[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H7699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
               CENSURE FOR THE PRESIDENT IS INAPPROPRIATE

  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there has been recent talk in the press and 
around the country since the release of the Starr report that censure 
of the President would be appropriate punishment. Under our 
Constitution, Congress has absolutely no power to censure a sitting 
President. Censure is an exercise for each body of Congress to 
discipline their own Members, not a sitting President. The only 
historical case of censuring a President was when Congress censured 
Andrew Jackson regarding the policy of the National Bank. It is clear 
that Congress acted outside its constitutional powers then because the 
censure was for policy differences, not because laws were broken.
  If Members of Congress believe that the President has violated the 
law, Congress should move forward with courage and start the 
impeachment process rather than create a false solution by censuring 
the President. Either laws were broken or they were not broken. If they 
were broken, then we should step up to our constitutional 
responsibility and do what is necessary to complete it. The rule of law 
is the rule of law. That is what my argument would be, to follow the 
law rather than the censure and start the impeachment process if laws 
are broken.

                          ____________________