To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the House should take up today the question of whether we will exercise our Constitutional authority to impeach the Vice President and to ask the Senate to try him on charges that, if proved, would result in his removal from office.

That does not mean I support the policies advocated by Vice President Cheney or that I think his official conduct has been above reproach. On the contrary, I think that he has helped create many of the most serious problems our country now faces and that he is continuing to advocate policies that would make those problems worse and bring further difficulties upon us.

With President Bush, the vice president spearheaded the unfortunately successful effort to persuade Congress to authorize a rush to war in Iraq--which I opposed. He also was among those in the Bush Administration who refused to listen to the many well-informed people who argued that it was imperative that adequate measures be taken to prevent the disintegration of Iraq's social and governmental fabric that otherwise predictably would follow the equally predictable successful military action to remove the Saddam Hussein regime. And now he clearly is among those who seem to prefer again rushing to use military force--this time to respond to the potential danger of a nuclear-armed Iran--before other options have been exhausted. I strongly oppose that, and have introduced legislation--H.R. 3119--to prohibit funds from being obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above Iran's territory or within Iran's territorial waters except pursuant to a new, specific congressional authorization.

But the question now before the House is not whether we think the vice president's actions have been helpful to the national interest, as his supporters presumably would contend, or whether they have had or could have adverse consequences--as I myself think. Instead, we are being asked whether we should now, today, proceed to charge that the vice president has violated his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the duties of his office and to defend the Constitution and thus should be impeached.

The resolution sets forth what its author says are the specific statements and actions of the vice president that constitute violations of his oath. I agree that those statements and actions are deeply troubling and raise serious questions about the way the vice president has used his position, both in communicating with the American people and in participating in the shaping of Bush Administration policies. But at this moment I am not prepared to say that there are adequate grounds to conclude that those statements and actions in fact constitute grounds for impeachment--and I do not think that Members of the House should be called upon to reach that conclusion today.

I think that before the House is asked to reach that conclusion, the vice president should have an opportunity to respond to the resolution's charges and the statements and actions it cites in support of those charges. I also think that before we are asked to vote on the resolution, we should have the benefit of hearing from appropriate legal experts and other qualified witnesses and that the Judiciary Committee should prepare a report that will provide the basis for any debate here on the floor of the House.

Impeachment is not entirely a legal question. It is partly political, which is why the Constitution entrusts it to Congress and not the courts. But I think it is essential that any decision to impeach any federal official should come only through a careful, thorough process that provides adequate due process for the accused and that will lay the proper foundation for a sound decision. I think to do otherwise, as the author of this resolution seeks to do, would further weaken the civility toward our colleagues and respect for those with whom we disagree that should be the basis for our service in Congress and would only add to the polarization and rancor that are all too prevalent in the Nation's political debates.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose consideration of this resolution at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

I am sorry, I may have misunderstood the gentleman. You asked for a recorded vote on the motion to refer to committee?

I withdraw my motion. He wants to have a vote. I call the question.

No. I moved that the resolution be referred to the Judiciary Committee. The gentleman then posed a parliamentary inquiry. He then asked that the votes be tallied on the motion.

Parliamentary Inquiry

No, I move to refer the bill to the committee. This matter is a matter of very serious import.

I move the previous question on the motion to refer.

Mr. Speaker, I call up the question of the privileged resolution noticed earlier today.

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

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, if this motion to refer fails, does my privileged resolution remain on the floor for an hour of debate and a final vote?

Would it be subject to a vote, then, on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote on the motion to refer to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland moved the previous question before he engaged in debate. Under the rules, I think there are 40 minutes to be divided by both sides.