[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E12]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES M. TALENT

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 6, 1999

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, it is not my preference or custom to speak 
on matters relating to the misconduct of others who hold public office. 
I have never done so before during my time in Congress. I hope never to 
have to do so again.
  But the Constitution confides in Members of this House the obligation 
to decide whether high officers have acted in a manner that requires 
their impeachment. Where an official has a legal or moral obligation to 
judge misconduct and when that obligation cannot honorably be avoided, 
it is necessary to stand without flinching for what is clearly right.
  Those failing to do so become inevitably part of the wrong against 
which they failed to act. The issue before the House is not whether 
Bill Clinton has acted with integrity. We all know the answer to that 
question. The issue is whether we have the integrity to do our duty 
under the Constitution and laws.
  Public men and women commit private wrongs, just like everyone else. 
And just like everyone else, they are usually called to account for 
those wrongs in the fullness of time. If they act honorably when called 
to account, and accept responsibility for what they have done, they can 
emerge with a measure of their integrity intact. If they act less than 
honorably and refuse to own up to their actions, they may, and often 
are judged by the voters.
  Their fellow officers in government have no warrant to judge them 
formally if they at least conform to the minimum standards of law and 
morality in how they react. But the minimum standards are just that: 
the minimum that we have the right to expect and insist upon. No one 
can fall below those standards with impunity. No officer of government 
can actively subvert the law, abuse the powers of his office and flout 
the standards of decency without facing the consequences that any other 
person in a position of trust would have to face.
  That is the gravamen of the charges against President Clinton. The 
genesis of this matter was the President's liaison with Monica 
Lewinsky. But that affair, however sordid, was a private wrong. The 
Articles of Impeachment deal exclusively with what the President did to 
avoid the consequences when that private wrong reached the eyes and 
ears of the public. When the President was called to account before the 
people, he lied to the people; when he was called to account before a 
civil deposition, he lied under oath; and then, to cover up those 
initial lies, he tampered with witnesses, abused the trust of other 
officers of government, perjured himself before a federal grand jury, 
and abused the powers of the Presidency to avert investigations into 
his wrong doing.

  From the record before the House, it is impossible to conclude 
anything other than that the President is guilty of these wrongs. He is 
therefore, in my judgment unfit to hold any position of trust, much 
less the Presidency.
  I do not blame anyone for wishing somehow to avoid impeachment. It is 
a terrible thing to have to participate in the shipwreck of a person's 
reputation and public career, and it is not a sign of health for our 
country that two Presidents within a generation must face removal from 
office. But none of the arguments offered in defense of the President 
present an honorable alternative to impeachment. I will discuss them 
one by one:
  (1) Some suggest that the misconduct in question does not meet the 
Constitutional standard for impeachment. But I believe the President's 
actions not only qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors; they present 
a classic example of what the term signifies, fully within the 
intentions of the Framers and the precedents of history.
  The term ``high crimes or misdemeanors'' means a deliberate pattern 
of misconduct so grave as to disqualify the person committing it from 
holding a position of trust and responsibility. The President's 
misconduct qualifies as such an offense according to the commonly 
accepted understandings of civic responsibility, never before 
questioned until this controversy arose. No one would have argued a 
year ago that a President could perjure himself, obstruct justice, and 
tamper with witnesses without facing impeachment, and no one would 
argue that a business, labor, educational, or civic leader should stay 
in a position of trust having committed such misconduct. Congress has 
impeached and removed high officers for less than the President has 
done. Are we to lower the standards of our society because the 
President cannot live up to them?
  (2) Others have suggested that the House censure the President. But 
the alternative of censure would constitute too small a penalty for Mr. 
Clinton's gross misconduct and too great a danger to the Presidency, 
suggesting that the House of Representatives has a power, never 
contemplated in the Constitution, to harass future Presidents for 
behavior not rising to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors.
  As many have pointed out, this is not a parliamentary democracy. It 
is a constitutional republic with separate branches of government. The 
House may act formally against a President only when the Constitutional 
standard of impeachment has been met. If censure is intended as a 
meaningless action, a cover for those who for other reasons want to do 
nothing, it should be discarded as a sham. If it is intended as a 
formal and real punishment, it represents an extra--constitutional 
action, a power arrogated by the Congress to itself, with more 
potential for harm in the future than good for the present. I would 
prefer that the House do nothing rather than that--better not to act at 
all then to twist the Constitution because we are unwilling to enforce 
it.
  (3) Finally, some have argued that impeachment is too traumatic for 
the country to endure. I believe the opposite is more nearly true. Hard 
as impeachment may be, to ignore misconduct so grave and notorious 
would be to suggest that the importance to the country of an office can 
place the holder of the office above the country's laws.
  Mr. Speaker, this whole affair, distasteful as it is, presents an 
opportunity for the House to make a clear statement. There is such a 
thing as right and wrong. No society, and certainly not a 
constitutional republic like America, can endure without acknowledging 
that fact; and if we believe in right and wrong, we must give life to 
that belief by trusting that the right thing will be the best thing for 
our country. I urge each member of the House to do his duty today in 
the faith that only in that way can America emerge stronger