Impeachment Inquiry

In a recent Political Briefing column (“Campaign Mailbag,” Nov. 6), The Times repeated with quizzical amazement the fact that my opponent in the recently concluded congressional race, Randy Hoffman, claimed that I supported the impeachment inquisition aimed at President Clinton. The column noted that it was somewhat odd for a Republican to be attacking a Democrat as not being supportive enough of President Clinton. What your column failed to mention is that the charge was not only amusing, it was also untrue.

I stood with the vast majority of Democrats in voting against an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee which was unlimited both in time and in scope. Unfortunately, that is the inquiry that was authorized by the House of Representatives, with every Republican voting in favor of unlimited inquiry.

It is true 31 Democrats joined with the Republicans in voting for an unlimited inquiry. I was not among them.

I did vote along with virtually every Democrat for an inquiry limited in both time and scope. Under the Independent Council Law, the Congress is at least required to consider Kenneth Starr’s report. Unfortunately, only one Republican joined us in seeking a limited inquiry.

Although in October the House voted to authorize an unlimited inquiry, in November the people expressed a contrary view. I am confident that as a result of the recent election the House will end up implementing the Democratic inquiry plan. I believe they will limit the scope of the inquiry and wrap it up this year.

I look forward to putting the Monica Lewinsky matter behind us soon and spending next year focusing on a moderate, bipartisan agenda.

BRAD SHERMAN, Congressman, 24th District