FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 1998
CONTACT: Mark Brownell @ 202-225-2165

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Statement of the Honorable Collin C. Peterson, U.S. House of Representatives, December 19, 1998.

From the outset, I believed that any action the Congress chose to take to punish the President had to be bipartisan.  If Republicans and Democrats could put the best interests of the country ahead of their personal political viewpoints, we could solve this problem honorably and get on with the nation’s business.  We had the opportunity, but we didn’t take advantage of it.

I've been one of the people working for a bipartisan solution, trying to build consensus for a fitting punishment, but this process has degenerated into a purely partisan battle.

In some ways, this process has been unfair from the outset.  No other President in American history has been continuously investigated by a Special Prosecutor throughout his terms of office.  The President’s enemies have misused this process to undo the decision that the American people made in two elections.  The office of the Special Prosecutor was not established to settle political differences, but that is how it has been used in this case, and it sets a very bad precedent for the future.

When I joined with 30 other Democrats to support the Republicans’ outline for inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee, I did so because I thought Chairman Henry Hyde would conduct a thoughtful and honest examination of the facts, with testimony from witnesses, and a chance for cross-examination -- but he chose not to take that course, and I have been profoundly disappointed by what he did do.  Instead of conducting an investigation in the cooperative, bipartisan tradition of the Watergate hearings, the Chairman directed hearings that were unfocused, largely without any substantive examination of the facts or witnesses, and designed to deliver a pre-ordained outcome.

When the Watergate-era Judiciary Committee considered the evidence against President Nixon, it was clear that he had submitted false tax returns, and broken the law by doing so.  Nonetheless, Republicans and Democrats on the Committee voted 12 to 26 against bringing Articles of Impeachment based on this charge.  They determined, together, that this did not rise to the constitutional level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

While I am deeply disappointed with the President's personal behavior, in my view these charges do not rise to the constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The process conducted by the current House Judiciary Committee has been politically driven from the outset, and in the end, the course they decided to pursue will not serve the country.  For their own political purposes, they have decided to lower the constitutional standard so that it can be used as a weapon in a political disagreement.

The obvious course of action -- supported by both Republicans and Democrats -- is that of censure.  The President should be censured, fined and be subject to prosecution when he is out of office.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership refused to allow the House -- Republicans and Democrats -- to debate and vote on this option.  Instead of allowing an honest vote of conscience, on a rational middle ground solution, they decided to say to all of us, “our way or no way.”  There was no room for discussion, and no effort to work with conservative Democrats like myself.

Furthermore, it is clear that the Senate will not vote to remove the President from office.  From a practical standpoint, it serves no useful purpose to put the country through more weeks and months, and maybe even years, of this process.  The smudge on this President's place in history is already established.  What we are about to do will spread that same smudge to all of us, and it will not serve the country.

In the end, by choosing to pursue impeachment, the Republicans may actually let the President off the hook all together.  By pursuing impeachment even though the Senate will not convict or remove the President from office, and disdaining any effort to censure and fine him, he may escape without paying any substantive price for his actions.

I do not believe it is legitimate to settle political differences by using the constitutional process designed to protect our country from crimes that endanger the existence of this nation.  In truth, none of the President’s reprehensible behavior threatens the nation, or our individual freedom and liberty.  We’re setting a very dangerous precedent for the future, and I shudder to think how this will come back to haunt us.

I know that this has been a very difficult process to listen to and raises unpleasant issues for the people I represent in Minnesota’s 7th District.  I know that they will not all agree with me this day, but having listened to their collective counsel, I believe that most of them would do as I will do -- support a resolution of censure, but vote no on this tragic and obsessive effort to impeach the President.
 

Back to Top