[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.

                          ____________________