s conduct under oath. It is about his subversion of the judicial system and his unwillingness to cooperate with the legislative investigation of that failure; it is about the rule of law. The President

I believe the evidence of perjury before the grand jury and obstruction of justice meet the clear and convincing'' threshold for moving the process forward.

It is interesting to me because in my experience, persons who make such statements, when they become the subject or the object of investigation---- Rep

I believe it would be a bad precedent and a big mistake to remove the President, whom the people elected twice and whose performance in office the people still support, over a private consensual relationship.

As I've read the 184 pages of the White House submission, there are pages 70 through 89 and pages 93 through 182 which address each and every one of the factual charges made by Mr

the gentleman from Massachusetts, I request recognition for a moment.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose these articles of impeachment.

I believe that censure is not barred by the Constitution.

I believe the Republican proposal to undertake additional investigation and hearings is Page H10102 not only unnecessary and redundant, it is also not in the best interests of our Country.

I believe the House Judiciary Committee should begin an inquiry into whether the report of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on these matters presents facts that warrant impeachment of President Clinton.

I think it's important, when we speak about the rule of law, oftentimes we're talking about technicalities and questionable legalities because it's embedded in our constitution that there are certain standards and requirements.

I yield 2 1 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

I must say I'm humbled to answer this, because on my left was the assistant attorney general from the Criminal Division when I was an assistant U

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

I submit to you that the most responsible course of action is to impose upon ourselves the deadlines provided in the Democratic alternative.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr.

I say this with all due respect: only a foolish or inexperienced prosecutor would attempt to indict and convict someone based on hearsay grand jury testimony

it is our plan to recognize our leadership, and then our members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and then the rest of our distinguished membership on this side

and asserts that there should be no further review has a very high burden to meet. I think that the Judiciary Committee

the gentleman from Virginia proposes instead to censure the President.

I submit to the House a December 16, 1998 editorial from the Syracuse Post-Standard entitled Duty Calls'' relating to the impeachment process presently before us.

I think the president should set a standard for all the citizens in this country, and I think we all ought to be able to agree on what the word alone'' means.

I believe it is our constitutional duty to begin an impeachment inquiry based on the evidence delivered to the Judiciary Committee by Judge Starr.

I think, a perjury prosecution on the sexual-relations issue would fail is that the President has clearly explained in detail, and repeatedly, in his grand jury testimony what his understanding of the term meant, when he gave his testimony…

may I inquire respectfully of the Speaker, may we refer to the Starr report referred to the Congress of the United States? The SPEAKER pro tempore