Senators Ask Clinton to Delay Speech to Congress

Even as they searched for a speedy, bipartisan resolution to the impeachment crisis, senators from both parties urged President Clinton on Sunday to postpone his Jan. 19 State of the Union address because the Senate may be debating whether to remove him from office.

The extraordinary suggestion, made by several participants in televised talk shows, signals a growing recognition that the impeachment trial will inevitably slow, if not stop, Washington from conducting the public’s routine business. In his annual State of the Union address, which is delivered to a joint session of Congress, the president traditionally lays out his legislative agenda and budget priorities for the coming year.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) contends that even during a trial, the Senate could perform other business on a “dual track.” But Senate Democrats vow to vigorously fight such an effort.

“How can you have a trial impeaching the president of the United States and then, in the afternoon or in the morning, say: ‘Oh, we’re going to do Medicare,’ or ‘Let’s now do Social Security,’ ” Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”

As the Senate’s 100 members return to Washington this week to commence the second presidential impeachment trial in the nation’s history, no fewer than 16 of them took to the airwaves in an unprecedented public dialogue about the course they will chart in the days ahead.

The discussion highlighted an array of conflicting visions of how the Senate should proceed but also foreshadowed consensus on several key points:

* Some senators called for a full-blown impeachment trial that could last weeks or even months, whereas others advocated a truncated process that could end after only a few days.

* Many senators argued against calling any witnesses, but others said they consider such testimony vital. One senator, Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), even suggested that the president himself testify.

* Opposition appeared widespread to the notion of imposing a fine along with passage of a censure resolution chastising Clinton for his affair with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky and for lying about it.

* Most senators seemed equally disinclined to consider new or previously undisclosed allegations of wrongdoing against the president, preferring to limit the proceedings to the charges brought by the House.

Sunday’s television talk shows exposed increasing antagonism between members of the House and the Senate over institutional prerogatives, with some Democratic senators rebuking GOP House members who insist that the Senate has no choice but to conduct a full-length trial.

“Of course they are wrong,” snapped Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on “Fox News Sunday.”

Many senators also expressed a determination to conduct the upcoming proceedings in a dignified and bipartisan manner--in contrast, they said, to the vitriolic and bitterly partisan debate in the House.

“We may have disagreement on a point here and there, but there’s a strong desire not to allow this to degenerate into what it did in the House and cause a kind of partisan division,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation.”

On NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press,” Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) blamed lawmakers from both parties for having contributed to what he called an “extremely divisive” impeachment debate in the House. The White House had no immediate comment on the bipartisan suggestions that the president delay his State of the Union address if the impeachment trial were in progress.

Among those who urged a postponement were Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), and Gorton, who called the prospect of making the address during impeachment proceedings “unseemly and distracting.”

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) suggested that Clinton might submit his address in writing but not deliver it in person.

This is the second time the Lewinsky scandal has loomed over the State of the Union address. Clinton delivered last year’s speech just days after the affair became public.

Last month, the House adopted, largely along party lines, two articles of impeachment, accusing Clinton of committing perjury and obstructing justice in an effort to conceal his dalliances with Lewinsky.

But few lawmakers believe that 67 senators, the required two-thirds majority, would vote to convict the president on either article, which, if it happened, would automatically remove him from office.

As a result, Lott and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) have been searching for a way to bring the Senate proceeding to an expeditious conclusion that would satisfy majorities on both sides of the aisle.

The leading proposal was devised by Lieberman and Gorton, who privately began strategizing four weeks ago.

Their plan would convene the Senate as a body of 100 jurors within a matter of days to hear a formal presentation of the evidence against Clinton by Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

That would be followed by a response from the president’s lawyers. Another day might be allotted for questions from the senators.

Then the Senate would cast a test vote to see if at least 67 members believe that Clinton may have committed offenses that warrant his removal from office.

If so, the proceeding would move forward to a full trial, perhaps with testimony from witnesses.

If not, a motion to adjourn the trial could be offered, which would require only a simple majority vote to pass. A censure resolution then could be taken up.

Defending the plan on “Meet the Press,” Lieberman said a test vote showing fewer than 67 senators willing to support an impeachment trial would raise the question of “why proceed and inflict on the nation, on the presidency, and on the Senate as an institution, a long trial?”

Lott and Daschle have discussed this plan among themselves and with members of their respective caucuses. Most Democrats support this approach, but some hard-line GOP conservatives vehemently oppose any approach that would “short-circuit” a process laid out by the Constitution.

“I think we have a constitutional process to follow,” Gramm said on “Meet the Press,” calling for a straight up-or-down vote on each of the articles of impeachment.

“Seems to me we’re too preoccupied with what is good politics for senators and not enough preoccupied with what we should do to fulfill the constitutional process,” Gramm said. “There’s no reason this can’t be done right and no reason it can’t be done quickly.”

Gramm’s comments, according to Senate GOP aides, reflect the growing opposition to the expedited trial proposal among conservatives, including Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles (R-Okla.), the second-ranking Republican.

Among those who came to Lott’s defense Sunday was Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), who has not always seen eye-to-eye with the majority leader.

Cochran said the proposal is “an effort to set a schedule and develop a procedure,” comparing the test vote to a summary judgment motion in a normal trial.

Gorton said his proposal would produce a just result that would not “divide the parties so badly that it may . . . destroy our ability to deal with Social Security and education and the economy.”

Meanwhile, senators disagreed on the prospects of a presidential censure, with or without a fine.

Gramm argued against “a meaningless resolution,” saying the House impeachment--short of a Senate conviction--is the severest rebuke, one that will be “a black mark on his record forever.”

But Lieberman, a longtime Clinton friend, said if the president is not removed from office, “we must adopt a stinging censure to make clear to the American people, to our children, that we know the difference between right and wrong.”

He warned there is “a very short window” in coming days to work out a consensus on how to proceed.

“If we don’t, we are going to descend, I fear, to the kind of partisan rancor that characterized the House proceeding,” Lieberman said.

Participate in an ongoing discussion about the impeachment proceedings on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/scandal.