House Chips Away at Executive Privilege Claim

Signaling further erosion of President Clinton’s support in Congress, 36 Democrats joined 223 Republicans on Thursday in calling on him to release “all records and documents” relating to his claim of executive privilege in independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation.

House passage of the nonbinding resolution, on a 259-157 vote, came a day after the chamber voted overwhelmingly to bar the export of sensitive missile and satellite technology to China--a far more serious slap at the White House.

Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the third-ranking House Republican who sponsored the executive privilege measure, told his colleagues: “We’re simply asking the president to be honest with the American people. The lengths this administration has gone to hide from the light of day are breathtaking.”

Later, the House approved a companion resolution asking for the president’s help in getting to the bottom of Democratic fund-raising abuses related to the 1996 election. That resolution, approved 342 to 69, declared that Clinton should urge “full cooperation by his former political appointees and friends and their associates” with congressional investigators.

Some Democrats said they felt “trapped” into voting for a measure that smacked of “Mom and apple pie.” A “no” vote would have been difficult to explain to their constituents in an election year, they said.

“Nothing will come of it,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), who voted for the executive privilege resolution.

Rep. Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres), who also voted with the majority, said that many Democratic votes were cast “out of a sense of frustration and a desire to get to the bottom of it and soon.”

The only other California Democrat to vote for DeLay’s resolution was Rep. Brad Sherman of Sherman Oaks. Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Mission Hills) voted present, and Democratic Reps. Jane Harman of Rolling Hills, Sam Farr of Carmel and Esteban Edward Torres of Pico Rivera did not vote.

House critics of Clinton’s use of executive privilege were emboldened by a federal judge’s ruling earlier this month that rejected the president’s invocation of the doctrine to prevent his closest White House aides from having to testify before a federal grand jury investigating Clinton’s relationship with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky.

Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, in a ruling that is still under seal, said that Starr’s prosecutors are free to interrogate Deputy Counsel Bruce R. Lindsey and political strategist Sidney Blumenthal about their knowledge of Clinton’s dealings with Lewinsky and the White House response to the controversy.

Starr is trying to determine whether Clinton or others lied under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky or obstructed justice. Clinton and Lewinsky have denied under oath having a sexual relationship.

The House resolution calls on Clinton to make public all legal memorandums, briefs and motions that White House lawyers filed in federal court to support his claim of privilege. Those documents remain under seal by order of Johnson.

The White House noted Thursday that House members often assert their own privileges.

“A more worthwhile debate would have been whether the privacy act should apply to Congress,” presidential spokesman James Kennedy said. He referred to House Republicans who ignored privacy concerns last month in releasing excerpts of tape-recorded phone calls between then-imprisoned Whitewater felon Webster L. Hubbell and his wife, Suzi.

White House officials made clear that they regard Wednesday’s vote against the technology transfers as a much more serious matter.

White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said Thursday that the vote was a “knee-jerk reaction to headlines” and press accounts of allegations linking Clinton’s approval of technology transfers to large political donations to Democrats in 1996.

“Congress will make intemperate judgments,” McCurry added. “It’s the reason why the conduct of foreign affairs is safely in the hands of the executive branch.”

Atty. Gen. Janet Reno told her weekly news briefing that the department is investigating whether political contributions illegally influenced the administration’s policies toward China. However, no evidence has been uncovered so far that would lead her to request appointment of an independent counsel, Reno said.