You like credentials, here are some:
Education
Ph.D., Economics, University of Chicago, 1980; highest fellowship awarded in Department of Economics; dissertation was the first quantitative study of discrimination against women in the federal government
J.D., Harvard Law School, 1976; Magna Cum Laude; editor, Harvard Law Review
B.A., M.A., Economics, awarded simultaneously; University of Chicago, 1973; highest honors
Experience
1995-present, Member of United States House of Representatives, 15th
District Current Committee Membership: International Relations, Banking.
1983-present, Professor, Stanford University; Subjects taught include international commercial law and economics, international jurisdiction, public international law, separation of powers in constitutional law, adminstrative law, advanced antitrust, microeconomics, corporations
1993-95, Member of California State Senate, 11th District
1988-1992, Member of United States House of Representatives, 12th District
1981-1983, Director, Federal Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 1981-1983
1981, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
1981, White House Task Force on Women, chaired by Elizabeth Dole
1978-1980, Private Practice
1977-1978, Law Clerk to Justice Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court
1976-1977, Law Clerk to Judge George E. MacKinnon
And what does Republican Tom Campbell say?
I have tried my best to keep an open mind on the ultimate question of impeachment, and to be scrupulous to insist that the President be given a fair opportunity to present his defense. It is shocking to offer him a period of 11 days to offer his case to the Committee on the most important issues to be determined.
Should the Judiciary Committee recommend impeachment, the Democrats' alternative says that any further proceedings in the Committee, and on the floor of the entire House, must then finish within 30 days. That is where the November 25 dates comes from; it sets an unrealistic enough time frame, but focus on that date ignores the much more draconian 11-day limit set in the first part of the Democrats' proposal.
Following the Watergate precedent is fair and appropriate. Some argue that this is not the same as Watergate. The only answer can be, we don't know yet. We especially don't know if the inquiry is limited only to the Lewinsky matter, as the Democrats also propose. There are at least six other matters currently under investigation by the Independent Counsel or committees of Congress:
- the transfer of missile technology to China allegedly in return for campaign contributions;
- the unlawful maintenance in the White House of over 700 raw FBI files on individual Americans, under the direction of a political appointee, whom no one recalls hiring, who kept no log of who had access to those files;
- the documents regarding the billing records of the First Lady when she was an attorney working on Whitewater, that were taken from the office of Vince Foster, allegedly hidden for over a year although under subpoena, and that eventually surfaced in the private living quarters in the White House;
- the use of the FBI to close the White House Travel Office on charges that proved baseless, allegedly in order to hire replacements who were personal friends of the President;
- the use of the White House for political fund-raising purposes, including rewarding contributors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom, soliciting money at supposedly governmental, non-political
breakfasts, and making fund-raising appeals from the business part of the White House complex;
- and the original Madison Guaranty Bank failure, at cost of millions to the taxpayer, preceded by loans allegedly made unlawfully, to benefit the President and his wife, and with their knowledge and participation.
Many critics of the Independent Counsel have made the case that the foregoing list comprise far more serious potential offenses than the matters involving the President and Ms. Lewinsky. It is rather inconsistent, therefore, for many of them to say these matters should not be looked into by the Judiciary Committee.
Last March, I made a speech on the floor of the House, calling for a consolidation of all matters before the Independent Counsel and all matters pending before all other committees of the House, to be given to the Judiciary Committee for their speedy consideration. If there were matters deserving impeachment, we should do so. If there were not, we should have reached that decision then. Seven months later, this consolidation is taking place. The Judiciary Committee will have until January to make its recommendation on all these matters, or to ask for more time.
It would be a dereliction of my duty to vote to prevent the Judiciary Committee from carrying out that function. That, however, is the practical effect of the Democrats' alternative resolution. They would set an absurd time limit, and restrict all inquiry to the case of Ms. Lewinsky. To vote for that alternative is to vote to close down the inquiry.
To vote for the majority resolution is to vote to conduct an inquiry expeditiously, but comprehensively and fairly.
I wish this would all go away. I wish this had never happened. I did not seek public office to have to consider matters like this. But these are serious matters, they have been presented for careful consideration, and that's what I'll do.
house.gov
|
