Transcripts For CSPAN President Bill Clinton Impeachment - House Floor Debate 20240713

Delivers remarks later tonight at a fundraising event at the Trump International hotel. Back at theook 19981999 impeachment of president bill clinton. We will show you a portion of the u. S. House floor debate on four articles of impeachment. The house voted to approve two of those articles, making bill clinton the second president in u. S. History impeached since Andrew Johnson in 18 68. On december 18 and 19th, 1998, the house of representatives take you have articles of impeachment against present bill clinton. We will show you highlights coming up in a moment. First i would like to explain how the articles move from the house to to share committed the floor within a week . They pass out of the House Judiciary Committee. There was lots of discussion about what the rules would be. Obviously for this entire inquiry. Meaning, what the investigation be limited . And the House Judiciary Committee had already undertaken that and had established that the inquiry could. Really run very widely. It was not going to be limited to just a certain number of witnesses or certain number of days or even just to the monocle wednesday question. To the Monica Lewinsky question. Democrats fought to keep that from happening. But the rules were established. And the committee you know, because our memory is that in 2116 party line vote, the republicans were in control of the committee and they were the ones guiding it and moved pretty swiftly. And the house floor was ready to take it up under the Republican Leadership of the house at the time. Remember so much drama. We literally went through three speakers within a couple of days. First the resignation of speaker Newt Gingrich. Bob livingston became the next in line. . Then what happened . There was a scramble to figure out. One of Bob Livingstons allies try to talk him out of it. It was interesting because he had made the decision to resign with some agony. And he resigned because . He resigned because there was a full on press and the democratic world and larry flynt was asking for anyone to come forward with information about any other republicans who were involved in impeachment who had had extramarital relations for themselves. Reported and he understood that larry flynt was going to publish this, that he had had indiscretions in his own marital life. To my colleagues, my friends and most especially to my wife and family, i have hurt you all day play and i beg your forgiveness. I was prepared to lead our narrow majority as speaker and i believe i had it in me to do a fine job. But i cannot do that job. He was not the only one. There were other house members. There was a man house member who confessed to his wife, absolutely certain that it was going to be published and it never was so he had fessed up to his wife proactively, trying to had off what he thought was going to be a disaster. And when president clinton and his defenders knew that there were a variety of house nevers at that time who had a reputation house members at the time who had a reputation for stepping out on their family relationships, that were not expected. In this case, denny houston heame the speaker after withdrew unexpectedly. He took some time to think about it. He said no initially. Then he was talked into doing it. He prayed about it and said he would do it. He was the unexpected and reluctant speaker. We understood heading into the holidays that there was this terrain of everyone celebrating the end of the year and holidays. I remember at the white house, there was an annual christmas press party in which the press corps was invited. It was an odd event, because the president did not show up. That would have been very strange. The first lady did it by herself. She looked very unhappy in the line meeting with the press. Her feeling was she was angry at her husband, it also the news media, as well. On dennyfootnote asterisk danny astors career. Quiethad been a very coach earlier in his life. He left office and became a parent through a legal case that he had been paying black male a young what had been man, student, or someone he had coached and had improper sexual relations with the men and had been paying big money for a long lying about it, and he ended up being prosecuted and convicted for the money that he had paid. Back to december of 1998. Democrats are putting sensor, not impeachment. There were a lot of efforts to think of a way to punish the president that would stop short of impeachment . There were a couple of efforts. One was trying to encourage the House Republicans into the revolution of censure. Ofre was a rejection out hand, because republicans argued it is meaningless in the large scheme of things, and they were deserved to be removed from office. Happened once before Richard Nixon had resigned before the house impeached him or could impeach him. A Lasting Legacy no matter what happened in the senate. That didnt go very far. It came back in the senate, which was interesting. There was also discussion about whether it was worth it to argue the articles of impeachment being dismissed. That came up in the senate. If it would be worth filing a motion to have it all dismissed. There were a lot of efforts to the about ways to punish president without actually impeaching him. The republicans were determined to move ahead and made it clear they wanted to. Why . What was motivating them. What was the gop strategy . World they lived in, the president s behavior was so offensive, and a lot of these lawmakers were in districts where bill clinton was not necessarily popular as he was nationwide or polls suggested. It, the few of the House Republican managers was not in sync of where the president sbout the personal behavior, or his personal failings, because they were willing to see this as personal misbehavior of a sexual his that was really part of family relationship. Himas a responsibility of to his family, not necessarily the American People. Instead, House Republicans felt it was a violation of his oath of office and he had done damage to the nation. He deserved to be punished for it. What can you remember of the floor debate in the house . Was very vigorous, but it also showcased the stark differences that were argued. Since the democrats were able to with thedefense democratic talking points, which is what the republicans, it was a coup, an effort to get back at them. His reelection. Republicans were offering a passionate and determined violatedthat he had the morality of the nation, his constitutional oath of office, and there was a lot of passion. A portion of that debate from the house of representatives. This Network Within in its 19th 1998 them december of floor debate over the impeachment of president clinton. Strongly oppose these articles of impeachment and this flawed and undemocratic process. Againstthe real crime the American People and our democracy. This march 2 impeachment is an attempt to undo and overthrow a duly elected president and ignores the will of the people. Denying a vote on censure creates the appearance of oneparty autocracy, which we condemn abroad, and history has proven it can lead to authoritarian rule. This Republican Party coup underscores their only goal is to turn back the clock on an agenda that puts people first. An agenda that will want to cancel policies that value and support basic human rights, such as a womans right to choose. Insteadublic education of vouchers that insists on a living wage for working men and women that protects our environment, supports the bill of rights, and Social Security is preserved. The republican process is cynical and dangerous. It will be recorded they stood on the wrong side of history. We must restore public trust and establish a congress that communicates respect for the people of the u. S. , the constitution, and democracy. Gentleman from illinois. Minute to the gentleman from South Carolina, mr. Lindsey graham. Gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for one minute. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, theres a long and difficult process the house will be in order. Ladies and gentlemen, this long and difficult process for all of us on the house is almost with inclusion. 25 years ago, a democratic controlled Judiciary Committee with a minority of republicans, reported articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. Why . Nixon cheated. He cheated the electoral system by concealing efforts of a political break in. His people thought the other side deserved to be cheated. They thought his enemies deserved to be mistreated. Ladies and gentlemen, they were wrong. With a smallicans, handful of democrats, will vote to impeach president clinton. Why . Because we believe he committed crimes resulting in a our legal system. Oathlieve he lied under numerous times, that he tempered with evidence, conspired to present false testimony to a court of law. We believe he has sullied our legal system in every way. Any president who cheats our institutions shall be impeached. Nowm pleased to recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. Like all my colleagues, ive spent a great deal of time during the Judiciary Committee testimony of evidence. Let me make absolutely clear i do not condone the behavior of the president , but the framers need clear the constitutional act of impeachment is not meant to punish a president for deplorable behavior, but to protect our nation from acts which differed eyes our democratic system. Jeopardizes our democratic system. What the president did was wrong morally, but it does not threaten our democracy or rise to the level of Impeachable Offenses as defined by our Founding Fathers in our constitution. I believe the president should be held accountable for his actions. His actions should be condemned and he should be fined. A central resolution that is being denied the opportunity to debate and vote on today. Our Founding Fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the nation from great harm. The chief executive will clearly endanger our constitutional democracy. I do not believe his actions meet this test. The penalty for his misconduct should not be exacted through impeachment, but through our criminal court system and stern censure by this congress. Im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, mr. Livingston. Gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. Rentable. We have fulfilled our duty to our magnificent constitution. Yes our young men and women in the Uniformed Armed services have in the last few days set about the task of ridding the earth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an enemy of civilization, saddam hussein. They have performed their tasks with valor and fortitude, and we freely engage in this most unpleasant aspect of selfgovernment. As was envisioned by our forefathers. The hostilitygret that has been bred in the halls of congress for the last months and years. I want so very much to pacify and pool our urging tempers and return to an era where differences were confined to the debate and not of personal suspect personal attack or assassination of character. Im proud to serve in this institution. Here because ads majority of roughly 600,000 people had the confidence to best us with this authority to act as their agents in a representative democracy. When given the chance, we often find that aside from political and partisan differences, we have much in common with one another. Never discover what the Common Ground may be between the sides of this narrow aisle. Done nothing to bring us together. I greatly regret it has become quite literally the opening gambit of the openly intended livingston speakership. I mostly would have written a different scenario had i had the chance. Pollens and the chessboard and we are playing parts in the drama that is neither fiction nor unimportant. Indeed it is of utmost significance in American History. My desire to create an environment for healing must but wesser precedents, must find the search for responsibility, duty, and justice in the format with the u. S. Constitution. I believe we are in active pursuit on these goals, and i give great credit to chairman. Yde and mr. Conyers mr. Tom rooney, all of the members of staff, the deliberate and conscientious effort on this most difficult task. Nearing completion. However the vote turns out, no owned up tothat we our constitutional responsibility as members of congress in a careful, respectful, and insightful debate. Much credit is due to our presiding officer, who has done an outstanding job. [applause] we differ on process. The minority believes we acted hastily and omitted an alternative from the options available for consideration. We in the majority believe we have properly begun the debate after setting aside a day to honor and praise our troops for the effort theyre extending on our behalf. The commander of the troop in iraq several years ago agreed with us on msnbc. Believe the constitution not be part of the debate on whether or not to impeach the president. We are supported by comments by then majority leader tip oneill during the impeachment proceedings. Ande are differences processes. What about substance . The minority has maintained the president has not perjured himself, and even if he did, search perjury was not in high crimes delineated in article two, section four of our constitution. Surely no president has been impeached for perjury, but three federal judges have been impeached and convicted under the perjury statutes. Perjury a felony punishable by up to five years. The president may be held accountable matter the circumstances. , and 116s a felony people are serving time in federal prison as we speak for perjury. Have been several instances of people going to prison following convictions for perjury involving lies under , under sexual circumstances. Knows that citizen he or she must not lie under oath. Ms. Christine sims of rockville maryland of the judiciary imittee two weeks ago said too was called upon to give answers under oath and in derogatorys during a civil proceeding. Truthful answers to those questions would be embarrassing to me. What i knew exposed me to criticism and had a potential to ruin my life, particularly as it related to my children, whom i love very much. In short, i was scared to tell the truth. I did just that. I could not lie, when i was sworn to tell the truth, no matter the risk or degree of temptation to take the easy way out. Parts of my life have been difficult since, because elements of that testimony have been used to scorn me. I as a common citizen was compelled by my conscious detail the truth. Yes our nation is founded on law, and not the whim of men. There is no divine right of residence. A president is an ordinary citizen vested with the power to govern and sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the u. S. Constitution. Inherent in that oath is a responsibility to live within its laws, with no higher or lower expectations than the average citizen. When the president appeared at the deposition of ms. Jones and secondly before the federal grand jury, he was sworn to a second. To tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god. This according to witnesses to the Judiciary Committee before the special counsel. It did not do. For this, i will vote to impeach the president of the u. S. Be consideredses by the u. S. Senate and the other body of this Great Congress uphold their responsibility to render justice on these most serious charges. President , you have done great damage to this nation over this past year. While your defenders are contending that further impeachment proceedings would only protract and exacerbate the damage to this country, id say you have the power to terminate that damage and heal the wounds you have created. You may resign your post. House will be in order. And i can only challenge you in such fashion if i am willing to heed my own words. Friends,leagues, my and my wife and family, i have hurt you all deeply. I beg your forgiveness. I was prepared to lead our narrow majority as speaker, and abelieve i had it in me to do fine job. Or be theo that job kind of leader i would like to be under current circumstances. Example that i hope president clinton will follow. Speaker ofstand for the house on january 6, but i shall remain as a backbencher in this congress that i dearly love for approximately six months whereupon i shall vacate and ask my governor to call a special election to take my place. I think my constituents for the opportunity to serve them. I hope they will not think badly of me for leaving. I thank my staff for all of their tireless work on my behalf. I think my wife most especially for standing by me. I love her very much. [applause] gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. Without objection, the house will be in order so that gentlemen may be heard. Tough time to follow, but i must stay the course and be true to myself. The republican right wing in this country doesnt like it when we say coup detat. I will make it easier. Golpe de estado. Thats spanish for overthrowing a government. From day one, they wanted to get rid of bill clinton. They stayed on him and made him out to be the number one villain in this country. They have been blinded by hate then, and has been today. This place is full of hate because of what they tried to do to our president. My constituents dont hate bill clinton, they love him and are praying for him at this very moment. You may have the votes today to impeach, but you dont have the American People. The Public Housing projects of the south bronx, i can see bullies when i see them. The bullies get theirs, and you will get yours. The people will rise up from california to new york. They will rise up from texas, florida, everywhere in this country, and tell you not to do this to him. Dont ask him to quit. Bill clinton will never quit. [applause] the chair would ask all members to respect the contents time constraints for which we are operating. Gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. The record of the house on something as important as clearhment should be as and accurate as it can be. After yesterdays considerable misstatements by members of the majority, i rise to set the straight. They say these articles show high crimes. The record of historians who aree the Committee Say they low crimes and dont justify the drastic remedy of impeachment. One impeachment is not justified, they say the president committed perjury in the grand jury. The actual record is he did not deny an inappropriate relationship with ms. Lewinsky during his grand jury appearance. They are complaining only because of a lack of specificity. Testimonyesidents touched where and when it happened. They claim there is a clear and convincing evidence of grand jury perjury, but ignored is the panel of experience prosecutors who testified no reasonable prosecutor in the land would have brought a perjury case arising out of these facts. As through article two, the impeachment is not justified. They say the president s testimony deprives the plaintiff of her day in court. A federal judge ruled three times that Monica Lewinskys allegations were not relevant to the core issue of the jones case and refused to permit the lawyers to pursue the allegations. Lied whenhe president testifying about his understanding of the definition of sexual relations. Spentlawyers and a judge half an hour debating the meaning of the contorted phrase with the judge concluding im not sure mr. Clinton understands all of these definitions, anyway. They say the president perjured himself when you testify through the truthfulness of the lewinsky affidavit. The record shows ms. Lewinsky stated her denial of sex was not untruthful because she defined sex as intercourse. As to the third article of impeachment, it is not justified, either. They say the president obstructed justice by asking ms. Lewinsky to lie in the jones case, engineering the return of gifts he had given her, trying to buy her silence with a job, and directing the testimony. The record is missile minsky stated over and over again the president never asked her to live. She said this in the grand jury and in her written statement. The record shows missile and ski return lewinsky did not the gifts. The record shows the president gave her more gifts after she had been subpoenaed. The job search began months before missile minsky showed up on the witness list in the jones matter. The record shows the president made no extraordinary effort to get her a job. Wasrecord shows ms. Curry never a witness. Ms. Curry testified no fewer than nine times, and stated repeatedly she did not feel pressure by the president s remarks. Power,sident abused his they say, by failing to answer the 81 questions. The record shows the president answered the questions completely, but the alleged abuse of lies in the fact that the majority disagrees with the answers. Has simply tried to dress up its perjury allegations in the clothes of the watergates abuse of power language. In an effort to make its case against the president seem more serious. They say the president has to be impeached to uphold the rule of, but we say the president cant be impeached without denigrating the rule of and evaluating the standards of Impeachable Offenses. [applause] gentleman may proceed, three minutes. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I dont know if i can make this speech, but im going to try. Have been or not, i very depressed about this whole proceeding. I came to work yesterday, it really hit me what we were about to do. But after this morning, it made me realize even more what this is all about. I feel great about it. No matter how low we think we thisor depressed we are, country shows us time and time again how great it is. There is no greater american in today, thenleast Bob Livingston. [applause] because he understood what this debate was all about. Integrity, and the truth. Everything we honor in this country. It was also a debate about relativism versus absolute truth. The president s defenders have said the president is morally reckless, hes violated the trust of the American People, lessened their esteem for the office of resident, and dishonored the office in which they have entrusted him. That doesnt rise to the level of impeachment. What the defenders want to do is lower the standards by which we hold this president , and the standards for our society by doing so. Conscience good after watching Newt Gingrich put the country, his caucus, his house, above himself and resign. I cannot stand before you watching Bob Livingston put his and i hope you will. Hink about his family , his house, and his ambitions he any may have. He thought he could do a good job as speaker. I think he would have. Goodome, its no longer enough to make a mistake, confess that mistake, and except the consequences of that mistake and change the way you lived your life and keep moving and make a contribution to this country. I think you should think about both sides. We will proceed. We will elect another speaker. This country will be better for it. I cant say this strong enough, this is gods country, and i know he will bless america. [applause] let me announce the gentleman from illinois has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from michigan has 15 minutes remaining. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Im pleased to recognize an outstanding member of Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, for one minute. Gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. The house will be in order. Gentleman may proceed. Today even more depressed than i thought i would be yesterday. I believe Bob Livingstons resignation, while offered in good faith, was wrong. [applause] it is a surrender to a developing sexual mccarthyism. . Re we going to have a new test someone wants to run for office, are you now or have you ever been on adulterer . We are losing sight of the question between sins, which should be between a person, his family, his god, and crimes, the concern of the state and society as a whole. [applause] on one level, we could say you reap what you sowed. That gives us no joy. Would mr. Livingston reconsider, because i dont think on the basis of what we know, he should resign. [applause] time of the gentleman has expired. I yield the gentleman and additional 30 seconds. The impeachment of the president is even worse. Again we are losing distinction of track of the distinction between sins and crimes. We are lowering the standard of impeachment. What the president has done is not a great and dangerous offense to the safety of the republic. In the words of george mason, it is not an Impeachable Offense during. The allegations are far from proven. The fact is we are not simply transmitting evidence to the senate as evidenced by the fact god forbid he should resign. He should fight and beat this. [applause] gentleman from illinois. Im pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. Cox. Gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. We are gathered here to deal with the problem none of us wants. We agreed upon more than we admit. Resolution States William Jefferson Clinton is violating his oath of office. Theged and dishonored presidency, engaged in reprehensible conduct with a subordinate, and discussed the truth. This debate therefore is not about whether the president has abused his office, he has. And both democrats and republicans acknowledge it. Some have said we shouldnt deal with this question while our troops are in the gulf. No stew nose with north korean soldiers in the dmz. A quarter million american soldiers are positioned at tripwires of global conflict. They will be there long after this debate ends. They are protecting our freedom and democracy. It is for them as much for any american that Congress Needs today. Every one of our soldiers is held to a code of conduct. None of them could keep their job, the privilege of being ordered into battle, if they committed the crimes of our commanderinchief. For committing just the underlying acts, the socalled personal elements of the commander in chiefs offenses, the Clinton Administration has prosecuted no fewer than 67 american officers and enlisted men and women. Hundreds of americans who served their country in the army, navy, air force, and marine corps have lost their careers, even though they did not once under oath to a judge or a grand jury, or obstruct justice, or tamper with a single witness. They were dismissed because of a more simple reason, they failed in their duty. Woman ingle man and operation desert fox is held to a higher standard than their commanderinchief. Of ourraise the standard american leader to the level of his american troops. Once again respect the institution of the presidency. What thee to it resolution says, no man is above the law. Let us not fail in our duty. Let us restore honor to our country. [applause] im pleased to recognize a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee departing this house, the gentleman from new york, mr. Charles schumer, for one minute. The house will be in order. The gentleman is recognized for one minute. The argument made by the gentleman from texas, the best argument the majority has made thus far, focused on upholding the rule of law, but a hallmark of rule of law is proportionality of punishment. Ifthe president were caught, any president were caught speeding at 100 miles per hour, he would have to be disciplined so others would not feel reckless speeding was certainlye, but we wouldnt use a political equivalent of Capital Punishment, impeachment, to discipline that president. On the other hand, if the president accepted a bribe, there would be no doubt he should be impeached and all 435 of us would vote for it. Lying under oath about an extramarital relationship requires significant punishment such as censure, but not the political version of Capital Punishment impeachment. Thatule of law requires the punishment fit the crime. Censure,to vote for the appropriate punishment under rule of all. [applause] rule of law. [applause] im pleased to yield five minutes to the distinguished member of florida, mr. Mccullen. Gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. There are three principal questions each of us has to answer today. Did the president commit the felony crimes of which he has been charged . Are they Impeachable Offenses . Should we impeach him . My task is to explain how i believe these articles of impeachment we have before us today, and walked through the evidence of the primes crimes the president committed. The president was sued in a Sexual Harassment civil rights lawsuit by paula jones. As part of her case, she wanted to prove her credibility by bringing forward evidence that the president engaged in a pattern of illicit behavior with women in his employment. Long before the president and Monica Lewinsky were called as witnesses, they reached an understanding that they would lie about their relationship if asked. One day in december of last year, the president learned Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in that case. He talked to her about it. During that conversation, they discussed the cover story they previously discussed on other occasions. The president suggested she can file an affidavit to avoid testifying in that suit. Monica lewinsky filed a false affidavit that was perjure us in its own right. She testified before the grand jury that the president didnt tell her to live, but they both understood from their conversations and previous understandings that in fact she was lie. The evidence is clear and convincing i think beyond a reasonable doubt that at that moment, the president committed the first of a series of felony crimes that led us here today. That was a crime of obstructing justice and trying to get monica linsky to lie on Monica Lewinsky to lie on an affidavit. That is the essence of the first of seven counts of obstruction of justice in article three. Id like to call my colleagues attention to the way the column reads. President e scheme the included one or more of the following. There were seven of them. I believe the hiding of the gifts, the effort to get a job for missile when ski, getting ms. Currys secretary to cooperate his later false testimony. All proven by the evidence in the pages of sworn testimony we reviewed. Whether you agree with all of them or not, you have to believe theres clear and convincing evidence that one of them is true, and certainly the affidavit is true, to send this to the senate for trial. Gentlemen may proceed. In january, after this affidavit incident, once it was the details took place, the president testified under oath in a civil disposition and lied again and again. The principal lie he told concerned the question of whether or not he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The definition he was given by the court, however convoluted people think, he testified in the grand jury, he understood. The words given to him, he knew what they meant. The actions the president took on several occasions, according to Monica Lewinsky, were sexual relations. There are more than six witnesses Monica Lewinsky talked corroborate what she has to say. She is very believable, unfortunately, and the president is not. Its not a question of messing with a definition. The president lied before the apology case and under oath again before the grand jury. Not only that, but in his deposition of the jones case, he swore he didnt know Vernon Jordan had met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about the case. Evidence indicate he lies. He also swore he couldnt recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky. Could notent said he recall being in the oval office hallways with miss lewinsky, the evidence indicates he lied. He couldnt recall the exchange between them. So on down the road. He lied then, he went to the grand jury and lied under oath. Thats article two and three. In article four, he lied again to congress. He told us the same things. He said he didnt engage in the sexual relations. He said he was never alone with her. He repeated the same lies to this congress. Thats a grave insult to the constitutional system of government. The president did commit Impeachable Offenses. Perjury rises to the same level as bribery. Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Thats what the constitution says. I submit he should be impeached. The evidence is clear. Theres no question he subverted our system of government. He should be impeached. I recognize for one minute the distinguished gentleman from georgia, the monarchy deputy. Gentlemen is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for this house. This morning when i got up, i wanted to cry, but the tears would not come. Cast this one floor vote, we all should ask the question, is this good for america . Is it good for the American People . Is it good for the constitution . I was growing up in rural alabama in the 40s and 50s, near a house where my aunt lives, an unbelievable storm occurred. Blowing, theted rain fell on the tin top roof of the house. Flashing, theted thunder started rolling. Andasked us to come in hold hands, and we did. To blow,nd continued another tried to lift. He never left the house. Together as a family. The american house. Gentlemen from illinois. Without objection, the house will be in order. 5. 5 minutes. Gentlemen may proceed. Sinners of us who are must feel especially wretched today losing Bob Livingston. Under such sad circumstances. s selfesteem gets crushed at times like this. I think of a character who feels so crushed he asked god if he can be useful in wiping something up or filling a hol or beinge a bad example. Repeatedlys going on , confusion between private acts ,f infidelity and public acts whereas you raise your right hand and ask god to witness the truth you think. Thats a public act. Adultery is not a public act, its a private act. The government, the congress, has no business intruding into private acts. [applause] but it is our business, our observe public acts by public officials. I hope that confusion doesnt persist. A phrase welaw, heard with fairness and reprehensible, is in real danger ,oday if we cheapen the oath because justice depends on the enforceability of the oath. I dont care about the subject matter, if its important enough to say i raise my right hand and swear testimony im about to give is the truth, if it is solemn enough for that, it is solemn enough to enforce. When you have a serial violator of the oath who is the chief Law Enforcement officer of the country, who appoints the judges and supreme court, the attorney general, we have a problem. You recognize that problem because you want to censure him. That is impeachment lite. You want to censure him with no real consequence. Suggest censoring the president is not a function permitted in this chamber. Maybe across the rotunda, where the sanctions of an impeached person are imposed, thats another situation. I daresay they are innovative over there on mountain limp is, but here, we are confined by the scriptures of the constitution, which affords us one avenue, impeachment. There is a doctrine of separation of powers. We cannot punish the president. He had a censure resolution to be meaningful. We have no power to do that if we believe in the constitution. Notconstitution did enumerate a power for punishing the president. I speak not for the gentleman across the hall. No fact witnesses. We had 60,000 pages of testimony from the grand jury, from depositions, statement under oath, that is testimony you can believe and accept. We chose to believe it. To reinterview betty curry take another statement when we already had her statement. My interview Monica Lewinsky when we had her statement under oath. With a grant of immunity that if she lies she forfeits. If you didnt trust those people, if you didnt accept their credibility, you have the opportunity to call and crossexamine them to your hearts content. But you really didnt want to bring them in to crossexamine them, but you want to blame us for having no fact witnesses. I think that is a little short of the mark. Cry was get this over with, get this behind us. We have an election, you pick up seats, and lameduck becomes the cry. Be fair, be consistent. Equal protection of the law. Thats what worries me about this whole thing. Any of you who have been victimized by injustice and havent lived until you have been, sued by somebody and pushed to the wall, and turned to the government and the government is on the wrong side, justice is so important to the most humble among us. Equal justice under the law. When the chief Law Enforcement officer trivializes ignores trades, minimizes the sanctity of the oath, and it is wounded, and you are wounded, and your children are wounded. Follow your conscience and you will serve the country. Thank you. [applause] all time for debate has expired. Pursuant to the order of the 18,e on friday, december 1998, the previous question was ordered on the resolution. For what purpose does the gentleman of virginia arise . I have a proposal to commit. Gentlemen qualifies. The clerk will report. Recommitucher moves to the resolution to the committee withe Judiciary Committee instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment. The resolvinger clause and insert the following. Housethe sense of the that on january 20, 1993, William Jefferson clinton took the oath prescribed by the constitution of the u. S. Faithfully to execute the office of president. Implicit in that oath is the obligation that the president set an example of high moral standards and conducted himself in a manner that falls for respect for the truth. William Jefferson Clinton has a grievously failed in this. Through his actions, he violated the trust of the American People, lessened their esteem for the office of president , and dishonored the office for which they have entrusted to him. William Jefferson Clinton made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate. , William Jefferson clinton wrongly took steps to delay the discovery of the truth. C, inasmuch as no person is above the law, William Jefferson clinton remains subject to criminal and civil penalties. Three, William Jefferson clinton, president of the united states, by his conduct, has brought upon himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American People and this house. Time reserve this a point of order. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Pursuant friday, december 18, 1998. The gentleman from virginia and the member oppose, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. I yield myself such time as i may consume. And debate comes very late at a procedurally awkward manner. The resolution of censure im pleased to offer today was made in order for consideration of the House Judiciary Committee by the gentleman from illinois, he understood the importance of an evenhanded process. He understood the need for balance. Requireded fairness the members of the outcome of this investigation, which is the clear preference of the American People. The passage of a resolution of censure that amount shows the president for his conduct. I commend mr. Hyde for that evenhandedness. I can only wish his example has been followed by the majority leadership in the house. With the leadership posco and currents, the rules committee could have been convened. The resolution allowing for consideration of both the articles of impeachment and a resolution of censure could have been reported and this censure resolution could have and should have been made an order from the start. But that did not occur. The members of the house did not have a Center Alternative available to them from the beginning. And the point of order has been reserved to this resolution offered at the present time. I very much regret this procedure. I think it is a monument to unfairness. Not only is the center and rebuke of the president the publics clear choice but it is the right thing to do. The constitutional history fairly instructs us that the president ial impeachment power is to be used only as a last resort, at times of True National emergency. Its purpose is to remove from office a president whose conduct threatens the very foundations of our systems of government. It is a drastic remedy for the removal of a tyrant. It should not used to remove the president whose offense is a shameful affair and its effort to conceal it. For that offense, he can be tried in a court of law. For that offense, he can and should be centered by this house. And that would be a perfect expression of the publics entirely justified outrage. But to use the impeachment power for that conduct defines it down, cheapens its use, lowers the standard of impeachment for all time, and will inherently get the president ial office. Center is the right approach. I urge approval of this resolution. And mr. Speaker, i am now pleased to yield to the balance of our time, to the democratic leader, the taliban from a, mr. Gephardt. Missouri,tleman from mr. Gephardt. The delman from missouri is recognized. The gentleman from missouri is recognized. Mr. Speaker and embers of the house, i stood on this floor yesterday and implored all of us to say that the politics of and burn must end. Implored all of you that we must turn away from the politics of personal distraction and return to the politics of values. Destruction and return to the politics of the values. It is with that same passion i say to all of you today that the delmon from louisiana, Bob Livingston, is a worthy and good and honorable man. [applause] the gentleman from louisiana. [applause] [applause] i believe his decision to retire is a terrible capitulation to the negative forces that are consuming our political system and our country. [applause] and i pray with all my heart that he will reconsider this decision. [applause] our Founding Fathers created a system of government of men, not of angels. No one standing in this house today can pass a puritanical test of purity that some arent amending that our elected leaders take. [applause] are demanding our elected leaders take. If we demand mere mortals live up to the standard, we will see our seats of government lay empty. And we will see the best, most able people unfairly cast out of public service. We need to stop destroying imperfect people at the altar of an unobtainable morality. [applause] we need to start living up to the standards which the public, in its infinite wisdom, understands that imperfect people must strive towards, but too often fall short. We are now rapidly descending into a politics where life fratriciderce, dominates our public debate, and america is held hostage to tactics of smear and fear. Say no of us here today to resignation, no to impeachment, no to hatred, no to intolerance of each other and no to vicious self of righteousness. [applause] applause]d vicious selfrighteousness. We need to start healing. We need to start binding up our wounds. We need to end this downward spiral which will culminate in the death of representative democracy. I believe this healing can start today by changing the course we have begun. This is exactly why we need this today to be bipartisan. This is why we ask the opportunity to vote on a ,ipartisan censure resolution to begin the process of healing our nation and healing our people. Apise on the brink of the of the abyss. The only way we stop this insanity is through the force of our own well. Will. Own [applause] the only way we stopped the spiral is for all of us to finally say, enough. Us step back from the abyss and lets begin a new politics of respect and fairness and decency, which rises what has come before. May god have mercy on this congress. And may congress have the wisdom and the courage and the goodness to save itself today. [applause] [applause] [applause] and applause] while the thing resolution addresses meant as a question of the privileges of the house, the rule of Jermaine Innes acquires that any amendment confined itself to impeachment, whether addressing it in a positive or negative way, although it may be possible by jermaine amendment to convert a reported resolution of impeachment to resolve, that impeachment is not warranted, and alternative sanction having no equivalent constitutional footing may not be broached as a question of privilege and correspondingly is not germane. The terror acknowledges the language of House Resolution 611 the chair acknowledges the language articulates its proposition for impeachment in language that in itself tends to chair appropriate the must remain cognizant however that the resolution does nonentirely in the framework of the articles impeachment, in vang any separate center the resolution only affects the constitutional prayer for judgment by the senate. The terror is not passing on the ultimate constitutionality of a resolution for censure in fact indeed the chair does not judge the constitutionality of the measure before the house paired rather the chair holds today only that the instance proposal to censure or otherwise admonish the president of the united states, as it does not constitute a question of the privileges of the house, is not germane to the pending resolution of impeachment and intrinsically separate question of the privileges of the house. Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from missouri, the majority leader is recognized. Mr. Speaker with all due respect i must appeal the ruling of the chair. Mr. Speaker . The question is, shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house . Mr. Speaker . Majority leader. I move to lay the appeal on the table. The question is on the motion to table. Although student in favor will say i, those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it. Mr. Speaker, i demand a recall a roll call vote. We will have a 17 minute vote followed by 15 minute votes thereafter. 117 minute vote followed by 15 minute votes thereafter. Minute vote followed by 15 minute votes thereafter. This will be a vote by electronic device. You have been watching part of cspans coverage from the house of representatives december of 1998 and the impeachment of president bill clinton. Two votes, two key votes. What were the totals . I will read for my notes. The first article on perjury, the boat was 228 2206. By second article embraced the house was obstruction of 221 to2212 into 212. Could you set the tone . Only the second time in history the house proceeded with about like that just prior to christmas. What was it like rep. Miller what was it like . In some ways we look back on it and it seemed like we were not sure which way was going to go p but by the time we got to that stage would never it all started with, in october. So now we are in december. And it seemed almost like a fait accompli. By that time most people had absorbed the idea that the president was asked going to be impeached. The white house had absorbed that idea. Every possible avenue to get out of it had failed. So they had embraced, democrats had embraced the i did that this was going to go to the senate erie what i remember was a kind of, at least in the white house a somber sort of sorrow about it but also resignation, because the president s team and his surrogates had moved ahead to try to plan for what was going to happen next, which was the trial. And of course at the center of all of this the relationship between resident clinton and monaco with Lewinsky Monica lowenstein, where wish lewinsky. Where was she at the time . She had become quite a celebrity and by the time we see the trial she had become so practiced in answering questions and giving depositions in answering testimony she could run circles around her questioners. Why didnt you want to testify . Why would you want to avoid testifying . First of all i thought was nobodys business. Second of all, i did not want have anything to do with Pollard Jones or her case. With power jones or her case jones oraola paula her case. She had gone to california and wins working on a book with a ghostwriter to pay her legal bills. She had changed Legal Defense and had a really good legal team. So she was out there. And people saw her. So we are going to see for the first time a trial in the senate involving the president explain how this all came together but who are the key players . You mentioned that chief justice of the time, liam rehnquist. And the role of the senator, william rehnquist. What happened after the houseboat . What happened after the house vote . There was prep ration for what turned out to be a 36 day trial. The democrats and president and his team were thinking about how are they going to proceed . Remember, impeachment is described in the constitution and there are some rules that relate to impeachment in the senate of judges, things that have evolved as senate rules. But a lot of this was going to bykind of pulled together osmosis and meetings and a discussion. It was not necessarily written down. So president clinton and his team had a very strong legal bench and understood how they were going to divide up the president s defense. I also felt that after watching what had happened in the house, with the house defense, that they were going to need someone who could really speak to the senators themselves. So there was an effort behind senator,s to recruit a a former senator who would be willing to join the president clintons dispense team to rep defense team to represent his perspective to the centers. They called around and tried to encourage john glenn to do it, george mitchell. Both said no for a variety of regions. Bumpers, whoo dale was at that time, he just stepped away from the senate after a long career. He had been a governor of arkansas. He had been a senator for long time in arkansas. He knew bill clinton very well. They had actually been rivals a little bit in arkansas. And he got talked into it. He thought about it and said yes, i will. The reason dell bumpers was an important figure is because he spoke as a senator to other senators. He looks like a senator. He had this wonderful way of dressing and his appearance and he had this really great voice. The president and i have been together hundreds of times. At parades, dedications, events,l events, social and in all of those years and all those hundreds of times we have been together, both in public and in private, i have never one time seen the president conduct himself in a way that did not reflect the highest credit on him, his and hishis state beloved nation. He actually represented bill clintons perspective to the senators, the jurors by basically saying look, what he did was wrong. Heres my description of what he did was wrong. To your adjective. Chooseery nice way your adjective. He had a very nice way of presenting i am with you but it is not worth removing eight present from office. It is not a high crime and misdemeanor. Is not a high crime and misdemeanor and this process is damaging. And he spoke as a peer to appear. And that turned out to be effective. He really enjoyed to the role. You could tell he was reluctant to do it at first but he was effective. , the presentation of the case, was from the house managers and there were 13 of them. And they tried to divide up their case what they had a lot of internal strife and lots of different ways of doing this, very archaic process because the questions that were put to the jury actually worked in were written down and given to the chief justice to read. He would read the questions and there would be a response from each side. It was a kind of archaic. Is not like a court of law. It really is not like a legal process. Was lots of effort on the part of House Republicans who would get what role task which questions. The senate to ask which questions. The Senate Republicans cast how they wanted to vote. The moderates agonizing over the variety of choices they had with the two articles of impeachment in front of them. Over a month it was a roller coaster. The senators at that time had to do something they are not used to, sit and listen. And they do not speak. Right, they do not speak. As i said, the questions whatever they were interested in asking, and a lot of this was preprepared, had to be written down and then the managers had to agree to give it to the chief justice and the chief justice would read it. The chief justice got very high marks for how he handled it. He tried to steer it but stay out of it as much as possible. And he came out pretty unscathed. Actually chief Justice Rehnquist has written a book about impeachment and his going into this process. So he knew a lot about the history of impeachment. The setting there part of that was interesting. Because it is very rare for the senate to sit all members to sit there. Remember, the constitution says in order to impeach a president there has to be two thirds of those present. So it is in, and upon you to be present. And they all had to sit there and listen to it all. And it was interesting for those about to remember watching the and the failure to convict. Because there were not 67 votes on these two articles of impeachment, not even close. Right afterward, right afterwards, they spent a month together. They stood up, they are talking, they are laughing. It was like the air, the tension had gone out of the room. And then they all had sent that had spent so much time sitting with each other that they actually seemed more friendly at the end of it than they had at the beginning. Covering all of this at the time for national journal. Thank you for joining us on cspan American History tv. Alaska republican governor joins the Heritage Foundation and washington, d. C. For discussion on his states budget and fiscal landscape. Watch live monday at 11 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan two. Online at cspan. Org or listen live on the free cspan radio app. Are 23chairman, there eyes and 17 nose. The article is agreed to. Amended as reported favorably to the house. Uprooting two articles of impeachment against president trump, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. The house Rose Committee will meet to determine guidelines on how debate will unfold on house floor. What coverage of house rules tuesday at 11 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan three. Watch online on cspan. Org impeachment or listen live of the free cspan radio app. The white house did not release a weekly address from the president. Representative kim schrier of washington gave the democratic address highlighting legislation that would lower the cost of prescription drugs. The bill, named after the late congressman elijah e cummings, was passed by the house this past week. Hi. I am