Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

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:

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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: Resolved, That Mr. Hyde, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Canady, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Rogan, and Mr. Graham 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 Clerk will report the resolution at this time under rule IX.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly will not use 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this resolution merely appoints managers to conduct the impeachment trial, authorizes the message to 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, those of us who are sinners must feel especially wretched today, losing the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) under such sad circumstances. One's self-esteem gets utterly crushed at times like this. I think of a character in one of Tolstoy's novels who feels so crushed, he asked God if he couldn't be useful in wiping something up, or filling a hole, or being a bad example. But something is going on repeatedly that has to be stopped. That is a confusion between private acts of infidelity and public acts, where as a government official, you raise your right hand and you ask God to witness to the truth of what you are saying. That is a public act. Infidelity, adultery, is not a public act, it is a private act. The government, the Congress, has no business intruding into private acts. But it is our business, it is our duty, to observe, to characterize public acts by public officials. So I hope that confusion does not persist. ``The rule of law,'' a phrase we have heard, along with ``fairness'' and ``reprehensible'', more often than not, is in real danger today if we cheapen the oath, because justice depends upon the enforceability of the oath. I do not care what the subject matter is, if it is important enough to say, I raise my right hand and swear by the almighty God that the testimony I am about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, if it is solemn enough for that, it is solemn enough to enforce. When we have a serial violator of the oath who is the chief law enforcement officer of the country, who appoints the judges and the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, we have a problem. Members recognize that problem because they want to censure him. That is impeachment lite. They want to censure him with no real consequences, except as history chooses to impose them. But we suggest that censuring the President is not a function permitted in this Chamber. Maybe across the Rotunda, where the sanctions of an impeached person are imposed, that is another situation. I daresay, they are innovative and creative over there on Mount Olympus, but here we are confined by the strictures of the Constitution which affords us one avenue, and that is impeachment, impeachment. There is a doctrine of separation of powers. We cannot punish the President. Yet, a censure resolution, to be meaningful, has to at least harm his reputation. We have no power to do that, if we believe in the Constitution. The Constitution did not enumerate for us a power of punishing the President. Again, I speak not for the gentlemen across the hall. No fact witnesses, I have heard that repeated again and again. Look, we had 60,000 pages of testimony from the grand jury, from depositions, from statements under oath. That is testimony that we can believe and accept. We chose to believe it and accept it. Why reinterview Betty Currie to take another statement when we already had her statement? Why interview Monica Lewinsky when we had her statement under oath, and with a grant of immunity that if she lied she would forfeit? If Members on the other side did not trust those people, if they did not accept their credibility, Members had the opportunity to call them and cross-examine them to their heart's content. But no, they really did not want to bring them in and cross-examine them, but they want to blame us for having no fact witnesses. I think that is a little short of the mark. Lame duck? The cry was, get this over with, get this behind us. We have an election, they pick up a few seats, and ``lame duck'' becomes the cry. Please, be fair. Be consistent. Now, equal protection of the law, that is what worries me about this whole thing. Any of the Members who have been victimized by injustice, and you have not 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. That is what we are fighting for. When the chief law enforcement officer trivializes, ignores, shreds, minimizes, the sanctity of the oath, then justice is wounded, and Members on that side are wounded and their children are wounded. I ask Members to follow their conscience and they will serve the country.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary half of the time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of House Resolution 611, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion except: First, debate on the resolution shall be extended, and I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that I have 4 hours here, but that is certainly negotiable and I would welcome any suggestions the gentleman might have on time, but for purposes of this unanimous consent request I ask that the debate be extended to 4 hours equally divided at the outset and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and seoncd, one motion to recommit with or without instructions, which, if including instructions, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is yielding to me for an answer for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I would like to say, first of all on the time, that the 4 hours I said, that is negotiable; I would not expect to limit it to 4 hours. Limit it to some reasonable sum. We offered a lot of hours last night that our colleagues rejected. So, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be fair, and on the time I ask my colleagues for their suggestions. As to holding this for a couple of more days, that is a decision that our conference has made. We felt the quicker we could go ahead, the more we could show the world our democracy works.