Mostly, we are moved by our consciences. We must listen to that still small voice that whispers in our air duty, duty, duty. Some years ago, Douglas Macarthur in a famous speech at west point as suited said it is about duty, honor, and country. You dont have to be a soldier to feel the force of those words. They are our ideal here today as well. We have another ideal here to attain justice through the rule of law. Justice as always and everywhere is under assault. And our duty is to vindicate the rule of law as the surest protector of that fragile justice. Here today, having received the supportive materials from the independent counsel, the question asks itself, shall we look further or shall we look away . I respectfully suggest we must look further by voting for this resolution and thus commencing an inquiry into whether or not the president has committed and teachable acts. Wedont make any judgments, dont make any charges, we simply begin a search for truth. You will hear from our opponents that yes, we need to look further, but do it our way. There way imposes artificial time limits, limits our inquiry to the lewin ski matter and requires us to establish standards for impeachment that have never been established before. Certainly not in the nixon impeachment proceedings. Which we are trying to follow to the letter. The rodinolowed format. We will move with all deliberate speed. Many raised concerns about that proposition. Let me speak directly to those concerns. Some suggest the process to date has been partisan. Yet every member of the Judiciary Committee voted for an inquiry in some form. We differ over the procedural details, not the fundamental question, of whether we should go forward. Many on the others of the aisle worry that this inquiry will become an excuse for an openended attack on this administration. I understand that worry. During times when republicans control the executive branch, and i was in the minority, i lived where you are living now. With that personal experience, i pledge to you the fairest and most expeditious search for the truth that i can muster. I do not expect that i will agree with my democratic friends at each step along the way. But i know that to date, we have agreed on many things, in fact, we have agreed on many more things than has generally known. I know it i hope at the end of this long day, we will agree on the result. Im determined we will continue to look every day for Common Ground and to agree where we can. When we must disagree, we will do everything we can to minimize those disagreements. At all times, civility must be the watchword for members on both sides of the aisle. Too much hangs in the balance for us not to rise above partisan politics. I will use all my strength to ensure that this inquiry does not become a fishing expedition. Rather, im determined it will be a fair and expeditious search for truth. We have plenty enough to do now. We dont need to search for new material. However, i can say that we will never cant say we will never address other subjects nor would it be responsible to do so. I dont know what the future holds. If substantial evidence of other impeachable offenses come to us, as the independent counsel hinted or suggested in a letter we received only yesterday, the constitution will demand that we do our duty. Like each of you, i took an oath to answer that call. I intend to do so and i hope you will join with me if that day comes. I dont think we want to settle for less than the whole truth. Some are concerned about timing. Believe me, nobody wants to end this any sooner than i do. But the constitution demands that we take the amount of time necessary to do the right thing in the right way. A rush to judgment does not serve anybodys interest, certainly not the publics interest. As ive said publicly, my fervent hope and prayer is we can end this process by the end of the year. That is my new years resolution. However, to agree to an artificial deadline would be a responsible. It would only invite delay, and discourage cooperation. For those who worry about the timing, i urge you to do Everything Possible to encourage cooperation. No one likes to have their behavior questioned. The best way to end the questions is to answer them in a timely and truthful manner. Thorough and thoughtful cooperation will do more than anything to put this matter behind us. I reserve the balance of my time. Gentlemen of michigan is recognized. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield myself 10 seconds. I really want to say to the chairman of judiciary, henry the, that i respect fairness of his statement, and i know he is a person of his word, and i hope that these processes within our committee and the congress will follow along the lines that you have outlined so admirably. With that, mr. Speaker, i would like to yield to the principal architect of the alternative proposal to the motion on the floor that will be embodied in a motion to recommit, the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. Rick boucher, for four minutes. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. And ink you, mr. Speaker ask unanimous consent to revise and extend these remarks. I want to thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding this time and commend him for the leadership he has exerted as we have worked on the side in order to offer a fair and a balanced alternative to the resolution of inquiry. At the conclusion of this debate, i will offer a motion to recommit the resolution offered by the gentleman from illinois, to the committee on the judiciary, with the instruction that the committee immediately report back that resolution to the house with instructions that it contain our democratic alternatives. While we would have preferred that democrats have a normal opportunity to present our resolution as an amendment, the procedure that is being used by the house today does not make a democratic amendment and regular course in order. The motion to recommit with instructions does however give us an opportunity to have the house adopt the democratic plan. The democratic amendment is a resolution for a full and complete review by the Judiciary Committee of the material that has been presented to the house by the office of independent counsel. The republican resolution also provides for that and complete review. The difference between the democratic and republican approaches is only over the scope of the review, only over the time that the review will take, and only over our insistence that they Judiciary Committee in conducting its process of pay deference and become aware of the historical constitutional standard for impeachment that has evolved to us over the centuries and was recognized most recently by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and then recognized by the full house of representatives. The Public Interest requires a fair and deliberate inquiry in this matter. Our resolution provides for that fair and deliberate inquiry. But the Public Interest also requires an appropriate boundary on the scope of the inquiry. It should not become an invitation for a free ranging fishing expedition, subject into a formal impeachment inquiry, matters that are not before the congress today. The potential for such a venture should be strictly limited by the resolution adopted today by the house, and our democratic proposal contains those appropriate limits. It would subjectively inquiry the material presented to us by the office of independent counsel which is the only material for the house today. The Public Interest also requires that the matter be brought to conclusion at the earliest possible time. That is consistent with a thorough and a complete review. The country has already undergone substantial trauma. If the committee carries this work beyond the time that is reasonably needed to conduct its complete and thorough review, that injury to the nation will only deepen. We should be thorough, but we should also be prompt. Given that the facts of this matter are generally wellknown, given that they are only a handful of witnesses who have relevant information that can be addressed in this inquiry, and given the further fact that all of those witnesses have already been the subject of extensive review by the grand jury and their testimony is available, this inquiry can in fact be prompt. The committees work should not extend into next year. A careful and thorough review can be accomplished between now and the end of this year. And our democratic resolution provides that appropriate limitation on time. The resolution requires that the committee hold hearings on the constitutional standard for impeachment which was clearly stated in the conclusion of the committees report in the watergate years of 1974. Our substitute then directs that the Committee Compare the facts that are stated and the referral of the independent counsel to that historical constitutional standard. And if any facts rise to the level of impeachable conduct, that material would then be subjected to the thorough inquiry and review process the gentleman from michigan. I yield of the gentleman an additional half minute. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. Resolution that we are putting forth, the committee will begin its work on the 12th the day of october. Thats next monday. And we will conclude all proceedings including the consideration of recommendations during the month of december. There would then be ample time for the house of representatives to consider those recommendations and conclude its work by the end of this year. The procedure we are recommending is fair, thorough, prompt, it is a recommendation for an inquiry. It would assure an appropriate scope, it would give deference to the historical constitutional standard for impeachment, and it would assure that this matter is put behind us so the nation can proceed with its very important business by the end. Of this year i think the gentleman for yielding. Gentlemen from illinois. Im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin. The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Speaker, i rise in support of the resolution of inquiry. At mondays meeting of the Judiciary Committee investigative counsel David Schipper has informed the committee that the material received shows the president may have committed 15 felonies. These alleged felonies wherein in the course of the president s successfully defeating paul or joan civil rights lawsuit. In as the Supreme Court 90 decision said she had the right to pursue. The president denies all these allegations. Obviously, someone is telling the truth and someone is lying. The Judiciary Committee must be given the power to decide this issue. Stake here is the rule of law. Even the president of the United States has no right to break the law. If the house of down this inquiry, in effect, it will say even if president clinton committed as many as 15 felonies, nothing will happen. Return to will be a the imperial presidency of the nixon era, where the white house felt that the laws did not apply to them, since they never would be punished. That would be a National Tragedy of immense consequences. They vote for the resolution, let the Judiciary Committee try to find the truth and i yield back to the gentleman from illinois the balance of my time. Gentlemen from michigan. Mr. Speaker, im pleased to yield three minutes to a Senior Member of our Judiciary Committee, the able gentleman from new york, mr. Charles schumer. The gentleman is recognized. I thank the delmon. Mr. Speaker, this ace this is a serious and solemn day. After a careful reading of the report and other materials submitted by the office of the independent counsel, as well as a study of the origins and history of the impeachment clause of the constitution, i have come to the conclusion that given the evidence before us, while the president deserves significant punishment, there is no basis for impeachment of the president and it is time to move on and solve the problems facing the American People, like health care, education, and protecting seniors retirement. To me, mr. Speaker, it is clear the president lied when he testified before the grand jury. Not to cover a crime, but to cover embarrassing personal behavior. While it is true that in ordinary circumstances and in most instances, an ordinary person would not be punished for lying about extramarital affairs, the president has to be held to a higher standard and must be held accountable. But high crimes and misdemeanors, as defined in the constitution, and as amplified by the federalist papers and just a story, have always been intended to apply public actions relating to or affecting the operation of the government. Not too personal or private conduct. Punishment for lying about an improper sexual relationship should fit the crime. Censure or rebuke is the appropriate punishment. Impeachment is not. It is time to move forward, not have the congress and American People endure the specter of what could be a yearlong focus on a tawdry, but not impeachable affair. Today, the World Economy is in crisis, and cries out for american leadership. Without which term worldwide turmoil is a grave possibility. The American People cry out for us to solve the problems facing them. Its investigation, now in fifth year, has run its course. It is time to move on. I yield back. Gentlemen from illinois. Mr. Speaker, im pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. The gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. The presidency is a place of moral leadership. I want my strong president criticism of president clinton to be placed in context. I voted for him in 1992 and 1996. I believed him to be the man from hope. I voted for more than three fourths of the president s legislative agenda and i would do so again. My blunt criticism of the president has nothing to do with policy. The president has always treated me with courtesy and respect and as always responded to the concerns of my constituents. The president s misconduct has made immaterial my past support. Oft january 17 the president the United States attempted to cover up a sordid and irresponsible relationship by repeating lee repeatedly lying underwrote. Under oath. He allowed his lawyer to make arguments to the court based on an affidavit the president to to be false. The president later deceived the American People and admitted the truth only when confronted several months later. I am convinced the president would have otherwise allowed his false testimony to stand in perpetuity. What is at stake is really the rule of law. When the president took an 03 tell the truth and both to oath telltruth an the truth notquestion is whether or we will say to all our citizens, including the president of the United States, when you taken oath you must keep it. It was a deep sense of sadness i called for his resignation. The president displayed his character and defined it badly. His actions were not inappropriate, they were predatory, reckless, breathtakingly arrogant for a man already a defendant in a Sexual Harassment suit. Whether or not it was politically motivated. Were to sweep aside the president s immoral and illegal conduct. By some future president of the United States. We cannot define the president s character, but we can define the nations. Im pleased to recognize for 2. 5 minutes Jerrold Nadler of fought theo alternative proposal we surely offer to this morning. The issue of a potential impeachment is whether to overturn the National Results the results of a national election. Its not one that should be exercised lightly. It should not be exercised in a manner that is or perceived to be fair or partisan. A broad consensus president nixon had too was developing precisely because the process seemed to be fair and deliberate. It is not earned the confidence of the American People that any action we take, especially if we seek to overturn the results of a free election is viewed with great suspicion. We do not need another who lost china debate. Or participating in a thinly veiled coup detat. This issue has the potential to be the most divisive issue in American Life since the vietnam war. The process by which we arrive at our decision seems to be nonpartisan and fair. The legitimacy of the american institutions must not be called into question. I do not believe all of the allegations in this report are proven true. We need to remember the framers of the constitution did not intend impeachment for a punishment for wrongdoing but a protection for constitutional liberties and the structure of government they were establishing against the president. The president s act may be crimes. Ado not believe we need formal impeachment inquiry. The president was not given the report before was made public. We spent a month deciding what should be released and what should be kept private. Then we discussed procedure, but not a minute of debate on the merits of the evidence. Now the supreme insult to the American People, an hour of debate on the house floor. We debated two resolutions to post offices yesterday. On this momentous decision. And another sign that this is going to be fair. It provides limitation of scope and time. Thank you. I would hope the leadership of both parties would be sending out messages to the member that whatever they are doing they ought to be able to drop it. Im pleased to use 2. 5 minutes to a distinguished and mr. Rom florida kennedy. A resolution which ensures we expeditiously deal with serious charges against the president in a process that is there that is fair, thoughtful and deliberative. This model serves the house well. Theres no reason we should abandon this model now. With its arbitrary and unrealistic limitations of the jury of the Judiciary Committee to do its job. Process that has never not once been followed been not followed in the his three of the constitution. Some claim the charges do not amount to high crimes and misdemeanors. It recognizes that conduct of the president that undermines the integrity of office is impeachable. Consequenceble would be to erode respect for the office of the president. Sever inevitably subvert the law. If perjury and obstruction of justice do not undermine the integrity of office, what offenses would . Wrote, if itamers were to be asked what is the most sacred duty and source of security in the republic, the answer would be an unviable respect for the constitution and laws. Examplesrefore her set or undermine or subvert the authorities of the laws leaders from freedom to slavery. Today as members of this house, it is our solemn responsibility to move forward with this inquiry and set an example that strengthens the authority of the laws and preserves the liberty with which we have been blessed. Please recognize 1. 5 minutes of the valuable Judiciary Committee. Gentlemen is recognized. Nation, todayis we become a congress of endless investigation. To this american inquisition that would destroy the presidency over an extramarital affair. Economy is crumbling and we are talking about monica lewinsky. Saddam hussein hides weapons and we are talking about monica lewinsky. Children cram into packed crass packed classrooms. Families cant pay their medical bills and we are talking about monica lewinsky. Nation if we trivialize the constitution of the United States and reject the conviction of our Founding Fathers that impeachment is about no less then the subversion of the government. The president betrayed his wife. Not betrayed the country. Gentlemen from illinois. Im pleased to recognize the distinguished dental and from arkansas. Today we are considering a on the conduct of the president of the United States. Each of us took an oh with to th to uphold the constitution of the United States. We would be wise to follow it a gentleman from new york concluded the president lied under of. The gentleman is way ahead in his conclusion for where this process would be and where i am. Is purpose of this process to examine public trust and breached to repair it. The president and his lawyers have denied each of these our response would be to examine these facts. That the result is no impeachable offenses. We can be assured the rule of law would not be ignored by this congress. The model was chosen because thiswas what was demanded resolution is not direct the community to go into any additional areas. It is my commitment as an arkansan. To be fair in every way. The president commit perjury . We can answer these questions in a fair and bipartisan manner. People say this is not watergate, every case is different. Does not change. And a half. You, mr. Speaker. Many of the president s actions were wrong. Our role is not to attack him. Our role is to make sure that this process is defensible. The chamber spent a day, a little more than a day. We are spending two hours on deciding the future of this presidency. We should move on. What we are seeing today is not fair. A report from kenneth starr. And any subsequent manners. To finish this by december 31. We can ask for an extension, and that can happen. The American People want this to be a fair process. Recognize this is not a fair process. We have a duty, each and every person in this chamber has a duty to do that and a fair way. I think each of us has to and askour conscience whether we want to have a wide range fishing expedition or whether we want to focus it on reports that have been brought to us in any subsequent manners. That in a bipartisan basis and i think that will be fair. I yield back the balance of my time. To thepleased to yield distinguished gentleman from ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a difficult time for every member of this house. Set said by , iry hyde over and above think it is important to recognize the words of the gentleman from pennsylvania. That really is why we are here and over the past several weeks and months a number of us have dusted up our copies of the federalist papers. James madison put it perfectly. He said justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. Until liberty will be lost in the pursuit. If you would indulge me for a moment i would like to make a unanimous consent request. We would be granted five minutes on each side for the purpose of comments. For the purpose of debate. Gentleman of illinois yielded to the purpose of michigan for that request . I think five minutes on each side is justifiable. I support the gentleman and his request. I would like the speaker to recognize the gentleman from jersey from new jersey. After a 4. 5 year investigation of every aspect of president clintons public and private life, ken starr presented the house with 11 allegations of impeachment all relating only to the president parchment president s misconduct with monica and monica lewinsky. And let the chips fall where they may. Republicans say they wont be limited to the 4. 5 year investigation. Too feel mr. Starr was light on president clinton, so they wanted and impeachment inquiry. Charges anyone can come up with on any subject and with no time limit. I believe the republican bill was unfair. It is unfair to the president , unfair to our country and not in our natural not in our national interest. Morally wrong and now we need to decide what the appropriate punishment for his defenses. Lets follow the democratic model and solve the charges and do so before the end of the year. That faces here at home and around the world. Gentleman from illinois. The gentleman from ohio is pleased to yield to without objection. The se in support of of therevolution resolution. We do not sit in judgment today. We are not here to convict or punish or sentence today. Fulfill our constitutional duty we must determine if the evidence presented to date strongly suggests wrongdoing by the president. And if the wrongdoing or rises to the level of impeachable offense. The president may have committed perjury and the historic record demonstrates that perjury can be an impeachable offense. Based on the facts and the lot this house has a constitutional duty to proceed to a formal inquiry. Most of mypeak for colleagues when i say this is not a matter to be taken lightly. It is my sincere hope we can Work Together as my Founding Fathers envisioned in a bipartisan fashion to complete this task as expeditiously as possible and to do what is in the best interest of the country. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above the partisan fires that too often burn in our nations capital. Consider the facts at hand and fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. I yield back the balance of my time. Im pleased to yield to a member of the judiciary who has worked tirelessly on crafting a middle course for the members of the house of representatives. Many of us labored very hard to craft a plan that would allow us to deal with the referral of the independent counsel in a way fair, prompt,d, and most of all in a way that puts our constitution first. Thatdistressed to say that is not going to happen today in these chambers these chambers. There will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated by the strength of the party than the demonstration of innocence or guilt. Believe the majority has used its raw voting power to create a in asal that could result wideranging and lengthy impeachment inquiry. Committee may become the Standing Committee on impeachment. The rules in the constitution may never be applied to the referral that has been sent to what has happened up with the majority counsel, creating entirely new rules for misdemeanors. When we are lost the best thing to do is to look to our constitution as a deacon of light and a guideline to get us through trying time. When the misconduct of the executive was so severe it threatened the constitutional system of government itself. Thefranklin described it as alternative to assassination. It is that standard that needs to be applied in this case. The president s misconduct was bad. The question is are we going to punish america instead of him for his misconduct . Are we going to make sure this investigation goes on internally . I fear we are letting down our country. Ago i watched this body rise to the occasion. As an idealistic young student i worked on the staff of the committee and saw the committee and saw the congress to a very hard thing. And i am very concerned that instead of resin to this occasion we are falling down and lowering ourselves. I yield back the balance of my time. Im pleased to yield one minute to distinguish gentlelady from florida. The gentlelady is recognized. Thank you. Promised a remedy against Sexual Harassment. If we say that lying about sex in court is acceptable, or even , wept or even expected have made our Sexual Harassment law nothing more than a four then a false promise. Lying under oh and obstruction of justice are ancient crimes of great weight, because they shield other offenses, blotting blocking the light of truth in our affairs. They cannot and must not be tolerated. The office of the presidency is due great respect, but the president is a citizen with the same duty to follow the laws as all other citizens. The world marvels that our president is not above the law, and my vote today helps assure this will continue. With a commitment to the principal to the rule of law, which makes this country the beacon of hope for political refugees like myself throughout the world, i cast my vote in favor of the resolution to undertake and impeachment inquiry into the conduct of the president. Nt the i yield to a senior prosecutor. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Speaker. Im aware there is a fat aware of the fact there is limited time for this debate. It is indeed unfortunate. To talk about how we have abdicated our constitutional duties to an , how wed prosecutor have released thousands of pages that none of us in good conscience have said good conscience can say we have read. How we have violated the sanctity of the grand jury so we can arrive here today to launch an inquiry without an independent adequate review of this, whichons by is our constitutional mandate. It is our responsibility. I was going to go on and speak about the proposal put forth by the gentleman from virginia. All oft would address in a fairtions raised withoutditious way dragging this nation through hearings that will be interminable in nature. What it means for this country, if any president s enemies have to do to commence and impeachment process, is to name an independent counsel so we can counselsindependent conclusions. I speak about the letter that was referred to by the universally respected chair of the committee, the gentleman who i home whom i hold in highest aim. Saying he may make further referrals and keep this inquiry going on indefinitely. Thats not a process, mr. Speaker, it is a blank check. Out of deference to others that want to speak, i will conclude that only the third impeachment inquiry in u. S. Travesty and disgrace to this institution. I think that says it