[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 145 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E2141]]


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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 8, 1998

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, we should not be here today in the position 
where we are being asked by the Majority to embark upon an impeachment 
inquiry unlimited in scope and unlimited in time.
  On September 11, 1998, this body referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary the responsibility to review the communication received on 
September 9, 1998, from the Independent Counsel; to determine whether 
sufficient grounds existed to recommend to the House that an 
impeachment inquiry be commenced. Nothing in that Resolution directed 
the Committee on the Judiciary to recommend to the House that an 
impeachment inquiry on matters extraneous to that September 9, 1998 
communication be pursued. In fact, the Independent Counsel indicated 
that, in his view, as soon as information came to his attention which 
he believed necessitated a referral to the House, it was his duty (in 
his mind) to make that referral immediately. By inference, then, we can 
assume that after four years of investigations and over $40 million in 
expenditures of public funds, there was no other referral forthcoming 
on any other matter.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, the appropriate order of business for the 
Committee on the Judiciary, if it was to make a recommendation, would 
be to first, define the standard of what constitutes an impeachable 
offense. Then, secondly, the Committee should have measured the 
narrative of the Independent Counsel against that standard. Only then 
could the Committee properly determine whether or not to recommend that 
an impeachment inquiry be commenced. That was not done, despite the 
four weeks that have passed since the House sent the matter to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  The American people want this matter resolved. They want this matter 
resolved fairly and promptly. They have important issues demanding 
consideration--educating their children within an invigorated and 
innovative public education system; they need sufficient health 
coverage for all members of their family; they need job security; they 
need assurance that people moving from welfare to work, folks going 
from school to work, and workers displaced who need to go back to work, 
are adequately trained and educated to be able to support their 
families well above the poverty line; and, they need retirement 
security. These are all matters foremost on their minds. The American 
people know we must deal with these serious issues, but believe the 
last four weeks have produced little, except clear partisanship and a 
seeming unending willingness by the Majority to put salacious material 
before our children and the American public--unnecessarily.
  Despite the comments of the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary--that he hopes to end this inquiry before the end of the 
year, and hopes it will not be expanded in scope--the reaction of the 
Majority side of the House, and statements by many of its Members, 
indicate that is not the prevailing desire or attitude. That is why it 
is important, at the very least, that we support the Democratic Motion 
to Recommit the matter to the Committee, and instruct the Committee to 
recommend an inquiry limited in scope and time, establish a standard of 
what constitutes an impeachable offense, and determine whether or not 
the narrative of the referral meets that standard.
  Innumerable constitutional scholars and experts have already given 
their opinion that, even taken in the light most unfavorable to the 
President's position, the assertions in the Independent Counsel's 
narrative do not raise to the threshold of an impeachable offense, as 
defined by our founding fathers, and which has, by history and 
precedence, been established. If, in fact, that threshold is not met, 
then we owe it to the American people to determine just what action is 
appropriate to address the President's acknowledged personal 
misconduct. Perhaps more in line with the interests of the American 
public would be an alternative that allows us to vote and embark upon a 
process which sets about determining what action would be appropriate 
to address the President's conduct so that other business of Congress 
can be pursued.
  This is not a parliamentary system, but a presidential system, Mr. 
Speaker. This should not be a system where the dominant legislative 
party can decide that a person running the country is a bad person and 
get rid of him. Persons holding themselves out as Speakers of this body 
have admitted not telling the truth in several venues, and have met a 
punishment short of being dispossessed of their elected position and 
have even, in at least one instance, been re-elected by the members of 
their political party to the austere position of Speaker of the House. 
Thus we know that other remedies are available.
  Impeachment is really a remedy for the Republic. It is not intended 
as a personal punishment for a crime. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 
65, made that assertion and, it is accurate. The Judiciary Committee 
should have been working this past month to determine whether or not 
the asserted conduct constituted an action undermining the Republic 
and/or the American people. The Committee was charged with the review 
of the communication received on September 9, 1998, and with 
determining if grounds exist for an inquiry. The Committee has not 
fulfilled that responsibility and it is now incumbent upon this body to 
recommit this Resolution so that any proceedings will be fair, limited 
in scope to the matters referred, and resolved quickly so that the 
public's business can receive the attention it deserves. The present 
Committee Resolution seeks to broaden and drag out this endless 
process. If the people are, in fact, to be represented, we need a fair 
process and not a political excursion.

                          ____________________