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 FEBRUARY 4, 1999

SPEAKERS: WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT

U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT, MAJORITY 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

REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order. The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that there is time remaining for arguments by the White House counsel and then a conclusion by the House managers. After that, I will make an attempt to explain to the Senate exactly what is in the motions, because there seem to be some degree of question about that. And then we'd be prepared to have a series of votes at that time. I still believe that we should be able to start that around 4:00.

I yield the floor.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Craig.

CRAIG: Since we've completed our presentation, thank you.

REHNQUIST: The House managers have 19 minutes remaining. Chair recognizes Mr. Bryant.

BRYANT: Mr. Chief Justice, I will respond briefly and then be followed by Mr. Manager McCollum, who will be followed by Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

BRYANT: Let me talk first quickly about Mr. Craig's first argument about disagreeing on the admission of the video depositions. He cited the House proceedings, and we want to be clear as to our belief of our position in the House in this process.

As the accusatory branch of the government of this process, and I think that's the case because we vote by majority vote, we chose to bring forward the case that we felt established the allegations of impeachment.

There was no conflict of evidence brought forward from those House proceedings. This evidence was not challenged until we came to this body, the appropriate body for resolving the evidence and trying the case as you will.

And that's evidenced by the Constitution requirement that you must vote for conviction based on two-thirds of your body.

BRYANT: But the actual conflict was not presented until we arrived here in the Senate, and by allowing us to have this procedure of taking depositions, we have focused more clearly on resolving those particular conflicts.

I might add also, in response to Mr. Craig's statement that the Starr report was released out to the public, and as a result of that, there may be danger here in releasing these video depositions. Well, let me tell you about the House vote on the Starr report. Seventy percent of the Democrats supported the release of those documents. One hundred percent of the Democrat leadership in the House supported the release of those documents. So, it was not just one party over the other party that threw these out to the public, it was a decision that was a bipartisan decision on the part of the House.

*** Elapsed Time 01:43, Eastern Time 14:47 ***

BRYANT: And I might add, that is not our interest in doing this with video depositions. We're open to your process. But we -- we must conclude by those who would argue that perhaps you should open your debate to the public, we don't see the consistency in trying to take a very important part of the evidence in this case and not opening that to the public.

So we are -- we are at your wishes. It's our desire to make the presentation using all or portions of these video depositions and to use those as fully as we would any other evidence.

And with that said, I would ask Mr. Manager McCollum to follow me.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager McCollum.

MCCOLLUM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

If you listen to the White House counsel, the simple fact is they don't want a public display in any form of any testimony here in front of the Senate. They don't want the public to have an opportunity to have a public trial.

MCCOLLUM: Now, maybe an impeachment trial is not exactly the same as any other trial, but in the history of the Senate, it has been a basically open process, except for the voting. It has been an opportunity for witnesses to come before you.

It's been an opportunity for people to be heard. It's been an opportunity for the public to hear the people who want to speak. White House counsel didn't just say we don't want live witnesses here, they said we don't want you to be able to admit, even into evidence, the videotape that might become public and we don't want you to be able to show any portion, or all even, of the videotapes of the depositions that have been taken.

Now, if a Republican had gotten up and said that, we would have probably gotten hung on some political (OFF-MIKE) for that. The reality is the public has business here. This is a trial, I would suggest and submit to you. We need, you need the opportunity to hear these witnesses one way or the other, preferably, Monica Lewinsky live.

MCCOLLUM: We need to bring closure to this matter. How can the public come to closure? How can those who feel so emotionally, as we know they do around the country come to closure on this, which we need for them to do as much as you need to resolve and we need to have you resolve the questions before you. How can they come to closure? How can we all come to closure without an opportunity for the public to participate in one way or another in seeing the credibility, judging the witnesses, judging the truth of this?

Let me remind you, there is nothing in these depositions that contains any salacious material. So, it's been constrained, very delicately, nothing at all that would be offensive to anybody.

In addition, think about this for a minute when it comes to calling Monica Lewinsky live, when it comes to letting the depositions be presented.

MCCOLLUM: If you believe that the president did not break the law -- we're not talking about whether he should be removed from office -- if you believe he did not break the law; that he did not commit the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice; that means you must have concluded that Monica Lewinsky's not telling the truth when she said, about the false affidavit, "I knew what he meant"; when she said about the concealment of the gifts, "Betty called me"; when she says about the nature of the relationship, "it began the night we met." And many other things.

You, I would submit, my colleagues in the Senate, have a moral obligation to allow Monica Lewinsky to come here and be judged on her credibility, not just by you, but by the public -- by all of us -- as a live witness

And certainly barring that, you have an obligation to have the credibility on the issues of guilt or innocence of these crimes be judged by everybody -- at the very least by the presentation of these videos in a public open format here in the Senate before everybody. And I think it's a powerful question you have to resolve.

MCCOLLUM: And I'd submit one last point. For those of you who do believe the president is guilty of these crimes, you have an obligation to let the showing of these depositions or the presentation preferably of Monica Lewinsky live to be here so those who maybe don't think the same way you do have an opportunity for that credibility to be judged. Only if the witness is present can they be judged that way.

The most remarkable thing about the White House presentation may have been, just a moment ago, the admission that normally in trials this is exactly what happens.

MCCOLLUM: And I present to you the suggestion, this is exactly what should happen here today. I yield to Manager Hutchinson.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Manager Hutchinson.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Very briefly, I was asked to respond to the last argument by the counsel for the president in regard to their objections on the evidentiary presentation of six hours and a motion which would be, I believe, on Saturday.

After six days of opening statement in this trial and after two days of question and answers and then we had, I believe, two days of motion arguments, you've heard from all the lawyers more than you ever wanted to hear, and I don't think that it is too much to ask for six hours of discussion of the evidentiary record that was developed from the deposition testimony. I think that's reasonable.

It's been argued that, well, you know, it's going to be snippets, it's going to be a battle of snippets.

HUTCHINSON: It's, if this motion is passed, would be introduced into evidence, and then each side will have an opportunity to discuss that evidence, to contrast it with other individuals' testimony and to present it in a fashion that is most understandable.

It is equally divided. Therefore, both sides can present the case. That is how it is traditionally done. There is nothing unusual about that. And certainly the White House defense lawyers will be very vigilant in making sure that it is fairly presented.

There was objection that was made -- and this is overlapping a little bit -- as to the public release of the video. Our motion really goes to introducing into evidence. It is up to you as to how that evidence is handled. Customarily in a trial when something is entered into evidence, that is released.

But there was concern expressed about the witnesses, about Mr. Jordan, and the fact that he has testified and now it would be made public. I recall the White House defense lawyers on this screen over here put Mr. Jordan's video up there for the world to see.

HUTCHINSON: I believe they also brought in other witnesses in video that was put out there for the whole world to see. And so I think it's a little bit late to come in and say that that should not be subject to public discussion.

And so I think that the motion that is presented is reasonable, that it's fair. They say that there's nothing of dynamite or there's nothing explosive. Well, then, if that's the case there should be any objection to discussion and a fair playing of that evidence.

But in fact much of this is new because it was not developed after the president made his grand jury appearance. Many of these witnesses testified early. They were not able to testify again after the president's grand jury testimony. And so I think there's new areas that have certainly been developed.

And with that, Mr. Chief Justice, I yield back.

REHNQUIST: Will the House managers yield back?

(UNKNOWN): Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, then all time has been yielded back on both sides?

REHNQUIST: Yes.

LOTT: We had expected that this would take a little bit longer.

(LAUGHTER)

Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that it would be of interest to the senators that we give just a brief explanation of the motions. I believe Senator Daschle may have an additional motion that he would like to offer. So that we can make sure he's had the time to prepare that and how we would go into the voting procedure, I observe the absence of a quorum.

REHNQUIST: The clerk will call the roll.

(QUORUM CALL)

LOTT: Would the senators take their seats, please.

I think we're ready to begin. Would senators return to their desks?

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with.

REHNQUIST: In the absence of an objection, it's so ordered.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, just very briefly, I believe that Senator Daschle or one of his senators will have a peremptory motion that they would offer and then it would be read by the clerk.

And then following -- and then a vote on that and then a vote on the three divisions that have been identified, the three motions, three votes of the one motion.

And then I believe Senator Daschle would also have a motion that would go straight to debate and closing arguments and a vote on the articles of impeachment.

LOTT: Is that correct recitation? I would yield to Senator Daschle.

DASCHLE: Mr. Chief Justice, I appreciate the senator yielding. As I understand it, Senator Murray's motion will relate to the third motion, which would -- which is as I understand it, the motion that allows for video excerpts to be used.

Her motion would restrict both managers to transcripts, written transcripts. So I'm not sure in which order her motion should be offered, but since it relates to the third one, perhaps it would be in concert with that motion.

REHNQUIST: This is a motion to basically divide the third motion.

DASCHLE: That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

LOTT: So Mr. Chief Justice, then we would vote on the -- the first paragraph, the second paragraph, then there would be a motion at that point by Senator Murray, then a vote on that, and a vote then on the third division, and then a vote on the articles of impeachment itself.

REHNQUIST: The question is on the division one.

REHNQUIST: Should the clerk read the division, read the thing?

The clerk will read division one.

CLERK: The House moves that the transcriptions and videotapes of the oral depositions taken pursuant to Senate Resolution 30 from the point that each witness is sworn to testify under oath to the end of any direct response to the last question posed by a party be admitted into evidence.

REHNQUIST: The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.

(CLERK CALLS THE ROLL)

REHNQUIST: OK, on this vote, the ayes are 100, the nays are 0. Division one of the motion is agreed to.

The next vote will be on division two of the motion. The clerk will division two of the motion.

CLERK: Division two, the House further moves that the Senate authorize and issue a subpoena for the appearance of Monica S. Lewinsky before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed eight hours and in connection with the examination of that witness, the House requests that either party be able to examine the witness as if the witness were declared adverse.

That counsel for the president and counsel for the House managers be able to participate in the examination of that witness and that the House be entitled to reserve a portion of its examination time to reexamine the witness following any examination by the president.

REHNQUIST: The ayes and nays are automatic. The clerk will call the roll.

(CLERK CALLS THE ROLL)

REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order. On this vote, the yeas are 30; the nays are 70. Division two of the motion is not agreed to.

The chair recognizes the senator from Washington, Ms. Murray.

MURRAY: Mr. Chief Justice, I send a substitute for division three to the desk.

REHNQUIST: The clerk will report.

CLERK: The senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, moves that the following shall be substituted.

REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order.

CLERK: That the following shall be substituted for division three: A move that the parties be permitted to present before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed a total of six hours, equally divided, all portions -- all or portions of the parts of the written transcriptions of the depositions of Monica S. Lewinsky, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., and Sidney Blumenthal.

REHNQUIST: On this -- on this motion?

(OFF-MIKE) is that (OFF-MIKE).

Well, the parliamentarian advises me that there are two hours of argument on this motion. Who -- who's the proponent?

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice?

REHNQUIST: Yes.

(UNKNOWN): I'd ask unanimous consent that the motions be yielded -- or the time be yielded back.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered. Should the -- I think the clerk should read division three, having read the proposed substitute.

CLERK: The House further moves that the parties be permitted to present before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed a total of six hours equally divided, all or portions of the parts of the videotapes of the oral depositions of Monica S. Lewinsky, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., and Sidney Blumenthal admitted into evidence and that the House be entitled to reserve a portion of its presentation time.

REHNQUIST: (OFF-MIKE) will read the substitute again.

CLERK: "I move that the parties be permitted to present before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed a total of six hours equally divided all or portions of the parts of the written transcriptions of the depositions of Monica S. Lewinsky, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., and Sidney Blumenthal."

REHNQUIST: The yeas and nays are automatic. The question's on the substitute. The clerk will call the roll.

(CLERK CALLS THE ROLL)

*** Eastern Time 15:44 ***

REHNQUIST: On this vote, the yeas are 27, the nays are 73, and the motion is not agreed to.

The vote is now on division three of the motion. The clerk will read division three.

CLERK: Division three: "The House further moves that the parties be permitted to present before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed a total of six hours equally divided all or portions of the parts of the videotapes of the oral depositions of Monica S. Lewinsky, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., and Sidney Blumenthal admitted into evidence and that the House be entitled to reserve a portion of its presentation time."

REHNQUIST: The yeas and nays are automatic. The clerk will call the roll.

(CLERK CALLS THE ROLL)

FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chief Justice?

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the senator from California.

FEINSTEIN: I voted in error. I wish to change my vote to a "no."

REHNQUIST: Very well. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.

CLERK: Mrs. Feinstein, no.

REHNQUIST: On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 38, division three of the motion is agreed to.

The chair recognizes the minority leader.

The clerk will report the motion.

CLERK: The senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, moves that the Senate now proceed to closing arguments, that there be two hours for the White House counsel, followed by two hours for the House managers, and that at the conclusion of this time the Senate proceed to vote on each of the articles without intervening action, motion or debate, except for deliberations, if so decided by the Senate.

DASCHLE: Mr. Chief Justice?

REHNQUIST: The minority leader.

DASCHLE: I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.

The yeas and nays are automatic. The clerk will call the roll.

(CLERK CALLS THE ROLL) motion is not agreed to.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that was the last of the motions that had been offered. I'm ready to go to the closing script unless there's some other motion pending or to be offered.

UNIDENTIFIED: May I ask, Mr. Chief Justice, for indulgence for just a couple of minutes to consult with my colleagues?

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I observe the absence of a quorum.

REHNQUIST: The clerk will call the roll.

(CLERK CALLS THE ROLL)

REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order.

The majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask the quorum call be dispensed with.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.

RUFF: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that the -- it is in order for White Counsel to offer a motion at this point, and if they wish to do so, then I believe they could, and then we would vote on that motion.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. White House Counsel Ruff.

RUFF: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Majority Leader.

I'd like to hand up to the desk a brief motion dealing with the presentation of videotape evidence on Saturday pursuant to the motion that has just been voted on by the Senate.

And if I may hand it up to the clerk.

REHNQUIST: The clerk will read the motion.

CLERK: No later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, February 5, 1999, the managers shall provide written notice to counsel for the president indicating the precise page and line designations of any video excerpts from the depositions of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, or Sydney Blumenthal, that they plan to use during their three-hour presentation on Saturday or during their closing argument.

REHNQUIST: Yes, there are two hours equally divided on the motion.

RUFF: Mr. Chief Justice, we won't use but a small percentage of that. And I'll turn the matter over, if I may, to my colleague Mr. Kendall.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Counsel Kendall.

KENDALL: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, House managers, I'll be brief. This is simply a procedural motion which I think will make for a fairer hearing and a more efficient use of the Senate's time on Saturday.

Fascinating though these depositions are, I don't think there's any need to inflict them on you repeatedly. What we're asking in this motion is simply a procedure that would be normal in a civil trial, and that is by a fair time tomorrow for the House managers to designate the portions of the three depositions that they intend to use.

KENDALL: That will allow us not to repeat those portions and it will give us some fair chance to organize our responsive presentation.

The burden is on the House managers. This is not an extensive set of transcripts. I think it can be easily done. You've all -- many of you watched the depositions this week, read the transcripts. So I think if we can simply have this designation by two o'clock tomorrow, it will enable Saturday to perhaps be a shorter proceeding.

REHNQUIST: Counsel for House managers? The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan.

ROGAN: Mr. Chief Justice, thank you. I will imitate my colleague at the bar, Mr. Kendall's, brevity, if not his eloquence. I would simply suggest that this is somewhat of a unique opportunity that counsel is inviting the House managers to engage in; to give counsel notice of page and line transcripts for the presentation of evidence that we are going to make.

ROGAN: It is our prerogative to put on our evidence. It is White House counsel's opportunity to put on their evidence. And asking us to choreograph that for them and with them is something that I am unfamiliar with, except for one time.

I remember during my days as a judge in California that a similar request was made to me, and a law clerk pointed out to me language from one of the late, great justices of the California Supreme Court, Otto Couse (ph). Apparently a similar request was made to Justice Couse to do the same thing in a case, and Justice Couse looked at the lawyer making the request and he said, "I believe the appropriate legal response to your request is that it is none of your damn business what the other side is going to put on."

With that, Mr. Chief Justice, we'll yield back the balance of our time.

(LAUGHTER)

REHNQUIST: Mr. Kendall.

KENDALL: That philosophy might want to be emulated at some point by the drafters of the federal civil rules, but it is not in every federal civil trial this procedure is followed -- the designation, identifying and designating of deposition experts -- excerpts.

KENDALL: Again, I think it will make for a far and more efficient proceeding. I don't think trial by surprise has a place here.

Thank you.

REHNQUIST: Very well.

The vote is on the motion?

The vote is on the motion. The clerk will read the motion.

CLERK: Mr. Ruff moves that no later...

REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order.

CLERK: ... no later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, February 5, 1999, the managers shall provide written notice to counsel for the president indicating the precise page and line designations of any video excerpts from the depositions of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, or Sydney Blumenthal that they plan to use during their three-hour presentation on Saturday or during their closing argument.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chief Justice, may we have order in the Senate?

REHNQUIST: Yes, I fully agree with the Senator from (OFF-MIKE).

(UNKNOWN): So we can hear. And would the clerk read that again?

REHNQUIST: Let the clerk the -- and let the Senate remain in order.

CLERK: Mr. Counsel Ruff moves that no later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, February 5, 1999, the managers shall provide written notice to counsel for the present indicating the precise page and line designations of any video excerpts from the depositions of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan or Sidney Blumenthal that they plan to use during their three-hour presentation on Saturday or during their closing argument.

REHNQUIST: The yeas and nays are automatic. The clerk will call the roll.

(CLERK CALLS THE ROLL)

REHNQUIST: On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 54, and the motion is not agreed to.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: I think now that completes all the motions, and therefore I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stands in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Saturday, February the Sixth, and at 10 a.m. on Saturday, immediately following the prayer, the Senate resume consideration of the articles of impeachment.

I further ask consent that on Saturday there be six hours equally divided between the House managers and White House counsel for presentations.

I further ask consent that following those presentations on Saturday the Senate then adjourn until one p.m. on Monday, February the Eight.

I finally ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Senate resume consideration of the articles of impeachment and there be six hours equally divided between the House managers and the White House counsel for final arguments.

LEAHY: Yes, it's reserving the right to object (OFF-MIKE). Could I ask the distinguished leader, we have had exhibits handed out today to be put in the Congressional Record referring to depositions which I understand in rule 26 are still -- are still confidential.

LOTT: Rule 29 (OFF-MIKE).

LEAHY: Are those to be put in the record?

LOTT: I will ask consent that the transcripts of the depositions be printed in the record of today's date.

LEAHY: The exhibits that were handed out today in debate, were they handed out under the rule 26 or have they been ... ?

LOTT: I believe we -- we asked that -- we got approval that they be used in the oral presentations at the beginning of the session today.

LEAHY: Withdraw any objections.

KERRY: Mr. Chief Justice?

REHNQUIST: Objection is heard.

LOTT: A reservation, Mr. Chief Justice, I believe.

REHNQUIST: The senator from Massachusetts.

KERRY: Reserving the right to object. I'd simply like to ask the majority leader: Is there an assumption that if White House counsel were to want sufficient time on Saturday in order to be able to present video testimony countering whatever surprise video -- may or may not be a surprise -- would they have that time to be able to provide that on Saturday? Not to carry over, but merely if they wanted to choose to, to do that on Saturday?

LOTT: I'm not sure I understand the question, except that we will come in at 10 and we will have six hours equally divided.

LOTT: And I presume that the House would make a presentation first and then the Senate and then close, and they would have -- there would be time during that six-hour period for the White House to use it as they see fit.

Are you asking if there would be some sort of break so that they would be able to consider that?

UNIDENTIFIED: Clearly, the purpose of the trial and the purpose of this effort is to have a fair presentation of evidence.

The Senate now having denied notice to White House counsel of what areas may be the subject of video, it might be that the voice of the witness themselves is the best response to whatever it is that the House were to present.

If they were to decide on Saturday...

REHNQUIST: The regular order has been called for. There's a unanimous consent request pending.

LOTT: Well, Mr. Chief Justice, if I could be heard just briefly further on behalf of my unanimous consent and briefly in response to the question, we have all worked hard and bent over backward to try to be fair, and I'm sure that if there's something that would be needed on Saturday it would be carefully considered by both sides.

KERRY: Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest the options of a quorum.

REHNQUIST. The majority leader has the floor.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that it would be appropriate if we could go ahead and get this unanimous consent request. We will continue to work with both sides and try to make sure that there's a fair way to proceed on Saturday. We'll have the balance of today and tomorrow to work on that.

And so I would like to renew my unanimous consent request.

REHNQUIST: Is there objection --

MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Chief Justice, observing the right to object, may I inquire of the majority leader if that Saturday time schedule gives both parties time adequate time to prepare for the presentation of the evidence? Have both sides agreed that they will be prepared?

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, as best I could respond to that, I would say that hopefully both sides would have more than adequate time allocated on Saturday. And we were -- one of the reasons why we are doing it this way, Saturday instead of tomorrow, so both side will have an opportunity to review everything and hopefully communicate with each other and do that during the day Friday so that an orderly presentation could be made on both sides on Saturday.

LOTT: I believe that we're seeking a problem here where there may not be one. But if one develops, certainly we would take that into consideration.

I renew my request.

REHNQUIST: Is there objection? In the absence of objection, it's so ordered.

LOTT: Now, Mr. Chief Justice, I ask consent that those parts of the transcripts of the depositions submitted into evidence be printed in the Congressional Record, today's date.

I further ask consent that the deposition transcripts of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal and the videotapes thereof be immediately released to the managers on the part of the House and the counsel to the president for the purpose of preparing their presentations; provided, however, that such copies shall remain at all times under the supervision of the sergeant-at-arms to ensure compliance with the confidentiality provisions of S. Res. 30.

REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it's so ordered.

LOTT: Under the order just granted, then, the Senate will meet again as a court of impeachment on Saturday.

On Saturday the Senate will hear the presentations from the House managers and the White House counsel for not to exceed six hours. Those presentations, after those presentations, the Senate will resume its business on Monday for six hours beginning at 1 p.m.

I now ask the Senate to stand in adjournment under previous order and ask that all senators remain at their desk until the chief justice departs the chamber.

In the absence -- what?

In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.

END

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.