Bitter Debate Precedes Impeachment Decision

A deeply divided House of Representatives votes this morning on the impeachment of President Clinton after a 13-hour debate Friday that swung from solemnity to street fight and laid the groundwork for a likely Senate trial.

Rebuffing calls for a lesser punishment, Republican leaders scheduled four up-or-down votes today on whether Clinton should stand trial on two articles of perjury, one article of obstruction of justice and one article alleging abuse of power, all stemming from his attempts to conceal an extramarital affair with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky.

The 435-member House is expected to pass at least two of the articles, impeaching a president for only the second time in the nation’s history. The matter then would go to the Senate where a two-thirds vote would be required to remove Clinton from office.

Democrats pressed in vain Friday for a lesser punishment of Clinton, such as censure, and for a delay in the proceedings while U.S. military forces are engaged in hostile action against Iraq.

First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, appearing at a White House event, made a rare reference to the political tide rising against her husband.

“We in our country ought to practice reconciliation and we ought to bring our country together,” she said. “We ought to end divisiveness because we can do so much more together.”

In an unexpected development, the first lady’s spokeswoman said Friday night that she would travel to Capitol Hill this morning to speak to House Democrats before the historic vote on her husband’s impeachment.

The first lady is popular among Democrats and her appearance at the invitation of House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) is seen as a way to deter wobbling Democrats from voting to impeach Clinton.

The fewer Democrats who defect, the easier it will be for the White House to dismiss the president’s impeachment as partisan politics, to rebuff efforts aimed at forcing his resignation and to hold the strongest hand possible as the issue goes to the Senate.

Over recent days, the first lady has been talking to both Republicans and Democrats about impeachment, said Marcia Berry, her spokeswoman.

On Friday, however, divisiveness ruled the House.

“No man or woman, no matter how highly placed, no matter how effective a communicator, no matter how gifted a manipulator of opinion or winner of votes, can be above the law in a democracy,” intoned Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.).

Gephardt said: “We need to turn away from extremism and inquisition and return to a sense of moderation in our political system. We are considering articles of impeachment that allege an abuse of power. We have an obligation not to abuse our power.”

Republicans repeated their calls for Clinton to step down and spare the country the turmoil of a Senate trial, and three Democrats--Reps. William O. Lipinski of Illinois, Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York and Paul McHale of Pennsylvania--joined in recommending resignation if impeachment passes.

That option was ruled out by the man who would become president in such a scenario.

“I think the results of a meteor strike are more likely than the resignation of the president,” said Vice President Al Gore. “He is just not going to do that.”

The back-and-forth on the House floor revealed widely divergent perspectives on the case against the president, presented to Congress in September by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. The debate, coming after 11 months of obsession over the sex-and-lying scandal and with both sides’ views firmly set, appeared more a cathartic exercise than an effort to sway the outcome.

“Our Constitution does not allow you to remove a president from office because you can’t stand him,” argued Rep. Thomas M. Barrett (D-Wis.), who opposed impeachment during last week’s Judiciary Committee vote. “I feel bad for this institution today.”

But Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who supported three of the four articles in committee, countered: “The president turned the justice system upside down on many occasions for his personal gain and that’s why we’re here today.”

With partisan tensions riding high from the outset, Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), the presiding officer, appealed for decorum.

No abusive language toward the president or comparisons to personal conduct of members of Congress would be allowed, he warned, prompting a chorus of boos, groans and applause.

During debate, Democrats made no explicit mention of the admission Thursday of incoming Speaker Bob Livingston (R-La.) that he had engaged in multiple adulterous affairs over the years.

They did, however, refer to the ethics violations committed by retiring Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), and they criticized Republicans for hypocrisy in excusing their own marital indiscretions while excoriating Clinton for his.

“If we make every single one of the House members rumored to have an extramarital affair subject to a $40-million investigation,” declared Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), “we may be faced with a number of empty seats in this chamber.”

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove) told her colleagues that she knew what the president must be feeling “because I spent the first 1 1/2 years of my career here defending myself against a partisan investigation” into her victory over Republican Robert K. Dornan.

She then warned: “Beware of the wrath of the American people when they rise up and hold you accountable for your actions today.”

Democratic wrath was focused most pointedly on the decision by GOP leaders to block consideration of a motion that would have condemned Clinton’s actions without recommending his removal.

“The American people have been very clear: they oppose impeachment,” said Minority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.). “And they are looking for another solution--a just solution, a solution that condemns the president’s wrongdoing, yet enables America to put this sorry spectacle behind us and get on with the country’s business.”

Arguing for censure, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) said that, if any article of impeachment is approved by the House, “we face a pointless trial in the Senate because there’s no chance of a two-thirds majority approval.”

GOP Critics Deride Censure

GOP critics, however, condemned censure as unconstitutional and meaningless.

“Censure would have about as much effect on a president of the United States as a parent yelling and shouting at a teenager,” said Rep. Steven Horn (R-Long Beach), who announced just this week that he would vote for impeachment.

It was clear that lawmakers in both parties saw the debate as a historic one, the first presidential impeachment to go so far since Andrew Johnson sat in the White House in 1868.

Still, they disagreed markedly in how history might judge the vote.

“I am witnessing the most tragic event of my career in the Congress, in effect a Republican coup d’etat,” said Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who voted a quarter-century ago to impeach President Nixon.

“Impeachment was designed to rid this nation of traitors and tyrants, not attempts to cover up extramarital affairs,” he continued.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said that he was similarly glum but had no second thoughts about proceeding with Clinton’s ouster.

“I take no joy in this decision but I make no apologies either,” Sensenbrenner said. “America will emerge from this dark period of our history a stronger nation because we have demonstrated once again the resiliency of our democracy and the supremacy of our Constitution.”

But nothing compared to the gloom hanging over the White House.

One senior White House official, who has worked full-time on the anti-impeachment effort, said it was “very disappointing” to lose most of the GOP moderates.

“I think there is a great tragedy in the absence of a middle [group] . . . which would have been able to demonstrate itself if there had been a chance to vote for censure,” the official said.

By preventing that option, the official said, the GOP leadership split the House.

“That is really raw politics at the expense of the national interest,” the official said.

Yet the White House already was working to influence the next stage of the process.

“We’re going to be working very, very closely with the leadership in the Senate,” the official said. “We are going to be in charge of our defense there; we won’t have to rely on the Senate Democrats the way we had to rely on House Democrats.”

Officials were approaching former senators for guidance. Chief of Staff John Podesta spoke with Bob Dole, the president’s Republican opponent in 1996, who has said that the Senate should quickly censure Clinton rather than conduct a lengthy trial.

Even as lawmakers emphasized the importance of the proceedings, citing the words of the greats of history, an aura of business as usual permeated the special session of Congress.

The House chamber, filled nearly to capacity at the launch of the debate, before long was nearly empty, with lawmakers leaving the floor until it was their turn to speak. The spectator seats, as well, were only half filled.

“Where are they?” asked tourist Don Williams of Tucson as he gazed down at a largely empty chamber. “This is supposed to be a momentous occasion. That tells me their minds are already made up.”

In fact, all but a handful of the members previously had declared their intentions, turning the long debate into a pitch to a public that largely has made up its mind too.

“The American people in their wisdom have implored us to leave this slippery road of impeachment and pursue instead the measured course of censure,” said Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), citing poll results showing strong opposition to Clinton’s removal.

But Republicans argued that laws trump polls.

“Popular opinion and polls cannot dictate our course of action,” said Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.). “Duty, honor and obligation must. . . . People, politics and polls change. Presidents come and go. Fundamental principles do not.”

Amid the cross fire, a dwindling number of undeclared lawmakers opted to leave their positions unknown until today, when they slip their plastic voting cards into the machine on the House floor.

“We have big differences of opinion here,” Rep. James C. Greenwood (R-Pa.), one of the undecideds, declared in a speech that did nothing to give away his views.

Very few lawmakers stepped across the partisan divide. Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.), however, said late Friday that she would vote against impeachment.

Another who crossed party lines was McHale, who argued for impeachment by asserting that “the most basic rights of the people will be preserved only so long as public officials at every level of government tremble before the law.”

Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, decried his party’s move to impeach, even as he seemed to concede his fight to derail the effort.

“I believe that as Republicans we have failed to rise to our obligation,” King said. “As a matter of conscience, I must vote against impeachment and I rue this day.”

Selection of Prosecutors

In anticipation of the next step in the impeachment process, Judiciary Committee staff members worked behind the scenes to select the lawmakers who would act as prosecutors in a Senate trial--a team led by Hyde and including Republicans Sensenbrenner, Charles T. Canady of Florida and James E. Rogan of Glendale--and prepare a budget for the work to come.

“Going from this stage on is a bit of a mystery,” acknowledged Paul McNulty, a Judiciary Committee spokesman. “We don’t know if there’s going to be some meeting held right away to deal with a plea bargain.”

For many retiring or defeated lawmakers, this was their final chance at the microphone.

“This is the last time I’ll be able to speak to the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who is leaving the House since he was defeated this fall in a race for the Senate. “And I rise in support of the articles of impeachment because here tonight we have to answer three questions: First, are we a people of convenience or of conviction? Second, are we a constitutional republic or a democracy? And third, are we a nation based on truth or a nation based on moral relativism?”

Times staff writers Robert L. Jackson and Elizabeth Shogren contributed to this report.

COVERAGE BEGINS TODAY AT 6 A.M. PST ON TV AND AT LATIMES.COM

*

Times on the Web: The Times’ Web site provides coverage of today’s impeachment vote with a live video broadcast beginning at 6 a.m.; a report from The Times’ Washington bureau; audio analysis from political writer Ronald Brownstein; a tally of House members’ votes; and a Write to Congress feature and online discussion so you can express your opinion to your representatives. Go to:

https://www.latimes.com