{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1998-12-17-pt1-PgH11749", "1998-12-17", 105, 2, null, null, "LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "HLEGPROGRAM", "H11749", "H11750", "[{\"name\": \"Richard K. Armey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Livingston\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"611\"}, {\"congress\": \"105\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"611\"}]", "144 Cong. Rec. H11749", "Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 153 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 153 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]\n[House]\n[Pages H11749-H11750]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                              {time}  1500\n                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM\n\n  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1\nminute.)\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the\ngentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 minute.\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I asked for this 1 minute for purposes of\ndiscussing the calendar for the remainder of the week.\n  Mr. Speaker, of course, as we all know, we have been called back to\nWashington in this session late in the year for the purpose of\nconsidering House Resolution 611. There is, of course, a uniform\nagreement across the country and between both sides of the aisle, as\nwell as the White House, that the Congress fulfill this constitutional\nresponsibility as soon as possible. We have been called upon to do so\non so many times. And so, Mr. Speaker, you were quite right to call us\nback to take this up.\n  As you know further, Mr. Speaker, prior to your calling us back to\ntown and prior to our taking up this resolution, we became engaged in\nhostile activities with Iraq. The House, quite appropriately, yesterday\nmade the decision that we would devote today to a time where we would\ngive deference to that activity and give or pay our respects and our\ntribute, exhibit our support for our troops in that activity. I am very\ngratified to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it has been a very broad based\nbipartisan tribute to our troops and pledge of support to our troops'\nactivity, but as those troops are engaged now, even now, defending the\nfreedoms of this great Nation and the Constitution of this Nation, they\nhave a right to know that the work of the Nation goes forward.\n  In consideration of this it is our intention, Mr. Speaker, to begin\nconsideration of House Resolution 611 at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.\nShould we do so under the regular order of the House, as has been the\nbasis by which we have considered each resolution of impeachment\nbrought to the House ever in the history of the Nation, there would be\nwithin the rules of the House that have prevailed for the last 200\nyears only a very limited time for debate. All of us in this body on\nboth side of the aisle feel that that limited period of time is\ninsufficient. Consequently we have worked very hard trying to reach an\nagreement by which we might have had a unanimous consent request to\nextend that time of debate. Had we been able to come to agreement on\nunanimous consent, we would have been able to proceed tomorrow at 10\no'clock, debate the resolution from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock Saturday\nmorning, giving all Members an opportunity to express their point of\nview on the matter. The debate would have been equally divided between\nthe chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking\nmember, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), of the Committee on\nthe Judiciary. On Saturday, 9:30 a.m., there would have been a quorum\ncall, and at 10 a.m. there would have been a period of wrap up speeches\nfor approximately one-half hour. After that, the minority would have\noffered a motion to recommit, perhaps, which would have been their\nright, and we would have allowed 10 minutes of debate on that motion\nfor both sides, and we would have tried to complete this important work\non Saturday afternoon so that in fact the need of this Nation for this\nto be completed would have been fulfilled.\n  Unfortunately, we are not able to gain that unanimous consent\nagreement, and therefore we must proceed at the outset tomorrow under\nthe regular order with the limited time. We will between now and 10\na.m. tomorrow work diligently with the minority to try to find perhaps\nanother agreement that might be able to in an orderly fashion extend\nthe debate time in the interests of all Members wanting to participate.\nIf we are not able to get that, there are prerogatives that rest with\nus by which, perhaps, we might even still be able to, and certainly the\nmajority is willing to use those prerogatives to extend the debate time\nfor a matter of this consequence.\n  I am presuming that the debate would go in an orderly manner with a\ndemeanor that befits the stature of this great legislative body. We\nwould exercise those prerogatives on behalf of all Members, but, as it\nstands now, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that we must proceed tomorrow\nmorning at 10 a.m., and we must proceed under the regular order of the\nHouse.\n  As I have said before, we will do everything we can on behalf of all\nMembers wishing to participate to find some manner either by agreement\nand unanimous consent or by that exercise of the prerogatives of the\nbody available to us under the rules of the House to afford more\nMembers an opportunity to participate in this debate.\n  So that being the case, Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to inform Members\nthat we will proceed tomorrow at 9 a.m. under regular order, and we\nwill do so with the hope that perhaps we can extend this debate time to\nsome reasonable measure.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.\nLivingston), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on\nAppropriations and Speaker-elect.\n  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nhis remarks.)\n  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished majority\nleader yielding to me, and I would hope that the Members of the\nminority might reconsider their position on this unanimous consent\nrequest because I think it is a reasonable one which would afford all\nMembers the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. I think\nthe concerns of the minority will be expressed by the distinguished\nminority leader shortly, and anticipation of his argument is that we\nare carrying on this activity at the same time as our troops are in the\nfield, and that is true. For that very reason we adjourn today,\ncanceled our plans to bring the issue of impeachment before the floor\nof the House today, as was planned and which was the reason that all\nMembers are here at this time solely because the President has deployed\nthe troops as recently as yesterday evening.\n  Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of speaking with the President\nyesterday,\n\n[[Page H11750]]\n\nthe day before and today, and I understand that the initial reports are\nthat our troops are doing an outstanding job. Our hearts and best\nwishes and prayers go with all the troops, and may they all return\nsafely and sound having completed their mission in a full and\nsuccessful manner. But in order for the House to simply close down its\nconstitutional responsibility and its role in compliance with its\nagreement under both Republican and Democrat resolutions back in August\nor September when we were dealing with the Committee on the Judiciary\nprospective report, the fact is that we really must go forward\ntomorrow.\n  When the Special Counsel had concluded his business and made his\nrecommendations to the Committee on the Judiciary and the referrals\nwere made by this House by a vote of virtually almost all of the\nMembers of the House to send the matter to the Committee on the\nJudiciary, virtually all Members said that if we have got to have this\ninvestigation, and admittedly it is not popular among many Members; if\nwe have got to have this investigation, it should be completed by the\nend of the year. The Democrat resolution called for that, the\nRepublican chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary said it was his\nintention to complete by the end of the year.\n  As a personal matter, I would like to finish it this year, and I can\ntell my colleagues that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) would\nrather not have it as the last item of his role as Speaker of\nthe House.\n\n  This is a terribly unpopular measure. No one wants to deal with\nimpeachment except that it is before us and we must deal with it, and\nthe question is when we deal with it. Do we just anticipate that the\ntroops in the field will complete their business by Ramadan or by a\ntime certain or by Tuesday or by Christmas Day or by New Year's Day or\nby 2 weeks into January? How do we assess when that mission is going to\nbe complete? There is no way to know when the troops will have\ncompleted their mission. There is no way to know whether or not Saddam\nHussein in his mindless self absorption decides to lash out at American\ntroops, at British troops, at Kuwait, at his neighbors anywhere in the\nMiddle East. We cannot anticipate what Saddam Hussein will do, and yet\nwe cannot refrain from advancing the people's business under this\ncritical issue.\n  This is an issue of impeachment which has not been before this body\nin 120 years, if I recall correctly. Excuse me, with one exception.\nThat was Richard Nixon. The committees entertained impeachment\nproceedings of Richard Nixon, and that happened at the end of the\nVietnam War when troops, American troops, were deployed in the field in\nVietnam, and yet the Democrat Congress at the time undertook the\nresponsibility of impeaching Richard Nixon, but he resigned.\n  When President Bush called upon the majority of the Members of the\nHouse of Representatives and the Senate to support him in his efforts\nto deploy troops to Desert Storm to combat Saddam Hussein just several\nyears ago, fact is the troops were in the field weeks at a time. They\nprepared for months in order to accomplish Desert Storm, and then were\nactually in the field for many weeks. The Congress never wavered, the\nCongress never slowed down, the Congress conducted its constitutional\nresponsibility, engaged in its activities while the troops were in the\nfield.\n  And so we find ourselves in the waning days of the Calendar Year 1998\nwith the Judiciary chairman having committed that we would finish our\nbusiness on this unpopular, undesirable issue before the end of the\ncalendar year with virtually all of the Democrat members of the\nCommittee on the Judiciary and virtually all of the Members of the\nHouse with some exceptions claiming that they wanted to complete this\nbusiness by the end of the year, not let it drag on incessantly, not\nforce the country to suffer under a cloud of impeachment. How often we\nhear the arguments now that if we impeach this President, that the\ncloud of impeachment will hang over the country into the weeks and\nmonths ahead as the Senate conducts deliberations.\n  Let us not proclaim or prolong the harm to the country by hanging\nthis issue out in this body. Let us do our business. Yes, there are\npeople outside the Capitol demanding action in one form or another.\nPeople are calling in and jamming our switchboards by demanding that we\ntake action on one side or another. Let us disregard the outside\ninfluences and do our constitutional responsibility, which is to\npresent the case of impeachment, and if a majority of the Members by\ntheir own consciences wish to vote for or against that issue of\nimpeachment, let them cast their votes without pressure, without\npressure from the majority, without pressure from the minority, without\npressure from the White House. Let us debate the issue, let them cast\ntheir votes, do our constitutional responsibility, live up to exactly\nthe principles for which our young people in the Armed Services are\nrisking their lives at this very moment, and adjourn this 105th\nCongress, and send the issue to the United States Senate if it passes\nand let it die if it does not.\n  I urge my colleagues, reconsider the motion that was going to be\npromoted and promulgated by the majority leader. It provides for an\norderly debate, it provides for us to engage in this issue without undo\nharangue, it provides for Members not to avoid the issue by procedural\nharangues and folderol, it allows us to face the issue head on. If it\nis meritorious it will pass, and if it is not, it will fail. We can go\nhome and understand that we have done our constitutional\nresponsibility, and the rest is either in our colleagues' hands or in\nGod's hands or in the President's hands, but it will be simply ended\nfor us.\n  I urge the minority leader to reconsider the position on the\nunanimous consent request.\n\n                              {time}  1515\n\n  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time just very briefly\nfor one final point; and prior to that point, let me thank the\ngentleman from Louisiana for his comments. They were well taken.\n  Mr. Speaker, just this morning in the Oval Office of the White House,\nthe President of the United States was asked with respect to the\nengagement of American military in Iraq. I quote: ``Would it undercut\nyour authority if the House opens the impeachment debate during this\noperation?\"\n  The President's response, Mr. Speaker, was ``No.''\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1998-12-17-pt1-PgH11749"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 3.565486054867506, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}