Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 1 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H211-H217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1645
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)1 of rule IX, I hereby
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a
question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:

H.R. --

Resolved, That in continuance of the authority conferred in
House Resolution 614 of the One Hundred Fifth Congress
adopted by the House of Representatives and delivered to the
Senate on December 19, 1998, Mr. Hyde of Illinois, Mr.
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Mr. McCollum of Florida, Mr.
Gekas of Pennsylvania, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Buyer of
Indiana, Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot of Ohio, Mr.
Barr of Georgia, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Cannon of
Utah, Mr. Rogan of California, and Mr. Graham of South
Carolina are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment
trial against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, that a message be sent to the Senate to inform
the Senate of these appointments, and that the managers so
appointed may, in connection with the preparation and the
conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of impeachment to
the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may
include the following:
(1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary
assistants and incurring such other expenses as may be
necessary, to be paid from amounts available to the Committee
on the Judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or from
the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives.
(2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the
Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of
Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or
subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of impeachment
that the managers consider necessary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to call up the resolution.
The Clerk will report the resolution at this time under rule IX.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 10

[[Page H212]]

paid from amounts available to the Committee on the Judiciary
under applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable
accounts of the House of Representatives.
(2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the
Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of
Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or
subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of impeachment
that the managers consider necessary.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The resolution offered by the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary constitutes a question of
the privileges of the House.
Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

General Leave

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a simple, straightforward
housekeeping resolution which the House customarily adopts after
adopting articles of the impeachment. Because this resolution is
incidental to impeachment, the precedents of the House dictate that it
is a question of privilege under rule IX.
On December 19, 1998, the House approved House Resolution 614, which
appointed managers whose duty it was to exhibit the articles of
impeachment in the Senate. On that day, the managers informed the
Senate of the House's action. Because the House, unlike the Senate, is
not a continuing body, it must again appoint managers in the 106th
Congress. This is not a new concept, notwithstanding some protestations
from one law professor. This procedure has been used on three previous
occasions regarding the impeachments of Judges Pickering, Louderback,
and Hastings.
Section 620 of Jefferson's Manual states, and I quote, ``An
impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of parliament, but
may be resumed by the new parliament.''
The commentary on this section is instructive, and is as follows:

In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by
a recess; and the Pickering impeachment was presented in the
Senate on the last day of the Seventh Congress; and at the
beginning of the eighth Congress the proceedings went on from
that point. The resolution and articles of impeachment
against Judge Louderback were presented in the Senate on the
last day of the 72nd Congress, and the Senate organized for
and conducted the trial in the 73rd Congress. The resolution
and articles of impeachment against Judge Hastings were
presented in the Senate during the second session of the
100th Congress but were still pending trial by the Senate in
the 101st Congress, for which the House reappointed managers.

This resolution is procedural in nature. It merely appoints 13
managers who will present the case in the Senate. It also directs that
a message be sent to the Senate to inform the other body of these
appointments, and authorizes the managers to exhibit the articles of
impeachment to the Senate.
Because this resolution is procedural, it should be noncontroversial.
It is imperative that the House take this action today so that the
constitutional process may move forward. If the House were to postpone
this vote, the trial could not proceed in the Senate. It is my
intention to move this process as expeditiously and as fairly as
possible, and the House's approval of this resolution today will help
ensure that the Senate can fulfill its constitutional duty as quickly
as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the pending question, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the question of impeachment, we ought to
start off with why impeachment is in the Constitution. It is in the
Constitution to prohibit and protect the country against subversion by
virtue of a president committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors. The rule of law and the Constitution restricts our
ability to remove the President to crimes that constitute treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
We had a hearing and had 10 experts respond to the question, does
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors cover all
felonies? Most of those experts were invited by the Republican Party,
and they, without discussion, said no, treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors does not cover all felonies.
In fact, in the President Nixon impeachment, we found that treason,
bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors did not cover a half-a-
million-dollar income tax fraud. That is why most of the scholars that
have addressed the question have concluded that these are not
impeachable offenses.
To add insult to injury, we find that the allegations are not even
proven, and it is unlikely that they can be proven. That is why the
vote on these articles of impeachment was essentially partisan, and
why, on a partisan vote in the Senate, the President will not be
removed from office.
The best way to end this partisan charade is to fail to appoint
managers, to bring this thing to a respectable end, and move on to the
people's business.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do not enjoy beginning on the divisive
note of impeachment that consumed so much of the last Congress. I had
hoped that we may have gleaned some lessons from the ordeals of last
year, which began with an overzealous prosecutor consumed by a desire
to bring down the President at any cost. This in turn led to the most
polarizing impeachment in our Nation's history, culminating in an
unprecedented party line vote. Not surprisingly, the net result was an
impeachment totally lacking in credibility and overwhelmingly rejected
by the American people.
Today we have a final opportunity to put this salacious activity
behind us. If we reject the motion to reappoint managers, we will send
a signal that we are prepared to move from the politics of personal
destruction, which has been so costly to our Nation. The incoming
Speaker made references to that today.
On the other hand, if we appoint and ratify the managers from the
105th session, this vote to appoint managers would be tantamount to a
vote to remove the President from office. I remind the new Members who
have not participated that they are not voting managers, they are
voting two articles that call for the impeachment, conviction, and
removal of the President of the United States.
A vote to appoint managers is a vote to execute the impeachment
articles that passed the House. A vote for appointment of the managers
is a vote for a protracted trial, a vote to hear witnesses in their
lurid and graphic fullness, from the Goldbergs, the Tripps, the
Lewinskys.
A vote for managers is to paralyze all of three branches of
government while we pursue a futile attempt to remove a president from
office. It is a vote to ignore the problems of social security and
education and health care while we tilt at this impeachment windmill in
total futility. It is a vote for more partisanship.
By voting down the managers' amendment, for which there is precedent,
we send a signal that the American people want us to send. We will win
the approval of the American people as we begin our 106th Congress
session in its first day. By voting down the appointment of managers,
we are exercising the same common sense that was exercised in this very
House in 1873, when it declined to appoint managers in an impeachment
matter.

{time} 1700

There is no question that the Senate does not have the votes to
convict the President, and so the only possible reason for pursuing
this case now is to satisfy the hunger of a few people who wish to
further tarnish the President. Vote against the appointment, and in so
doing, you will be voting for bipartisanship, for encouraging the
alternative common-sense route of censure

[[Page H213]]

and voting to move away from Lewinsky to the more pressing matters of
the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, some law professors argue that an
impeachment, at least after the 20th amendment, dies with the Congress.
Most of the precedents to the contrary predate the adoption of the 20th
amendment, but we do not have to debate this.
As a practical matter, the new Congress must vote again on
impeachment by voting on appointing managers. If we do not reappoint
the managers, they cannot have a trial in the Senate and the
impeachment dies. So the vote on this motion is really a new vote on
impeachment.
A yes vote on this motion to appoint the managers is a vote to
impeach the President and require the Senate to hold a trial. A no vote
is a vote against impeaching a President and requiring a trial in the
Senate. So our new Members will get a chance to vote for or against
impeachment and removal of the President today.
Having said that, let us remind ourselves why the partisan vote of
this House last month to impeach the President was so contrary to the
intent of the Constitution and such an affront to this Nation.
Impeachment, I remind Members, was never intended by the framers of the
Constitution as a punishment. It was intended as a protection of the
Constitution against a President who would abuse his power to make
himself a tyrant. Benjamin Franklin called impeachment a substitute for
assassination.
The charges in this impeachment, all relating to lying about a
consensual sexual affair, do not constitute an abuse of presidential
power designed or intended to undermine the functioning or integrity of
government or to undermine constitutional liberty, and therefore they
are not, under the Constitution, impeachable offenses.
Now, the gentleman may say, what about the rule of law? What about
equality under the law? I remind everyone that if perjury or
obstruction of justice could be proven, and I do not think they can be,
but if they can be proven, the President, like anyone else, is subject
to indictment and prosecution under law; and that is our assurance of
the rule of law and equality under the law. But to impeach the
President and to try to remove him from office and subject the country
to a lengthy trial and drag it through the muck of the testimony of Ms.
Lewinsky and everyone else, instead of getting on with the business of
saving Social Security and Medicare and a threatening world economy and
everything else is an affront to this Nation to appeal only to prurient
interests and to try to embarrass the President. That is what is at
stake in this vote.
A yes vote is a vote to impeach the President. A no vote is a vote
against it. We have the opportunity to vote again and not only the
opportunity, but it is unavoidable.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we should continue the
authority granted the managers by the lame duck 105th Congress. I do
not believe we should approve managers or any of the expenditures they
have requested, and I will tell Members why.
Since we voted in the lame duck Congress on December 19, I have been
listening to my constituents, the people who live in my district, in
the supermarkets, in the malls, on the street. People are very
disturbed by what the House of Representatives has done. I have had
citizens break down into tears talking to me about our Constitution and
what they think we have done to our Constitution. I have never before
seen feelings this intense among regular people about a political
issue.
I think we ought to listen to what the people are saying. They
understand at a very basic level what Ben Franklin told us: Impeachment
is the alternative to assassination. Impeachment is to prevent damage
so severe to our constitutional form of government that we dare not
wait until the next election.
The people of this country have decided, for the most part, that what
has been presented to us does not meet that constitutional test. And
yet we are moving forward against the Constitution and against their
sound advice. And I think we have finally today an opportunity to undo
the wrong that we have done to our country.
If impeachment becomes just another tool for partisan Congresses, our
American system of government will change. We may lose the strong
presidencies that helped bring us success internationally. And in this
dangerous world, that is very unwise.
Future Presidents and Congresses will look back on this mess for
political lessons. If zealotry is the loser politically, it will be a
positive outcome for America.
Americans will have the chance to deliver that message next year in
the elections, but for now let us listen to the American people. Let us
vote against appointment of the managers and the budget.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member
very much for yielding time to me. And, again, let me thank him for his
leadership during a process of which we have, as members of the
Committee on the Judiciary and this Congress and this Nation lived with
for many days and many months.
This morning I had the privilege of listening to the new Speaker of
the House, and he asked that we get down to the people's business. So I
rise to oppose the appointment of managers because I believe that I
want to ask or answer the question affirmatively to the American
people, who have asked me repeatedly as I have traveled about this
Nation, when will we, this Congress, listen to the will of the American
people? And what I want to say to the American people is that you have
not only good sense but good judgment. For the Constitution of the
United States does not prohibit, does not prohibit the censuring of the
President of the United States. It does not provide for but it does not
prohibit. But yet on this floor this lame duck Congress forbade some
200-plus Members of this House, as well the American people, to have
fully debated a censure resolution that would heal this Nation.
I recollect what the constitutional framers had in mind when they
offered the provision that said, treason, bribery and other high crimes
and misdemeanors would be the grounds for impeachment. What they meant
was what George Mason stated so eloquently. These are offenses that
would undermine the Constitution and destroy the government. What we
have here are private indiscretions. We have the politics of
undermining of the individual.
Yes, we recognize the wrongness of the acts of the President. We
recognize that they are unacceptable. But we also understand that if
this country is to survive, if we are not to lower the bar of
impeachment for the year 2020 or 2030, if we are not to accuse someone
who is President, because of your religious beliefs or because you are
divorced, you want to impeach, if we are not to give credence to the
partisanship of this impeachment, we must now vote against the
appointment of these managers.
I would simply say, I speak really to the new Members who have come.
I speak in all humility and respect for each of you who have been
elected to this great body. You now have a very historic opportunity to
stop these divisive and unfair and partisan accusations on the grounds
that this President should be impeached because there is no substance
to it. You can now vote to censure this President and heal this Nation,
a legitimate, constitutionally founded censure resolution that would
not in fact let the President go free. It would indicate that he had
done wrong.
I ask that we heal this Nation. Vote against the appointment of the
managers and do what is right for the Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I have to
reduce the time of my dear friend from Hawaii, because now all my
committee members have shown up. I nevertheless respect him so much
that I want him to go at this point in time ahead of other Members.

[[Page H214]]

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I made an appeal in the impeachment
hearings on the 19th. I did not engage in accusations back and forth as
to what the motivations were or anything. I made an appeal for
fairness. I thought that a vote on censure was something that would
have given balance to the debate.
Since that time, and during that time, rather, I made an appeal to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, on the basis of
not just only personal friendship but on the basis of what he has
represented to me and to other Members in the House.
We have heard accusations that the rule of law would be compromised
even to the point of perhaps recreating circumstances of the Holocaust.
I do not think anybody really meant that anyone opposed to impeachment
intended that kind of thing, but that is how this thing has begun to
run away.
Another Member who was for impeachment indicated that those of us who
supported the President had engaged in an obscenity in going to the
White House afterwards to show our support. If such a thing had been
said on the floor, we would have taken down that Member's words because
it would have meant that we were personally being attacked and accused,
our character at point. So I ask again today for fairness. I ask that
we turn down this motion on the managers so that we can get the
opportunity to vote on a censure.
I understand that Members who voted for impeachment have now asked
the Senate to censure, and so I think that is only the fair way. I
appeal to the chairman and to Members who voted for impeachment, give
us this opportunity for fairness. Give us an opportunity to vote on
censure.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), who has done an incredible job as being Chair
of the Congressional Black Caucus and serving on the impeachment
committee all at the same time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we do not have to appoint managers from this
House to prosecute the President in the Senate. The lame duck Congress
that impeached the President did so without the consent of the new
Members.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why new Members would get elected, come
here to represent their constituents and take a vote today without
having participated in the impeachment. They are being asked to take
for granted that the Committee on the Judiciary, that the House, had
the facts, they had the information. How could anyone who has said to
their constituents that they are coming here to represent them, that
they will be involved in the deliberations of this House, come here and
on the first day after being sworn in vote mindlessly and blindly to
send some managers over to the other House to prosecute the President
of the United States? That is disrespectful of one's intelligence.
In addition to that, since the vote on this House floor, we have
Republicans who have said in a letter that they signed to the Senate
saying, we do not wish this to go any further, we would really like to
censure. We did not have an opportunity to vote in this House on
censure.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our new Members are more
intelligent than they are thought to be by those who are saying, just
blindly follow what has already been done, this partisan effort that
was made in this House without an alternative on the floor that would
give Members the opportunity to vote censure? I think the Members, the
new Members on both sides of the aisle should rebel against that. I
think the Republican Members, who come here knowing that some of their
constituents do not want that, should not vote these managers to the
Senate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

{time} 1715

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I speak today as a new Member. We new
Members should realize that it was not just the previous Congress that
faced the historic vote on impeachment. Our vote today is every bit as
historic, as crucial, and as telling as the vote in the 105th, and I
say this impeachment process should stop and it should stop today. When
the Nation's train is heading off a cliff and the bridge is out, it is
our mutual duty to stop it and stop it today.
My fellow new Members should take note. Should they vote today to
continue this partisan impeachment, it will be their hands and
fingerprints on the dagger of impeachment. Their constituents will
rightfully ask, ``Et tu, the new House?'' We are not bound by the dead
hand of the lame duck Congress. The people of my district sent home a
Republican advocate of impeachment and sent me to Congress in his
place.
We hear glad tidings that the people want to end partisanship in this
chamber. Today we can decide if that is rhetoric or reality. Our
constituents are our masters, not the last Congress. Free us from the
politics of the past. Join us in saying enough is enough. Let us get on
with the Nation's business and defeat this measure.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner), who replaces the departing Charles Schumer,
and we are delighted to have him make his first presentation on the
floor.
(Mr. WEINER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a day of extraordinary high
honor for me, taking the oath to join this most distinguished body. It
is also my great fortune and great honor to be designated by my
colleagues on the Democratic side to serve on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
I was particularly moved by the words of our new Speaker this
morning, and the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), and how closely they agreed on what the mission of this body
should be; that we should follow the high ideals of bipartisanship, of
hard work, in trying to keep as much as possible our ears to the ground
to hear where the folks we represent are directing us.
I think that that spirit is embodied in the freshman class of the
106th Congress on both sides of the aisle. As we convened, coming into
this first day, we repeatedly said to one another, let us get back to
work, let us try to work together, let us try to put some of the
divisiveness behind us.
I would say to my colleagues in the freshman class, and all of my
colleagues, that this is an opportunity. Why should we not take it.
This is an opportunity for us to get back to work. This is an
opportunity for us to clear the decks of many of the distractions,
particularly those of us who know of the great work of the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and how important it is that we get back to
the work in the Committee on the Judiciary. This is an opportunity for
us to take that step by not reappointing the managers.
I would also point out that the precedence on this case are not so
clear. We do have an opportunity to put this case behind us by voting
``no'' to reappointment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Mel Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of our
committee has indicated that this is simply a noncontroversial
administrative matter. I want to take issue with that because without
managers to prosecute this case in the Senate, the case cannot be
prosecuted. If we as a House, particularly a newly constituted House,
with new Members, a substantial number of new Members, a number of new
Members that could be decisive in whether this matter proceeds or does
not proceed, if we do not reauthorize these managers, the case cannot
go forward on the Senate side.
So anybody who approaches this vote as if it is just a
noncontroversial administrative matter is doing so in the face of the
public's demand that this matter be brought to an expeditious
conclusion and should take this matter a lot more seriously.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to express their
opinion that this matter should not go forward by not reappointing
these managers to prosecute the case in the Senate and by voting
against this resolution.

[[Page H215]]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have watched with
fascination the acrobatics of some of my friends on the other side who
found themselves torn between pressures to vote for impeachment and
pressures to vote against it. I was particularly struck by the letter
written by four of my colleagues who voted for impeachment on Saturday
and wrote to the Senate on Sunday asking them please not to vote for
impeachment, noting that just because they had voted to put the
President out of office did not mean they wanted anyone else to vote to
put the President out of office. What they have argued is they are
really for censure.
Well, Members who have been engaging in that have to understand that
with this motion the contortions have to stop. This is not an abstract
motion to appoint managers in general. This is a motion to reappoint
the specific managers who have gone over to the Senate and have said to
them that they may not shortcircuit the trial; they must allow the
managers to call witnesses, which we wish apparently they did before.
We have a set of managers who have made it very clear that they are
totally opposed to censure. They are opposed to anything in the Senate
other than a full-scale trial.
It is no longer possible for Members to engage in the game of saying
that they are for censure, that they are not for a full trial and
voting down the line to do exactly that. If we vote for the managers,
we are voting for these particular managers. We are voting for the
gentleman from Illinois and others who have been in the Senate and who
have made it clear to the Senate leadership that they do not want
anything but a full trial. So understand that the game is over.
It is logically possible to be for a full trial and to press
absolutely to the end for the removal of the President. It is possible
to think that he should be censured instead and that there should not
be a full trial. What it is not logically possible to do, certainly not
with any intellectual honesty, is to vote for this motion, for these
managers, who have made it clear they will be for an all-out trial, and
then claim that that is not really what we are for.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. This impeachment should
never have occurred. The majority never met its burden of proof. The
offenses do not meet the constitutional standard for an impeachable
offense.
We are defining down the impeachment standard in the United States
Constitution, to the permanent and irreparable damage of our
Constitution. And we are turning back on what our Founders intended,
which was a strong Presidency, only to be removed on the showing beyond
a clear and convincing standard of treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors against the State.
But we still have the opportunity to bring this to an end, to do what
the American people want us to do: To punish the President without
punishing the Nation. We know because we were fact witnesses who the
President lied to about his relationship, which he chose to
characterize to us, and about his unforgivable relationship with an
intern in the White House. And for that, he should be censured.
Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the work of the people, issues like
HMO reform, saving Social Security and Medicare, and improving our
education. The rule of law prevails in America. The President can be
held to the standards of the civil courts, which is why he paid the
$850,000 settlement, to settle the civil case. The rule of law applies
to him. And if some prosecutor decides to prosecute him for alleged
criminal activities when he leaves office, the rule of law will apply
against him, the criminal law, and he could go to prison if those
charges are proven. The President is not above the rule of law.
Impeachment was not about punishment, it was about saving America
from a tyrannical President who threatened the Republic. That is not
what we have. That is what the American people know. The American
people want the President censured, not impeached. Let us move on with
the good work and important work of our Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the level of this debate. It is always interesting on an
important subject such as impeachment. Let me just briefly respond to
some of the remarks that were made.
There was criticism that a vote on censure was not authorized in the
House in the last Congress, and that is certainly true. Many of us have
a conviction that censure is not authorized by the Constitution. We
realize it is not ruled out, but any censure, to be meaningful, would
have to harm the President, would have to damage the President, and
many of us take seriously the proscription in the Constitution against
bills of attainder.
In any event, the Constitution provides one way to deal with a
problem concerning cleansing the office, and that is impeachment. And
our role in that, and our sole role, is to issue articles of
impeachment, which are a request to the Senate to have a trial. And the
Constitution says the Senate has the sole power to try the issues. We
have the sole power to file and pass impeachment. We have done that and
now we are seeking a trial in the Senate pursuant to the Constitution.
The question of what is the appropriate sanction we leave to the
Senate. That is not our concern. We leave to the founding fathers, we
leave to the Senate to determine the sanction.
This is an interesting case. It belongs in the history books for more
than one reason. One of the reasons I find this curious and fascinating
and interesting is the Democrats are perfectly willing to condemn
Presidential misconduct in the strongest terms, stronger terms that I
would use. They do not mind doing that. They are not concerned with
that. What they are concerned with are the consequences, the sanction
to be imposed after finding that the President's conduct was, to coin a
phrase, reprehensible, in their terms. The consequence they will not
abide is his removal from office. They do not mind if he is stigmatized
forever in the history books pursuant to their censure.
So the consequences of the condemnation, whether it is through
impeachment or censure, we leave to the other body that is competent to
impose a sanction. That is ultra vires. That is not within our job
description. So I think that is something worth noting.
Insofar as whether an impeachment is appropriate, that horse has left
the barn. We have voted articles of impeachment; and what is left for
us to do, because a new Congress has begun, is to reappoint the
managers so it can proceed. It is really a ministerial duty, albeit
important and indispensable to the pursuit of the articles of
impeachment.
But, really, what we are talking about is, again, the theme so often
used by the defenders of the President, that whatever he did, it does
not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Well, that issue has
been determined by the House. But I would just say I guess it depends
on how seriously we take perjury, how seriously we take obstruction of
justice, when we are the one person in the country, the one person in
the world who is bound by a constitutional obligation to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed. It does not say some laws. It does not
say laws of this characterization or this category. It says take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.
And so when the President, the chief law enforcement officer in the
land, the man who appoints, nominates members of the Supreme Court,
Federal courts, Department of Justice, Attorney General, perjures
himself, and those are the charges, I am not saying they are true. We
will find that out in the Senate if we get a trial there. So this is
serious, and we are just seeking to advance the process which has
already begun in the House.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

{time} 1730

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The question I pose, because I want to be clear as to what the
gentleman

[[Page H216]]

said, and that is that it is the province of the Senate to impose the
particular sanction, and that could or could not be the remedy of
censure.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, except there is one more
nuance to that.
I have been reminded several times that the last thing the Senate
looks for is instruction from the House, and so I am not about to say
what they can or what they cannot do. But I have this hope that,
whatever the sanction is, it is in their department, not ours.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the other learned gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I was hoping that I would get learned, as well.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank him for
accusing us of acrobatics. It has been a long time since I have been
acrobatic.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would
further yield, I was about to sell tickets to the performance of the
gentleman.
The acrobatics that I was talking about were not those of the
chairman, of course, because he has been consistent here, but some of
his colleagues. So I want to make it clear.
It is the intention of the chairman, if he is reappointed as a
manager, and I think the early returns are looking good, he is ahead in
the exit polls, if he is reappointed as a manager, it is his intention
to continue to press for a full trial in the Senate, for the calling of
witnesses, and to continue his posture of objecting to proposals in the
Senate to short-circuit a full trial. Am I correct?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I believe the Constitution
requires a trial, and it is up to the Senate to shape the contours of
that, but I am hoping a trial would be a fair opportunity for us to
present the evidence.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield
further, I appreciate that. I think that is very straightforward from
the gentleman. I would just address members of his party who are trying
to have it both ways.
I think it is very clear. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has
made it very clear. A vote to reappoint this set of managers is a vote
for a trial. It is a vote against the efforts to short-circuit it. It
is clearly a statement that the Senate ought to go ahead and call the
witnesses. And Members who vote for it have every right to vote for it,
but they are not then entitled to go home and talk about how they were
really for something different.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 or 3 seconds to my friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again, just to pick up on the theme from
my friend and colleague from Massachusetts about the reluctance to
instruct the Senate when it comes to the issue of censure, and I
presume that the position of the House managers would be reluctance to
instruct the Senate as to how to conduct the trial and whether there
would be a necessity for live witnesses.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the contrary. I think
we are reluctant to be instructed by the Senate as to how to conduct
our trial, but we are at their mercy; and so we have used the speech-
and-debate clause to express ourselves to them, and we can only hope.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) because throughout this process
he has shown a strong ability to overcome his various reluctances.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) but I will hold that in
reserve.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I speak today as a new Member. We new
Members should realize that it wasn't just the previous Congress that
faced a historic vote on impeachment. Our vote today is every bit as
historic, every bit as crucial and every bit as telling as the vote in
the 105th Congress.
I say this impeachment process should go no farther. It should stop
today, and it will stop if we don't reappoint the impeachment managers.
When the nation's train is headed off a cliff and the bridge is out, it
is our duty to stop it today.
My fellow new members should take note. Should you vote today to
continue this partisan impeachment, it will be your hand and
fingerprints on the impeachment dagger. Your constituents will ask,
``Et tu, new Congress?''
We are not bound by the dead hand of the ``Lame Duck'' Congress. The
people of my district sent home a Republican advocate of impeachment
and sent me to Congress in his place. We hear glad tidings that the
people want to end partisanship. Today we can decide if that is
rhetoric or reality. Our constituents are our masters, not the last
Congress.
Free us from the politics of the past, join use in saying enough is
enough. Let's get on with the nation's business.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong.
This impeachment should never had occurred.
The majority never met its burden of proof, the offenses do not meet
the constitutional standard for an impeachable offense, and we are
turning our backs on the founding fathers for partisan political
purposes. It is wrong.
We still have the opportunity to bring this to an end--to do what the
American people want us to do--to punish the president without
punishing the nation.
If this trial commences in the Senate, we will be subject to months
of partisan wrangling while issues like HMO reform, saving Social
Security, and improving education are pushed to the sidelines.
Mr. Speaker, lets get back to work on the issues Americans sent us
here to address. Let us or the Senate censure the president and get
back to the issues that impact American's daily lives.
Do not fund this impeachment, do not appoint managers, do not do any
more damage to the United States Constitution.
Bring this to an end.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 198, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 6]

YEAS--223

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)

[[Page H217]]

Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--198

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--7

Blunt
Cardin
Hefley
Jenkins
Lipinski
Neal
Pascrell

{time} 1758

Stated against:
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 6, House
Resolution 10, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

____________________