ad info

CNN.com
 MAIN PAGE
 WORLD
 ASIANOW
 U.S.
 U.S. LOCAL
 ALLPOLITICS
  TIME
  analysis
  community
 WEATHER
 BUSINESS
 SPORTS
 TECHNOLOGY
 NATURE
 ENTERTAINMENT
 BOOKS
 TRAVEL
 FOOD
 HEALTH
 STYLE
 IN-DEPTH

 custom news
 Headline News brief
 daily almanac
 CNN networks
 on-air transcripts
 news quiz

 CNN WEB SITES:
CNN Websites
 TIME INC. SITES:
 MORE SERVICES:
 video on demand
 video archive
 audio on demand
 news email services
 free email accounts
 desktop headlines
 pointcast
 pagenet

 DISCUSSION:
 message boards
 chat
 feedback

 SITE GUIDES:
 help
 contents
 search

 FASTER ACCESS:
 europe
 japan

 WEB SERVICES:
 TIME on politics Congressional Quarterly CNN/AllPolitics CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly

Transcript: House debate on launching impeachment inquiry

October 8, 1998

CONTINUED

HYDE: I just want the record to be clear. My good friend Mr. Delahunt talked about 60,000 pages that were released that weren't reviewed or looked at. I want him to know and I want everyone listening to know every single page of anything that was released was reviewed and things that weren't released were reviewed by our staff.

I also would like to point out that total time spent looking at these records by the Democrats, members of the Judiciary Committee, on the Democrats' side were 21.81 hours. Six of them never came over to see the material.

On the Republican side, 114.59 hours, and every member came over to look at the material. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

BARR: Mr. Speaker, as a United States...

CONYERS: Would the -- would the gentleman yield to me? I'll give him more time, for 10 seconds.

HYDE: I'll give you additional time.

CONYERS: OK.

BARR: Be glad to yield to the distinguished ranking member.

CONYERS: Thank you, Chairman Hyde. That really contributes to the comity of this body, and I'm sure it's an interesting statistic that everybody ought to know about.

Thank you very much.

BARR: Reclaiming my time, and I yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

HYDE: Well, I just want to say to my friend that when Mr. Delahunt says this has been done carelessly or in a slipshod manner, not reviewing these things, it's important to know we took our job seriously. They were there to be reviewed. If you didn't choose to do it, that is your option.

CONYERS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hyde.

HYDE: You're welcome, Mr. Conyers.

(LAUGHTER)

GINGRICH: Mr. Barr.

(APPLAUSE)

DELAHUNT: Mr. Barr...

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

DELAHUNT: May I have 30 (OFF-MIKE) please to speak to my friend?

BARR: Might I inquire of the distinguished chairman of the committee if I have in fact two minutes remaining?

HYDE: You have every reason to inquire, and I'd like to give the gentleman a total of three minutes for his generosity.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for three minutes.

HYDE: We can talk during lunch.

(LAUGHTER)

DELAHUNT: I'd prefer to do it on the floor, Mr. Chairman, if you would yield me 30 seconds.

BARR: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

BARR: Mr. Speaker, as a the United States attorney appointed by President Reagan, when a case was presented to me, I started at the beginning. I would look and see what the law says and I would look and see what the history of that law said.

Here we have similarly to look at the Constitution. It's pretty clear. What makes it even clearer, though, Mr. Chairman, is if we -- Mr. Speaker, is if we look at the sources for Article II, Section 4, which is the impeachment power.

BARR: We find, for example, Mr. Speaker, that according to the Federalist writings, 211 years ago, that an impeachable offense is -- quote -- "any abuse of the great trust reposed in the president" -- close quote.

Moreover, they tell us, as Federalist 65 did, written by that great constitutional scholar Alexander Hamilton, an impeachable offense is a -- quote -- "violation of public trust" -- close quote.

I did not stop there, Mr. Speaker. I looked at further constitutional scholars.

I find that 24 years ago no less a constitutional scholar than William Jefferson Clinton defined an impeachable offense as -- quote -- "willful, reckless behavior in office" -- close quote.

I did not stop there. I looked at a report co-authored by Hillary Rodham, part of the impeachment team in the Watergate years. And I find that at page 26 of their report, she and others of her colleagues define an impeachable offense as -- quote -- "wrongs that undermine the integrity of office" -- close quote.

Where are we now, Mr. Speaker? The step we are taking today is one I first urged nearly a year ago. All we are doing today is taking the constitutionally equivalent step of impanelling a grand jury to inquire into whether or not the evidence shall sustain that offenses have, in fact, occurred.

The passage of H. Res. 581 will mark the dawn of a new era in American government. We are sending the American people a clear message that truth is more important than partisanship and that the Constitution cannot be sacrificed on the alter of political expediency -- that no longer will we turn a blind eye to clear evidence of obstruction of justice, perjury and abuse of power.

We will be sending a message to this, and all future presidents, that if, in fact, the evidence establishes that you or any future president have committed perjury, obstruction of justice, subversion of our judicial system, then we will be saying, no, sir, Mr. President, these things you cannot do.

It is our job as legislators to diagnose threats to our democracy and eliminate them. By the time the damage to our system is so great that everyone can see it, the wounds will be too deep to heal.

We have already waited too long to address this issue. We must move forward quickly, courageously, fairly, and most importantly, constitutionally, along the one and the one and only path chartered for us in the constitution: the impeachment process.

We must do this, Mr. Speaker, so that tomorrow morning, as we in this chamber, as teachers all across America lead their students in the Pledge of Allegiance, we can look America in the eye and say, yes, at least for today, the Constitution is alive and well.

Thank you, and I yield back my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Massachusetts:

DELAHUNT: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it's very important for the record and for the American people to know that -- Yes, the staff worked hard -- the staff -- the majority staff and the minority staff -- to review 60,00-some-odd pages.

But let me suggest that no member in this House -- no member in this committee in good conscience can stand here in this well today and state that he or she adequately reviewed that testimony before its release.

And this is a responsibility, mandated by the Constitution, to members, not to staff. That's what this is about today. This is not about defending the president. This is about defending the Constitution of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

I yield three minutes to the distinguished lady from California, Ms. Waters.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): Mr. Speaker and members, the decision of the Republicans to limit the debate on this very important resolution to decide whether this body will move with an inquiry to impeach is a continuation of the partisan, unfair, inconsiderate actions that have dictated the management of this impeachment crisis since Independent Counsel Ken Starr dumped his referral in the laps of this Congress and in the laps of the public.

This continuous, shameless and reckless disregard for the Constitution, basic civil rights, and the citizens of this country cannot be tolerated. This is a sad and painful time for all of us. The least we can do is handle this matter with dignity and fairness for everyone involved.

Four and one-half years, $40 million -- unnecessary. Subpoenas of uninvolved individuals, and Mr. Starr's close relationships with groups and individuals with demonstrated hatred for the president taints the independent counsel's investigation. This Congress does not need a protracted, open-ended witch hunt of intimidation, embarrassment and harassment.

The tawdry and trashing thousands of pages of hearsay, accusations, gossips and stupid telephone chatter does not meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

(APPLAUSE)

The president's action in this matter are disappointing and unacceptable, but not impeachable.

WATERS: Mr. Schippers, the general counsel for the Republicans, extended the allegations in search of something -- anything that may meet the constitutional standards. Even the extended and added allegations do not comport with the Constitution. It's time to move on.

Reprimand the president, condemn him, but let's move on. These grossly unfair procedures will only tear this Congress and this nation apart. I ask my colleagues to vote down this open-ended and unfair resolution. It does not deserve the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker and members, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus have constantly warned this body about the dangers of a prosecutor run amok. They have warned this body about the abuse of the power of the majority. We ask you to listen to us as we remind you of the history of our people, who have struggled against injustice and unfairness.

Let us not march backwards. Let us be wise enough to move forward and spend our precious time working on the issues of education, health care, senior citizens, children and, in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker and members, justice and opportunity for all Americans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire as to the time left on either side or on both sides?

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois has 33.5 minutes. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 34.5 minutes.

HYDE: Very well. I'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, a valued member of the committee, Mr. Inglis.

GINGRICH: And how much time does the gentleman yield?

HYDE: I was afraid you'd ask me that, Mr. Speaker.

Two minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina.

GINGRICH: Gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS (R-SC): I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, we are now engaged in a Constitutional process that is about the search for truth. I believe that we should do that in a fair and expeditious way, completely disregarding polls, completely disregarding the pendency of an election on November 3rd, and answering the question that our colleague from California just asked about whether it's appropriate just to move along.

Of course, we do want to move along to important issues facing the country. We do want to restore freedom in health care. We do want to secure the future of Medicare and Social Security. And we do want to continue the progress towards balancing the budget.

All of those things we want to do.

But I would ask my colleagues to consider this. Really this is the crucial business of the country. This is the crucial business.

As we go into the next century, the question is -- Does the truth even matter?

Now some would say, let's just move along. Doesn't matter, just move along. But if you move along, what you're leaving aside is serious allegations of serious crimes.

INGLIS: Just this week, one of my staffers was on her way over here with a -- one of our colleagues -- John Cooksey's staff member. An accident occurred -- occurred to her; a bicycle; struck this young lady -- not my staffer, but John Cooksey's staffer. She's hurt.

Now, she has two duties as a citizen. One is to testify -- to be a witness, to come forward. And the second is to testify truthfully when called on, if necessary, in court. Now what shall we say to her?

If we are going to just move along and say that the potential of the crime of perjury just doesn't matter, then what of that small case in a court here in D.C.? We say to that case: Well, it's not necessary to tell the truth in court and it's not necessary to testify, I suppose.

But we must say, if we are going to preserve the rule of law in this nation, that it does matter, and that when that young staffer is called on to testify, if she must, she must testify, and then she must tell the truth. This is the essential work of this Congress and of this nation.

And I thank the chairman for yielding.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Massachusetts.

DELAHUNT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina and a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Watt.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

WATT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As members of the Judiciary Committee, we have had the opportunity to indicate our willingness to engage in a process that is fair -- measuring the president's conduct against a constitutional standard, not a bicycle standard; focused on what the independent counsel has referred or might refer to us; and timely -- one that sets an objective to meet to conclude this matter and put it behind us.

We have also had the opportunity to listen to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who want to engage in an unfair and open-ended partisan political fishing expedition, dealing with bicycles rather than constitutional standards, some of whom have already gone on television and already declared their conclusion in this matter before a trial even begins.

We've had our opportunity.

I'd like to yield the balance of my time to a non-Judiciary member, my good colleague from Texas, Mr. Chet Edwards.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHET EDWARDS (D-TX): Mr. Speaker, I'm deeply disappointed that the Republican leadership has placed an incredibly unfair gag rule on a constitutional debate of historic proportions.

EDWARDS: If this gag rule is the first test of the Republican's fairness in this inquiry, they have failed that test. The most important issue today, Mr. Speaker, before us is not the November 3rd elections or even the fate of President Clinton.

The most important issue before us is the historical precedent we set in beginning the process of undoing an election for the most important office of our land.

The right to vote is the foundation of our entire democracy. To override the votes of millions of Americans in a presidential election is an extraordinary action. It is a radical action. And in effect, it is allowing the votes of 535 citizens to override the votes of tens of millions of citizens.

In its rush to begin an impeachment inquiry, just days before a crucial election, this Congress will have lowered the threshold for future presidential impeachment inquiries in such a way that compromises the independence of the presidency as a co-equal branch of government.

The truth is the Judiciary Committee has not even -- not even had one day, not even one hour hearings on our founding father's original intent about the threshold for impeachment.

I find it ironic that the very Republicans who have preached all year long that we should impeach federal judges for not abiding by our founding fathers constitutional intention have now decided we can start an historic constitutional process without even one-hour hearing...

(CROSSTALK)

WATT: And I yield -- I yielded to the gentleman from Texas.

GINGRICH: Gentleman's recognized.

EDWARDS: How ironic that those same Republicans will today have forced us to vote on a truly historic constitutional issue without even one hour, one day of hearings on our founding fathers intent about high crimes and misdemeanors.

To begin a formal impeachment inquiry after only a cursory review of the independent counsel's report, in light of a standard that has not been defined, within the context of a pending congressional election weeks away, at the very least, undermines the credibility of this House on this important issue, and at the very worse, has sent an historical precedent that we can easily begin the process of undoing the freely exercised votes of millions of Americans.

To even begin this radical process without the greatest of deliberation, regardless of one's final vote, is in itself, in my opinion, an attack upon the very core of our democracy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman's -- the gentleman's time has expired.

(APPLAUSE)

Gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I'm very pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, a member of our committee.

GINGRICH: And how much time did the gentleman yield?

EDWARDS: I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman's time has expired.

(APPLAUSE)

The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I'm very pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, a member of our committee.

GINGRICH: And how much time did the gentleman yield?

HYDE: I'm sorry. I'm used to open-ended things. Two minutes.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ED BRYANT (R-TN): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind our colleagues that we are not voting on impeachment today. We are here todhis president and not to look away.

We seem to all agree that the president's conduct was wrong. And we seem to now agree that we must continue this process toward finding the truth. But this is not about keeping political score. And it's not about allowing -- allowing the president to dictate the terms of this process.

We are here protecting our constitution, which we have a duty to uphold. So let's complete our task fairly and expeditiously. I must respectfully disagree with my good friend and colleague from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, and his alternative to this.

Now is not the time to set arbitrary time limits, because as we've learned before, that encourages stonewalling. We can actually get this done quicker, as the chairman says, without time limits. And now is not the time to consider possibly piecemealing allegations. Let's get all this done. Let's get all this behind us and move forward.

As part and parcel of that, our responsibility is to the American people. That's to be fair throughout this process. And it is an elementary principle of this fairness that the president should not be allowed to limit or direct or influence the process that Congress uses to investigate these allegations.

And at the end of the day, our Constitution will still stand as a pillar of our nation. It will, and it should, fittingly, outlast the president -- any person, whomever it might be, who has the great privilege of serving in the office of the presidency.

I yield back my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Massachusetts.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Speaker.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Massachusetts controls the time.

DELAHUNT: I yield to the gentleman from New York 10 seconds.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House adjourn, we do so to Salem, a quaint village in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, whose history beckons us thence.

GINGRICH: Not a proper motion. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize my friend and colleague from Massachusetts. I don't think his district includes the town of Salem, however, but I do recognize Mr. Meehan from Massachusetts.

GINGRICH: For how long?

DELAHUNT: For two minutes.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

MEEHAN: Mr. Speaker, this debate is as important for what it isn't about as for what it is about. And it isn't about whether to conduct an inquiry.

Both the Democratic and Republican resolutions would initiate an inquiry. And it isn't about who has been more faithful to the Watergate precedent. Neither side is pure on that subject.

What this debate is about is whether the House Judiciary Committee will take up Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate without a shred of paper from the independent counsel on this subject. And it is about whether the committee will commence a full-scale impeachment hearing without asking itself as a threshold matter whether even Ken Starr's best case compels impeachment.

And if you can somehow convince yourself that after 4 1/2 years and nearly $50 million in taxpayer's money that Ken Starr has been less than aggressive in pursuing Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate, then you should vote for the Republican resolution, which authorizes the Judiciary Committee to take them up even without a referral from Kenneth Starr.

And if you believe that the committee should avoid the question of whether even Ken Starr's best case compels impeachment and instead plunge blindly into a months' long evidentiary fiasco, then you should vote for the Republican resolution.

MEEHAN: But how it is -- is it in our nation's best interest to initiate an impeachment inquiry which willfully blinds itself to the numerous constitutional scholars that say that even Ken Starr's best case does not compel impeachment?

At this time of global political and economic turmoil, it's in our nation's interest to deal with the Lewinsky matter fairly and expeditiously. Only the Democratic alternative would do that.

So please, let's put the national interest above partisanship. Vote your conscience. Vote for the Democratic alternative and against the Republican resolution.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Dennis Kucinich.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

KUCINICH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today not on behalf of Democrats or Republicans, but as an American who is deeply concerned that our country bring closure to the charges against the president. A vote for an inquiry is not the same as a vote for impeachment. This vote is neither a vote to impeach nor a license to conduct a partisan witch hunt.

In fact, some have called for impeachment without a hearing. And some have called for a resignation without a hearing, and some have called for exoneration without a hearing.

I believe there will be no resolution without an open hearing. And there will no accountability without an open hearing. And there will be no closure for this country, for this Congress or for our president without an open hearing.

The nation is divided and the House is divided. And a House divided against itself will not stand. So if inquire we must, let's do it fairly: in the words of Lincoln, "with malice toward none, with charity toward all" -- because there will be an inquiry. The American people expect it to proceed fairly, expeditiously, and then they expect it to end.

The people want us to get this over with. And they will be watching.

Let the president make his case. Give him a chance to clear his name and get back to his job.

KUCINICH: Bring everything out in the open. Bring forward the accusers and subject them to the light of day. Settle this, and then move forward to do the business of the people -- the business for which the people elected us -- to further economic growth; to protect Social Security; to improve health care; and to meet all the other pressing needs of the American people.

I yield back.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to bring forward the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen, and yield to him one minute.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS ALLEN (D-ME): I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a solemn moment, but as theater it is overdone. It is overdone because this vote is not about whether or not we should have an impeachment inquiry. Both resolutions call for such an inquiry. So we'll have one.

This vote is about what kind of impeachment inquiry we will conduct. That question is important.

The majority wants an open-ended impeachment inquiry with no limits on its scope or duration. Under their plan, the Judiciary Committee can investigate anything and everything it wants for six months, a year, or even longer.

I believe their plan will inflame partisanship, and if prolonged, weaken the institution of the presidency and this country.

This is not Watergate. That committee conducted a factual inquiry. We have piles of facts from the special prosecutor. Our task is to find an appropriate consequence for behavior we know is wrong. Our alternative will provide for thorough consideration of the Starr alternative, of the Starr referral by December 31, 1998. What's wrong with that?

I urge my colleagues to oppose an inquiry resolution that does not say when it will end or what it will cover, and instead support the focused, fair and expeditious Democratic alternative.

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Representative Kenny Hulshof.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE KENNY HULSHOF (R-MO): I thank the ...

GINGRICH: The gentleman ...

HULSHOF: I thank the chairman.

GINGRICH: ... the gentleman is recognized.

HULSHOF: Mr. Speaker, last night I addressed this body and urged my colleagues to please avoid partisan wrangling. And today, I implore the members of this body to recognize the historical gravity of the moment.

Today is not the day to condemn the process or the prosecutor. Today is not the day for talking points or pointing fingers.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate, let us -- let us pledge not our loyalty to our party. Let us pledge allegiance to our country. Let us not be partisans.

HULSHOF: Instead, let us be patriots.

I, too, am concerned about the open-ended nature of the investigation. I believe each one of us would fervently wish this cup would pass us by. But I have faith in the integrity and the ability of the gentleman from Illinois. And when he says that this process will be handled fairly and expeditiously, I think his word deserves great weight in this body.

So the question I have for you members is simply this: Is it possible -- is it possible that there is credible evidence that exists that would constitute grounds for an impeachment? If your answer is a solemn yes, then vote in favor of the resolution.

But I submit, even if your answer is an equivocal I don't know, then I think that the judgment of the doubt, the benefit of the doubt must go in favor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, last January, I was privileged to enter this chamber for the first time -- and my family proudly beaming from the House gallery as I rose in unison with the members of this body to take an oath.

I pledged my sacred honor to the Constitution of the United States. That is what this vote is about, and in my humble and considered opinion, that oath requires from me a vote of aye on the resolution.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to recognize the able gentleman from New York, our dear friend, Charles Rangel for a period of two minutes.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: Without objection.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY): My colleagues, I had the privilege on serving on the Watergate Judiciary Committee, and one difference then as opposed to now is that we worked together as Republicans and Democrats to search for the facts and report to the House of Representatives for them to make a determination.

Now, we don't have any question of trying to impeach the president of the United States, or protecting the integrity of the Congress, or the Constitution. The Republicans don't want to impeach and wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot political pole. They know at the end of this year that this Congress is over. And they even want to carry this over for the next two years to attempt to hound this president, who has been elected twice, out of office.

And the reason for it is because it's the only thing that they have to take to American people before this election.

What else are they going to take? Your legislative record? You know, the fact that you have renamed National Airport after Ronald Reagan.

You have deep -- deep-sixed the tax code to the year 2002.

On the question of Social Security, what have you done? Tried to rape the reserve.

What have you done as it relates to minimum wage and providing jobs? What have you done for education? What have you done for the health of the people in this nation?

Well, you're not just going to get elected by hounding the president of the United States, because as you judge the president of the United States the voters will be judging you on November the 3rd.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

(APPLAUSE)

The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I'm very pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from California, Congressman Chris Smith -- I mean, Chris Cox. I'm sorry. He's from (OFF-MIKE).

GINGRICH: The gentleman from California is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS COX (R-CA): I thank the chairman. A member of the minority stated during the debate that the decision to limit the debate to two hours on this resolution is partisan. In allocating two hours for debate on resolutions authorizing an inquiry of impeachment, the Congress is adhering to precedent -- the precedents established by the House of Representatives when it was under Democratic control.

It is in fact doubling the amount of time that was spent in debate on the identical resolution in February 1974. Likewise, the wording of the resolution adheres directly to precedent.

The minority argues today that an impeachment inquiry should be narrowly limited to the evidence we already know. But on February 6, 1974, when the Democrats were the majority, Judiciary Chairman Rodino stated -- quote -- "To be locked into a date for completion of the inquiry would be totally irresponsible and unwise. The inquiry," he said, "must be thorough so that we can make a fair and responsible judgment."

The resolution does, as it must, follow precedent. We, in undertaking this solemn constitutional duty, must follow precedent.

A vote for the resolution is a vote for a fair, full and complete inquiry today, just as in 1974.

I yield back.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield to Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island one minute.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK KENNEDY (D-RI): Ladies and gentlemen, today I will cast the most important vote of my whole time here in the United States Congress. And if we're not going to listen to each other, then I'd like us to listen to the eminent scholar Lawrence Tribe on what we're doing today.

He said that today this Congress is "twisting impeachment into something else, instead of keeping it within its historical boundaries. And our nation and its form of government are in peril as a result."

He went on to say that today we are "losing sight of the constitutional wreckage that this vote will cause as we lay down historical precedent that a president of the United States can be impeached for something other than official misconduct as president of the United States."

And I yield back the balance of my time.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, for purposes of a unanimous consent request.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Kentucky.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM BUNNING (R-KY): I rise in support of the resolution and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

HYDE: I'm pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished whip, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS DELAY (R-TX), HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be here today.

DELAY: I -- I wish I could just ignore all of this and make it go away. But I have a responsibility to answer a question today. And that question is how will history judge our actions that we take today?

I believe that this nation sits at a crossroad. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.

Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us; when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

Shall we follow the law -- the rule of law -- and do our constitutional duty, no matter how unpleasant? Or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on, and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system?

No man is above the law and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country. The president has many responsibilities and many privileges. His chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of this land. He does not have the privilege to break the law.

The American system of government is built on the proposition that the president of the United States can be removed if he violates his oath of office. This resolution simply starts that process of inquiry.

Did the president break the law, and if he did, does that lawbreaking constitute an impeachable offense?

Closing our eyes to allegations of wrongdoing by voting no or by limiting scope or time constitutes a breach of our responsibilities as members of this House. So let history judge us as having done our duty to uphold that sacred rule of law.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: I yield to the gentleman -- the able gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kanjorski, for a unanimous consent request.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

KANJORSKI: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and include extraneous materials. And I rise in opposition to any impeachment inquiry.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like now to yield to an able -- an able member of our Judiciary Committee who was working until midnight on the floor, the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, for 2 1/2 minutes.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

JACKSON LEE: I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan and I thank my colleagues as well for sharing the time with America in helping to understand the most somber and the highest calling that we may have.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, truth matters, but the Constitution also matters -- the president's behavior, reprehensible, outrageous and disappointing. But as George Mason indicated, impeachable offenses are dangerous, dangerous and great offenses against the Constitution. They are a subversion of the Constitution.

Members gathered in 1974 and refused to impeach Richard Nixon on the idea of tax evasion. It must be that we understand what the Constitution stands for.

I wish in my Republican friends' attempt to explain to the American people that they stand by the Constitution that they would have implored their own counsel, Mr. Schippers, and of course, Mr. Starr not to hide the truth -- for they refuse to acknowledge that Monica Lewinsky said, "No one ever asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job."

This is not a cover-up. This is an attempt to have an inquiry that is fair, that is expeditious, and is not open-ended and is not a fishing expedition.

What is perjury? Perjury, my friends, there are defenses to it. Truth, whether the proponent thought that he was telling the truth, or she, and materiality.

My friends on the other side of aisle are wishing to go and rush to judgment. But I am reminded by Barbara Jordan, it is reason and not passion which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate and guide our decision. I implore you let reason guide us.

And then let me say to my constituents and the evangelicals. I've been in my churches as well. We believe in redemption. And yes, the president has sinned, but those of you who want to rise and cast the first stone, my question is who has not sinned.

And whatever we do today, those of us who have received death threats in our office, attacks against our children because of the hysteria that has been created by this Congress, I simply ask that we give this proceeding fairness, judiciousness and follow the Constitution.

And lastly, might I say I am believing that we will rise again as a nation, for Isaiah 40:31 says: "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They shall mount up with wings as eagles and they shall walk and not faint."

JACKSON LEE: I will stand for the Constitution. Will you write history in the manner that it should and uphold the Constitution?

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I'm pleased to yield one minute to a distinguished member of the committee, Lamar Smith, the gentleman from Texas.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LAMAR SMITH (R-TX): (OFF-MIKE) to revise and extend my remarks?

GINGRICH: Without objection.

SMITH: Mr. Speaker, others continue to argue or continue to imply that this inquiry is only about a personal relationship. But that's like saying Watergate was only about picking a lock or that the Boston Tea Party is only about tea.

During a similar investigation of President Nixon 24 years ago, there was little focus on the burglary. The Judiciary Committee and the special prosecutor rightly wanted to know, as we should today, whether the president lied to the American people, obstructed justice or abused his office.

While some try to describe this scandal as private, the president's own attorney general found that there existed credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

This is not a decision to go forward with an inquiry into a personal relationship. It is about examining the most public of relationships -- between a witness and the courts; between the president and the American people.

It is about respect for the law; respect for the office of the presidency; respect for the American people; respect for the officers of the court; respect for women; and ultimately about self-respect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield to Mr. Ackerman of New York for a unanimous consent request.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from New York.

ACKERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in passionate objection and opposition to the resolution, and ask unanimous consent to insert my extended and revised remarks at this point in the record.

GINGRICH: Without objection. Gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi, one minute.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hyde resolution, and in doing so, point out the inconsistency of the Republican majority.

At the start of this Congress, the Republican majority gave you, Mr. Speaker, the highest honor this House can bestow -- the speakership.

For the freshman Republicans, this was the first vote that they cast in this House. The Republican majority did this after you, Mr. Speaker, were charged with and admitted to lying under oath to the Ethics Committee about the conduct of your political affairs.

How inconsistent, then, Mr. Speaker, for this same Republican majority to move to an impeachment inquiry of the president for lying about his personal life.

Our Republican majority has said lying under oath is a dagger in the heart of the legal system. We all agree that lying is wrong. But why the double standard?

I urge my colleagues to reject this Republican double standard which exalts the speaker and moves to impeach the president.

PELOSI: I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Hyde resolution.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

(APPLAUSE)

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield one minute to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Chris Cannon.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS CANNON (R-UT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the views expressed by Chairman Hyde and also by those expressed by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich.

I am proud that my Republican colleagues have spent more than five times as much time reviewing the Starr referral material as my Democratic colleagues. This is a solemn occasion.

Mr. Speaker, could I have order, please?

GINGRICH: The House will be in order. The gentleman deserves to be heard.

CANNON: Thank you.

This is a solemn occasion, and I feel the full weight of the responsibility we are assuming today.

Some would trivialize this debate by giving it the name of a young intern or by referring to other important matters that face the nation. They know that this is -- or they should know that this is inappropriate.

Americans want this matter brought to closure. That can only occur if -- Mr. Speaker, could I have order, please?

GINGRICH: The House will be in order. The gentleman deserves to be heard.

CANNON: Thank you.

Americans want this matter to be brought to closure. That can only occur if we fully determine the facts, place those facts in the context of the law, and weigh the proper response that will preserve the integrity of the office of the presidency and the integrity of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I pledge to work diligently to move this matter forward.

Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for a unanimous consent request, please.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DANNY K. DAVIS (D-IL): Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to the Hyde resolution.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

CONYERS: I recognize Mr. DeFazio for a unanimous consent request, please.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER A. DEFAZIO (D-OR): I rise in support of the Democratic alternative, and in opposition to the open-ended Republican resolution of inquiry, and ask unanimous consent that my remarks be inserted at this point in the record.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

CONYERS: I recognize my dear friend from Washington State for a unanimous consent request.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ................. (D-WA): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to the Hyde amendment and to add extraneous material.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for one minute.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DIANA DEGETTE (D-CO): I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

DEGETTE: Mr. Speaker, historians note that those who are in the middle of history often do not themselves recognize it.

MORE


Investigating the President

MORE STORIES:

Thursday, October 8, 1998

Search CNN/AllPolitics by infoseek
          Enter keyword(s)       go    help


© 1998 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.
Who we are.