BLAGOJEVICH ATTORNEY OFFICE
16:41:09:15 If I am trying the case it's going to be a fight. IT IS? yes. IMPEACHMENT AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. Impeachment or Criminal proceeding.YOU'RE TAKING THE CASE? I will know this afternoon. He ...
GOV QUINN REACTS TO BLAGOJEVICH SENTENCE
FTG FOR COVERAGE ON ROOD BLAGOJEVICH / INT BROLL ILLINOIS GOVERNOR PAT QUINN PODIUM PRESSER ON BLAGOJEVICH PRISON SENTENCE U.S. District Court Judge James Zagel sentenced convicted ex-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to 14 years in federal prison. Before the sentencing, Blagojevich apologized for the first time since his arrest three years ago: "I am unbelievably sorry." "I want to apologize to people of Illinois, to the court, for the mistakes I have made. . .I never set out to break the law. I never set out to cross lines." But the judge told Blagojevich "The jury didn't believe you and neither did I." Blagojevich was convicted on 18 corruption charges, including the scheme to peddle the vacated Senate seat of Barack Obama.
ill_primary_election
Republican primary voters picked candidates Tuesday who they hoped would put the state's finances in order, take on labor unions and chip away at Democratic dominance of the state. (March 18)
US Governor - Illinois Governor pledges to fight, won't quit, voxpops
NAME: US GOVERNOR 20081220I TAPE: EF08/1274 IN_TIME: 10:02:41:14 DURATION: 00:02:27:03 SOURCES: AP/ABC DATELINE: Chicago, 19 Dec 2008/Recent RESTRICTIONS: Check shotlist for details SHOTLIST ABC - No Access N.America/Internet Chicago, Illinois - 19 December 2008 1. Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich walking to podium 2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois: "Okay, thank you very much. I'm here to tell you right off the bat, that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, that I intend to stay on the job, and I will fight this thing every step of the way. I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong. And I'm not going to quit a job the people hired me to do because of false accusations and political lynch mob. Now that's what I'm going to do. Let me tell you what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to do what my accusers and political enemies have been doing, and that is talk about this case in 30 second soundbites on "Meet the Press," or on the TV news. Now I'm dying to answer these charges. I am dying to show you how innocent I am, and I want to assure everyone who's here and everyone who's listening that I intend to answer every allegation that comes my way. However, I intend to answer them in the appropriate forum, in a court of law. And when I do, I am absolutely certain that I will be vindicated." AP Television FILE: Chicago, Illinois - Recent 3. Blagojevich walking out of his home and climbing into black vehicle AP Television Chicago, Illinois - 19 December 2008 4. Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, walking into room 5. SOUNDBITE (English) Pat Quinn, Lieutenant Governor of Illinois: "We heard his statement earlier, he feels that he will be vindicated, he said, in a court of law. Our state cannot wait while the chief executive battles in a court of law while we have so many major decisions that affect the welfare and safety of the people of Illinois. The Governor is clearly impeded in his ability of carry-out his executive functions." 6. People walking on street 7. SOUNDBITE (English) Janet Higgins, Illinois Resident: "Well, everybody is innocent until proven guilty but he's on tape." 8. SOUNDBITE (English) Richard Palmer, Illinois Resident: "You got caught on tape, you know... bottom line. Words speak for themselves." 9. Wide of traffic intersection STORYLINE A defiant Illinois governor served notice on Friday that he has no intention of quitting over his corruption arrest, addressing for the first time the allegations that he tried to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat with a vow to fight attempts to oust him. Governor Rod Blagojevich's forceful, three-minute speech and declaration of his innocence made clear that removing him could be uglier and more drawn-out that anyone imagined just a week ago, when the governor's career appeared to be in its final hours and nearly the entire political establishment seemed to be holding a death watch. "I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong," a composed Blagojevich said at this downtown Chicago office building. He took no questions from reporters and immediately left the room after wishing his listeners, "Merry Christmas, happy holidays." The 52-year-old Democrat is charged with scheming to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for big campaign contributions or a lucrative job for himself. Prosecutors built their case on Blagojevich's wiretapped conversations. What he hopes to accomplish by staying in office appears unclear. Blagojevich appears to have no political support, the Illinois House having voted 113-0 last week to assemble an impeachment committee, and his ability to govern has been crippled. After the speech, disappointed Republicans argued that if Blagojevich cannot be dislodged right away, he should at least be disarmed. They called on the Democratic lawmakers to hold a special election to fill the Senate seat, stripping Blagojevich of the power to make the appointment. Democratic Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn pleaded with Blagojevich to step aside under a constitutional provision that allows him to keep his title but give his duties to an acting governor - which, under the rules of succession, would be Quinn. Quinn would then have the right to name the successor to Obama in the Senate. Obama resigned from the Senate last month after he won the presidency. Even before the speech, Blagojevich's lawyer, Ed Genson, a hard-charging Chicago criminal defence attorney, had made it plain the governor would not go down easily. Genson challenged the Illinois House impeachment committee at every turn this week, arguing that the wiretaps on which he was caught allegedly scheming to sell Obama's seat were illegal, accusing some of the panel members of having already made up their mind, and complaining that Illinois law does not spell out the grounds for impeachment or what evidence should be considered. The impeachment panel wants federal prosecutors to release details of their probe of Blagojevich, including copies of the taped conversations, and give the Legislature some guidance on who can be called as a witness without compromising the federal case.
US Governor Wrap - Blagojevich impeached, reax , voxpops
NAME: US GOVWRAP 20090110I TAPE: EF09/0037 IN_TIME: 10:24:24:13 DURATION: 00:02:29:12 SOURCES: ABC/ POOL DATELINE: Springfield - 9 Jan 2009 RESTRICTIONS: Check shotlist for details SHOTLIST: ABC - No Access N.America/Internet Chicago 1. Various of Blagojevich jogging (++MUTE++) 2. Wide of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich walking into news conference 3. SOUNDBITE (English) Rod Blagojevich, Illinois Governor: "So we're going move forward, and I'm going continue to fight every step of the way. Let me re-assert to all of you, once more, that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. That issue will be dealt with on a separate course in an appropriate forum, a federal court, and I'm confident that at the end of the day, I will be properly exonerated." 4. Wide of news conference with Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn 5. SOUNDBITE (English) Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn: "Governor Blagojevich has lost the confidence of the people of Illinois. He's lost the consent of the governed, and under those circumstances, I think the proper course as I've said before and many others have said is to step aside and to resign, and I wish he had resigned today." POOL Springfield 6. Pan of Illinois House meeting 7. SOUNDBITE (English) Representative Barbara Flynn Currie, House Majority Leader, Illinois General Assembly: "This governor has violated his oath of office. This governor has breached the public trust. This governor must be impeached and I urge your aye vote." 8. Mid of room 9. Mid of Illinois Speaker of the House Michael Madigan calling for vote to commence 10. Mid of House meeting 11. Close up of display screen showing results 12. Wide of resolution voting board 13. Mid of Madigan, USPOUND: (English) "The House does adopt House resolution 1671 and Governor Blagojevich is hereby impeached." AP Television Chicago, Illinois 14. Wide shot of federal building that houses Blagojevich's downtown Chicago office 15. SOUNDBITE: (English) Vox Pop, Illinois resident: "Well, if he's been impeached, then I think he should listen to that decision and step down. That's what I think." 16. SOUNDBITE: (English) Vox Pop, Illinois resident: "I'm sure he's kind of living in some sort of delusion fantasy. I think that if he got on the streets and talked to people and found out what they wanted, the average American people living in Illinois would want him to leave." 17. Pull out of building housing Blagojevich's office STORYLINE The Illinois House voted overwhelmingly on Friday to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich, an unprecedented action that sets the stage for a Senate trial on whether he should be thrown out of office for corruption and abuse of power. Blagojevich responded with what has become trademark defiance since he arrested on federal charges a month ago. He accused the House of retaliating against him for trying to help the people of Illinois and said he is confident he'll be "properly exonerated" at a Senate trial. "I'm going continue to fight every step of the way. Let me re-assert to all of you, once more, that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing," he said during a news conference in Chicago. He ended the news conference by quoting a poem from "Ulysses" by Lord Alfred Tennyson Blagojevich had been out jogging in his Chicago neighbourhood when the House vote came down. Impeachment required just 60 votes. The final tally was 114-1. Some residents in Chicago said Blagojevich should step down from office. Legislators accused the Democratic governor of betraying the public trust by letting ego and ambition drive his decisions. Blagojevich was arrested on December 9 on federal charges that include allegations he schemed to profit from his power to name President-elect Barack Obama's replacement in the Senate. The criminal complaint included an FBI agent's sworn affidavit describing wiretaps that caught Blagojevich allegedly talking about what he could get for the seat, how to pressure people into making campaign contributions and more. That arrest triggered impeachment hearings by a special House committee. The committee on Thursday unanimously recommended impeachment based on the criminal charges but other allegations as well - that Blagojevich expanded a health care program without proper authority, that he circumvented hiring laws to give jobs to political allies, that he spent (m) millions of dollars on foreign flu vaccine that he knew wasn't needed and couldn't be brought into the country. Blagojevich has denied the criminal charges. He criticised the House impeachment process as biased and said a Senate trial would produce a different result. But he didn't testify before the House impeachment committee and hasn't offered an explanation for the federal charges. During the House's 90-minute debate, no one spoke up to defend the governor. But Representative Milton Patterson, voted against impeachment. Representative Elga Jefferies voted "present."
US Governor 2 - Illinois House impeaches Blagojevich, governor reax
NAME: US GOVERNOR2 20090109I TAPE: EF09/0033 IN_TIME: 11:19:15:14 DURATION: 00:02:41:17 SOURCES: ABC/POOL DATELINE: Springfield - 9 Jan 2008 RESTRICTIONS: Part NAmerica/ Internet SHOTLIST ABC - No Access N.America/Internet Chicago 1. Wide of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich walking into news conference 2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rod Blagojevich, Illinois Governor: "The House's action today was of course not a surprise. It was a foregone conclusion. In fact, what the House did today, they'd been talking about doing for the last couple of years." 3. Blagojevich at podium 4. SOUNDBITE (English) Rod Blagojevich, Illinois Governor: "So we're going move forward, and I'm going continue to fight every step of the way. Let me re-assert to all of you, once more, that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. That issue will be dealt with on a separate course in an appropriate forum, a federal court, and I'm confident that at the end of the day, I will be properly exonerated." 5. Various of Blagojevich jogging (++MUTE++) 6. Wide of news conference with Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn 7. SOUNDBITE (English) Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn: "Governor Blagojevich has lost the confidence of the people of Illinois. He's lost the consent of the governed, and under those circumstances, I think the proper course as I've said before and many others have said is to step aside and to resign, and I wish he had resigned today." POOL Springfield 8. Pan of Illinois House meeting 9. SOUNDBITE (English) Representative Barbara Flynn Currie, House Majority Leader, Illinois General Assembly: "This governor has violated his oath of office. This governor has breached the public trust. This governor must be impeached and I urge your aye vote." 10. Mid of room 11. SOUNDBITE (English) Representative Tom Cross, House Republican Leader, Illinois General Assembly: "I had somebody ask me the other day, 'well aren't you as a body undoing what thirteen million people decided in voting for the governor?'. Not all 13 million. We have 13 million people. A certain number voted for him, more than the Republican candidate. We're not undoing anything. The governor undid it." 12. Mid of Illinois Speaker of the House Michael Madigan calling for vote to commence 13. Mid of House meeting 14. Close up of display screen showing results 15. Wide of resolution voting board 16. Mid of Madigan, USPOUND: (English) "The House does adopt House resolution 1671 and Governor Blagojevich is hereby impeached." 17. Wide of House meeting STORYLINE The Illinois House voted overwhelmingly on Friday to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich, an unprecedented action that sets the stage for a Senate trial on whether he should be thrown out of office for corruption and abuse of power. Blagojevich responded with what has become trademark defiance since he arrested on federal charges a month ago. He accused the House of retaliating against him for trying to help the people of Illinois and said he is confident he'll be "properly exonerated" at a Senate trial. "I'm going continue to fight every step of the way. Let me re-assert to all of you, once more, that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing," he said during a news conference in Chicago. He ended the news conference by quoting a poem from "Ulysses" by Lord Alfred Tennyson Blagojevich had been out jogging in his Chicago neighbourhood when the House vote came down. Impeachment required just 60 votes. The final tally was 114-1. Legislators accused the Democratic governor of betraying the public trust by letting ego and ambition drive his decisions. Blagojevich was arrested on December 9 on federal charges that include allegations he schemed to profit from his power to name President-elect Barack Obama's replacement in the Senate. The criminal complaint included an FBI agent's sworn affidavit describing wiretaps that caught Blagojevich allegedly talking about what he could get for the seat, how to pressure people into making campaign contributions and more. That arrest triggered impeachment hearings by a special House committee. The committee on Thursday unanimously recommended impeachment based on the criminal charges but other allegations as well - that Blagojevich expanded a health care program without proper authority, that he circumvented hiring laws to give jobs to political allies, that he spent (m) millions of dollars on foreign flu vaccine that he knew wasn't needed and couldn't be brought into the country. Blagojevich has denied the criminal charges. He criticised the House impeachment process as biased and said a Senate trial would produce a different result. But he didn't testify before the House impeachment committee and hasn't offered an explanation for the federal charges. During the House's 90-minute debate, no one spoke up to defend the governor. But Representative Milton Patterson, voted against impeachment. Representative Elga Jefferies voted "present."
US Governor - Lawmakers take step to oust Illinois governor, Obama comments on scandal
NAME: US GOVERNOR 20081216I TAPE: EF08/1257 IN_TIME: 10:42:51:15 DURATION: 00:03:45:02 SOURCES: AP TELEVISION/ABC DATELINE: Illinois, 15 Dec 2008 RESTRICTIONS: Check shotlist for details SHOTLIST AP Television Springfield, Illinois - 15 December 2008 1. Wide of Illinois House of Representatives in session 2. Mid of house speaker Mike Madigan 3. Various of House of Representatives session 4. Wide of press conference 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Mike Madigan, House Speaker: "During these six days Governor Blagojevich has declined the opportunity to voluntarily leave the office of governor and therefore, today I am announcing the appointment of a select committee on inquiry concerning the possible impeachment of Governor Blagojevich." 4. Cutaway of press conference 5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Mike Madigan, House Speaker: "I treat today's action as a very significant governmental action of the gravest, of the gravest consideration and so I'm not going to be one who's going to rush to judgment about the possible impeachment of a sitting governor of the State of Illinois." AP Television Chicago, Illinois - 15 December 2008 6. Governor Rod Blagojevich arriving at lawyer's office 7. Various of governor Blagojevich inside lawyer's office 8. Ed Genson, Blagojevich's lawyer arriving at office in a electric wheelchair ABC - No access N America/Internet Chicago, Illinois - 15 December 2008 9. Wide of press conference 10. SOUNDBITE: (English) Patrick Quinn, Lieutenant Governor of Illinois: "I've had no communications with the governor, I don't have the faintest idea of what's going through his mind, I think watching on television his comments indicate that he doesn't realise how serious the situation is for the people of Illinois, the people come first, the governor's personal interest does not come first. I think he has to realise the public interest demands that he step aside or resign or otherwise he will be removed." 11. US President-elect Barack Obama walking in to press conference 12. Cutaway of Obama's Chief of staff-designate, Rahm Emanuel 13. SOUNDBITE: Barack Obama, US President-elect: "There was nothing in the review that was presented to me that in anyway contradicted my earlier statements that this appalling set of circumstances that we've seen arise had nothing to do with my office, and that you know those facts will be forthcoming to all of you in due course, we just want to make sure that we're not interfering with an ongoing and active investigation." 14. Pull out of Emanuel and Obama leaving at end of press conference STORYLINE: President-elect Barack Obama said on Monday that an internal investigation shows his staff had no involvement in the corruption scandal enveloping Illinois' governor, as lawmakers took the first step toward removing the state's scandal-plagued leader from office. Responding to the controversy sparked by the arrest of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's alleged attempt to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat, the president-elect pledged to make the review public. He said he was holding off publication of the review because prosecutors asked for a delay. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald released a statement confirming the request. There are no suggestions that Obama or his aides were involved in the alleged sale of his seat, but the scandal could prove to be a headache for him as he prepares to take over the presidency on Jan. 20. As governor, Blagojevich has sole authority to appoint a replacement, although fellow Democrats have demanded he refrain from doing so. Obama resigned his Senate seat last month. Blagojevich's political isolation intensified Monday evening, with the Illinois House voting 113-0 to create a bipartisan committee that will study the allegations against the governor and recommend whether he should be impeached. Democrats in the Senate shelved action on a special election to fill Obama's U.S. Senate seat, for now leaving the decision in Blagojevich's hands. A Blagojevich spokesman said on Monday that the governor has not ruled out signing a bill to hold a special election to fill the seat. That was the first hint the embattled governor may loosen his grip on the position. Still, he continued his hold on the office, signing 11 bills, including one referenced on wiretaps in the criminal complaint against him. Blagojevich was arrested on Tuesday after being under federal investigation for three years. He is also accused of shaking down businesses seeking state deals and scheming to get Chicago Tribune editorial writers fired. Mike Madigan, the Illinois House Speaker was careful not to call for Blagojevich's resignation or say whether he thinks the governor should be impeached because he would preside over any impeachment debate. Madigan often has clashed with Blagojevich, and his office produced a memo this year outlining all the arguments legislative candidates could make in favour of impeachment. If Blagojevich resigned, the power to appoint a new senator would go to Democratic Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn.
US Governor - Illinois governor says he is fighting for his people
NAME: US GOVERNOR 20081227Ix TAPE: EF08/1295 IN_TIME: 10:13:41:08 DURATION: 00:01:45:22 SOURCES: ABC/POOL DATELINE: Chicago, 26 Dec 2008 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access NAmerica/Internet SHOTLIST ABC - No Access North America/Internet Chicago, Illinois - 26 December 2008 1. Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, leaving building with his lawyer 2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois: "I think the accomplishments for people speak for themselves, and if somehow that's impeachable, then I'm on the wrong planet, and I'm living in the wrong place." POOL FILE: Chicago, Illinois - 1 December 2008 3. US President-elect Barack Obama walks into press conference room ABC - No Access North America/Internet Chicago, Illinois - 26 December 2008 4. SOUNDBITE (English) Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois: "The truth is, I've done absolutely nothing wrong, and I have done a lot of things right. Even in this process, without saying too much, that was all about trying to end up at the right decision that could do the most things for the people of Illinois, and when the full truth is told, you will see precisely that. But having said that..." Reporter: Pat Quinn (Illinois Lt. Governor) said yesterday that you're going to be impeached and convicted and thrown out of office, so you should resign and step aside now. "I think I've made it abundantly clear that I have no intention whatsoever of leaving a job the people of Illinois elected me to perform because of false accusations and a political lynch mob." ABC - No Access North America/Internet FILE: Chicago, Illinois - 9 December 2008 5. SOUNDBITE (English) Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney: "This is a sad day for government. It's a very sad day for Illinois government. Governor Blagojevich has taken us to a truly new low. Governor Blagojevich has been arrested in the middle of what can only be described as a political corruption crime spree." ABC - No Access North America/Internet Chicago, Illinois - 26 December 2008 6. Blagojevich listening to reporter's question UPSOUND: Would you be embarrassed if they played portions of the audio tapes that showed profanity laced language even if nothing was actually traded? 7. SOUNDBITE (English) Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois: "Look, if I'd have known people were listening, I probably wouldn't have said some of the things you say in private conversations. But I think there's probably tens of millions of people across America who talk like that from time to time." 8. Mid of Blagojevich and his lawyer STORYLINE: Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, said on Friday that if what he had done as Illinois governor was an impeachable offence, then he's living on the "wrong planet" and is in the "wrong place." Rather, Blagojevich said he was hired to fight for the people of Illinois and that was what he has been doing. His comments, made in Chicago, marked the first time Blagojevich spoke to the media since giving a defiant three-minute speech last Friday in which he said he'll fight the forces against him until he takes his last breath. The 52-year-old Democrat is charged with scheming to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Federal prosecutors built their case against the governor using wiretapped conversations riddled with profanity. "Look, if I'd have known people were listening, I probably wouldn't have said some of the things you say in private conversations," Blagojevich said Friday. "But I think there's probably tens of millions of people across America that talk like that from time to time," he said. Blagojevich has ignored ongoing calls to step down. He spoke Friday as the committee of legislators investigating whether he should be impeached prepared to reconvene in the state capital of Springfield on Monday. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said earlier this week that lawmakers' interviews of current or former members of Blagojevich's staff might jeopardise his criminal investigation.
IL GOV PAT QUINN BUDGET ADDRESS
IL GOV PAT QUINN BUDGET ADDRESS By Ray Long and Monique Garcia Tribune reporters 1:56 p.m. CDT, March 26, 2014 Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn today proposed making permanent the temporary income tax increase he signed into law three years ago, fully framing the debate over his fall re-election bid against Republican Bruce Rauner who wants the tax hike rolled back. Delivering his budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins July 1, Quinn sought to offer some sweeteners for keeping the tax increase-including a doubling of the tax credit for lower-income workers and offering a flat $500 property tax rebate to benefit homeowners. "As a result of our hard work to restore fiscal stability -- from spending reductions to pension reform to contract savings -- Illinois is in a much stronger financial position than it was five years ago," said Quinn, who took over from impeached and imprisoned Rod Blagojevich in 2009. RELATED Quinn faces political peril in new budget plan Quinn faces political peril in new budget plan Document: Gov. Quinn's prepared remarks on fiscal year 2015 budget Document: Quinn's prepared remarks on budget Election 2014: See latest campaign coverage Election 2014: See latest campaign coverage Governor's race to be big on populism, attacks Rauner faces strategic move by Madigan Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn State budget address While the temporary tax boost he signed in 2011 was pitched as a way to pay the state's overdue bills, Quinn framed the permanent extension of the tax increase as an education issue in his speech to lawmakers gathered in the House chamber in Springfield. "The issue of expiring revenue this year is a real challenge that will require another hard choice," Quinn said. Without the higher income tax, he said, the state will face "extreme cuts...that will starve ou schools." Quinn said by keeping the income tax increase, "we can stabilize the budget for the long-term, in a way that provides targeted tax relief where it's needed most: to homeowners and working families raising kids." But in calling for keeping the tax increase permanent, Quinn played into pre-speech attacks by Rauner, a Winnetka venture capitalist, whose campaign had labeled the Democratic governor's tenure as a litany of broken promises. Rauner backs the scheduled January rollback of the personal income tax to 3.75 percent from the current 5 percent. Rauner, however, has not been specific about how he would make up for the estimated $4 billion in lost revenue with the rollback of the tax. Regardless of Quinn's speech, the reality of a political year in which the entire Illinois House and one-third of the state Senate are up for election makes it highly questionable whether ruling Democrats will take a vote on extending the tax hike before the Nov. 4 general election. Leaders who oversee hefty Democratic majorities in the General Assembly will draft their own version of a spending plan for the state for a budget year that extends into the first six months of the state's next governor. Still, House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, said he supported Quinn's call for making the income tax permanent and expected a vote on it well before the election. "Well that's why I commend the governor for his political courage and honesty, and unlike previous governors who ...didn't live up to the problems of financing this state, Governor Quinn has come in here today, and he's just, as he said, he told the truth," Madigan said during an interview with Illinois Public Television. "He laid the cards on the table. If we wish to continue to provide the level of services which we've become accustomed to for education and other purposes then the income tax increase should be extended." Asked when lawmakers might vote on the tax increase, Madigan said, "My expectation is that we'll resolve this before the end of the spring session, which is the end of May." State Sen. President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, issued a statement supporting making the tax hike permanent, without saying when a vote should happen. "Voting to maintain our current tax rate is a responsible action that keeps Illinois' income taxes among the lowest in the nation. It will allow us to honor our obligations, preserve education funding and secure our financial future for generations to come," Cullerton said. Quinn appeared to acknowledge the political issues surrounding his speech, though not mentioning Rauner by name. The Republican has called for a comprehensive restructuring of the state's tax system though, without specifics. Quinn, however, said he was rejecting "any new, unfair taxes," such as broadening the state's sales tax to include services, or taxing retirement income. Illinois is one of three states that do not tax retirement income. The Democrat chief executive sought to position his move to keep the income tax as akin to efforts by former Republican Gov. Jim Edgar, who had advocated a shift in funding local grade and high schools toward the income tax while reducing local property tax burdens. "For too long, Illinois has underfunded its schools and overburdened its property taxpayers,"Quinn said. The governor's plan also calls for spending $100 million next year on early childhood programs for children from birth to age 5, as well as adding $50 million to a monetary assistance program for college students in Illinois. Quinn was also expected to direct more money toward paying down state government's multibillion-dollar backlog of old bills, a longtime nagging problem cited by proponents as one of the main reasons to support the income tax hike. The tax increase was passed during the post-election lame-duck session of the General Assembly in January 2011 entirely on the strength of Democratic votes. The governor laid out his proposals as part of what he called a comprehensive five-year financial plan and warned that without action "to stabilize our revenue code, extreme and radical cuts will be imposed on education and critical public services -- cuts that will starve our schools and result in mass teacher layoffs, larger class sizes and higher property taxes." Quinn's warning was echoed even before he delivered his speech in the ornate House chamber by his political campaign. The Quinn camp said Rauner's push to have the income tax roll back on schedule "would decimate education funding." "The truth is, those who are telling you that Illinois can tax less and spend less and still expect to fund education are simply not telling you the truth," Quinn said in a pointed reference to Rauner, who has sought to appeal to voters as a long-time education advocate. "Today, I propose that we take the path that is honest and responsible, the path that protects everyday families and invests in their future," he said. Rauner, a wealthy first-time office-seeker who spent much of the recently concluded Republican primary campaign attacking Quinn rather than his GOP rivals, called the Democratic governor's push to make the income tax increase permanent Quinn's "ultimate broken promise." "After five years of Pat Quinn's failed leadership, we have record tax hikes, outrageously high unemployment, massive cuts in education, and there's still a giant budget mess in Springfield," Rauner said in a statement today. "It's now or never to save Illinois. We can balance the budget without more tax increases, if we create a growth economy, and restructure and reform our broken government." Republican Rep. Patti Bellock of Hinsdale, among the leaders of the opposition to the temporary tax hike, said Quinn's plan undercuts the "No. 1 issue" of restoring the state's economy and luring businesses. "And I think the people of Illinois were assured (by Democrats) when that was put in that it would be taken out," Bellock said. "And I think we need to be responsible to the people of Illinois to roll back that.. They were reassured that it was going to go away." Bellock said the lawmakers will have to work to hold spending to within the amount of money that would be generated with the lower income tax rate due to take effect Jan. 1. "I definitely think that there's more money in this budget" than what Quinn portrays, Bellock said. She called budget negotiations a "challenge" but that she expected House lawmakers working on social issue to act in a bipartisan manner. Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat who chairs an appropriations committee, called for a vote in the spring session to keep the income tax increase. "It's encouraging that Gov. Quinn is investing in education and services to protect the neediest," Steans said. "It's not easy to be talking about maintaining revenues in an election cycle. I think there is honor in being honest about what we need to do." As he exited the House chamber, Quinn was asked if he hoped to pass his plans this spring and replied "Of course." Asked how, Quinn said: "Hope for the best and work for it."
US Obama - Obama names Chicago schools chief as Ed Sec, comment on interest rate
NAME: US OBAMA 20081216I TAPE: EF08/1259 IN_TIME: 10:33:19:22 DURATION: 00:02:11:23 SOURCES: POOL DATELINE: Chicago, 16 Dec 2008 RESTRICTIONS: SHOTLIST 1. Mid shot Arne Duncan, Barack Obama and Joe Biden walking to podium 2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President-elect: "But we know that in the long run, the path to jobs and growth begins right here, in America's schools, in America's classrooms. So today, we're pleased to announce the leader of our education team, whose work will be critical to these efforts: our nominee for Secretary of Education, and my friend, Arne Duncan. 3. Reporter asking question 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President-elect: "I don't think it's good policy for the President or the President-elect to second guess the Fed, which is an independent body. But let me just make an observation that we are running out of the traditional ammunition that's used with a recession, which is to lower interest rates, they are getting to be about as low as they can go. And although the Fed is still going to have more tools available to it, it is critical that the other branches of government step up and that's why the economic plan is so absolutely critical. And my economic team, which I am going to be meeting with today, is helping to shape what is going to be a bold agenda to create 2.5 million new jobs." 5. Cutaway reporters 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President-elect: "We are going through the toughest time economically since the Great Depression and it is going to be tough and we are going to have to work through a lot of these difficulties, these structural difficulties that have built up over many decades." 7. Wide shot Obama speaking 8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President-elect: "I've said that I don't think the Governor can serve effectively in his office. I am going to let the State Legislature make a determination in terms of how they want to proceed." 9. UPSOUND: (English) Barack Obama, US President-elect: (SIDE SHOT) "I did not select Arne because he is one of the best basketball players I know. Although I will say that I think we are putting together the best basketball-playing Cabinet in American history and I think that is worth noting." STORYLINE: US President-elect Barack Obama announced his pick of the head of the Chicago school system, Arne Duncan, as his education secretary Tuesday and said failing to improve classroom instruction was morally unacceptable. Duncan, a longtime friend of Obama and a former professional basketball player in Australia, said that education is the civil rights issue of this generation. Obama announced the appointment at a school that he said has made remarkable progress under Duncan's leadership. He combined his announcement with a brief news conference. On the state of the economy, the president-elect said the Federal Reserve was "running out of ammunition" in terms of lowering interest rates to combat the recession. He said it was "absolutely critical" that his economic recovery program be put into place to deal with what he called the toughest time economically since the Great Depression. The Fed was expected to announce the latest in a series of rate cuts later in the day. Obama also refused to say whether he supports the idea of a special election to fill the Senate seat he recently vacated. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has the power to make the appointment, but he was arrested last week and charged with, in effect, trying to enrich himself by appointing a new senator who could help him financially or politically. Some Democrats have called for a special election, while others prefer to wait for Blagojevich to resign, a step that would allow Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn to appoint a new senator. The second alternative would ensure the seat remains in Democratic hands, and on a faster timetable than a special election would allow. The appointment of Duncan as Education Secretary left a handful of Cabinet appointments yet to be made public, and in response to a question, Obama hinted broadly a Republican would be among them. The posts yet to be filled include secretaries for the departments of Labor, Transportation, Agriculture and Interior, where officials have said Democratic Senator. Ken Salazar of Colorado has been tapped. Nor has Obama named leaders for the intelligence agencies, or a trade representative. So far, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, is the only Republican member of the incoming Cabinet.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11:00 TO 12:00 VOTE @11:45
THE HOUSE WILL DEAL WITH THE RESOLUTION OF REFERAL REGARDING THE STARR REPORT . **** 11:45 HOUSE VOTE ON AMENDMENT TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS FROM THE STARR REPORT ON THE INTERNET. VOTE WAS 360 TO 60 {time} 1100 Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. No, the President is not above the law, the institution of the presidency is not above the law, but neither is either below the law. There is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty for all of us. This House, during this somber process, must not be driven by politics. The delivery of 445 pages by the drama of trucks coming onto these grounds, without the opportunity of the respondent, which could be any American in this Nation, to review such materials to provide a simultaneous response, is a political act, it is not justice. For any of our Members to suggest that the President already knows what a prosecutor, Ken Starr, has done for 4 years with $40 million in a document that includes 140 pages of charges, is at best being political. The Constitution was not written on the Internet, and this process should not be governed by the needs of those who travel the cyberspace, it should be governed by fundamental fairness. In fact, in this House the Speaker himself, who presides today, was given at least 10 days to look at the allegations and charges against him. I ask the Speaker, can we be any less fair? Do we not remember what happened to the innocent Richard Jewell in the Atlanta bombings? This is what could happen if we do not allow the President to review as any American the charges brought against him and, as well, to keep the many many other documents unexposed until the evidentiary hearings are completed. This process, Mr. Speaker, is one that will not preserve what the American people have created; that is, a perfect union with justice. This process could expose and hurt innocent people. This process will not preserve this Nation, this Constitution, or the people. We need fairness, Mr. Speaker. Let us begin today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here we are. Alexander Hamilton probably knew that someday we would be here at this point. He said in the Federalist Papers that, the biggest fear in undergoing an impeachment proceeding would be that the ``comparative differences of the party would override the real ideals of innocence and guilt.'' It is important to acknowledge the sobering and somber tasks we are about to undertake. Alexander Bickel wrote in 1973, ``In the presidency is embodied the continuity and indestructibility of the State. It is not possible for the government to function without a president, and the Constitution contemplates and provides for uninterrupted continuity in office.'' Fundamental fairness then is pivotal in any constitutional process seeking to remove the president. During this time many issues will have to be resolved. One of them is whether or not the President should be allowed to formulate a response over the next 48 hours before the Starr report is released to the public. The answer of course should be yes. Unfortunately, the rules Committee decided not to allow the President to review the report before it was released to the American public. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there was no Internet, no Information Superhighway. Even though Mr. Speaker the Congress is a political body, this process should not and can not be politicized. The independent counsel's report while I am sure is presented with a high respect for the seriousness of this issue, it is still only one side of the story. The American public should have both sides of the story at once. Otherwise, the media will only have Starr's version to discuss for the next several days. The Watergate impeachment inquiry followed the same precedent. The Judiciary Committee received evidence in closed-door hearings for seven weeks with the President's lawyer in the same room. This evidence included the material reported by the Watergate grand jury. The materials received by the Committee were not released to the public until the conclusion of the seven-week evidentiary presentation. By then, the White House had full knowledge of the material being considered by the Committee. Also in Watergate, subpoenas were issued jointly by the chairman and ranking member, and if either declined to act, by the other acting alone, he could refer the matter to the full committee for a vote. Most importantly, it was required that the President's lawyer be provided with copies of all materials presented to the committee, invited to attend presentations of evidence, and to submit additional suggestions for witnesses to be interviewed or materials to be reviewed, and to respond to evidentiary presentations. The rules further provided that the President and his counsel ``shall be invited to attend all hearings, including any held in executive session.'' Twenty-four hours advance notice was required, and both the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member were granted access ``at all times'' to committee materials. I don't think the House should have denied President Clinton the same right our members receive when charges are filed against them by the House Ethics Committee. For example, Speaker Gingrich was permitted to review the charges filed by the Committee before it issued its public report. The President should be afforded the same right. Also, the Ethics rules require that the subject of any investigation to alleged violations will have ``not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote'' to review the alleged violations. A copy of ``the statement of alleged violations, together with all evidence, is also provided to the subject of any House Ethics violations.'' The President should not receive any less due process than any Member of Congress. We want to do this in a fair and nonpartisan manner. It is true that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. However, he should not be below the law. This is not just President Clinton, but this is the institution of the Presidency. We must treat this process fairly and justly. Integrity must remain in the process. This is not a witch hunt, and an election by the American people should not be nullified without objective deliberation. It is unfortunate that the President will not be given a chance to review this report before the Press will on the Internet. Let's put fairness back in the process. The American people understand the creation of this perfect union, they understand justice--and we must show that we will not let politics override justice and the blessings of liberty. The institution of the Presidency, Preservation of the rule of law, the survival of this nation depends on this. Alexander Hamilton in 1775 said the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. This process needs to be fair, it is a somber task. I fear political glee over one man's pending doom drives this House now to vote to deny the basic constitutional protections to the accused in a timely manner, in order that an informed response to the charges be made. I fear pre-judgment of the issues because this House fears for its survival. I however will not give up on fundamental fairness. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, time is so precious, I would just hope that the timekeeper would charge us for the time we are on our feet. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on Rules. Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, the founders of this extraordinary constitutional republic created a system of government that is as resilient as it is intent upon being protective of the freedoms of the American people. I think we in this moment in history are seeing another manifestation of that resiliency and of that fundamental greatness of the system that was created by our Founding Fathers. I have to respectfully but emphatically reject the accusation that we have heard this morning of unfairness that has been hurled at the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules has bent over backwards in satisfaction of the guidance that the Speaker and the minority leader and the distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking member gave us to be precisely fair. How ironic it is that it was from the other side of the aisle that the most emphatic and passionate requests were made to us last night to instantaneously make Public everything in those many boxes that have been received and are under lock and key at this moment, and thus could not have been leaked and have not been leaked by this House. The other side of the aisle most emphatically asked that everything be made public today. There were other requests from both sides of the aisle that nothing be made public. We have bent over backwards to be fair, and we have created a system, a rule that is fair, that protects the right of the American people to learn the facts, and the right of due and deliberative process for the President and all other citizens who may be affected by these proceedings that in effect we are authorizing today by this rule and by the rule next week that we will be bringing to the floor. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want the allegations in the report by Mr. Starr to be made public, but the way that that would be done in this resolution is wrong. The burden of that wrong will haunt this process throughout. This process is controlled by the leadership of this House. It is important that the outcome, which could be a grave and heavy outcome, be seen as completely and entirely fair and objective by the people of this country. This process is being begun in a way that belies all of that. It is wrong. It is unfair. There is a pretense to fairness, merely the suits and trappings of fairness and objectivity, but not the real meat of fairness and objectivity. I am convinced that we are embarking on this process in the wrong way. This resolution is wrong, and therefore, I must vote in accordance with that conviction. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Charles Dickens who, in his novel, A Tale of Two Cities, said, ``It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.'' That is a fairly accurate assessment of where we are right now here in this Chamber. Yes, I took the oath of office to defend our Constitution, and I will defend the rule of law and not the rule of man, which leads to tyranny. Later today we will be voting on the referral and release of the Starr report. As we proceed, I think all of us who are here will keep in mind how important it is to remain objective, and above all, fair. The decisions we will make will have a far-reaching and long-lasting impact on our country and on every American, young and old. Yes, let us release the report, but let us give our President the 2 days that he may be able to respond as requested. Let us be fair. There is nobody in this Chamber whom I believe can tell me that our President is not 100 percent committed to doing the best job he can for our Nation. His record on the job as President has proven that. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, many have compared President Clinton's problems with Watergate. There are similarities as well as distinctions. A probable similarity is this: If President Nixon and President Clinton had offered sincere apologies in timely fashions, their respective problems would likely have been resolved. If, when initially confronted, they had responded truthfully in a manner worthy of their high office, the severity of their problems likely would have diminished: ``American people, I made a mistake. I disappointed you. I let you down. I ask your forgiveness.'' If such requests had been timely extended, forgiveness would likely have been forthcoming, because Americans by nature are a forgiving people. I am applying hindsight, Mr. Speaker, which is nearly always 20/20. But the time for forgiveness may have passed, and now this demanding task of resolving the matter is upon this, the people's House. The success of our Constitution is measured with the courage of those in whom it vests powers to carry them out in a just and appropriate manner. This resolution will assure that the Committee on the Judiciary is able to ascertain what we need to do to accomplish that task. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, there are few instances in this Chamber where bipartisanship is required. There are almost no instances where fairness is required. Bipartisanship is not even required when we are declaring war. As we saw in the way the Gulf War was handled, there were divisions among us, and yet we came together. But Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship and fairness are necessary in a procedure that could overturn a democratic election. We are failing the joint test of bipartisanship and fairness this morning on the easiest of the issues of this proceeding, access to an accusatory document by the accused. Mr. Speaker, I have spent my life in the law arguing matters of due process, down to including first amendment matters, where I was defending the rights of racists to vindicate the right of free speech. I can say to the Members that I believe history will ask, what would have been lost if the President had been given a day or two to inspect documents that accused him? Ten days for Members accused, no day for the President of the United States when he is accused. We could have regulated how the document would be inspected. We could have sequestered those who would inspect it. There are any number of conditions, but the notion of no inspection does violate fundamental fairness. Impeachment is a matter of a process that we make up as we go along. Particularly because this Chamber is not controlled by the President's party, they should be at pains to bend over backwards on each and every element of fairness. They have failed to do so in this proceeding. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding Member from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules. Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible thing for the Nation to have to go through, and not one of us should feel anything but sadness and pain. But Congress has a solemn responsibility to undertake this review of the report of the independent counsel. As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stated earlier today, we took an oath on our first day in this Chamber, an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. It is that Constitution that places this responsibility upon us. This is a sad day. When I came to Congress I would have never believed we would have to consider such a resolution during my service here. It is a solemn responsibility. But we may not cede our oversight responsibility to watch over the government. Every Member of the House, in doing so, would be abdicating one of the most important obligations charged us by our Founding Fathers. Ronald Reagan stated on the 250th anniversary of the birth of President George Washington that without President Washington stepping forward, our Nation might have failed. He said that George Washington, and I quote, ``was a man of deep faith who believed the pillars of society were religion, morality, and bonds of brotherhood between citizens. He personified a people who knew it was not enough to depend on their own courage and goodness. They must also seek help from God, their father and preserver.'' As we begin this process, we must put our trust in the courage and judgment of this sober body. We must put our faith in God to lead us during this very difficult time. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I asked myself three questions: Is the public's right to know paramount to the right of the accused to a fair hearing? My answer to that is no. That has always been the answer of our country. Is there any precedent for what we are doing? My answer to that is no. We gave the defendant McVeigh and the defendant who shot police officers in this Chamber more due process than we are extending to the President of the United States. We fight to keep from having pretrial publicity and information out there, to assure fair trials, and we give it up today when we release this report. Now, having dug ourselves this hole, can we provide a fair determination and fulfill our constitutional responsibility, with the public and the press second-guessing every single step and every single evaluation? It is like having the press and the public standing and saying to every single juror, ``We have already made up our mind. Now you go provide a fair trial and a fair process.'' {time} 1115 On all three counts we have failed the system. This is a sad day from two perspectives. It is a sad day that we are here in the first place, but it is an even sadder day for what we are doing to the Constitution and to our obligations under that Constitution. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner). Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I came here to this House at the same time as the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I heard the questions raised so far on this proceeding and I watched the Rules Committee last night. Just to show how dull things were on television, I watched the Committee on Rules on television last night. Mr. Speaker, to me, I get the feeling that this is, ``Give him a fair trial and then hang him.'' Now, what is the difference in the courtesy that we extended Richard Nixon and our distinguished Speaker, and that extended to the President of the United States? After all, he supposedly speaks for all of us. Fifty percent of the people did not vote for Republicans or Democrats. They were split up. Fifty percent of the people said, we do not want to vote for anybody. This is, in my view, an unfair rule. I hope that I would never have to come to this body for defense of my civil rights and to get fairness from the Committee on the Judiciary if this rule goes into effect. And there are already members of this committee that have made up their minds that Clinton has to go. Mr. Speaker, to me, this is a facade. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is a travesty. And right now I am going to vote against the rule, and I would just tell all Members of this House, if they vote against this rule, the press releases are already out that they are going to defend the President and stand with him and the message will go to their districts that they do not want the truth to be seen. This is political, and I regret it; and it is one of the reasons that I am going to be so glad to be out of here. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be out of here too, but I am not going to be glad about it. It is a great institution, and I am certainly going to miss it. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but listen to the last two speakers from North Carolina, and others. I wish they had stayed on the floor earlier on when the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, was here imploring the Members to have proper decorum and to cooperate in a bipartisan and nonpartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, let me refer to the law. Section 595(c). Mr. CONYERS. Regular order. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman on his own time? The SPEAKER. The time is counted around the gentleman from New York. Mr. HEFNER. Will the gentleman yield? He mentioned my name. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I did not mention the gentleman's name. Mr. HEFNER. I am from North Carolina. Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOLOMON. No, I will not yield. Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege. The SPEAKER. A point of Personal privilege is not in order at this time. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) controls the floor. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it again. Some complain about the President not being given prior notice; I think the arguments are unfounded. The Democrats controlled this place in 1978 when this initial law was put into place. Nothing in the law, and it is only one paragraph here, speaks to giving anyone notice when a report is given to this Congress. This law has been reauthorized three times, the latest in 1994 when this House was again controlled by Democrats. Nothing was in it. Let me read it to my colleagues. ``Schedule C: Information relating to impeachment. An independent counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible information which such independent counsel receives.'' It goes on to say that they may constitute grounds for an impeachment. Mr. Speaker, that is the law. We should have written it in the last five times. We did not for reasons. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The American people paid for this report. They have a right to see it immediately without any spin. With regard to this rule on the Starr report, we need to make the report public immediately for these reasons: 1. Immediate release on the internet will prevent the selective leak of information both favorable and unfavorable to the President. 2. The American people, as taxpayers, have a right to see the report, complete and unedited by the media or other sources. This method provides access to the report to everyone at the same time. They paid for this report. Let us give it to them. 3. Internet release is the least partisan method of releasing the information. No one has any advantage in spinning the information for their own purposes. 4. The report is now property of the House of Representatives, as the Constitutionally authorized body to determine whether impeachment is warranted. If anyone should be able to review the material, it should be the House, and then the President, not the reverse. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is the first stage of what will be an incredibly difficult and delicate challenge to this body. I am saddened by the tone of antagonism and mistrust that is already starting to creep into the proceedings. Perhaps the flaws in this resolution do not equal a violation of fundamental fairness. Due process, of course, is different from the fairness inherent in due courtesy and due comity. But let me ask my colleagues, would there have been any real cost to a better protection of the rights of innocent persons to their privacy? I think not. Would there have been any real cost to a fuller courtesy to the President of the United States, regardless of statutory or precedential provisions? I think not. Would there have been any real cost to greater comity to the requests of the minority in order to assure a fuller sense of nonpartisanship in this matter? I think not. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the committee. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time in our country's history, and we must proceed with the utmost care in fulfilling our constitutional responsibility, wherever it might take us. It is altogether fitting that the independent counsel's report be made available to the American people, Members of Congress, and the President simultaneously. From the outset, this process must be open and fair to all, with advantage to none. As we go forward, we do so not as partisans, but as fact-finders and truth-seekers. And we go forward together, the American people and their representatives in Congress, united in our love of country and in our desire to seek a wise and just result. There is a passage in the scriptures where King Solomon says, ``Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart * * *'' That is what is needed during this time of our national tribulation. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr). Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there is a sign that hung over my wall when I served as U.S. Attorney, and I brought it with me to Washington and it now hangs in my office here. It is a quote by Theodore Roosevelt, a former President. ``No man is above the law, no man is below the law, nor do we seek any man's permission when we seek to make him uphold the law.'' That is very applicable here today as we discuss the law. I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who now wail so loudly in favor of special dispensation for the President, what law it is that we are operating under here and what law we are not operating under here. Mr. Speaker, we are operating here under the independent counsel statute, which provides very specifically for the treatment of different reports by an independent counsel. We are not proceeding here under the ethics rules. We are not proceeding here under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The independent counsel statute, which was referred to just recently by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and which the minority, when they were in the majority, had every opportunity just 5 years ago to amend and they did not, provides very simply, very unequivocally, very clearly that the independent counsel report that we are talking about here, which is not a report to the court, is not a periodic report to the Congress; it is a report directly and solely to the Congress and not to any other party for purposes of the Congress to consider what the independent counsel believes is impeachable evidence, evidence of impeachable offenses. If, in fact, the minority, which was then in the majority just a few years ago, was so concerned about the principle involved here, aside from the personalities that now prevail, if they were so concerned about providing special dispensation for the President to have advance access to that report from the independent counsel, so he could go to the American people and spin it and distort it, then they could have written it into the statute. Mr. Speaker, it is too late now to do that. The statute speaks for itself, just as the evidence will speak for itself. I support this resolution. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) a member of the Committee on Rules. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of remarks today, some good and some maybe not so good. I would like to come at it from a different perspective. When I was first elected to this body, I never contemplated the possibility that I would have to address the potential of impeachment, and I think that many of us feel exactly the same way. But here we are, and we all swore to uphold the Constitution. This is what I would like to address my remarks to. Some have characterized what we may go through as a constitutional crisis. I would emphasize that this is not a constitutional crisis. The issue that brings us here today, the method of disseminating the information in the independent counsel's report, however, may result in a crisis. It may result in a crisis of governance. It may result in a crisis in the confidence of the people that elected us, but it is not a constitutional crisis. Our Constitution clearly lays out a process in which we should discharge our duty. This is the start of that process. Mr. Speaker, last week before I returned to Washington, D.C., I had dinner in my district with a group of Russian professionals. At that time, Russia was in the middle of a crisis where there was no prime minister and there was a very real threat that the government might be dissolved. There clearly was apprehension in this delegation. My colleagues should recall that until yesterday, this issue was unresolved. Now, that is what I would characterize as a constitutional crisis. Mr. Speaker, as we go through this process, let us keep in mind that this issue is very serious, but it is not a crisis of that fact. I would just say that this really demonstrates to me that the Founding Fathers, what they wrote in our Constitution does indeed work. The burden now is on us. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), another member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, this resolution begins a journey in which the path will be treacherous and the conclusion is uncertain. The journey should be guided by the Constitution, the law, and our conscience. This resolution is a step in the right direction on that journey. It follows the precedence of the House and it is fair. Would it be more fair to withhold the release of the report to Members of this body and to the public, in other words to allow the President a head start in reviewing the report? I think not. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is fair and the chairman of the committee has done an outstanding job in working with the minority ranking member in order to assure a fair process. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have supreme confidence that the committee will provide the President an ample opportunity and a fair opportunity to respond. This process should not be a stampede to impeachment, but it should be a search for truth and justice with an allegiance to the Constitution. That is my commitment. That should be our commitment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, first, they mentioned ``the two gentlemen from North Carolina,'' and I am one of them. I do not know if I am a gentleman, but as far as the decorum of the House, I certainly, if I offended anybody, I apologize. I am so sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings, delicate feelings in the House. But, Mr. Speaker, there is one question that has not been answered. By this weekend on all the talk shows, all the things that are in the report are going to be on ``Meet the Press'' and ``Face the Nation.'' Somebody is leaking this. I am not making accusations, but somebody is leaking this and I would like to have an explanation and an answer as to where these leaks are coming from, because it does not behoove us to just say, well, we have them under lock and key here. {time} 1130 Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the intention of this Member was to come here this morning, point out my reservations about this rule, this proceeding, and vote for it. But I have been exposed to the debate now, and I will not be able to justify my support. I am announcing to those Members on my side that I have told I was going to support the report, I am not going to vote in the affirmative. And I regret it very much because it was important to me that we continue the comity that we have worked so hard on. Here is why. The independent counsel whom I have lectured to almost daily from this well and for whom I have had certain reservations about his overzealousness has done the Congress one important service. In his only communication that I know of to the Speaker and to the minority leader, he said in two sentences something that I think we are not following, and I commend it to your attention. It is this: ``This referral,'' not report, ``This Referral contains confidential material and material protected from disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.'' That is Starr talking to the Congress. Then he went on to say, ``Many of the supporting materials contain information of a personal nature that I respectfully urge the House to treat as confidential.'' It was with that understanding that, in the Office of the Speaker and with the leaders of this body we entered into an agreement that I regretfully have to tell you has been broken. It has been broken. My heart has been broken before. Agreements have been broken before. But in this instance, we are violating the directions of the independent counsel who now, in his fifth year, and I love these reports about how the American people are waiting for this. The majority of the American people would accept a resolution saying we shall never mention this matter again for the rest of all of our honorable and distinguished careers. That is what the majority of the American people want. Twenty-five thousand people would like to see it if it is there. But since we are worried about the contents: ``Impeachment Report Contends Clinton Lied, Obstructed Justice; Alleged Deceit Is Outlined.'' ``Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report to the House contends there are 11 possible grounds for impeachment of President Clinton, including allegations that he lied under oath, tampered with witnesses, obstructed justice, and abused power to hide his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, according to sources informed about some of its contents.'' That is in the paper. Yet my colleagues are now urging me to tell our Members to release everything, thousands and thousands of pages. Explain to me one procedural method. How can 35 Members with at least one staffer each go through thousands and thousands of pages of documents? I ask in the comity that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I have pledged to work with, the friendship that the Speaker and I have enjoyed over these last 48 hours, that we please move away from this course of action. I urge that this resolution be defeated. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, after that eloquent address, it is only appropriate that the closing for our side would be the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, not only because he is the Chairman, but because he has also, in 24 years, been the Member that has been held in, I would say, the highest esteem by all of us. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to close for our side. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would not call for a vote on that last statement the gentleman from New York made, but I do thank him for his generous remarks. Mr. Speaker, fundamental fairness is a phrase that has been bandied around here. I did not hear that much when one of the marvelous, articulate spokesmen for the administration declared war on Kenneth Starr; and that war is still going on, volley after volley on MSNBC, CNBC, on and on and on, not to mention other spokesmen for the administration, talented issuers of insults and vitriol. There was not much due process or fairness there. We have congratulated ourselves on saying no man is above the law, but this is not a criminal proceeding. There is no legal requirement for an answer to a complaint from the White House. We on the Committee on the Judiciary are smart enough and of such goodwill that we are going to wait and we are going to hear what the President has to say. We are going to give it every possible consideration. The only requirement for an early copy to the White House is a public relations one. We have had the public relations feel for as long as the independent counsel has been appointed. By the way, the spin is working well here in this room. My colleagues refer to him as the special prosecutor, not the independent counsel. He is not a prosecutor on the law my colleagues passed, which did not provide for advanced copies to objects of investigation, as my colleagues wrote it. So we have a public relations requirement that I hope my colleagues do not think we are fundamentally unfair in not wanting to give special treatment to the White House. Equality, not special treatment. I do not have to tell my colleagues that these theaters of operations have shifted from the White House to the Grand Jury to this chamber. We are governed by what we all vote for. I can assure my colleagues the only bipartisan thing in this whole resolution, after listening to this debate, is the bipartisan demand for immediate release of this report. I can tell my colleagues the vigor and rigor with which those demands have come from the other side is in no way less than the vigor and the rigor of the demands on our side. We put this to a vote, we know what is going to happen, and we are the servants of this body. So there is no way we could change that. Due process, fundamental fairness will be observed. I can assure my colleagues this whole proceeding will fail, it will fall on its face if it is not perceived by the American people to be fair. I keenly regret what I have heard this morning, a debate that has been really partisan. Bipartisanship cuts two ways, folks. It does not mean surrender. It means thoughtful, sincere, honorable consideration of differing views and trying to reach an accommodation. I pledge myself, even though the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has changed his mind, I pledge myself to work with him as closely as humanly possible so we do have that bipartisan result from our efforts. I hope my colleagues will vote for this resolution. Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this resolution because I have grave reservations about the process under this House resolution that provides no check for the relevance or veracity of the information contained in the Starr report, and which denies the President the fairness that the House has afforded its own Members. This report is a prosecutor's version of a case, no more and no less. It evolves from a grand jury investigation that affords witnesses no opportunity for representation by counsel and no rebuttal for witnesses. If the accused were a House Member, He would have been afforded time to review the report and prepare a response. Our own Speaker Gingrich was given five days to read and respond to the Ethics report detailing his wrong doing; the Speaker's response was included in the document made available to the public by the Ethics Committee. Speaker Gingrich forgets that fairness he was afforded as he casts the first stone today at the President. As we vote today, we do not know where the truth will take us. But we must not plunge into McCarthy era demagoguery in which salacious slander replaces responsible governing. Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, this House has under consideration the issue of how best to deal with the report submitted by Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. Mr. Starr has spent almost four years investigating the president and more recently, the allegations surrounding President Clinton and his admitted extramarital relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I have been extremely disappointed with the President's behavior. I do not believe it is appropriate conduct for the President of the United States. However, the issues contained in the Starr Report also deal with issues of alleged legal impropriety. Those are the issues which should be our focus as we consider our duty under the Constitution. I will vote today to release portions of the Starr Report to the public. I regret that the Republican majority of this House is opposed to giving the President an opportunity to read the allegations contained in the report before we make them public, because I believe that is unfair. We gave House Speaker Newt Gingrich that opportunity when allegations against him were being considered by the Congress. However, I believe it is important the public have access to certain information in the Starr Report. I remain reluctant to make every detail--secret grand jury information, classified national security documents, or unconfirmed information which may unnecessarily involve innocent individuals--available for everyone in the world to read. On this matter, the House Judiciary Committee will be responsible for further action and recommendations to Congress. Before I make any further judgment, I want to read the Starr Report. Then, I want to hear the President's response to the allegations made in the report. At that time, I will consider the evidence presented to me as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and take any action I believe appropriate. Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, since Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has delivered a report to Congress with evidence of possible impeachable offenses, the House of Representatives is required by the United States Constitution to review this information. Along with the power to declare war, the power to draft articles of impeachment is among the most solemn and serious powers given to the House by the Constitution. The vote today to release the report is not an indictment against the president. The House has not voted to impeach the president, nor to proceed with an inquiry of impeachment. We have voted to make this report available to members of Congress, the President, and the American public. We have also voted to give the Judiciary Committee the authority to review all of the supporting documents to determine if there is evidence that the President has committed impeachable offenses. Our decision today on how to handle the report is fair. The law requires Judge Starr to submit information to Congress if he has found credible evidence of impeachable offenses. The President, like the Congress, did not get an advance copy. Like any other American, he will not receive special treatment, he will receive fair treatment. The public has a right to review the report, and innocent parties have a right to have their privacy preserved. The Judiciary Committee will be the only body with access to the supporting documentation. However, by making the report public, the American people will be able to decide for themselves what the report says rather than having the information filtered through media or government sources. For the stability of the country and the preservation of our democracy, we must proceed with a spirit of bipartisanship that rises above politics and ideological differences. If the Judiciary Committee determines that there are impeachable offenses, and forwards its findings to the entire House, Members of the House will effectively serve as jurors. We must look at the facts in an objective and fair manner. We must leave our own personal and political predispositions at the door. Our decisions must be made on the evidence and the law. Like every other member of the House, I plan to review the report in its entirety over the weekend. I urge every American to read the report and make their own judgements in a sober, serious manner. To make the report more easily accessible to people in Wyoming, I want them to know that an electronic copy of the report will be posted on the Internet on the following official government sites: Library of Congress--THOMAS--http://thomas.loc.gov/icreport. Government Printing Office--http://access.gpo.gov/congress/icreport. House Committee on Judiciary--http://www.house.gov/judiciary. House of Representatives--http://www.house.gov/icreport. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker. I know that all of my colleagues recognize the gravity of the situation before us. We must bring to this matter every ounce of wisdom and thoughtfulness and nonpartisanship possible. The statute authorizing the independent counsel requires that the House be notified of any substantial and credible information that may be grounds for impeachment. The independent counsel has fulfilled his statutory obligation. The House must now fulfill its constitutional responsibility to thoroughly review this material. It is not the independent counsel who decides what is impeachable. That responsibility rests solely with the House. Included in this resolution is a requirement that three sections of the report be made public as soon as is physically possible. This is appropriate. The Democrats on behalf of the President's criminal defense lawyer seek to have access to the report prior to its dissemination to the public. Obedience to criminal law and fundamental fairness does not recognize special treatment as requested by the minority. The law authorizing the independent counsel does not authorize an advance copy to the subject of the investigation. I support the resolution and urge its adoption. Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the public disclosure of the Starr report, to end questions regarding the report's content. The gravity of this historical moment cannot be underestimated. Few responsibilities will ever rise to this responsibility Congress now confronts. Throughout this difficult process, the public will always retain the right to be fully informed. The Congress, as well as the President, has such a duty to so inform. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. We all agree that we have a serious responsibility to fulfill our Constitutional duty as members of Congress in the matter before us. But, it is of utmost importance that we proceed in a spirit of fairness. Sadly, it now appears at the very outset that the majority has rejected any semblance of fairness in favor of blatant partisanship. To refuse to give the President of the United States the basic courtesy of reviewing the charges made by the most far-reaching Independent Counsel in history is shameful. Is this the America we want for ourselves and our children, where individual rights are trampled on to such a degree that accusations against a person are posted on the internet before they are presented to the accused? I am afraid that this is only the beginning of more abuses to come. How can members of this body who have loudly insisted that the President resign possibly give him a fair hearing? I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Let us reject this cheap, partisan approach and instead chart a fair, objective and honorable course as we undertake this serious responsibility. Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues, who more eloquently than I, argue for fairness and decorum in the process we are about to embark on. This investigation, Mr. Speaker, and therefore this report is a document born out of political machinations. It is the result of a more than 6 year relentless attack on the President of the United States, which many of us believe began because his policies and political philosophy favor people of color and the less fortunate in our country, as well as because of his economic policies and high favorability with the American people. I personally do not feel that the full report should be made public. No public good would be served, only opposing political interests. Additionally, it would further demean the office of the President as well as the Congress and further demoralize a public that has said over and over again: ``Enough is enough, lets get on with the important issues facing this country.'' Mr. Speaker, it is only fair to grant the request of the President and his attorney's for some time to review the report before it is made public. Even if the Republican leadership does not think that Bill Clinton deserves two days to review the report, then I offer to you that the President of the United States--whomever he might be--is due at least that amount of respect and consideration. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a sad day for America. It is a sad day, not because of what the President has done, or the ensuing media feeding frenzy, but because of the willingness of some members of the Republican Party and its cohorts of the conservative, so called ``Christian'' Right, to sacrifice the presidency and the integrity of the Congress on the altar of political expediency. Let us be decent people and the upstanding representatives the American people elected us to be. We must respect the Presidency and give the President the time he has requested. We must also do as Judge Starr has asked us and protect the confidentiality of the sensitive material the report includes. Let us be fair--vote against this unfair rule! Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, two days ago, after months of speculation, leaks and revelations, the report of the Independent Counsel was delivered to the House of Representatives. If this resolution is approved this morning, the report will be in the hands of millions of people around the globe by three o'clock this afternoon. I certainly agree that the report should be released. That is not even an issue. It will be released. The only question is when and how it should be done. For in exercising the responsibilities that the Constitution has thrust upon us, we must be sure that we proceed in a manner that observes the principles of fundamental fairness that are at the heart of that document. Only then will the American people accept the results, whatever they may be. Only then will we begin to restore the shaken confidence of the Nation in its political institutions. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I consider the resolution before us today to be our first test. For in deciding the terms under which the highly sensitive material contained in the report should be released to the public, we must weigh carefully the benefits of immediate disclosure against the damage this might do to the fairness of the investigation. If the resolution is agreed to, the entire 445 pages of the report will be posted on the Internet this very afternoon. Not a page of it will have been examined beforehand by any member of the Committee. Not one page will have been seen first by the President and his attorneys. Some have argued that we should release the report because the essence of it has already been leaked to the press and appears in this morning's editions. If that is true, it is to be deplored, and the Independent Counsel should have to answer for it. But we should not endorse the unauthorized disclosure of pieces of the report by prematurely releasing the rest of it. Some have argued that the President already knows what is in the report because he is the subject of it. This argument suggests, at best, a poor understanding of what goes into a prosecutor's report. Some have argued that we should go ahead and release the report because there are still some 2,000 pages of supporting material that will not be released without Committee review, and this will be sufficient to prevent irreparable harm to lives and reputations. They cite Mr. Starr's request that we treat certain information in the supporting material as confidential, apparently inferring that the information in the report itself does not require such treatment. Yet Mr. Starr did not say this. And even if he had, it is for this House to determine what information should be disclosed. We should not abdicate that responsibility to the Independent Counsel. Apart from whatever damage the abrupt disclosure of the report might cause to innocent third parties, it will clearly be prejudicial to the President's defense. If the Independent Counsel has done his job, the case he has constructed will be a persuasive one. Prosecutors have enormous power to shape the evidence presented to the grand jury. And--at least at the federal level--they have no obligation to apprise the jurors of exculpatory evidence. The case will seem airtight. Yet until the evidence has withstood cross-examination and the allegations have been proven, they remain nothing more than allegations. Presidents, no less than ordinary citizens, are entitled to the presumption of innocence. They are entitled to confront the charges against them. Yet, if we adopt this resolution, by the time President Clinton is accorded that right, the charges against him will have circled the globe many times. They will be all the public reads and hears. They will take on a life of their own, and the case will be tried, not by Congress, but in the court of public opinion. Given these risks, why rush to judgment, Mr. Speaker? After so many months, what possible harm can come from allowing the counsel for the President a few days to review the report so that they can tell his side of the story? In the one historical precedent we have to look to, that is precisely what was done. Twenty-four years ago, a Republican president was under investigation by a Democratic House. President Nixon's lawyers were permitted to participate in seven weeks of closed sessions, as the Judiciary Committee conducted a confidential review of Judge Sirica's grand jury materials prior to their release. The counsel to the President was even allowed to cross-examine witnesses before their testimony was made public. Whatever the differences may be between the current controversy and the Watergate affair, President Clinton should receive the same due process protections accorded to President Nixon in the course of that investigation. If the people of the United States are to accept our verdict --whatever it may be--they must have confidence in the fairness and integrity of our deliberations. That--far more than the fate of one particular president--is what is at stake. Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. I commend the Chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Solomon. Today the House embarks upon the first step of a Constitutional process that our commitment to the rule of law. Besides declaring war, this is the most important duty that the House could undertake. As Chairman Henry Hyde has stated, we are about to embark on a judicial inquiry that will uphold our ``Viable and Venerable Constitution.'' constitutional process I must stress that this process is not and should not be about politics. Partisan sniping has no place in this process. The entire Nation, indeed, the world will be watching the House of Representatives and they will be seeing our Constitution on display. Indeed, it is that document--the Constitution--that must be our guide in this process, not politics. immediate disclosure The immediate public release of the 445-page written report is essential to this process. Delayed release or partial release or incomplete release will lead first to a trickle and then a torrent of leaks, rumors and outright false information. The American people deserve better than to learn the details of the charges against the President through a cynical cycle of spin and re-spin. Nothing could be more damaging to this process and--I might add--to the office of the Presidency. For these reasons, I am confident that the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee will release the supportive documents as soon as possible and no later than September 28, 1998, consistent with their legal obligations. president's right Now let me touch upon the President's rights in this process. I am committed to maintaining a level of fundamental fairness as the House--and possibly the Senate--move forward with this constitutional process. Does today's release of this 445 referral compromise the President's rights or place him at a legal disadvantage? The answer is a clear ``no.'' The President and his lawyers will have plenty of time to craft a full defense. (Indeed, if there is any person in this Nation who has the tools and the ability to defend himself--it is the President of the United States.) That is his right. That represents basic fairness. It is important to realize that the process that this resolution creates will provide the Independent Counsel's Report to this House, the President, and the public at essentially the same time. How can this not be fair? conclusion It is my sincere belief that this process will prove that our Constitution works. Today, that process begins and will only end in an impeachment if substantial and credible evidence exists for that impeachment. Today's action is NOT meant to prejudge the outcome. We must uphold the laws of our free society--our republic will be secure. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, in this Nation, and in this Congress, we are confronted with a serious constitutional crisis. In everyone's interest, Judge Starr's report should be released to the public without delay. For months we have listened to rumors and leaks. In order for the credibility of this Congress to remain intact, we must be armed with truth and the facts. The American people must share this confidence, and the only way to accomplish this, is for the information contained in Judge Starr's report to be made public. After all this time and the related costs, full disclosure is absolutely necessary. As a Member of Congress, I will fulfill my duty and obligation to review this matter in a tradition of bipartisan cooperation already reiterated by the Speaker and Mr. Gephardt. Congress will execute its duty under the Constitution, but more importantly, continue to work on a legislative agenda which assures Americans that our Nation's economy will remain strong by virtue of a Balanced Budget and tax cuts. We will also continue our work to increase educational opportunities for our children, preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, and reform health care in America. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 363, nays 63, not voting 9, as follows: [Roll No. 425] YEAS--363 Abercrombie Aderholt Allen Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baesler Baker Baldacci Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bereuter Berman Berry Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (TX) Brown (OH) Bryant Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Capps Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Christensen Clement Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Cook Cooksey Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (VA) Deal DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fawell Fazio Foley Forbes Fossella Fowler Fox Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gekas Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gingrich Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green Greenwood Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill Hilleary Hinojosa Hobson Hoekstra Holden Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook John Johnson (CT) Johnson (WI) Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kennelly Kildee Kim Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kleczka Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Largent Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Lowey Lucas Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manton Manzullo Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDade McGovern McHale McHugh McInnis McIntosh McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Menendez Metcalf Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Minge Mink Moakley Moran (KS) Morella Murtha Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Oxley Packard Pallone Pappas Parker Pascrell Pastor Paul Paxon Pease Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Redmond Regula Reyes Riggs Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Royce Ryun Salmon Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sanford Sawyer Saxton Schaefer, Dan Schaffer, Bob Schumer Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Shimkus Shuster Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (OR) Smith (TX) Smith, Adam Smith, Linda Snowbarger Snyder Solomon Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stearns Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Talent Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Tierney Traficant Turner Upton Vento Visclosky Walsh Wamp Watkins Watts (OK) Waxman Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Weygand White Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Wynn Young (FL) NAYS--63 Ackerman Becerra Brady (PA) Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Carson Clay Clayton Clyburn Conyers Cummings Davis (IL) Delahunt Deutsch Engel Fattah Filner Ford Frank (MA) Hastings (FL) Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kilpatrick Lee Lewis (GA) Lofgren Markey Martinez McDermott Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Miller (CA) Mollohan Moran (VA) Nadler Neal Owens Payne Pelosi Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Scott Serrano Skaggs Stark Stokes Thompson Torres Towns Velazquez Waters Watt (NC) Wexler Woolsey Yates NOT VOTING--9 Barcia Furse Gonzalez Jenkins Johnson, E. B. Poshard Pryce (OH) Scarborough Young (AK) {time} 1200