THAT MAY INVOLVE DIPLOMATIC BREACHES BECAUSE I AM PARL MEN
           TAIRL -- PARLIAMENTARILY ILLITERATE. I LOOKED AT THIS MOTION TO
           DISMISS AND I WAS ASTOUNDED REALLY. IF THE SENATE SENT
           SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE HOUSE, IT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE
           RECEIVED SUCH TREATMENT AS COMPORTS WITH COMITY. I DON'T KNOW

           ENOUGH ABOUT COMITY TO WAIVE THAT FLAG, BUT I DON'T WANT TO
           WAIVE THAT RIGHTS TO WAIVE 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. I JUST WAS
           SURPRISED THAT THIS MOTION IS HERE NOW BEFORE WE CONCLUDE THE
           CASE. SOME YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS TRYING LAWSUITS, I APPEARED

           BEFORE A JUDGE IN CHICAGO WITH -- MY OPPONENT WAS AN OLD TIMER
           WHO WAS JUST MEAN. A GOOD LAWYER, BUT HE WAS MEAN. THE JUST
           INTERRUPTED HIM IN ONE TIRADE. 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 1, 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 CONVENIEE
           OVER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS. AND BY IMPLICATION, RATIFIES AN
           UNUSUAL EXTENSION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. IF THESE ARCLES ARE
           DISMISSED, ALL INFERENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPONDENTS
           NEGOTIATION SUPPORT OF US, THE MANAGERS, 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, REGARDED, IGNORED, BLUSHED OFF, AND THESE ARE
           CHARGES THAT SEND ORDINARY FOLK TO JAIL EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK,
           AND REMOVE FEDERAL JUDGES, BUT I CONCEDE THIS PRESIDENT IS
           DIFFERENT. BUT IF THE DOUBLE STANDARD IS TO FLOURISH ON CAPITOL
           HILL, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED A GREAT DEAL. YES,

           IT'S CUMBERSOME. THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE ARCHAIC IN MANY WAYS.
           THE QUESTION PERIOD WAS SOMETHING OUT OF OLD BAILEY, I GUESS, I
           DON'T KNOW, BUT DEMOCRACY IS UNTIED I. I WILL STIPULATE THAT.
           IT IS UNTIED I. -- UNTIDY. I WILL STIPULATE THAT. IMPEACHMENT
           AND TRIAL BY THE SENATE WERE DESIGNED 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 CLAY SHAY. WE ALL

           SAY IT. YOU -- CLICHE. YOU WON'T DISMISS THIS IF YOU VOTE
           DISMISSAL ON THE ARTICLES. YOU WILL GUARANTEE CONTENTION. YOU
           WILL 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 HAVE 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 EXON RATION. SO WHAT THE
           PRESIDENT WILLFULLY PROVIDED PERJURIOUS FALSE AND MISLEADING
           TESTIMONY TO THE GRAND JURY ON SEVERAL TOPICS. SO WHAT 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?
           SO WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT HAS UNDERMINED THE INTEGRITY OF HIS

           OFFICE, HAS BROUGHT DISREPUTE ON THE PRESIDENCY, WE TRADE HIS
           TRUST AS PRESIDENT AND 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 MATTER, 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, AS DIFFICULT AS IT IS,
           BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS WHOLE SAD, SAD DRAMA WILL END, WE
           WILL NEVER GET IT BEHIND US FLL YOU VOTE UP OR DOWN ON THE
           ARTICLES. AND WHEN YOU DO, HOWEVER YOU VOTE, WE WILL ALL

           COLLECT OUR PAPERS, BOW FROM THE WAIST, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
           COURTESY, BE LEAVE, AND GO GENTLY INTO THE NIGHT, BUT LET US

           FINISH OUR JOB. THANK YOU. MR. LOTT: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?
           PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE MAJORITY LEADER.
           

           MR. LOTT: I BELIEVE UNDER THE AGREEMENT WE ENTERED INTO THE XT
           ORDER OF BUSINESS THEN WOULD BE THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BY
           SENATOR HARKIN TO GO OPEN SESSION, IS THAT CORRECT?
           
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: THE MANAGERS HAVE USED THEIR TIME. THE CHAIR
           RECOGNIZES THE SENATOR FROM IOWA, MR. HARKIN.
           

           MR. HARKIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 5 OF THE
           SENATE 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 CORRECTED. MR. LOTT: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?
           
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE MAJORITY LEADER.
           

           MR. LOTT: IF IT IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO
           ASK THE SENATORS IF THEY WOULD REMAIN AT THEIR DESK SO WE CAN
           GO THROUGH THIS VOTE AND ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT SINCE WE ARE ALL
           HERE THAT WE REDUCE THE TIME FOR THE VOTE FROM IS A MINUTES TO
           TEN MINUTES.
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT IS SO ORDERED. IS THERE OBJECTION?
           TO THE SENATOR FROM IOWA MODIFYING HIS MOTION?
           WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT'S MODIFIED. THE CLERK WILL READ THE
           MOTION.
           

           THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM IOWA MR. HARKIN FOR HIMSELF AND MR.
           WELLSTONE MOVES TO SUSPEND THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE RULES
           OF THE 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 1 THE PHRASE, "WITHOUT DEBATE," IN RULE 7.
           NUMBER TWO THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF RULE 20, "UNLESS THE SENATE
           SHALL DIRECT THE DOORS TO BE CLOSED WHILE DELIBERATING IT'S
           DECISIONS." THE 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." NUMBER THREE, IN RULE 24, THE PHRASES
           "WITHOUT DEBATE," EXCEPT WHEN THE DOORS SHALL BE CLOSED FOR
           DELIBERATION AND IN THAT CASE," AND "TO BE HAD WITHOUT DEBATE."
           

           MR. HARKIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I ASK FOR YEAS AND NAYS.
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
           THE YEAS AND NAYS HAVE BEEN ORDERED. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE
           ROLL.
           
           VOTE VOTE
           
           
           

           VOTE:
           
{END: 1999/01/25 TIME: 17-15 , Mon.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}