideration and devotion to duty as Members\nof Congress. It is a matter that is not to be taken lightly. Each\nMember of this body must reason individually to reach the determination\nthat must be made in order to fulfill our Constitutional\nresponsibilities in the impeachment procedure. This is a process that\nshould not be partisan, as it should be based on the application of the\nrule of law.\n I believe that all of us recognize the seriousness of President\nClinton being charged with violations against the Constitution. Much\ntime and effort have been devoted to investigating and reviewing the\nactions on which this Resolution is based. I have followed the hearings\nof the Committee on the Judiciary concerning this matter with great\ninterest and I am in agreement with the Resolution (H. Res. 611) that\nhas been submitted by Chairman Hyde. H. Res. 611 outlines four Articles\nas the basis for impeachment, which I shall summarize:\n Article I--President Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony to a Federal Grand Jury. I agree.\n\n[[Page H11952]]\n\n Article II--President Clinton willfully corrupted and manipulated the\njudicial process, in that, he willfully provided perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony in resonse to written questions seeking\ninformation in a Federal civil rights action, which was brought against\nhim, as well as in a deposition in that action. I agree.\n Article III--President Clinton prevented, obstructed and impeded the\nadministration of justice through a course of conduct or scheme in a\nseries of events between December 1997 and January 1998. I agree.\n Article IV--President Clinton has engaged in conduct that resulted in\nmisuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper\nadministration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and\ncontravened the authority of the Legislative Branch, in that he refused\nand failed to respond to written requests for admission, as well as\nwillfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in\nresponse to certain written requests for admission that were propounded\nas part of the impeachment inquiry that was authorized by the House. I\nagree.\n It is clear to me that convincing evidence has been presented in\nregard to each of the four Articles that have been reported by the\nCommittee on the Judiciary. Accordingly, I support the Articles as\nstated in H. Res. 611.\n Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address the assertion that I have\nheard today that the consideration by the Congress of the impeachment\nof President Clinton, who is the Commander in Chief of our Armed\nForces, would have a demoralizing effect on our men and women in\nuniform, especially while our Nation is engaged in military operations\nagainst Iraq. I can speak from experience, based on numerous\nconversations with Americans from all walks of life, who are now\nserving or who have previously served in our Nation's military, that\nsuch a charge has no merit. In this regard, I would like to submit the\nfollowing article by Major Daniel J. Rabil, of the United States Marine\nCorps Reserve:\n\n [From the Washington Times, Nov. 9, 1998]\n\n Please, Impeach my Commander in Chief\n\n (By Daniel J. Rabil)\n\n The American military is subject to civilian control, and\n we deeply believe in that principle. We also believe, as\n affirmed in the Nuremberg Trials, that servicemen are not\n bound to obey illegal orders. But what about orders given by\n a known criminal? Should we trust in the integrity of\n directives given by a president who violates the same basic\n oath we take? Should we be asked to follow a morally\n defective leader with a demonstrated disregard for his\n troops? The answer is no, for implicit in the voluntary oath\n that all servicemen take is the promise that they will\n receive honorable civilian leadership. Bill Clinton has\n violated that covenant. it is therefore Congress' duty to\n remove him from office.\n I do not claim to speak for all service members, but\n certainly Bill Clinton has never been the military's favorite\n president. Long before the Starr report, there was plenty of\n anecdotal evidence of this administration's contempt for the\n armed forces. Yes, Mr. Clinton was a lying draft dodger, yes\n his staffers have been anti-military, and yes, he breezily\n ruins the careers of senior officers who speak up or say\n politically incorrect things. Meanwhile, servicemen are now\n in jail for sex crimes less egregious than those Paula Jones\n and Kathleen Wiley say Mr. Clinton committed.\n Mr. Clinton and his supporters do not care in the least\n about the health of our armed forces. Hateful of a\n traditional military culture they never deigned to study, Mr.\n Clinton's disingenuous feminist, homosexual and racial\n activist friends regard the services as mere political props,\n useful only for showcasing petty identity group grievances.\n It is no coincidence that the media has played up one\n military scandal after another during the Clinton years. This\n politically-driven shift of focus, from the military mission\n to the therapeutic wants of fringe groups, has taken its\n toll: Partly because of Mr. Clinton's impossibly Orwellian\n directives, Chief of Naval Operations Jay Boorda committed\n suicide.\n So Clinton has weakened the services and fostered a\n corrosive anti-military culture. This may be loathsome, but\n it is not impeachable, particularly if an attentive Congress\n can limit the extent of Clinton-induced damage. As officers\n and gentlemen, we have therefore continued to march,\n pretending to respect our hypocrite-in-chief.\n Then came the Paula Jones perjury and the ensuing Starr\n Report. I have always known that Clinton was integrity-\n impaired, but I never thought even he could be so depraved,\n so contemptuous, as to conduct military affairs as was\n described in the special prosecutor's report to Congress. In\n that report, we learn of a telephone conversation between Mr.\n Clinton and a congressman in which the two men discussed our\n Bosnian deployment. During that telephone discussion, the\n Commander-in-Chief's pants were unzipped, and Monica Lewinsky\n was busy saving him the cost of a prostitute. This is the\n president of the United States of America? Should soldiers\n not feel belittled and worried by this? We deserve better.\n When Ronald Reagan's ill-fated Beirut mission led to the\n careless loss of 241 Marines in a single bombing, few\n questioned his love of country and his overriding concern for\n American interests. But should Mr. Clinton lead us into\n military conflict, he would do so, incredibly, without any\n such trust. After the recent American missile attacks in\n Afghanistan and Sudan, my instant reaction was outrage, for I\n instinctively presumed that Mr. Clinton was trying to knock\n Miss Lewinsky's concurrent grand jury testimony out of the\n head-lines. The alternative that this president--who ignores\n national security interests, who appeases Iraq and North\n Korea, and who fights like a leftover Soviet the idea of an\n American missile defense--actually believed in the need for\n immediate military strikes, was simply implausible. And no\n amount of scripted finger wagging, lip biting, or mention of\n The Children by this highly skilled perjurer can convince me\n otherwise.\n In other words, Mr. Clinton has demonstrated that he will\n risk war, terrorist attacks, and our lives just to save his\n dysfunctional administration. What might his motives be in\n some future conflict? Blackmail? Cheap political payoffs?\n Or--dare I say it--simply the lazy blundering of an\n instinctively anti-American man? It is immoral to impose such\n untrustworthy leadership on a fighting force.\n It will no doubt be considered extreme to raise the\n question of whether this president is a national security\n risk, but I must. I do not believe presidential candidates\n should be required to undergo background investigations, as\n is normal for service members. I do know, however, that Bill\n Clinton would not pass such a screening. Recently, I received\n a phone call from a military investigator, who asked me a\n variety of character-related questions about a fellow Marine\n reservist. The Marine, who is also a friend, needed to update\n his top-secret clearance. Afterward, I called him. We\n marveled how lowly reservists like us must pass complete\n background checks before routine deployments, yet the\n guardian of our nation's nuclear button would raise a huge\n red flag on any such security report. We joked that my\n friend's security clearance would have been permanently\n canceled if I had said to the investigator, ``well, Rick\n spent the Vietnam years smoking pot and leading protests\n against his country in Britain. His hobbies are lying and\n adultery. His brother's a cocaine dealer, and oh, yeah--he\n visited the Soviet Union for unknown reasons while his\n countrymen were getting killed in Vietnam.''\n Do I show disrespect for this president? Perhaps it depends\n on the meaning of the word ``this.'' If Clinton were merely a\n spoiled leftist taking advantage of our free society, a la\n Jane Fonda, that would be one thing. But you don't make an\n atheist pope, and you don't keep a corrupt security risk as\n commander-in-chief.\n The enduring goodness of the American military character\n over the past two centuries does not automatically derive\n from our nation's nutritional habits or from a good job\n benefits package. This character must be developed and\n supported, or it will die. Already we are seeing declining\n enlistment and a 1970s-style disdain for military service,\n squandering the real progress made during the purposeful\n 1980s. Our military's heart and soul can survive lean\n budgets, but they cannot long survive in an America that\n would tolerate such a character as now occupies the Oval\n Office. We are entitled to a leader who at least respects\n us--not one who cannot be bothered to remove his penis from a\n subordinate's mouth long enough to discuss our deployment to\n a combat zone. To subject our services to such debased\n leadership is nothing less than the collective spit of the\n entire nation upon our faces.\n Bill Clinton has always been a moral coward. He has always\n had contempt for the American military. He has always had a\n questionable security background. Since taking office, he has\n ignored defense issues, except as serves the destructive\n goals of his extremist supporters. His behavior with Paula\n Jones and Kathleen Willey was bizarre and deranged--try\n keeping a straight face while watching mandated Navy sexual\n harassment videos, knowing that the president's own conduct\n violates historic service rules to the point of absurdity.\n For a while, it was almost possible to laugh off Mr.\n Clinton's hedonistic, ``college protester'' values. But now\n that we have clear evidence that he perjured himself and\n corrupted others to cover up his lies, Bill Clinton is no\n longer funny. He is dangerous.\n Willim J. Clinton, perhaps the most selfish man ever to\n disgrace our presidency, will not resign. I therefore risk my\n commission, as our generals will not, to urge this of\n Congress: Remove this stain from our White House. Banish him\n from further office. For God's sake, do your duty.\n\n Mr. HOLSHOF. Mr. Speaker, many commentators have likened this debate\nwe are having today to the deliberations of a sentencing jury in a\ndeath penalty case. Indeed, the political life of a sitting President\nis hanging in the balance. I certainly understand the magnitude of that\ncomparison and take this matter no less seriously than those many\ncriminal cases in which I sought the death penalty as a prosecutor.\n If the President in his private conduct simply committed adultery,\nthen that matter is best reserved to his family. If, on the other hand,\nthe President of the United States committed perjury or other illegal\nacts then that matter is necessarily reserved to this Congress.\n\n[[Page H11953]]\n\n The private failings of a public man deserve neither debate nor\nreprimand by this body. However, public misconduct committed by that\nsame official deserves punishment of the fullest measure.\n Based upon my solemn review of the evidence and historical\nprecedents, I am firmly convinced beyond a doubt that William Jefferson\nClinton employed every conceivable means available--including perjury\nand obstruction--to defeat the legal rights of a citizen who claimed\nshe had been wronged and sought redress from our justice system.\n How then did the President's private indignities become indignities\nagainst the Constitution by which we are governed? The facts are these:\n In May 1994, Paula Corbin Jones filed a federal civil rights lawsuit\nagainst William Jefferson Clinton in the United States District Court\nin Arkansas. The legal action arose out of an incident alleged to have\noccurred while Ms. Jones was a state employee.\n In his own defense, the President claimed that any such lawsuit must\nbe deferred until his term of office ended. The parties litigated this\nquestion before the highest court of the land. The United States\nSupreme Court unanimously decided that Ms. Jones was entitled to due\nprocess and equal protection of the law no matter who the defendant in\nher sexual harassment lawsuit.\n The Court rightly determined that no man is above the law. No single\nindividual citizen can determine the merits of another's case, save\nthose clothed with the constitutional power of judicial discretion.\n In that vein, a federal district judge repeatedly rejected the\nPresident's objections to inquiries regarding his relationships with\nwomen in the workplace. The court, relying on judicial precedent in\nsexual harassment cases, deemed those questions relevant and crucial to\nMs. Jones' case.\n The President under penalty of perjury was required to give truthful\ntestimony during all court proceedings. He failed. He bore false\nwitness under oath. He conspired with others to conceal evidence. He\ntapered with witnesses and encouraged the adoption of his untruthful\nversion of events.\n Ms. Jones' rights to due process were violated. That result is bad\nenough in itself, but I believe it reaches constitutional proportions\nwhen the denial of civil rights is directed by the President of the\nUnited States.\n What we say here will be but paragraphs or footnotes in the pages of\nbooks of history written by those yet to come. What we do here will be\nindelibly imprinted on America's spirit.\n Let not this House grant a pardon for this President's criminal\noffenses.\n Let not history look back at this debate and declare there on that\ndate, America surrendered the rule of law.\n There can be no presidential privilege to lie under oath.\n Regrettably, my solemn oath of office, my sacred honor, requires from\nme a vote of aye on the resolution.\n Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this morning I began writing a letter to my\ndaughters and my future grandchildren and great-grandchildren to\ndescribe my feelings on this sad, yet historic day.\n I wrote my daughters that I have listened to my colleagues talk about\ntruth, wrongdoing, punishment, and respect. And I want to say to my\ncolleagues that no one denies that the truth matters.\n No one denies there was wrongdoing, and no one denies that the\nAmerican people deserve the respect of this great House of\nRepresentatives.\n And so I ask, please don't deny an alternative to impeachment.\n I continue to be overwhelmed by the fact that this Congress and, as a\nresult, the American people, are being denied the right to vote on a\ndisciplinary action that would unify our country at this critical\ntime--this action is censure.\n The American people support censure.\n Censure, is not only constitutional, it is fair and right for our\ncountry.\n So, to my colleagues in the majority, I implore you in the interest\nof fairness to take the step that will stop this downward spiral of\nbitterness and rancor that currently controls Capitol Hill. As our\ncountry continues to polarize, I pray that we, as a Congress, have not\nlost our ability to seek common ground. For if we have, it will affect\nour ability to solve problems for decades to come.\n Mr. Speaker, you have the power to unite the majority of this country\nby allowing a vote on censure. I challenge you to seize this\nopportunity to bring our country back from potentially devastating\nconsequences.\n In that letter, I'd like to tell my children, so that they can tell\ntheir children, that this body came to it's senses and put aside\npartisanship in favor of statesmanship. Let the 105th Congress be\nremembered for allowing the will of the American people to be heard\nthrough a vote on censure.\n It is the only fair thing to do.\n Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, this is the last vote of my career. My first\nvote was just as personally troubling.\n Just days after being sworn in, I voted to authorize the use of force\nin Operation Desert Storm.\n In a bizarre twist for me, today we'll vote on impeachment while U.S.\ntroops are again at war in Iraq.\n Today the loop closes.\n In part because of American reaction to the fighting in the gulf, I\nhave decided to support the impeachment of Bill Clinton.\n Let me elaborate.\n First, I am convinced the President lied to a federal grand jury.\n The President's defenders say his lies in the Paula Jones case were\nan understandable reaction. He panicked when confronted with a series\nof questions that threatened to expose his relationship with Monica\nLewinsky.\n But that does not explain why he lied seven months later in front of\na federal grand jury.\n No surprise questions here. His attorneys were with him. He had more\nthan a half year to consider his answers. And he knew committing\nperjury in this setting could lead to impeachment.\n I have struggled for weeks with my feelings toward Bill Clinton\nversus my concerns about the future of the Presidency itself.\n What impact will this vote have twenty years from now?\n I worry we're about to trigger a never-ending round of impeachment\ninvestigations. A decade ago the independent counsel statute seemed to\nmake sense.\n Today every cabinet member seems to be assigned their own independent\ncounsel the day they're sworn into office.\n But in the end let me say, I have come to the conclusion that even\nmore important is that we send a very strong message to future\npresidents that no one is above the law.\n If we allow the President to escape an impeachment trial in the\nSenate, we set a dangerous precedent where every president will have a\nbuilt in defense for perjury or obstruction of justice.\n Perjury is a particularly dangerous crime. Federal sentencing\nguidelines demonstrates that defendants convicted of perjury face jail\ntime similar to those convicted of bribery.\n Perjury undermines the rule of law. And in this case, perjury has\nalso undermined the President's moral authority.\n Most Americans deservedly questioned the timing of the attack on\nIraq. From airport terminals in Madison to Washington restaurants,\neverywhere I've been people have wondered out loud about why this week\nfor the attack. Why hours before the impeachment vote?\n Americans instinctively rally around the President when men and women\nare in combat.\n Because of the President's conduct in this case, our national impulse\nis now cynicism and skepticism.\n Now I think the President's hand was forced by Suddam Hussein.\n But if an American soldier was killed today, don't you think his\nfamily would always wonder why? Wonder why this week?\n And the skepticism is not only heard in America but among our allies.\nAnd among our enemies in the world.\n Perjury has consequences tonight. In the President's case everywhere\naround the world. Impeachment is the painful, but correct choice.\n Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first, I would add my voice to\nthose of other Members who have expressed how deeply disappointed and\nsaddened they are with the President's reprehensible conduct. He has\ndisgraced himself and the office of the Presidency. Not only was his\npersonal misconduct immoral, but I further believe his actions to cover\nup that personal behavior both publicly and in legal proceedings were\nwrong, significantly worsened the situation, and must be punished. I\nhave no doubt that the President was deceitful, misleading, and in fact\ncrossed the line between legal hairsplitting and lying. The question we\nface today is whether the President's wrongdoings warrant the ultimate\nconstitutional remedy of impeachment and removal from office.\n Our founding fathers were clear that impeachment should not be used\nas a form of punishment. As summarized by the 1974 Staff Report for the\nCommittee on the Judiciary, ``The purpose of impeachment is not\npersonal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain\nconstitutional government.'' Ultimately at stake are the collective\nrights of the public who elected this President, not the personal right\nof William Jefferson Clinton to continue to serve as President. For\nthat reason, the removal of a sitting President from office should be\nreserved only for conduct so egregious as to threaten our system of\ngovernment.\n Referring again to the report of the 1974 Committee, impeachment is\nwarranted only to address misconduct which is ``seriously incompatible\nwith either the Constitutional form and principles of our government or\nthe proper performance of the Constitutional duties of the\n\n[[Page H11954]]\n\nPresidential office.'' In short, removing the President from office is\na drastic remedy to be used only when the survival of our\nConstitutional form of government is at stake. In the case presented in\nthe referral by the Office of Independent Counsel and the Judiciary\nCommittee's majority staff, I do not believe that the President used\nthe power of the presidency to engage in his misconduct and I do not\nbelieve any of his actions threatened the nation.\n While I do not agree with those who claim private actions can never\nwarrant impeachment, I do believe that private misconduct must also\nrise to a level of severity which undermines the individual's ability\nto further discharge his or her duties as President of the United\nStates. Even though I have concluded that the President has lied and\ndeceived many with respect to his extramarital affair, I believe that\nas an individual Member of Congress, I still will be able to work with\nthis President on the issues of importance to my constituents. I\nbelieve, as do most Americans, that the President still has the ability\nto govern. Since his conduct did not threaten the nation or undermine\nhis ability to carry out his Presidential duties, I have decided to\noppose impeachment.\n If impeachment is to be viewed as a way to save the country from the\nabuse or violation of the public trust, we must weigh the risks of\naction and inaction and the consequences of both for our country. The\nprincipal argument of those in favor of impeachment is that the\nPresident's actions, if left unaddressed, would undermine our rule of\nlaw. I agree that no individual, including the President of the United\nStates, is above the law. Did the President lie? Yes, I believe he did.\nDid the President commit criminal perjury? That is a legal conclusion\nto be decided by a criminal court--a court which ultimately may find\nperjury in this case. However, impeachment should not be used in this\ninstance simply to punish perjury. Instead, I believe holding the\nPresident accountable for his actions in a criminal court of law is the\nbest way we can uphold the rule of law in our country. The President,\nupon leaving office, can and should be subject to criminal prosecution.\n\n Just as important to me are the consequences, for our country and\nfuture generations, of impeaching the President. I am gravely concerned\nthat significantly lowering the standard for impeachment will lead to\nan increase in the frequency of impeachments, or at the very least the\nthreat of impeachments, in the future. Our founding fathers, whose\nwisdom becomes clearer with each passing day, designed a means for\nremoving the President which would be used in rare and extreme\ninstances. If we are prepared to impeach the President for his efforts\nin this specific instance to hide this tawdry affair, I believe\nimpeachment will become simply another weapon in the arsenal of\npartisan politics. This undoubtedly would have the effect of weakening\nthe separation of powers that has made our national government so\nsuccessful and enduring.\n From the onset, the trauma of this scandal has touched everyone\ninvolved. The President bringing immense disgrace upon his office, has\njustifiably suffered both public and private humiliation. Congress has\nbeen forced to spend months debating these allegations rather than\naddressing the challenges facing our country and the American public\nhas been bombarded with the lewd and salacious details of the\nPresident's misconduct in newspapers, television broadcasts, and the\nInternet. The impeachment proceedings have been extremely partisan and\nhave, in large part, only worsened the underlying harm to the country\ninitially caused by the President's misconduct. that is why I join with\nthose, including esteemed statesmen such as former President Ford and\nSenate Majority Leader Dole, who believe, rather than removing the\nPresident from office, a formal rebuke in a sharply worded censure\nresolution is be the best solution for this Constitutional dilemma.\n While I long ago gave up hope that something good could come out of\nthis process, I believe a censure resolution is the most appropriate\nconclusion for the Congress and the country. The President will live\nforever with the political consequences of his actions and should face\nthe criminal consequences upon leaving office. My decision to support\ncensure in an effort to punish the President without further punishing\nthe presidency or the country.\n Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, colleagues on both side of the aisle, today I\nrise in opposition to the Articles of Impeachment that have been\nforwarded to the House of Representatives by the Judiciary Committee.\nMy opposition to these articles of impeachment do not constitute a\nminority view. My opposition reflects the overwhelming sentiment of the\nconstituents in the 10th Congressional District, the overwhelming\nsentiment of the people in New York City, the overwhelming sentiment of\nthe people in New York State and the overwhelming view of the American\npeople. It represents the view of 400 of the leading historians and 430\nof the leading constitutional experts in this nation.\n My objections to the Articles of Impeachment are based on the\npartisan misinterpretation of the facts and the law. None of the\narticles of impeachment contain facts that remotely constitute a basis\nfor criminal conduct. Article I alleges that the President committed\nperjury before the grand jury by providing ``perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony.'' Yet the Judiciary Committee failed to outline\none perjurious statement which the President allegedly made. Article II\nalleges that the President provided ``perjurious, false and misleading\ntestimony'' in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Yet the committee failed to\nacknowledge that this lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by a federal\njudge for having no legal merit whatsoever. Did the framers of the\nconstitution intend that we impeach a sitting President for giving\nmisleading testimony in a meritless lawsuit? Article III alleges that\nthe President obstructed justice by persuading Ms. Lewinsky, Vernon\nJordan, and Betty Currie to carry out various illegal acts on his\nbehalf. The committee failed to acknowledge that Ms. Lewinsky, Vernon\nJordan, and Betty Currie all testified that the President never\nencouraged them to perform * * * respond to written interrogatories\nprepared by the Judiciary Committee. Since the president responded, in\nexhaustive detail, to all 81 interrogatories, it is difficult to\nunderstand how his responses could be characterized as a refusal or\nfailure to respond.\n But even if the Judiciary Committee were to establish that the\npresident of the United States committed perjury in the civil\ndeposition and before the grand jury, this would not constitute\nimpeachable offenses as defined in the constitution. The impeachment of\nthe President of the United States is perhaps the most awesome, solemn\nand formidable task that we will ever confront in our Congressional\ncareers. It ought not to be based on contrived legal arguments or on\nnarrow partisan interest. It is an extraordinary remedy that has been\nused only once in the constitutional history of this nation. Article\nII, Section IV of the constitution makes it clear that the\nextraordinary remedy of impeachment was to be sparingly used and\nrestricted to ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors.'' During the constitutional debates, it became clear that\npurpose of impeachment was not to redress personal wrongdoing or\nprivate criminal conduct, but only to redress attempts to subvert the\nconstitution or the ``system of government.''\n It is transparently clear that these articles of impeachment do not\ninvolve private criminal conduct. It is also clear that they do not\nconstitute an attempt to subvert the constitution or to overthrow the\nsystem of government. That is why 100 percent of the Democrats on the\nJudiciary Committee, 90 percent of my constituents, 61 percent of the\nAmerican people, and the vast preponderance of the historians and\nconstitutional experts in this nation oppose impeachment. If there is\none thing that the impeachment debate reflects, it is the perils of\n``divided government.'' The tradition of electing a Democratic\npresident and a Republican Congress has led to legislative paralysis\nand the weakening of the institution of the presidency. The Republicans\non the Judiciary Committee are driving a runaway train that is leading\nthis nation inexorably down a dark tunnel of impending national\ncatastrophe. The American people will not easily forget this egregious\nabuse of power and will write their own Articles of Impeachment against\nthe Republican majority in the next congressional elections in the year\n2000.\n Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a low tolerance for people who\ndon't tell the truth, most especially elected officials who take an\noath of office to uphold the Constitution. Perjury, witness tampering,\nobstruction of justice and abuse of power are serious charges. To my\nmind, Congress has followed the process given to us under the\nConstitution to consider and deliberate these charges against President\nClinton.\n It has been a painful process. I have shared with many constituents\nin New Jersey's 11th District, my personal resentment that Bill\nClinton's actions have forced the Congress, and our entire country, to\ngo through this ordeal for now, almost a year.\n Before us is a most difficult decision for each and every one of the\n435 Members who has the honor to serve in this House. For all the\neditorial opinions and pundits, for all the legal opinions and\npolitical pressure, we now have to cast perhaps the toughest and most\nimportant vote we will ever be asked to cast.\n Allow me to share an excerpt of a letter I wrote to my teenage\ndaughter in October:\n\n Now that Congress will begin its own deliberations on the\n charges against the President, I have to put aside my\n personal views and evaluate the report and all documents in a\n fair manner. I do not have the luxury of staying on the\n sidelines as these matters are discussed. Public opinion\n polls and mail are helpful, but a Member of Congress must\n decide for himself or herself without merely putting a finger\n up to test the wind.\n And the truth will guide my decision as Congress decides\n what is the right thing to\n\n[[Page H11955]]\n\n do in response to the President's actions. How I wish he had\n told the truth at the start of this controversy because\n chances are the nation would not be in this mess.\n Consequently, the President has no one to blame but himself.\n Like the oath he took to protect our Constitution when he\n became our President, in court he took an oath to tell the\n truth.\n\n Mr. Speaker, we have before us the evidence as presented by the\nIndependent Counsel, the legal defense presented by the President, and\nthe full proceedings and recommendations of the House Judiciary\nCommittee, as well as the thoughts of so many constituents who feel\nstrongly that their views should be reflected in the votes we cast.\n Having reviewed so much of the evidence, I believe it is now clear\nthat the President violated both his oath of office and the oath he\ntook to tell the truth.\n In doing so, Bill Clinton not only committed perjury, he violated the\npublic's trust.\n I will, therefore, vote in favor of impeachment.\n While I know that some will disagree, and strongly so, with my\ndecision, I have reached this decision after much thought, deliberation\nand soul searching. When this sad chapter in our history is closed, I\nwill have voted the way I did because, as I have shared with my\ndaughter, the truth still matters and always will. And finally, that a\nvote of conscience is always the right vote.\n Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an\nexcellent editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald, on\nDecember 13, 1998.\n\n [From the Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 13, 1998]\n\n On the Impeachment Vote\n\n President William Jefferson Clinton stood Friday in the\n Rose Garden of the White House, which is his residence, to be\n sure, but which is also the symbol of American self-\n government and of all that is good about this great nation.\n Finally dropping all his past poses, Clinton said he was\n profoundly sorry for all he had done wrong ``in words and\n deeds.''\n He said he was ready to accept Congress' rebuke and censure\n if the American people and their representatives concluded\n that his mistakes required it. He said nothing Congress could\n do would compare to the agony of knowing he was responsible\n for causing great pain for his family.\n His remarks sounded sincere. They didn't appear to have\n been prepared by word-parsing lawyers. It was easy to feel\n sorry for the president. He was an almost pitiful figure, at\n age 52 a victim of his uncontrollable libido and a team of\n attorneys who appeared to coach him how to thwart the\n judicial system without crossing the line into perjury.\n Yet the president still could not bring himself to say the\n words the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee longed\n to hear--``I lied.'' He said he ``misled.'' He talked of his\n ``wrongful conduct.''\n In a moment of remarkable irony, the president of the\n United States--without acknowledging the source and maybe not\n being aware of the source--even quoted from Edward\n FitzGerald's translation of ``The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.''\n Omar, a Persian astronomer-poet of the 12th century,\n concentrated on the idea that sensual pleasure might be the\n sole aim of living.\n This long national nightmare began on Thanksgiving weekend\n in 1995 when Clinton, then 49 years of age, and Monica\n Lewinsky, a just barely 22-year-old intern, had sex in the\n Oval Office on the first day they had ever spoken to one\n another.\n She came to see him many more times. they had at least nine\n more sexual assignations. They engaged in a certain sex act\n that the president and his lawyers continue to insist is not\n sex. They had phone sex 17 times. They exchanged gifts.\n Monica gave Clinton 40. Yet Clinton, under oath, could barely\n remember one or two.\n America didn't find out about that Thanksgiving 1995 sexual\n encounter until January of this year, when Newsweek and The\n Washington Post got wind of the president's on-and-off, two-\n year extramarital affair and his understandable but patently\n illegal efforts to hide it from his wife, his daughter, Paula\n Jones' lawyers and the American people.\n Now, after a week of historic drama to which American\n seemed to be paying less than full attention, the House of\n Representatives, for the second time in history, will vote on\n articles of impeachment. The vote will come late this week\n unless Democrats can convince enough Republicans to vote\n first for a slap on the wrist that would signal to this\n naughty President that what he did was ``reprehensible,'' the\n Democrats' inadequate word for the shame Clinton has brought\n to the highest office in the land. The Democratic Party\n censure resolution does not mention lying under oath or\n tampering with witnesses.\n Americans should not be angry at the Republican Party if\n the House votes yes on impeachment. Clinton, not the\n Republican Party, lied and obstructed justice and abused his\n power. If the nation must be put through a trial, with\n Lewinsky in the well of the Senate talking graphically about\n sex and cigars, then, yes, that is awful. All the children\n should be shielded from it.\n But if it happens it will not be the fault of the\n Republicans. It will be the fault of Bill Clinton, the\n reckless, foolish, arrogant boy who until Friday in the White\n House Rose Garden had never fully grown up.\n He had sworn to God to tell the truth, the whole truth and\n nothing but the truth. And then he didn't. If there is no\n impeachment, Clinton will be the president whose legacy was\n to cultivate the idea that presidents, unlike everybody else,\n can lie under oath without severe penalty.\n Admittedly, the evidence of criminal acts by the President\n of the United States has yet to be tested in court. It has\n yet to be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. But common\n sense tells 90 percent of the Americans who are polled that\n it is obvious the President has lied, at least to the nation\n and probably under oath to a judge and the independent\n counsel's grand jury.\n It is clear that the president coached Lewinsky to lie\n about their affair, that he assisted in concealing evidence\n that had been subpoenaed, that he got Lewinsky an attractive\n job in New York City in exchange for her untruthful\n testimony, that he allowed attorney Robert Bennett to make\n false statements, that his inability to remember dozens of\n important details was nothing more than taking the Fifth\n Amendment and that he made false and misleading statements to\n his staff, friends like Vernon Jordan and his Cabinet.\n If the Judiciary Committee had failed to recommend\n impeachment, it would have implicitly condoned what Clinton\n had done. If the committee had failed to recommend\n impeachment, it would have put Clinton in position to claim\n vindication. That would complete the process that began last\n January after Clinton consulted Dick Morris and was told that\n the American people would condone sexual misconduct but would\n not condone lying to cover up an affair. ``Then we will have\n to win,'' Clinton said.\n Rep. Greg Ganske, R-Iowa, speaking of why he will support\n impeachment, said, ``The idea that Congress should simply\n apply a `wrist-slap' censure is another effort to put the\n president above the law.'' Ganske quoted the late Supreme\n Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said that ``if the\n government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the\n law.''\n Impeachment is the ultimate censure, Rep. Bill McCollum, R-\n Fla., has said, whether or not the Senate subsequently votes\n to remove Clinton from office. (Indeed, as Sen. Orrin Hatch\n has suggested, the Senate could convict but decide not to\n remove Clinton from office.) History has all but forgotten\n the handful of censure resolutions approved by Congress.\n Dictators and tyrants hold themselves above the law.\n Presidents, for the most part, do not. Americans fought a\n revolution to repudiate the divine right of the monarchy to\n be a law unto itself. Now the defenders of Clinton argue that\n he shouldn't be bound by laws that ordinary people must obey.\n To give the presidency such a privilege would betray the\n revolution. It would invest the presidency with a kingly\n status that the Founders explicitly attempted to prevent.\n A failure to impeach would send to the armed forces the\n message that the commander in chief cannot be held to the\n standards of honor and personal integrity that are drilled\n into all military people.\n A failure to impeach would undermine the current set of\n sexual harassment laws and codes about appropriate conduct in\n the workplace. Managers who were fired for trying to seduce\n subordinates would challenge the rules. Clinton's legalistic\n definition of sexual relations would be flung around as\n justification for sexual contact short of intercourse. More\n people would accept a right to obfuscate to prevent personal\n embarrassment or inconvenience.\n Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said that, as he voted with much\n sadness for impeachment, he felt ``more emotion than I've\n ever felt as a member of Congress.'' We understand. The\n inclination to forgive is strong in the American people. They\n know that, like their president, many people have flaws.\n This editorial page, too, would love to be able to forgive\n the president. But our love for this great country is even\n stronger than the impulse to forgive the president's\n misbehavior.\n Mr. Clinton has hurt the country by his reckless behavior\n and his lying under oath. Impeachment is the only\n constitutional way to reaffirm the values, including the rule\n of law, for which this great country stands. Our fingers\n tremble as they pause over the keyboard and our heart is\n heavy as we say: The House of Representatives should vote yes\n on Impeachment Articles I, II, and IV.\n\n Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to consider\ncarefully the following editorial from the December 16, 1998, edition\nof the Norfolk Daily News, entitled ``Republicans are not culprits\nhere.''\n\n From the Norfolk Daily News, Dec. 16, 1998]\n\nRepublicans Are Not Culprits Here--Only One Man Is to Blame for Turmoil\n Facing the Nation--Bill Clinton\n\n We wonder whether some members of the Democratic Party\n realize how ridiculous and lame they are sounding when they\n spout dire warnings about the upcoming House of\n Representatives vote on impeaching President Bill Clinton.\n If the president is impeached, they cry, House Republicans\n will be invalidating the results of two national elections,\n defying the will of the people and making a mockery of the\n democratic process.\n\n[[Page H11956]]\n\n Those arguments, however, don't hold water. Supporters of\n the president would have much more credibility if they would\n stick to arguing that the offenses committed by the president\n do not, in their opinion, justify impeachment. Instead, they\n keep throwing up these weak, peripheral claims.\n The Democratic supporters of President Clinton are correct\n in the sense that a majority of U.S. citizens, in two\n separate votes, elected the former Arkansas governor to be\n president and then re-elected him. Does that mean, however,\n that Bill Clinton--or any president for that matter--is\n entitled to serve his full term in office, regardless of his\n deeds or conduct while there? Of course not.\n History is full of examples where voters made decisions\n they thought were correct at the time they were making them\n only to be proven wrong later. The full range of President\n Clinton's misconduct and what we believe to be impeachable\n offenses were not known to voters when they first elected and\n then re-elected him.\n Only now are voters realizing the kind of man they have\n leading them.\n Some Clinton supporters are quick to point out, however,\n that public opinion polls say that even though a majority of\n Americans believe President Clinton lied under oath and\n engaged in an abuse of power, they don't think he should be\n impeached as a result.\n To that we say--with all due respect--so what? In our\n opinion, it's an irrelevant point.\n That's because what the House of Representatives is dealing\n with here is a president who has allegedly committed\n impeachable acts. Public opinion doesn't hold sway in a court\n of law, and it shouldn't be a factor here, either.\n Juries, whether in civil or criminal cases, have to make\n decisions based on the facts presented to them and the laws\n governing the case. They can't be affected by protesters\n outside the courtroom's doors, media reports or anything\n else. The same is true for members of the House.\n They must make the decision on whether to impeach the\n president based on the facts--as best they can discern them--\n concerning President Clinton's conduct and the provisions in\n the U.S. Constitution that govern impeachment.\n We, along with many others, have offered the opinion in the\n past that President Clinton should resign from office. His\n affair with Monica Lewinsky, which led to the conduct that\n now is being considered by the House, is a blemish on the\n grand stature of the presidency.\n His honesty and integrity is gone. His honor, too. When a\n man or woman loses those things, there is nothing left to\n stand on.\n Resigning from office would allow Mr. Clinton to leave the\n White House with a measure of dignity and self-respect. By\n doing so, he would be putting the best interests of the\n United States ahead of his own, avoiding putting this nation\n through the turmoil of an impeachment process and a Senate\n trial.\n But if he declines to do so, then that is what must occur,\n regardless of how damaging it might be to a nation's self-\n image or governing process. For when allegedly impeachable\n acts have occurred, the law must be followed. It is a\n hallmark of our nation.\n So, to those Clinton supporters who say that Republicans\n are endangering the future of this nation by pursuing the\n impeachment process, they are wrong. There is only one man\n who has caused all of this. His name is Bill Clinton.\n\n Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, we as a body are called upon to perform one\nof the most significant duties we have as sworn defenders of the\nConstitution--to consider whether to impeach the President of the\nUnited States.\n I, for one, do not entertain this task lightly or with any joy\ndespite my many political disagreements with Mr. Clinton. However,\nbased on the investigation of the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, and\nthe yeoman's work performed by Chairman Hyde and my colleagues on the\nJudiciary Committee, I have concluded that the four articles of\nimpeachment are warranted. Mr. Clinton lied to the American people,\nlied to the courts, obstructed justice and abused the power of his\noffice.\n During the discovery of these offenses committed by Mr. Clinton, I\nurged him to do the honorable thing and resign. Instead, he continued\nto deny his misdeeds and, in so doing, tarnished the office of the\nPresident. It is our duty to restore the luster to that office.\n Some have argued that this process is neither appropriate, because of\npartisanship, nor timely, because of the military situation with Iraq.\n The wise Framers of our Constitution, in seeking to diffuse power in\nthe government, created the process by which the Chief Executive could\nbe held accountable for violating his oath of office. Should the House\nvote to impeach the President, he will remain in office and in charge\nof the Armed Forces. The act of impeachment is to indict Mr. Clinton on\nthe above charges and it is the duty of the U.S. Senate to determine\nthe guilt or innocence of the President. Two-thirds of the Senate must\nagree before the President can be removed from office. This deliberate\nprocess is far from what our Democrat friends have described today as a\nRepublican ``coup d'etat.''\n Furthermore, we are not judging the moral character of Mr. Clinton,\nwe are holding him accountable for violating the laws the American\npeople have entrusted him to enforce. History will judge us for what we\ndo with these impeachment charges. The House must vote to approve these\narticles to maintain the integrity of our laws, indeed to preserve the\nintegrity of our great nation.\n I urge my colleagues to look past their party affiliation to their\nconscience and vote for these articles of impeachment.\n Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am not alone today in wishing\nI was somewhere else, engaged in other pursuits. I take no pleasure in\ncoming to the well today to outline my conclusions relating to the\ngrave matter before us--the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton,\nPresident of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.\n Specifically, the House Judiciary Committee has recommended to the\nHouse four articles of impeachment: two counts of perjury; one count of\nobstruction of justice; and one count of abuse of power.\n After careful review of the Report of the Judiciary Committee on this\nmatter, I have concluded that impeachment is warranted on all counts.\nToday or tomorrow, whenever the votes are taken, I will vote ``yes'' on\nall four counts.\n Article I--On August 17, 1998, the President swore to tell the truth,\nthe whole truth and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury\nof the United States. It is absolutely clear to me that contrary to\nthat oath, President Clinton willfully gave perjurious, false and\nmisleading testimony to that grand jury about the nature and details of\nhis relationship with Monica Lewinsky.\n Article II--On December 23, 1997, the President submitted sworn\nanswers to written questions asked as part of the Jones lawsuit against\nhim. It is absolutely clear to me that contrary to this oath, President\nClinton willfully gave perjurious, false and misleading testimony in\nresponse to these questions concerning conduct and proposed conduct\nwith subordinate employees.\n Article III--The evidence also is absolutely clear that President\nClinton, using the powers of his office, engaged in personally and\nthrough his staff and agents, in a course of action designed to delay,\nimpede, cover up and conceal the evidence and testimony related to the\nJones lawsuit and the investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth\nStarr. The evidence shows President Clinton encouraged a sworn\naffidavit to be executed that he knew to be false, misleading and\nperjurious; encouraged a witness to give false, misleading and\nperjurious testimony in the Jones lawsuit; engaged in and supported a\nscheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in the Jones\nlawsuit; engaged in an effort to secure job assistance for Ms.\nLewinsky, a witness against him in the Jones lawsuit to prevent\ntruthful testimony of that witness; and, related a false and misleading\naccount of events in the Jones lawsuit to a potential witness against\nhim, his secretary, Betty Currie, in an attempt to influence her to\ngive false testimony.\n Article IV--The evidence clearly shows the President abused his power\nby refusing to and failing to respond to written requests by the House\nJudiciary Committee and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading\nsworn statements in response to certain of these written requests.\n What this matter comes down to is really several simple questions.\nDid the President of the United States lie under oath? Did he use his\noffice and the power of his office to obstruct justice? And, did he\nabuse the power of his office? The evidence, in my opinion, is\ncompelling. That is why I must vote for all four Articles of\nImpeachment.\n We are a nation of laws, not of men. The law is for the most powerful\nand privileged in our society, as well as for the economically and\nsocially disadvantaged. The President cannot be judged on a different\nstandard than anyone else simply because he is the President. In fact,\nbecause he is the President, he is the chief law enforcement officer of\nthis Nation, and is duty bound to uphold the law. Telling the truth\nunder oath, the bedrock of our judicial system, is the very least we\nshould be able to expect from our President.\n I want to thank all of the thousands of residents of the 10th\ndistrict of North Carolina for taking the time to contact my office\nover the past few months. I know these votes I cast today will please\nsome and disappoint others. All I can say is I came to these\nconclusions after careful study and review of the facts. I tried to\nstay open-minded and weigh the evidence carefully. I also refrained\nfrom making statements in the press and doing interviews on the matter,\nbelieving it better to wait to make a decision until the investigation\nwas complete and the Judiciary Committee had made its determination. I\ndo not make the decision lightly or for political reasons. Nor, do I\nmake the decision based on the polls. The decision to support all four\narticles of impeachment is based on the facts. Sadly, the facts of this\ncase warrant a ``yes'' vote to impeach.\n\n[[Page H11957]]\n\n Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the second time in my adult\nlife, I have watched ``a long national nightmare'' unfold. I am as\nanxious for this to be over as I was for the Watergate saga to end. But\nthat does not absolve me of my responsibility to do what I think is\nright. Given the importance of this vote and the thousands of letters,\nphone calls and e-mails I have received, I believe my constituents\ndeserve an explanation of why I cast my vote for the impeachment of\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton.\n Fifty years from now, what lesson do we want our school children to\ntake from this tragic episode? I want them to learn the importance of\nalways telling the truth. I want them to understand the consequences of\nlying. I don't want them to learn that you can yourself out of trouble\nby being ``clever.''\n Many have said that impeachment is not about punishing wrongdoing,\nbut about protecting our system of constitutional government. I agree.\nPunishment is in the hands of President Clinton's family and God. But I\nbelieve the facts clearly show that William Jefferson Clinton\ndeliberately sought to obstruct the judicial process in a civil rights\ncase and committed deliberate and pervasive perjury before a federal\ngrand jury and to the Congress. When the President of the United States\ntreats our system of justice with such contempt and selfishness, he\nmust be impeached.\n Opponents of impeachment argue that the crimes were minor, the facts\nare fuzzy and the definition of words and acts are subject to\ninterpretation. That is true if--and only if--we are forced to ignore\nlogic, common sense and context. Start with his deposition in the\nfederal civil rights case, Jones versus Clinton. The President was\nasked if he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. He said he wasn't\nsure, but he didn't think so. He was asked if he had ever given her\ngifts. He said he didn't remember--despite giving and receiving over 40\ngifts. He was asked if he had ever called her. He said maybe a few\ntimes, but the facts show over 55 calls, which included intimate\ndiscussions. And when he was asked if Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit in which\nshe denied any sexual relationship of any kind was true, the President\nresponded, ``that is absolutely true.'' Logic and common sense tell us\nthat he wasn't trying to be truthful, as he has claimed. He was\ndeliberately, with malice and forethought, lying in a federal civil\nrights case.\n Now, put that deliberate lie in the context of his testimony before\nthe Grand Jury. In that August 17th performance, the President\nrepeatedly testified that his earlier testimony had been truthful, if\nnot particularly helpful. That is a lie--and it is an obvious and\ndeliberate lie when put into context. If you conclude, as I have, that\nhe deliberately lied in his earlier civil rights testimony, then his\ngrand jury testimony in which he claims he was being truthful but\ndidn't understand certain definitions or wasn't paying attention, etc.\nare all lies as well. These execuses were made up after the fact for\nthe specific purpose of denying that he had earlier committed perjury.\nI have concluded that the President of the United States went before a\nfederal grand jury with the specific intent to commit perjury.\n He didn't get caught in a trap, he wasn't ill-served by his lawyers,\nthe questions weren't subject to interpretation--the facts, logic and\ncommon sense show that William Jefferson Clinton's specific purpose in\ntwo depositions was to lie.\n I also believe the facts show that the President attempted to\nobstruct justice and to use the full power of the White House to\ndestroy the reputation of Ms. Lewinsky. The facts are numerous, but let\nme cite a few. The day after he deliberately lied in the federal civil\nrights case he summoned his secretary, Betty Currie, to his office and\nwent through a series of statements about his relationship with Ms.\nLewinsky, each of which were complete falsehoods. According to Ms.\nCurrie, the President was trying to get her to agree to these false\nstatements. That is called witness tampering and it is a serious crime.\nThe day before, in his testimony, he had repeatedly said ``you would\nhave to ask Betty'' or ``Betty would know about that.'' Not only did he\nhave reason to believe she would be called as a witness--he was\nattempting to get her called as a witness.\n About a week later he summoned his adie, Sydney Blumenthal, to his\noffice and made up a story about how Ms. Lewinsky had come-on to him\nand that she was known as the ``stalker'' and had threatened to\nblackmail him unless he gave in to her propositions. A few days later,\nMs. Lewinsky was described in several news stories by ``senior White\nHouse aides'' as a ``stalker'' and as unbalanced. The President was\nwilling to use the power of the White House to destroy the reputation\nof a young woman with whom he had an intimate relationship. Not only is\nthat despicable, it is an effort to reinforce the lies he made under\noath.\n I believe those are the facts and very few of my colleagues have even\nattempted to dispute these facts. The question is whether this conduct\nrises to the level of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I believe they\ndo. Prior to his August 17 Grand Jury testimony, President Clinton was\n``on notice.'' The country and the Congress made clear to him that what\nwe needed was the truth. Instead, the President deliberately, if\nperhaps cleverly, committed perjury. Given the brazen nature of this\ncrime, President Clinton has shown contempt for the American people and\nfor the Constitution which he is sworn to uphold.\n To protect the sanctity of our system, such a man should not hold the\nhighest office in the land. With a heavy heart, I am compelled to vote\nfor the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.\n Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican\nmajority's impeachment resolution because it constitutes nothing more\nthan a highly partisan political attempt to further embarrass the\nPresident of the United States. I believe it is shameful that the\nmajority is attempting to overturn the 1996 election of President\nClinton by abusing the impeachment process. The real jury in this\ncountry--the American people--have already forcefully spoken on this\nmatter. They want the Republican to find a responsible and appropriate\npunishment for the President's misconduct. Censure--the appropriate\nvehicle--has been denied this House. The obsessive and partisan $40\nmillion witch-hunt began years ago with Whitewater, coursed through\nTravelgate and Filegate, and has concluded with a referral of charges\nbased primarily on actions much less than impeachable offense.\n Mr. Speaker, much has been made today about the sanctity of the\n``rule of law.'' May I, Sir, disagree with the reverence given this\ncountry's ``rule of law''? It was the ``rule of law,'' I point out,\nthat enslaved my ancestors. It was the ``rule of law'' that\ndisenfranchised women. It was the convoluted ``rule of law'' that\npermitted the lynching of hundreds of thousands of African Americans.\n Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has relied solely on Ken Starr's\nreferral to produce the four Articles of Impeachment. None of the\nallegations offered in support of the articles meet the required\nConstitutional standard of ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors.'' None involve a breach of the public's trust or a\nfailure to properly perform official duties.\n The Judiciary Committee began its work in an unfair and biased\nmanner. It should be no surprise to that it reached a flawed result.\nFirst, the Committee released thousands of pages of Grand Jury\ndocuments without providing the President a reasonable opportunity to\nreview them. Second, the Committee did not call any witnesses to test\nthe validity of the Independent Counsel's allegations. Third, the\nCommittee Republicans drafted their impeachment articles before the\nPresident's lawyers had even completed presenting his defense.\n The American people want closure and compromise on this issue, not\ngovernment gridlock and games. They want the Congress to devote its\nattention to matters of vital importance to America's future.\n Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I am acutely\naware of the gravity of this situation, of this process, and of the\npotential consequences for the nation. I do not face it lightly or\nwithout serious thought and soul-searching. The decision on whether to\nimpeach a President is a decision that few in our history have been\ncalled to make, and it is a decision that will reverberate for\ngenerations in our nation, its government, its ideals and values.\n The facts here are not seriously in dispute. The President lied under\noath in two separate judicial proceedings. The President caused or\nencouraged others to lie, and he attempted to prevent evidence from\ncoming to light. The President deceived Congress and the American\npeople.\n His actions have rightfully been denounced across the country. The\nPresident's conduct has embarrassed him and his family, as well as our\nentire Nation. He has severely damaged the institution of the\nPresidency, particularly in its role of providing moral leadership for\nthe Nation.\n Not all wrongful conduct by a President meets the standard for\nimpeachment in the Constitution, however. The House is assigned the\nduty of determining whether a President should be impeached, and the\nSenate must then conduct a trail to determine whether the President\nwill be convicted of the charges contained in the Articles of\nImpeachment.\n In considering the appropriate constitutional standards for the House\nvote on impeachment, I find it helpful to look back at a report\nproduced by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 as the impeachment inquiry\nof President Nixon was about to begin. That report found that:\n\n Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges\n of misconduct, incompatible with the official position of the\n officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories:\n (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the\n office in derogation of the powers of another branch of\n government; (2) behaving in a manner\n\n[[Page H11958]]\n\n grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of\n the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an\n improper purpose or for personal gain. [p. 17-18]\n Less than one-third of the eighty-three articles the House\n has adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a\n criminal statute or used the word ``criminal'' or ``crime''\n to describe the conduct alleged, and ten of the articles that\n do were those involving the Tenure of Office Act in the\n impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. . . . Much more\n common in the articles are allegations that the officer has\n violated his duties or his oath or seriously undermined\n public confidence in his ability to perform his official\n function. (emphasis added) [p. 21]\n It is useful to note three major presidential duties of\n broad scope that are explicitly recited in the Constitution:\n ``to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'' to\n ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United\n States'' and to ``preserve, protect, and defend the\n Constitution of the United States'' to the best of his\n ability. The first is directly imposed by the Constitution;\n the second and third are included in the constitutionally\n prescribed oath that the President is required to take before\n he enters upon the execution of this office and are,\n therefore, also expressly imposed by the Constitution. [p.\n 27]\n (Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,\n Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, Committee on\n the Judiciary, House of Representatives, February 1974.)\n\n Lying Under Oath in a Judicial Proceeding\n\n Violating a criminal statute in itself may well be a sufficient basis\nfor impeachment, and of course, lying under oath in a judicial\nproceeding is a crime. A President should not escape the consequences\nof his actions just because he is President. President Washington\nwarned in his Farewell Address in 1796 that ``[t]he very idea of the\npower and the right of the people to establish government presupposes\nthe duty of every individual to obey the established government.'' The\nrule of law is the basis for the fundamental rights of each American\nand requires that no one, including the President, be above the law.\n But in addition, I believe that a President who lies under oath in a\njudicial proceeding is subject to impeachment because such conduct\nundermines our legal system, violates the President's oath and his\nconstitutional responsibilities, and seriously undermines public\nconfidence in a President's ability to perform his official functions.\nThere are three reasons for this.\n First, lying under oath in a judicial proceeding undermines the legal\nsystem of the United States because it attacks its most fundamental\nunderpinning--the requirement of every individual to tell the truth. If\nthe President can lie in a judicial proceeding without paying the\nconsequences, it means either that the President is above the law or\nthat no citizen need fear the consequences of not telling the truth.\nNeither can be permitted.\n Some say that other Presidents have not always told the truth and\nwere not impeached. Assuming that past Presidents have lied, they have\nnot done so while under oath in a judicial proceeding. By doing so\nhere, President Clinton has undermined the American judicial system in\na way that threatens the rights of every American citizen.\n Second, I believe that lying under oath in a judicial proceeding\nviolates the President's oath ``to faithfully execute the Office of\nPresident of the United States.'' It also violates his duty ``to take\nCare that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Violating his oath of\noffice and his constitutional duties certainly meets the constitutional\nstandard of impeachment.\n Third, by lying under oath in a judicial proceeding, the President\nhas violated the confidence and trust of the American people. Public\ntrust and confidence are essential elements of the presidency.\nPresident Franklin Roosevelt said in one of his ``Fireside Chats'' on\nApril 14, 1938, ``I never forget that I live in a house owned by all\nthe American people and that I have been given their trust.'' Betrayal\nor abuse of that trust was exactly what the Framers believed would\nrequire impeachment. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper\nNumber 65 that impeachable offenses are ``those offenses which proceed\nfrom the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse\nor violations of some public trust.'' (emphasis added)\n Trust in what a President says is uniquely important because of the\nawesome duties and responsibilities invested in one person, including\nhis duties as Commander in Chief. President Clinton's lies and\ndeceptions ``seriously undermine public confidence in his ability to\nperform his official function.'' As one of his former cabinet members,\nRobert Reich, wrote:\n\n The second offense is the public lie--not simply the fact\n of it (presidents aren't always honest), but its passionate\n intensity. . . .\n If he can so convincingly fake a lie, how can the public\n believe anything else he says--including his current stream\n of apologies? (Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1998.)\n\n Recent events involving Iraq highlight again the importance of public\ntrust in the President.\n\n Obstruction of Justice\n\n In addition to lying under oath, the President has used or attempted\nto use the power and influence of his office to shield himself from the\npolitical and legal consequences of his actions. He attempted to\nfalsely shape the testimony of witnesses and to prevent evidence from\nbeing discovered. In so doing, he ``employ[ed] the power of the office\nfor an improper purpose or for personal gain.''\n Thus, in comparing President Clinton's conduct with the standards of\nimpeachment as articulated by the Framers, as well as by the Judiciary\nCommittee in 1974, the President's conduct clearly meets or exceeds\nthat standard required for impeachment.\n But even if the constitutional standard for impeachment is met, some\nargue that the House should exercise its discretion and look for some\nother remedy so as to not put the country through a trial in the\nSenate. A variety of arguments are used about how it is in the best\ninterests of the nation not to subject the country and its institutions\nof government to a Senate trial.\n For example, some voice concern about a trial's effects on the\neconomy. But as one writer has stated:\n\n The first responsibility of the [president] is not to\n achieve growth of 2.5 percent but to ensure the legitimacy of\n the system itself. In this fundamental task, Clinton has\n clearly not only failed; he has deliberately broken his oath\n of office. Clinton's attitude toward the law has not been how\n he can best uphold it but how he can best evade it. His\n attitude toward democratic political discourse has been not\n how he can address the issues honestly but how he can best\n dissemble, obfuscate, and lie. At some point, such a person\n does not merely demean himself; he demeans and threatens the\n entire system of government he is elected to defend. (Andrew\n Sullivan, The New Republic, September 14, 1998.)\n\n In fact, it is this pattern of unlawful and reckless behavior, in\nwhich the nation's interests are secondary to this President's own\nselfish interests and desires, which establishes his betrayal of the\npublic trust and mandates his removal.\n A newspaper editorial earlier this year states the heart of the\nmatter:\n\n He should resign because he has resolutely failed--and\n continues to fail--the most fundamental test of any\n president: to put his nation's interests first. (USA Today,\n September 14, 1998.)\n\n To me, Mr. Speaker, that is the essential truth from which we cannot\nescape. This President has violated the law; he has betrayed his oath\nand constitutional duty; he has undermined the legal system and the\nrule of law--all to promote his own selfish interests and desires,\nwhich he consistently puts ahead of the country's best interests.\n A number of our colleagues point out that opinion polls indicate most\nAmericans do not favor removing the President from office. Even if one\nassumes that current polls accurately reflect popular opinion,\npollsters have not yet claimed to speak for future generations.\n I believe such matters cannot be decided by polls. I also believe\nthat the nation is strong and will remain strong so long as we try to\nstay true to the values which built this nation. If we were to abandon\nthose values because of unpleasant facts or an uncomfortable process,\nwe would break the tether which binds us to the strength of the past.\n We have to try to do the right thing on the question before us--\nwherever that may lead--to affirm the principles and values that make\nAmerica unique in the history of the world and that give us our only\nchance to remain the light of the world into the 21st century.\n We affirm the principles of our legal system and the values of truth,\nequal justice, and the rule of law by voting to impeach William\nJefferson Clinton.\n Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, for months I have been troubled by the matter\nof the President. I wish more than anything that we were not here at\nthis moment in our Nation's history poised to vote on the articles of\nimpeachment as reported by the House Judiciary Committee. I regret that\nthis vote was not averted both for the sake of the Office of the\nPresidency and the American people. But this matter has moved through\nits consitutionally mandated process and we must vote according to our\nconscience and to our sworn duty as representatives in the Congress.\n I am aware of the public opinion polls and the snapshots in time\nthose surveys report which show people are generally content and would\nrather not upset the apple cart. Had political opinion polls been the\nguiding principle on other important matters before our nation, such as\nwomen's suffrage and desegregation how long would it have taken for\nelected officials to have done the right thing? We cannot be led by the\ncurrent polling data. There comes a time when leaders must lead, no\nmatter what the political fallout.\n I am aware the Republican majority party could pay a price for doing\nwhat I believe is the right thing and protecting the rule of law.\n\n[[Page H11959]]\n\nA vote for impeachment in the House to send this matter to the Senate\nfor final resolution, I believe, is the right thing for this country.\n On February 5, 1998, I made the following statement regarding the\nPresident:\n\n A Matter of Truth\n\n (Special order statement by Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia,\n February 5, 1998)\n\n Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to speak on\n what has been happening in this country lately. It's not\n about impeachment of the President. Or prosecution of the\n President. It's what's been on my mind and on my conscience.\n For all the clamor in the press and on radio and TV about\n allegations swirling around the President, there has been a\n blanket of silence on the part of too many who ought to\n provide commentary on the moral tone of this country.\n And I am not sure why. Perhaps there is a ``don't rock the\n boat'' feeling. Times are good and let's just sweep this\n under the rug and not focus on the moral aspect of this.\n Perhaps the talk of impeachment and prosecution got out there\n too early and preempted those who might have felt obligated\n to comment on the moral issue and its impact on leadership of\n the country.\n Their reluctance was not evident in earlier cases. The\n young woman who flew Air Force B-52s, the military general\n passed over for chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the tail-hook\n scandal which touched a number of senior Navy officials,\n charges against a former Senator who resigned, a Supreme\n Court nominee, a Presidential candidate and others brought a\n tidal wave of comment from every corner of America.\n In America, a person is innocent until proven guilty. But\n we are not talking about a court of law. We are talking about\n right and wrong. We must give the President the benefit of\n the doubt. But let's not say these things don't matter.\n Because they do. They are at the very heart of honor,\n integrity, character and leadership.\n What a person does in private affects the type of person he\n or she is in public. And a leader has an obligation to take\n responsibility for his or her actions and not try to explain\n them away or blame others.\n If indeed we have lost the capacity to distinguish vice\n from virtue, if we believe that private behavior has no\n public consequences, if we believe that our nation's leaders\n do not have to be good and moral and righteous men and women\n who live by the truth, then we have abandoned the very\n heritage of this nation.\n I believe America ought to expect more from its leaders and\n I think most agree. If, as has been the case for ages, kids\n want to grow up to be President of the United States, then,\n like it or not, the person holding that title has a\n special responsibility and we have every right to hold him\n or her accountable to that duty. Saying Americans don't\n care just doesn't wash with me.\n Truth is something we have always honored in this country.\n We teach our children from an early age to be truthful.\n George Washington's birthday is coming soon, and we have long\n told the story about his admitting to cutting down the cherry\n tree--``I cannot tell a lie.''\n When any President takes office there is an implied promise\n that he or she will level with the people, that he or she\n will be honest with them. A solemn bond of trust has always\n existed between the President and the people. And it must\n always be this way.\n Every President has an obligation to tell the whole truth.\n If Richard Nixon had told the whole truth and asked the\n people for forgiveness, I believe he would have been\n forgiven.\n Today there is a pall of doubt over the presidency. Not\n being forthcoming with whatever the truth may be leaves doubt\n about the bond of trust between the President and the people\n and keeps open the question of fitness to serve in high\n office.\n The only way America can put this behind us once and for\n all is to be assured that when the President speaks, he is\n telling the truth. I hope this President can give this\n assurance. If President Clinton tells the American people the\n whole truth and needs forgiveness, I believe he will be\n forgiven.\n All of us err and make mistakes, including me. No one is\n perfect. But for forgiveness and healing to take place there\n first must be confession and truth. Then we can move on.\n Thank you.\n\n On August 17, President Clinton belatedly addressed the nation\nadmitting to an ``improper relationship.'' On September 9, the Office\nof Independent Counsel (OIC) referred to the House of Representatives a\nreport outlining 11 charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness\ntampering and abuse of power in what the OIC called ``substantial and\ncredible information that President Clinton committed acts that may\nconstitute grounds for an impeachment.'' On September 15, after review\nand consideration of the OIC report, I made the following statement\ncalling on President Clinton to resign for the sake of his family and\nthe Nation:\n\n On the Matter of the President\n\n (Statement by Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, September 15,\n 1998)\n\n It was seven months ago when I stood on the House floor and\n stated that if President Clinton would tell the American\n people the whole truth and ask for their forgiveness, then I\n believed that he would and should be forgiven and allowed to\n continue in office. Unfortunately, in the ensuing months, the\n President instead chose a campaign of deception, cover-up,\n and counterattacks in a relentless push for self-\n preservation.\n He has let the American people down in a grievous manner.\n He has abused the power of the Office of the Presidency. I\n believe he has lost the ability to be an effective and\n credible leader of our country.\n When he had the chance early on, he failed to apologize and\n accept responsibility for his actions. He has only recently\n acknowledged his misconduct and his misleading of the\n American people and he has now apologized, when perhaps faced\n with no other choice. Should we forgive him? I believe yes,\n on a personal level, as a human being, we understand his\n personal embarrassment and should accept his apologies and\n forgive him. We all make mistakes. none of us is perfect.\n As disappointing as the President's behavior in the Oval\n Office has been, however, this is not just bout his personal\n indiscretions. It is about the bond of honor and trust\n between the President and the people. The President has\n betrayed that trust. I believe the President's moral\n authority, personal credibility and integrity have been\n irreparably damaged.\n President Clinton has said that this is a private matter to\n be dealt with by his family. But he himself brought it beyond\n that at the moment he lied in a sworn deposition and again\n before a federal grand jury.\n There must be accountability for his violation of the\n solemn trust the American people have placed in him. Actions\n have consequences. The President's abuse of the trust placed\n in the highest office in this land has damaged his\n credibility to lead. The President's word should be his bond,\n but we now see that it has not been. Instead, we have to\n analyze and parse and dissect each of his words to ensure\n that we are not being duped.\n We see his well-paid lawyers trying to redefine morality,\n twisting words and phrases to have different meanings. What\n does this do to our judicial system, to our society? What\n message does this send to our young people? Much in the\n fabric of our society depends on people telling the truth,\n or a common understanding of wrongdoing.\n Character does matter. The President is not a mere policy\n technician. He is the emblem of all that our country stands\n for. He is our representative to the world. He is the\n preeminent role model. Nations and governments around the\n world depend upon the veracity of his word and his character\n to make major decisions. In Luke 12:48 we are told that ``to\n whom much has been given, much will be demanded; and from the\n one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be\n asked.'' Our presidents are entrusted with much and our\n expectations of them as leaders are high. Truth matters in\n both public and private life.\n In his televised address to the nation on August 17, the\n President expressed concern that too many people have been\n hurt by this unfortunate episode. As this process continues,\n how many more people will be hurt? How many more lives\n shattered? The impeachment process will be long and drawn out\n over months, possibly not concluding until early next summer.\n My fear is that it will divide the country. It also will\n divert the attention of the nation away from important\n domestic and foreign policy matters. Our leadership--the\n White House and the Congress--will be tied up, debilitated at\n a time of serious problems in the world. From a world view,\n we face dangerous times. Russia, Asia and Latin America are\n in economic crisis. India and Pakistan are testing nuclear\n weapons. The threat of terrorism is increasing. There is\n instability still in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, in Bosnia,\n North Korea, and elsewhere. We need to pay attention to\n keeping our own economy strong.\n We wish that this whole matter had not taken place. But it\n did, by the President's own admission. This resulted in\n deceiving the American people, the President's family, his\n Cabinet and the White House staff. Now the investigation has\n brought charges by the Office of Independent Counsel of\n perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of constitutional\n authority which have begun the congressional inquiry process\n for impeachment. And, the OIC's work is not over and could\n continue for a long time. As long as this investigation goes\n on, the country is basically stalled, with the President's\n attention diverted, and that's dangerous not only for our\n country, but for the world.\n Therefore, painful though it is, I believe the time has\n come for the President to resign. It's time he put aside his\n own interests and do what's best for America and its\n interests. He and his administration have had successes and\n accomplishments. But in the time ahead, this President will\n be handcuffed to a matter of his own making, a matter from\n which the only escape for him and our country is\n his resignation. Though we should and do personally\n forgive him, we cannot undo or deny the irreparable damage\n that his conduct has brought upon his ability to serve as\n President.\n Resignation is the honorable thing to do. I believe that\n the President's resignation can be an act of nobility on his\n part. I further believe that this President will have the\n opportunity to make significant contributions to our country\n in the future as a private citizen. But now, I urge the\n President to do the right thing for his family and his\n country and resign the Office of the Presidency and bring\n this saga to an end.\n\n Today, I am convinced the President lied under oath and obstructed\njustice. On June\n\n[[Page H11960]]\n\n30, 1994, upon signing into law the current Independent Counsel\nstatute, President Clinton said, ``It ensures that no matter what party\ncontrols the Congress or the executive branch, an independent,\nnonpartisan process will be in place to guarantee the integrity of\npublic officials and ensure that no one is above the law.''\n President Clinton is the highest law enforcement official in our\nnation. He must be held to a higher standard of integrity, not a lesser\nstandard. We live in a society governed by the rule of law, not by man.\n I was one of only eight House Republican members to vote not to seat\nRepresentative Gingrich as Speaker for the 105th Congress until\ncompletion of the then pending ethics committee report. It was a\ndifficult vote and it angered many in my own party. My vote then was a\nvote of conscience, as is my vote today.\n President Clinton had it right in 1994: ``. . . no one is above the\nlaw.'' President Clinton, the highest ranking law enforcement official\nin our Nation, has shown contempt for the law and must be held\naccountable. The matter before this body is clear. It is about the\nintegrity of the rule of law, it is about telling the truth, it is\nabout our Nation's basic judicial principles, our founding principles\nof democracy, and upholding the trust and respect of the Office of the\nPresidency.\n Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as a result of recent surgery\nand because of the potential health risks of air travel at this time in\nmy recuperation, I am greatly disappointed that I am unable to attend\nthe session of the House of Representatives today as we consider one of\nthe most serious actions we can take under the Constitution: not simply\nthe removal of the President from office, but overturning the decision\nof the American people in twice electing him to that office. I urge my\ncolleagues to vote against impeachment, and I would so vote were I able\nto be present in the chamber today.\n The partisan resolutions presented to the House by the Judiciary\nCommittee are an affront to the American electorate and a repudiation\nof the Constitution. They trivialize the awesome act of impeachment.\nThey mis-state both the law and the historical precedent. And they will\ninaugurate a season of recrimination, divisiveness and partisanship\nthat will taint this House and this nation unnecessarily.\n No one in this Chamber, or in this nation, disputes that the\nPresident was terribly wrong in his actions. No one disputes that he\nwas far less than candid in his statements in the Jones deposition,\nbefore the Grand Jury, and particularly, to the American people. No one\ndisagrees that strong action by this House is justified to convey our\ndisapproval, and that of the American people, with the manner in which\nthe President has conducted himself in this scandal.\n But those are not the questions before the House today. The question\nis whether or not those actions warrant his impeachment and his removal\nfrom office. And the answer is ``no.''\n While the majority of Americans are justifiable disappointed in the\nPresident, as am I, they have registered their views loudly and clearly\nthat the President should not be removed from office. I have had the\nadvantage, or disadvantage, of being in bed, recovering from surgery,\nthese past two weeks, and I have used that opportunity to listen to\nAmericans on television and radio from all over this country. They do\nnot approve of what we are being forced to vote on today. Constituents\nwho have contacted my office from the 7th district of California by\nphone, fax and e-mail over the past two weeks have overwhelmingly\nstated their opposition to impeaching the President over this matter.\nAnd they are correct.\n Impeachment was intended by the framers of the Constitution--and has\nbeen treated by every Congress since 1789 with one single, disreputable\nexception 130 years ago--as an extraordinary means of removing a\npresident whose use of his Executive Authority poses an imminent threat\nto our constitutional form of government. Whatever you thing of Bill\nClinton and the Lewinsky scandal, providing false or misleading\ntestimony in a resolved civil suit does not rise to the constitutional\nstandard of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Nor does giving evasive\nanswers to the Congress. We can object to such behavior; we should\ncondemn such behavior. But Mr. Clinton's action in no way threatens\neither the institutions of our government or the Constitution.\n If we proceed in voting impeachment for misleading a Grand Jury about\nprivate behavior that has nothing to do with the exercise of\npresidential power, then this House must be prepared for the\nimpeachment bar to be moved with impunity and recklessness in the\nfuture. Misrepresenting, or lying, or twisting the truth--none of them\nare acceptable behaviors by public officials, even when they involve\nprivate behaviors. But as we tragically know, deception is not\nunfamiliar in the corridors of the Capitol either. Let us exercise\ngreat caution in what we approve as a new standard for removing federal\nofficials from office, because this House and this Congress could\nbecome ugly and bitter institutions.\n I urge the Republican leadership of this House to reconsider its\nunwise and partisan Rule that bars Members from having the opportunity\nto vote for a censure resolution in lieu of impeachment. The\nRepublicans' argument that censure is prohibited by the Constitution is\nabsurd. The House can pass a Resolution, or a Joint Resolution with the\nSenate, expressing its view on any subject, as we do with great\nfrequency on subjects from the trivial to the deadly serious.\n There is absolutely no reason under the Constitution or the House\nRules why a strong censure resolution, as has been proposed, should not\nbe subject to debate and consideration by the House, especially since\nit is very possible that a bipartisan majority prefers censure to\nimpeachment, as do the people of the United States.\n But the Republican leadership will not permit an open debate. They\nonly want to allow debate on the inflammatory and legally dubious\nresolutions reported on a strictly partisan vote from the Judiciary\nCommittee. And we know why. Because the extremist element in the\nRepublican Part which has been trying for six years to force a popular,\nelected president from office by alleging scandal after unproven\nscandal--from Vincent Foster's alleged ``murder'' to Whitewater--is\nfrustrated because those extremists have been unable to make any of the\ncharges stick. In fact, Kenneth Starr's report never even accuses the\nPresident of perjury, and yet that is the basis for the most serious of\nthe allegations contained in the impeachment resolutions.\n And so, even at this late hour, I call upon the Republican leadership\nto step back and let this House freely consider a variety of sanctions\nagainst the President for his reckless and unacceptable conduct. I urge\nyou: do not cheapen the constitutional test for impeachment. Do not\nabuse the Constitution to overturn a national election. And do not\nignore the will of the voters who have elected their President and\ncontinue to send an unmistakable message that they do not want their\nrepresentatives, at the end of the year, in the last moments of a lame\nduck Congress, to take this historic and fearsome action that truly\nwill injure our Constitution and our democracy for years to come.\n Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to\nHouse Resolution 611, Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton,\nPresident of the United States.\n This is the second time in my congressional career that I have been\nin the position to ponder the removal from office of a duly elected\npresident. After 1974, it was a decision I hoped never to be faced with\nagain. Next to declarations of war, impeachment is the most grave duty\nCongress is charged with. Overturning a presidential election, the very\nfoundation of our system of popular government, is not something that\nshould be done on a partisan basis. Impeachment may be a political\nprocess, but it is our opportunity to exhibit the depth of fairness and\njustice this body should possess, not single minded partisan\ndetermination.\n Like most of my colleagues, I have openly expressed my condemnation\nof President Clinton's inappropriate and immoral behavior. I have\nagreed that he should face punishment for his actions and I do believe\nthat he should take responsibility for the disgrace he has caused\nhimself and the turmoil he has caused this nation.\n However, the question each member of Congress is faced with today is\nwhat level of punishment is appropriate. I agree with my Democratic\ncolleagues on the Judiciary Committee that there is a vital and\ndistinct difference between punishment and impeachment. Impeachment is\nintended for great and serious offenses against our constitutional\nsystem of government. It is not intended to be a punishment for\npersonal misconduct not related to the presidential office.\n The conduct alleged against President Clinton does not rise to the\nlevel of impeachment. It is not necessary to remove Clinton from office\nto protect our nation and I do not support lowering the high standard\nof impeachment. I am gravely disappointed that the Majority has denied\nthis, the People's House the opportunity for a straight vote on\ncensure, the option the majority of the very people we represent\nsupport. In blatantly disregarding the views of the American people,\nthis body has illegitimized itself.\n I plan to vote in the manner I believe is best for our country. I\nwill vote against the impeachment resolutions, I will watch as our\nconstitutional system undergoes its greatest test, and I will hope that\nat the very least, future Congresses will learn from what we do today.\n Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, today the United States House of\nRepresentatives begins debate on Articles of Impeachment of President\nWilliam Jefferson Clinton. This is the first time in over 130 years\nthat the House of\n\n[[Page H11961]]\n\nRepresentatives has performed its solemn duty of determining whether a\nsitting President should be impeached.\n Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution reads: ``The President,\nVice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be\nremoved from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason,\nbribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.''\n The President has been charged with committing ``high crimes and\nmisdemeanors.'' Specifically: perjury in testimony before a federal\ngrand jury; perjury in a Federal civil rights suit in which he was the\ndefendant; obstruction of justice; and abuse of power.\n The President's attorneys argue that he has not committed high crimes\nand misdemeanors.\n Legal scholars and English Parliamentary law make it perfectly clear\nthat the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' includes not only\ncrimes for which an indictment may be brought, but also grave political\noffenses, corruption, maladministration or neglect of duty involving\nmoral turpitude, and arbitrary and oppressive conduct none of which\nneed constitute a crime.\n A majority of legal scholars agree that noncriminal misconduct may be\nimpeachable. In fact, every impeachment case presented to the United\nStates Senate before 1973 included articles charging offenses that are\nnot criminally indictable.\n In addition, to be impeachable, the misconduct must threaten grave\nharm to the country.\n President Clinton's alleged behavior constitutes an assault on the\ntruth-finding mechanism of our judicial system. For example, perjury is\na crime because our judicial system cannot work unless citizens tell\nthe truth when testifying in judicial proceedings.\n Articles of Impeachment I and II charge President Clinton with\ncommitting perjury. On August 17, 1998, President Clinton testified\nunder oath before a Federal grand jury. He is charged with committing\nperjury in his answers to eight questions. On January 17, 1998,\nPresident Clinton testified under oath in his deposition in the Jones\nversus Clinton case. He is charged with committing perjury in his\nanswers to 10 questions.\n The President's legal team and other supporters claim that the first\ntwo articles involve nothing more than the President's private sex\nlife. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is clear and\nconvincing evidence that the President lied under oath in the civil\ncase filed against him by Paula Jones because he did not want to lose\nthe case and be required to pay her monetary damages. There is clear\nand convincing evidence that the President committed perjury when\ntestifying before the Federal grand jury because he did not want to be\nindicted for perjury in the Jones case. It should be noted that despite\nall of his efforts, he eventually agreed to pay $700,000 to settle the\ncase.\n The President's defense to the perjury allegations is limited to only\none aspect of his testimony, i.e. whether he had sexual relations with\nMonica Lewinsky. He basically ignores the perjury claims premised on\nhis denial of being alone with Ms. Lewinsky, his denial of any\ninvolvement in obtaining a job for her, his falsely minimizing the\nnumber of occasions on which he had encounters with her, and his lies\nregarding gifts they exchanged.\n The President and his lawyers assert that he did not commit perjury\nwhen he testified that he did not have sexual relations with Ms.\nLewinsky, because he did not believe oral sex meant sexual relations.\n Perjury is judged by an objective standard, i.e. what would a\nreasonable person understand the term to mean under the circumstances.\nA reasonable person would clearly believe that oral sex is a sexual\nrelation.\n The President's defenders assert that his relationship with Ms.\nLewinsky is his private business and he should not be subject to\nimpeachment even if he did commit perjury. If the Congress adopted that\nposition, it would be establishing two different legal systems. One for\nthe President and another for everyone else.\n Since Bill Clinton has been President, the United States Department\nof Justice has prosecuted and convicted more than 400 persons for\nperjury.\n Here are the facts of a few cases:\n 1. A Veterans Administration psychiatrist was convicted of perjury\nfor lying in a civil suit about a sexual relationship she had with a\npatient. The psychiatrist was sentenced to six months in jail and lost\nher professional license.\n 2. A Texas judge was convicted of perjury for declaring he had used\npolitical contributions to buy flowers for his staff when, in fact, the\nflowers were for his wife.\n 3. A Florida postal supervisor is in prison for denying in a civil\ndeposition that she had sexual relations with a subordinate.\n 4. The former women's basketball coach at the University of South\nCarolina went to prison after she was convicted of committing perjury\nrelating to a sexual relationship with one of her players.\n The President should not be immune from laws designed to protect the\nintegrity of our judicial system. For these reasons, I will vote in\nfavor of Articles I and II.\n Article III charges the President with Obstruction of Justice.\nSpecifically:\n 1. He is charged with encouraging Monica Lewinsky to file a sworn\naffidavit in the Jones case that he knew would be false.\n 2. He encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath if called\npersonally to testify in the Jones versus Clinton case.\n 3. He told lies to White House aides who he knew would likely be\ncalled as witnesses before the Federal grand jury investigating his\nmisconduct. the aides repeated the assertions to the grand jury,\ncausing the grand jury to receive false information.\n 4. He engaged in a plan to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed\nin a federal civil rights action brought against him.\n 5. He corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading\nstatements to a Federal Judge in an affidavit in order to prevent\nquestioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading\nstatements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a\ncommunication to that judge.\n 6. He related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a\nFederal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness\nin that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of\nthat witness.\n The term obstruction of justice usually refers to a violation of 18\nU.S.C. Sec. 1503 which contains a catchall clause making it unlawful to\ninfluence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. It\nmay also refer to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512, which proscribes intimidating,\nthreatening or corruptly persuading through deceptive conduct, a person\nin connection with an official proceeding.\n During his deposition on January 17, 1998, in the Jones case,\nPresident Clinton frequently referred to his secretary, Betty Currie,\nas someone who could verify his testimony as it related particularly to\nMonica Lewinsky. At the deposition, Judge Wright imposed a protective\norder that directed the parties, including President Clinton, to\nrefrain from discussing their testimony with anyone.\n The next morning, a Sunday, President Clinton met with Betty Currie\nat the White House because it was foreseeable that she might be called\nas a witness in the Jones case. He told her about his testimony at the\ndeposition and reviewed it in detail. She subsequently testified to the\nFederal grand jury that the President wanted her to agree with his\ntestimony if she was called to testify.\n The Betty Currie episode is one of the key points in this article.\nHowever, there are additional facts and evidence that provide\nconvincing proof that the President did obstruct justice. I will vote\nin favor of Article III.\n Article IV charges President Clinton with abuse of power. This\narticle relates to the President's evasive answers to a list of 81\nquestions submitted to the Judiciary Committee.\n From my analysis of this charge, the primary allegation is based on\nthe President's use of executive privilege and his evasive answers to\n81 questions submitted to him by the Judiciary Committee. Although I\nbelieve from the evidence that the President was less than forthcoming\nin his answers and may have been aggressive in his assertion of\nexecutive privilege, I do not believe he abused his power. I will vote\nagainst Article IV.\n Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I believe the\nPresident's behavior was irresponsible, inappropriate, and deeply\ndisappointing. But, like most Americans, I have concluded that his\nactions do not rise to standard of impeachment established by the\nFramers of our Constitution.\n Make no mistake. The President is not above the law. He can be sued\nin criminal or civil proceedings for his actions in this matter when he\nleaves office. But as Members of Congress, we have a unique\nresponsibility, and must adhere to the standards set forth by our\nfounding fathers. Our founding fathers intended for impeachment to be a\ndrastic remedy when the President has committed ``great and dangerous\noffenses'' against the nation.\n Make no mistake. The President's behavior was wrong. But impeachment\nwas never intended to punish the President for wrongdoing. Impeachment\nwas intended to remove a President from office when his or her actions\nimperil the future of our nation. Impeachment was intended for a\nPresident who commits `treason, bribery, or other high crimes and\nmisdemeanors' against the nation. Congress should not lower the\nstandard of impeachment, and reverse the will of the electorate merely\nas a means to express displeasure with the President's behavior.\n Against the wisdom of nearly nine hundred constitutional scholars,\nthe majority has chosen to proceed with a bitterly partisan attempt to\nimpeach the President. Against more than\n\n[[Page H11962]]\n\ntwo hundred years of constitutional and historical precedent, the\nmajority has chosen to proceed with a bitterly partisan attempt to\nimpeach the President. And against the overwhelming sentiment of the\nAmerican people, the majority party has chosen to proceed with a\nbitterly partisan attempt to impeach the President.\n Rightly, our founding fathers established a high standard for\nimpeachment. Our founding fathers would view our action today as\nmaligning their intent, and as an action that upsets the careful\nbalance of power between the executive and legislative branches. We\ncannot afford to set this dangerous, misguided precedent, and\nirrevocably erode the standard for impeachment.\n Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, serious charges have been made against\nPresident Bill Clinton, and I have stated that I believe resignation\nwould be the best course of action. Not one of us wants to be here\ntalking about perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. This\nHouse is, however, carrying out its sworn duty as the representative\nbranch of our Government to ensure that the president does not use the\ngreat powers at his disposal to undermine justice.\n For centuries, people have agreed to compacts, covenants and\nconstitutions to form a government and be bound by its rules. We, the\npeople of the United States, agreed as a whole to obey the laws that\nhold our Nation together and apply these laws to every American\nequally. We cannot decide to apply these laws selectively. President\nClinton took an oath to faithfully defend the laws of our Nation, and\nno one man can be permitted to decide which laws can be broken or which\nlies he decides are acceptable under oath.\n In this case, the one man is the President of the United States--the\ntop law enforcement officer in America--and this president violated the\nlaws of the United States. I am gravely distressed about the\nsignificance of his actions on our constitutional system and the\nfunctioning of our Government in the future.\n The rule of law in this Nation must be equal and impartial for all\nAmericans--rich and poor, weak and strong. We cannot allow people to\nthink of our laws as a tool of the powerful in our society.\n For those who believe that the crimes of this president do not rise\nto the level of impeachable offenses, I would refer them to the\nwritings of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton\nstated that the subject of impeachment arises ``from the abuse or\nviolation of some public trust'' and that impeachable offenses occur\nwhen this misconduct produces ``injuries done immediately to the\nsociety itself.'' In our republic, the executive cannot observe or\ndisregard laws at his discretion, and President Clinton's disregard for\nthe rule of law under oath undermines our society's trust in the\nAmerican form of Government.\n Under our sworn duty to protect the Constitution and the laws of the\nUnited States, it is our obligation to move forward with articles of\nimpeachment against President Clinton. I believe the President\ncommitted offenses against the Constitution and the rule of law, and I\nwill vote for the Articles of Impeachment prepared by the House\nJudiciary Committee.\n Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, with a commitment to the principles of\nthe rule of law which makes this country the beacon of hope throughout\nthe world, I cast my vote in favor of the four counts of impeachment of\nthe conduct of the President of the United States. As a Representative\nin Congress, I can do no less in fulfilling my responsibility to the\nConstitution and to all who have preceded me in defending the\nConstitution from erosions of the rule of law.\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 of 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 rights. 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 restrain 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 has given up many individual prerogatives\n(use of force, private punishment, etc) in return for promises, the\ncommitments, the elements of our social compact. The central promise or\ncommitment of our compact is that our laws will be enforced equally\nwith respect to all, that our civil rights and civil grievances will be\nfairly adjudicated in our courts, and that the powers we give up to\ngovernment will be used only for governmental purposes related to the\ncommon 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 member\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 immediate 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 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 role of truth in our\njudicial system by simply assuming that everyone will lie, then we\ntrivialize the courts themselves, we trivialize the rule of law. In\ndoing so, we trivialize the eternal search for justice for the weak\nunder law, in place of exploitation of the weak under arbitrary private\npower of the strong. I will not be a party to such demeaning of the\nmost fundamental struggles of humankind- and I will not be a party to\nthe attempt to escape the consequences of his public acts by the\nPresident through such trivialization.\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. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Articles of\nImpeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton and ask that\nthe following statement be entered into the record outlining my reasons\nfor supporting the Articles of Impeachment.\n On the night of Wednesday, Dec. 16, 1998, the President addressed the\nnation to inform us of his actions and lead our country as commander in\nchief to the correct, if not overdue, decision that Iraq must not be\nallowed to continue on its dangerous path creating weapons of mass\ndestruction.\n And that same night, too many Americans wondered if the intentions\nbehind his decision were in the best interest of the United States or\nin the best interests of Bill Clinton.\n Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not questioning President\nClinton's decision to order a military strike against Iraq. His\ndecision may have been based on sound recommendations from the entire\nNational Security Team. But the simple fact that we even\n\n[[Page H11963]]\n\nhave to wonder whether Bill Clinton made that decision to delay the\nimpeachment debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, is proof that\nhe can no longer lead this nation.\n When President Lyndon Johnson ordered military action in Vietnam,\nnobody questioned his motives. People questioned the decision itself,\nprotested the decision--even died questioning the wisdom behind the\ndecision; but never were the personal or political motives behind the\ndecision questioned.\n When President George Bush ordered military strikes against Iraq as\npart of Desert Storm, people may have debated whether or not to let\nsanctions work a little longer, but nobody questioned the personal or\npolitical motives behind his decision. When President Clinton ordered\nmilitary strikes against Iraq last night, the first question from\nIowans, Americans and people from around the world was whether or not\nthe president was taking this action to delay the impeachment debate--\nhad the movie ``Wag The Dog'' become reality?\n This has gone beyond President Clinton's relations with an intern.\nThis has gone beyond perjury, and beyond lying under oath before a\ngrand jury. You can say that everybody lies about sex. But no one can\nsay that everybody orders Americans soldiers into harms way to delay a\ndebate on their qualifications to lead the most powerful nation in the\nworld. Only the president faces that decision, and we must have a\npresident whose actions and intentions involving the lives of American\nmen and women in uniform must be beyond reproach and beyond question.\n Today the ramifications of a nation dealing with a president who has\ncommitted perjury before a grand jury have become real and undeniable.\nWe no longer have confidence in this President to make the most\nimportant decisions a commander in chief must face.\n My biggest fear is going to the funeral of some young Iowa man or\nwoman who dies in this conflict and having their mother and father come\nup to me and ask whether or not their son or daughter died for America\nor died to save Bill Clinton's presidency. I don't know what I would\nsay to those grieving parents.\n For that reason, I believe the president must resign immediately.\n I am confident that a ``President'' Al Gore can complete our military\nmission in Iraq and command the respect and confidence of the American\npeople.\n Today, as well, I will vote in favor of all four Acticles of\nImpeachment as presented by the House Judiciary Committee.\n Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, my vote on the impeachment of President\nClinton will be the most important of my public service. The proposed\nimpeachment of a president has occurred only twice before in our\nnation's history and I consider this of gravest Constitutional\nimportance. I have made my decision only after a great deal of study,\nlistening to the advice of my fellow citizens, and much soul searching.\n Why am I releasing this statement before the Judiciary Committee\nvotes on articles of impeachment? Because for all practical purposes\nthe relevant information is in. The President has provided responses to\nthe committee and his lawyer had his chance to challenge the facts of\nthe case. My constituents deserve to know where I stand on impeachment\n. . . whether a vote by the House occurs or not.\n This whole affair deeply saddens me. President Clinton is a man of\npersonal charm, intellect, and empathy. I, possibly more than any other\nHouse Republican, have worked in a bipartisan manner with President\nClinton. The President has shown special consideration for me on\nseveral occasions and that makes my decision doubly difficult. I hold\nno personal enmity toward the President, quite the contrary.\n When I called on the President to resign after his scandal became\npublic but before the sordid details came out, I did so out of concern\nfor what the country was likely to go through. I did so also out of\nconcern for what would be best for President Clinton and his family . .\n. and I shared those sentiments with President Clinton. I, too, have a\ndaughter who has just started college and I especially sympathize with\nhow difficult this has been for the President's daughter.\n As I write this many images come to mind. I see a videotape of\nPresident Clinton hugging a starstruck young woman in a black beret and\nan image of the President pointing his finger at the American people\nsaying, ``I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'' I can see\nthe President sweating over his grant jury answer, ``It depends on what\nthe meaning of the word `is' is.'' Then there's the indelible visage of\nan angry President of the United States hairsplitting that he was\n``legally accurate'' when he had just apologized to the nation for\n``inappropriate behavior.''\n Who will ever forget these pictures, and how sad it is that they are\nnow part of our nation's history. Couldn't we just ignore this tawdry\nscandal?\n I wish we could, but this tragedy moved past personal immoral\nbehavior a long time ago.\n Sometimes our public and personal lives require that we review\nanother's actions and pass judgment. This is never easy and we only\npray that we do so with fairness and justice and by the rules. In this\ncase, the rule book is the United States Constitution, which I have\ntaken an oath to uphold.\n In my opinion, the President, should not be impeached because he's\ncommitted adultery, though this reckless behavior surely could have\nexposed this President of the United States to blackmail. Nor would\nadultery with a subordinate in the workplace, however morally\nreprehensible, necessarily rise to impeachable behavior. However,\nPresident Clinton's impeachment isn't about his affair per se.\n I have framed my decision on two questions: Did President Clinton lie\nunder oath, obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses and the abuse\npowers of his office? And if the President did these misdeeds do they\nrise to the level of impeachable offenses?\n What are the facts? President Clinton testified under oath in the\nPaula Jones sexual-harassment case that he did not have sexual\nrelations with Lewinsky. He responded ``none'' when asked by the Jones'\nlawyers if he'd had sexual relations with employees as President. He\nsat silently while his attorney told the judge ``there is absolutely no\nsex of any kind in any manner, shape or form'' between Clinton and\nLewinsky.\n President Clinton was questioned by his own counsel during this\ndeposition:\n\n Bennett: In [Lewinsky's] affidavit, she says this: ``I have\n never had a sexual relationship with the President . . .'' Is\n that a true and accurate statement as far as you can see it?\n Clinton: That is absolutely true.\n\n Seven months later in testimony before the grand jury, Clinton said\nthe truth of such denials depends on what the meaning of ``is'' is?\n I watched Judge Starr's testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I\nfound it credible. For me, the evidence is overwhelming that President\nClinton lied repeatedly under oath.\n There is also credible evidence that he tampered with witnesses and\nconspired with others to obstruct justice. After learning that Lewinsky\nwas on the witness list for the Jones case, the President suggested to\nMs. Lewinsky that she could submit an affidavit to avoid testifying.\nThis she did, Vernon Jordan got a job for her, and Jordan called the\nPresident to report, ``Mission accomplished.''\n The President's lies were about much more than ``personal privacy.''\nMs. Lewinsky was material witness in a sexual-harassment suit against\nthe President. Her false affidavit served to keep her from testifying\nand allowed the President to deny sex in his deposition. The absence\nof her testimony and of evidence concerning the efforts made to secure\nher a job was harmful to Ms. Jones' case.\n\n As Independent Counsel Starr said, ``Sexual harassment cases are\noften `he-said-she-said' disputes. Evidence reflecting the behavior of\nboth parties can be critical--including the defendant's relationships\nwith other employees in the workplace.''\n President Clinton also used a federal employee, Betty Currie, to\narrange meetings with Ms. Lewinsky and used Mrs. Currie to retrieve\nsubpoenaed gifts from Lewinsky that the President had given her. The\nPresident coached Currie, suggesting to her that she had always been\npresent when Lewinsky and Clinton were together. President Clinton then\ndenied his affair to Cabinet officials and had them repeat denials to\nthe press. He misrepresented the truth to aides, causing them to repeat\nthe deceptions to the grand jury.\n Who would doubt that the President and his defenders now would be\ndismissing Monica Lewinsky as a liar were it not for one unassailable\nfact . . . DNA testing proves that the President's semen was on her\ndress!\n And that is why not a single one of President Clinton's defenders\nduring the committee hearing with Starr attempted to discredit the\nfacts of the case against President Clinton's perjury and obstruction\nof justice. No one--not the President's attorney David Kendall, not\nDemocratic counsel Abbe Lowell, not the Democratic members of the\ncommittee . . . not one of them disputed these facts.\n\n does anyone doubt that the president did it and then lied about it\n under oath!\n\n This brings us to the second question: Do these misdeeds rise to the\nlevel of impeachment? the Constitution provides for impeachment of the\nPresident of the United States of ``treason, bribery, and other high\ncrimes and misdemeanors.'' It is clear that the Framers didn't intend\nto authorize Congress to impeach presidents over policy or personal\ndifferences. But ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' encompassed a broad\nrange of misconduct in their eyes.\n Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 wrote that impeachment would deal\nwith ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men,\nor, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.\nThey are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated\npolitical, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the\nsociety itself.''\n\n[[Page H11964]]\n\n In 1974 the Watergate impeachment staff analysis concluded that\nserious crimes rooted in private conduct are grounds for impeachment:\nthe precedents after 1787 support impeachment for ``behaving in a\nmanner grossly incompatible with the proper functioning and purpose of\nthe office.''\n Professor Michael Gerhardt, in his book, The Federalist Impeachment\nProcess, said that even crimes ``plainly . . . unrelated to the\nresponsibilities of a particular office'' are impeachable if the show\n``serious lack of judgment or disdain for the law'' and thus lower\n``respect for the office.''\n As Stuart Taylor has written in the National Journal, ``Before\nPresident Clinton got caught no Constitution expert had ever suggested\nthat it would be wrong to impeach a president for crimes such as lying\nunder oath (even about sex), suborning perjury, or obstructing both a\ncivil rights lawsuit and a criminal investigation.'' Indeed, there is\nprecedent for impeachment precisely on the grounds of perjury. In 1989\nCongress impeached and removed Judge Walter Nixon for perjury.\n Are we to assume that Congress can remove a judge fro perjury, but\nnot a president?\n Clinton defenders say, ``No one gets prosecuted for perjury.'' Tell\nthat to the more than one hundred people that The New York Times has\ndocumented as serving time in federal prison recently for perjury.\nOthers say that the President's lies were ``only about sex,'' and\ntherefore aren't serious. Tell that to Pam Parsons and her 17-year-old\nlover who both committee perjury in a libel suit against Sports\nIllustrated. both were sentenced to three years in prison and served\ntime.\n Or how about the case of Dr. Jeffrey Goltz, a medical expert witness?\nHe lied under oath about his education and credentials. In 1996 he got\ncaught and pleaded guilty to perjury. He had to sell his medical\npractice and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.\n Or consider David Wayne Holland who lied under oath in a private\ncivil rights lawsuit. A federal appeals court imposed a heavier\nsentence than the civil court judge saying, ``Perjury, regardless of\nthe setting, is a serious offense that results in incalculable harm to\nthe functioning of the legal system as well as to private\nindividuals.''\n Other Clinton defenders argue that even though Clinton lied\nrepeatedly under oath on January 17, that he did not ``technically''\ncommit perjury because the Lewinsky evidence was not ``material'' to\nthe Paula Jones lawsuit. But contrary to some news reports, Judge\nWright did not hold the Lewinsky evidence to be immaterial. She ruled\nthat it ``might be relevant'' but was ``not essential to the core\nissues in the case.'' (Judge Wright's ruling was in such danger of\nbeing overturned that the President was willing to pay $850,000 to\nsettle the case!) Furthermore, there are precedents that hold that\nlying under oath in a civil deposition can be material even if the\ntestimony is later excluded or the case is dismissed.\n Jonathon Turley, Professor of Law of George Washington University Law\nSchool, has written, ``. . . And perjury committed by a president may\nbe one of the most serious forms of criminal conduct since it is the\ncrime that shields all other criminal acts from the public . . . by any\nreasonable measure, perjury and obstruction of justice clearly fall\nwithin `high crimes and misdemeanors.' ''\n To return to Hamilton's statement, I can think of several ways in\nwhich the President's perjury injures society. If President Clinton\nescapes impeachment, if an elected official can commit felony crimes\n(perjury and obstruction of justice) what does this say about our\ncountry's commitment to equal justice under the law? If a Pam Parsons,\na David Holland, a Jeffrey Goltz can spend time in prison for perjury,\nwhat does it do to society to see ``little'' people spend time in\nprison for breaking the law and ``big'' people let off? If the\nPresident walks, cynicism reigns.\n Rear Admiral John T. Scudi has just been charged with two counts of\nadultery, giving false official statements, obstruction of justice and\nan ethics violation. The Navy has filed criminal charges against him.\nHowever, because of Constitutional immunity for the president, the only\nreal remedy for presidential crimes is impeachment and removal. And if\na boss such as Clinton can lie under oath about sex with a subordinate\nin sexual harassment suit and then escape punishment, the victims of\nsexual harassment will be the losers.\n Maybe all this is why James Madison said in Federalist 57 that one of\nour Constitutional bulwarks against tyranny is that our rulers ``can\nmake no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and\ntheir friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.''\n Some would have Congress ``censure'' the President. I agree with\nThomas Baker, the Director of the Constitutional Law Resource Center at\nDrake University Law School who has written, ``. . . the House power to\nimpeach and the Senate power to try the president are exclusive powers,\nand the sanctions of removal and disqualification from office are the\nonly punishments possible . . . the problem with a censure is that it\nwould not be constitutional.'' Senator Robert Byrd, in his masterly\nhistory of the Senate, agrees that censure is unconstitutional.\n I would go further. The idea that Congress should simply apply a\n``wrist-slap'' censure is another effort to put the President above the\nlaw. As Justice Brandeis has written, ``For good or ill, [our\ngovernment] teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is\ncontagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt\nfor the law.''\n The Constitution stipulates that the House should function as a grand\njury. Article of impeachment function in the same way as counts to an\nindictment. The House does not determine guilt or impose a penalty but\nsimply defines the articles of impeachment for a trial on the merits in\nthe Senate. The President's popularity or accomplishments are not\npertinent to the House's function. Only after guilt is established is a\ndefendant allowed to present arguments to mitigate punishment. That is\nfor the Senate to decide.\n Were I on the Judiciary Committee, I would vote for articles of\nimpeachment because I would see this as my duty. If articles of\nimpeachment on perjury or obstruction of justice, or both, come to\nCongress for a vote, I will vote ``Yes.'' Even if I suffer politically\nfor this vote, my conscience is clear.\n Mr. RICE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to fulfill my constitutional duty\nto address the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. For\nmany months, I made a concerned effort to avoid reaching an\nunsubstantiated decision regarding the conduct of President Clinton. I\nrefrained from judging the President's guilt or innocence until I had\nan opportunity to review all the facts. During this time, I listened to\nthe President's supporters. I listed to his attorneys, I listened to\nthe White House staff and I examined all the testimony and evidence put\nforth by the House Judiciary Committee. I also met with and heard from\nmany constituents regarding their thoughts and opinions about the\nactions and conduct of the President. Upon reviewing all the evidence\nand testimony before the House Judiciary Committee it is my sincere\nbelief that substantial and credible evidence exits that the President\ncommitted high crimes and misdemeanors.\n We can not allow the actions of the President to go unpunished; this\nwould breed contempt for the law. Willfully and knowingly lying, after\nswearing before God and country to tell the truth, the whole truth and\nnothing but the truth, is a very serious offense for anyone. The\nPresident does not have any great rights that any other citizen of this\ncountry when it comes to the rule of law and preservation of justice.\nThe United States system of law and order requires one standard for all\nand is dependent upon truth while under oath. When a person testifies\nin court to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,\nthere is no exception to that oath. It applies to all matters, whether\nthey be personal, embrassing or considered a ``little thing.''\nPresident Clinton's willful lies under oath before a federal judge and\ngrand jury are a direct assault on our nation's democracy. This\nundermines our legal process and is a violation of the Presidential\nOath of Office.\n The evidence demonstrates that the President has sustained a pattern\nof perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. In December\n1997, the President willfully and knowingly lied under oath in his\nwritten answers to a federal court. In January 1998, the President\nwillfully and knowingly lied under oath repeatedly in the Paula Fones\ndeposition. Then he willfully and knowingly used his Office to\ninfluence witnesses and obstruct justice in the Jones' lawsuit.\nIn August 1998 he willfully and knowingly lied to a federal grand jury,\nand he willfully and knowingly lied when he purported to answer the 81\nquestions posed to him by the House Judiciary Committee.\n\n President Clinton is said by many who know him best to have a\nphenomenal memory. His friend, Vernon Jordon, said the President has\n``an extraordinary memory, one of the greatest memories'' he has ever\nseen in a politician. However, in more than four hours of videotaped\ntestimony before a federal grand jury, the President testified, under\noath, on more than 100 occasions that he could not remember details\ninvolving his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. When a person testifies,\nunder oath, that he does not remember something, when in fact he does,\nhe has lied under oath. During this one year period, President Clinton\nhad innumerable opportunities to tell the truth, yet he continued to\nwillfully and knowingly put his own self interest before that of\njustice and the good of the nation. To this day, he has yet to\nacknowledge that he committed a crime or show remorse for his actions.\nWe can not allow the actions of the President to teach contempt for the\nlaw of our nation. Our legal system, which protects the rights and\nliberties of all citizens, is dependent on people telling the truth\nwhile under oath.\n U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, in Olmstead vs. United States,\nso eloquently\n\n[[Page H11965]]\n\nstates what I believe to be a beacon of light guiding us through this\nimpeachment inquiry. He states:\n\n . . . decency, security, and liberty alike demand that\n government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of\n conduct that are commands to the citizen . . . Our government\n is the potent, omnipresent, teacher. For good or ill it\n teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious.\n If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for\n the law.\n\n Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states the President\n``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' It is my firm\nbelief that substantial and credible information exists that the\nPresident committed acts that constitute grounds for impeachment. These\nactions constitute ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' as enumerated in\nArticle II, Section 4 of the Constitution.\n The President, as our chief law enforcement officer, undermines the\nintegrity of our judicial system and threatens the rights and liberties\nof every one of us when he lies under oath. No citizen has the right to\npick and choose what laws he or she may abide by, just because it may\nbe embarrassing or inconvenient. We are a government of laws, not men.\nThe President willfully and knowingly lied under oath, over and over\nand over again. That is a direct threat to our nation's system of\njustice and law and order. Mr. Speaker, it is for the love of our\nnation and the duty to uphold the Constitution I have sworn to protect\nthat I will support all four Articles of Impeachment against President\nClinton.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the previous order of the\nHouse entered earlier today, this concludes debate on House Resolution\n611 until tomorrow."]], "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-pt2-PgH11879-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 123.2810509391129, "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"}