Skip to content

By: Jim Sensenbrenner in the New York Times

As I walked into the House chamber on Wednesday evening, I had flashbacks to a sadly familiar scene. Just a day short of 21 years ago, I had cast my votes to impeach President Bill Clinton and was then selected to serve as a House manager — a prosecutor — to argue our case before the Senate. While the Clinton impeachment was a bitterly divisive moment in our history, I did what I believed — and still believe — was right.

This week, the sight and sounds were similar, but the underlying facts were vastly different. After evaluating the allegations against President Donald Trump and the process that led us here, I determined that I could not vote to impeach.

Earlier this Congress, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, and Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, set forth criteria for undertaking an impeachment. They said that the evidence would have to be overwhelming and compelling, and, importantly, it would have to be bipartisan.

Looking back at the Clinton impeachment, I’m convinced we satisfied each of these. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, conducted a very lengthy and nonpartisan investigation, delivering 36 boxes of evidence to Congress. He concluded that the president had committed grand jury perjury and obstructed justice to cover his lies. Mr. Starr testified before our committee that the president might have committed impeachable offenses.

By this time, Congress had already established that grand jury perjury was an impeachable offense: In 1989 we had removed a federal judge — Walter L. Nixon Jr. — for that very crime. When I delivered the opening argument in the Senate trial, I noted that we ought not to hold the president to a lower standard than we do a federal judge.

Fast forward to the present day, and things are drastically different. Just moments after President Trump took the oath of office, The Washington Post ran a headline, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.” Chairman Nadler later campaigned for the Judiciary gavel with the promise that he was best fit to lead an impeachment. Worse, 103 current members of the House Democratic Caucus voted to move forward with impeachment even before President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Vitriol and blind hatred aside, President Trump has been robbed of his constitutionally protected due process rights. There was no independent investigation. Instead, Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, conducted a few weeks of closed-door hearings in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center. This is the same man who infamously stated on cable television that he had overwhelming evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians during the 2016 election. The special counsel Robert Mueller found nothing of the sort.

The closed-door hearings led to a railroad job in the House Judiciary Committee, where a majority denied those of us in the minority our rights. When we finally considered the articles of impeachment, they were so broad and flimsy that almost any other president could most likely have been accused of them. Article II, the obstruction of Congress charge, is particularly bad, as Democrats failed even to give a court — the proper arbiter of these disagreements — the chance to weigh in on the matter.

Further, none of the articles allege that the president committed a crime — a drastic departure from the Nixon and Clinton cases. Nevertheless, Democrats prioritized haste as they jammed through their impeachment vote. Again and again, Democrats told us that Congress could not wait to impeach the president. Yet Speaker Pelosi’s decision to withhold the articles from the Senate shows us that we can apparently wait. This whole exercise has been completely bunk.

Earlier this year, I wrote in The Wall Street Journal that an unfair process cannot lead us to true justice. The House impeachment inquiry and process was unfair, and therefore unjust.

majority of my constituents in Wisconsin — a key battleground state — do not support the impeachment charade against the president. Rather, they ask why we don’t wait a few months and let the voters decide whether President Trump should remain in office.

One fear, proffered by Al Green, a Democratic representative from Texas, is that “if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” Apparently, the voters cannot be trusted. They might just choose President Trump. Again.

The real damage done by all of this is the precedent it sets. President Trump — if ever tried in the Senate — will most likely be acquitted. However, by lowering the bar of what is an impeachable offense and by failing to meet the Pelosi/Nadler criteria, we will all but ensure that all future divided governments will lead to impeachments. Mere policy disagreements will become charges of abuse of power.

The founders feared that impeachment might someday be used for solely partisan reasons. For 230 years, Congress had fought off that temptation. Unfortunately, in 2019, some let their disdain for President Trump lead us down this path.

I never thought I’d experience another presidential impeachment. As I walked out of the House chamber following my second, I felt saddened, not just for President Trump and the 63 million people who elected him, but also for future generations. If Democrats thought impeaching a president was difficult, just wait until they have to clean up their mess.

Jim Sensenbrenner (@JimPressOffice), a Republican, represents Wisconsin’s Fifth Congressional District. He has served as a House impeachment manager for four Senate trials, more than anyone in history. He also served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 2001 to 2007.

By: James Wigdergson of Right Wisconsin

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI5) sharply criticized Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over the possibility that she would delay transmittal of the articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump to the U.S. Senate.

“The Democrats repeatedly said that President Trump had to be impeached now. ‘This can’t wait’ was the common refrain,” Sensenbrenner said in a statement released Thursday. “Well, apparently, it can wait. Speaker Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate because her case cannot win over there. While Democrats were able to railroad the first strictly-partisan impeachment through the House, their power has limits and cannot guarantee their desired verdict in the Senate.”

The House of Representatives passed two articles of impeachment on Wednesday. Normally this would result in the transmission of the articles to the Senate for a trial. However, some Democrats have seized on an idea by Bulwark Online Editor Charlie Sykes to delay sending the articles of impeachment until Republicans in the Senate agree to rules proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), including the calling of new witnesses to testify.

Schumer’s proposal was rejected by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who responded that it was up to the House of Representatives to do the investigative work of impeachment.

“The House chose this road,” McConnell said. “It is their duty to investigate. It is their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election.”

It is unclear how House Democrats could force the Senate to accept the Democrats’ proposal for the trial format when Senate Republicans are already disinclined to consider removing Trump from office.

Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was one of the House Managers of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He criticized Pelosi for attempting to control the format of the Senate trial.

“The Constitution clearly gives the Senate, not Speaker Pelosi, ‘the sole Power to try all Impeachments.’ While the Speaker was able to manage the process meticulously in the House, she does not get to dictate the terms of the Senate trial,” Sensenbrenner said. “If impeachment really were as urgent as the Democrats said, then let the Senate consider these Articles.”

Sensenbrenner added that the trial in the Senate will expose the flaws of the impeachment process.

“The criticism all along has been that this impeachment was weak, hurried, and partisan,” Sensenbrenner said. “Now it appears that Democrats are worried the flaws of their rush-job will be exposed when they no longer control the process.”

By: Suzanne Spencer of FOX6

WASHINGTON -- Official votes are still coming in, but most were expected to vote along party lines -- except for one, who wasn't making his stance known initially -- on a night that will be remembered.

Wisconsin lawmakers weighed-in on a historic vote.

"We're talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our election," said Gwen Moore, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 4th congressional district. "The exact thing our founding fathers feared, and the exact circumstance for which they drafted the impeachment clause."

"So why are we here? We're here because the majority caucus, the Democratic caucus, has been hijacked by the radical left," said Jim Sensenbrenner, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 5th congressional district. "They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that election."

President Donald Trump is the third such leader in U.S. History to be impeached. A process that Mordecai Lee, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor emeritus, says shouldn't be taken lightly or turn political.

"What I'm afraid of, is that politics has gotten so bad in America, that this moment on -- every time the U.S. Congress has a majority party that's other than the party of the president -- they're going to impeach him or her," Lee says.

Democratic Representative Ron Kind, of Wisconsin's 3rd congressional district, garnered a lot of national attention after not declaring which way he'd vote. In the end, he voted along party lines.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin was quick to call that out, saying he and other Democrats: "Tried to conceal their stance on the issue when they knew how they would vote (for) weeks, if not for months."

Wednesday night's hours-long hearing is a night many will remember.

Washington, D.C.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI05) has served as a House manager in more Senate trials than any other member in history, including the 1998-99 impeachment of President Clinton. He offered the following statement in response to Speaker Pelosi’s decision to withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate:

“The Democrats repeatedly said that President Trump had to be impeached now. ‘This can’t wait’ was the common refrain. Well, apparently, it can wait. Speaker Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate because her case cannot win over there. While Democrats were able to railroad the first strictly-partisan impeachment through the House, their power has limits and cannot guarantee their desired verdict in the Senate.

The Constitution clearly gives the Senate, not Speaker Pelosi, 'the sole Power to try all Impeachments.' While the Speaker was able to manage the process meticulously in the House, she does not get to dictate the terms of the Senate trial. If impeachment really were as urgent as the Democrats said, then let the Senate consider these Articles.

The criticism all along has been that this impeachment was weak, hurried, and partisan. Now it appears that Democrats are worried the flaws of their rush-job will be exposed when they no longer control the process.”

By: Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

WASHINGTON - In the end, the members of Congress from Wisconsin mirrored the almost perfect partisan divide in the House of Representatives in the impeachment of President Donald Trump Wednesday.

Democrat Ron Kind, the only lawmaker from the state who kept his vote under wraps until the end, voted for both articles of impeachment against Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — joining all but three members of his party on one count and all but four on another. 

Every House Republican voted against impeachment. One independent (and former Republican) supported impeachment. 

Kind, a centrist Democrat from a western Wisconsin district that Trump narrowly carried in the 2016 presidential race, was one of just a handful of lawmakers who refused to declare their position in the days and hours leading up to the vote.

Of the 31 House Democrats in “Trump districts,” 29 voted for impeachment Wednesday, including Kind. The La Crosse Democrat had previously voted to endorse the impeachment inquiry and had sharply criticized the president’s conduct in the Ukraine scandal.

But the very competitive makeup of his heavily rural district set him apart from his two Democratic colleagues from Wisconsin (Mark Pocan and Gwen Moore) and from most Democrats in the House who hold more one-sided seats. The voters in Kind's very “purple” district voted for Democrat Barack Obama in 2012 by 11 points but for Trump by 4 points in 2016.  

"It’s clear the President’s actions were a flagrant abuse of constitutional power; it was unlawful, and it jeopardized our national security," Kind said in a statement. “My vote today was not about the President himself—more importantly, it was about defending the rule of law, our Constitution, and what signal we send future presidents of what is acceptable behavior."

Before and during the House debate Wednesday, Democrats blamed the extremely partisan nature of the Trump impeachment fight on spineless Republicans circling the wagons around Trump while ignoring clear presidential misconduct. Republicans blamed the partisan nature of the debate on Democratic haters hellbent on taking Trump down.

Democrats said failing to impeach Trump would dangerously lower the bar for future presidential conduct and green-light gross abuses of executive power.

Republicans said impeaching Trump would dangerously lower the bar for impeachment and make impeachment a casual political weapon.  

Democrats warned of Congress enabling an overbearing, anything-goes presidency.

Republicans warned of a brazen congressional coup against the president.

Democrats said they approached impeachment reluctantly and solemnly. Republicans accused them of approaching impeachment zealously and happily.

It was a debate that crystallized both the GOP's full-throated, whole-hearted embrace of Trump and the Democratic Party's utter dismay, disdain and alarm over his presidency. 

Wisconsin Republicans Jim Sensenbrenner, Glenn Grothman, Mike Gallagher and Bryan Steil all voted no. 

Kind, Moore and Pocan voted yes.

The state delegation would normally cast eight votes in the House, but northern Wisconsin's 7th District is one of four across the country that has no representation at the moment, due to the resignation of Republican Sean Duffy.

Sensenbrenner was one of the first Republicans to speak during the final House debate.

“Why are we here? We’re here because ... the Democratic caucus has been hijacked by the radical left. They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald Trump won that election,” said Sensenbrenner, who was a central figure among House Republicans in the 1998 impeachment of Democrat Bill Clinton.

“Stop this charade,” Sensenbrenner said.   

Moore said from the floor:

“We’re talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our elections — the exact thing our founding fathers feared and the exact circumstance for which they fashioned the impeachment clause.  Our democracy, our Constitution deserves standing up for.”  

Steil said on Twitter Wednesday:

“Today, I will be voting against impeachment. There is an election in less than a year. The American people should decide if a president should remain in office, not a handful of partisan politicians in Washington.”

Grothman told Democrats from the House floor: “President Trump is keeping his campaign promises and you hate him for that.”

Pocan said from the floor:

“This is not about a single call or a single transcript. This is about a perfect storm, months of activity directly ordered by the president … an orchestrated plan demanding a foreign power interfere in our democracy. President Trump betrayed his oath of office … Today we send a clear signal to this president and all future presidents no one is above the law.”

Moore said in an interview before the vote, “I keep trying to read and find some exculpatory evidence to support the president. I keep trying to find something that would say, 'Well, maybe, (he’s not guilty),' and I just can’t.”

Sensenbrenner said in his floor remarks a key failing of the case for impeachment was that “there are no allegations the president has committed a crime. We’ve had almost three years of nonstop investigations … at no time is there any evidence that Donald J. Trump violated any criminal statutes of the United States.”

In an interview before the vote, Sensenbrenner was asked whether he thought Trump did nothing wrong, or whether he believed the president did something inappropriate but his conduct wasn't impeachable. 

"Well, I think we’re splitting hairs there. I would say probably both," Sensenbrenner said. "If I were in his shoes I would have dealt with the Ukrainians differently than he did, (but) I don’t think the phone call in question is an impeachable offense." 

Gallagher said in a TV interview that "I worry this opens up a Pandora’s box where we’re mired in a state of perpetual impeachment." 

The party-line pattern in the Trump impeachment vote was considerably starker than the votes in 1998 over Democrat Clinton’s impeachment, which were themselves quite partisan. 

In the Trump impeachment, only three lawmakers broke with their party majorities on one article and only four on another. All were Democrats opposing impeachment, and one was in the process of switching parties. A fourth Democrat, presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, voted "present" on both articles. One former Republican, now an independent (Justin Amash of Michigan), voted for impeachment.  

In the Clinton impeachment, five Democrats broke with their party to support impeachment on three articles and one Democrat crossed over on a fourth article.

Meanwhile, 81 Republicans broke with their party to oppose one article, 28 voted against another article, 12 voted against a third article and five voted against a fourth article.

Two of the four articles against a Democratic president failed in the GOP-controlled House in 1998.

Kind was in the House during that impeachment fight as well, breaking with his party to support an impeachment inquiry against Clinton but voting with his party against impeachment. 

The political consequences of his votes this time, if any, remain to be seen.

The Trump campaign declared after Wednesday night's vote, "This evening Ron Kind officially chose his party over his own constituents, securing his place in the most partisan caucus in history."

It's not clear how serious a GOP opponent Kind will draw in 2020. Polling over the course of 2019 shows Trump has a negative approval rating among Kind’s constituents (42% approve, 55% disapprove). It also shows his district is almost evenly divided over impeachment, with slightly more people opposing it than supporting it.

Washington, D.C.—Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) offered the following statement after voting for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA):

“The House passage of the USMCA is a welcome Christmas present for Wisconsin’s hard working families, especially our dairy farmers. This vote has been long overdue, and I urge the Senate to approve the trade deal as soon as possible.”

By: Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner

A House Republican who has presented several impeachment cases in the Senate is warning Democrats their threat to withhold the articles passed against President Trump to gain political leverage may backfire.

“If they are trying to use that as leverage to get the Senate to call witnesses, that will be a huge mistake on their part,” Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, told the Washington Examiner.

Sensenbrenner, 76, has managed four House impeachments, one of them against President Bill Clinton in 1998 and three involving the removal of federal judges. He is the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

“From my experience with previous impeachments, not just the Clinton one, but also the judicial ones, the Senate really dislikes House members telling the Senate what to do and how to do it," Sensenbrenner said. "They do that at their great peril.”

Sensenbrenner, along with a dozen other GOP lawmakers, served as a manager in Clinton’s 1999 Senate trial. He was appointed in a House vote that took place right after lawmakers voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

The House voted to impeach Trump late Wednesday on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But Democrats did not bring up a resolution to appoint impeachment managers.

Instead, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she is waiting to see the terms of the trial Senate Democrats and Republicans negotiate.

Democrats want the Senate to call current and former Trump administration officials as witnesses and to subpoena documents the Trump administration has refused to turn over by asserting executive privilege. McConnell has rejected the request. McConnell plans to meet Thursday with minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, to try to work out an agreement for holding a trial.

Until then, the impeachment process remains in limbo.

Senate lawmakers had planned to hold a trial in January, but it all hinges on Pelosi delivering the articles.

“Without the articles, the Senate can’t hold the trial,” Sensenbrenner told the Washington Examiner. “And if the idea is to remove Trump from office, which we all know isn’t going to happen, rather than just make a political statement for what we have done here for the past two-and-a-half years, then they have to deliver the articles to the Senate.”

Sensenbrenner is retiring from the House after the 2020 elections, ending what will be a 42-year House career.

By; Mitchell Schmidt of the Wisconsin State Journal

Wisconsin’s House members hewed to party lines Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump, with U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, whose district is the most narrowly divided among the state’s congressional districts, finally breaking his silence during the historic vote.

Reps. Mark Pocan, D-Black Earth, Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, and Kind voted in favor of the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Reps. Bryan Steil, R-Janesville, Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls, Glenn Grothman, R-Glenbeulah, and Mike Gallagher, R-Green Bay, voted against both articles of impeachment.

Kind, D-La Crosse, was the only Wisconsin congressman to not indicate how he intended to vote ahead of Wednesday’s impeachment. That also made him the only Democrat representing a district Trump won in 2016 who didn’t reveal his position ahead of time, according to a tally by The Washington Post.

“I’ve reviewed the evidence and followed the hearings. It’s clear the President’s actions were a flagrant abuse of constitutional power; it was unlawful, and it jeopardized our national security,” Kind said in a statement. “Some have argued to let the voters in the next election decide. But how can we trust an election that the President is trying to corrupt?”

With Trump winning Kind’s district in western Wisconsin by four points in 2016, breaking a streak of Democratic presidential candidate victories, the congressman’s Wednesday vote could serve to reinforce his strength among Democratic voters, while also alienating some of Trump’s supporters in Kind’s more rural district.

Four of Wisconsin’s House members spoke on the floor during the six-hour debate. Kind, Gallagher and Steil did not.

Districts represented by Pocan and Moore have strong Democratic majorities.

“This is a vote for our Constitution, setting the precedent for all future presidents, Democrat or Republican,” Pocan said during the House floor debate Wednesday. “Donald Trump must be held accountable for his actions. Today we send a clear signal for this president and all future presidents. No one is above the law.”

Sensenbrenner, who is retiring after this term and serves on the House Judiciary Committee that forwarded the articles of impeachment last week to the House, spoke Wednesday against what he called “phony articles of impeachment.”

“We are here because the majority caucus, the Democratic caucus, has been hijacked by the radical left,” he said. “They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that election.”

Grothman accused Democratic lawmakers of embarking on impeachment proceedings the moment Trump was elected.

“This impeachment is not about anything that happened on a phone call, this impeachment is about what President Trump has done,” Grothman said. “President Trump is keeping his campaign promises and you hate him for that.”

Moore challenged the argument that Democratic lawmakers are using the impeachment to overturn the 2016 election.

“I agree, elections are the appropriate venue for public policy disputes, however we’re not talking about a public policy dispute, we’re talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our election,” Moore said. “The exact thing our Founding Fathers feared.”

Northern Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District, formerly held by vocal Trump supporter and Republican Sean Duffy until his September resignation due to the birth of his ninth child, will remain vacant until a May special election.

Kind district split

Kind has won his House seat by comfortable margins. He didn’t face a general election opponent in 2016, when Trump won his district. In 2018, he won by nearly 20 points.

However, Marquette Law School polls from 2017 to 2019 have found an even partisan split in Kind’s district. Respondents over the last three years — including those who lean to a party — in the district have been 44% Democrat, 44% Republican and 10% independent.

Kind’s district also included the narrowest divide among respondents on whether or not they felt Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Polls conducted in October, November and December — with a sample of 287 total respondents — found 45% of respondents approved of impeachment and removal from office, while 50% were against.

“Kind’s is the only one that is sort of in the middle,” Marquette poll director Charles Franklin said. “The risk that he kind of runs is if there is a super mobilization of Trump voters in 2020 … In a close district like Kind’s, that might be a risky thing for him. On the other hand, Democrats are awfully riled up about this.”

Anthony Chergosky, a UW-La Crosse assistant professor of political science, said an impeachment vote forces Kind, who has trended more moderate than other congressional Democrats, to weigh in on what has become an intensely partisan issue.

“It puts him in a tough spot,” Chergosky said. “About half the district is going to be mad at him regardless of what he chooses.”

However, Joe Heim, emeritus professor of political science with UW-La Crosse, said voters in the 3rd Congressional District are “not dyed-in-the-wool members of their party.”

“People here are a little more willing to split their tickets than other parts of the state,” Heim said.

Chergosky added that Kind’s status as an incumbent and a lack of a high-profile GOP challenger should benefit him in 2020.

“If a Republican is going to win an election over Ron Kind, they’re going to have to win over voters who have supported him in the past and that is no easy task,” Chergosky said. “I think Ron Kind is pretty safe.”

Currently, Republicans Brandon Cook and Shannon Moats are vying for Kind’s seat.

Republican Party of Wisconsin executive director Mark Jefferson singled out Kind’s vote in a statement Wednesday night.

“Democrats like Rep. Ron Kind have tried to conceal their stance on the issue when they knew how they would vote weeks, if not months,” Jefferson said. “Today’s vote displays the sad state of politics where Rep. Ron Kind and other Democrats want to see President Trump fail at the expense of the American people.”

Michael Smuksta, chairman of the La Crosse County Democratic Party, still likes Kind’s chances of winning a 13th term next November.

“Even some conservatives, who may not be Trump conservatives, like what he does,” Smuksta said. “If he’s the nominee coming out of the primary facing a Republican, my bet is the voters in this district are not going to replace a Democrat with a Republican.”

By: Shawn Johnson

La Crosse Democratic U.S. Rep. Ron Kind joined other Democrats in voting to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday, marking just the third time a president has been impeached in U.S. history.

The vote followed a day of debate in the U.S. House of Representatives that saw members of Wisconsin's congressional delegation sharply divided, with Democrats saying Trump had given them no choice and Republicans attacking the process as an effort to undo the 2016 election. All of Wisconsin's Democratic representatives voted for impeachment while all of the state's Republicans voted against it.

Most of Wisconsin's delegation had already announced their plans ahead of Wednesday's vote with the exception of Kind, whose western Wisconsin district voted for Trump three years ago.

Kind issued a written statement after his vote, saying it was clear to him he viewed his vote as a signal to future presidents of what is acceptable behavior.

"Until now, I have reserved judgment, waiting for all the facts to come out," Kind said. "I’ve reviewed the evidence and followed the hearings. It’s clear the President’s actions were a flagrant abuse of constitutional power; it was unlawful, and it jeopardized our national security."

Other Democrats, like U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan of Dane County, had been saying for months that impeachment was the only course left for Congress. Pocan said the evidence was clear Trump had used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

"This is about a perfect storm," Pocan said from the House floor. "Months of activity directly ordered by the president to his senior cabinet and political appointees. An orchestrated plan demanding a foreign power interfere in our democracy."

Republicans, like southeast Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, said the impeachment articles were "phony" because Trump hadn't committed any crimes.

"We're here because the majority caucus — the Democratic caucus — has been hijacked by the radical left," Sensenbrenner said Wednesday. "They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that election."

Wisconsin has eight U.S. House districts, with four represented by Republicans, three represented by Democrats and one district vacant.

Two Republicans, U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher and U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, announced their intentions to vote against impeachment on social media.

U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, an outspoken Trump supporter, joined Sensenbrenner in speaking out against impeachment Wednesday, saying Democrats were pushing it because they didn't like Trump's policies on issues ranging from immigration to food stamps.

"President Trump is keeping his campaign promises, and you hate him for that," Grothman said.

But Milwaukee Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore said the effort to impeach Trump was bigger than a policy dispute.

"We're not talking about a public policy dispute," Moore said from the House floor. "We're talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our elections. The exact thing our founding fathers feared."

The House passed two articles of impeachment, one on "abuse of power" and another on "obstruction of Congress."

It's now up to the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to decide what kind of impeachment trial to conduct. GOP leaders there have made it clear they have no plans to remove Trump from office.

Washington, D.C.—Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) issued the following statement after Congress passed fiscal year 2020 appropriations bills:

“Our national debt recently passed $23 trillion, and Washington didn’t even blink. These appropriations bills fail to address our spending problem, and I could not in good conscience vote for either. However, one of the few positive provisions included in them is my bipartisan legislation to lower prescription drug prices – the CREATES Act. While I’m disappointed that Congress has passed up another opportunity to get our fiscal house in order, I am glad that Americans will have better access to more affordable medications.”

Background on the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act:
In order for a generic or biosimilar prescription to have FDA approval, the generic manufacturer must be able to compare its product to the brand-name product. Simply put, if the product is as safe and effective as the label, then the FDA can approve the generic.

Some generic manufacturers, however, have difficulty obtaining samples of medication from the brand-name company. This is because brand-name companies have an incentive to make it difficult for generic producers to obtain their brand-name products.

The CREATES Act gives generic manufacturers the ability to bring actions in federal court against brand-name companies that refuse to provide samples of their products for purchase and use in the generic approval process. In so doing, the CREATES Act helps to increase the likelihood of a generic product coming to the market so consumers have more affordable options.

The CREATES Act also gives the FDA more discretion for approving alternative safety protocols that meet the statutory standards already in place. This helps the FDA more efficiently process generic applications. In the end, this helps consumers, who will have more choices when selecting their medications.

According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, the CREATES Act will save the federal government $3.9 billion on prescription spending.

More than 90 organizations representing consumers, physicians, pharmacists, hospitals, insurers, antitrust experts, and others support the CREATES Act. Supporters include AARP, Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, Consumer Reports, Public Citizen, American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, Patients for Affordable Drugs, and the Coalition for Affordable Prescription Drugs.