[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 135 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9192-H9193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BAD CONDUCT IS NOT GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense not
of the President but rather of the Presidency.
Trent Lott, the majority leader of the Senate, has just spun to the
press that, quote-unquote, bad conduct is grounds for impeachment. To
me, this is shocking. I actually could not believe that he was serious.
But, sadly, he was.
Today, we are at a turning point in this debate and we have to put
this thing in park and take a break.
{time} 1430
The removal of the President of the United States is different from
the removal of a judge, is different from the removal of a Member of
Congress or a college president. The situation cannot be equated, as it
often is, with the CEO or a college president who would be removed for
similar types of acts that the President is accused of.
To remove the President of the United States would be to paralyze the
entire government. Because, whereas a judge, a legislator, and
certainly not a private citizen represents an entire branch of
government, the President is
[[Page H9193]]
the executive branch of government, and to suggest his removal entails
a constitutional crisis and a disruption of our whole political system.
We have all been slapped in the face by not only the President's
action, but also the Starr inquisition, and we have been so busy
holding our cheeks that we have not even examined the evidence and made
a deliberative assessment of it. I myself have educated myself about
the severity of the Articles of Impeachment, and I want to share with
my colleagues and the American people some of the thoughts that I have
learned.
As we all know, the Congress has been down this road only twice
before in American history, and we need to wake up right now as to the
severity of today's issue and what it means to the Republic and this
Congress's place in U.S. history.
I asked Larry Tribe, perhaps our Nation's most renowned
constitutional scholar, to describe the upcoming vote to begin, just to
begin, an impeachment inquiry; and his answer, my colleagues, captures
everything that I want to say today.
Professor Tribe likened a vote simply to begin the impeachment
proceeding to that of breaking the glass of a fire alarm, that would
trigger a mad rush and a state of emergency. He said once the glass is
broken and the alarm goes off, we cannot put the pieces back together.
Such an action will make it almost impossible to restore a sense of
stability and order in this country. Impeachment proceedings are just
like pulling a fire alarm in a crowded room; you better think before
you pull, lest many people or this Nation get hurt in the process.
To be sure, if we are going to go down the road to impeachment, it
must be taken with a keen sense of understanding and purpose.
Otherwise, we will be blind to the consequences of our actions. And we
must begin with what constitutes the ground for an impeachable offense.
Is this what Ken Starr says it is? Is this what Trent Lott says it
is? Is this what the gentleman from Illinois (Henry Hyde) or I should
say the gentleman from Georgia (Newt Gingrich) says it is? Or should it
be the definition of the entire Congress before we begin an inquiry
into impeachment?
I like the fact that, in fact, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde)
has said that we should have hearings on what constitutes grounds for
impeachment. That seems to be the right course to take. Yet it seems
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrich) intend to proceed with an impeachment inquiry before
such hearings on the working definition of what impeachment really is
could even take place.
Do they want to make it up as they go along? It sure sounds as though
they do. In my opinion, to make up a definition or to proceed with an
inquisition before we have had the time to understand what truly
constitutes impeachment and we have a frame of reference to judge our
actions against when we continue with an inquiry, constitutes sounding
the fire alarm before we know there is even a fire, and it flies in the
face of the due process set forth by our Constitution, which says that
we need to know what to prosecute before we know whether a crime has
been committed.
The reason the majority wants to vote on an impeachment inquiry next
Monday, before they know what impeachment really is, is because they
would never vote to initiate an inquiry once they really know what they
are talking about. And once we know what is truly impeachable, then we
need to ask one more question.
Request for Additional Time
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The time of the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for an additional 3 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is limited to 5 minutes. The Member
will close.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Member should avoid reference to
personal conduct of the President and reference to statements of
members of the other body.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. In conclusion, once we know what
impeachable offense is, then we need to ask another question. Is it the
kind of offense in which the President's remaining in office is far
worse for this country than what will happen to this country if we
remove a President from office? We need wisdom to prevail over
politics.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Kennedy) has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for an additional 2 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain the request for
any additional time. The gentleman's time has expired.
____________________