The chair intends to recognize himself for five minutes and the ranking minority member for five minutes. Each member may be permitted to place an opening statement into the record.

After the two opening statements -- my own and the ranking member's -- the chair intends to recognize the witness, the independent counsel, Mr. Starr.

Without objection, after Mr. Starr's presentation, the chair will recognize minority counsel, Mr. Lowell, for 30 minutes to question the witness; majority counsel, Mr. Schippers, for 30 minutes to question the witness. And subsequent to questioning by committee counsel, each member will be recognized to ask questions under the five-minute rule.

Subsequent to members' questions, the president's counsel will be recognized for 30 minutes to question the witness and the chair recognizes Mr. Delahunt, the gentleman from Massachusetts.

DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a motion at the desk.

HYDE: The clerk will report the -- why don't you read it? Read it, Mr. Delahunt.

DELAHUNT: I move that counsel to the president be recognized for two hours to question the witness.

HYDE: Well, the chair states that Mr. Starr is here to help us educe and understand the facts. The hearing today is not a trial, nor is it White House versus Ken Starr or Republican versus Democrat. Rather, the hearing today is another step in our attempt to carry out our constitutional duty to determine whether facts exist which indicate that the president of the United States committed impeachable offenses.

If this committee...

(UNKNOWN): ... two hours...

HYDE: ... and the full determine the president has committed an impeachable offense, a trial may be held in the Senate. With this in mind, the chair believes that time allotments for questioning are eminently fair.

As far as giving the president an opportunity to present his version of the facts, I would first ask the president and his counsel to respond to the 81 questions we submitted to him two weeks ago. This will go a long way to helping us gather and understand the facts involved in this matter.

Furthermore, the president has a standing invitation to come before this committee for any amount of time and present us with his version of the facts.

As I compute the timing for questioning the witness, the Democrats -- including the president's counsel -- have 140 minutes of questioning time, the Republicans 135. The Democrats are permitted two separate counsels -- that is to say the Democrat members, Mr. Lowell, and the president's counsel. We have one. Our counsel will get a half hour. Mr. Lowell will get a half hour. Mr. Kendall will get a half hour. So it's -- I don't see any imbalance there.

Mr. Lowell, the Democratic counsel, will go before any of the elected members -- at Mr. Conyers' request, and I'm happy to grant that. The president's counsel will have unlimited time to present his witnesses at the end of our hearings when they're ready to do so.

And so the rule that we're operating under -- which is the same rule that was used in the Rodino era. Rule 4 of the impeachment inquiry rules specifically states that the president's counsel may question any witness subject to instructions from the chairman, respecting the time, scope and duration of the examination.

And so with that statement, the gentlemen's motion is denied.

DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

HYDE: Well, the gentleman's not recognized for that purpose.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

(UNKNOWN FEMALE MEMBER): May I be heard on the motion.

FRANK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: What is the point?

FRANK: The point is that the gentleman from Massachusetts made a motion. The chair then spoke to the motion, and has denied, under the rules, the right of the gentleman who made the motion to, in fact respond to it. And I make the point of order that the gentleman is entitled to his recognition.

HYDE: I'm sorry. I didn't -- I was distracted. What is the point of order?

FRANK: The gentleman made a motion...

HYDE: Yes, I know that.

FRANK: The chair recognized the gentleman to make a motion. He then -- the chair then spoke to the motion and is now denying the maker of the motion the right under our rules to speak to his own motion. And the gentleman has a right under our rules to be recognized to speak to his motion.

HYDE: Well, I'll recognize the gentleman. Go ahead, Mr. Delahunt.

DELAHUNT: Thank you...

HYDE: I have ruled on the gentleman's motion, but go ahead.

DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee has given the independent counsel a full two hours to present his version of the facts -- a version which most Americans are already fully familiar with. At the same time, the majority has seen fit to give the president's counsel all of 30 minutes to question Mr. Starr. This is meant to be the president's sole opportunity to confront his accuser during these proceedings.

HYDE: Would the gentleman yield for just a secondeparture from the precedents of this House.

During the Watergate hearings of 1974, President Nixon's counsel James St. Clair was given all the time he needed to respond to the evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

This is as it should be. We are talking about the impeachment of the president of the United States -- a gave constitutional moment in our national history. I know that some members of the Watergate committee argued that the president's counsel, Mr. St. Clair, should be given limited time to speak, but those views were wisely overruled in the interests of fairness and decency.

President Clinton is entitled to the same consideration and respect shown to President Nixon on that occasion -- no more and no less. The record of the Watergate hearings make clear that at no time was Mr. St. Clair given a time limit for his presentation or his examination of witnesses.

Is there any legitimate basis for a different rule today? The majority may point out that the Watergate testimony was heard in closed session, while today we sit before the cameras and the American people. Yet that being true, it is more important, not less, that the president be given a full and fair opportunity to respond to the charges that are being leveled against him.

They may argue, as they did in a recent letter to the White House, that the president and his counsel are here -- and I'm quoting -- "only as a matter of courtesy and not of right." End of quote. In other words, be glad that we are letting you testify at all.

DELAHUNT: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, if the goal is justice, this cannot be a satisfactory response.

A 30-minute presentation is especially inadequate when one considers that Mr. Starr has been preparing for weeks, a presentation that the White House saw for the first time last night.

According to news accounts, the witnesses spent the better part of the past several weeks conducting videotaped practice sessions. The president's counsel has had all of 16 hours to prepare his response.

Precedent has been abandoned at almost every turn. We rushed to release Mr. Starr's transmittal within hours of its receipt, before any review by this committee or the president's counsel.

We posted thousands of pages of secret grand jury testimony on the Internet. And we abdicated our responsibility to make an independent examination of the facts before voting to commence an impeachment inquiry.

Let's to this right. I urge support for the motion and yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: The gentleman has made a point that the president needs more time to present -- you said, present. He will be given all the time in the world to present, unlimited time to...

WATT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: ... today's hearing is to hear from Judge Starr. And to question him...

WATT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: No, the chair -- I don't yield for any points of order. I would like to make my statement.

WATT: I thought you had already made your statement, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Well, I know that's what you thought. But you couldn't possibly know when I'm through with my statement or not. So please let me...

WATT: Under the rules under which we're operating, Mr. Chairman, we don't know anything about the process. We had regular order at one point.

DELAHUNT: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, if the goal is justice, this cannot be a satisfactory response.

A 30-minute presentation is especially inadequate when one considers that Mr. Starr has been preparing for weeks, a presentation that the White House saw for the first time last night.

According to news accounts, the witnesses spent the better part of the past several weeks conducting videotaped practice sessions. The president's counsel has had all of 16 hours to prepare his response.

Precedent has been abandoned at almost every turn. We rushed to release Mr. Starr's transmittal within hours of its receipt, before any review by this committee or the president's counsel.

We posted thousands of pages of secret grand jury testimony on the Internet. And we abdicated our responsibility to make an independent examination of the facts before voting to commence an impeachment inquiry.

Let's to this right. I urge support for the motion and yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: The gentleman has made a point that the president needs more time to present -- you said, present. He will be given all the time in the world to present, unlimited time to...

WATT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: ... today's hearing is to hear from Judge Starr. And to question him...

WATT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: No, the chair -- I don't yield for any points of order. I would like to make my statement.

WATT: I thought you had already made your statement, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Well, I know that's what you thought. But you couldn't possibly know when I'm through with my statement or not. So please let me...

WATT: Under the rules under which we're operating, Mr. Chairman, we don't know anything about the process. We had regular order at one point.

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

WATT: I'm asking for regular order. I'm requesting order. Regular order is we get five minutes to address this issue. The chairman has already had his five minutes.

HYDE: Now, I want to tell this committee, and especially the Democrats, I had a meeting with Mr. Conyers and Mr. Frank a couple of days ago. And I suggested I would be very liberal with the gavel. And if Mr. Kendall is on a line of questioning that he deems pertinent, I don't intend to shut anybody off. Now you are, you are -- you are disrupting the continuity of this meeting with these adversarial motions.

WATT: We're disrupting a railroad, it seems like, Mr. Chairman. That's what we're disrupting here.

HYDE: The gentleman will observe decorum, and I would appreciate it if you would speak when you're recognized. I have not recognized you.

JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of information. I'd like a point of information, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate being recognized for a point of information.

HYDE: Now, I'm trying to be cooperative. I said I would be liberal in giving people time, and I recognize Mr. Frank.

JACKSON LEE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I thank you. And I appreciate -- we did have that meeting, and you accommodated one of our requests, particularly in terms of the order, and you did say you would be with regard to Mr. Lowell, we talked about it not on a strict gavel. But I did think that with regard to the president's counsel's request, we were not authorized to speak entirely for that. We could speak for our counsel.

It does seem to me there's a reasonable difference of opinion here, and we ought to just vote on it. I don't think it's going to be delaying the committee process. Mr. Delahunt's made a motion. But have the vote, and we will decide it. But we did accept that assurance with regard to Mr. Lowell, but not with regard to the independent party of the White House.

WATT: Mr. Chairman, I call for a record vote.

HYDE: Very well. The record vote is on the motion...

NADLER: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before the...

HYDE: Who's seeking recognition?

JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman...

HYDE: Well, just a moment, Miss Jackson Lee, I've got to recognize Mr. Nadler.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Mr. Nadler.

NADLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before we vote, I'd like to speak to Mr. Delahunt's motion.

NADLER: And I appreciate the chair's comments. But the fact is that as of now, today is the only notice gave for hearing of this committee. We've noticed that some witnesses will be called for depositions. But as of today, Mr. Starr is the only witness that we're aware of before the committee considering the impeachment of the president.

As such, given any consideration of fairness and equity, the president's counsel, and for that matter, the Democratic Committee counsel, should have as much time as they request. There should not be a time limit on it.

Now the president's counsel requested 90 minutes. That should be, without question, granted. If he asks for five hours, that should be granted.

We have requested -- and I don't know what we've requested -- an hour for our counsel. And I don't know what assurances have been given, but I heard the chair say 30 minutes. That should be an hour.

And the fact is Mr. Starr, your calculation of 200 -- of 135 minutes and 140 minutes, Mr. Starr's going to sit here for 120 minutes and tell us why the president ought to be impeached in his opinion, and he's entitled to do that. But you add to that the other time that the...

(PAUSE)

You add to that the other time, the -- one side is going to have 260 minutes and the other side's going to have 135 minutes. Now I really suggest that if the president of the United States asked that this committee in its one day of scheduled hearings should have 90 minutes to cross-examine Mr. Starr, that's the least that can be asked.

And I've looked at lists of questions and subjects which Mr. Starr's report, and frankly, his statement that we got last night, raises as obvious questions, and there's a lot more than 30 minutes there. And the Constitution guarantees the right of anyone who is accused of any wrongdoing and fundamental fairness guarantees the right of anyone to have the right to confront the witness against them. And Mr. Starr is the only witness. And frankly, that right ought not to be limited to 30 minutes.

So I support Mr. Delahunt's motion, and I hope that in the interest of fairness -- because you know this proceeding must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair.

NADLER: If we end up ...

HYDE: Mr. Nadler. I now recognize ...

NADLER: If we...

HYDE: I want to recognize Ms. Jackson Lee.

JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to...

HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Nadler.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to take this opportunity for a point of information and also to speak briefly to the motion of Mr. Delahunt.

First of all, I think it would be well to clarify the point that the president's counsel stands as the president's counsel. The Democrats and the Democratic counsel of the House stand separately in their responsibility to the impeachment process. And so to collectively add up numbers to suggest that we have in total some 200, 100, five minutes -- whatever it may be, Mr. Chairman -- I would respectfully disagree: for in the instance of the St. Clair representation of Mr. Nixon, he had an unlimited amount of time because it was distinct under the Rodino Watergate committee, which this committee alludes to the fact that it is following, that they had a separate responsibility from the House Democrats.

And I respect that because I will ultimately, with my colleagues, have to vote up or down on articles of impeachment.

Secondarily, let me say, Mr. Chairman, just in terms of the context of justice in America, we have always argued that justice is blind, but we've never argued that justice is gagged. You cannot have the defense in a courtroom sitting gagged and bound without any opportunity to refute the accused overwhelming opportunity to talk and talk and talk.

We do not talk by death, if you will, the accused in the courtroom. We allow a defense. And I respect the process and the procedure of this very awesome and somber occasion, but I cannot for the life of me understand, Mr. Chairman, why we would gag and bound the counsel for the White House, the counsel for the president, which goes against every single grain in the history of America.

When we did it with the Chicago Seven, or Eight, in Chicago, we have never lived down that tainted process. I certainly don't equate this with that, but I would argue that we should never repeat history and gag the defense for this particular issue.

JACKSON LEE: So Mr. Chairman, I would ask, with all due respect, that we clarify that the president's counsel is the president's counsel, the House is separate, I am separate, and we cannot collectively add that time together. And I would ask that we vote for Mr. Delahunt's motion.

HYDE: The chair would like to suggest to the gentlelady, with respect, the chair doesn't intend to bind and gag anybody.

JACKSON LEE: I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Anybody.

JACKSON LEE: The chair...

SENSENBRENNER: Chairman...

JACKSON LEE: And I would like to support his motion by acclamation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

HYDE: I didn't hear the end. You want a motion by acclamation?

JACKSON LEE: I would ask both Republicans and Democrats to support Mr. Delahunt's motion of fairness by acclamation, leading into or taking up the point that the chairman just made that he has no intention to gag and bound the voice of the counsel of the president of the United States. I ask that we accept his motion by acclamation, both Republicans and Democrats.

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

(CROSSTALK)

HYDE: The gentleman from Wisconsin.

SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, the entire purpose of this meeting here today is to get Mr. Starr's testimony and to ask a reasonable amount of questions of Mr. Starr to find out why he did what he did and why he reached the conclusions that he did.

Having a couple of hours of parliamentary haggling relative to the procedure of today's hearing, I think, denigrates the dignity of this hearing.

I have great confidence in the fairness of Mr. Hyde. Mr. Hyde has presided over this committee in an extremely fair manner for the almost four years that he has served as chairman.

I think that the complaints that we are hearing from the other side of the aisle insinuate that Mr. Hyde will not conduct this hearing fairly. I don't think that there are any facts in evidence that Mr. Hyde is not going to conduct this hearing fairly.

I think we should vote down the motion. We should get on with Judge Starr's testimony, the questions that will be asked by the various counsel, and see how it goes.

SENSENBRENNER: But the people over on the other side of the aisle, I think, are saying that this is going to be a railroad before the whistle even blows and the train leaves the station.

Let's hear what Judge Starr has to say. Let's conduct a dignified hearing, and let's get to the merits of this issue rather than who gets to talk how long.

CONYERS: Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

HYDE: The gentleman from Michigan.

CONYERS: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding that Maxine Waters is our fairness cop, I move for a vote on the pending motion.

(UNKNOWN): Here, here.

(UNKNOWN): Parliamentary inquiry.

HYDE: Without objection, the previous question is ordered and the clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner.

SENSENBRENNER: No.

CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.

Mr. McCollum.

MCCOLLUM: No.

CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes no.

Mr. Gekas.

GEKAS: No.

CLERK: Mr. Gekas votes no.

Mr. Coble.

COBLE: No.

CLERK: Mr. Coble votes no.

Mr. Smith.

SMITH: No.

CLERK: Mr. Smith votes no.

Mr. Gallegly.

GALLEGLY: No.

CLERK: Mr. Gallegly votes no.

Mr. Kennedy.

KENNEDY: No.

CLERK: Mr. Kennedy votes no.

Mr. Inglis.

INGLIS: No.

CLERK: Mr. Inglis votes no.

Mr. Goodlatte.

GOODLATTE: No.

CLERK: Mr. Goodlatte votes no.

Mr. Buyer.

BUYER: No.

CLERK: Mr. Buyer votes no.

Mr. Bryant.

BRYANT: No.

CLERK: Mr. Bryant votes no.

Mr. Chabot.

CHABOT: No.

CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes no.

Mr. Barr.

BARR: No.

CLERK: Mr. Barr votes no.

Mr. Jenkins.

JENKINS: No.

CLERK: Mr. Jenkins votes no.

Mr. Hutchinson.

HUTCHINSON: No.

CLERK: Mr. Hutchinson votes no.

Mr. Pease.

PEASE: No.

CLERK: Mr. Pease votes no.

Mr. Cannon.

CANNON: No.

CLERK: Mr. Cannon votes no.

Mr. Rogan.

ROGAN: No.

CLERK: Mr. Rogan votes no.

Mr. Graham.

GRAHAM: No.

CLERK: Mr. Graham votes no.

Ms. Bono.

BONO: No.

CLERK: Ms. Bono votes no.

Mr. Conyers.

CONYERS: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Conyers votes aye.

Mr. Frank.

FRANK: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Frank votes aye.

Mr. Schumer.

SCHUMER: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Schumer votes aye.

Mr. Berman.

BERMAN: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Berman votes aye.

Mr. Boucher.

BOUCHER: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Boucher votes aye.

Mr. Nadler.

NADLER: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes aye.

Mr. Scott.

SCOTT: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Scott votes aye.

Mr. Watt.

WATT: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Watt votes aye.

Ms. Lofgren.

LOFGREN: Aye.

CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes aye.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

JACKSON LEE: Aye.

CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.

Ms. Waters.

WATERS: Aye.

CLERK: Ms. Waters votes aye.

Mr. Meehan.

MEEHAN: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Meehan votes aye.

Mr. Delahunt.

DELAHUNT: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Delahunt votes aye.

Mr. Wexler.

WEXLER: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Wexler votes aye.

Mr. Rothman.

ROTHMAN: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Rothman votes aye.

Mr. Barrett.

BARRETT: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Barrett votes aye.

Mr. Hyde.

HYDE: No.

CLERK: Mr. Hyde votes no.

Mr. Chairman, there are 16 ayes and 21 no's.

HYDE: And the motion is not agreed to. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes for purposes of making an opening statement. This morning, we commence our second public hearing in fulfillment of the mandate imposed on us in House Resolution 581. While the business of impeachment is rare, and happily so, it becomes necessary from time to time when circumstances require that it be exercised as a constitutional counter balance to allegations of serious abuse of presidential power.

It is part of the series of checks and balances that exemplify the genius of our founding fathers. Throughout our history, we've had a number of impeachment inquiries, but this one represents a historical first. Never before has an impeachment inquiry arisen because of a referral from an independent counsel under Section 595(C) of the statute.

For that reason, we have no precedent to follow on the involvement of the independent counsel in our proceedings. However, it seems both useful and instructive that we should hear from him since he is the person most familiar with the complicated matters the House has directed us to review.

We're holding this hearing to learn the facts surrounding this situation, including those in the referral that Judge Starr sent us September 9, 1998, and to determine whether those facts justify our voting on articles of impeachment.

Everyone should understand how this process works. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the sole power to make accusations known as articles of impeachment. They may do so by a majority vote.

If the House makes such accusations, they are then sent to the Senate for trial. The Senate may convict by a two-thirds vote.

Our Founding Fathers wisely determined that one chamber should accuse and the other should judge.

We began our work on November 9 at the hearing when we were enlightened by the testimony of two panels of outstanding academics about the history and nature of the impeachment process. Today the search for the truth continues as we turn to the underlying facts.

And as we begin that search, we turn to one person, Judge Starr, who has a comprehensive overview of the complex issues we face. I thought we should have that overview before we hear from other witnesses.

As we announced earlier this week, we will hear from other witnesses in live hearings and in depositions as we move towards a final resolution.

In addition, we have yet to hear from the president. And I can assure my colleagues, if and when the president would want to testify, he may have unlimited time to do so.

In any event, we are hopeful that the pledge of cooperation we received from his attorneys will soon be fulfilled.

Let me repeat my New Year's resolution. It's my fervent hope we will be able to conclude this inquiry before the New Year turns. I'm hopeful that all members will bear this in mind as we conduct this search for truth will all deliberate speed.

There are many voices telling us to halt this debate, that the people are weary of it all. There are other voices suggesting we have a duty to debate the many questions raised by the circumstances in which we find ourselves, questions of high consequence for constitutional government.

David Broder, writing in The Washington Post yesterday, suggested that in our hearings, quote, "we will define as a nation the standard of honesty we're going to impose on our president." Close quote.

What is the significance of a false statement under oath? Is it essentially different from a garden variety lie? A mental reservation? A fib? An evasion? A little white lie? Hyperbole?

In a court proceeding, do you assume some trivial responsibility when you raise your right hand, and swear to God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

And what of the rule of law? -- that unique aspect of a free society that protects you from the fire on your roof or the knock on your door at 3:00 a.m.? What does lying under oath do to the rule of law?

Do we still have a government of laws and not of men? Does the law apply to some people with force and ferocity while the powerful are immune? Do we have one set of laws for the officers and another for the enlisted? Should we?

These are but a few questions these hearings are intended to explore. And just perhaps, when the debate is over, the rationalizations and the distinctions and the semantic gymnastics are put to rest, we may be closer to answering for our generation the haunting question asked 139 years ago in a small military cemetery in Pennsylvania -- whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure.

The chair now recognizes the minority leader, the ranking member of this committee, Mr. Conyers, for five minutes for his opening statement.

CONYERS: Mr. Chairman and my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, we meet today for only the third time in the history of our nation to take evidence in an inquiry of impeachment against a president of the United States.

Today's witness, Kenneth W. Starr, wrote the tawdry, salacious and unnecessarily graphic referral that he delivered to us in September with so much drama and fanfare. And now the majority members of this committee have called that same prosecutor forward to testify in an unprecedented desperation effort to breathe new life into a dying inquiry.

It is fundamental to the integrity of this inquiry to examine whether the independent counsel's evidence is tainted, whether conclusions are colored by improper motive.

In short, it is relevant to exam the conduct of the independent counsel his staff, for their behavior impacts directly on the credibility of the evidence in the referral.

For example, the committee must understand whether Mr. Starr improperly threatened witnesses if they did not provide incriminating evidence against the president of the United States, whether Mrerial to humiliate the president.

Mr. Chairman and members, contrary to the views that have been expressed by Chairman Hyde that you expressed in letters to me this week as well, these are not collateral issues at all. They go to the very heart of Mr. Starr's referral. To turn a blind eye to these is to continue an unfair and partisan process.

Now no one defends the president's conduct, but even Republican witnesses at our hearing only last week testified that even if the alleged facts are proven true, they simply do not amount to impeachable offenses. The idea of a federally paid sex policeman spending millions of dollars to trap an unfaithful spouse or the police civil -- or the police civil litigation would have been unthinkable prior to the Starr investigation.

Let there be no mistake -- it is not now acceptable in America to investigate a person's private sexual activity. It is not acceptable to force mothers to testify against their daughters; to make lawyers testify against their clients; to require Secret Service agents to testify against the people they protect; or to make book stores tell what books people read.

It is not acceptable for rogue attorneys and investigators to trap a young woman in a hotel room, discourage her from calling her lawyer, ridicule her when she asked to call her mother. But the record suggests, I'm sorry to say, that is precisely how Kenneth W. Starr has conducted this investigation.

An independent counsel must do justice both in the specific matter he's investigating and through the system of justice as a whole. While an independent counsel can and should pursue a case with vigor, I and many others believe that Mr. Starr has crossed that line into obsession.

And when I talk about obsession, sir, I wonder why Mr. Starr encouraged Linda Tripp to continue to betray and entrap her young, unsuspecting friend and to allow her to continue her illegal tape recordings without court approval.

And when I talk about obsession, I wonder why Mr. Starr ignored his ethical obligations and failed to disclose his involvement in the Paula Jones' case which could have disqualified him from this point of the investigation.

Is it just coincidence that even before he was appointed independent counsel Mr. Starr was already in contact with lawyers for Paula Jones? Is it just coincidental that Mr. Starr, until recently, drew $1 million a year salary from his law firm that represents the tobacco industry, which is fighting President Clinton's effort to deter teen smoking? Is it just a coincidence that this independent counsel accepted a prestigious job at a university funded by one of the president's most persistent and vocal critic, Richard Mellon Scaife?

Is it just a coincidence that the independent counsel failed to provide this committee with important exculpatory evidence in his referral, casually glossing over the central part of Monica Lewinksy's testimony when she clearly stated that -- quote -- "No one promised me a job; no one asked me to lie" -- unquote -- about her relationship.

Perhaps Mr. Starr will persuade us not to be concerned about these matters. But he surely carries the burden of showing us and the American people that these things did not affect his fairness nor his impartiality.

Nor do I understand why Mr. Starr declined to provide the Democratic members of the committee with copies of documents that we've repeatedly requested. Mr. Starr even says that the president should be impeached because he invokes privilege. But he is quick to raise the privilege argument when questioned about his own conduct. And did so this week when Democrats sought documents concerning his conduct.

Over the course of this investigation the independent counsel complained publicly and still does that a lack of cooperation was impeding his investigation. And yet he has now afforded members of the committee the same treatment about which he has complained. This causes us to question Mr. Starr's motives and to lack confidence in his referral.

His conduct over the past week has only reinforced my doubts. On Friday, Mr. Starr shipped two new boxes of documents to us and announced an indictment dating back to events occurring before Bill Clinton was even president -- pre-1992.

On Tuesday, the same day that our Republican colleagues suggested that they might want to expand this impeachment inquiry, contrary to the chairman's stated desire to close it down, Mr. Starr shipped four new boxes of documents to us.

And last night, we learned that Mr. Starr's now sees it fit for this committee to consider Whitewater or other alleged improprieties that he didn't see fit to mention in his referral.

The sense of desperation in the face of a failed impeachment inquiry is palpable.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not observe that to date our committee process has not been bipartisan nor fair. All this committee has done since September 9th is to in a partisan manner dump salacious grand jury material on a public that doesn't want it. It was you, Mr. Chairman Hyde, who said this process could not proceed unless it was bipartisan.

We need to do better than 11th-hour unilateral decisions to subpoena witnesses having little to do with the underlying referral. We need to do better in offering the president a full and fair opportunity to participate in these hearings.

We have many questions about the way you conducted your investigation, Mr. Starr. Fairness dictates that the committee and the American people learn whether you have created a climate for the purpose of driving a president from office who has twice been elected by the people of this great nation.

Page 2

Search TIME magazine and TIME.com. Click for more options or for help. WRITE TO US

HOME |   Only On the Web: TIME Daily TIME 100 Poll Bulletin Boards Chat News Quiz Magazine Features: Cover Story TIME Back Issues   | TOP