F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the word ``hypocrisy'' in order on this floor?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). (Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clear up the record as a result of what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) had to say about access to executive session materials. Just so that all of the Members are clear, when the House passed House Resolution 525 in September, immediately after the receipt of the independent counsel's report, only members of the Committee on the Judiciary had access to the executive session material. Section 4 of that resolution was effective during the review of the referral from Independent Counsel Starr. Pursuant to section 1 of H. Res. 525, rules relating to review by the committee was effective until there was a further order of the House. Then in October, when we passed our inquiry resolution, that superseded the previous resolution's provisions relative to access to executive session material. House Resolution 581, the inquiry resolution passed in October, had standard executive session rules of the House obtained; and that meant that all Members of the House of Representatives had access to those executive session materials. That has been what the rule is since October 8, and any Member has had the legal right to go over to the Ford Building and examine the executive session materials.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about censure. I think it is important to follow the constitutional and historical precedents of the House of Representatives in that censure is not an alternative. We need look back in 1974, which was the last time the entire issue of impeaching the President of the United States came up. I would like to quote from the book, How the Good Guys Finally Won, Notes from an Impeachment Summer, by Jimmy Breslin, published by Ballantine Books in 1975. This book quoted our former distinguished Speaker, Thomas O'Neill from Massachusetts, as follows: O'Neill went down the hall, picking his way through the tourists, to attend the meeting at which John Rhodes, the Republican leader of the House, gave it one last try for Nixon. Rhodes said he wanted the impeachment resolution recommitted with instructions that there should be a vote on censuring the President. ``I am bitterly opposed to that,'' O'Neill said. ``But you wouldn't be opposed to us having a vote on censure, would you?'' Rhodes asked. ``Yes, I would,'' O'Neill said. I think that my friends on the other side of the aisle should listen to their former Speaker one last time, because on this one, he is right. Mr. Speaker, today we enter the final stage of the impeachment process. For those of us who serve on the Committee on the Judiciary, this has been a difficult and exhausting time. We have reviewed 18 boxes of evidence. We have heard the Independent Counsel present his case. Constitutional and legal scholars have provided opinions and historical perspectives. The President's lawyers have made their case in his defense, and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) offered them 30 hours in which to do so. They did not use it all. After examining and weighing all of this evidence and testimony, I believe that the President lied under oath, obstructed justice, and abused the power of his office by providing false statements to Congress in response to questions submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary. On Wednesday of last week, I asked the President's very able attorney, Charles Ruff, a very simple question, did the President lie. Mr. Ruff could easily have said no. Instead, he split legal hairs, and that sealed my decision to support impeaching President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, most Americans are repelled by the President's actions. The toughest questions I have had to answer have come from parents who agonize over how to explain the President's behavior to their children. Every parent tries to teach their children the difference between right and wrong, to always tell the truth and, when they make mistakes, to take responsibility and face the consequences of their actions. President Clinton's actions every step of the way have been contrary to those values. But being a bad example is not grounds for impeachment. Undermining the rule of law is. Frustrating the courts' ability to administer justice turns private misconduct into an attack upon the ability of one of the three branches of our government to impartially administer justice. This is a direct attack upon the rule of law in our country and a very public wrong that directly impacts the constitutional workings of our government. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is not a tool to paralyze democracy. Instead, it is the only constitutional mechanism available to protect democracy when its institutions are threatened by a President's actions. Today, based upon the evidence that the President lied, obstructed justice and abused power in an effort to prevent the courts from administering justice under law, I rise in favor of impeaching William Jefferson Clinton. I take no joy in this decision but I make no apologies either. America will emerge from this dark period of our history a stronger Nation because we have demonstrated once again the resiliency of our democracy and the supremacy of our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the notion of censure.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, was all that taken out of my time?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan). (Mr. ROGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield six minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who served in Vietnam and was recommended for the Medal of Honor.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary one-half hour to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to be recognized under the hour rule.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) expired in this hour?