But the properly intense furor over Mr. Clinton's pardon of Mr. Rich led Senator Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, to suggest that Congress might need to review the president's unilateral power to dispense pardons. That seems an unnecessary assault on a fundamental constitutional power. But such Congressional concern should be a signal to future chief executives that in this matter, as in other aspects of presidential judgment, Mr. Clinton is not a role model to follow. President Bush can help restore trust in this important presidential responsibility by committing himself to abide by the traditional process of Justice Department review before a pardon is granted. The hearing yesterday before the House Committee on Government Reform made it clearer than ever that President Clinton's decision to pardon Marc Rich, the fugitive commodities trader, was an inexcusable abuse of the president's absolute clemency power.
More Congressional inquiries lie ahead.
Based on the testimony yesterday they are warranted, but Congress should avoid the temptation for endless inquiry and reach an expeditious account of the interplay between fund-raising and the pardons. Whatever the outcome, Congress ought to remember that these abuses by a particularly insensitive chief executive are not a good reason to change the Constitution to curtail the president's powers to grant pardons. The Rich case itself suggests that future such abuses can best be avoided by pursuing meaningful campaign finance reform and by tightening government ethics rules. Like those of Michael Milken and others championed by wealthy Democratic contributors, Marc Rich's pardon application was sent directly to the White House and did not go through the usual Justice Department channels. His former wife, Denise Rich, who invoked her right not to incriminate herself in declining to testify yesterday, wrote Mr. Clinton on behalf of the pardon application.