Some Lawmakers Ponder Censure of Clinton as Impeachment Alternative

Faced with the quandary of how to pass judgment on President Clinton’s personal conduct, some lawmakers late last week renewed the call for a resolution condemning the president’s relationship with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky.

The idea of a censure resolution, which Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) first broached in March, would have no legal ramifications but could solve Congress’ current political dilemma.

“In effect, it would let every member of Congress, House or Senate, go on record as disapproving of the behavior in question,” explained Thomas E. Mann, director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution. “This is a route they may very well want to follow. It may provide a way out for them.”

Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-N.Y.) said the resolution would allow lawmakers to address the fact that Clinton had lied about having an affair without forcing the House and Senate to undertake impeachment proceedings. “You can’t pretend you condone what’s transpired. It’s now clear, based on the president’s speech, that the public and public officials were misled,” LaFalce said. “Maybe a reprimand would be in order, if it would bring the matter to a close.”

An aide to one House Democrat said several other members had begun calling to inquire whether the Democratic caucus as a whole could support a censure motion. According to the aide, the calls had come from Democrats facing difficult reelection races. “They’re concerned that what they’re saying right now might not be enough,” said the aide. “They’re looking for a place-holder before the Starr report comes up to say to their constituents they think this is serious and may require further action.”

Any joint or separate resolution indicating disapproval of the president, whether it be censure or a reprimand, is purely symbolic. Under the Constitution each chamber can punish its own members, but Congress can only sanction the president through impeachment. A motion of censure in the House forces members to relinquish their chairmanships, and the Senate Ethics Committee can make recommendations to each party “concerning a member’s seniority or positions of responsibility.”

But while a few Democrats have begun advocating this option, other members argue that Congress can make no decision until it receives a referral from independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

“I think Democrats who are talking about censure are trying to ensure that other, more grievous options should be headed off,” said Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.). “I don’t think they should be dismissed automatically. I’m keeping all my options open, on censure, on resignation, and hopefully, it will never get to impeachment.”

Republicans are more reluctant to discuss the idea of censure publicly, and GOP leaders have yet to formally discuss that option. But some Republicans members and staff have privately raised the prospect of proceeding with a resolution if the independent counsel’s report does not contain any new revelations about Clinton.

Mann said many Republicans are concerned any investigation could appear partisan, and they are acutely aware that the American public has grown tired of the scandal. At the same time, lawmakers have a constitutional obligation to consider any charges of wrongdoing Starr provides to Congress.

“When it comes down to it, no matter how many fancy words you use, like ‘obstruction of justice’ and ‘suborning perjury,’ it will all be about . . . sex in the White House and how to hide it. When push comes to shove, members are reluctant to invoke impeachment proceedings on that,” Mann said, adding that a resolution would spare Republicans from confronting Clinton at length on this subject. “They know if they take him on, they’re going to be in the political battle of their lives.”

Congress has censured a president only once in its history, when the Whig-controlled Senate censured Democratic President Andrew Jackson in 1834 when he defied lawmakers and withdrew funds from the national bank. Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky, who had run for president against Jackson two years earlier, led the charge against Jackson.

“That was pretty much a political theater piece,” said Senate Historian Richard Baker.