[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 142 (Saturday, October 10, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2032-E2033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER 
   SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON 
                CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 7, 1998

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, this is a highly emotional and complex 
matter. In the bright light of historical significance, we must 
remember that this solemn result will become the standard applied to 
future presidents, Democrat or Republican. The issue is larger than 
William Jefferson Clinton.
  I want to emphasize that contrary to what the media coverage may 
imply, Congress is not obsessed with this matter. The full House has 
spent a total of only 4 hours debating this issue. During the same week 
in which this vote was taken, the House and Senate approved House bill 
8, my bill to crack down on commuter vehicles from Mexico which do not 
meet California vehicle emission standards. The President is expected 
to sign the bill into law. The House is also considering my legislation 
to hold Mexico accountable on its agreements to fix sewage 
infrastructure in Tijuana. Only Judiciary Committee members are 
concentrating on the impeachment inquiry. The rest of us are working on 
important budgetary, education, health care, environmental and Social 
Security issues.
  As you may know, I have always avoided unnecessary partisanship, and 
have refrained from criticizing the President's every move during his 
tenure. He is our elected President and I am obligated by the 
Constitution to work with him on behalf of my district. It is in the 
best interest of our nation for Congress to remain focused on the 
important matter of governing our country, while allowing the members 
of the House Judiciary Committee the opportunity to perform their duty 
of reviewing the high volume of documents provided by the Independent 
Counsel. As I said, Congress has been working effectively on a host of 
other issues.
  However, today the full House of Representatives was required to 
devote its time to considering the resolution from the Judiciary 
Committee requesting authority to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. 
This was not a vote to impeach President Clinton. Even a majority of 
the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee wanted to proceed with an 
impeachment inquiry. The difference between the Republican and Democrat 
inquiry proposals was in its length and scope. It is interesting to 
note that even ``The Washington Post'' and ``The New York Times,'' two 
newspapers whose editorial positions are historically left of center, 
supported the Republican position on the length and scope of the 
inquiry.
  By a vote of 258 to 176 the House decided to proceed with an inquiry. 
I voted with the majority. Again, most of the Democrats voting against 
the resolution were not opposed to proceeding with an impeachment 
inquiry. They simply had legitimate concerns on its length and scope. 
They were requesting that the inquiry be finished by Thanksgiving of 
this year. Under the resolution that was approved (House Resolution 
581) the inquiry will terminate at the end of this year.
  Though the President and others in public life deserve some semblance 
of privacy, like most Americans I am very disappointed in the 
President's decision to have a relationship with a subordinate employee 
in the White House. This type of behavior is unacceptable in any 
workplace including in a hallway near the Oval Office. His lack of 
judgment was appalling for a man of his age and position.
  However, the ultimate question before us is not one of sexual 
conduct. It is whether perjury and obstruction of justice were 
committed in the magnitude to require impeachment. I am still reviewing 
the alleged impeachable offenses outlined in the report and by the 
Judiciary Committee counsels. I am determined to sort out the facts. 
This is why I supported the resolution to proceed with an inquiry. 
Second only to a declaration of war, voting on bills of impeachment is 
Congress' most serious duty. Without a process to determine the facts 
there would be no reasonable way to reach a decision on such a vote.
  I, personally, hope that the evidence is not substantial enough to 
require a constitutionally mandated vote on impeachment. But, it would 
be irresponsible of me to develop a final position on impeachment until 
after the Judiciary Committee has completed the impeachment inquiry and 
all the evidence and rebuttals are on the table. The Independent 
Counsel has only submitted a preliminary report to Congress because he 
believes that there was enough evidence in the Lewinsky matter to 
demonstrate perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice as 
grounds for impeachment. Congress expects a full report on all of the 
other allegations, including Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, to be 
submitted by the Independent Counsel in the coming months.
  Despite unfortunate initial ``jockeying'' by both sides, I have faith 
and confidence in my House colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to 
ultimately perform this constitutional duty in a fair and bipartisan 
manner. An issue as grave as possible impeachment of the President must 
not--in appearance or fact--be driven by partisan considerations. We 
have embarked on a very solemn process and it is necessary for the 
House to remain dignified by not allowing these proceedings to be taken 
to a personal or political level. It is imperative that the laws of our 
land be strictly followed because next to sending our men and women to 
war, this is our most difficult responsibility.
  Like other parents, I have had a difficult time explaining this issue 
to my children. Ultimately, I used it as an object lesson: No matter 
how embarrassing the truth may be, honesty is always the best policy. 
The President could have spared the country, his family and himself 
much pain had he told the complete truth. Lying about an affair should 
be a private matter between a husband and wife. Unfortunately, the 
President was under oath in a judicial process. Now the Congress and 
country is forced to proceed under a constitutional mandate. Congress 
must remain cognizant of the fact that the result will be a standard to 
which Presidents from now on will be held.
  Many letters and e-mails to my office have reflected a lack of 
understanding of the process. I would like to reiterate that IF, AFTER 
completion of the impeachment inquiry, the House votes in favor of 
impeachment, it does not mean the President is automatically removed 
from office. The process would then move to the Senate where he would 
be tried, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding over 
the proceedings. It would take a conviction supported by two-thirds (66 
out of 100) of the Senate to remove the President from office. Under 
the Constitution, there is no authority given for the House and Senate 
to ``censure'' the President.
  I will do everything in my power to ensure that this matter does not 
overwhelm the important legislative issues before Congress.

[[Page E2033]]



                          ____________________