|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| THE HOME FRONT | |
 December 17, 1998 
|
||
 |
|
|
|
MARGARET WARNER: For more on today's developments on both the Iraq and impeachment fronts we get the perspectives of four congressmen: two members of the House International Relations Committee, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the ranking Democratic member; and Republican Jim Leach of Iowa; and two members of the House Judiciary Committee, Republican Bill McCollum of Florida, who also sits on the Intelligence Committee, and Democrat Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, who is also on the National Security Committee. Both Republicans have declared they'll vote for impeachment. Both Democrats have said they'll vote against it. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
When should the debate begin? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Hamilton, where do you come down on this question of whether the impeachment debate should begin tomorrow, even as military action is continuing? REP. LEE HAMILTON: Well, first, I recognize that we have to have the
debate on impeachment we cannot defer it indefinitely. Secondly, I do
believe we should defer that MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Leach, why not delay a couple of days, why this push? REP. JIM LEACH: Well, first, there was a delay, and I think it was very appropriate the Speaker-elect Bob Livingston suggested that there should be a delay; there has been a delay. The problem with - MARGARET WARNER: Because you didn't go ahead today.
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: What about Congressman Hamilton's point, though, that the president could appear weaker overseas? REP. JIM LEACH: This is a dilemma, although - and I grant that there is some argumentation to that effect, but the president has been weakened too in a sense by this debate to date, and I don't see any greater weakening that can occur. But there's a distinction between the president and the presidency. And what impeachment is about is strengthening the presidency. Secondly, to give great credit to this president, he made the announcement that it was very important for the world to know that he's the - in effect - the constitutional officer in charge, and that he will not have his actions affected because of the parliamentary situation in America. Likewise, our Congress is obligated to make it clear that we will not have our duties affected by events abroad. MARGARET WARNER: Where do you come down on this, the trade-off between the two? |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Wait a week? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Now, Congressman McCollum, I think I know where you come down. This was yesterday even you didn't want to delay even a day - I think your quote was - "It isn't hard to chew bubble gum and dance at the same time." But do any of these arguments carry any weight with you, that the president may look weaker, that you could wait a week, say till the week after Christmas? REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well, I think it's unfortunate that we have these
two circumstances coming together, and yes, in the ideal world, it would
be best to segregate the two and not have them coming simultaneously.
But there is a dilemma. And what I meant yesterday was that we have
till the end of the year to complete the work on impeachment in the
House, but we have to start all over again with the war hearings; the
Judiciary Committee would have to reconsider -- all the work we'd done
would be completely wiped out up till now - and it would just put the
nation through more turmoil, which we don't want, the country doesn't
want, and we need to finish it. So we have that facing it, plus we have
the fact that there is no certainty that the bombing or the current
action that we're engaged in will end at a particular time. I think
General Shelton said today he's going to assess this over the weekend
perhaps, give the president some advice on Monday. I heard that on the
news tonight, and they may well have to continue, and last but not least
I think we need to remember that this would not be the first time by
any means that Congress has continued to do the people's will during
a time of military action, and when something has happened during that
time. For example, General McArthur was removed, as Congressman Johnson,
Sam Johnson, a former POW, said on the floor of the House |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| It's unprecedented. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Leach, are you, flipping it around now, are you persuaded both by the president and by Secretary Albright, whom you just heard, and other members of the administration, that the president's decision to move forward with military action was made independent of the impeachment drama that was unfolding? REP. JIM LEACH: Absolutely. I never believe in impugning the motives of the President of the United States - any president - when the national security of the United States is at issue. I think legitimately Americans may question or agree with the policy that's unfolding, but the motivation should not be questioned. MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Hamilton, but we did hear, did we not, from the Republicans - certainly Senator Lott, Senate Majority Leader - some questioning of the president's motives. Why do you think we're seeing this now? It is unusual, as Secretary Albright said, to have - during military action - to have the president's motive publicly questioned. REP. LEE HAMILTON: Well, I think it's unprecedented really. I can't recall a time when we committed forces into combat that we didn't have the unanimous support on it immediately. I understand Senator Lott may have backed off a little bit from his strong statement yesterday, and I hope he has. I don't have any doubt at all that Senator Lott wants to fully support the forces in the field. But all of these things I think do suggest that the president is not as strong as he might otherwise be. If we restrain the criticism of him, I think he would be better able to carry out policy. What an extraordinary spectacle this must be if you're sitting in Baghdad or Beijing or Cairo and you're seeing on the House floor harsh criticisms of the President of the United States, saying he's a liar and that he does have - has no credibility - that has to raise a lot of questions about the ability of the president to carry out policy. And you're really only talking here probably about a day or two, and I think we'd be wise to look at this on a day-to-day basis, and defer it, at least, for another day. Ramadan is looming. The secretary of state's comments were very clear, I think, so I don't think you're talking about an extended delay. MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Meehan, is there anything the Democrats can do tomorrow, however, to keep this from happening? REP. MARTY MEEHAN: I don't think there is. The fact is the Republicans have the votes. They have the votes - in all likelihood - to impeach the president, which is another reason why I don't see why we can't delay this process. It's not like it's going to change any votes or any facts are going to change votes, or whatever happens, Iraq is going to change votes. They have the votes to impeach this president in the House. We could do it next week or the week after that. I disagree strongly with Congressman McCollum that what we have to do is stay and do the people's will. Impeaching this president at this time is anything but the people's will.
MARGARET WARNER: And - has there been some sort of - what's the word I'm looking for - compromise or something worked out in terms of how long the debate's going to go on and so on? REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well, there hasn't been yet a compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats, but I think those of us involved with this on our side of the aisle want to see a good debate, a healthy debate, a several-hour debate, and we will use the procedural devices available to us tomorrow to make sure that that occurs. That would be a lot easier if we had a unanimous consent request granted at some point, so we could set a certain length of time - 10 hours - 20 hours - whatever might be agreed upon, and have that debate within that frame work, but I don't know that that's going to happen. I do think there'll be a healthy debate. REP. MARTY MEEHAN: I don't think there will be an agreement on that. I mean, what kind of country are we becoming when we strike and hit on Iraq, something that overwhelmingly Americans agree on, and the Majority Leader of the United States Senate gets up and questions the president's motives? I think it's unacceptable. MARGARET WARNER: So you mean, the Democrats are going to play parliamentary hard ball tomorrow? REP. MARTY MEEHAN: No. We're going to try to get the Republicans to delay this until Monday or Tuesday or whenever, even if it went after Christmas, because we don't think that we should be removing the president, or at least taking the step of impeachment at a time when the young men and women in uniform are engaged directly in conflict. It doesn't make any sense. MARGARET WARNER: All right. Gentlemen, I'm sorry, but I have to leave it there. Thank you all very much. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
   
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
debate.
My strong preference is to do that because I think the president is
stronger, if he's not being partially criticized here at home. I think
all of us generally accept the proposition that a united president -
united leader, having the support of the American people and of the
Congress, is better able to conduct American foreign policy. It seems
to me the key question here, if you go ahead with the debate, is, is
the president going to be weaker or stronger as a result of that debate?
I think with the very harsh criticism that will come upon him, he will
be weaker, and he will not be in as strong a position to conduct policy,
and we simply cannot tell what kind of contingencies are going to arise
in the next few hours and days, and we want the president to be in the
best possible position to conduct that policy. In addition, we've been
told that the bombing will only be for a few days. The secretary of
state made it very clear a moment ago that Ramadan is a large factor
here. So I think a delay of another day or two would be better. 
REP.
JIM LEACH: That is correct. The problem with pushing it out too far
is that you don't know when the circumstance is going to come to an
end, and do you put the processes of governance of the United States
at the disposal, for example, of Saddam Hussein, that is, does his actions
and counter reactions end up having an effect on how the Congress deals
with its constitutional obligations, and so I believe it's the duty
of the Congress to go forward, just as it is the duty of our armed services
to serve. 
REP.
MARTY MEEHAN: Look, I don't think there's any way that we should have
the young men and women who serve in the United States military engaged
in direct combat in a mission that we know is going to last somewhere
around 48 hours. At the same time, simultaneously having the commander-in-chief
impeached by the House of Representatives, there is no greater or more
extreme action that the House can take that ends up in removal than
impeachment. And I don't see why we can't wait either till next week,
or we have the next week. I understand that the Republican leadership
wants to make sure that this president is impeached during this lame-duck
session of Congress, and they have the votes to do that, in all likelihood.
But when it comes to the national security interest of the United States,
we can afford to wait, whether it's three or four days. They could even
do it after Christmas, so I strongly object not only to the fact that
we're going to commence impeachment tomorrow, while we're still engaged
in direct conflict, but also the fact - and I think we send the wrong
message to Saddam Hussein, to our allies, to the families of the men
and women are serving in the military. 
today,
at the time of Korea. And we also had President Nixon's impeachment
process ongoing at the end of the Vietnam War. I think we can do both.
I don't think it's ideal. I think in this case we need to proceed; we
need to finish it. We only have a couple of weeks left, and I think
having the one day there is appropriate, plus all of us do support our
military. There is no question we support the commander-in-chief in
this action against Saddam. 
REP.
BILL McCOLLUM: Well, obviously, I disagree with what we should be doing
with Marty on that score, but the bottom line is what we're about right
now is to complete the work that was undertaken by the Judiciary Committee
and this Congress in this Congress, and to delay it further, I think,
would be a grave mistake, and I don't think there's a problem with going
forward, but I do believe we need to support what the president is doing,
and we are doing that. It is a message that I think our young people
and their families need to understand fully, and that's what we did
today, and that's what we're going to continue to do.