[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 147 (Thursday, October 15, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2211-E2212]
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. EVA M. CLAYTON

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 18, 1998

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, as we consider whether to launch an 
impeachment inquiry, it is useful to contemplate the lessons we have 
learned about impeachment.
  In 1775, Patrick Henry made this profound statement ``I know of no 
way of judging the future, but by the past.''
  This Nation is a model for other nations, and we function best when 
we follow the guiding principle that has made us a model.
  That principle is that government does what is good for the many, 
rather than what is good for the few.
  Some, for political gain, want to impeach the President, at any cost, 
at all cost.
  That may be good for them, but it is not good for America.
  There are three main reasons why we should approach this matter with 
great care.
  First, we have never impeached a President. Second, the Constitution 
is very specific as to what constitutes an ``impeachable offense.''
  We must not attempt to substitute our personal views for what the 
Constitution prescribes.
  And, Third, we are establishing precedent . . . dangerous patterns 
that will follow us for years and years, criteria that may govern how 
all citizens are treated.
  Only two Presidents have faced impeachment, Andrew Johnson in 1868, 
and Richard Nixon in 1974.
  Johnson was acquitted. Nixon resigned before trial.
  Indeed, in the sixty impeachment proceedings since 1789, no President 
has ever been impeached.
  What are the lessons we learn from that history?
  One Vice-President faced impeachment, Spiro T. Agnew in 1973, 
however, the House refused to impeach him. What are the lessons 
learned?
  Impeachment of a President is a grave and serious undertaking.
  It is a Constitutional process, one carefully designed to allow the 
will of the majority to be frustrated and overturned. The President has 
been elected twice. We should approach this process with extreme 
caution, circumspection and care. It should not be taken lightly or 
done frivolously.
  The Constitution sets out the reasons a President can be removed from 
office, for ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.''
  Nothing I have seen or heard to date rises to the level of 
``Treason'' or ``Bribery.''
  Those are the specific reasons set out in the Constitution.
  The term ``Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' sets out general 
reasons.
  Basic to legislative drafting and statutory interpretation is the 
concept that the specific governs the general.
  In American jurisprudence that when a listing of items include both 
specific and general items, the specific items will govern what the 
general items mean.
  Surely none will suggest that what the President is alleged to have 
done is the same as Treason or Bribery.
  For the ``few'' who disagree with the overwhelming majority of the 
American people, politics should not be confused with punishment.
  Former President Ford has recommended a punishment that may be 
consistent with the offenses in this case.
  He is being thoughtful and not political.
  What is best for the many is for us to be thoughtful and not 
political.
  All crimes are not ``impeachable offenses.''
  If so, we could impeach the President for walking his dog without a 
leash. That is unlawful in the District of Columbia, that is bad 
conduct, thus absurdly underscoring the danger of substituting what we 
believe for what the Constitution states.
  The Constitution says nothing, however, about ``bad conduct,'' as an 
impeachable offense.
  I believe the Constitution sets out a process that Congress should 
follow when serious allegations of wrongdoing, allegations of 
impeachable offenses, have been made against a President.
  Under Constitutional mandates, a process is underway to determine if 
the President should be impeached.
  When we fail to follow Constitutional process, we fail to consider 
the lessons we have learned.
  Just ask Richard Jewel, first accused of the Atlanta bombings, 
without process, and the hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent 
people, wrongly accused.
  We should allow that process to take its course, and throughout this 
process, we must be careful to insist upon fairness and impartial 
judgment.

[[Page E2212]]

  The President is not entitled to any more rights than any other 
citizen, but he is entitled to no less rights.
  The allegations that have been made against President Clinton involve 
his personal behavior.
  Past impeachments have involved acts against the public, not acts 
involving personal behavior.
  What are the lessons we have learned?
  This is very serious business, raising allegations that are criminal 
in nature.
  It would be a sad and dangerous day in the history of this Nation 
when the principles upon which this Nation was founded bow to the 
pressures of what is politic and what is fashionable.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close by quoting Goethe, who on one occasion 
stated, ``One man's word is no man's word. We should quietly hear both 
sides.'