CONTINUED

DEGETTE: Today should not be about polls; today should not be about the upcoming November election. And even today should not be about the serious misconduct sexually of our president.

But with all due respect to my friends, that's exactly what today is all about.

This is only the third time in the history of this country that we are talking about opening impeachment proceedings against our president. And I am shocked at how many people, including some in this chamber, take this serious matter so lightly, even gleefully.

We are witnessing a stampede to justice, my friends. And like so many stampedes, when the trail dust settles, we will leave chaos and we will leave ruin.

This is the time for statesmanship. Each one of us must independently assess the best direction for this House and this country. And I will tell you it is not an open-ended, never-ending witch hunt without any limits.

We need to carefully consider the Starr Report. We need to set a guideline. And then we need to move forward with the serious, serious business of this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time Mr. Conyers and I have?

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Illinois has 20 1/2 minutes; from Michigan has 20 minutes.

HYDE: I am pleased to yield to Mr. Roy Blunt of Missouri for purposes of unanimous consent request.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

BLUNT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and ask that my remarks be submitted at this point in the record.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

HYDE: I'm pleased to yield to Mr. Ganske, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, one minute.

GINGRICH: The gentleman's recognized. Without objection.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GREG GANSKE (R-IA): Mr. Speaker, you and I haven't always agreed on certain policies. I can think of the health care issue that we disagreed on. But I certainly don't think it's fair for you to be accused of perjury in this debate today.

And I think that I have some bipartisan credentials. So I want to say to members and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the Republican resolution follows the same model that was followed in 1974. A time limit was recognized then and it's recognized now as a way to obstruct and delay.

Listen to your conscience my colleagues. I think you'll agree with Chairman Peter Rodino in 1974 and Chairman Hyde today, a time limit is not the way to go on this resolution.

Yes, I'm tired of hearing about the president's indiscretions, and I've had a hard time explaining this to my 10-year-old son.

But you know, when I think about -- and it will be stressful time for us.

GANSKE: But when I think about the stressful times that our country's gone through in the American Revolution, the Civil War, the World War II, the world wars, the Great Depression, I think it would be a shame for us to shirk our duty.

I yield back.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to recognize the only former sheriff in the House, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Traficant. I yield him two minutes.

GINGRICH: Gentleman's recognized without objection. Consent's given.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES TRAFICANT (D-OH): The prosecutor has asked us to indict the president of the United States on 11 counts. All 11 counts involve an intern.

In the video, in four hours of questioning, the prosecutor did not ask the president one time about FBI files, about the Travel Office, about Vincent Foster and about Whitewater.

In four hours, basically, the prosecutor asked what did the president do with an intern and when did the president know that he did it and did he lie about it.

I'm not minimizing the gravity of this, ladies and gentlemen. But this does not rise to the level of Watergate. Now, let's be honest about that.

This prosecutor is required by law to submit all evidence to the House, which is a grand jury.

I must assume that he has. But I'd also say to the leaders of both parties, if he hasn't, he should be compelled today to deliver every piece of evidence he has on any pending investigations.

(APPLAUSE)

That's our duty. I'm going to support an inquiry today, but I'm not going to support an extended soap opera, ladies and gentlemen.

And I want to say this: What the Congress of the United States, the House has before us today is an 11-count indictment.

We should be able to act on the predicate of that substance by the end of our term.

Kenneth Starr submitted this to the 105th Congress, not to a future Congress.

With that, I yield back my time.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I'm pleased to yield to a distinguished member of the committee from Indiana, Mr. Steve Buyer, two minutes.

GINGRICH: Gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE BUYER (R-IN): I thank the chairman for yielding.

I've listened to part of the debate, and I have to agree with the gentlelady from Colorado that I am disappointed in the conduct of some of my colleagues here today.

How people can be here on this House floor cheering or applauding, thinking as though that they have somehow scored political points, is very disappointing to me.

BUYER: I think that part of that noise is about a clamor against the judicial process, and their actions define themselves.

Actually, what I want to share with you, it kind of reminds me of a story about Abraham Lincoln. I'm going to tell you a little story.

You see, Abraham Lincoln in one of his many famous debates, the person he was debating was known to be very shallow in substance, because he didn't really have the facts on his side. And he always tried to make up for his lack of substance by making a lot of noise.

Sure enough, the debate began with his opponent using plenty of noise, increasing the volume of his voice, and the emotion in the delivery and the intensity of the tone.

Abe began in reply with this story. He said there was a man and woman that were walking back to town. It was at night through a dense forest. It was extremely dark, and a storm with plenty of thunder and lightning was all around them.

The lighting was not enough for them to see, and the thunder caused confusion and made it difficult for them to see. And they got scared, because they weren't sure they were going to be able to make it back to town.

So they fell upon their knees and they prayed, and they said, "God, may we have a little less noise and little more light?"

And what we find ourselves in here at the moment is there's a lot of noise, but I will join in the prayer for a little more light, because our job here is to seek the light of the truth, because the truth matters.

And let's not confuse ourselves with what's happening here today.

Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, are saying to America we have a credible and substantive referral from an independent prosecutor, and we must take the next step toward the inquiry of impeachment.

There may be a disagreement. There may be a debate about the scope or the limitation in time.

Those are details, because the facts will sort themselves out.

If the facts find that the president should be exonerated, then we do so because we follow the truth. If it shows otherwise, then we know how to proceed with the next step.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow, 1 1/2 minutes.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): (OFF-MIKE)

GINGRICH: Without objection.

STABENOW: Mr. Speaker, today, colleagues, we make a critically important decision affecting the lives of every single one of the people we represent. Men and women, young and old, working hard every day who care about their families -- they want us to deal with the president's irresponsible behavior and lack of truthfulness in a fair and responsible manner. And they want us to do so as quickly as possible so that we can return to the important issues that affect their families.

They also want us to rise above partisan self-interest and do what's best for the country -- not Democrats, not Republicans, but as Americans.

STABENOW: And I am deeply concerned that this Congress will not meet this test today. We have two proposals in front of us.

The issue is not whether or not to proceed. It is how to proceed. One proposal gives us the opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way; vote to begin an inquiry in issues raised by the Starr report; and bring this inquiry to a conclusion this year.

The Republican alternative is an open-ended, unchecked process that could continue throughout the next Congress, with no requirement to limit the issues formally -- to the issues formally presented by the special prosecutor.

In all good conscience, I cannot support this process. It is not in the best interests of our country. It is not in the best interests of the families I represent -- to put our country in suspended animation for months and months when we have the ability here to bring this to a conclusion this year.

I believe the American people deserve no less.

We must address this crisis fairly and responsibly and get back to the people's business.

I implore my Republican colleagues to join us -- to join with America in a process we can truly be proud of.

I yield back the time.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia and a valued member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT GOODLATTE (R-VA): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

GOODLATTE: Mr. Speaker, in a short while, this House will vote on whether or not to begin an impeachment inquiry against the president of the United States -- a very serious matter.

We will have a vote that will, I think, result in a substantial majority of the members voting to proceed unhindered by artificial time constraints that simply subject the body to political gamesmanship, of delay rather than expedition of the process.

We will vote to allow ourselves to look at other credible evidence of impeachable offenses from other credible sources if those come before the body. We should not engage in a fishing expedition, but we should exercise our constitutional responsibility in a full and open way -- the same way we have always exercised that responsibility for every other impeachment inquiry in more than 200 years of American history. And we should do it in the way suggested by our former colleague, Representative Barbara Jordan, who said in another time: "It is reason, not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate and guide our decision."

GOODLATTE: The charges against the president include perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. These are serious charges, charges that cannot be wiped away with a mere wink and a nod and apology, or someone's interpretation of the latest opinion poll.

The standard that we follow and the standard we teach our children is that no person is above the law, including the president of the United States.

Amid the intense glare of the moment, we must keep in mind that what the House is considering today is not impeachment or articles of impeachment, nor is it about matters for which the president has apologized.

Rather the House must decide, in light of the documented allegations of serious crime committed by the president, all of which the president has repeatedly denied -- whether we should take the next step in the constitutional process by fully and completely investigating whether the charges are well-founded.

And I urge my colleagues to take that step because it is the right thing to do, and we must follow the truth wherever it leads.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to recognize the -- a former of his state's supreme court, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lloyd Doggett, for one minute.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX): Mr. Speaker, the real question here today is not whether to begin an inquiry, but whether it will ever end. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate -- it's really rabbit-trail gate that I'm concerned about.

We do not need Ken Starr-squared in this chamber.

The only way to force this Congress to get back to the real concerns of American families like tax reform and Social Security reform is to bring this matter to a prompt conclusion.

As a former supreme court justice, I will not defend the indefensible.

But by golly, there is a way to punish the lying without punishing the American people who have clearly had enough of this and then some.

And Mr. Speaker, I believe that the standard that we apply should be no higher and no lower than we would apply to ourselves and that we have applied to you, sir, in this very chamber.

The Democratic amendment assures that that will happen. Without it, there is no assurance of a bipartisan pursuit of justice, of fairness, and an ultimate answer to the American people on this issue and then getting back to business on their issues.

DOGGETT: Thank you. I yield that.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON (R-PA): (OFF-MIKE) extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

WELDON: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues -- if you walk out the door to my right, in the middle on the minority side, and go left, you'll come to a large marble staircase. And at the top of that staircase is a large painting -- a painting by Howard Chandler Christie (ph) entitled "The Signing of the Constitution of the United States." And in the center of that portrait is Ben Franklin.

And it is reported that he walked out of the constitutional convention, and a woman approached him and said, "What kind of government have you given us, Mr. Franklin?" And his response was "A republic, if you can keep it."

The challenge before us today is can we keep it, because a republic is a nation that is guided by the rule of law -- not the whims of a dictator or a majority that can trample on the rights of a minority, but the rule of law.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution.

I, like everyone in this chamber, would like to get this process behind us. The best way to do that is to support this resolution. It is the right thing to do. It is the right way for us to keep the republic, as Franklin asks us to do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, a former member of Judiciary Committee, Xavier Becerra, is no longer with us on the committee, but we still appreciate his legal insights. I'd like to recognize him for one minute please.

GINRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA (D-CA): I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The president's conduct in this matter was deeply disappointing to Americans. All of us have traveled down that path: There is no question of that.

And this House will proceed with an inquiry. That road we have also begun to travel: There is no question of that.

But how we travel down that road is still subject to intense questioning. The majority would take us down this road that would offer no end in sight; that omits the rules of the road for its conduct; in essence, open-ended, without conclusion.

After more than four years, $50 million in taxpayer funds, we should give the American people a clear, defined and transparent process. It is not "if" we will proceed; it is "how" we will proceed.

Today is the 8th of October. We are now eight days into the new fiscal year without a budget. Tomorrow, the 9th of October, at midnight, we have to shut down this government unless this Congress passes a budget. And yet for the American people, we offer nothing -- no clear, defined, transparent process. They deserve more.

Let's go to our destination and get there with God speed. We have work to do for seniors, for children and for working Americans, and we must do it in a transparent, balanced and fair way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield two minutes to a very valuable member of the committee, Mr. Gekas of Pennsylvania.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE GEKAS (R-PA): (OFF-MIKE) revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

GEKAS: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, the simple gesture of raising one's hand, accompanied by an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- this gesture takes place hundreds of times a day in every courthouse in the land. It is preceded by an oath that is taken by the judge to dispense justice, by the jurors to find the truth, by the bailiffs, by the clerk of court, by the sheriff, by the attorneys -- the officers of the court.

And when a witness mounts the witness stand pledging to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, and does not -- but commits perjury, then the entire process comes tumbling down.

The very core of the justice system on which we rely for justice for our families, for our churches, for our institutions, for the individual rights of every citizen of our country -- all of that depends on that oath that is administered and followed, hopefully, by the witness who takes that stand. We cannot afford to trivialize the possibility of perjury, nor devalue its part in our democracy.

That is why we must go forward with this impeachment inquiry, to determine whether the statements given under oath amount to perjury, number one, and whether that perjury, no matter what the subject matter is, is an impeachable offense. This is not about sex. This is not about lying about sex. It is rather, when under oath, does one lie about sex.

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Very, very few people have argued their cases in the United States Supreme Court. Eleanor Holmes Norton, our delegate for the District of Columbia, has. I am pleased to recognize her for one minute.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. DELEGATE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DC): (OFF-MIKE)

GINGRICH: Without objection.

NORTON: I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have witnesses astonishing confusion in this House and in the Judiciary Committee concerning the requirements of impeachment.

If these very issues were before a court of law, there might be wide disagreement on the facts, but everyone would know what the law is. In an impeachment proceeding, the law is the standard the House sets.

NORTON: We move today, Mr. Speaker, not by any standard but by the seat of our pants. We are a constitutional democracy, not a parliamentary republic. A vote of no confidence in Great Britain requires no standard, but calls forth a new election. A vote for an impeachment inquiry in United States requires a high standard, because it could nullify an election.

Mr. Speaker, the president's misconduct may warrant an inquiry, but neither he nor any other American deserves an inquisition.

I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Fossella.

GINGRICH: Gentleman is recognized without objection.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE VITO FOSSELLA (R-NY): I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding, and Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart that I come before you today to support this resolution. I come not as a Republican, not as a New Yorker, but a person who loves his great country and all its ideals and principles it represents.

Earlier today, one of my colleagues said that this would be the most divisive issue to the Vietnam War -- since the Vietnam War. And while he may believe that to be true, I take strong exception with that, and I'll tell you why. Men and women were sent overseas like every other war/military conflict since our nation's birth to defend the rule of law, the notions of personal freedom and individual liberty. And in the case before us today, we're asking a simple question: did the president of the United States violate any of those rules of law that we cherish and that so many men and women have died for and are willing to die for at every point around the globe?

I don't want to be here today, like so many of my colleagues, but the generations of Americans yet unborn must look back on this day, in this matter, in this situation, and see this is our finest hour, upholding what our founding fathers and every generation since has looked for and yearned for. The notion of freedom, the notion of liberty, the notion of the rule of law, and that each American cherish life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Reluctantly, I'm here. I proudly, though, support this resolution.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Thank you. I'm proud to recognize the --

GINGRICH: Yes.

(UNKNOWN): Could the Speaker ask the House to please come to order, and I think it would help if the staff would take their seats.

GINGRICH: Gentleman's point's well made. This is an important debate and members deserve to be heard.

Gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii, who came to this body at the same time that I did, distinguished lawyer in her own right, and I recognize her for three -- for one minute.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PATSY MINK (D-HI): Thank you. I ask now to consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

MINK: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have been beseeched today on both sides of the aisle to follow the rule of law, to follow the Constitution. I ask each of you here to understand that the seat which you occupy in this august chamber has a constitutional limit which expires on January 3rd.

What right have we to extend this investigation beyond our term of office? That's all that we are saying on this side of the aisle. There must be a limit! This investigation must end by the end of the year!

We also ask you to follow those points that have been raised by the Ken Starr report, extended no further, limit it to that! We also say that under the Constitution, we have to know, what the rules are! Exactly what is this standard of conduct which is impeachable?

MINK: The Constitution says impeachable and requires a definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, and talks about treason and bribery.

The Judiciary Committee has not had one day of hearings to help this country or this Congress to understand what constitutes an impeachable offense.

So how can we vote today on an inquiry which has no standards, no rules of conduct, no time limit?

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CLIFFORD STEARNS (R-FL): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

STEARNS: Mr. Speaker, we are on the threshold of a very simple decision here -- a simple decision to decide whether to look at and investigate the Starr report.

Now, both parties in this House agree that we should investigate. The Democrats want to limit the scope and the time. But we want to follow the precedents established by Watergate. No prior impeachment investigation has ever been limited in the United States or England in the last 600 years because of time and scope.

And if there is a precedent that you can cite today, please tell us.

And why do we have to go forward like this? Because man believes he's above the law. In fact, Louis XIV said -- quote -- "I am the state." The king expressed the essence of the doctrine of unlimited power.

In 1825, Daniel Webster, in his Bunker Hill Monument oration, talked about unlimited power, love of power, and -- quote -- "long supported by the excess and abuse of it, and yielding in our age to other opinions."

And what are those opinions? The Constitution. So my friends, we are at a threshold.

Under our Constitution, the rule of the House -- the role of the House and our duty to the American people is to act simply as a grand jury in reference to the impeachment charges presented.

To paraphrase a man for all seasons, Thomas Moore, he said -- quote -- "The laws of this country are the great barriers that protect the citizens from the winds of evil and tyranny. If we permit one of those laws to fall, who will be able to stand in the winds that follows?"

How eloquent, how truthful.

We must do the right thing and move forward with an investigative inquiry of impeachment without restrictions.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, with all apologies to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I am now -- my time requirements, without objection from the ranking -- the chairman of the committee, I'd like to call on three of my colleagues for 20 seconds each, consecutively.

I would call on my friend Eliot Engel of New York; my colleague from Detroit, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan; and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hefner for that amount of time, if that's permissible.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 seconds.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ELIOT ENGEL (D-NY): I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

ENGEL: Mr. Speaker, I think it's ironic that I have 20 seconds. The Republican majority wants to give us no time limit on an impeachment inquiry which will turn into an open-ended fishing expedition. But I have 20 seconds here. They want to severely limit the amount of debate here amongst our colleagues.

The American people are smarter. They want this politically motivated witch hunt to end.

ENGEL: It's no coincidence that Mr. Starr brought his report seven weeks before a national election.

Let's stop the politics. Let's really talk about bipartisanship. Why can't we not have adequate time to debate this important thing to the nation?

Yield back the balance of my time, perhaps a second and a half.

GINGRICH: Gentlelady from Michigan.

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

GINGRICH: Without objection.

KILPATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and to the members and to my ranking member for giving me these full 20 seconds to address the American people.

It's unfair, it's unconstitutional and it's unfortunate that we're here today. The highest office in this country not protecting the Constitution. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

I yield back.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from North Carolina.

HEFNER: I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

HEFNER: I came here with Congress -- with Chairman Hyde, and we came here 24 years ago, and I was hoping that I would get more than 20 seconds, for this is the most important vote that I've ever cast since I've been here.

But the thing that bothers me in this whole process, and I will be leaving this (OFF-MIKE) which I love, is the hatred and the venom that this has engendered over the past year.

You look at the talking heads on television and in the newscasts and there's people that are absolutely livid and they're....

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize three more persons in the same time frame as before. The gentlelady from Florida, my good friend, Mrs. Kerry Meeks; the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Baldacci; and the gentleman from California, Mr. Bob Filner.

GINGRICH: He's recognized.

MEEKS: I want to thank this Congress. I love you very much, but it's very apparent that from the very beginning you have not wanted William Jefferson Clinton as your president. You have gotten a path to do it and you are on your way.

But the American people are watching you. They know that this process is unfair. And wherever something is unfair, there's an old saying, that goodness and justice shall prevail.

So you keep going. Your time will come.

I thank you.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Maine.

(APPLAUSE)

Gentleman from Maine is recognized.

BALDACCI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address this situation that the House of Representative, and indeed the country, face today. I rise in support of the motion by Mr. Boucher to substitute the motion by Mr. Hyde and to have an inquiry, but to have a focused inquiry in one that has an expeditious end to it so that the Congress, which has an obligation to do the people's business, moves forward as quickly as possible and as fairly as possible.

And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure that we are actively working to address the priorities of the American people.

BALDACCI: Thank you very much.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from California.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB FILNER (D-CA): Ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

FILNER: Mr. Speaker, it is this Congress that is subverting the Constitution by trivializing the impeachment process.

Ken Starr has spent four years and $40 million investigating every part of the president's life, and we are going to embark on an open-ended investigation while the world economy is collapsing, the health care system needs reform, our whole finance system is corrupt. And we'll be talking for months about who touched who where.

The continued investigation of the president is nothing more than a cover-up for the failure of a do-nothing Congress to address the real issues facing the American people.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth.

GINGRICH: Gentleman's recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE J.D. HAYWORTH (R-AZ): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: The House will be in order. Members on both sides deserve to be heard.

HAYWORTH: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I rise in reluctant but strong support of the resolution offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is disappointing to see this debate degenerate into a cacophony of cat calls. Honest people can have honest disagreements. But I take strong exception, Mr. Speaker, to the notion that somehow this is unconstitutional. Quite the contrary. This follows the Constitution.

Incumbent upon every member of this House today is the most important responsibility short of the responsibility of a declaration of war, because we have to begin the process to determine the fitness for office of our chief executive.

There's no reason to let this degenerate into cat calls or into the spin cycle. Let us follow the Constitution. Let us follow the procedures laid down by those who have gone before. Let us not confuse the issue trying to superimpose ethics rules of this house on the constitutional process.

Vote for the inquiry of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: With apologies again to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks; the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Baldacci. I already have him -- excuse me. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch; and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Joseph Kennedy all for 20 seconds each.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from New York is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GREGORY MEEKS: (OFF-MIKE)

GINGRICH: Without objection.

MEEKS: This resolution does not allow us to even set standards. When we don't have standards, we become a modern-day kangaroo court.

What we have -- I was arrested myself the other day, and when I was arrested for the immoral practices of the Supreme Court in hiring minority law clerks, I knew that I had a right to a speedy trial. I knew the elements of the trial that were against me. That's not here. Dr. King once said that justice -- a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

My fellow Americans, this is not about just justice for President Clinton. It's about justice for all of the American people.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Florida.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER DEUTSCH (D-FL): This is clearly my saddest day as a member of this body. You know, we've heard a lot of protests so far, and they're protests that there's no politics here.

Well, you know something? People who are protesting that protest a little too much. It's not believable.

The reality is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot just -- they cannot just impeach Clinton, but the truth is they can impeach a ham sandwich. That's the reality of the situation, and the American people understand it.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Massachusetts.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I recognize Joseph Kennedy for 40 seconds.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH KENNEDY (D-MA): There are strong beliefs on this issue on both sides. I believe strongly that many of the Republicans think and believe that this is about perjury and think it's about lying. And I think Democrats think that this is about a sexual affair.

And in truth, in some ways both are right.

The question before us is whether or not we believe as a people and as a Congress that these issues rise to an impeachable offense. President Clinton did wrong. He admitted it. He said he was sorry. He asked for our forgiveness.

Let us give him our forgiveness. Let him run this country. Let us talk about the issues that are important to the people of this country -- providing health care and education; making certain that we have a fair country, a just country, a country that looks out for the poor.

That's the challenge before the American people. That's the challenge before the Congress. Let's meet that challenge and put this inquiry behind us -- behind the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack Kingston.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JACK KINGSTON (R-GA): I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Today's vote is not about impeachment. Today's vote is about the search for truth.

This is a vote that your grandchildren will ask you about -- many years from now when our constituents have long forgotten us, many years from now when our terms of office have been behind us for many years, they'll look up and say why did you vote the way you did.

KINGSTON: And I think most members are going to rise to this occasion and not vote by the polls, not vote by the parties, and certainly not by the personalities -- but vote for a higher reason.

That question of does truth matter; what is right, what is wrong; are we a nation of laws; and do we want to affirm and uphold these laws -- do we see that as our constitutional oath of office?

I believe that when the gavel has sounded, most of us, Democrats and Republicans, will affirm that we do uphold the values, that we won't move towards the search for truth -- not happily jumping into it, but soberly upholding our constitutional oaths of office.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of unanimous consents to revise and extend remarks, and I'd like them reported at this point.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROSA DELAURO (D-CT): Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

I regret that I have been denied the opportunity to join this most important...

GINGRICH: Without objection.

DELAURO: ... constitutional debate.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

DELAURO: And I rise to announce my intention to vote against an open-ended inquiry...

GINGRICH: The chair will not recognize...

DELAURO: ... that is bad for our families and bad for this country.

(BOOS)

GINGRICH: The chair wishes to announce that the chair is prepared to recognize normal unanimous consents within the normal framework, or the chair will cut off all unanimous consent requests.

The gentlelady is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks for insertion in the record. I rise in opposition to this resolution in support of a fair process of inquiry.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentlelady is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the resolution, and in support of fairness, the Constitution and America.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentlelady is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Speaker, I rise and ask for unanimous consent to expand and extend my remarks, and rise in opposition for this very unfair resolution, and support of a fairer resolution, the Democratic alternative.

GINGRICH: The gentle -- without objection, the gentlelady is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I'm in

GINGRICH: Without objection the gentlelady is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): I rise in opposition to this unfair resolution and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection. The gentlelady is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and I rise in strong opposition to these undemocratic, unconstitutional resolutions.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentlelady is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I rise in opposition to this unfair, Republican resolution and in favor of the fair Democratic alternative.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentlelady is recognized.

FURSE: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I rise in unequivocal opposition to this unfair practice. Thank you.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentlelady is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Hyde resolution and in favor of the Democratic amendment. And unanimous consent to revise and extend.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentlelady is recognized.

JOHNSON: I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and in opposition to the Hyde resolution and in support of the Democratic alternative and as a woman and a Democrat...

GINGRICH: Without objection -- without objection -- without objection.

The gentlelady is recognized.

C. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I rise against this pre-Halloween witch hunt.

GINGRICH: The gentleman is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Speaker, I...

GINGRICH: Would the gentleman yield? Did the previous gentlelady ask that they made in order -- her remarks be made in order?

In order to accommodate, I would like to ask the gentlelady to ask for unanimous consent to...

C. BROWN: That's right. But the loud noise from the other side confused me.

GINGRICH: I understand.

C. BROWN: But I ask now my remarks be made in order.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady would like to ask unanimous consent?

C. BROWN: Thank you.

GINGRICH: Without object, the gentleman is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Speaker, in view of the partisan, arbitrary, capricious limitation of time, I ask unanimous consent...

GINGRICH: Does the gentleman have a unanimous consent request?

(UNKNOWN): I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to the Republican proposal that limits time, but does not limit scope.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): Ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentleman from Michigan.

(APPLAUSE)

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with apologies to recognize my colleagues on this side for 20 seconds each -- the son of our friend, Harold Ford -- Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, Mr. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD FORD, JR. (D-TN): Thank you, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Speaker. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle don't like our president. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle may not like the speaker.

Some of my colleagues on that side of the aisle may not like other colleagues of theirs and those on this side the same. But that does not give us the grounds to launch an impeachment inquiry.

Let us do the fair thing, Mr. Hyde. Let us do the right thing. We all want an inquiry. We all think it's the fair thing to do, but put some time limits, some scope limits, do the right thing for America.

We did it for the speaker, do it for this president. I yield back the balance of my time.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Pennsylvania.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHAKA FATTAH (D-PA): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that we all should understand that the American public are not just going to be mere spectators in this.

And this masquerade, since we're getting close to Halloween, I guess we want to get there earlier, of a legitimate inquiry. This Congress has conducted dozens upon dozens of investigations of Bill Clinton and his administration.

Not one of them, would any objective person, say has been fair or nonpartisan and this won't be. But if we go to impeach this president or force him from office there will economic consequences for the American people.

Let them in this big secret, that they won't just be spectators if we carry on with this charade. Thank you.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Massachusetts.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN TIERNEY (D-MA): Ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

TIERNEY: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the committee on the judiciary was asked on September 11 to review the communication received on the 9th of this month -- that month to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced.

We didn't ask to go beyond what was in that report. But this is what the other party seeks to do. We asked to define the standard of what's an impeachable offense and measure against that what was in that report and they have not done that on the committee.

This was to be done before we got here today. We now need a fair process, Mr. Speaker. Let's hope we can get on with type of a process. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and oppose the open-ended investigation and support a limited.

GINGRICH: Without objection. There's eight and a quarter minutes remaining.

(OFF-MIKE)

The gentleman from Illinois has eight minutes remaining.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker...

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: ... I recognize the distinguished gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Lowey for 30 seconds, followed by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Clement for 20 seconds, followed by our deputy whip of the House, Mr. John Lewis for 20 seconds, if you please.

GINGRICH: Gentlelady is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NITA M. LOWEY (D-NY): I thank the speaker. My colleagues, the people of the United States are wise and fair. LOWEY: They understand that the president's conduct, the president's lies, the president's behavior was wrong and immoral and reprehensible. But they are wise, and I want to appeal to you, my colleagues, as a woman, as a mother, as a grandmother and as a lawmaker.

Let us have a formal rebuke of this behavior, but then let us move forward in this House, because I want to make it very clear that we believe it is immoral not to be rebuilding our schools, not to be taking care of our children not to be focusing on health care and not to preserve Social Security and Medicare.

And I thank the chair.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Tennessee.

BOB CLEMENT (D-TN): Mr. Speaker, the president of the United States has the toughest job on the face of the Earth. We cannot indefinitely keep this open and keep it going into next year. The economy's at stake. We know that. The economy's unraveling now. We know that. And how can we neglect it?

And we also know there are a lot of regional and ethnic problems in this world. We need to focus on that. We don't need to be preoccupied with Monica or anything else. We need to get on with the business at hand.

Let's -- let's move forward.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Georgia.

JOHN LEWIS (D-GA): Mr. Speaker, we should be standing here debating the future of Social Security. We should be standing here debating health care. We should be standing her debating education for our children and how we can protect the environment.

Instead, we are participating in a political charade. Republicans want to do what they could not do in an election -- defeat Bill Clinton. Well, I have news for you, the American people are watching. Beware the wrath of the American people, Mr. Speaker, beware.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Illinois.

HENRY HYDE (R-IL): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield one and a half minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Mary Bono.

GINGRICH: The gentlelady is recognized.

BONO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to start with a personal story, and people constantly ask me, where do I get the strength to be a member of Congress at this difficult time in my life?

And I have to tell you that the strength boils down to a day in Lake Tahoe still -- I had to kneel down before my two children, like Lois and Joanne (ph), and tell them about the death of their father. And while they looked at me, it was through their eyes that they gave me the strength that I needed to go on and to do the right thing.

I think it is now the time that we perhaps look at all of our children's eyes -- look at their eyes for the strength that we need to go forward and to do the right thing.

BONO: This is about the truth and it is about the Constitution. But you know the Constitution is based upon truth. And I think all of this, perhaps, is nothing more than the noise of being dragged, you know, we're being dragged and kicking our way to the truth.

But you know, that is what it is about, is the truth. And I do believe once we get to the truth, all of this will converge -- Democrats, Republicans, the spin and facts, polling data, and reality. It will all converge. And when we have that, perhaps, this will end up being nothing more than the sound that is made when a leader falls off of his pedestal.

Perhaps, it will be a lot more than that. But I say, the only way we can get to this quickly is to vote for the Judiciary Committee resolution and get to, excuse me, put this work behind us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Thank you.

The gentleman from Illinois.

The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker...

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: I have several more requests for unanimous consent if you could recognize them at this time.

GINGRICH: I'd be delighted to do so.

The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: The dean of the House, John Dingell.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DINGELL (D-MI): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentleman from Texas.

(UNKNOWN MALE MEMBER): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of and encourage bipartisan support of both the motion to recommit and final passage, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks?

GINGRICH: Without objection.

(UNKNOWN MALE MEMBER): Mr. Speaker...

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Minnesota.

(UNKNOWN MALE MEMBER): I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in support of the motion to recommit and oppose to the resolution?

GINGRICH: Gentlelady from Connecticut.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROSA DELAURO (D-CN): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to revise and extend my remarks to show that I am against the open-ended Hyde resolution? Thank you.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentlelady from Oregon.

(UNKNOWN FEMALE MEMBER): I rise in opposition to this never- ending impeachment inquiry resolution. I ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I yield very briefly to Elton Gallegly for a unanimous consent request.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from California.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON GALLEGLY (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I, without pleasure, rise today in support of the resolution, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 581.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House?

GINGRICH: If the gentleman from Illinois would hold for one moment, the gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: There are, Mr. Speaker, several more requests for unanimous consent, if you would hear them at this time.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from California.

(UNKNOWN MALE MEMBER): I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. Thank you.

GINGRICH: Without objection. Gentleman from American Samoa.

U.S. DELEGATE ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA (D-AS): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks in opposition to the majority resolution.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentleman from Illinois.

(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentleman from Illinois.

(UNKNOWN MALE MEMBER): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentleman from Wisconsin.

(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extent my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

The gentlelady from New York.

(UNKNOWN FEMALE MEMBER): Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and object that all members of the House were not given enough time to speak.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

Now, the gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

GINGRICH: Without objection, a call of the House is ordered. Members will record their presence by electronic device.

(COUNT)

GINGRICH: A quorum being present, 422 members have recorded their presence.

GINGRICH: A quorum is present.

The House will be in order and the aisles will be cleared. Members and staff will take their conversations off the floor.

The chair wishes to repeat: The aisles will be cleared. Anyone wishing to have a conversation will leave.

There are few debates more important and more serious than that which we are now wrapping up. The closing speakers deserve to be listened to attentively by every member. And the chair will ask the members to pay attention, and if you have other business, leave the floor to undertake your business.

The distinguished gentleman from Michigan deserves to be heard by all members, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself one minute, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

CONYERS: To my Republican friends, sincerely, Gerald Ford has said that we must take the path back to dignity, and I want that to weigh on your hearts for this next hour, because more is at stake than the president's fate.

Moving with dispatch, Gerald Ford said, the House Judiciary Committee should be able to conclude a preliminary inquiry into possible grounds for impeachment before the end of the year. I think that we can do it. Our resolution calls for it.

I've talked incessantly in private meetings with Chairman Hyde toward this end. And I hope that all of us will commit ourselves to that goal.

I -- if I have anything left of my minute, I just want you to know that, in my view, the American people have a deep sense of right and wrong, of fairness and privacy. And I believe that the Kenneth W. Starr investigation may have offended those sensibilities.

Who are we in the Congress? And what is it that we stand for?

I yield myself 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

Do we want to have prosecutors with unlimited powers, accountable to no one, who will spend millions of dollars investigating a person's sex life? Is that the precedent we're setting? Who then haul them before grand juries -- every person that they've known -- 15 more seconds, Mr. Speaker -- of the opposite sex -- the person that they had contact with? And then record and release videos to the public of the grand jury questioning the most private aspects of one's personal life.

CONYERS: Please, I beg you not to denigrate this very important process in Article II, Section 4.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will now yield to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee -- the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Barney Frank for two minutes.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): How much time?

CONYERS: Two minutes, sir.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.

FRANK: (OFF-MIKE)

CONYERS: Two-and-a-half.

FRANK: I thank the gentleman.

Someone inaccurately, well-intentioned, but inaccurately said the Democrats were agreeing there should be an inquiry. No, let me define what we say.

We accept the fact that the statutorily designated independent counsel sent us a referral and we are obligated to look at it. But what our resolution says is let's first look at what he has alleged, and assuming that it is true, decide whether or not those things are impeachable.

There's a very real question. If you look at the dismissal of the charge that Richard Nixon didn't pay his income tax because it was a personal matter, that would suggest some of these are not impeachable. If you get to the question of lying, in fact, both the Speaker and I have been reprimanded by this House for lying before official proceedings.

That has not kept either of us from continuing to do our duty to our best possible. We will have to look at whether or not these are impeachable issues.

But the question is do we look at those, or do we look at a whole range of other things? And I think my Republican colleagues fear that there is not enough in those accusations to meet the impeachment standard. And that's why they refuse and refuse and refuse to limit it, not to get into the, not just a fishing expedition, but the deep sea fishing expedition of Whitewater and the other matters.

And scope effects time. It is because they are holding out the hope that something will turn up after four years about Whitewater and the FBI files and the Travel Office, and all of these other accusations that have to date proven to be dry holes for those trying to get Bill Clinton, they want to not limit the time because they need to keep it open.

But here's what that means in terms of time. Under our resolution, which calls for a December 31st deadline, we would begin work right away on our time. This Congress is about to adjourn. And on our time, which would otherwise be not dealing with the public's business, we're ready to get into it.

Under their resolution -- let me make it very clear to you -- they have no real plans to do anything during October. We've read about that. They're not going to start until after the election. They're not going to start until after two months after we got Kenneth Starr's report because they think it won't play out well in the election.

FRANK: So vote for their resolution, and you will find that the American people's time will be taken up again next year. We're ready to do it now, on our time, and get it out of the way. They are asking you to give them a mandate to stretch it out, wait 'til after the election, and let it dominate next year to our detriment, just as it has so far.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman -- gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield two-and-a-half minutes to the distinguished gentleman and a member of the committee from California, Mr. Rogan.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from California is recognized.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES E. ROGAN (R-CA): Mr. Speaker, first, in entering this debate, I consider it a great personal privilege to be allowed to follow two men for whom I have such profound respect -- the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Massachusetts.

And I want to say, as a Republican, that as we begin this procedure, I start with the presumption that the president is deemed innocent of any allegation of wrongdoing unless and until the contrary is shown. And every reasonable inference that can be given to the president must be given to the president.

It's unfortunate that some of today's rhetoric would suggest that this resolution seeks nothing more than to have carte blanche opportunity for Congress to inquire into the president's personal lifestyle. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, it is our purpose -- it is our legal obligation -- to review any president's potentially constitutional misconduct within the framework of the Constitution and the rule of law.

When serious and credible allegations have been raised against any president, the Constitution obliges us to determine whether such conduct violated that president's obligation to faithfully execute the law. We must make this determination, or else forever sacrifice our heritage that no person is above the law.

This Congress must decide whether we as a nation will turn a blind eye to allegations respecting both the subversion of the courts and the search for truth.

Mr. Speaker, I fear for my country when conduct such a perjury and obstruction of justice is no longer viewed with opprobrium, but instead is viewed as a sign of legal finesse or personal sophistication. This House has an obligation to embrace the words of one of our predecessors, Abraham Lincoln, who called on every American lover of liberty not to violate the rule of law nor show toleration for those who do.

ROGAN: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between knowing the truth and doing the truth. We have an obligation to both. And we have that obligation despite whatever personal or political discomfort it might bring.

For as Justice Holmes once said, "If justice requires the truth to be known, the difficulty in knowing it is no excuse to try. Let our body be faithful to this search and in doing so, we will be faithful, both to our founders and to our heirs."

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, to close debate on our side, I'm proud to present for the balance of our time, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dave Bonior.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for three- and-three-quarters minutes.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR (D-MI): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We gather today to make a serious decision. What the president did is wrong. And he should be held accountable. Today, we have an obligation to proceed in a manner that is fair, that upholds our constitutional duties, and allows us to get this matter over with so we can get on with the business of the American people.

Unfortunately, the Republican proposal meets none of these standards. It is unfair, it is unlimited, and it prolongs this process indefinitely. Under the Republican plan, Congress will spend the next two years mired in hearings, tangled in testimony and grinding its gears in partisan stalemate.

And today is just another example of that partisanship -- that unbridled partisanship. There are 435 members that serve in this body. More on the floor today than I've seen in a long time. Representing each about a half a million people.

And what has happened in this proceeding today? Two hours of debate. Two hours. Members having to go and beg for 20 seconds to talk to their constituency about one of the most important votes they will ever have to cast.

Mr. Speaker, you just said it a few minutes ago, that this is one of the most important debates that we will have. Why are hundreds of members of this body being denied the opportunity to express themselves? This...

(APPLAUSE)

This is a charade of justice.

BONIOR: The American people through this truncated debate are being railroaded. Today's proceedings are a hit and run. The Republican leadership's long-term strategy is very, very clear. Drag this thing out, week after week, month after month, and, yes, year after year. Not for the good of the country, but for their own partisan advantage.

The Democratic amendment guarantees that any inquiry will be fair, that it will be limited, and that we will complete our work by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, the American people already have had all the sordid details they need, more than they ever wanted.

(APPLAUSE)

Do we really want two more years of Monica Lewinsky? Two more years of Linda Tripp? Two more years of parents having to mute their TV sets so they can watch the 6 o'clock news? We in this chamber have the power to stop this daily mud slide into the nation's living rooms.

If the Republicans spend two years dragging this investigation out, when will they deal with education? If you spend two years dragging this investigation out, when will you deal with HMO reform? If you spend two years dragging this investigation out, when will you strengthen Social Security?

I urge my colleagues, let us put a limit -- a limit on this investigation. Let's end it this year -- this year. Let's get back to working for our children and our families and for our communities.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Illinois.

HYDE: I yield to the gentleman from California for a unanimous consent request.

GINGRICH: Gentleman from California.

(UNKNOWN MALE MEMBER): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in support of the resolution.

GINGRICH: Without objection. Gentleman from Illinois is recognized.

HYDE: (OFF-MIKE)

GINGRICH: Gentleman from Illinois is recognized for four minutes.

HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

GINGRICH: Without objection.

HYDE: I'm very sorry that you feel you were shortchanged on the debate.

HYDE: As you know, under the rule and under the Rodino format, you were entitled to one hour. We doubled that. I didn't think that was fair, but we could have gone on and on, and much of the same things said over and over again. But I -- it would be too much for me to expect appreciation for doubling the time, but the hostility...

(APPLAUSE)

... let me suggest to you who think this is going to go on like Tennyson's brook -- just on and on and on. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution says that Congress shall assemble at least once in every year and such meetings shall begin at noon on the third day of January.

We're out of business at the end of the year. Our money runs out. And if we're to continue -- if there's anything to continue -- we'd have to reconstitute ourselves.

I don't want this to go one day longer than it has to. I -- believe me, this is very painful, and I want it ended. We're not going to go on and on and on. But Mr. Rodino faced up to the problem of time limits, and here's what he said. And why do you reject Mr. Rodino time and again in all of these issues? He's our model. He's the one we're following. And here's what he said: "The chairman recognizes, as the committee does, that to be locked in to such a date would be totally irresponsible and unwise. The committee would be in no position to state at this time whether our inquiry would be completed, would be thorough, so that we can make a fair and responsible judgment."

We're not flying by the seat of our pants. We're riding on Pete Rodino's shoulders. That's why we can see so far.

(APPLAUSE)

As far as standards are concerned, something that you have repeatedly brought up, let me quote from the wonderful report by the Rodino committee concerning the Nixon impeachment on the question of standards. Listen to Mr. Rodino: "Similarly, the House does not engage in abstract, advisory, or hypothetical debates about the precise nature of conduct that calls for the exercise of its constitutional powers. Rather, it must await full development of the facts and understanding of the events to which those facts relate." That's what we want to do -- develop the facts through an inquiry.

On with Mr. Rodino: "This memorandum offers no fixed standards for determining whether grounds for impeachment exist. The framers did not write a fixed standard. Instead, they adopted from English history a standard sufficiently general and flexible to meet future circumstances and events." Thus spake Peter Rodino, and that is our model for this adventure, this excursion, this journey that we're on.

HYDE: Now look, this is not about sexual misconduct any more than Watergate was about a third-rate burglary. It was about the reaction of the chief executive to that event.

Nixon covered it up and got in the direst of trouble. The problem with the Clinton situation -- President Clinton's situation is a reaction which he -- which we believe -- and we want to find out, and if don't get the information, we'll reject it -- caused him to lie under oath.

Now lying under oath is either important or it isn't. If some people can lie under oath and others can't, let's find out. If some people -- if some subjects are liable, that is you can lie about them, and others are not, let's fine -- let's fine tune our jurisprudence that way.

But if the same law applies to everybody equally, that's the American tradition and that's what we're looking at. This has not anything to do with sex. It has a lot to do with suborning perjury, tampering with witnesses, obstructing justice and perjury -- all of which impact on our Constitution and on our system of justice and the kind of country we are.

The president of the United States is the trustee of the nation's conscience. We are entitled to explore fairly, fully and expeditiously the circumstances that have been alleged to compromise that position.

We'll do it quickly. We'll do it fairly. We want to get this behind our -- behind us and behind the country and move on.

But it's our duty. It's an onerous, miserable, rotten duty, but we have to do it or we break faith with the people who send us here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: The time has expired. Has the gentleman moved the previous question?

HYDE: Thank you for the prompting and I certainly do.

GINGRICH: Without objection, the previous question is ordered. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia rise?

BOUCHER: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

GINGRICH: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?

BOUCHER: I am, Mr. Speaker.

GINGRICH: The gentleman qualifies; the clerk will report the motion.

CLERK: Mr. Boucher moves to recommit House Resolution 581 to the committee on judiciary, with instruction to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment: Strike the first section and insert the following: that A(1) the House of Representatives authorizes and instructs the committee on judiciary (in this resolution referred to as the committee) to take the following steps within the time indicated in order, fully and fairly, to conduct an inquiry, and if appropriate, to act upon the referral from the independent counsel, and this resolution referred to as the referral, in a manner in which ensures the faithful discharge of the constitutional duty of the Congress and concludes the inquiry at the earliest possible time, and consistent with Chapter 40 of the Title 28, United States Code, to consider any subsequent referral made by the independent counsel under Section 595(c) of such Title 28.

(2) The committee shall thoroughly and comprehensively review the constitutional standard for impeachment and determine if the facts presented in the referral, if assumed to be true, could constitute grounds for the impeachment of the president.

HANRAHAN: B -- if the committee determines that the facts stated in the referral, if assumed to be true, could constitute grounds for impeachment, the committee shall investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach the president.

C -- if the committee finds that there are not sufficient grounds to impeach the president, it shall then be in order for the committee to consider recommending to the House of Representatives alternative sanctions.

D -- following the conclusion of its inquiry, the committee shall consider any recommendation that may come into the House, including -- one, one or more articles of impeachment; two, alternative sanctions; or three, no action. The committee shall make such a recommendation sufficiently in advance of December 31, 1998, so that the House of Representatives may consider such recommendations as the committee makes -- the committee may make by that date.

E -- if the committee is unable to complete this assignment within the timeframe set out in subsection D, a report to the House of Representatives may be made by the committee requesting an extension of time.

GINGRICH: Pursuant to the rules of the House, the gentleman from Virginia will be recognized for five minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin will be recognized in opposition for five minutes. The gentleman from Virginia.

BOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield to myself one minute.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit that I am pleased to offer this afternoon is well tailored to the challenge that we have before us. It offers a framework for a full and a fair review by the House Judiciary Committee and a full and a fair review by the House of Representatives.

It assures that we give deference to the historical constitutional standard for impeachment which has evolved to this House over two centuries.

It assures ample time to consider carefully any of the facts that are contained in the referral sent to us by the Office of Independent Counsel, which rise to that constitutional standard.

It assures that the entire matter will be resolved promptly, and that the nation is not distracted by a prolonged inquiry.

Some members, Mr. Speaker, would prefer that there be no review. Some would have us investigate for more than a year a wide range of matters. The resolution that we're offering through this motion to recommit steers a middle course -- a careful review limited to the materials that are now before us.

With the rules we offer, the House will discharge its constitutional obligations in a manner that is both thorough and expeditious. I urge the approval of this motion to recommit. And I'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.

GINGRICH: The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.

MORE

Thursday, October 8, 1998

• House clears the way for impeachment inquiry
• Transcripts: House debate on launching impeachment inquiry, pages 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
• Poll: Congress, Clinton job approval ratings down
• 31 Democrats defect, support impeachment inquiry
• Fox seeks interview with Monica Lewinsky
• The Clinton factor: an uncertain variable in Pennsylvania's 10th C.D.
• Roll call: House vote authorizing impeachment inquiry
• Businessman makes DeLay allegation
• Congress completes Head Start bill
• Roll call: House vote defeating Democrat option
• Maryland governor gets black backing
• House moves ahead on Internet bills
• Jones still wants Clinton to pay
• Survey: People think Lewinsky coverage improving
• Text of Democratic resolution on impeachment inquiry
• White House may veto bankruptcy plan
• Clinton vetoes GOP farm aid package
• Alaska candidate admits wife gave funds
• White House handling of classified data criticized
• Clinton shows hint of distraction
• Senate set to approve $93.4 billion spending bill

ARCHIVES

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