John Joseph Moakley: “there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in offering this motion. On many occasions the House has debated resolutions…”

“there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in offering this motion. On many occasions the House has debated resolutions to censure presidents, other executive officials, even private citizens. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the House has even debated an amendment to convert articles of impeachment into a censure resolution. In 1830, Mr. Speaker, no one even questioned the legitimacy of that amendment. The Boucher amendment to censure the President is germane to the articles of impeachment that we find before us. Mr. Speaker, in proposing this amendment, we are simply following the precedents of the House. The 3rd volume of Hinds' Precedents, section 2367, clearly records that during the impeachment of Judge James Peck, Representative Edward Everett of Massachusetts offered an amendment to an impeachment resolution. That amendment stated that the ``House does not approve of the conduct of James Peck'' and goes on to recommend that he not be impeached. This is, in essence, Mr. Speaker, what the motion of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) does. The Boucher amendment strikes out the articles of impeachment and, in a more expansive formulation, states that the ``House does not approve of the conduct of'' President Clinton. The House went on to defeat Representative Everett's amendment, but it was offered, it was debated, and it was voted upon. Mr. Speaker, we are asking for the same consideration that the precedents of the House prove was given before.”