[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 240-245]
[From the U.S. 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. Res. --

       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. Res. 10

       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 (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.

[[Page 241]]

  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. 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 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.

[[Page 242]]

  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. 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.
  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

[[Page 243]]

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. 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.
  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 in 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

[[Page 244]]

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 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.

[[Page 245]]


  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)
     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
  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.

                              {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.''

                          ____________________