03/16/71 C0016759 / COLOR FT BENNING, GEORGIA: WILLIAM CALLEY JURY:
03/16/71 C0016759 / COLOR FT BENNING, GEORGIA: WILLIAM CALLEY JURY: NXC 44258 "CALLEY JURY" SHOWS: SIGN FT BENNING: PAN BARRACKS WHERE CALLEY JURY WILL BE SEQUESTERED: CU SAME: HALLWAY OF BARRACK: BEDROOM WHERE JUROR WILL STAY: SITTING ROOM: KITCHEN: EXTERIOR COURTROOM: JUROR, MAJ WALTER D KINARD ARRIVES: JUROR, MAJ HARVEY G BROWN ARRIVES: JUROR, MAJ CARL R BIERBAUM: JUROR, CAPTIAN RONALD J SALEM ARRIVES WITH WOMAN: JUROR, MAJ CHARLES C MCINTOSH: JUROR, COLONEL CLIFFORD H FORD ARRIVES: LT, CALLEY AND OTHER OFFICER ARRIVE AT COURT: (SHOT 3/15/71 57FT) SOUTH VIETNAM - SONG MY TRIALS - GEORGIA - FT BENNING MILITARY INSTALLATIONS - GEORGIA - FT BENNING CALLEY, WILLIAM BROWN, HARVEY G MCINTOSH, CHARLES FORD, CLIFFORD H ATROCITIES GEORGIA - FT BENNING KINARD, WALTER D BIERBAUM, CARL R SALEM, RONALD J XX / 57 FT / 16 COL / POS / D33539 350 FT / 16 COL / POS / CUTS /
BURDEN OF PROOF
/n00:00:00:00 /nSIMPSON TRIAL; Guests: Jerry Jones and Irene Nicolaidis and Ronald Crump and Ernest McIntosh, Jr. and Ann Greeley and Tom Hafemeister and Donald Vinson /n (0:00)/ /n
NEWT GINGRICH / DELAY STAKEOUT (1998)
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX) speak to reporters on the upcoming values summit.
BABBITT CANDIDACY ANNOUNCEMENT
COVERAGE OF FORMER ARIZONA GOVERNOR BRUCE BABBITT DECLARING HIS CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. 00:00:40:12 vs of babbitt being taped for a live remote intv in the abc studios in boston, massachusetts. 00:03:55:21 vs of babbitt's two sons playing with a mcintosh computer. 00:05:00:26 ms of babbitt at a podium in front of a babbitt for president banner. he declares his candidacy for president. vs of babbitt's wife hattie and two sons listening to babbitt speak. babbitt details his ideas for a global trade treaty and chastises the administration of president ronald reagan for ignoring the expanding budget deficit. CI: PERSONALITIES: BABBITT, BRUCE. PERSONALITIES: BABBITT, HATTIE. PERSONALITIES: REAGAN, RONALD (ABOUT). POLITICS: PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CAMPAIGN, 1988.
GIULIANI AT LAWYERS CONVENTION
[GIULIANI AT LAWYERS CONVENTION] [WASHINGTON, DC USA] FTG OF REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI AT THE Federalist Society 2007 Lawyers Convention / The Mayflower Hotel, Grand Ballroom, 1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 01:00:30 VS OF CROWD LISTENING TO SPEAKERS / GIULIANI INTRODUCTION 01:03:17 GIULIANI SPEECH MAYOR GIULIANI: Thank you very much Ted. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much Ted Olson for that very humbling introduction and for your friendship and your support over the years. Eugene Meyer, Leonard Leo, Steven Calabresi, Lee Lieberman, David McIntosh, and all of you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. Congratulations on your 25th Anniversary. It' been an absolutely terrific 25 years. (APPLAUSE) It' an honor to speak to a group of people who share my viewpoint. I didnâ?Tt get that opportunity too often in New York. Weâ?Tre a city that was 5 to 1 Democrat as Ted pointed out, so it was an uphill battle. The ideas were always rejected, put aside, attacked, but then everybody loved the results. But Iâ?Tm happy to be able to speak to people where the ideas I think are very, very similar. Iâ?Tm also happy to see that seven members of my judicial task force who advise me on everything are addressing the Federalist Society over the course of this conference. I think it shows the very close connection in terms of ideas, outlook, and goals. And I only have one criticism of your conference. You invited very, very distinguished people from President to Supreme Court Justices to lowly presidential candidates, but Iâ?Tm a big believer in conversions. And you didnâ?Tt invite one of the newest federalists. Well, she announced--- (LAUGHTER) That the best way to deal with driver' licenses for illegal immigrants, well now wait now. Iâ?Tve got to get this straight. (LAUGHTER) First she was for the idea and supported Governor Spitzer who wanted to give driver' licenses to illegal immigrants. Then she was against the idea. Then she was for and against the idea and then finally she said it should be decided on a state-by-state basis. (LAUGHTER) This is the only time in her career that she' ever decided anything should be decided on a state-by-state basis. You know something' She picked out absolutely the wrong one. (LAUGHTER) Right' I mean this is one of the areas that is given to the federal government to deal with under our Constitution, the borders of the United States, immigration. So maybe you were right not to invite her now that I think about it. But the people in this room have their sights on higher goals and not just short-term political approval. Youâ?Tre focused on political principle which sometimes gets missed here in Washington and sometimes, quite frankly, it gets missed all over in the kind of arguments and debates and discussions that we have. And I think that' the reason why youâ?Tve grown so much so quickly because people really want principle and they understand that our society is moved ultimately by ideas. Personalities can project ideas, but the healthiest way in which our society can move is by ideas. The Federalist Society was formed in the early years of the Reagan administration. At the time, I think you could have fit all the members of the Federalist Society in a phone booth. Of course that' when we had phone booths. I donâ?Tt think I see any anymore. But today the Federalist Society has over 40,000 members, and it has chapters just about everywhere in the country and in every law school in the country just about. So this reflects a total change in 25 years in our profession. And it marks the intellectual triumph of your philosophy â?" keeping faith with the Framers of the Constitution and a growing momentum toward bringing this country back to its first principles with an understanding that that' where we really derive our strength. The principles of the Federalist Society are based upon are simple: that the states exist to preserve freedom; that the separation of powers is essential to our Constitution; and that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what they would like it to be. In the last 25 years, weâ?Tve seen these ideas which in prior years had been largely rejected. Weâ?Tve seen them first start as slow and then really a very, very strong march back in to the forefront of the way in which we look at our country and the way in which we look at the interpretation of our country' laws and you should be very, very proud of the fact that the Federalist Society has played a very big role in accomplishing that because in accomplishing that, you are in fact preserving and expanding the very unique kind of freedom and liberty we have in this country. So I congratulate you for that. (APPLAUSE) I was privileged to play a role, small role, but a role, in the beginning of all that in the Reagan Justice Department with colleagues like Ted Olson and Ken Starr and Ed Meese and Ed Schmults and Jonathan Rose and lots of other people that you know really well. It was a very, very exciting time. The Reagan administration had a real sense of mission, a real sense of excitement because it really was a sense of reform and nothing really excites people more than being able to change things in the direction thinking theyâ?Tre going to make things better. We were determined to restore sound constitutional principles to our judicial system and weâ?Tve made a lot of progress and it' not complete. There are at least 200 reasons why the next election for President of the United States is going to be a critical one and the most important one that we have in our history. Now I know we say that all the time, that every presidential election is the most important one that we have in our history, but actually, it' a truthful statement isnâ?Tt it' Because every presidential election, the next one is the most important because it determines the future course of this country. There are a lot of issues, there are a lot of differences, but Iâ?Tm going to give you 200 reasons why the next election is really important. It' the 200 federal judges that the next President of the United States will likely appoint over four years in the White House. That' roughly the average that a president gets to appoint. (APPLAUSE) This organization, probably more than most, understands how crucial that difference will be if a president is elected who has the kind of thinking of a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama or a John Edwards, and I donâ?Tt think there' much distinction there. I think youâ?Tre going to see 200 decisions of judges who are like those judges who really began the reason for the Federalist Society in the first place. Judges who will be activists in the sense of trying to legislate their social policy through judicial interpretation. Let me assure you that if I am the President of the United States every single one of those decisions will be made very carefully, very deliberately with the advice of people like Ted and the people on my judicial advisory committee because weâ?Tre seeking to find judges who understand the very, very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not to invent the law. (APPLAUSE) Last week, I was watching the Chris Matthews show. I have to watch these shows. And you know how he has that Matthews Meter. He takes a question and he gives it to 12 reporters. I have lost 40 of these in a row. But last week, he asked them the following question: Do you believe that Rudy Giuliani will keep his word and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution, conservative judges' You know what the vote was among these reporters, some of the most cynical people in Washington' 12-nothing, yes. (APPLAUSE) For the first time I agree with a group of Washington reporters. Theyâ?Tre right because we believe in the rule of law, not in the rule of judges. Our constitutional principles instruct us that we have to recognize the limitations on power as a way of protecting our liberties. That' really one of the guiding principles of our whole constitutional structure. And for many, many years, law schools, too many of them, had been confusing constitutional law with sociology. And there is a big difference between constitutional law and sociology. (APPLAUSE) I stand with Ronald Reagan. He was once accused of having a 19th century attitude on law and order. He responded that it was a false charge. He had an 18th century attitude. (APPLAUSE) Our Framers had no doubt about the proper approach to interpretation of the Constitution. You could say they were the original originalists. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton made current political argument and animosity seem trivial in comparison to the animosity that they had right' But they didnâ?Tt agree on many things, but they did agree on the following, and I quote Jefferson, Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. (APPLAUSE) We need judges who embrace originalism, endeavor to determine what others meant when they wrote the words of our Constitution. Justices like Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts. That would be my model. (APPLAUSE) The theme of this conference is Shining City Upon a Hill: American Exceptionalism. Of course the shining city upon a hill was the great reference that Ronald Reagan used bringing up the words of John Winthrop, but the American exceptionalism is also a very, very important part of that theme. There are some people I think nowadays that doubt that America has a special, even a divinely inspired role in the world. Now I donâ?Tt understand how you can look at history and not see the wisdom of that and the reality of it. Most countries on earth developed out of a single ethnicity, a single religion, some common characteristic that bound people together before they were even a nation. America is very, very different. Weâ?Tre not a single ethnicity, weâ?Tre all ethnicities. Weâ?Tre not a single race, weâ?Tre all races. Weâ?Tre not a single religion. We were established so that we wouldnâ?Tt be a single religion. So weâ?Tre very different in our origins than just about any other country on earth. Weâ?Tre united because of ideas and ideals. That' what holds us together. That' the thing that makes America America, makes Americans Americans shared ideas. The ideas first proposed in the Declaration of Independence and then debated in the Constitutional Convention and embodied in the Constitution became the American creed. The set of beliefs that bind us together as a nation. No one was more articulate and better able to explain this than Abraham Lincoln who used to say, How do you determine who' the best American' He was once posed that question. Is the best American the one who' family has been here the longest and came over on the Mayflower, or the person who became a citizen yesterday' And Abraham Lincoln said, The best American is the American who understands our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our values of political freedom, economic freedom, the rule of law, freedom of choice, freedom of decision-making, freedom for people. People who understand what our country is all about. That' the one that makes the best American. And what he said was weâ?Tre a people of belief. Weâ?Tre a people of ideas. So to the extent that we keep reminding ourselves of what these ideas are, to that extent weâ?Tre really enforcing what America is all about. American exceptionalism isnâ?Tt a debate, it' not something we should be arrogant about where we say, Oh, weâ?Tre very, very special. Weâ?Tre just very, very fortunate and when we donâ?Tt recognize that, I donâ?Tt think we do justice to our background and to what' expected of us. (APPLAUSE) It was this nation that took all of those ideas that developed from way back in the Old Testament and the Greek philosophy and Roman law and the enlightenment. They were all really ideas until they were actually put into practice and no one knew really whether those ideas put into practice would work, and America did. And America established this constitutional democratic government in the form of a republic and it was the nation that from the very beginning saw that tyranny and oppression is something that was illegitimate and had to be dealt with. It was this nation that saved the world from the two great tyrannies of the 20th century, Nazism and Communism. It' this country that' going to save a civilization from Islamic terrorism. (APPLAUSE) Now the United States of America has been and will continue to be a beacon of hope for the world. And the democratic debate that we have in this country and the disagreements that we have in this country should not be mistaken anywhere in the world for weakness. America' strength is just as great as it' always been. I remember on the day of September 11th thinking about that and wondering, you know are we up to this, can we deal it, can we handle this, so much worse than anything that at least we thought had happened to us before. And from the first moment when I saw the way the people reacted to it and I saw the way the firefighters and the police officers reacted to it and I saw the construction workers come and volunteer, you know hundreds of them, more than we needed, ultimately thousands of them. I realized that these people are the sons and daughters in spirit and sometimes in blood as the same people that saved our country some many times over and over again. And when you challenge us all this strength comes back, it' really there we should not be worried about it, we have it, this generation is as strong as prior generations of Americans because we come from them and we owe it to them and to ourselves to make sure that this principle of democracy and freedom is upheld, preserved and expanded everywhere in the world. (APPLAUSE) Now America is not great however because of our central government. ((LAUGHTER) and (APPLAUSE)) And that may be one of the basic distinctions between the two political parties right now because I do believe quite honestly that the other political party does believe that the greatness of America lies in the central government because they want to impose and give more and more responsibility to the central government. And I think it' a misunderstanding of what works here. We didnâ?Tt take the European path toward a highly centralized government like most of the European countries did and are doing, some of which are now moving back from that. We chose a unique option, an exceptional American option. We chose a horizontal division of power among the different branches of government, called a separation of powers and a vertical balance of power between the central government, the national government and the states. And it' a maybe more complex way of doing it but it' the one that has worked for us and it' the one that we have to go back to and rely on when we solve our problems. And we have to have faith and confidence in that system because, and again without being arrogant and without being self-congratulatory, isnâ?Tt it a fact that no other government, no other society has ever succeeded in accomplishing what America has accomplished. Weâ?Tve moved more people out of poverty than any country in the history of the world, weâ?Tve given more opportunity to people, we have more fairness, not perfection, not absolute fairness, we have tremendous problems we to overcome. But who' done better than the United States of America in overcoming problems, empowering people, creating social mobility, giving people the chance to reach to sky and a realistic chance of getting there and moving people out of situations in which they were treated unfairly. No one' done a better job than us and maybe there' a reason for that. And you know that the reason for it is' The reason for it is number one that God has graced us with this wonderful land and number two it' the genius of our constitutional system. Let' rely on it, let' not reject it. (APPLAUSE) Our system doesnâ?Tt force every state to fit into a straightjacket. So much of the anger and division in politics today stems from the attempt of one faction, whatever the political thinking, to impose their thinking on everyone else through the courts. I believe it' time to close that chapter in our history. I believe we can close that chapter. (APPLAUSE) MAYOR GIULIANI: And I believe we can close that chapter in our history by recognizing our history. By recognizing what the strengths are of this country. We can make the constitution once again a document that unites us rather than divides us and then we can focus the debate on the essential issues that are really challenging our nation. We can do it by reinforcing the essential principles our framers built into our democratic system, principles of federalism, limited government and judicial restraint. (APPLAUSE) Our system recognizes the fact that different cities and different states face different challenges. They demand flexibility for local decision making. What works in Manhattan, New York is not necessarily what works in Manhattan, Kansas or in Manhattan Beach, California. They maybe all named Manhattan but they have different problems, different issues. The genius of our system is we have the flexibility to allow local governments and to allow states to respond to the different challenges in a different way. We donâ?Tt put a national centralized straightjacket on them. Federalism gives us flexibility to solve our own problems, it encourages experimentation and innovation. And I believe I understand this probably better than most because it' rooted in my own executive experience. I ran a local government, now when I say local government most people in New York donâ?Tt think of themselves as having a local government. (LAUGHTER) Because New York is so big, it' the seventeenth largest economy in the world, the third largest government in terms of numbers of employees, one of the largest budgets in the country but still it' a local government. And I tried to learn from other local governments, Iâ?Tll give you one example. Washington was still debating welfare legislation while welfare reform was being implemented in places like Wisconsin and New York. We learned the principles of welfare reform not from the central government, we learned it from Wisconsin. We borrowed it from Tommy Thompson when he was governor of Wisconsin. And then we built on them, he made them work in Wisconsin, we learned from them and then we made them work in the biggest city in the United States with by far the biggest welfare problem and if it could work in New York it could work anywhere. It can if it can work in New York, believe me if you can move welfare in New York, you can move welfare anywhere. (LAUGHTER) When we first started there was great consternation about it, great fear, great worry that it wouldnâ?Tt work but we stuck with the basic principles of it, workfare, accountability, a JobStat program and Iâ?Tll give you the end result. The end result was 640,000 people removed from the welfare rolls. (APPLAUSE) One of the proudest days I had of Mayor of New York City was changing the name on the door of the welfare office. We took down the sign that said welfare office and we put up a sign that said New York City Job Center. (LAUGHTER) And I believe that that change in New York City is one of the reasons why, not the only, reductions in crime, quality of life, reductions in taxes, increase in businesses certainly played a role in this but I think it' one of the reasons why New York City continues to be a city where crime is declining where many other cities unfortunately have started to move in the other direction because we made a fundamental change in the life of the people. And to understand what Federalism is all about and our constitution is all about you have to recognize that this is all about the people, it' not all about the government. The government is incidental, the people are primary. (APPLAUSE) When I first entered office as Mayor of New York City the liberal tax policies and social policies were so bad that the city was unlivable for many, many people. I was elected, I wasnâ?Tt the mayor yet and they went and took a poll and 60 percent of the people in New York City wanted to live somewhere else. This is a tough way to start. (LAUGHTER) When half your people and more want to leave. But I said to myself New York was kind of beyond malaise, see New Yorkers donâ?Tt feel malaise, they get angry. (LAUGHTER) And they let you know about it. (LAUGHTER) But our city was hemorrhaging people, it was hemorrhaging businesses and I was presented with a report on what to do about it. The report was bigger than this, it was handed to me and it was a report on how to solve all of our fiscal problems. And the report was basically to raise taxes and it was a big report because we have a lot of taxes. (LAUGHTER) And they said what are you going to do with the report' And I said in my usual very understated way... (LAUGHTER) ...Iâ?Tm going to throw it in the garbage. (LAUGHTER) And I proceeded to do that, I threw it in the garbage and I did something totally different. I lowered taxes. I lowered taxes not once, not twice, I lowered taxes I actually proposed 64 tax reductions, ended up with 23 for over nine billion dollars and it was at the core of turning New York City around. We were collecting billions of dollars more from the lower taxes than from the higher taxes. We cut the income tax rate by 24 percent. We were collecting 42 percent more revenues from the lower tax than from the higher tax. So don't tell me supply side economics doesn't work. I can prove that it does. 01:30:41 END OF TAPE (SPEECH CUT OFF)
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