[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 21 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H880-H881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              IMMORALITY AND HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, many constituents have called on me to 
condemn President Clinton or to condemn former Judge Kenneth Starr. 
Many are convinced that the President has not been honest in his 
disavowals of indecent behavior, and it is time for others in public 
life to demand a fuller explanation from him. Many others are convinced 
that the recent allegations about the President are irrelevant to his 
performance in office or his right to stay in office and should be 
dropped.
  It is wrong for the President of the United States to have sexual 
relations

[[Page H881]]

with a White House intern. It is wrong even if she consented. It is 
wrong because the President is married. It is wrong because the concept 
of consent is strained between persons of such differing persons of 
power. It is wrong because sex outside of marriage is wrong. It is 
wrong to lie about all of these matters. It is wrong to ask, induce or 
threaten others to lie about them as well.
  Not everything that is wrong is illegal. Not everything that is 
illegal should be grounds for impeachment. For example, taking God's 
name in vain is wrong. A law to punish it, however, would violate the 
first amendment, and it is inconceivable that we would impeach a 
President for blasphemy, no matter how flagrant.
  In addition, our country has rules to protect all of us, and we are 
all better off for those rules' existence. Foremost among these rules 
is that we demand proof of wrongdoing. Not simply in criminal wrong, 
but also in our daily judgments of each other, it is wise and good to 
require proof rather than to operate on a presumption of guilt, fueled 
by rumor.
  President Clinton has asserted his innocence to every allegation 
listed above. There may be reason to doubt his denials, devoid as they 
are of any explanation for the questionable conduct. But there is also 
a process to follow to ensure that no one's reputation, let alone a 
President's tenure in office, be jeopardized lightly.
  To defend his character, however, President Clinton does owe all of 
us a complete explanation. It is simply not true that rules of court 
prohibit him from comment. They do not. It is his choice alone that 
keeps him from comment.
  It still is quite a further matter, however, to find in all of this 
evidence of a crime or of an impeachable offense. Herein lies the 
confusion. Former Judge Kenneth Starr appears to be investigating the 
lurid using means we usually reserve for investigating organized crime 
suspects. What he is attempting, I suspect, is to develop a case of the 
President inducing witnesses like Webb Hubbell to lie or be 
uncooperative in the Whitewater matter, and by showing the President to 
be doing so in the Paula Jones matter, he hopes to have a more 
convincing case. But more convincing to whom?
  Judge Starr has announced he will not be seeking to indict the 
President criminally, pledging instead to turn over whatever evidence 
of impeachable evidence of impeachable offenses he may find to the 
House Committee on the Judiciary. That committee, however, can carry on 
its own investigation. It exists constitutionally apart from any 
special counsel. It predates the special counsel by almost 200 years.
  Insofar as the President's own behavior is at issue, therefore, it is 
time to move from Judge Starr's forum to the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, after a reasonable but short time to allow Judge Starr to do 
so in an orderly fashion. All matters presently pending before other 
committees of Congress relating to grounds of impeachment of President 
Clinton should also be consolidated before the House Committee on the 
Judiciary. These other committees and Judge Starr himself may continue 
investigations into the potential wrongdoing of others. Indeed, Judge 
Starr has already won 13 convictions or guilty pleas.
  I fully expect to follow the work of the Committee on the Judiciary 
with great care and, if the evidence warrants it, to vote to impeach 
President Clinton. I would be prepared to do so on the merits, whether 
the economy is doing well or doing poorly. I urge this action in the 
alternative hope that if the President is deserving of impeachment, the 
process might start sufficiently soon to allow for the speedy removal 
of office of one unworthy of it, or in the alternative, if the 
President is not deserving of impeachment, that the President be freed 
from the strains attendant upon the several continuing investigations.
  As to the President's personal reputation, I am very sad. If he 
continues to refuse to volunteer a more credible defense than his 
simple denial, then he risks becoming an object of ridicule, 
trivializing himself and much that he seeks to accomplish in his 
remaining years in office. He has already lost much credibility, and 
that is not because of any actions of Judge Starr. He has lost 
credibility because he has minced words time after time in denying what 
is accused while refusing to say what did happen.
  It may turn out that the President did act immorally on many 
occasions and seemingly without remorse. And yes, this does matter to 
his official functions. Lying comes easier with practice. Viewing a 
subordinate employee as an object for one's own gratifications 
dehumanizes both persons. But the authority of private judgment, the 
sense of regret of our country might remain as the public matter goes 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________