[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9807-S9809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CENSURING THE PRESIDENT

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, yesterday, as is the habit in the Senate, 
the Republicans met in policy luncheon during the lunch hour, and 
during that meeting I made some comments which, under the terms of the 
meeting, normally remain confidential. Apparently they were 
sufficiently provocative that, within an hour or so of the meeting, my 
office was besieged with calls from reporters who wanted to know if I 
was going to proceed in the manner that had been reported to them. 
Others of my colleagues were similarly accosted by reporters who wanted 
to know what is Senator Bennett going to do on the issue he raised in 
the policy lunch. Rather than try to respond to each of those reporters 
individually, I decided that I would take the floor this morning and 
make a presentation of what it was I said at the policy lunch 
yesterday, and thereby end any suspense anyone may have. I assure you, 
this issue is probably not worth the amount of concern that was stirred 
up yesterday, but I will make it clear what I said and what I have in 
mind.

  The issue that was under discussion had to do with the behavior of 
the President of the United States, as indicated by his statement to 
the people of America several weeks ago. I made this comment. I said 
that if any Member of this body had engaged in that kind of behavior, 
he or she would be subject to censure for that behavior, and I singled 
out three areas in particular which I feel would be worthy of censure.
  The first: It is now clear that the President of the United States 
had a relationship with an intern who was under his control and in his 
purview

[[Page S9808]]

within the White House, which was improper, or, in the words of the 
President himself, ``wrong.'' This was not a chance encounter. It was 
not a matter of her bringing him a piece of pizza, catching his eye, he 
catching her eye, she smiled at him, he smiled at her, and something 
improper happened and that was the end of it. It was an affair with 
sexual activity that began in December of 1995 and continued for 18 
months, including the period of time after she had left the White House 
and was no longer in the President's direct line of report. And it 
ended, apparently, only because it was discovered and reported in the 
public. If any Member of this body had that kind of a relationship with 
an intern in his office he would, I think, very appropriately be 
subject to censure from the Ethics Committee and by the Senate as a 
whole. That is the first item.
  The second item: When this matter became public, the President went 
before the public and insisted in the most emphatic possible language 
that it had not happened. Furthermore, he then gathered his Cabinet and 
his closest aides around him and, in direct personal contact with many 
of them, assured them that the public reports of this activity were 
false, and urged them to go forward and speak in his behalf repeating 
that denial. We had members of the President's Cabinet come before the 
Congress and repeat that denial, in effect lying to the Congress from 
their position as Cabinet officers on behalf of the President of the 
United States. This, in my opinion, is the second thing that would 
justify censure, lying and urging others, particularly members of his 
official family, to lie in various fora, including an official forum of 
the Congress of the United States.
  Then there is the third: While this was going on, for a period of 7 
to 7\1/2\ months, the President allowed many of his subordinates, aides 
and supporters to not only lie about this issue--admittedly, they 
thought they were telling the truth because they had believed the 
President--but also to attack and smear those who were telling the 
truth; to go after the reputation of those who had come forward with an 
accurate description of what was going on and attempt to destroy those 
reputations in the public arena. This, in my opinion, would be a third 
reason for censure. And I repeat, I am convinced that if any Member of 
this body had, No. 1, engaged in that kind of extended improper sexual 
relationship with an intern; No. 2, lied to his own associates and 
urged those associates to go forward and lie in his behalf; and, No. 3, 
then sat by while others of his official family smeared the reputations 
of those who were telling the truth, a motion for censure would be 
brought upon this floor and passed, I believe, overwhelmingly.
  So I raised in the policy luncheon yesterday the possibility of 
having a motion of censure raised as a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
with respect to the President of the United States. I pointed out that 
this should in no way prejudge any impeachment activity that might 
occur in the House of Representatives for several reasons. In the first 
place, we do not know what is in Judge Starr's report that will come to 
the House of Representatives, and what I have described has public 
circulation, indeed confirmation by the President himself, and 
therefore need not depend upon Judge Starr's report in order for us to 
act upon it.
  Second, Judge Starr's report and the action of the House of 
Representatives will not take place, if such action does occur, until 
the 106th Congress. I believe that something as serious as this should 
be commented on by the 105th Congress. I do not know that I will be in 
the 106th Congress. I hope I will be. The political signs in my home 
State indicate that I will be. But I can take nothing for granted, and 
I raised with my colleagues yesterday the possibility of having this 
Congress go on record as stating that it found totally unacceptable and 
subject to condemnation--because the word ``censure'' is a synonym for 
condemn--the actions of the President in the three areas I have 
described.
  I pointedly said I do not want to go beyond those three areas with 
any resolution of censure because I do not know what is in Ken Starr's 
report. I do not want to prejudge the issue of whether or not those 
three items constitute impeachable offenses or high crimes and 
misdemeanors as such offenses are described in the Constitution. I 
think that is the responsibility for the House to undertake under the 
Constitution, and the House, in the 106th Congress, will make that 
decision.
  I raised that possibility within the Republican policy luncheon, for 
conversation and counsel from my colleagues. I received a good deal of 
conversation and counsel from my colleagues, both in that luncheon and 
subsequent to it, and I have reflected on the matter myself in 
conversations with my staff. But, as I said, it was within an hour or 
so after I had made essentially the same statement that I have made 
here within the policy luncheon that members of the press were after me 
and some of my colleagues, to say, ``Is Senator Bennett going to offer 
a motion of censure with respect to the President of the United 
States?'' I told those reporters, as I indicated earlier, that I would 
give them their answer today.
  The answer is no, Senator Bennett will not be offering a motion of 
censure, for two reasons. First, there are some who would interpret 
that motion of censure as an attempt to bring this issue to closure. 
Closure, interestingly enough, is a psychological term, not a legal 
term. In legal terms, you come to guilty or innocent; you come to 
``case closed,'' with a final finding of fact. Closure seems to be a 
psychological term where you say the individual is now able to deal 
with this issue.
  But, aside from the semantic question involved, I do not want to be a 
party to any suggestion that the investigation of the President's 
behavior and the consideration of whether or not that behavior 
constitutes an impeachable offense should come to an end by virtue of 
the resolution that I might offer. So, for that first reason, I have 
concluded that I will not, in fact, offer this resolution.
  The second reason I have decided not to offer the resolution is 
because some have suggested that, since the Senate would ultimately be 
the jury that would try any accusations with respect to impeachment, I 
should not, as a Member of the Senate, prejudge the case. I can draw a 
fine line with which I would be comfortable that would say that my 
resolution of censure, saying that I found this behavior in the three 
areas I have described to be reprehensible, would not prejudge a 
determination as to whether that behavior constituted a high crime or 
misdemeanor under the Constitution, and I would be comfortable with 
that distinction. But since there are some who would not be comfortable 
and who would suggest that by offering the resolution I was prejudging 
the case, I have also, for that second reason, decided that I will not 
offer that resolution.

  That, I hope, Mr. President, clears up, if anybody had any concerns 
about what I said yesterday in the policy luncheon, what I intend to 
do.
  I conclude, however, with this one final thought with respect to this 
issue. One of the reasons I considered offering the resolution, so that 
the Senate at least would go on record as making it clear that this 
behavior was unacceptable, is because I imagined this scenario in the 
future:
  Let us suppose that at some point in the future--pick a date, 5 
years--the superintendent of West Point, a married man in his early 
fifties, became involved sexually with a 21-year-old female cadet who 
had come to his office to bring him coffee. The superintendent 
maintained a sexual relationship with that female cadet for the next 18 
months while she was still within his purview and under some form or 
other of his control. Other cadets found out about the relationship and 
began talking about it in the scenario I am describing.
  The superintendent, let us suppose, adamantly denies that the 
relationship is going on, recognizing that it is totally inappropriate 
and wrong. An investigation is opened whereby legally constituted 
authorities from the Department of Defense check into the rumors. The 
superintendent attacks the investigator, smears his ability and his 
integrity, denies absolutely to his own circle of aides that the affair 
had ever taken place, and allows the impression to go forward 
throughout the entire community that he is the subject of a witch hunt 
being undertaken by the Department of Defense.

[[Page S9809]]

  After 7 months of stonewalling, denying and refusing to cooperate, 
the superintendent is then forced to admit that, No. 1, the 
relationship did take place; No. 2, he has been lying through the 7 
months; and, No. 3, there has been a smearing of the reputation of 
people of high integrity.
  I would not want, under that circumstance, to have the superintendent 
then approach the Department of Defense with a poll showing that 58 
percent of the cadets were happy under his superintendency at West 
Point and say, ``Since the Commander in Chief did something like this 5 
years ago and no reprimand of any kind came out of the Congress, why 
cannot I do exactly the same thing under these circumstances and not 
have it affect my career?''
  I wish the precedent to be laid down that says that this kind of 
activity, whether it constitutes impeachable offenses or not, cannot go 
uncommented on in an official way. And just because I have decided that 
I will not offer this resolution in this Congress at this time for the 
two reasons I have outlined, I do make it clear, Mr. President, that 
should the voters of Utah send me back here to serve in the 106th 
Congress, I will do what I can to give Members of Congress a clear 
opportunity, regardless of impeachment proceedings, to express their 
opinion on the behavior of the President of the United States in this 
circumstance.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________