[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2598-2601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       CENSURE RESOLUTION OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I just want to point out to everyone 
who is interested that a censure resolution has been entered at the 
desk. It has 38 cosponsors.
  Mr. President, during these trying days, the question has been asked 
of many of us: ``What will we tell our children about this sordid 
period in our Nation's history?''
  Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I had hoped to be able to tell 
my granddaughter and, indeed, the rest of our Nation, that the United 
States Senate had come together in bipartisan fellowship to approve a 
censure resolution that would deliver a clear message that the behavior 
of President William Jefferson Clinton has been inappropriate, 
intolerable and unacceptable.
  Unfortunately, some in this body have forestalled our ability to 
bring such a resolution to the floor of the Senate for a vote. This I 
regret deeply.
  There are moments in history when we are able to rise up against the 
forces driving us apart and come together with a united purpose. I 
believe that the censure resolution provided us with just such an 
opportunity.
  While not a cure-all, the resolution is a way to share with our 
children and the rest of our nation our findings, our sentiments, our 
belief that the actions of the President are a violation of the trust 
of the American people and have brought shame and dishonor upon the 
presidency and the man.
  But as has been made clear, those of us who truly believe a strong 
censure is the appropriate resolution in this case are being prevented 
from bringing it to the floor of this Senate for a vote.
  The main co-sponsor is the Senator from Utah, Mr. Robert Bennett. In 
all, it is co-sponsored by 36 Senators.--over \1/3\ of this Senate.
  The words of the resolution were strong, but they are fitting words 
and I believe a bipartisan majority of the Senate would be prepared to 
vote for this censure resolution if it were permitted to come to a vote 
today.
  Over the past few weeks, I have worked very closely with a large 
number of Senators to develop a bipartisan resolution, largely because 
I felt it so important that anyone who looks at this shabby episode of 
American history understands that while one may not vote to convict and 
remove a president, one can have profound dismay and concern about the 
misconduct that was inherent in the articles of impeachment.
  That is why I regret deeply that some have seen fit to prevent us 
from voting on a censure resolution.
  Because that cannot happen today, I have joined with the cosponsors 
of this resolution to formally present it to the Senate and record it 
in the Congressional Record, making clear for all time the strong 
censure of this President and condemnation of his actions by at least 
one-third of the U.S. Senate.
  Earlier today, I voted against conviction and removal of the 
President on both articles of impeachment. I did not believe the House 
managers established beyond a reasonable doubt that this President is 
guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.
  Although I deplore the circumstances that have brought us to this 
point, I do not believe they present a clear and present danger to the 
functioning of our government, and therefore this President, who has 
been a good President for the people of the United States, should not 
be convicted and removed from office.
  However, I feel very strongly and sincerely that the acquittal of the 
President on the articles of impeachment should not be the Senate's 
last word on the President's conduct, and that without further action 
such as a resolution of censure, the wrong message about the 
President's actions and the Senate's views thereon will be sent to the 
country.
  One of the most worthwhile experiences of my Senate career has been 
listening to the remarks of the Senators over the past three days on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate. Each one gave substantial deliberation, 
serious thought and research and tried his or her level best to 
maintain their oath of impartiality.
  It should be clear that this was not an easy time. It should be clear 
that every one in the Senate at every minute of every day wished this 
were not happening. But we found ourselves caught up in a 
constitutional requirement that gave us little choice.
  I hope we come out of this with a deeper understanding of the 
divisions and polarization, which all of this has caused, and that 
every effort can be made, not only by our leadership, but by every 
member of the Senate in every issue that comes before us to seek out a 
bipartisanship and to work together to solve the problems facing our 
nation.
  A good start in this process would have been to have allowed a vote 
on the censure resolution. I hope that when we return from the 
President's Day recess, we will do better.


                  intent behind the censure resolution

  I want to clear up once and for all the intent behind our censure 
resolution.
  The resolution does not express legal conclusions in the court of 
impeachment. Rather, it is a legislative measure, expressing our 
conclusions regarding the President's conduct.

[[Page 2599]]

  The legal conclusions to be made in this case, if any, will be left 
to a court of law. Our intent is not to bind or influence the court one 
way or another, for good or ill, in making any determinations which it 
may about the President's conduct.
  Instead, our purpose is to speak to the moral ramifications of the 
President's conduct, and to the message that those actions send to the 
people of our nation, especially its youth.
  While the President's actions do not constitute a fundamental threat 
to the nation, neither were they at all acceptable. The President's 
conduct was both willful and wrong, clearly by any standard, his 
behavior is indefensible.
  These actions demeaned the Office of the President, violated the 
trust of the American people, and brought shame and dishonor upon 
President Clinton.


                        drafting the resolution

  Let me speak for a moment about the process which we have gone 
through in developing the language. I began the process when I started 
to doubt whether the President's conduct rose to the level of a high 
crime or misdemeanor for which he should be removed from office.
  Senator Herb Kohl was an early partner in this effort, and he and his 
staff provided valuable input.
  As we developed the language further, I sounded out more of my 
colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, on the issue. I was fortunate 
enough to have Senator Bennett join me as the lead Republican co-
sponsor. Senator Bennett has been a stalwart partner in this effort, 
and it has been a real pleasure working with him.
  Many senators offered input regarding the specific language of the 
resolution, and we have incorporated virtually every suggestion made.
  Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Levin, Jeffords, and Schumer, for instance, 
all have left their imprint upon this text, as has Senator Moynihan, 
who was appointed by Senator Daschle to join Senator Kohl and myself as 
a Democratic task force on censure.
  In the process of developing this language and striving for a 
bipartisanship, we have gone through some 25 drafts of the resolution. 
We believe that the text before you today is that which can obtain the 
most support from the most senators, of both parties, possible.
  As a result of these efforts, I am very pleased that we have been 
joined by a very significant number of co-sponsors from both sides of 
the aisle. These co-sponsors run the ideological gamut from liberal to 
moderate to conservative. The breadth of these co-sponsors, I believe, 
represents the widespread consensus that the President's actions merit 
serious condemnation.


                   Historical Precedents for Censure

  Let me now discuss the ample historical precedents for this censure 
resolution.
  Censure is an extraordinary measure that Congress has used sparingly 
over the past 200 hundred years.
  Censure is rare because it is such a powerful expression of 
Congressional criticism. In a censure resolution, a House of Congress 
publicly states its collective view that an individual has acted beyond 
the bounds of acceptable professional conduct. A censure records for 
history the major misdoings of public men and women.
  Over the past 200 years, the House and Senate have initiated censure 
proceedings against Executive Branch officials on at least 13 different 
occasions.
  Three times a House of Congress has adopted measures that could be 
described as a censure of a President. In 1834, the Senate censured 
President Andrew Jackson. Twice the House has adopted statements 
criticizing presidents--in the cases of John Tyler and James Buchanan.
  Censuring President Clinton would be consistent with historical use 
of this rare, but powerful, Congressional power.


                       the case of andrew jackson

  By far the most famous censure case of a sitting president involved 
Andrew Jackson.
  President Jackson feuded with Congress over the establishment of a 
Bank of the United States.
  1. First, In 1832, he vetoed the rechartering of the Bank of the 
United States on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, elitist, and 
had failed in establishing a sound currency.
  2. Second, Jackson directed the government to withdraw its funds from 
the Bank. When his Treasury Secretary protested the withdrawal, Jackson 
removed him from his position.
  On March 28, 1834, the Senate voted to censure President Jackson by a 
partisan vote of 26-20.
  The resolution stated:

       Resolved, That the President, in the last executive 
     proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed 
     upon himself authority and power not conferred by the 
     Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.

  The censure resolution expressed more than idle words. It dealt 
Jackson a painful blow in the arena of public opinion and in history.
  Soon after the vote, Jackson wrote to the Senate challenging its 
action. He noted that the Senate resolution was ``an imputation upon my 
private as well as public character.''
  This censure was such a powerful condemnation of President Jackson's 
actions that his supporters led the Senate to revisit the issue several 
years later. On January 14, 1837, the Senate voted to expunge the 
censure resolution from the record by a vote of 24-19.
  The House of Representatives has adopted two other statements that 
can be construed as censure motions against a president.


                          president john tyler

  In 1841, John Tyler assumed the Presidency upon the death of 
President William Henry Harrison. In contrast to President Harrison, 
whose Whig views coincided with views of the majority of Congress, 
Tyler espoused State's rights.
  Tyler aroused the anger of Congress by vetoing Whig-sponsored bills 
related to tariffs and the creation of a national bank. Exasperated 
Members of the House of Representatives finally decided to publicly 
rebuke the President.
  A select committee drafted a report criticizing the President for:
  ``Gross abuse of constitutional power and bold assumptions of powers 
never vested in him by any law''; for having ``assumed the whole 
Legislative power to himself, and levying millions of money upon the 
people, without any authority of law''; and for the ``abusive exercise 
of the constitutional power of the President to arrest the action of 
Congress upon measures vital to the welfare of the people.''
  On August 17, 1842, the House passed this select Committee report.


                        president james buchanan

  Along with his Secretary of the Navy, President Buchanan was 
implicated in a financial scandal. There were accusations of 
``kickbacks'' and the granting of government contracts to political 
supporters.
  On June 13, 1860 the House of Representatives voted 106-61 in favor 
of ``censuring'' the Secretary of the Navy and stating that President 
Buchanan's conduct deserved its ``reproof.''
  The resolution stated:

       Resolved, That the President and the Secretary of the Navy, 
     by receiving and considering the party relations of bidders 
     for contracts and the effect of awarding contracts upon 
     pending elections, have set an example dangerous to the 
     public safety, and deserving the reproof of this House.

  Other executive officials: At least three secretaries of cabinet 
departments and one ambassador have also been censured.
  These cases include:
  (1) Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey, 1860--On June 13, 1860, the 
House of Representatives passed a resolution censuring Secretary Toucey 
in the same ``kickback'' and bribery scandal that led to the 
``reproof'' of President Buchanan.
  (2) Secretary of War Simon Cameron, 1862--In another corruption 
scandal, the House passed a censure resolution against Secretary of War 
Cameron for embezzlement and for entrusting public money to his 
lieutenant, Alexander Cummings. Mr. Cummings allegedly spent $21,000 of 
government funds on personal items like straw hats, linen pantaloons, 
scotch ale, and herring.
  (3) Attorney General, A.H. Garland, 1886--On March 24, 1886, the 
Senate passed a resolution of ``condemnation'' of the Attorney General 
for refusing to turn over government papers regarding the removal of a 
District Attorney from Office.

[[Page 2600]]

  (4) Ambassador Thomas Bayard, 1896--On March 20, 1896 the House of 
Representatives considered a resolution condemning and censuring 
Ambassador Bayard for diplomatic improprieties. He was charged with 
making partisan remarks to British audiences.


                     censure of members of congress

  Congress has also used censure to condemn the conduct of its own 
members. Nine senators and 22 members of the House have been censured.
  Indeed, many members of this body personally know former senators who 
have been censured. To those who argue that censure is ``a wet noodle 
across the wrist,'' I would respectfully request that they ask their 
colleagues how these former senators felt about being censured. I am 
confident, because I have had some of these conversations myself, that 
they would find that censure was felt deeply, and was a very 
significant stain upon their reputations and legacy.


                       censure history conclusion

  In sum, censure is a powerful tool used very sparingly by Congress to 
condemn unacceptable conduct. Congress has initiated censure 
proceedings in policy disputes, but it has also criticized executive 
branch officials in the case of President Buchanan, Navy Secretary 
Welles, and President Nixon for personal misconduct.
  So to those who argue that passing this censure would establish a 
precedent for the future where presidents and cabinet officials could 
be censured, I hope this discussion has made it clear: that precedent 
has already been set.


                  bipartisan censure promotes healing

  In this bipartisan censure, we provided the Senate with a real 
opportunity to achieve a strong, unifying, bipartisan conclusion to 
this whole tawdry, exhausting and divisive controversy.
  The House's actions were marred with partisanship. Indeed, one 
example of this was the action of the House leadership to prevent a 
censure resolution from even being considered on the House floor.
  The Senate started its proceedings on a high note, when we came 
together to agree unanimously, across party lines, upon procedures for 
the trial. Passing our censure resolution by a strong, bipartisan vote 
would represent an appropriate ``bookend'' to this bipartisan 
beginning, and would stand this Senate well in the annals of history.
  Moreover, it would put the proper historical perspective upon the 
Senate's actions and determinations, which should not be read as a 
vindication of the President.
  I believe that passing this censure on a bipartisan basis would bring 
a real closure to the process, and would help to heal the divisions 
between the parties which were created during these proceedings, so 
that we can move on to work together to address the real problems 
confronting the American people, like saving social security, improving 
education, and continuing the fight to reduce crime.
  It is time that we move on to these other matters of significance to 
our people, to reconcile differences between and within the branches of 
government, and to work together--across party lines--for the benefit 
of the American people.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of cosponsors and the text of the 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Cosponsors

       Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
     Kohl, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. 
     Daschle, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Reid, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
     McConnell, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
     Campbell, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Breaux, 
     Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Reed, Ms. Landrieu, 
     Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
     Inouye, and Mr. Akaka.
                                  ____


                         Resolution of Censure

       Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United 
     States, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a 
     subordinate employee in the White House, which was shameful, 
     reckless and indefensible;
       Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United 
     States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people, 
     and people in all branches of the United States government;
       Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United 
     States, gave false or misleading testimony and his actions 
     have had the effect of impeding discovery of evidence in 
     judicial proceedings;
       Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct in this matter 
     is unacceptable for a President of the United States, does 
     demean the Office of the President as well as the President 
     himself, and creates disrespect for the laws of the land;
       Whereas President Clinton fully deserves censure for 
     engaging in such behavior;
       Whereas future generations of Americans must know that such 
     behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave 
     consequences, including loss of integrity, trust and respect;
       Whereas William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to 
     criminal actions in a court of law like any other citizen;
       Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct in this matter 
     has brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the Office 
     of the President; and
       Whereas William Jefferson Clinton through his conduct in 
     this matter has violated the trust of the American people: 
     Now therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure 
     William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, 
     and does condemn his wrongful conduct in the strongest terms; 
     and now be it
       Further resolved, That the United States Senate recognizes 
     the historic gravity of this bipartisan resolution, and 
     trusts and urges that future congresses will recognize the 
     importance of allowing this bipartisan statement of censure 
     and condemnation to remain intact for all time; and be it
       Further resolved, That the Senate now move on to other 
     matters of significance to our people, to reconcile 
     differences between and within the branches of government, 
     and to work together--across party lines--for the benefit of 
     the American people.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, now that we have come to the end of the 
process required by the Constitution, I feel we have arrived at an 
appropriate time to consider a measure required by the President's 
conduct.
  I rise in support of censure because while I do not find that the 
President's behavior constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors requiring 
removal, I do believe that it compels us to record for history our 
recognition of the damage we all acknowledge he has inflicted upon the 
Office of the Presidency and the Nation.
  Acquittal must not be the last word. And while I have felt that it 
would have been more appropriate for the Senate to issue findings of 
fact in the impeachment case against the President, I am now prepared 
to support censure so that there is no mixed message for posterity 
about what the Senate thinks of the President's actions.
  As I said yesterday, the President's behavior is indefensible, and I 
for one have no interest in seeing another shameless ``Rose Garden 
Jubilee'' after today's vote by the Court of Impeachment. Acquittal is 
not exoneration. Nothing we do here today in any way absolves the 
President's responsibility for the harm he has inflicted--and the 
President must know this.
  Indeed, this has been a sordid chapter in the history of the 
Presidency, and it deserves to be closed with a stern warning and a 
strongly worded rebuke that will leave no doubt to future generations 
that this process was not simply much ado about nothing. It was, in 
fact, about something very important--the sanctity of public service.
  That's why I worked with Senators Feinstein and Bennett to include 
language expressing the will of this Senate that this resolution not be 
revoked by a future Congress. I also want to thank them for their 
willingness to include language that makes clear the Senate believes 
the President should be treated like any other citizen facing criminal 
allegations once he leaves office in 23 months.
  The fact is, even while this body has acquitted the President on 
Articles of Impeachment, the framers provided for an additional remedy 
for his conduct in standard criminal court. Why? Because they had known 
a country where some men were above the law, and some below. And they 
were determined to create a nation where the level of justice served 
was not proportional to a person's pocketbook, social rank or political 
power.

[[Page 2601]]

  I believe acquittal, though the proper outcome, by itself could 
present a skewed picture of the Senate's findings, and runs the risk 
that the President will claim exoneration for his actions. Such a 
claim, evidence of which is already apparent, is quite simply and 
obviously, wrong.
  The President may not have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, 
but what he has done--in my mind including unlawfully influencing a 
potential witness--deserves a formal rebuke by the Senate. Censure 
would be an appropriate and constitutionally permissible way to do 
this.
  For a President who from the very beginning promised the most ethical 
administration any of us would ever see, censure would be a well-
deserved legacy of a promise broken and a Presidency sullied. I will 
vote for this censure motion and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are prepared to conclude the session. I 
simply await the instructions from the majority leader to do such items 
as may remain.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________