[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9088-H9089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I come here on the floor today to talk 
about the definition and the meaning of ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors.'' The Constitution states that the ``President and all 
civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on 
impeachment for conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes 
and misdemeanors.''
  This is the standard under which the House Judiciary Committee is 
currently evaluating Judge Starr's report. But Mr. Speaker, what 
exactly are high crimes and misdemeanors? To define ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' is to

[[Page H9089]]

get to the heart of the task of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
Constitutional provisions related to impeachment arise from English 
practice, wherein impeachment was employed to remove an official who 
had abused his office but was under the protection of the crown.
  To answer that question, I looked to the intent of the framers of the 
Constitution. They envisioned a government where the only type of 
person who could achieve the office of the President would, by 
definition, be a virtuous person. Should a lack of virtue result, the 
impeachment process was designed to remedy resulting serious offenses 
against the public trust and our system of government.
  In fact, James Madison said that the aim of the Constitution was to 
``prevent the degeneracy of our leaders. The method of this prevention 
is the impeachment process.''
  Our Founding Fathers adopted this view of impeachment from English 
law. In English law, the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' was 
used since the 14th century to address political crimes. This is over 
600 years of history. Thus, the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' 
actually had nothing to do with criminal law. In the Federalist Papers, 
Hamilton described impeachment crimes as ``those offenses which proceed 
from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse 
or violation of some public trust.''
  The report of the Committee on the Judiciary in the Nixon impeachment 
proceedings in 1974 rejected criminality as a necessary element of 
impeachment. Thus, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It charges 
only ``political'' crimes and imposes purely political punishments. 
Thus, one not need commit a crime to have committed an impeachable 
offense.
  In defending the President, some say that the ``treason, bribery, or 
other high crimes and misdemeanors'' language in Article II, Section 4 
of the Constitution has a very narrow and precise meaning. And 
Democrats warn us that the framers of the Constitution would be 
appalled today if Americans deviated from the meaning they had in mind 
and impeached a President over something as minor, in their opinion, as 
sex and lies.
  The reality is that the definition of ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' is a term which is open to significant interpretation in 
light of 600 years of history. So, eventually, the American people had 
the responsibility to ask themselves whether they are witnessing 
behavior unbecoming an American President and whether the law and 
simple decency have rightful places in the conduct of our leaders and 
public officials.
  We work very hard to teach our children the difference between right 
and wrong. We must, therefore, insist on the same from our leaders. In 
this case, if impeachable offenses were committed, the President must 
be held accountable.
  Furthermore, Congress has a constitutional duty to the public to 
investigate and remedy breaches of the public trust. Mr. Speaker, 
holding the President accountable would ensure that future holders of 
the office would also be held accountable. To neglect to do so would 
debase our Constitution.
  In America, no one is above the law. As former Representative Peter 
Rodino, a Democrat from New Jersey, a House Judiciary Committee 
chairman during the Watergate hearings, said, ``We cannot turn away, 
out of partisanship or convenience, from problems that are now our 
responsibility to consider.''
  Has the President demeaned the Office of the presidency? That is the 
question. If so, then we must consider impeachment. Let the courts 
decide after the impeachment process what punishment should apply 
thereafter.

                          ____________________