HYDE: Well, I can't answer that, but I will say the attorney-client privilege does not overwhelm an impeachment committee. Is there any objection to the approval of the three subpoenas?

SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

You wait until November 18th or 19th, then you put it all in one day. It's not simply legitimate then to argue the time constraint.
I think this committee has erred grievously in going into executive session, and discussing things in executive session, that ought to be discussed publicly.

It is very, very strange to have these arguments about the need for the public to know, et cetera, et cetera, and we do it all in secret. This is the committee that released grand jury information on to television.
We made history in denying something what has traditionally something that would be kept somewhat private. And we debated doing that, in a private session. There is simply a great abuse of this.

And again, I have to say: then adjourn, come back tomorrow, come back next week.

You know, as far as these depositions are concerned that were so important, I don't know why they weren't taken in September or October or earlier in November! I don't know how they became an emergency overnight.

FRANK: No, I won't yield --

HYDE: The gentleman has --

FRANK: No, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think I have five minutes! I'm sorry! Look, I didn't decide that we would try to do it all in one day. But having decided to do it all in one day, you can't use that against us and you can't use that to constrain things!

You know, isn't it somewhat paradoxical, we talk about how important this issue is, we talk about this is such a fundamental constitutional question, but we've got to worry cause it's getting late? Then don't schedule us so that you constrain the most important thing we could possibly be talking about by the clock! Then let it go over into tomorrow, let it go over into next week. We should have been doing it a month ago.

BERMAN: Mr. Chairman?

FRANK: But I will not be constrained by a self-imposed handicap of the clock!
And I still do not think we should go into executive session without some justification as to why we have to go into executive session.

We're not discussing national security, we're not discussing anything that's going to give anything away to anybody, we're not tipping off anybody.

REP. : Mr. Chairman?
REP. : Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

HYDE: -- to authorize the issuance of these subpoenas, and the clerk will call the roll.

REP. : Mr. Chairman?
FRANK: Mr. Chairman! There were members -- point of order, Mr. Chairman!

CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner?
REP. : Mr. Chairman?
FRANK: -- seeking recognition!

SENSENBRENNER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
REP. : Mr. Chairman?
FRANK: Mr. Chairman, don't ruin your reputation for fairness by cutting off members seeking recognition!

CLERK: Mr. McCollum?
MCCOLLUM: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes aye. Mr. Gekas?

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, this is unworthy of you!
REP. : I move to strike the last word.
FRANK: This is unworthy of you, Mr. Chairman!

HYDE: All right, hold it.
BERMAN: Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Schumer makes a point; there are two different distinctions. When you issue subpoenas for people involved in the Kathleen Willey case, the implication of that is that there is a decision that that becomes part of the impeachment inquiry.
Everyone on this side of the aisle felt at the time and voted to limit the inquiry to the Monica Lewinsky referral.
The independent counsel has not made a referral on the Kathleen Willey case.
He has not found that there has been substantial and credible information that conduct by the president that may justify impeachment -- that finding has not been made and that referral has not been made.

Could the chair give us some, without treading on executive session or anyone's confidentiality being disclosed, could the chairman give us some idea why these three people were chosen and not others, and where the chair intends to take this -- these depositions? What is the point?

We already have heard from Mr. Starr that he doesn't think the Willey episode rises to a level of impeachment.
In my judgment, he has a pretty low threshold for impeachment, and if he doesn't think that the Willey affair does, then that's pretty dispositive to me.
And here we are with three complete -- you know, yesterday we heard talk of John Huang. It was very hard to figure out what that was all about.

Now we're hearing these three. One can only draw the conclusion, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, one can only draw the conclusion without -- without hearing an explanation, that the majority doesn't quite know what to do here and is sort of prolonging this with whichever they -- with whatever thing the can grab onto, because there's no logic to this, at least to me. I'd like to hear it, and I think the public is entitled to hear it.