[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 153 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11749-H11750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I asked for this 1 minute for purposes of 
discussing the calendar for the remainder of the week.
  Mr. Speaker, of course, as we all know, we have been called back to 
Washington in this session late in the year for the purpose of 
considering House Resolution 611. There is, of course, a uniform 
agreement across the country and between both sides of the aisle, as 
well as the White House, that the Congress fulfill this constitutional 
responsibility as soon as possible. We have been called upon to do so 
on so many times. And so, Mr. Speaker, you were quite right to call us 
back to take this up.
  As you know further, Mr. Speaker, prior to your calling us back to 
town and prior to our taking up this resolution, we became engaged in 
hostile activities with Iraq. The House, quite appropriately, yesterday 
made the decision that we would devote today to a time where we would 
give deference to that activity and give or pay our respects and our 
tribute, exhibit our support for our troops in that activity. I am very 
gratified to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it has been a very broad based 
bipartisan tribute to our troops and pledge of support to our troops' 
activity, but as those troops are engaged now, even now, defending the 
freedoms of this great Nation and the Constitution of this Nation, they 
have a right to know that the work of the Nation goes forward.
  In consideration of this it is our intention, Mr. Speaker, to begin 
consideration of House Resolution 611 at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 
Should we do so under the regular order of the House, as has been the 
basis by which we have considered each resolution of impeachment 
brought to the House ever in the history of the Nation, there would be 
within the rules of the House that have prevailed for the last 200 
years only a very limited time for debate. All of us in this body on 
both side of the aisle feel that that limited period of time is 
insufficient. Consequently we have worked very hard trying to reach an 
agreement by which we might have had a unanimous consent request to 
extend that time of debate. Had we been able to come to agreement on 
unanimous consent, we would have been able to proceed tomorrow at 10 
o'clock, debate the resolution from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock Saturday 
morning, giving all Members an opportunity to express their point of 
view on the matter. The debate would have been equally divided between 
the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), of the Committee on 
the Judiciary. On Saturday, 9:30 a.m., there would have been a quorum 
call, and at 10 a.m. there would have been a period of wrap up speeches 
for approximately one-half hour. After that, the minority would have 
offered a motion to recommit, perhaps, which would have been their 
right, and we would have allowed 10 minutes of debate on that motion 
for both sides, and we would have tried to complete this important work 
on Saturday afternoon so that in fact the need of this Nation for this 
to be completed would have been fulfilled.
  Unfortunately, we are not able to gain that unanimous consent 
agreement, and therefore we must proceed at the outset tomorrow under 
the regular order with the limited time. We will between now and 10 
a.m. tomorrow work diligently with the minority to try to find perhaps 
another agreement that might be able to in an orderly fashion extend 
the debate time in the interests of all Members wanting to participate. 
If we are not able to get that, there are prerogatives that rest with 
us by which, perhaps, we might even still be able to, and certainly the 
majority is willing to use those prerogatives to extend the debate time 
for a matter of this consequence.
  I am presuming that the debate would go in an orderly manner with a 
demeanor that befits the stature of this great legislative body. We 
would exercise those prerogatives on behalf of all Members, but, as it 
stands now, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that we must proceed tomorrow 
morning at 10 a.m., and we must proceed under the regular order of the 
House.
  As I have said before, we will do everything we can on behalf of all 
Members wishing to participate to find some manner either by agreement 
and unanimous consent or by that exercise of the prerogatives of the 
body available to us under the rules of the House to afford more 
Members an opportunity to participate in this debate.
  So that being the case, Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to inform Members 
that we will proceed tomorrow at 9 a.m. under regular order, and we 
will do so with the hope that perhaps we can extend this debate time to 
some reasonable measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and Speaker-elect.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished majority 
leader yielding to me, and I would hope that the Members of the 
minority might reconsider their position on this unanimous consent 
request because I think it is a reasonable one which would afford all 
Members the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. I think 
the concerns of the minority will be expressed by the distinguished 
minority leader shortly, and anticipation of his argument is that we 
are carrying on this activity at the same time as our troops are in the 
field, and that is true. For that very reason we adjourn today, 
canceled our plans to bring the issue of impeachment before the floor 
of the House today, as was planned and which was the reason that all 
Members are here at this time solely because the President has deployed 
the troops as recently as yesterday evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of speaking with the President 
yesterday,

[[Page H11750]]

the day before and today, and I understand that the initial reports are 
that our troops are doing an outstanding job. Our hearts and best 
wishes and prayers go with all the troops, and may they all return 
safely and sound having completed their mission in a full and 
successful manner. But in order for the House to simply close down its 
constitutional responsibility and its role in compliance with its 
agreement under both Republican and Democrat resolutions back in August 
or September when we were dealing with the Committee on the Judiciary 
prospective report, the fact is that we really must go forward 
tomorrow.
  When the Special Counsel had concluded his business and made his 
recommendations to the Committee on the Judiciary and the referrals 
were made by this House by a vote of virtually almost all of the 
Members of the House to send the matter to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, virtually all Members said that if we have got to have this 
investigation, and admittedly it is not popular among many Members; if 
we have got to have this investigation, it should be completed by the 
end of the year. The Democrat resolution called for that, the 
Republican chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary said it was his 
intention to complete by the end of the year.
  As a personal matter, I would like to finish it this year, and I can 
tell my colleagues that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) would 
rather not have it as the last item of his role as Speaker of 
the House.

  This is a terribly unpopular measure. No one wants to deal with 
impeachment except that it is before us and we must deal with it, and 
the question is when we deal with it. Do we just anticipate that the 
troops in the field will complete their business by Ramadan or by a 
time certain or by Tuesday or by Christmas Day or by New Year's Day or 
by 2 weeks into January? How do we assess when that mission is going to 
be complete? There is no way to know when the troops will have 
completed their mission. There is no way to know whether or not Saddam 
Hussein in his mindless self absorption decides to lash out at American 
troops, at British troops, at Kuwait, at his neighbors anywhere in the 
Middle East. We cannot anticipate what Saddam Hussein will do, and yet 
we cannot refrain from advancing the people's business under this 
critical issue.
  This is an issue of impeachment which has not been before this body 
in 120 years, if I recall correctly. Excuse me, with one exception. 
That was Richard Nixon. The committees entertained impeachment 
proceedings of Richard Nixon, and that happened at the end of the 
Vietnam War when troops, American troops, were deployed in the field in 
Vietnam, and yet the Democrat Congress at the time undertook the 
responsibility of impeaching Richard Nixon, but he resigned.
  When President Bush called upon the majority of the Members of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate to support him in his efforts 
to deploy troops to Desert Storm to combat Saddam Hussein just several 
years ago, fact is the troops were in the field weeks at a time. They 
prepared for months in order to accomplish Desert Storm, and then were 
actually in the field for many weeks. The Congress never wavered, the 
Congress never slowed down, the Congress conducted its constitutional 
responsibility, engaged in its activities while the troops were in the 
field.
  And so we find ourselves in the waning days of the Calendar Year 1998 
with the Judiciary chairman having committed that we would finish our 
business on this unpopular, undesirable issue before the end of the 
calendar year with virtually all of the Democrat members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and virtually all of the Members of the 
House with some exceptions claiming that they wanted to complete this 
business by the end of the year, not let it drag on incessantly, not 
force the country to suffer under a cloud of impeachment. How often we 
hear the arguments now that if we impeach this President, that the 
cloud of impeachment will hang over the country into the weeks and 
months ahead as the Senate conducts deliberations.
  Let us not proclaim or prolong the harm to the country by hanging 
this issue out in this body. Let us do our business. Yes, there are 
people outside the Capitol demanding action in one form or another. 
People are calling in and jamming our switchboards by demanding that we 
take action on one side or another. Let us disregard the outside 
influences and do our constitutional responsibility, which is to 
present the case of impeachment, and if a majority of the Members by 
their own consciences wish to vote for or against that issue of 
impeachment, let them cast their votes without pressure, without 
pressure from the majority, without pressure from the minority, without 
pressure from the White House. Let us debate the issue, let them cast 
their votes, do our constitutional responsibility, live up to exactly 
the principles for which our young people in the Armed Services are 
risking their lives at this very moment, and adjourn this 105th 
Congress, and send the issue to the United States Senate if it passes 
and let it die if it does not.
  I urge my colleagues, reconsider the motion that was going to be 
promoted and promulgated by the majority leader. It provides for an 
orderly debate, it provides for us to engage in this issue without undo 
harangue, it provides for Members not to avoid the issue by procedural 
harangues and folderol, it allows us to face the issue head on. If it 
is meritorious it will pass, and if it is not, it will fail. We can go 
home and understand that we have done our constitutional 
responsibility, and the rest is either in our colleagues' hands or in 
God's hands or in the President's hands, but it will be simply ended 
for us.
  I urge the minority leader to reconsider the position on the 
unanimous consent request.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time just very briefly 
for one final point; and prior to that point, let me thank the 
gentleman from Louisiana for his comments. They were well taken.
  Mr. Speaker, just this morning in the Oval Office of the White House, 
the President of the United States was asked with respect to the 
engagement of American military in Iraq. I quote: ``Would it undercut 
your authority if the House opens the impeachment debate during this 
operation?"
  The President's response, Mr. Speaker, was ``No.''

                          ____________________