Later yesterday, debate resumed on the House floor, with Speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.), Gephardt and Reps. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) and Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) addressing the timing of impeachment debate and vote. Here are excerpts of their remarks:

Livingston: This is a terribly unpopular measure. No one wants to deal with impeachment except that it is before us and we must deal with it. And the question is when we deal with it. Do we just anticipate that the troops in the field will complete their business by Ramadan or by a time certain or by Tuesday or by Christmas day or by New Year's Day or by two weeks into January? How do we assess when that mission is going to be complete? There's no way to know when the troops will have completed their mission. There's no way to know whether or not Saddam Hussein in his mindless self-absorption decides to lash out at American troops, at British troops, at Kuwait, at his neighbors anywhere in the Middle East. We can't anticipate what Saddam Hussein will do. And yet we cannot refrain from advancing the people's business under this critical issue.

This is an issue of impeachment which has not been before this body in 120 years, if I recall correctly. Excuse me. With one exception. That was Richard Nixon. The committees entertained impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon. And that happened at the end of the Vietnam War, when troops, American troops, were deployed in the field in Vietnam. And yet the Democrat Congress at the time undertook the responsibility of impeaching Richard Nixon. But he resigned.

Bush and Iraq

When President Bush called upon the majority of the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to support him in his efforts to deploy troops to Desert Storm, to combat Saddam Hussein, just several years ago, the fact is the troops were in the field for weeks at a time. They prepared for months in order to accomplish Desert Storm, and then were actually in the field for many weeks. The Congress never wavered. The Congress never slowed down. The Congress conducted its constitutional responsibility, engaged in its activities while the troops were in the field. . . .

Let us do our business. . . . Let us disregard the outside influences and do our constitutional responsibility, which is to present the case of impeachment, and if a majority of the members, by their own consciences, wish to vote for or against that issue of impeachment, let them cast their votes without pressure -- without pressure from the majority, without pressure from the minority, without pressure from the White House. Let us debate the issue, let them cast their votes, do our constitutional responsibility, live up to exactly the principles for which our young people in the armed services are risking their lives at this very moment, and adjourn this 105th Congress and send the issue to the United States Senate if it passes and let it die if it doesn't.

I urge my colleagues, reconsider the motion that was going to be promoted and promulgated by the majority leader. It provides for an orderly debate, it provides for us to engage in this issue without undue harangue. It provides for members not to avoid the issue by procedural harangues and folderol. It allows us to face the issue head on. If it's meritorious, it will pass; and if it's not, it would fail. We can go home and understand that we have done our constitutional responsibility, and the rest is either in our colleagues' hands or in God's hands or in the president's hands. But it will be simply ended for us.

Gephardt: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, first respects the right of the majority to decide the agenda and to decide when we will vote on important matters like the one that is to be before us tomorrow. The minority also wants debate and wants as much debate as we can have so that members can express their views on this very important subject. The minority also wants this to be completed this year if at all possible. And we've said that over and over again, and I agree with those views. But I must say that we strongly object to this matter coming up tomorrow or the next day or any day in which our young men and women in the military are in harm's way, protecting the interests of the people of the United States.

I would simply say the reason we believe that -- and we believe it strongly -- is that we think we must think not only of how this activity will be received by members or other Americans around the country, we believe we've got to also look at how Saddam Hussein will perceive the idea and the information that while he is under physical attack by the United States and its people we are having a debate in our House of Representatives to remove the commander-in-chief from his office. I don't think we can assume that Saddam Hussein understands all the nuances and all the facts surrounding this debate and this activity.

Foreign Reaction

We also have to ask how this will be received by the Russians, how it will be received by the British, how it will be received by the French, the Chinese, and people all across this world that we are seeking to ally ourselves with, or to at least get their understanding and their help and their cooperation as we go through this very difficult activity.

Skelton: I think more important than that -- if I can comment on my fellow Missourian's remarks -- it's how the sailors, Marines, airmen and soldiers would receive this. Who would think of removing General Schwarzkopf in the middle of Desert Storm? We are talking about taking up a motion to remove the commander-in-chief of the troops who are actively engaged in a military effort, to remove him during a military crisis of the United States of America.

We have come back at other times in this Congress, at the end of the year when there is no conflict. And I say this, not to be of help to the president, but to be of assistance to the morale and to the steadiness of the young men and young women who are engaged in this. I think we really ought to rethink taking this matter up during this military crisis that we are in.

Gephardt: . . . We have had a lot of partisan rancor in the years past, and that always is part of a political body like this. But I want to say to my friends in the Republican Party, in the majority: I feel very strongly that this is a high moment for the House of Representatives. I feel strongly that we must perform at a high level, and I hope we can.

I also hope that there is not partisan rancor in this debate on impeachment because we have a high duty and responsibility to carry forward. I hope and pray that we could have this debate when it will not be misperceived by Saddam Hussein or by somebody else in the world that we have to depend upon.

And I ask the majority to reconsider its decision, its legitimate decision, to hold this debate while our troops are in the field. I know that members may feel that there's inconvenience in waiting here until this military action is finished tomorrow or the next day or the day after that. I'd like us all to think of the inconvenience that our young people are undergoing, the danger that they face . . . and how they will see this action and perhaps misperceive what is happening in their House of Representatives. I want them to see nothing from us but support and unity of purpose at this time of danger in their lives. . . .

Armey: I believe the nation has fully well understood the schedule that was prepared for this week and announced for this week. The president certainly must have known about this. The president must have weighed that. And indeed, I think by press reports it is clear that he did weigh that matter as he made the decision . . . to engage in this effort in Iraq.

Authority Remains

When he made that decision, knowing full well that this debate must -- might be happening at this time, he very likely addressed in his own mind the question, "Can I effectively complete this mission under those circumstances?" And indeed, he must clearly have concluded he did so, and perhaps that is why he felt so confident this morning, when asked in the Oval Office, "Would it undercut your authority if the House opens the impeachment debate during this operation?"

The president replied, "No. I think that first of all I'm going to complete this mission." He clearly understands that as the commander-in-chief and as president of the United States he has the ability to complete his mission.

He clearly understands that we too have our ability to complete our mission.

One of the wonderful things about a democracy that perhaps Saddam Hussein may never be able to understand is different important missions can be carried out by different branches of the government simultaneously, at peace and with decorum and with effectiveness and with conclusion.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why our democracy is so wonderful and the message that our men and women in the field fighting should have the right to see: that as we engage in conflict, democracy does not stop in America and therefore it is all the more worth our fight and our risk.

Bonior: I would suggest that as a body, when we are dealing with the two most profound questions this institution could ever deal with -- sending our young men and women into combat and deciding the fate of a president -- that the country has a right to be involved and involved intimately in those decisions and that we ought not to disregard their voice, disregard the election results, disregard, as the distinguished leader has just said -- the minority leader -- the effects it will have on 24,000 men and women who are engaged in combat at this very hour.

It would be a grave mistake to go forward with this vote while our nation is engaged in military action. I cannot believe that we are even having this debate. It was totally inappropriate, if I might say, for some in the Republican leadership to call for the president's resignation when he was trying to bring peace just this past week in the Middle East. So it shouldn't surprise us that this decision would flow from that.

Our angst about moving forward rests on another pillar, and that is the inability of this side of the aisle to have the chance to offer a reasonable alternative, a censure alternative, what the majority of Americans now support. It is unfair. It is wrong. There is something about this whole process that shows a lack of judgment, a lack of proportionality, a lack of common sense.

We have time to reach some resolution on these important questions before we engage the debate. But I think it behooves us all to take a step back, to take a deep breath.

My goodness, if Bob Dole and Jerry Ford could offer a way out of this mess, through the censure resolution, why can't we have that choice on the floor? Why is that fundamental choice, supported by the majority of the people in this country, being denied to us on the most fundamental question that we could be dealing with in this Congress?

Gephardt: If I can reclaim my time and conclude, I would simply ask again, in an earnest way and a heartfelt way, that the majority would consider what we have said about doing this debate and taking this under consideration while our young men and women are in harm's way, and also consider the wisdom of denying a (sic) alternative motion of censure when this debate takes place. We feel that both of these requests are reasonable and make common sense, and we make them with respect. And we make them with heartfelt feeling among most of the members on this side.

We appreciate the opportunity to communicate this with the majority. We feel this is a moment of great responsibility for the House of Representatives, and we want nothing more than all of the House and all of its members to bring praise on ourselves as an institution, that we carry out these grave responsibilities in the best possible way for the American people.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said in an interview with CNN that his statement Wednesday criticizing the timing of airstrikes on Iraq was misinterpreted. He attempted to clarify:

Lott: . . . I believe that there is no relationship [between the House impeachment vote and the launch of the airstrikes]. But the fact that people ask that question is in and of itself a question.

So while I am satisfied this was a military decision in terms of the strike being done now on the recommendation of Secretary Cohen and General Shelton -- I have confidence in them -- but I thought there were other serious timing questions about being limited in when we can do it, what time of the year it is, why we didn't do it earlier, the whole, you know, timing question was a legitimate one.

Once the decision is made and the action is underway, you support it. We all do; we all should; and we all will. But I still think that we have a responsibility to evaluate that decision and see what the results are.

Hopefully, the results will be very favorable, and we all pray for that. I received a call within the hour from the president. He gave me a damage assessment. We had a very pleasant conversation. I appreciated that.

But let me go back to another example. Back in August, I was called by the president August the 20th and he said, based on evidence that they had received that communicated to me that they were going forward with the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan. I put out a public statement supporting that decision based on what I had been told.

But I -- now I wonder. You know, was that strike at the time as it should have been? Did it work out? I mean, we hit a plant in Sudan. We hit an encampment in Afghanistan. What was the result of that? Do the people know? Do we know? The answer is no.

So once you sort of feel like you've been burned, the next time it comes around, then you're inclined to be a little more cautious and ask a few more questions. That is all I am doing. . . .

No Deal in the Senate

I don't want to prejudice or prejudge in any way that they might pass one or more articles of impeachment or none, but when they do, the Senate will do its constitutional duty. We will go to a trial and there won't be any deal-making as we begin our job in the Senate.

As other members debated the issue in the House, Democrats and Republicans held news conferences to air their views on the timing of the impeachment vote.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.): The issues before us today are issues of timing -- the timing of our military strike and the timing of the strike being made against the president. . . . As far as the military action, I think the president is doing the right thing at the right time for the right reasons. I hope we give him the support he needs to continue this campaign until we achieve our objectives. . . . If the Republicans believe that this great act of conscience must be decided by lame-duck consciences, then they could call us into session a week from now or several days after a week from now. . . . If the Republicans believe that having a lame-duck Congress decide impeachment is critical, they can argue that. But no one can argue that we should impair our diplomatic efforts during the next week so that New Year's parties go smoothly. And if the Republicans believe that they must have the lame-duck Congress act, at least put it off until a few days after Christmas. . . .

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii): . . . This movement to go forward with the impeachment debate and vote has everything to do with internal Republican Party politics and virtually nothing to do with the good and welcome of the people of the United States and the people who are serving on its behalf in the gulf region today. . . . It has nothing to do with the constitutional process. It has everything to do with internal Republican Party politics. They fear an attack from the right when it comes to a primary in the year 2000. They hope to hamstring the president. They do not care whether anything happens in the Senate of the United States once an impeachment takes place. . . .

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.): . . . When I was in Vietnam and I was coming down in a parachute, I didn't give a rat's rear what Congress did. I was there to do my job, to do my mission. . . . I couldn't care less these rascals were doing back here. As a matter of fact, I hated politicians at the time. I thought they only got our guys killed.

'Zero Effect'

You know, when the flak started flying, Wayne Gilchrest, who had an AK-47 bullet in his guts, didn't stop his fighting and his mission. Sam Johnson here and Pete Peterson, a Democrat friend of mine who's now the ambassador to Vietnam, they didn't stop.

You know what hurt them? The Jane Fondas and the Tom Haydens and the anti-war protesters like Bill Clinton in Oslo, Norway, and Russia and the rest of it. And a lot of you opposed that kind of talk. But I want to tell you, coming down in a parachute, I was shot down with a Russian missile.

That bothered me that those individuals protested. All I wanted was the support of the American people. . . .

Going forward with the impeachment process will have zero effect negatively on our troops.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.): . . . I have a totally different opinion than those Democrat members who appeared before you and said, essentially, that they think that continuing with the impeachment process with respect to President Clinton is going to demoralize the troops.

I think just the opposite. I think that if we hold up this process as a result of the strikes going on, then the troops are going to feel that they have been used for political purposes, and I think they will be demoralized as a result of that. . . .

[By voting on impeachment,] we are going to empower the president to some degree. If we get this thing voted on, the president then can come to the table with the world watching, and he can deploy his forces, he can continue to prosecute this war against Saddam Hussein with nobody being able to say, "Well, you only did it because you wanted to put off the vote." The president hasn't asked that the vote be put off. And once we get it behind us, if, for example, the president is not impeached, then he can move on clearly exonerated; there will be no trial in the Senate.

On the other hand, if we hold off on this thing and we continue to move into the weeks ahead, we all know that the trial in the Senate could take many weeks. We know that we're going to have many occasions in the future, and perhaps in the coming year, when we're going to have to strike sites where adversaries of ours, including, but not limited to, Saddam Hussein, are building weapons of mass destruction, including construction plants and research and development facilities.

Does that mean that we paralyze our domestic activities while we undertake those military operations?