Support for Clinton Censure Loses Steam

With the prospects increasing for a full-length impeachment trial complete with witnesses, support in the Senate for censuring President Clinton as an alternative to removal from office is eroding among Democrats and Republicans alike.

The emerging bipartisan opposition to censure further clouds the outlook on how the impeachment trial will be resolved.

Although censure has always loomed large as an alternative to impeachment, the House GOP majority voted down such an option last month and instead pushed through two articles of impeachment against the president, largely on party-line votes.

Most senators and observers have assumed that a Senate trial would fall short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict Clinton--and would be followed swiftly by a censure resolution condemning his conduct.

However, the growing opposition to censure raises some other possible outcomes--ranging from simple floor speeches denouncing the president’s conduct to the prospect that Clinton may already have suffered his worst punishment in the Monica S. Lewinsky affair: impeachment by the House exactly one month ago today.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) acknowledged in an interview Monday that Democrats are somewhat divided over censure but said that they nevertheless will introduce such a resolution, which would require a simple majority vote.

“There will be a censure motion. No question about that,” Daschle said. “Some feel very strongly. Even if it doesn’t pass, they want a motion. The question is whether there’ll be a majority.”

Like their House counterparts, most Republican senators oppose censure as an act not provided by the Constitution. And they have vowed not to waver from that stance, even if Clinton is acquitted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, as still seems probable.

“I will oppose censure before, during and after trial,” Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) said in an interview, expressing a sentiment shared by many of his 54 Republican colleagues, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.

Strong Opposition to Censuring Clinton

Another top Republican, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the chief deputy whip, went so far as to say that he would filibuster a censure proposal--a gambit that would require 60 votes to overcome. But with only 45 members, Democrats may be hard-pressed to persuade 15 Republicans to join them in voting for censure.

The strong support for censure among some Democrats could make them vulnerable to the perception that they somehow condone Clinton’s behavior--even though many already have condemned it. Such allegations seem inevitable if most of them vote, as expected, against the two articles of impeachment.

But anti-censure Democrats make no apologies for their position.

“I believed in censure--in lieu of impeachment. But when the House decided not to go that route and impeached the president instead, the game had to be played out,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in an interview. Some other Democrats, including Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, have expressed similar sentiment.

Most senators and political analysts believe that, as matters now stand, the requisite 67 votes to remove Clinton from office are not there.

As Daschle noted, many Democrats--and some Republicans--believe fervently that Clinton should be censured if he was acquitted. Among them are Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Daschle himself.

In such an event, Lieberman said, “I would certainly try to work with colleagues to have the Senate then adopt a strong censure of the president because I don’t think we should end this sorry episode in our history without a clear statement by the people’s representatives in Washington that what happened was wrong and it was hurtful.”

Daschle predicted Monday that “an overwhelming number” of Democrats would back censure, although he declined to hazard a guess on the outcome on the Senate floor, since Republican support would be needed. Yet only a few weeks ago, when asked whether the Senate would reprimand Clinton, he said without hesitation: “Absolutely.”

None other than Lott gave censure currency last March when he suggested that it was a possibility. But amid an outcry from Republicans, Lott back pedaled. Last week, he said that he is “very leery” of censure because it would create “a dangerous precedent.”

Other Republican senators who share that opinion include Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa.

“The Congress is not really in the business of censuring the president,” said Specter.

Another obstacle is likely to be the actual wording of a censure resolution. Would it declare that Clinton lied under oath? Would it take the form of a sense of the Senate resolution? Would it be presented in the form of legislation that would go to the president to be signed? And, if censure legislation were passed, should it include a fine?

Even among censure advocates, there is no agreement on such questions.

Senators Testing Political Waters

The House Democratic censure resolution did not state that Clinton had committed perjury, something pro-censure Republican senators would be likely to demand. The resolution did say, however, that the president had “made false statements,” “wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth” and “fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress.”

The resolution would have required the president’s signature.

Many Democrats in the Senate, including Dianne Feinstein of California, are privately testing censure language with their colleagues. But she declined to discuss her efforts in detail, saying: “It’s hard to predict what may happen.”

Although Clinton has publicly signaled his willingness to accept some form of congressional reprimand, such a scenario never has blossomed in the face of GOP opposition.

As the impeachment trial has unfolded, the pros and cons of a censure resolution have been debated anew on the Senate side of the Capitol.

You can watch live video coverage of the Senate impeachment trial and contact your congressional representative on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/impeach