Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), another Member of the House Committee on International Relations. (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a member of the House Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. The framers of our Constitution recognized that certain key questions--such as treaty ratification, conviction in impeachment trials, or expulsion of a member on Congress--demand more than the customary majority. But with regard to the normal operations of the government, they provided--in all cases--for a simple majority vote. They made no exception for taxation. Pause and reflect: they made no exception even for declarations of war. What the framers feared was that a supermajority requirement would give special interests a veto over the political process. As James Madison wrote, ``It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. . . . [A]n interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.'' Madison could have been describing the very amendment before us today. It would give a veto over revenue bills to a minority of members of either House. It would enable Members of Congress representing one- third of the population--or Senators chosen by one-tenth of the population--to block tax measures supported by the vast majority of Americans. It would give those minorities enormous leverage in an emergency to extract concessions in exchange for their support. The resolution pays lip service to this concern by allowing the two- thirds requirement to be waived in the event of war. Yet what about other perilous circumstances? Such as hurricanes, floods, terrorist attacks or other localized disasters? A severe economic crisis or a breakdown in the financial system itself? For these emergencies, the resolution makes no exception. Furthermore, it would make it virtually impossible to eliminate corporate subsidies and other loopholes in the tax system. The proponents of the resolution are content to live with those consequences. Two years ago, they rejected a series of amendments in committee that would have addressed at least some of those concerns. This year, in their haste, they didn't even bother with the committee, but have brought the resolution directly to the floor. The proponents of the resolution also seem determined to repeat their past mistakes. I was not a member of Congress when the current majority took control in 1995, but I understand the House adopted a rule at that time requiring a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. Unfortunately, having created this rule, the majority found it impossible to govern in accordance with it, and it was repeatedly waived or ignored. Today that same majority invites us to graft this failed motion onto the Constitution of the United States--where it cannot be waived or ignored. This is an invitation that we should and must decline.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, each day, Members of this House debate how to save Social Security and Medicaid. How to cut taxes. How to stay within mandated spending caps. All to make sure that we only spend tax money on things we need--and things that work. Now comes the missile defense bill. Before casting this vote, let's review what we know--and what we don't know--about this proposal. We do know that we already have a national missile defense--the threat of swift and disproportionate retaliation with our own nuclear weapons. We don't know if an anti-ballistic system will work--which is why almost no-one will attest to its reliability. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said that ``we do not yet have the technology to field a national missile defense.'' We do know that an anti-ballistic system cannot defend against the most probable form of attack. The likeliest 21st-century enemies will use cheap, hard-to-trace methods to kill Americans, like gassing subways or poisoning reservoirs. We do know it would be expensive. We've already spent $120 billion, and estimates now approach $200 billion more. But we don't know where this money will come from. Do we sacrifice veterans' benefits, or home health care? Education or environmental protection? We do know that this bill undermines years of progress with the one country whose missiles actually pose a threat--Russia. For decades, we've negotiated to reduce Russia's nuclear arsenal. The Russian parliament is considering deeper cuts. But Russia sees an American missile defense as a direct threat to its own deterrent and a reason to abandon nuclear arms reductions. We don't know if Russia can even maintain its current force level without an accident--Besides setting back years of diplomacy, this bill could actually increase the risk of an accidental launch as Russia tries to manage a missile force with its crumbling infrastructure. We do know that this bill could begin a new arms race. Other nations may feel so threatened that they will seek to develop weapons to counteract our missile defense. In short, we are asked today to authorize enormous sums of public money to nullify years of arms control. To risk re-igniting the arms race. All for a defense system that may not work. To protect us from a threat that may not materialize. It doesn't take New England frugality to recognize that we can do better, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, standing in front of our nation's Capitol today was Mary Ann Waygan, a woman from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, who joined with Senators Chafee, Mikulski, and Smith in introducing the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. As an original cosponsor of the House version of this legislation, I would like to share with you her eloquent testimony of those affected by this tragic disease. Statement of Mary Ann Waygan Hello, my name is Mary Ann Waygan and I am the coordinator for the CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Initiative for Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Before I begin, I would like to thank Senators Chafee, Mikulski, Snowe and Moynihan for sponsoring this legislation. I would also like to thank Senator Smith for his support of this bill. Clearly, the single largest problem facing the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program today is finding resources and caregivers to provide treatment to the women who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. The lack of treatment dollars is one of the biggest policy gaps in the program--and the problem is only getting worse. The barriers to recruiting providers for charity care are growing, and funding for the treatment is an ad-hoc system that relies on volunteers, state workers and others to find treatment services. In the community, we go to tremendous ends to find treatment--and raise money to help pay for it. I've organized luncheons, bake sales, raffles--you name it. Anything to raise money for women who could not afford to pay out of pocket for treatment. Despite these efforts, all too often, we come up short. Funding for treatment through the CDC program is the biggest problem I face as a coordinator and frankly a barrier to screening and detection. Funding for treatment is tenuous at best. Without passage of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, future funding for treatment for these women will remain uncertain. I want to tell you one story in particular that clearly illustrates the problem some of these women face. A woman who lives in Buzzard's Bay, Massachusetts who was diagnosed with breast cancer through the CDC program. Arlene McMann is a married woman in her early forties with two teenage sons and no health insurance. When Arlene was diagnosed with breast cancer through the CDC screening program, she was devastated--not just with the diagnosis, but with the fact that she had no way to pay for the treatment she needed. Faced with that situation, she and her husband were forced to use the $20,000 they had been saving for years to pay for their children's college tuition. In less than a year, that money was gone. After that, she and her husband were forced to go into debt to pay for her ongoing chemotherapy/radiation treatment and other procedures including a craniotomy and gall bladder surgery. They are now more than $40,000 in debt, were forced to move into a much smaller house and lost their dream of sending their sons to college without going into further debt. The additional stress and pressure placed on Arlene and her husband by this situation has turned a difficult situation into an almost unbearable one. To make it even worse, Arlene recently found out that the cancer has spread to her hip, pelvis, lungs and liver. Through all of this, Arlene has showed tremendous resolve. Despite being in pain and discomfort and forced to use a wheelchair, Arlene desperately wanted to be here today to share her story with you directly. She thought it was important for everyone to understand not just what the cancer had done to her, but what the effect of having to take on this incredible financial burden had done to her physical health, mental strength and family resources. Due to her condition, Arlene's treatment finally is being paid because she qualified for disability. But to this day, Arlene is convinced that her cancer would not have spread had she been able to afford regular visits to an oncologist. Arlene's energy and determination to fight this disease and remain positive are amazing. I feel lucky to know her and to have worked with her. I only wish that as the program coordinator, I could have done more--that I could have assured her that any treatment she needed would be paid for and that she wouldn't have to spend time dealing with bank statements, mortgages or packing boxes on top of everything else. In summary, we hear over and over again that early detection saves lives. In actuality, early detection alone does nothing but find the disease; detection must be coupled with guaranteed, quality treatment to actually save lives. We must pass the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act to make sure that screening and treatment always go together. I would like to thank the National Breast Cancer Coalition for its leadership role in working to get this legislation passed and thank the members of Congress here today for sponsoring and supporting this legislation.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of Cape and Islands Emergency Medical Services on the occasion of its twenty-fifth anniversary on February 25, 1999. The Cape and Islands Emergency Medical Services system was created in 1974 by a group of physicians, fire fighters and chiefs, local officials and educators who recognized the need to develop a comprehensive paramedic training program and who had the vision to create a system to provide advanced life support ambulance services to the people of the Cape and Islands. Today, Cape and Islands EMS provides these comprehensive services to 26 towns, 29 provider agencies, 5 hospitals and a fluctuating population of 200,000 in the winter months and over 1,000,000 during the summer. Cape and Islands EMS has made significant contributions to the delivery of health care on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket through education, medical direction and oversight, communications and administrative services for EMS providers. After twenty-five years, Cape and Islands EMS has become a leader in the delivery of high-quality emergency medical services. Its team has set a high standard of excellence, always striving to exceed the needs and expectations of the Cape and Islands medical community as well as area residents. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Cape and Islands EMS System for twenty-five years of outstanding service.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The question I pose, because I want to be clear as to what the gentleman said, and that is that it is the province of the Senate to impose the particular sanction, and that could or could not be the remedy of censure.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again, just to pick up on the theme from my friend and colleague from Massachusetts about the reluctance to instruct the Senate when it comes to the issue of censure, and I presume that the position of the House managers would be reluctance to instruct the Senate as to how to conduct the trial and whether there would be a necessity for live witnesses.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I too come to extend the olive branch, and I am deeply saddened by the events of today. The American people have made it clear that their desire is for us to censure the President and move on to the Nation's business. It is wrong that there has been a decision made by the Republican leadership that would not allow censure to come to the floor. Whether my colleagues agree with censure or not, I submit it is their obligation to do so. They say that censure is unconstitutional, but most historians and constitutional scholars disagree with them. The founder of their party, Abraham Lincoln, supported a censure of President Polk. Congress actually did censure President Andrew Jackson. Earlier this session, the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) introduced a resolution censuring President Clinton. They have told us over again that this is a vote of conscience. But what about the consciences of Democrat Members? And what about the will of the people? Mr. Speaker, I fear that we will do a terrible disservice for the Constitution and to our country.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order and I urge you to overrule the point of order. Mr. Speaker, the argument has been made that censure is unprecedented, uncommon or unconstitutional. That simply is not the case. In the impeachment of Judge Peck, an amendment was offered that contained a censure. Mr. Moakley spoke to this in his remarks. I want to point out that on many other occasions, the House has chosen censure over impeachment. I would like to cite a few examples. In the case of Judge Speers, the committee report stated ``the record presents a series of legal oppressions (that) demand condemnation and criticism.'' Even in light of this finding, the committee did not recommend proceeding with impeachment and the report containing the censure was adopted. (6 Cannon 527) In the cases of Judge Harry Anderson (6 Cannon 542), Judge Frank Cooper (6 Cannon 549), Judge Grover Moscowitz (6 Cannon 552), Judge Blodgett (3 Hinds 2516), Judge Boarman (3 Hinds 2518), Judge Jenkins (3 Hinds 2519) and Judge Ricks (3 Hinds 2520) the committee recommended censure instead of proceeding with impeachment. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a long-standing history in this House of substituting censure for impeachment. Sometimes, as in the Louderback case, the Judiciary committee recommends censure and the House rejects that recommendation and votes impeachment. Other times, the committee has recommended censure over impeachment, and the House has agreed with that recommendation. Mr. Speaker, what is important is that the House has had a choice between censure and impeachment. There is also a long tradition in the House of censuring executive officers. A recent Congressional Research Service study finds nine instances where the House has attempted to censure federal officials. Presidents John Adams, John Tyler, James Polk and James Bucanan were all subjects of censure resolutions. In addition, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Navy Secretary Isaac Toucey, Former War Secretary Simon Cameron, Navy Secretary Gideon Welles and Ambassador Thomas Bayard, as well, were all subject to censure resolutions. Indeed private citizens have also been censured by the House. Mr. Moakley cited two examples in his opening argument. The House has also censured a Mr. John Anderson (2 Hinds 1606), a Mr. Samuel Houston (2 Hinds 1619) and moved to censure a Mr. Russel Jarvis (2 Hinds 1615). I believe these examples will dispel the myth that censure by the House is uncommon, unprecedented or unconstitutional. The most salient fact is that when the House wants to censure an individual--both private citizens and executive officers--it can and it has. There is no constitutional prohibition against such an action and the Congress has freely engaged in passing such censures. The question before the Speaker is, with this long line of precedent, can censure be offered as an alternative to impeachment. The answer is clearly yes. As I cited above, the House has on many occasions adopted reports from the Judiciary Committee that have given the House the opportunity to express its views, its lack of regard, its censure, its condemnation as an alternative to impeaching a judge. The same model should hold here. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the reason this is such a long- standing practice and precedent of the House is because it just makes good common sense. When the House does not feel impeachment is warranted, but does want to go on record censuring certain behavior, it has. One only need look at the precedents. Mr. Speaker, I urge that you overrule the point of order.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order and I urge you to overrule the point of order. Mr. Speaker, the argument has been made that censure is unprecedented, uncommon or unconstitutional. That simply is not the case. In the impeachment of Judge Peck, an amendment was offered that contained a censure. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) spoke to this in his remarks. I want to point out that on many other occasions the House has chosen censure over impeachment. I would like to cite a few examples. In the case of Judge Speers, the committee report stated, and I am quoting, ``The record presents a series of legal oppressions that demand condemnation and criticism.'' Even in the light of this finding, the committee did not recommend proceeding with impeachment and the report containing censure was adopted. In the cases of Judge Harry Anderson, Judge Frank Cooper, Judge Grover Moscowitz, Judge Blodgett, Judge Boarman, Judge Jenkins and Judge Ricks, the committee recommended censure instead of proceeding with impeachment. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a long-standing history in the House of substituting censure for impeachment. Sometimes, as in the Louderback case, the Committee on the Judiciary recommends censure and the House rejects that recommendation and votes impeachment. Other times the committee has recommended censure over impeachment and the House has agreed with that recommendation. Mr. Speaker, what is important is that the House has had a choice between censure and impeachment. There is also a long tradition in the House of censuring executive officers. As we have heard, a recent Congressional Research Service study found nine instances where the House has attempted to censure Federal officials. Presidents John Adams, John Tyler, James Polk and James Buchanan were all subject of censure resolutions. In addition, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Navy Secretary Isaac Toucey, former War Secretary Simon Cameron, Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, and Ambassador Thomas Bayard as well, were all subject to censure resolutions. Indeed, private citizens have also been censured by the House. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) cited two examples in his opening argument. The House has also censured a Mr. John Anderson, a Mr. Samuel Houston, and moved to censure Mr. Russel Jarvis. I believe these examples will dispel the myth that censure by the House is uncommon, unprecedented or unconstitutional. The most salient fact is that when the House wants to censure an individual, both private citizens and executive officers, it can and it has. There is no constitutional prohibition against such an action, and the Congress has freely engaged in passing such censures. The question before the Speaker is, with this long line of precedent, can censure be offered as an alternative to impeachment? The answer is clearly yes. As I cited above, the House has on many occasions adopted reports from the Committee on the Judiciary that has given the House the opportunity to express its views, its lack of regard, its censure, its condemnation, as an alternative to impeaching a judge. The same model should hold here. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the reason this is such a long- standing practice and precedent of the House is because it just makes good common sense. When the House does not feel impeachment is warranted, but does want to go on the record censuring certain behavior, it has. One only need look at the precedents. Mr. Speaker, I urge that you overrule the point of order.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia unintentionally has misled this House. The President admitted before the grand jury of an inappropriate relationship. He stated that clearly and unequivocally he did not want to get involved into the salacious details. At the same time, my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) knows that the job search began months before Ms. Lewinsky was ever considered a witness in any proceeding.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to put on the record in response to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), Ms. Currie appeared before the grand jury on eight different occasions. On each occasion, she testified that in no way was she pressured to make any statement exonerating the President of the United States.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again, for the record, I think it is important to note in terms of the constitutionality of censure that no less a figure in our history than Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, supported a House resolution condemning President Polk for unnecessarily and unconstitutionally starting a war with Mexico.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, no one excuses the President's behavior. It deserves our censure and our condemnation. But I am just as concerned about our behavior, about the effect our actions may have on eroding public confidence and the rule of law and the principles of fairness and due process that are embedded in our Constitution that make this nation, this America, so unique among the family of nations. I believe this is ultimately more important than the fate of one particular president. When we began this inquiry, I expressed the hope that it would be thorough, fair, and respectful of the rule of law and so that our verdict would be respected as well and we would be found no less worthy of praise than those who conducted the Nixon inquiry nearly 25 years ago. They managed to transcend partisanship, to set a standard of fairness and due process that earned them an honored place in our history. And I am truly saddened that we failed to measure up. It was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) who said that without bipartisan support any impeachment is doomed. And I agree. Yet the majority has sacrificed the legitimacy of this impeachment by proceeding without that support. As we prepare to render our verdict on President Clinton, the American people and history itself are sitting in judgment on us and I believe they will judge us harshly because we have failed in our duty to the rule of law. We failed the rule of law when we abdicated our constitutional responsibility to an unelected prosecutor, when we rubber stamped his conclusions and failed to conduct our own independent examination of a record replete with contradictions, inconsistencies and half truths. We failed the rule of law when we could not summon the political courage to call real witnesses to test their credibility. President Nixon was afforded that opportunity. President Clinton was not, and that was unfair. We failed the rule of law when we informed the President's counsel of the precise charges only after he made his closing argument. That was unfair. We failed the rule of law when we put the burden on the President to prove his innocence. That was unfair. Presidents are not above the law but they, no less than other citizens, are entitled to its protections. That is what distinguishes a free country from a totalitarian one. And let us hope that the freedom we have struggled so hard to achieve will weather this storm for the sake of the country that we all love so dearly. I oppose the articles of impeachment as reported by the Judiciary Committee. I agree with much of the reasoning included in the Minority's Dissenting Views. However, I write separately to clarify my own perspective on a number of matters, including the reliability of the allegations upon which the case for impeachment is based. I neither condone nor excuse the President's admitted misdeeds. However, I agree with my Minority colleagues that the allegations, even if true, do not form a constitutionally sufficient basis for impeachment. Whatever the Founders meant by ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' it is well-established that impeachment should be reserved for situations in which the incumbent poses so grave a danger to the Republic that he must be replaced before finishing his term of office. The Majority has utterly failed to establish that such is the case here. As for the allegations themselves, however, I do not believe the Minority is in any better position to assess their accuracy than the Majority. The committee took no direct testimony in this matter. We called not a single witness who could testify to the facts. Instead, we relied solely on the assertions contained in the referral of the Independent Counsel. Those assertions are based on grand jury testimony and other information--much of it ambiguous and contradictory--whose credibility has never been tested through cross-examination. Even absent such evidentiary problems, Article II of the Constitution imposes upon the committee a solemn obligation--which it may not delegate to the Independent Counsel or any other individual--to conduct a thorough and independent examination of the allegations and make its own findings of fact. By failing to do this--by merely rubber-stamping the conclusions of the Independent Counsel--we have not only failed to establish a factual basis for the charges set forth in the articles of impeachment, but have abdicated our constitutional role to an unelected prosecutor and recklessly lowered the bar for future impeachments. In so doing, we have sanctioned an encroachment upon the Executive Branch that could upset the delicate equilibrium among the three branches of government that is our chief protection against tyranny. A related casualty of our cavalier approach to this investigation has been the due process to which even our Presidents are entitled. We released the referral--including thousands of pages of secret grand jury testimony--within hours of its receipt, before either the Judiciary Committee or the President's counsel had any opportunity to examine it. We voted to initiate a formal inquiry against the President without even a cursory review of the allegations. We required the President's counsel to prepare his defense without knowing what charges would be brought. And we released articles of impeachment--drafted in secrecy by the Majority alone--before the President's counsel had even finished his presentation to the committee. Having put before the public a one-sided case for the prosecution, some member of the Majority actually suggested that the President had the burden of proving his innocence. When he attempted to do so, those same members accused him of ``splitting hairs.'' This was perhaps the most disturbing aspect of our proceedings. We live in a nation of laws, in which every person--whether pauper or President--is entitled to due process. This has nothing to do with ``legal hairsplitting.'' It has everything to do with requiring those who wield the awesome power of the State to meet their burden of proof. That is what distinguishes this country from a totalitarian one. That is the genius of a Constitution crafted by men who knew and understood the nature of tyranny. As one former United States Attorney testified during our hearings, those who complain most loudly about such ``technicalities'' are the first to resort to them when it is they who stand accused. Public confidence in the rule of law is ultimately more important than the fate of one particular President. And the official lawlessness that has characterized this investigation has done far more to shake that confidence than anything of which the President stands accused. These proceedings stand in stark contrast to those of the Watergate committee--which the Majority had self-consciously adopted as its model. During the Watergate crisis, the Rodino committee managed to transcend partisanship at a critical moment in our national life, and set a standard of fairness that earned it the lasting respect of the American people. As the Judiciary Committee voted to launch this inquiry, I expressed the hope that our proceedings would be equally fair, thorough and bipartisan, and that--whatever our verdict might be--our efforts would be found as worthy of praise. In at least one important respect, the committee did merit such praise. Chairman Hyde permitted us to offer a censure resolution despite the extraordinary pressures that were brought to bear for him not to do so. In my view, the resolution which I sponsored, together with Mr. Boucher, Mr. Barrett and Ms. Jackson Lee, was--and remains--the most appropriate means of condemning the President's misconduct while sparing the nation the further turmoil and uncertainty of a lengthy Senate trial. Contrary to the continuing claims of some that censure would be unconstitutional, a score of constitutional experts called as witnesses by both Republicans and Democrats on the Committee agreed in writing-- by a margin of almost 4 to 1--that the Constitution does not prohibit censure. And it would be a breathtaking departure from the democratic principles which are the soul of the Constitution to deny the full House an opportunity to vote on an alternative to impeachment. As we stand on the brink of an impeachment vote for only the second time in our history, we can only hope that the democracy that has survived so many storms will weather this crisis as well, and that the irresponsible actions of this Committee will not do lasting damage to the country that we all so dearly love. Opening Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts Before the Committee on the Judiciary Regarding the Proposed Resolution of Inquiry--October 5, 1998 Mr. Chairman, the issue before us today is not just the conduct of the President. The overriding issue is how this committee will fulfill its own responsibilities at a moment of extraordinary constitutional significance. Three weeks ago, the Independent Counsel referred information to Congress that he alleged may constitute grounds for impeaching the President. But it is not the Independent Counsel who is charged by the Constitution to determine whether to initiate impeachment proceedings. That is our mandate. He is not our agent, and we cannot allow his judgments to be substituted for our own. I am profoundly disturbed at the thought that this committee would base its determination solely on the Starr referral. Never before in our history has the House proceeded with a presidential impeachment inquiry premised exclusively on the raw allegations of a single prosecutor. Let alone a prosecutor whose excessive zeal has shaken the confidence of fair-minded Americans in our system of justice. It is the committee's responsibility to conduct our own preliminary investigation to determine whether the information from the Independent Counsel is sufficient to warrant a full-blown investigation. And we have not done that. If we abdicate that responsibility, we will turn the Independent Counsel Statute into a political weapon with an automatic trigger--aimed at every future president. And in the process, we will have turned the United States Congress into a rubber stamp. Just as we did when we rushed to release Mr. Starr's narrative within hours of its receipt, before either this committee or the President's counsel had any opportunity to examine it. Just as we did when we released 7,000 pages of secret grand jury testimony and other documents hand-picked by the Independent Counsel--subverting the grand jury system itself by allowing it to be misused for a political purpose. Just as we are about to do again: by launching an inquiry when no member of Congress, even now, has had sufficient time to read, much less analyze, these materials. Not to mention the 50,000 pages we have not released. For all I know, there may be grounds for an inquiry. But before the committee authorizes proceedings that will further traumatize the nation and distract us from the people's business, we must satisfy ourselves that there is ``probable cause'' to recommend an inquiry. That is precisely what the House instructed us to do on September 10. The chairman of the Rules Committee himself anticipated that we might return the following week to seek ``additional procedural or investigative authorities to adequately review this communication.'' Yet the committee never sought those additional authorities. Apparently we had no intention of reviewing the communication. That is the difference between the two resolutions before us today. The Majority version permits no independent assessment by the committee, and asks us instead to accept the referral purely on faith. Our alternative ensures that there is a process--one that is orderly, deliberative and expeditious--for determining whether the referral is a sound basis for an inquiry. The Majority has made much of the claim that their resolution adopts the same process--indeed, the very language--that was used during the Watergate hearings of 24 years ago. It may be the same language. But it is not the same process. In 1974, the Judiciary Committee spent weeks behind closed doors, poring over evidence gathered from a wide variety of sources--including the Ervin Committee and Judge Sirica's grand jury report, as well as the report of the Watergate Special Prosecutor. All before a single document was released. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the President's own counsel. Confidential material, including secret grand jury testimony, was never made public. In fact, nearly a generation later it remains under seal. It is too late now to claim that we are honoring the Watergate precedent. The damage is done. But it is not too late for us to learn from the mistakes of the last three weeks. If we adopt a fair, thoughtful, bipartisan process, I am confident the American people will embrace our conclusions, whatever they may be. If the Majority chooses to do otherwise, it certainly has the votes to prevail. Just as the Democratic majority had the votes in 1974. But the Rodino committee recognized the overriding importance of transcending partisanship. And it earned the respect of the American people. It is our challenge to ensure that history is as kind to the work of this committee. Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts Regarding the Release of Presidential Grand Jury Testimony--September 18, 1998 Today, the House Judiciary Committee voted to release to the public several volumes of supporting material received from the Independent Counsel nine days ago, including grand jury transcripts and the President's videotaped testimony. In my judgment, the headlong rush to publicize secret grand jury testimony not only endangers the rights of the individuals involved in this particular case, but also undermines the integrity of one of the cornerstones of our system of justice--the grand jury system itself. Unfortunately, the readiness of the majority to ignore these perils also calls into question the fundamental fairness of our own proceedings. the pace accelerates On September 9, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr sent the House of Representatives a 445-page report, together with some 2,000 pages of supporting materials, telephone records, videotaped testimony and other sensitive material, as well as 17 boxes of other information. Within 48 hours, the House had voted to release the report and give the Judiciary Committee until September 28 to decide whether any of the remaining material should be kept confidential. While I agreed that we should release the report, I opposed our doing so before either the President's attorneys or members of the Committee had been given even a minimal opportunity to review it. That vote was seven days ago. Since then, the breakneck pace has only accelerated. Today, we were asked to vote--10 days ahead of schedule--on whether to release what may well be the most sensitive materials of all--the grand jury transcripts, together with the videotape of the President's testimony. Those of us who serve on the Committee had been doing our best to review these materials so that we would be in a position to evaluate whether or not they ought to be released. I cannot speak for other members, but I have been as diligent as possible, and had managed by this morning to get through--at most--some 30 percent of this material. How can anyone make a considered judgment under such circumstances? How can we properly weigh the benefits of immediate disclosure against the harm it might cause? I have done my utmost not to prejudge the outcome of this investigation. I am prepared to follow the facts wherever they lead. But if the American people are to accept the eventual result of our deliberations, they must be satisfied that our proceedings have been thorough, disciplined, methodical and fair. I seriously doubt that an objective observer looking back on these past nine days could characterize our proceedings in that manner. The process continues to careen forward--without a roadmap--at a dizzying pace. fundamental fairness One portion of the Independent Counsel's report that I made sure to read--not once, but twice--was Mr. Starr's transmittal letter, which cautioned that these supporting materials contain ``confidential material and material protected from disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure'' (the rule that provides for the secrecy of grand jury records). the implication of that warning is that the public disclosure of protected grand jury material could do serious and irrevocable harm--not only to the President, but to the many other individuals caught up in the vast web of the Starr investigation, including innocent third-parties, witnesses, and other potential targets of ongoing (and future) investigations. In the United States, those accused of criminal wrongdoing are presumed innocent--be they presidents or ordinary citizens. Yet if raw, unproven allegations are disclosed to the public before they can be challenged, the ``presumption of innocence'' loses all meaning. Minds are made up, judgments rendered, and the chance for a fair determination of the facts is lost. That is one reason why federal grand jury testimony-- whether in printed or in audio-visual form--is explicitly shielded from public disclosure under Rule 6(e). But grand jury secrecy also serves the interests of the prosecution, by encouraging witnesses to come forward and ensuring that prejudicial material will not poison the jury pool and make it impossible to hold a fair trial. This is especially important when the targets and potential targets of an investigation are public figures. The pre-indictment release of secret testimony compromises both objectives--trampling on the rights of the accused and jeopardizing subsequent indictments. Beyond this, it calls into serious question the fairness and integrity of the grand jury system itself. ``Laundering'' the Evidence Through its action today, the Judiciary Committee has engaged in an abuse of the grand jury process that has enabled it to accomplish indirectly what the Independent Counsel was prohibited from doing directly. The Independent Counsel has developed his case by using the grand jury to compel testimony from various witnesses. Although the grand jury voted to subpoena the President, the videotaped testimony was ultimately obtained under a negotiated agreement, under which the Independent Counsel agreed to treat the testimony as secret grand jury proceedings pursuant to Rule 6(e). It was solely on this basis that the President consented to testify. The Independent Counsel subsequently received permission from the court to release the videotape, together with the other grand jury material, to the Congress. But the court order did not authorize its further release to the public or the press. By releasing that testimony to the public, we are--in effect--laundering the evidence so as to nullify the express agreement under which it was obtained. This is an abuse of the grand jury that can only damage the public's faith in that institution and impair its ability to perform its essential role. And what are the benefits that justify these evils? We are told only that the public has a ``right to know''--an interest in the case that entitles it to the information. Some have even suggested that that interest is a financial one--that the public ``paid'' for this material and is entitled to it. To this, one can only respond that the public pays for the grand jury testimony in every case. The public has an interest in every case--especially where the case involves high officials or other celebrities. We accommodate that interest by requiring that trials be held in open court. But the public is no more entitled to secret grand jury testimony than it is to classified intelligence. Not even when the case is concluded, let alone while it is still going on. In an ordinary criminal trial, grand jury testimony is disclosable under Rule 6(e) only under certain specific circumstances. For example, criminal defendants are entitled to see grand jury proceedings in order to cross-examine witnesses or challenge their credibility on the basis of prior inconsistent statements. On the other hand, the public release of material of this nature would violate not only Rule 6(e), but Department of Justice guidelines, court precedents and ethical rules binding on prosecutors in every jurisdiction in this country. A party found to have disclosed the material would be subject to sanctions, and the material itself would be excludable in court. The court might even grant a defendant's motion to dismiss the case for prejudice. looking to precedent This is certainly not an ordinary case. But neither is it so exceptional as to justify our riding roughshod over precedent and due process. In the one historical precedent that is closest to the present situation, due process was scrupulously observed. Twenty-four years ago, a Republican president was under investigation by a Democratic House. The Judiciary Committee spent seven weeks in closed session, reviewing Judge Sirica's grand jury materials prior to their release. President Nixon's lawyers were permitted not only to participate in these sessions, but to cross- examine witnesses before their testimony was made public. While there are obviously major differences between the current controversy and the Watergate affair, President Clinton is entitled to the same due process protections afforded President Nixon in the course of that investigation. In fact, the case for preserving the confidentiality of the evidence is even stronger here than it was in the Watergate case. Mr. Starr's grand jury has made no findings whatsoever with respect to the evidence. The material we have consists merely of selected portions of what the prosecutor put before the grand jury, together with his interpretation of that material. The jurors were never asked whether they thought that the videotape--or any other testimony--provided credible evidence of perjury or other wrongdoing. Having used the grand jury as a tool to gather information, the Independent Counsel bypassed it as a fact-finding body. That is his prerogative. But the Judiciary Committee has a duty to see that the material provided to use is handled appropriately. If we act carelessly, and in haste, we will not only cripple this President, but will do lasting harm to the values and institutions we hold most dear.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disturbed to hear speaker after speaker come here and speak to the issue of obstruction of justice and suborning of perjury. Let us listen to the testimony of the key witness, Monica Lewinsky, where she said clearly and unequivocally, ``No one asked me to lie and no one promised me a job.'' Listen to the evidence. Let us not make this a sham and a shambles. I beg you to listen to the evidence.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. In response to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), let the Record be clear. When Monica Lewinsky was confronted by Ken Starr in her proffer, she clearly and unequivocally stated that neither the President nor anyone in her behalf ever asked her to lie, and that is the evidence.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, you always know when Joe Kennedy has entered the room. There's a kind of hush, followed by a wave of heartfelt applause, and then you see it--the biggest, broadest smile in the United States Congress. A smile that lights up the room with inspiration. For such a young men, the legislative track record Joe has accumulated is almost literally unbelievable. There is barely a consumer, human rights or housing reform that does not bear his name. From veterans health to industrial research-and-development, from Haitian democracy to MWRA water rates, it is difficult--even for me--to exaggerate the lasting significance of Joe's work in this chamber. In combination with his private-sector contributions to low-income energy assistance, Joe Kennedy virtually defines the phrase ``public service''. As a newer member of this body, I know a good role model when I see it. And I know that this delegation, which is comprised of some of the most diligent members of the House, will do its very best to follow the roadmap that Joe Kennedy has drawn for us. Joe had big shoes to fill, when he arrived here 12 years ago. But like Yaz following Williams, people in and near Boston know something about stepping up to the plate. In their boxseats somewhere upstairs, Speaker O'Neill and President Kennedy are very proud that their successor has worked so hard to help craft public policy as sophisticated enough for investors on Wall Street--and as level-headed and compassionate as owners of three-deckers in Central Square. When I learned of Joe's intention to retire, my second reaction was how much we--his colleagues, in this delegation and in this House--will miss him. My first reaction was how deeply Joe has earned the right to be closer to Beth and his sons. Nothing could conceivably be more important, and no one on the face of the earth could relish more the hours Joe can now spend away from Washington and with his family--with the possible exception of Alan Greenspan. The best thing I can tell you, Joe, is--I'll see you at home.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues and the good people of the state of Wyoming in mourning a young man whose life was senselessly and brutally cut short by hatred and ignorance. Matthew Shepard had many fine qualities. He was thoughtful and idealistic. He had ambitions for public service. And had hoped one day to serve his country overseas. He was also gay. And that is why he was beaten to death and left to die. Matthew Shepard will never fulfill his youthful ambition. We will never know what he might have accomplished with his life. He is gone, and we can do nothing to change that. But we can do something to help make sure that there are no more murders on the road to Laramie. We can do something to help put a stop to racial killings in Jasper, Texas, where James Byrd was chained to a pickup truck and dragged to his death last summer. We can send a message to the cities and towns across America where hate-motivated violence and harassment occurs every day. We can and must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Over the last few days, we have heard some people deplore these incidents--while cautioning us not to pass new laws to deal with them. ``New laws won't stop hate,'' they tell us. They're right. No law ever stopped murder, rape, arson or other heinous crimes. Yet our society keeps these laws on the books. To punish those practices and express its disapproval of them. Why do we need the Hate Crimes Prevention Act? Consider two vignettes from today's New York Times: Last Saturday morning, while Matthew Shepard lay comatose from a beating, a college homecoming parade passed a few blocks from his hospital bed in Ford Collins. Propped on a fraternity float was a straw-haired scarecrow, labeled in black spray paint. ``I'm Gay.'' On Monday, hours after Shepard's death, two gay organizations [in Fort Collins] . . . received identical messages applauding Shepard's murder. The messages closed with the words: ``I hope it happens more often.'' That's why we need the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. For all the Matthew Shepards and the James Byrds who can still be saved.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property in support of the conference agreement. This bill and the treaties it would implement are of vital importance to America's copyright industries, and I congratulate the conferees on reaching a hard-won agreement in time to send it to the President this year. The purpose of the treaties is to help curb international piracy of copyrighted works--which costs our country billions of dollars every year--by raising the standards for international copyright protection. Few states are as seriously affected by software piracy as Massachusetts, which is home to some of the world's leading publishing, information technology and software companies. Last year, some 2,200 Massachusetts-based software companies had 130,000 employees and combined revenues of $7.8 billion. Piracy has always been a problem for these companies, but with the advent of the digital age, it has reached epidemic proportions. The ability to make perfect digital copies at the click of a mouse--of CDs, movies, and computer programs, has been a tremendous benefit to consumers. But is has also created an enormous black market for pirated copies of these works that are indistinguishable from the originals. Indistinguishable except for the fact that the profits go to criminals running underground operations in places like China and Thailand, rather than to the American authors, composers, songwriters, filmmakers and software developers whose livelihoods depend upon the royalties they earn from sale of their works. The enactment of this legislation is a major milestone in the battle to ensure that American creativity enjoys the same protection abroad that we provide here at home. I must voice one regret regarding the failure of the conferees to retain the House-passed provision incorporating H.R. 2652, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. This measure would have prohibited the misappropriation for commercial purposes of ``databases'' whose compilation has required the investment of substantial time and resources. Like other digitized information, databases can be easily copied and distributed by unscrupulous competitors. Yet the people who create and maintain these compilations can do little to deter or punish this behavior, because most databases are not protected under current copyright law. H.R. 2652 would have amended the copyright law to provide effective legal protection against database piracy. Without this protection, companies will have little incentive to continue to invest their time and money in database development, and the public will pay the price. I hope that the subcommittee will revisit this subject early in the next Congress, and I intend to do all I can to see that this or similar legislation is enacted into law.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me first express my affection and respect for my chairman, the Gentleman from Illinois, If Mr. Hyde says he hopes to complete this inquiry by the end of the year, I know he will do all he can to make good on that promise. But if we adopt this resolution, the chairman's good intentions will not be enough to prevent this inquiry from consuming not only the remainder of this year but most of next year as well. Nine days ago, I joined with Mr. Berman, Mr. Graham and Mr. Hutchinson in a bipartisan letter asking Chairman Hyde and our ranking member, Mr. Conyers, to contact the Independent Counsel--before we begin an inquiry--to ask him whether he plans to send us any additional referrals. They wrote to Judge Start on October 2, and I wish to inform the House that last night we received his reply. He said, and I quote, ``I can confirm at this time that matters continue to be under active investigation and review by this Office. Consequently, I cannot foreclose the possibility of providing the House of Representatives with additional [referrals].'' There you have it, Mr. Speaker. Despite the fact that both Mr. Hyde and Mr. Conyers had urged the Independent Counsel to complete his work before transmitting any referral to the House, what he has given us in essentially an interim report. As the Starr investigation enters its fifth year, we face the prospect that we will begin our inquiry only to receive additional referrals in midstream. Under this open-ended resolution, each subsequent referral will become part of an ever-expanding ripple of allegations. With no end in sight. That is not a process, Mr. Speaker. It's a blank check. And I believe it's more than the American people will stand for. They do not want us traumatizing the country and paralyzing the government for another year when we don't even know whether there is ``probable cause'' to begin an inquiry. And they don't want us abdicating our constitutional responsibility to an unelected prosecutor and accepting his referral on faith. If we do that--if all a President's adversaries have to do to start an impeachment proceeding is secure the appointment of an Independent Counsel and await his referral--then we will have turned the Independent Counsel Act into a political weapon with an automatic trigger--a weapon aimed at every future President. What the people want is a process that is fair. A process that is focused. And a process that will put this sad episode behind us with all deliberate speed. The Majority resolution does not meet those standards. Our alternative does. It provides for the Judiciary Committee to determine first whether any of the allegations would amount to impeachable offenses if proven. Only if the answer to that question is ``yes'' would we proceed to inquire into whether those allegations are true. The entire process would end by December 31--the target date chosen by Chairman Hyde himself--unless the committee asks for additional time. Mr. Speaker, that is a fair and responsible way to do our job. It is also the only way to ensure that when that job is done, the American people will embrace our conclusions, whatever they may be.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), whose district I do not think includes the town of Salem.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman). Motion Offered by Mr. Ackerman