Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a simply silly provision and does not, frankly, deserve the attention it is being paid on the floor today. Why should we not waste $34 million of the taxpayers' money for no purpose at all, the gentleman from Pennsylvania asks? My answer is because it is $34 million of the taxpayers' money. There are no hearings here. Anyone who practices bankruptcy knows that in a vast number of cases it is open and shut. Everybody knows what is going on. There are no assets, very little income, no one has any desire to see the tax forms. Anyone, any creditor, the judge, anybody who wants to see the tax form, a one-sentence request suffices. All that not passing the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina will do will be to waste $34 million of the taxpayers' money in order to pile up tax forms in court that no one will read. Sure, there are many cases where we may want to see what the assets are, what the income is, whether the bankruptcy makes sense or not, whether it meets the requirements of the law. All anyone has to do is ask, and someone will ask, and those are the complicated ones. But for those where there is no question, why require the court, as is not now required, to bury itself under a mountain of paper for no other purpose than to waste the taxpayers' money?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the picture painted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) would be funny if it were not serious. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), that paragon, supporter and champion of the raging liberal judiciary. Who believes that? The fact of the matter is that I must commend the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Michigan for this amendment, for trying to retain some humanity in the bankruptcy courts. The objective standards of which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) speaks are rigid and inhumane standards, inhumane standards that this Congress told the IRS to junk last year because we found they were inhumane. They are also standards that ignore the facts. In addition to what the gentleman from Michigan said before about the things they ignore, the fact is these standards are rigid and are averages. If you are a bankrupt and you are going to bankruptcy and they want to figure out how much you can afford to pay, the proper question is, what is your rent? What is your mortgage? Not what is the average mortgage payment in the northeast United States. If the IRS says the average mortgage payment in the United States is $400 a month, but your mortgage payment is $500, try to tell the bank that you can only pay $400. See how far you get. The fact is, a means test ought to be based on the reality, on the facts. What is your real income? That is a problem with this test that this amendment does not deal with, but what is your real income? What are your real expenses? Not what the IRS thinks the expenses of the average person in New York or California might be. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) says that you have the safe harbor, that people under the median income are excluded from this means test. He forgets his own bill, because this means test is used in Chapter 13 without the safe harbor. In Chapter 13 this means test says how much you can afford to repay in a repayment plan, even if you are making $10,000 or $20,000 and you are under the median. But, again, how much can you afford to repay? Who cares what your real expenses are? All we care about is what the IRS says. That is simply unjust. It simply will produce injustice. This amendment would have the executive office of the United States trustee set up standards and the judge could look at the real facts. That is what a just system is. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) says, well, you can go in and plead extraordinary circumstances. Sure you can, if you can spend $7,000 or $8,000 to do that with a lawyer. And you are bankrupt. Good luck. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) says the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) do not understand what they are doing. They certainly do understand what they are doing, and because they understand what they are doing, that is why the National Bankruptcy Conference approves of this amendment, and why the Commercial Law League and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, Public Citizen, and everybody who knows anything about bankruptcy, except the creditors who are buying and paying for this bill, support this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Gejdenson resolution to authorize the NATO action in Yugoslavia. Tragically, we were unable to prevent Serbian forces from brutally killing thousands of people, forcing innocent people from their homes, and burning and bombarding countless villages. Now, we must do everything in our power to put an end to this tragedy, to halt the mass killings, and hold accountable those responsible for the unspeakable atrocities that Serbian forces are committing against the ethic Albanians in Kosovo. First, we must aid the refugees in any way that we can. We cannot allow refugee camps to turn into death camps due to poor sanitation, the spread of disease, and the lack of food and shelter. I support a massive humanitarian response to this crisis. The U.S. should do whatever it takes to bring food, medicine, and shelter to the refugees, and I support efforts by the United States and other countries to admit any refugees seeking asylum. But I am afraid that is not nearly enough. We have a moral obligation to protect the internally displaced ethnic Albanians within Kosovo. Those who have not yet been slaughtered must be protected. We must not allow them to suffer the same fate as so many other Kosovars. Unfortunately, we did not act soon enough to address the murderous actions by Serbia, and today thousands of people are dead because of international indifference. We ought to create safe havens for ethnic Albanians inside of Kosovo--and we ought to do it as soon as we can. This would prevent further expulsions and mass killings. This will not be easy and will not be without a loss of lives, but it must be done. We cannot allow the leader of one nation to wipe out an entire ethnic group. At the end of World War II and the Holocaust, the world made a collective promise to all future people. We said ``never again'', we ought to mean it. However, it is unlikely, at this point, that air strikes alone will bring an end to this conflict. We ought to consider other options, including the use of ground forces. We now have to be prepared to forcefully enter Kosovo and occupy the area in order to make the safe return of refugees possible. This is not a task that we ought to take lightly, but it is one that must be done. NATO must continue to assess the situation and make adjustments as they see fit. This resolution gives the Administration the flexibility to respond quickly to any new developments and continue their efforts on all fronts to resolve this conflict. I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today we consider legislation to give family farmers an insulting 6 additional months of protection under chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code. While I seriously doubt anyone will vote against this bill, it is shameful, that we are being asked to play games with the future of family farms in America as we are witnessing the worst farm crisis since the birth of chapter 12 more than a decade ago. No one disagrees that chapter 12 should be made permanent. No one. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the Other Body, by Senators Grassley and Daschle, and in the House by our colleagues Representatives David Minge and Nick Smith. Those bills also increase the eligibility threshold from the current $1.5 million in aggregate debt to $3 million, and give certain tax debts non-priority status if the debtor completes the plan. The first two provisions were recommendations of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, and all three have been endorsed in a joint statement by the Commercial Law League of American, the National Bankruptcy Conference and the National College of Bankruptcy. In fact, the sponsor of this legislation introduced a measure earlier in this Congress which would have extended chapter 12 by 6 months past the sunset date, rather than merely by the 3 months in this bill. He then introduced a bill granting only an additional 3 months. Evidently this more modest effort has found favor with the Republican leadership. It attracted the cosponsorship of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and was given a fast track. The Gentlewoman from Wisconsin attempted to make chapter 12 permanent in Committee and was stopped by a procedural technicality. She then attempted a 2-year extension which was cut back to the 6 months we are considering today. As my colleagues know, the procedure being used today prevents us from even considering amendments to provide more time. We had a similar experience in the last Congress, when the Gentleman from Michigan and I introduced H.R. 4697, which would have extended chapter 12 until September 30, 2000. This was short of our common goal of making chapter 12 permanent, but in view of the fact that the leadership of this House had allowed chapter 12 to sunset during a farm crisis, we felt it was a justifiable compromise. Unfortunately, the bill which ultimately was brought to the floor by the Republican leadership, H.R. 4831, and which ultimately passed the House and was enacted into law as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, extended chapter 12 only until the end of March 1999. So for all you family farmers in crisis, the Republican leadership of the Congress wishes you a happy April Fools Day. Why are we stringing family farmers along during a crisis? What policy justification could there be when there is bipartisan agreement in both houses that we give them permanent protection and provide other beneficial changes to protect America's family farms? Are the policy objections to doing so? If so, I have yet to hear one. No, Mr. Speaker, this charade, which threatens family farms across the country, cannot possibly be justified on policy grounds. It certainly creates the unseemly appearance that family farmers are being cynically held hostage to a larger, more controversial bill which would undermine the existing legal protections for families and small businesses in financial crisis. ``You want to be protected? Help us strip protections from other families across the country.'' That certainly appears to be the message being sent today. And who would be benefited by that larger legislation? Many of the same big banks who are trying to foreclose on America's small farms. Is that what we want? A nation owned by nothing but big banks and industrial farming operations? Mr. Speaker, I fear that if we continue to proceed in this manner, people will lose their farms and members from farming communities will be afraid to vote their consciences on the larger bill. Let's call an end to this political game. Let's free America's family farmers and give them the protection we all agree they deserve.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because, as the ongoing national dialogue attests, the Social Security system is at a crossroads. The decisions we make this Congress will have aftershocks that will be felt well into the second half of the 21st century. Concern for our children and our children's children demand that those decisions be made carefully, seriously, and compassionately--keeping in mind Social Security's historic commitments. Today, I am announcing the introduction of a comprehensive Social Security plan that will preserve the system while staying consistent with certain key values that have always provided the heart and soul of the nation's most popular social program: this plan does not raise the retirement age, it does not cut benefits, it does not raise tax rates, and it does not shift the risk onto individuals through individual private accounts funded by FICA taxes. These are not academic considerations. They are the guiding principles of a program that has risen literally millions of human beings out of the wrenching grip of poverty--poverty that for so long was too often synonymous with old age or disability. For over half a century, they have been part of what defines Americans as a people. President Clinton has already put forth an excellent framework to strengthen Social Security and Medicare and increase private savings, which keeps the system solvent until 2055. My plan builds on this firm foundation, but takes an extra step to completely eliminate the projected 2.19% actuarial deficit. According to the Social Security Actuaries, my plan brings the Social Security System into long-term actuarial balance for the foreseeable future--at least 75 years. Briefly, here's how we do it. My plan implements the President's proposal to authorize the transfer of 62% of the projected budget surplus to the Social Security Trust Fund for a period of 15 years. It creates an Independent Social Security Investment Oversight Board that is authorized to hire private managers to invest a higher, though still prudent, portion of the Social Security surplus into index funds. And it increases--and then indexes--the cap on taxable wages, without removing the cap altogether. Currently, 93% of wage earners earn less than the cap, and will be totally unaffected. Under current law, less than 85% of all wages is subject to FICA contributions; this has slipped in recent years from the historic 90% due to the dramatic rise in disparity of wages. Raising the cap will restore the historic level, while affecting only the richest 7% of the population. These steps will ensure the solvency of Social Security for at least 75 years, while ensuring the guaranteed benefits Social Security provides to seniors, individuals with disabilities, widows, widowers, and children. And--I can not say this often enough--it does so without raising the retirement age, without cutting benefits, without raising tax rates, and without shifting the risk onto the backs of individuals. This is meaningful, responsible legislation, and I intend to do my best to make sure my colleagues give it the hearing it deserves.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the historic importance of Social Security and commits the Congress to protect guaranteed lifetime benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments that fully index for inflation, for current and future retirees. For this reason, I will vote for it, but I must note several flaws in the resolution. We should have included a provision that states that Social Security should be strengthened in a way that does not cut benefits, does not raise the retirement age, and does not place individuals at financial risk in their senior years by diverting Social Security tax revenues to individual private accounts. These ought to be the guiding principles of the Social Security debate. This resolution also states as fact the prediction of the trustees that by 2032 the trust funds will be fully depleted and the program will be able to honor less than 75 percent of benefit commitments. But this prediction will be correct only if the trustees' other prediction, that our economic growth rate will decline from 3.8 percent to 1.5 percent, and stay at that absurdly low level for 70 years, is also correct. All of the budget calculations of the administration, the House Committee on the Budget, the Senate Committee on the Budget, and CBO assume much higher growth rates. Nobody really believes that the 1.5 percent prediction of the trustees is anywhere near correct. So we should not make a congressional finding of fact we do not really believe to be true. But even granting the trustees' projection for the sake of argument, the shortfall predicted by the trustees is still small and manageable, can be completely funded in a way that does not cut benefits, raise the retirement age, raise tax rates or shift economic risk to individuals by shifting to a system of individual accounts. I plan on introducing legislation later this week that will do just that. Raising the retirement age, which is a key component of many so- called ``reform'' proposals, is cruel and unnecessary, especially for those whose careers demand hard physical labor, and this resolution ought to say so. Cutting benefits, either directly or by replacing the defined benefit nature of Social Security with a defined contribution program, would devastate millions of Americans who are just barely getting by right now. Benefits should not be reduced and the basic guarantee of Social Security must not be undermined in any way. This is crucial, and it ought to be included in this resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the family of Myles Tierney. Myles Tierney was a journalist with the Associated Press who was tragically killed in a rebel attack while on assignment in Sierra Leone. Known as a vibrant young man who had a passion for traveling and journalism, he was a true journalist in the sense that he reported on news that would educate and inform the public. He was willing to put himself in harm's way to report on a story of significant value. Mr. Tierney grew up in the SoHo area of New York City. His father, a mathematics professor, and his mother, a performance artist, allowed their son to nurture his creative abilities at an early age. He channeled these interests into journalism, and while attending Rutgers University for a period of time he realized he would rather pursue a career in the field he loved. Mr, Tierney's career with the Associated Press began when he was hired in 1994 to produce news videos. In 1997, he was assigned to Nairobi. In Africa, he would travel throughout the continent covering stories in war-ravaged countries, often putting his own life in peril. His passion for journalism and love for his job allowed him to look beyond the dangers before him and bring news to the people throughout the world. For Myles Tierney, that was worth the risk. Along with journalism, Mr. Tierney's other passion was traveling. This made working abroad in the remotest regions of Africa that much more appealing to him. Some journalists might have avoided such a challenge, but Myles Tierney jumped at the opportunity. His friends and colleagues say that he actually liked to travel to the most inhospitable of areas to cover a story. He cared deeply about his role as a journalist, and the real issues that affect the world around us. Myles Tierney will be remembered by his family and friends as an individual of charm who had a passion for journalism . He did his best to inform others about world events--events that other journalists were reluctant to cover because they were less glamorous or too dangerous. He lived his life-long dream: traveling the globe, informing the world. Myles. Tierney was an exceptional young man who will be truly missed.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, some law professors argue that an impeachment, at least after the 20th amendment, dies with the Congress. Most of the precedents to the contrary predate the adoption of the 20th amendment, but we do not have to debate this. As a practical matter, the new Congress must vote again on impeachment by voting on appointing managers. If we do not reappoint the managers, they cannot have a trial in the Senate and the impeachment dies. So the vote on this motion is really a new vote on impeachment. A yes vote on this motion to appoint the managers is a vote to impeach the President and require the Senate to hold a trial. A no vote is a vote against impeaching a President and requiring a trial in the Senate. So our new Members will get a chance to vote for or against impeachment and removal of the President today. Having said that, let us remind ourselves why the partisan vote of this House last month to impeach the President was so contrary to the intent of the Constitution and such an affront to this Nation. Impeachment, I remind Members, was never intended by the framers of the Constitution as a punishment. It was intended as a protection of the Constitution against a President who would abuse his power to make himself a tyrant. Benjamin Franklin called impeachment a substitute for assassination. The charges in this impeachment, all relating to lying about a consensual sexual affair, do not constitute an abuse of presidential power designed or intended to undermine the functioning or integrity of government or to undermine constitutional liberty, and therefore they are not, under the Constitution, impeachable offenses. Now, the gentleman may say, what about the rule of law? What about equality under the law? I remind everyone that if perjury or obstruction of justice could be proven, and I do not think they can be, but if they can be proven, the President, like anyone else, is subject to indictment and prosecution under law; and that is our assurance of the rule of law and equality under the law. But to impeach the President and to try to remove him from office and subject the country to a lengthy trial and drag it through the muck of the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and everyone else, instead of getting on with the business of saving Social Security and Medicare and a threatening world economy and everything else is an affront to this Nation to appeal only to prurient interests and to try to embarrass the President. That is what is at stake in this vote. A yes vote is a vote to impeach the President. A no vote is a vote against it. We have the opportunity to vote again and not only the opportunity, but it is unavoidable.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, last year, along with the former Committee on Rules chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), I introduced House Resolution 529, the Plain English In Law Rule. When we introduced the resolution, there was a broad consensus that the idea was sound; and I was assured by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) that the House Republican leadership was in agreement with the proposal and that it would be incorporated into the rules package in the 106th Congress. I do not know why this was not done. I am not aware of any opposition whatsoever to this proposal, and I offer it as an amendment now. Mr. Speaker, we all know that most of our amendments and bills are practically incomprehensible consisting, as they do, of a series of provisions adding a word or phrase in the middle of line 3 or line 5 on page 8 of the bill. Mr. Speaker, my amendment would require that any bill or amendment clearly show the changes that would be made in the law by the bill or amendment. This should be accomplished by requiring the paragraph to be amended to be set forth in the bill or amendment with the old language proposed to be omitted in brackets and the new language proposed to be added in italics. So a Member will be able, at a glance, to read the law as it is and as it is proposed to be, easily understanding the effect of the proposed bill or amendment. Most State legislatures draft their bills this way. My amendment would cost no money and would allow Members and the public to be better informed about our proposal, about our proposed legislation. Again, I know of no opposition. I have been pushing this now for 4 years. I urge its adoption as an amendment today. If it is not adopted as an amendment, I urge the Republican leadership to consider it subsequently in this session.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a constituent who was beloved in our community, Mrs. Alte Rivka Braunn, a``h. Mrs. Braun was the devoted wife of Rabbi Shlomo Braun, and was the daughter of Rabbi Moshe Yehudah Gross, famous shochet during the last 30 years at Empire Kosher Poultry. She born in Czechoslovakia to parents who were Holocaust survivors. They fled Czechoslovakia and emigrated to America in 1968. Even under communist rule, Mrs. Braun exhibited strong inner faith and a personal generosity of spirit, accepting everything cheerfully. these attributes remained strong and enduring throughout her life. Mrs. Braun was very active with Aleh, an organization which provides services to the developmentally disabled. I have visited their facilities in Israel and can attest to the outstanding work they do. In recognition of her dedication to the work of Aleh, Mrs. Braun was memorialized at the annual Aleh luncheon held on May 17, 1998 (21 Iyar). Additionally, Mrs. Braun spend countless hours each day helping patients in the emergency room at Maimonides Medical Center. She also found time to cook and bake for troubled families, personally delivering and serving food that she prepared in her own home. While Mrs. Braun's home was undergoing renovation, she requested that one room be set aside for hachnasas orchim use, providing a place to stay for a traveler who has no place to stay, which is one of the highest mitzvot. She found great strength in the knowledge that her house was always utilized by guests from all over the world--from Israel, Denmark, France, Mexico, Belgium, and other countries. During the three years of her illness, Mrs. Braun suffered untold pain. Rabbi Braun, her devoted husband, arranged for the best doctors and tried everything humanly possible to alleviate her illness. Unfortunately, that was not God's will, and Mrs. Braun passed away on the 27th day of Tishrei, last year. She left a family of six children, with four still at home. The youngest, Yaakov, is only five years old. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of knowing the Braun family for quite a few years. The exemplary lives of Rabbi and Mrs. Braun are truly an inspiration to our neighbors for their dedication to their community and to those in need. Our community was enriched by Mrs. Braun's life and mitzvot. I commend her example to my colleagues.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am even more depressed today than I thought I would be yesterday. I believe the resignation of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), while offered in good faith, was wrong. It is a surrender, it is a surrender to a developing sexual McCarthyism. Are we going to have a new test if someone wants to run for public office: Are you now or have you ever been an adulterer? We are losing sight of the distinction between sins, which ought to be between a person and his family and his God, and crimes which are the concern of the State and of society as a whole. On one level we could say, I suppose, that you reap what you sew, but that gives us no joy, and it gives me no joy. I wish that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) would reconsider, because I do not think that on the basis of what we know he should resign. But the impeachment of the President is even worse. Because, again, we are losing the distinction, we are losing track of the distinction between sins and crimes. We are lowering the standard of impeachment. What the President has done is not a great and dangerous offense to the safety of the Republic. In the words of George Mason, it is not an impeachable offense under the meaning of the Constitution. As we heard from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the allegations are far, far from proven. And the fact is, we are not simply transmitting evidence, transmitting a case with some evidence to the Senate, as evidenced by the fact that we already heard leaders in this House say he should resign. God forbid that he should resign. He should fight this and beat it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what about the resolution of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) says that a censure resolution would be unconstitutional. The Congressional Research Service says that a censure resolution is an exercise of the implicit power of a deliberative right to express its views. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) offered House Resolution 433, disapproving the President's conduct with respect to campaign financial. What is the distinction, why did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) make the censure resolution offered in committee in order? Was he exercising an unconstitutional prerogative? I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans say we are not contesting any fact allegations. The fact is there were no fact witnesses brought before the committee, there were no specific perjury quotes, no specific alleged lies cited in the articles, and I ask the Republicans do they deny the President admitted to an inappropriate relationship to the grand jury? Is their beef that he was not graphic enough about who touched him where?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the precedents show and the Nation's leading scholars and historians overwhelmingly agree that impeachment is reserved under the Constitution only for abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of government or of constitutional liberty. It is not intended as a punishment for crimes but as a protection against the President who would abuse his powers to make himself a tyrant. That is why Benjamin Franklin called impeachment a substitute for assassination. We are told that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery, a per se impeachable offense, but bribery goes to the heart of the President's conduct of his constitutional duties. It converts his loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the Republic to promoting some other interest. Perjury is a serious crime and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not involve the President's duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and dangerous offense against the Nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense. The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. The American people have heard the allegations against the President, and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. They elected President Clinton, they still support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the case against the President has not been made. There is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven true, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job. The same people who today tell us we must impeach the President for lying under oath, almost to a person voted last year to reelect the Speaker who had just admitted lying to Congress in an official proceeding. The American people are watching, and they will not forget. You may have the votes, you may have the muscle, but you do not have the legitimacy of a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative. This partisan coup d'etat will go down in infamy in the history of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, today, for only the second time in our nation's history, this House meets to consider articles of impeachment against a President of the United States. This is a momentous occasion, and I would hope that, despite the sharp partisan tone which has marked this debate, we can approach it with a sober sense of the historic importance of this matter. I believe that we need to get back to basics--the Constitution and what the impeachment power conferred on the Congress requires of us. Article II, section 4 of the Constitution says that a President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' We have received testimony from some of the nation's leading legal scholars and historians who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are abuses of Presidential power that undermine the structure or functioning of government, or constitutional liberty. Benjamin Franklin called impeachment a ``substitute for assassination.'' It is, in fact, a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots by providing a constitutional means for removing a President who would misuse his presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise undermine our constitutional form of government. To impeach a President, it must be that serious. The history of the language is also clear. At the Constitutional Convention, the Committee on Style, which was not authorized to make any substantive changes, dropped the words ``against the United States'' after the words ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' because it was understood that only high crimes and misdemeanors against the system of government would be impeachable--that the words ``against the United States'' were redundant and unnecessary. History and the precedents alike show that impeachment is not a punishment for crimes, but a means to protect the constitutional system, and it was certainly not meant to be a means to punish a President for personal wrongdoing not related to his office. Some of our Republican colleagues have made much of the fact that some of the Democrats on this Committee in 1974 voted in favor of an article of impeachment relating to President Nixon's alleged perjury on his tax returns, but the plain fact is that a bipartisan vote of that Committee--something we have not yet had in this process on any substantive question--rejected that article. That's the historical record, and it was largely based on the belief that an impeachable offense must be an abuse of Presidential power, a ``great and dangerous offense against the Nation,'' not perjury on a private matter. We are told that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery, a per se impeachable offense. But bribery goes to the heart of the President's conduct of his constitutional duties--it converts his loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the Republic to promoting some other interest. Perjury is a serious crime--and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may, or may not, involve the President's duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter--perjury regarding sex--is not a ``great and dangerous offense against the Nation.'' It is not an abuse of uniquely Presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense. The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our very system of government on our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their Representatives in Congress on its absolute necessity. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment, or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will lack legitimacy, will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the legitimacy of our political institutions. The American people have heard all the allegations against the President and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. The people elected President Clinton. They still support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people. There are clearly some members of the Republican majority who have never accepted the results of the 1992 or 1996 elections, and who apparently have chosen to ignore the message of last month's election, but in a democracy, it is the people who rule, not political elites-- and not members of political elites who were repudiated at the last election. Some members of the House may think the people have chosen badly, but it is the people's choice and we must respect it absent a threat to our democracy that would justify overturning the repeated expression of their will at the ballot box. Members of Congress have no right to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent that compelling case. the Judiciary Committee also received testimony from some outstanding former prosecutors, including the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, who headed up the Criminal Division of Ronald Reagan's Justice Department, who compellingly explained why all the loose talk about perjury and obstruction of justice would not hold up in a real prosecutor's office--that the evidence we have been given would never support a criminal prosecution in a real court of law. For those who demand that the President prove his innocence, without his accusers having to provide his guilt or even to state clearly the charges, the Judiciary Committee received answers from the President's Counsel, Mr. Ruff, and from the Committee's Minority Counsel, Mr. Lowell this morning, in which they meticulously pointed out, using Mr. Starr's own work, how the charges were not supported, and were indeed contradicted, by the evidence Mr. Starr's own office had assembled. In fact, Mr. Starr has stated in his referral to Congress, that his own ``star witness'' is not credible, except when her uncorroborated testimony conflicts with the President's, and then it proves his perjury. We have received sanctimonious lectures from the other side about the `'rule of law,'' but the law does not permit perjury to be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Nor does the law recognize as corroboration the fact that the witness made the same statement to several different people. You may choose to believe that the President was disingenuous, that he was not particularly helpful to Paula Jones' lawyers when they asked him intentionally vague questions, or that he is a bum, but that does not make him guilty of perjury. This House is not a grand jury. To impeach the President would subject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many months while the problems of Social Security, Medicare, a deteriorating world economy, and all our foreign concerns festered without proper attention. We cannot simply punt the duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere ``probable cause'' that an impeachable offense may have been committed. To do so would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of an ``independent'' counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include exculpatory evidence, and consistently misstated the law. We must not be a rubber stamp for Kenneth Starr. We have been entrusted with this grave and dangerous duty by the American people, by the Constitution and by history. We must exercise that duty responsibly. At a bare minimum, that means the President's accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo, and beyond demands that the President prove his innocence of vague and changing charges. They must provide clear and convincing evidence of specific impeachable conduct. This they have failed to do. If you believe the President's admission to the grand jury and to the nation of an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and his apologies to the nation, were not abject enough, that is not a reason for impeachment. Contrition is a remedy for sin, and is certainly appropriate here. But while insufficiency of contrition may leave the soul still scarred, unexpiated sin proves no crimes and justifies no impeachment. Some say that if we do not impeach the President, we treat him as if he is above the law. Is the President above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law--to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen, whether or not he is impeached. And if the Republican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third President in U.S. history, and the first since 1848, to be censured by the Congress But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as a punishment for a President. The case is not there--there is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the Senate. To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this House to the condemnation of history for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job, the same people who today tell us we must impeach the President for lying under oath, almost to a person, voted last year to re-elect a Speaker who had just admitted lying to Congress in an official proceeding about abuse of the Tax Laws for particular purposes. The American people are watching, and they won't forget. You may have the votes, you may have the muscle, but you lack the legitimacy of a national consensus and the Constitution. This partisan coup d'etat will go down in the history of this nation in infamy.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is a coup d'etat when you impeach a President for allegations that even if true the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars say are not impeachable offenses. It is a coup d'etat when most of the prosecutors who testified in front of the committee said no prosecutor would seek an indictment because no jury would convict on the evidence we have. And it is a coup d'etat when you seek to upset an election, to overturn an election without a broad consensus of the necessity for doing so against the majority of the American people. That describes a coup d'etat, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) a few moments ago said that an impeachment vote is not a vote to remove the President but simply to charge him. I read from the resolution: ``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office''; in addition to which we are already being told he should resign rather than face a trial.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the affidavit that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) referred to, a number of points. Monica Lewinsky testified that no one asked her to file a false affidavit. There is no evidence that the President asked her to file a false affidavit, and the President did not see or ask to see the affidavit. There is no evidence to that. And finally, Monica Lewinsky's affidavit defined sexual relations in the way she clearly understood it, as we know from the tape of her conversation with Linda Tripp. After she was threatened by Mr. Starr and her mother was threatened, then she made an immunity deal, then she changed her testimony to what Mr. Starr wanted to hear. Starr admitted to the committee that he chose when to believe her and when not to believe her. To get at the truth, she has to be cross-examined to determine these contradictions and when she is telling the truth and when not.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, again, referring to the last gentleman, repeatedly saying an untruth does not make it true. I will remind the gentleman, the judge ruled that the Monica Lewinsky affair was not material to the Paula Jones case, and the President consequently did not deny her her day in court. Every prosecutor who came before the committee said there was not sufficient evidence for any of these perjury allegations.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the tragic and brutal murder of Matthew Shepard reminds us how far we still need to go to eliminate violence and bigotry in this country. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Shepard family and Matt's friends in Wyoming. It sickens me every time I hear news of violent attacks against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender men and women. Tragically, these types of incidents are not rare. Today, we are here to condemn the savage, brutal, vicious attack against Matthew Shepard. It is entirely proper for us to do so. However, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people need real protection, not just a sense of Congress that something must be done. We have a real plan, real legislation, that is before this House that must be enacted. We owe it to our nation to take action immediately to reduce the number of these incidents and to punish those who attack others based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation. There is no simple solution to this problem. We should support hate crime prevention programs, fund special training for law enforcement professionals, teach tolerance and support for diversity in our schools, and confront head-on the daily prejudice that we see in our communities. We must also address the fundamental bigotry that leads to these crimes. However, passing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Bias Crimes Compensation Act are important first steps. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would allow federal law enforcement authorities to investigate and prosecute violent hate crimes when the state and local authorities are either unable or unwilling to do so. This bill has more than 160 co-sponsors and has already had a lengthy hearing in the Judiciay Committee. We should also pass a bill I introduced entitled ``The Bias Crimes Compensation Act'', which would provide a civil claim for individuals who are victims of hate crimes, so that they could sue their attackers for compensatory damages. These two simple proposals ought to be brought up on their own or included in the final appropriations measure. The country has demanded action and we ought to respond with meaningful legislation. Hate crimes deserve special attention, since they can have such devastating and lasting effects on victims and the communities from which they come. They are not simply attacks against one individual, rather, they affect whole communities and are acts of ideological terrorism. The time to act is now. The need is clear. We ought to pass hate crimes legislation today.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)