GOP Leaders Aren’t Leading on the Impeachment Front

As the House Judiciary Committee careens toward a monumental showdown over impeachment, top GOP officials are conspicuously missing in action, leaving a leadership vacuum that some Republicans fear could drag out the proceedings or send them willy-nilly toward a politically perilous result.

Speaker-to-be Bob Livingston (R-La.) so far has played virtually no role in developing an impeachment strategy. Lame-duck Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is nowhere to be seen. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is maintaining a studied silence. Republicans with presidential aspirations, such as Texas Gov. George W. Bush, are taking advantage of their outside-the-Beltway status to look the other way.

GOP leaders portray their stance as an appropriate show of deference to the Judiciary Committee. But as that panel Tuesday opened new avenues of investigation--even as polls still show an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to impeachment--some Republicans are hoping their party leaders soon will take a more aggressive role in ensuring a quick, appropriate resolution.

“Bob Livingston or Newt Gingrich should step in,” insists Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.). “Somebody needs to figure out what the endgame is and get to it. It should be our leadership at this point.”

Likewise, a senior GOP congressional strategist complained that the process “is being driven by just a few people because they have grabbed hold of the inertia here. To complicate all that, the leadership is not organized to say, ‘This is what we should be doing.’ ”

By contrast, the Democratic House leadership is meeting today with its members on the Judiciary Committee to try to begin to put together a unified party strategy for ending the impeachment effort. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) hopes to craft a proposal to censure, but not impeach, President Clinton--just as House Democrats developed an alternative to the Republican resolution authorizing an open-ended impeachment inquiry last October.

Hopes for any quick resolution of the inquiry faded Monday when the GOP-led Judiciary Committee announced it would expand its investigation beyond allegations about Clinton’s relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky to questions about his fund-raising practices in the 1996 campaign.

Livingston Urged to Rein In Probe

On Tuesday, Democrats instantly responded by urging Livingston to rein in the freewheeling investigation and point the way toward a compromise by allowing a floor vote on censure as an alternative to impeachment.

“I guess I’m making a plea here, and that is to Mr. Livingston to step in and take control of this runaway train before we go over a cliff,” Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at a Tuesday hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

Gephardt wrote to Gingrich on Tuesday, urging him, as one of his last acts as speaker, to restrain the committee and “provide the leadership necessary to move this process forward.”

Even some Republicans expressed reservations at the widening inquiry. “I don’t think it’s a good idea,” said LaHood. “This going into other areas does not reflect the will of the full House.”

And Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.) raised concerns about potential delays: “I don’t think there’s any way [the committee] can thoroughly investigate campaign finance before the end of the year.”

Yet Livingston’s press secretary, Mark Corallo, brushed aside such complaints, saying that the speaker-elect had no objection to the committee’s decision to expand the inquiry, even if it meant the proceedings extended into next year.

This hands-off approach is partly a function of a leadership in transition. Not only is Gingrich on his way out, but House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) has been weakened by a stiff challenge last month to his reelection as the No. 2 leader.

Livingston was chosen to succeed Gingrich as speaker just two weeks ago, and the gavel will not be officially passed until the new Congress convenes in January.

But assuming, as most do, that the Judiciary Committee approves one or more articles of impeachment, many are looking to Livingston to resolve the key question that would then face Republicans: whether to allow a floor vote on censure as an alternative punishment.

Republicans skeptical of impeachment, almost all of them from competitive swing districts, are eager for such an option. “If there is only one vote on impeachment, it is going to be a traumatizing event,” said Ken Johnson, communications director for Rep. W. J. (Billy) Tauzin, a Livingston ally.

Using a murder trial analogy, Johnson added: “If it comes down only to a choice of whether you give him the death penalty or set him free, it is ridiculous.”

But House conservatives have fiercely resisted such talk--partly because they believe the Constitution does not provide for censure, but also because they fear that allowing an alternative will reduce the pressure on marginal Republicans to support impeachment.

So far, Livingston hasn’t tipped his hand in the argument.

He has raised questions about the appropriateness of censure, but hasn’t ruled out allowing a vote on it. Mostly, Livingston has deferred to Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.).

In private, the incoming speaker apparently hasn’t been much more forthcoming. Capitol Hill sources say Gephardt has met twice with Livingston and suggested the two parties work together to resolve the controversy. But, the sources say, Livingston would only repeat his public pronouncements: He hopes to wrap it up quickly, but wouldn’t say how.

Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), the incoming chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee, says Livingston and other leaders have had some preliminary conversations about the issue, and that he has not heard anyone express support for allowing a censure vote. Other GOP sources say Livingston hasn’t even made clear that he, not Gingrich, will make the call.

With leaders such as Livingston laying low, the GOP’s direction on impeachment has been driven mostly by Judiciary Committee members--mostly staunch conservatives who represent safely Republican districts--and Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Texas), the only member of the party’s leadership who has taken a clear public stance on how to conclude the matter. DeLay, like many GOP members of the Judiciary panel, is adamantly opposing any effort to allow a floor vote on censure.

Conservatives Bent on Impeachment

Their strong stand reflects the second force that’s discouraged other GOP leaders from considering alternatives to impeachment. Although advocates on both sides of the issue say that no one really knows if there are enough votes to impeach Clinton--even on the most likely charge, perjury--GOP leaders are reluctant to begin talking about compromise because their conservative base is hell-bent on impeachment.

It is particularly problematic for Livingston. He clearly does not want his fledgling regime overshadowed by this issue, and some Republicans worry that a narrow party-line vote to impeach Clinton would undercut any opportunity for bipartisan agreement on such major issues as Social Security.

On the other hand, the conservative party activists who care most about impeachment represent the GOP wing most skeptical of Livingston. “This will be the first test of his conservative bona fides with a large constituency within his party,” said Marshall Wittmann, director of congressional relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

* WIDER PROBE: GOP majority on panel seeks memos to investigate Clinton fund-raising. A12