[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2155-E2156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            A DIFFICULT TASK

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD

                           of south carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 14, 1998

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, I have heard from 
literally thousands of folks back home on the President's matter. On 
Thursday, I had to digest all that I had heard, read and thought about 
this, and simply vote yes, or no, on whether or not to authorize the 
Judiciary Committee to proceed with an inquiry of impeachment. I voted 
yes and owe you an explanation of how I got there.
  I agree with opponents of the process who have suggested there has 
been far too much grandstanding and moralizing on this issue. 
Frustration with politicians grandstanding, however, never moved me 
into the camp that believed we needed to quickly move on to ``the 
nation's business.'' In fact, since this story broke in January, I have 
tried to listen carefully and in no way have forgotten about issues 
like Social Security or national security. However, I have come to 
believe that in the long-run, the current debate is probably just as 
relevant to the lives of Americans. Here is the reasoning that brought 
me to this conclusion.
  At the core, representative government is built on trust. Thus, 
maintaining trust in the leaders who run the many components of 
government is every bit as important as the individual functions of 
government. In other words, ``national security'', or ``moving onto the 
nation's business,'' without trust in the people running it is an 
oxymoron.
  In our system of representative government, every free citizen has 
ceded over to our school board member, our county council member, our 
Senator and our President a little

[[Page E2156]]

bit of our authority. We place our trust in them. If the President 
raised his right hand and lied to a grand jury, we have a major problem 
because he is the chief law enforcement officer of this land. If people 
felt free to lie in our municipal, state or district court system after 
raising their hand and swearing to tell the truth, our criminal justice 
system would not work.
  I fear that if we ``leave it alone,'' we would be sending a message 
to everyone that since the President lied, they can, too. Or, worse 
yet, that two systems of justice exist--one for ``big people,'' like 
Presidents, and another for regular people. Since I don't want to pass 
either one of these messages along to my children or yours, I don't 
believe we can simply leave this issue to fester.
  David Schippers, Chief Investigative Counsel on the Judiciary 
Committee and a life long Democrat who headed then-Attorney General 
Robert F. Kennedy's organized crime task force in Chicago, summed this 
idea up well in his testimony before the committee:
  ``The principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, 
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is the foundation of the 
American System of Justice, which is the envy of every civilized 
nation. If lying under oath is tolerated and, when exposed, is not 
visited with immediate and substantial adverse consequences, the 
integrity of this country's entire judicial process is fatally 
compromised and that process will inevitably collapse.''
  For these reasons, I have come to view the beginning of impeachment 
proceedings differently than many do. An inquiry does not impeach the 
President, but instead simply looks at the charges and the evidence 
behind them. It is a chance to clear this matter and to truly put it 
behind us in a way that leaving it alone never could.
  To date, we have had a prosecutorial endeavor with Judge Starr and 
the Office of Independent Counsel. They have made their case but it has 
never been tested by the defense in a ``courtroom'' setting. In an 
impeachment inquiry, this would change. Democrats on the Judiciary 
Committee will have the chance to cross-examine witnesses, challenge 
evidence and tell the President's side of the story. In this process, 
one of two things can happen: (1) the President is absolved of all 
charges because the evidence does not hold up after it is cross-
examined, and we can therefore truly have this behind us; or (2) there 
is enough credible evidence to warrant sending it to the Senate.
  Scott Peck years ago wrote a book titled ``The Road Less Traveled.'' 
Its premise was that doing the right thing was often the more 
difficult, and therefore less traveled, course. An impeachment inquiry 
fits under the same umbrella. You do not see them in Malaysia, 
Pakistan, or Zaire. Even the possibility of an impeachment is unique 
around the world. The key now is that we treat a process this special 
and unique with the proper consideration. This means sticking to one of 
America's most cherished values--the idea that we are a nation of laws, 
not men.

                          ____________________