[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H9087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 weeks, the House 
Committee on the Judiciary has worked diligently to review the referral 
of the Independent Counsel, as directed by the resolution of this House 
and adopted by a bipartisan majority. Now, after completion of that 
important task, the committee can focus on its second responsibility: 
To determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that 
impeachable offenses may have been committed.
  If the committee, and later the House, says yes, there is reasonable 
cause to believe, that does not mean there should be an impeachment or 
that anyone is guilty. It simply says there is enough merit to have a 
formal inquiry and hearings. That is an effort to get all the facts 
from all the parties in an attempt to get at the truth. These steps 
should not be taken lightly, because they have serious ramifications, 
but it does not represent the final conclusion nor does it indicate the 
outcome of this constitutional process.
  As the committee considers this issue, it is important to make three 
points.
  First of all, there are those that say we need to define what is an 
impeachable offense before we even consider the referral of the 
Independent Counsel. But I would say it is not our responsibility to 
define the term ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' set forth in our 
Constitution. Our founding fathers did not define it, previous 
Congresses did not define it, and it is not our duty to define it for 
the uncertain future. Indeed, to get some kind of narrow restrictive 
standard would be an unwise precedent that could hamstring future 
Congresses from doing their duty.
  It is our responsibility not to define it but to reach a conclusion; 
to conclude whether the allegations and the facts presented to us may 
constitute impeachable offenses. This point was made very clearly by 
the staff report of the House Committee on the Judiciary in 1974, prior 
to the Watergate impeachment hearings. The staff said, ``This 
memorandum offers no fixed standards for determining whether grounds 
for impeachment exists. The framers did not write a fixed standard. 
Instead, they adopted from English history a standard sufficiently 
general and flexible to meet future circumstances and events, the 
nature and character of which they could not foresee.''
  That leads me to the second point. Even though we cannot define 
impeachable offenses to a greater degree than the Constitution, we 
should recognize the uniqueness of the language ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors''. While criminal conduct may constitute an impeachable 
offense, every crime may not rise to that level. The framers of the 
Constitution focused on the public trust at stake, and impeachment is 
designed to address conduct that violates that high trust. If the House 
considers the report from the Independent Counsel in that way, we 
distinguish the important Constitutional concern from that of conduct 
which may be personal in character and not violative of the public 
trust.
  Our founding fathers illustrated their intent that ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' embrace a breach of the public duty. The Constitution 
itself describes officeholders under the Constitution as those who hold 
an office of trust or profit, directly associating public office with a 
notion of trust. In the federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton was 
quoted as saying, ``The subject of its impeachment jurisdiction are 
those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public officers.''
  The third point I would emphasize is that the constitutional idea of 
impeachment is not about punishment. There are those, including some of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who say that impeachment 
is to punish officers for misconduct, if established. The purpose of an 
impeachment proceeding is not to punish, but the purpose is to repair 
the breach. This would occur either from the conclusion that the facts 
do not merit further inquiry, from an acquittal in the Senate, or from 
a conviction that may result from removal from office. Certainly there 
must be consequences to a finding that there has been a breach of the 
public trust, but pursuit of punishment should not be our motive.
  In the end, the question we must ask ourselves is whether we are 
willing to close down the Constitutional process or whether we will 
seek out all the facts and bring this matter to a close. It is 
certainly a difficult time for our country, but if we remind ourselves 
of the principles established by the drafters of our Constitution, then 
we will keep our feet on solid ground throughout this proceeding and we 
will be judged well by history.

                          ____________________