Clinton impeachment trial transcripts — January 25, 1999            Full Coverage Search Clinton in Crisis The Trial Trial Guide Evidence Guide Transcripts Video Discuss the Trial The Starr Report and Rebuttals Video Index Documents Starr Investigation Jones v. Clinton Whitewater Jones v. Clinton Whitewater The following transcript was provided to Court TV by Federal Document Clearing House: SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON - CONTINUED *** Elapsed Time 00:00, Eastern Time 17:07 *** JANUARY 25, 1999 SPEAKERS: WILLIAM REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MAJORITY LEADER REVEREND LLOYD OGILVIE, SENATE CHAPLAIN U.S. SENATOR THOMAS DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY J. HYDE (R-IL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BILL MCCOLLUM (R-FL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE W. GEKAS (R-PA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES T. CANADY (R-FL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN E. BUYER (R-IN) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ED BRYANT (R-TN) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE CHABOT (R-OH) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB BARR (R-GA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS CANNON (R-UT) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES E. ROGAN (R-CA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY O. GRAHAM (R-SC) APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT: CHARLES F.C. RUFF, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GREGORY B. CRAIG, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL BRUCE R. LINDSEY, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL CHERYL D. MILLS, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL LANNY A. BREUER, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DAVID E. KENDALL, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON NICOLE K. SELIGMAN, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON EMMET T. FLOOD, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON MAX STIER, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON GLEN DONATH, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON ALICIA MARTI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON ...yield to Mr. Graham. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Graham. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. How much time do we have left? REHNQUIST: The House managers have 32 minutes remaining. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. To my colleagues, my chairman wants 11 minutes, so, for my own sake, please let me know when we get close. Now, we meet again to discuss a very, very important event in our nation's history. To dismiss an impeachment trial under these facts and under these circumstances would be unbelievable, in my opinion, and do a lot of damage to the law and to the ultimate decision this body has to make whether or not Bill Clinton should be our president. And as I understand the general nature of the law, the facts and the law break our way for this motion. GRAHAM: What I would like to discuss with you is whether or not a reasonable person could believe that Bill Clinton should not be our president, and the facts that have been presented rise to the level of creating serious doubts about whether he's a criminal, not just a bad man who did bad things. For he's a good man in some ways, as all of us are. And he's done some things that everybody in this body will condemn roundly. America needs no more lectures about Bill Clinton's misconduct; about his inappropriate relationship. We need no more lectures about his sins. We all have those. We need to resolve is our president a criminal? That's harsh. But do the facts bear out those statements? When you dismissed the judges for perjury and filing statements under oath, some of you said some very harsh things about those judges -- not because you're harsh people, but because their conduct warranted it. GRAHAM: One thing I am not going to say, and I will quit this job before I do this, is I'm not going to run over anybody's conscience when they're exercising it as they deem appropriate for the good of this nation. My name has been brought up a couple of times about whether or not reasonable people can disagree with me and still be reasonable about what we should do in this case. I have told you the best I can there's no doubt these are high crimes in my opinion. And this is a hard decision for our country, but when I first spoke to you, I thought we'd be better off if Bill Clinton left office. And I want the chance to prove to you why. Give me a chance to prove to you why I believe that; why my colleagues voted our conscience to get this case to where it should be, not swept under a rug, but in a trial to disposition. I have lost no sleep worrying about the fact that Bill Clinton may have to be removed from office because of his conduct. I have lost tons of sleep thinking he may get away with what he did. But the question was: Could you disagree with Lindsey Graham and be a good American in essence? Absolutely. *** Eastern Time 16:45 *** GRAHAM: You can disagree with me on abortion, and Mr. Hyde and I am not going to trample on who you are, because I know that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, the moderate wing of the Republican Party has different views than I do. But I didn't come up here to run you down. I came up here to build my country up the way I think it needs to be built up. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, if you will listen to our case, if you let us explain why we have lost no sleep asking for this president to be removed and why we voted to get it here, and you disagree with me at the end of the day, I will never, ever say you don't love your country as much as I do. That's what that statement was meant to convey, and it will convey that until I am dead and gone. Now, the idea that 130 years ago a senator took a vote and made a statement that the only way you can remove a president is it's got to be unquestionable in anybody's mind tells me he sure thought a lot of himself. And I'm glad to see that's stopped in the Senate. A hundred and thirty years later, we don't have people like that anymore. (LAUGHTER) What that conveyed to me was that a person made a hard decision and tried to create a standard that slammed somebody else who came out differently. GRAHAM: I hope that's not what this is all about. He goes down in history, but I wouldn't want that as part of my epitaph, that when i voted my conscience, I reached a level that if you didn't go where I was there is something wrong with you. What did Bill Clinton do? And why are we all here? Are we here because of Ken Starr, because of Lindsey Graham, because of -- why are we here? We're here because of William Jefferson Clinton in my opinion. We're here because on out watch in the House the president of the United States, when he was the defendant in a lawsuit instead of trusting the legal system to get it right, did everything possible in my opinion to undermine the rule of law, including going to a grand jury in August of last year and committing perjury after people in this body and prominent Americans said stop it. GRAHAM: And now we're here to say: Well, we really didn't mean it, the motion to dismiss means we're sort of just kidding, Mr. President. Now, if you believe he is not guilty of these offenses based on this stage of the trial, then you ought to grant the motion for dismiss, but you will be changing the law as we know it today. We haven't had a chance to present our case really. And all the facts should break our way. You can believe this if you would like. They stood up here and argued that the conversation between President Clinton and his secretary Betty Currie was to find out what she knew, to refresh his memory. If you think that when the president goes to Betty Currie and asks or makes the following statement -- "Monica wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that" -- that he's trying to figure out what she knew and is trying to refresh his memory, you can do that. I would suggest that ain't reasonable. And if you believe that he wanted to figure out whether he was alone or not with her and he had to ask Betty, that's not reasonable. *** Eastern Time 16:49 *** GRAHAM: That's a crime. And let me tell you the subtleties of this case -- things that really tell you a lot about why we're here -- William Jefferson Clinton -- before we get to the subtleties of this case. Senator Bumpers made a very eloquent speech about the ups and the downs of this case and about his relationship with the president and how close it was, and the human nature of what's going on here, but here's what he said: You pick your own adjective to describe the president's conduct. Here's some that I would use -- indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, shameless. How about illegal? And he says "I promise you, the president would not contest any of these or any others." When you put the word "illegal," everything's a big misunderstanding. Take this case to a conclusion so America will not be confused as to whether or not their president committed crimes. There will be people watching what we do here. And they will be confused as to whether or not the conversation between President Clinton and Ms. Currie was illegal or not. Let us know. That is so important. Let us know when he went to Monica Lewinsky and talked about a cover story, if that's what we want to go on here every day, and a trial 20 months from now does us no good. GRAHAM: Because this happened when he was president, ladies and gentlemen. This happened when he raised the defense, you can't sue me because I'm president. And what did he do after that defense was taken away from him by the Supreme Court? He went back to somebody that is very loyal to him, somebody that admires him, somebody that you and I pay her salary, his secretary. And he put her in a situation through misleading her that she was going to pass on his lies. That's not what we pay her to do. He put her in a situation where she was going to incur legal costs, because he cared more about himself than he did his secretary. He put his cabinet members, he put the people that work for him in a horrible spot. The subtleties of this case. Let me tell you one of the subtleties of this case. And this was read by the defense in this case. The president had a follow-up conversation with Mr. Morris during the evening of January 22nd, 1998, when Mr. Morris was considered holding a press conference to blast Monica Lewinsky out of the water. GRAHAM: The president told Mr. Morris to be careful. According to Mr. Morris, the president warned him not to be too hard on Ms. Lewinsky because there's some slight chance that she may not be cooperating with Starr and we don't want to alienate her by anything we're going to put out. And they were trying to tell you that ain't bad, that's a good thing. The best you can get from that statement is the president when approached with the idea of blasting her said: Let's wait. The subtleties in this case. Who is this young lady? His consensual lover. But this case started not about consensual loving, this case started about something far from consensual loving. This case started about something like a senator who ran into problems with you all. And if you'll let us develop our case, you may have a hard time reconciling those two decisions. But that is up to you. Please don't dismiss this, for the good of this country, for the good of the law. Let us get to what happened here. John Podesta -- the subtleties of this case. GRAHAM: He talked to him about what happened, he said, I had no relationship with her whatsoever. Everybody that went into that grand jury that talked to Bill Clinton was lied to. And they passed those lies on to a federal grand jury. And you know what? In America, that's a crime, even if you're president. And you need to address whether that happened or not. Don't' dismiss this case. But you know what is even more subtle? Is that John Podesta, somebody who's very close to him, once he said nothing, felt a need to ask one more questions. And pardon me for saying this: Does that include oral sex? Now that says a lot about what Mr. Podesta thinks about Mr. Clinton, because he felt like he had to go one step further. And in his grand jury testimony, he tells us the president took that behavior off the table. And some of you are worried about the perjury in this case. Let me tell you right now, you should have no worries, because you've got a dilemma on your hands that's easy to resolve in terms of whether or not the president committed perjury in the grand jury. If you believe that he said that he was truthful when he said I never lied or I was always truthful to my subordinates, to the people who work for me, to my aides, then when he told John Podesta our relationship did not include oral sex, he was being truthful. GRAHAM: If he was being truthful to John Podesta, he lied through his teeth about everything else in the grand jury when he considered -- or when he approached the grand jury with the idea that our relationship was of one kind of sex but not the other. He told John Podesta it wasn't there at all. You pick the lie, but it's there. And if you can reconcile that, you're better than I am and that's up to you all. And does it really matter so what? I think it matters a great deal if you're sued for sexually harassing somebody and they are on to the fact that you can't control yourself enough to stop it four or five years after you're sued, and you're doing it in the White House with somebody half your age, I think that would matter. Maybe that's the difference between getting bamboozled in court and having to pay $850,000. People are going to be confused if we don't bring this case to a conclusion. I suggest to you it matters a great deal that if any major CEO, any low-level employee of any business in this country would have been tossed out for something like that, but I know that he's the president. GRAHAM: Electing somebody should not distance them from common decency and the rule of law to the point that when it's all over with, you don't know what you've got left in this country. Is that you want to do in this case -- just to save this man; to ignore the facts; to have a different legal standard; to make excuses that are bleeding this country dry? The effect of this case is hurting us more than we will ever, ever know. Don't dismiss this case. Find out who our president is. Come to the conclusion not that it was just bad behavior. It was illegal behavior. Tell us what's right. Tell us what's wrong. Give us some guidance. Under our Constitution, you don't impeach people at the ballot box. You trust the United States Senate. And I am willing to do that. Rise to the occasion for the good of the nation. Thank you very much. REHNQUIST: Do the House managers have any additional presentation? The chair recognizes Mr. Hyde. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Ruff and counsel and distinguished senators. I want to be very candid with you, and that may involve diplomatic breaches, because I am parliamentarily illiterate. But nonetheless, I looked at this motion to dismiss and I was astounded, really. If the Senate had sent something similar to the House it would certainly have received such treatment as comports with comity, and I don't know enough about comity to wave that flag, but I don't want to waive my rights to raise that issue anyway. I know Black's Law Dictionary is a resource book for all of us. But I looked in the thesaurus about dismiss, and I came up with "disregard," "ignore," "brush off," and I just was surprised that this motion is here now before we conclude the case. HYDE: Some years ago when I was trying lawsuits, I appeared before a judge in Chicago with an -- my opponent was an old-timer who was just mean. He was a good lawyer, but he was mean. And the judge interrupted him in one tirade and he said, "Counsel, I have a lot of respect for you. I wish you had a little respect for this court." And I sort of feel that way. I sort of feel that we have fallen short in the respect side because of the fact that we represent the House, the other body, kind of blue collar people, and we're over here trying to survive with our impeachment articles. The most salient reason for defeating this motion is Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which says that the Senate shall have the sole power to try -- to try -- all impeachments. Now a trial, as I understand it, is a search for truth, and it should not be trumped by a search for an exit strategy. It seems to me this motion elevates convenience over constitutional process and by implication ratifies an unusual extension of sovereign immunity. HYDE: If these articles are dismissed, all inferences in support of the respondents, in support of us the managers, as should be allowed, and if you allow all reasonable inferences in our favor, what kind of a message does it send to America to dismiss the articles of impeachment? Charges of perjury, obstruction of justice are summarily dismissed, disregarded, ignored, brushed off, and these are charges that send ordinary folk to jail every day of the week and remove federal judges, but I can see this president is different. But if the double standard is to flourish on Capitol Hill, I don't think we've accomplished a great deal. Yes, it's cumbersome. These proceedings are archaic in many ways. The question period with something out of Old Bailey (ph), I guess, I don't know. But democracy is untidy, I'll stipulate that, it is untidy, but it is also a blessing. HYDE: Impeachment and trial by the Senate were devised by our framers to make this difficult process as definitive as possible. Let's get the matter behind us. That's a mantra. That's a cliche. We all say it. You won't get it behind you if you dismiss this without voting on the articles. You guarantee contention. You'll never get it behind us. Vote these articles up or down. That's the only way to really get it behind us. What this is -- this motion -- is a legal way of saying "so what" to the charges that we've levied here. Now, look at what these charges are. So what that the president violated his oath of office and willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process for his personal gain and exoneration? So what that President Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury on several topics? So what that the president corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading? So what that the president encouraged a witness to lie to the grand jury and conceal evidence? HYDE: So what if the president has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. That's an awful lot to dismiss with a brush-off, to ignore with a mere, "So what?" No, it may be routine -- we certainly don't have enough experience in these impeachment matters, and thank God for that. It may be routine to file a motion to dismiss, but I take very seriously a motion to dismiss, especially when it is offered by the very distinguished senator who did that, but I hope, in a bipartisan way, I would hope some Democrats would support a rejection of this motion, difficult as it is, because I don't think this whole sad, sad drama will end, we will never get it behind us until you vote up or down on the articles, and when you do, however you vote, we'll all collect our papers, bow from the waist, thank you for your courtesy, and leave, and go gently into the night. (LAUGHTER) HYDE: But let us finish our job. Thank you. LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice? Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chief Justice. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader. LOTT: I believe under the agreement we entered into, the next order of business then would be the vote on the motion by Senator Harkin to go into open session, is that correct? REHNQUIST: The managers have used their time. The chair recognizes the senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. HARKIN: Mr. Chief Justice, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Senate's Standing Rules, I and Mr. Wellstone filed a notice of intent to move to suspend the rule solely regarding the debate by senators on the motion to dismiss, so senators could have an open rather than a closed debate on this issue. My motion is at the desk. However, Mr. Chief Justice, I send a corrected copy of my motion to the desk. There were two typos in it, and I just wanted to have it correct. It'll just take a minute. LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice? REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader. LOTT: If it's appropriate at this point, I would like to ask the senators if they would remain at their desks so we could go through this vote. And I would ask unanimous consent, since we're all here, that we reduce the time for the vote from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. REHNQUIST: Is there objection? Without objection, it's so ordered. REHNQUIST: Is there objection to the senator from Iowa modifying his motion? Without objection, it's modified. The clerk will read the motion. CLERK: The senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for himself and Mr. Wellstone moves to suspend the following portions of the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials in regard to debate by senators on a motion to dismiss during the trial of President William Jefferson Clinton: Number one, the phrase, quote, "without debate," end quote, in rule seven. Number two, the following portion of rule 20. Quote, "unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating its decisions. A motion to close the doors may be acted upon without objection or if objection is heard, the motion shall be voted on without debate by the yeas and nays which shall be entered on the record," closed quote. Number three, in rule 24, the phrases, quote, "without debate," closed quote, "except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation. And in that case," closed quote. And quote, "to be had without debate," closed quote. LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice? (UNKNOWN): I ask the yeas and nays. REHNQUIST: Is there a sufficient second? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. CLERK: Mr. Abraham. ABRAHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Abraham, no. Mr. Akaka. AKAKA: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Akaka, aye. Mr. Allard. ALLARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Allard, no. Mr. Ashcroft. ASHCROFT: No. CLERK: Mr. Ashcroft, no. Mr. Baucus. BAUCUS: No. CLERK: Mr. Baucus, no. Mr. Bayh. BAYH: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Bayh, aye. Mr. Bennett. BENNETT: No. CLERK: Mr. Bennett, no. Mr. Biden. Mr. Bingaman. BINGAMAN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Bingaman, aye. Mr. Bond. CLERK: Mr. Bond, no. Mrs. Boxer. BOXER: Mrs. Boxer, aye. CLERK: Mr. Breaux. BREAUX: No. CLERK: Mr. Breaux, no. Mr. Brownback. BROWNBACK: No. CLERK: Mr. Brownback, no. Mr. Bryan. BRYAN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Bryan, aye. Mr. Bunning. BUNNING: No. CLERK: Mr. Bunning, no. Mr. Burns. BURNS: No. CLERK: Mr. Burns, no. Mr. Byrd. BYRD: (OFF-MIKE) CLERK: Mr. Byrd, no. Mr. Campbell. CAMPBELL: (OFF-MIKE) CLERK: Mr. Campbell, no. Mr. Chafee. CHAFEE: No. CLERK: Mr. Chafee, no. Mr. Cleland. CLELAND: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Cleland, aye. Mr. Cochran. Mr. Cochran. COCHRAN: No. CLERK: Mr. Cochran, no. Ms. Collins. COLLINS: Aye. CLERK: Ms. Collins, aye. Mr. Conrad. CONRAD: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Conrad, aye. Mr. Coverdell. COVERDELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Coverdell, no. Mr. Craig CRAIG: No. CLERK: Mr. Craig, no. Mr. Crapo. CRAPO: No. CLERK: Mr. Crapo, no. Mr. Daschle. DASCHLE: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Daschle, aye. Mr. DeWine. DEWINE: No. CLERK: Mr. DeWine, no. Mr. Dodd. DODD: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Dodd, aye. Mr. Domenici. DOMENICI: No. CLERK: Mr. Domenici, no. Mr. Dorgan. DORGAN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Dorgan, aye. Mr. Durbin. DURBIN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Durbin, aye. Mr. Edwards. EDWARDS: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Edwards, aye. Mr. Enzi. ENZI: No. CLERK: Mr. Enzi, no. Mr. Feingold. FEINGOLD: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Feingold, aye. Mrs. Feinstein. FEINSTEIN: Aye. CLERK: Mrs. Feinstein, aye. Mr. Fitzgerald. FITZGERALD: No. CLERK: Mr. Fitzgerald, no. Mr. Frist. FRIST: No. CLERK: Mr. Frist, no. Mr. Gorton. GORTON: No. CLERK: Mr. Gorton, no. Mr. Graham of Florida. GRAHAM: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Graham of Florida, aye. Mr. Gramm of Texas. GRAMM: No. CLERK: Mr. Gramm of Texas, no. Mr. Grams of Minnesota. GRAMS: No. CLERK: Mr. Grams of Minnesota, no. Mr. Grassley Mr. Grassley CLERK: Mr. Graham of Florida GRAHAM: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Gramm of Texas. GRAMM: No. CLERK: Mr. Gramm of Texas, no. Mr. Grams of Minnesota. GRAMS: No. CLERK: Mr. Grams of Minnesota, no. Mr. Grassley. GRASSLEY: No. CLERK: Mr. Grassley, no. Mr. Gregg. GREGG: No. CLERK: Mr. Gregg, no. Mr. Hagel. HAGEL: No. CLERK: Mr. Hagel, no. Mr. Harkin. HARKIN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Harkin, aye. Mr. Hatch. HATCH: No. CLERK: Mr. Hatch, no. Mr. Helms. HELMS: No. CLERK: Mr. Helms, no. Mr. Hollings. HOLLINGS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Hollings, aye. Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas. HUTCHINSON: No. CLERK: Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, no. Mrs. Hutchison of Texas. HUTCHISON: Aye. CLERK: Mrs. Hutchison of Texas, aye. Mr. Inhofe. INHOFE: No. CLERK: Mr. Inhofe, no. Mr. Inouye. INOUYE: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Inouye, aye. Mr. Jeffords. JEFFORDS: No. CLERK: Mr. Jeffords, no. Mr. Johnson. JOHNSON: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Johnson, aye. Mr. Kennedy. KENNEDY: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Kennedy, aye. Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska. KERREY: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, aye. Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts. KERRY: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, aye. Mr. Kohl. KOHL: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Kohl, aye. CLERK: Mr. Kyl? Mr. Kyle, no. Ms. Landrieu? LANDRIEU: Aye. CLERK: Ms. Landrieu, aye. Mr. Lautenberg. LAUTENBERG: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Lautenberg, aye. Mr. Leahy. LEAHY: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Leahy, aye. Mr. Levin. LEVIN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Levin, aye. Mr. Lieberman. LIEBERMAN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Lieberman, aye. Mrs. Lincoln. LINCOLN: No. CLERK: Mrs. Lincoln, no. Mr. Lott. LOTT: No. CLERK: Mr. Lott, no. Mr. Lugar. LUGAR: No. CLERK: Mr. Lugar, no. Mr. Mack. MACK: No. CLERK: Mr. Mack, no. Mr. McCain. MCCAIN: No. CLERK: Mr. McCain, no. Mr. McConnell. MCCONNELL: No. CLERK: Mr. McConnell, no. Ms. Mikulski. MIKULSKI: Aye. CLERK: Ms. Mikulski, aye. Mr. Moynihan. MOYNIHAN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Moynihan, aye. Mr. Murkowski. MURKOWSKI: No. CLERK: Mr. Murkowski, no. Mrs. Murray. MURRAY: Aye. CLERK: Mrs. Murray, aye. Mr. Nickles. NICKLES: No. CLERK: Mr. Nickles, no. Mr. Reed of Rhode Island. REED: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, aye. Mr. Reid of Nevada. REID: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Reid of Nevada, aye. Mr. Robb. ROBB: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Robb, aye. Mr. Roberts. ROBERTS: No. CLERK: Mr. Roberts, no. Mr. Rockefeller. ROCKEFELLER: No. CLERK: Mr. Rockefeller, no. Mr. Roth. ROTH: No. CLERK: Mr. Roth, no. Mr. Santorum. SANTORUM: No. CLERK: Mr. Santorum, no. Mr. Sarbanes. SARBANES: No. CLERK: Mr. Sarbanes, no. Mr. Schumer. SCHUMER: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Schumer, aye. Mr. Sessions. SESSIONS: No. CLERK: Mr. Sessions, no. Mr. Shelby. SHELBY: No. CLERK: Mr. Shelby, no. Mr. Smith of New Hampshire. SMITH: No. CLERK: Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, no. Mr. Smith of Oregon. SMITH: No. CLERK: Mr. Smith of Oregon, no. Ms. Snowe. SNOWE: No. CLERK: Ms. Snowe, no. Mr. Specter. SPECTER: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Specter, aye. Mr. Stevens. STEVENS: No. CLERK: Mr. Stevens, no. Mr. Thomas. THOMAS: No. CLERK: Mr. Thomas, no. Mr. Thompson. THOMPSON: No. CLERK: Mr. Thompson, no. Mr. Thurmond. THURMOND: No. CLERK: Mr. Thurmond, no. Mr. Torricelli. TORRICELLI: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Torricelli, aye. Mr. Voinovich. VOINOVICH: No. CLERK: Mr. Voinovich, no. Mr. Warner. WARNER: No. CLERK: Mr. Warner, no. *** Eastern Time 17:19 *** CLERK: Mr. Wellstone. WELLSTONE: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Wellstone, aye. Mr. Wyden. WYDEN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Wyden, aye. Mr. Biden. BIDEN: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Biden, aye. Mr. Breaux. Mr. Breaux, aye. REHNQUIST: Are there any other senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? If not, on this vote the yeas are 43, the nays are 57. Two-thirds of those senators voting and a quorum being present not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. Now we move to close the door... (UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice? REHNQUIST: The Chair recognizes the senator from Nevada. (UNKNOWN): Can we have order in the chamber, please? REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order. *** Eastern Time 17:22 *** LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we now go into closed session for the purpose of the senators debating the motion to dismiss. REHNQUIST: All those in favor say aye. SENATORS IN UNISON: Aye. REHNQUIST: All opposed, nay. SENATORS IN UNISON: Nay. REHNQUIST: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to. The sergeant at arms will please close the doors. LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask consent that we take a 10-minute break for the purposes of closing the doors and preparing for the debate. REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it is so ordered. END Testimony index COPYRIGHT 1999 BY FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC. NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.