[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 20, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S729-S733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OPEN SENATE DELIBERATIONS
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I take the floor today with my colleague
and friend from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, to speak about an issue
that is going to be coming up here in the next several days that is
going to have an importance to all of the American people and, indeed,
to future generations. That is the issue of whether or not the Senate,
in its deliberations on the impeachment of President Clinton, will do
it in secret or will do it in public; will do it behind closed doors,
behind a curtain of secrecy, or do it openly so that the American
people know what we are doing. I want to take just a few minutes to lay
out the case for why I believe it should be open.
Last week, Mr. President, I raised an objection during the trial to
the continued use of the word ``jurors,'' as it pertains to Senators
sitting in a Court of Impeachment. I did that for a number of reasons,
because we are not jurors. We are more than that. We are not just
simply triers of fact. We are not just simply finders of law. But
sitting as a Court of Impeachment, we have a broad mandate, an
expansive role to play. We have to take everything into account,
everything from facts--yes, we have to take facts into account--we have
to take law into account, but we also have to take into account a broad
variety of things: how the case got here; what it is about; how
important it is; how important is this piece of evidence weighed
against that; what is the public will; how do the people feel about
this; what will happen to the public good if one course of action is
taken over another. These are all things we have to weigh, and that is
why I felt strongly that Senators, in our own minds and in the public
minds, should not be put in the box of simply being a juror.
One other aspect of that is if, in fact, we are jurors, the argument
went, then juries deliberate in secret and, therefore, if we are a
jury, we should deliberate in secret. Now that we know we are not
jurors, I believe that argument has gone away. I believe that we are,
in fact, mandated by the Constitution to be more than that.
I quote from an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune by
Professor
[[Page S730]]
Steven Lubet--he is a professor of law at Northwestern University--in
which he pointed out that the Constitution does not allow us the luxury
of being simply jurors. We have to decide; we have to judge.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lubet's article be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 13, 1999]
Stop Calling Them Jurors
(By Steven Lubet)
Some day soon, the actual impeachment trial of William
Jefferson Clinton will begin, with 100 United States senators
sitting in judgment. The senators, in anticipation of the
event, keep referring to themselves as a jury. On a recent
edition of ``Larry King Live,'' for example, no fewer than
six of them (three Republicans and three Democrats) virtually
chanted the mantra that it was their duty to act as
``impartial jurors.'' It is tempting to agree.
After all, they have been sworn to do justice, they are
going to consider evidence and the resulting verdict must be
either conviction or acquittal.
But in fact, the senators are not jurors, and the repeated
use of that term is dangerously misleading.
In an ordinarily trial, the decision-making responsibility
is divided between judge and jury. The judge makes rulings of
law, while the jury's function is severely limited to
determination of facts. In other words, the jury only decides
``what happened'' while the judge decides almost everything
else. That is not the case with impeachment. Article I of the
Constitution confers on the Senate the ``sole power to try
all impeachments.'' That power is comprehensive--including
law, facts and procedure--and it is to be exercised in its
entirety by the Senate itself.
(It is true that the chief justice is called upon to
``preside'' over presidential impeachments, but only because
the vice president--who is ordinarily the Senate's presiding
officer--is disqualified by an obvious conflict of interest.
The chief justice does not sit as a judge in any ordinary
sense, but more as a moderator or chair. He holds no binding
legal or decisional power.)
And if there were any doubt, Article III of the
Constitution actually makes this explicit, providing that
``the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment,
shall be by jury.'' So, what are the senators, if not jurors?
In fact, they are all judges, or if you prefer, members of
the court of impeachment, each one delegated full power to
decide every issue involved in the case.
This distinction is crucial. President Clinton's most
fervent detractors have argued that the House of
Representatives, in exercise of its own constitutional power,
has conclusively determined the ``impeachability'' of the
alleged offenses, leaving the senatorial jury the limited
task of deciding whether the charges are true. But that is
wrong. The Senate's role is not at all confined to the
ascertainment of facts. Under the Constitution, the senators
need not--they may not--defer to the House of Representatives
on the critical question of ``impeachability.''
Thus, the Senators must decide not only whether Clinton
lied to the grand jury, but also whether so-called ``perjury
about sex'' constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor of
sufficient gravity to justify removing this president from
office.
It is easy to understand why a senator would want to be a
juror. The persona is so engaging: modest, contemplative,
nearly anonymous--the humble citizen called to civic duty.
But the constant references to senators-as-jurors can only
serve to diminish their role and distract them from the
expansive nature of their duty. It is not their job, as it
would be a jury's, simply to decide some facts and then move
on. The Constitution does not allow them that luxury.
The senators are not determining just one case; their
concern must be far greater than the fate of a single man.
Rather, they are setting a legal and political precedent that
may well guide our Republic for the next 130 years. Future
generations will look back upon this Senate for direction
whenever potential impeachments arise. Our descendants will
not want to know only what happened, but also what principles
govern the removal of the president. And so, the senators
cannot merely decide--they have to judge.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a couple of other things regarding
openness. The hallmark of our Republic and of our system of government
is openness and transparency. The history of this Senate has been one
of opening the doors. The first three sessions of the U.S. Senate were
held in secret behind closed doors, the whole sessions. Up until 1929,
all nominations and treaties were debated behind closed doors. In 1972,
40 percent of all the committee meetings were done behind closed doors.
In fact, up until 1975, many conference committees, and still committee
meetings, were held behind closed doors.
We have washed all that away. We have found through the years that
the best political disinfectant is sunshine. I believe we are a better
Senate, a better Congress and a better country for opening the doors
and letting people see what we do and how we reach the decisions we
reach.
Mr. President, there has been a spate of editorials recently
regarding opening up the trial. I quote from one from the Washington
Post dated January 14. It says:
It seems only right . . . that the Senate should be
expected to debate in public any charge for which it is
demanding of the president a public accounting.
This is not to prevent senators from caucusing in private
or even meeting unofficially, as senators did last week in
crafting the procedural compromise that will govern the
trial. Confidential contacts of this sort can certainly be
constructive. But when the Senate meets as the Senate and
considers arguments in its official trial proceedings, it
should not do so behind closed doors. Absent the most unusual
of circumstances, it should conduct its deliberations openly,
thereby ensuring that the final adjudication of Mr. Clinton's
case is as transparently accountable as possible.
The New York Times basically said the same thing. The Los Angeles
Times, the Des Moines Register and Roll Call. I think Roll Call
basically said it best, Mr. President, when they said:
. . . this is not a court trial . . . It is inherently a
political proceeding . . . Their constituents [our
constituents], the citizens of America, have a right to see
how they perform and to fully understand why they decided to
retain or remove their elected President.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all of these editorials
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Washington Post, January 14, 1999]
An Open Trial
Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) have
announced that they will move to suspend certain portions of
the Senate's impeachment rules to permit the full Senate
trial of President Clinton to be conducted in the public's
view. As the more than 100-year-old rules stand now,
testimony can be taken with the cameras on and the doors open
unless a majority votes to close the session, but any time
the senators debate a motion and, for that matter, when they
consider the final articles, they will do so in secret. This
is exactly the wrong way to conduct a trial whose purpose is
to pass public judgment on the conduct of the president. The
Harkin-Wellstone proposal to do the whole trial in public
offers a far better approach.
The desire to avoid public argument is understandable,
particularly in a case as filled with salacious material as
the Clinton trial must necessarily be. But it is not the job
of the Senate to protect citizens from the rationale for the
Senate's actions, nor are senators entitled to be shielded
from the embarrassment of discussing out loud the tawdry
evidence at issue in this case.
The often drawn analogy between senators and jurors, whose
deliberations are kept secret, also fails to offer a
persuasive reason to conduct secret debates. Jurors, after
all, did not seek public office and are not permitted, as
their trials are progressing, to go on talk shows to discuss
their own consideration of the evidence. The senators are, in
this proceeding, acting as far more than simple jurors, and
it makes little sense for this most solemn obligation of the
Senate to face less sunshine than does a routine legislative
matter. It seems only right, rather, that the Senate should
be expected to debate in public any charge for which it is
demanding of the president a public accounting.
This is not to prevent senators from caucusing in private
or even from meeting unofficially, as senators did last week
in crafting the procedural compromise that will govern the
trial. Confidential contacts of this sort can certainly be
constructive. But when the Senate meets as the Senate and
considers arguments in its official trial proceedings, it
should not do so behind closed doors. Absent the most unusual
of circumstances, it should conduct its deliberations openly,
thereby ensuring that the final adjudication of Mr. Clinton's
case is as transparently accountable as possible.
____
[From the New York Times, January 13, 1999]
Open the Senate
Since the trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, the
Senate has conducted its debates on procedures and even the
final verdict of impeachments in closed session. The time has
come for that tradition to be altered, at least for the trial
of President Clinton. Two Democratic Senators, Tom Harkin and
Paul Wellstone, have announced that they will seek to change
the rule on closed debates after the opening presentations
begin tomorrow. Whatever would be gained by allowing senators
to deliberate privately, the overriding requirements is for
the American public to see and judge firsthand whether
justice is being done.
Some senators argue that the closed session last Friday, at
which Democrats and Republicans worked out a compromise on
trial procedures, showed that privacy can serve a
constructive purpose. But the Harkin-Wellstone proposal would
not preclude
[[Page S731]]
the Senate's adjourning and meeting outside the chamber at
caucuses like the one last week. The principle that should
prevail is simply that proceedings that could lead to the
removal of a President should be conducted in open session,
especially since many Americans have questions about the
fairness of the House impeachment proceedings. Closing the
Senate's deliberations on so grave a matter would undermine
public confidence and be an affront to citizens' rights to
observe the operations of government.
Senators love their customs and ceremonies, but their
institution's commanding trend has been toward openness. At
the time of the nation's founding, all Senate sessions were
closed. Until 1929, the Senate debated nominations and
treaties in closed sessions. Until the reforms of the 1970's,
many Congressional hearings and meetings were in closed
session. No one would seriously argue that these old
practices should have been preserved. As for impeachment
trials, it is worth noting that they were open most of the
19th century. Privacy was adopted only for the trial of
President Johnson.
Some senators seem to believe that they should be regarded
as jurors in a trial, and therefore allowed a measure of
confidentiality. But the senators have privileges not
available to regular juries. They may ask questions, speak
publicly about the process and make motions. It is within
their power to change the rules on closing the session, which
would take a two-thirds majority to be adopted. If openness
drives senators toward partisanship or prolixity, as some
fear, let public scrutiny serve as the governor on their
excesses.
____
[From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 13, 1999]
Keep Trial Fully Open
Unless the Senate changes one of its rules for conducting
President Clinton's impeachment trial, the public will not be
allowed to witness crucial parts, including a possible
climactic debate on whether to convict Clinton on charges of
perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate should change
this archaic rule; the trial's inestimable national
importance demands that the proceedings be completely open.
For guidance in the trial, which opens Thursday, the Senate
is relying on rules adopted in 1868, when Andrew Johnson
became the first and until now the only president to be tried
for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors. One of those rules
compels ``the doors to be closed'' whenever senators debate
among themselves, something they are allowed to do only when
deciding procedural issues--such as whether witnesses should
be called--or when they reach a verdict. Otherwise, by the
rules of 1868, the senators must sit in silence as House
prosecutors present the case against Clinton and White House
lawyers defend him. Any questions the senators have must be
submitted in writing to the chief justice, who may or may not
choose to ask them.
The precedents embedded in the Johnson trial rules should
not be put aside lightly. Without them the Senate could find
itself mired in prolonged and divisive arguments over how to
proceed. But no precedent is sacred. Times change and rules
must change with them. Congress has many times discarded
procedures and traditions that came to be seen as inimical to
the need for free discussion in an open society. for example,
as Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.)
note, in the earliest days of the republic all of Congress'
proceedings were secret. Until 1929 nomination hearings were
conducted behind closed doors. Until 1975 many committee
sessions similarly took place outside public scrutiny.
The Senate of Andrew Johnson's day was a far different
place from the Senate of today. Its members were not chosen
by the electorate--that did not come until 1913--but rather
were appointed by state legislatures and so were not directly
answerable to the popular will. And much of the Senate's
business was routinely conducted in secret.
Today, except when matters of national security are being
discussed, Congress' sessions are open--in the sunshine, as
they say in the Capital. If ever there was an occasion when
the sun should be allowed fully to shine in, it is in the
Clinton impeachment trial.
A two-thirds vote is needed to change Senate rules. Harkin
and Wellstone, the major proponents of full openness, know
the difficulty of getting 65 colleagues to agree with them.
But they are leading a fair and just cause. Put simply,
Americans have a right to witness this process in all its
facets. The people's representatives in the Senate now have
the responsibility to assure that right.
____
[From the Roll Call, January 14, 1999]
No Secret Trial
Imagine the spectacle. On, say, March 5, cameras are turned
on in the Senate and the roll is called on the articles of
impeachment against President Clinton. The votes are taken,
the decision is made--and then there is a mad rush for
Senators to explain why they voted as they did. But their
actual deliberations prior to the voting remain secret.
There is not even an official record kept, so
reconstructing one of the most portentous debates in American
history depends on the memories and notes of Senators and
staffers.
This secrecy scenario is exactly what's in store unless the
Senate changes its rules, as proposed by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-
Iowa) and Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), to open the impeachment
trial to the media and the public.
In fact, it will take strong action from Senate leaders to
open the trial, since changing Senate rules requires a two-
thirds vote. We urge Democratic and Republican leaders to
exercise their influence to prevent their institution from
being accused of conducting a ``secret trial.''
The allegation could turn out to be true. Senate rules call
not only for final deliberations on impeachment to be
conducted in secret, but any deliberations. This means that
motions to dismiss the case and consideration of whether to
call witnesses might be done in secret and with no subsequent
printing of the proceedings in the Congressional Record. All
but arguments by House managers and the President's lawyers,
witness testimony, if any, and the actual vote could take
place behind a shroud.
Some Senators say they would not have been able to reach
their bipartisan agreement on procedure last Friday if the
session had been open. If statesmanship requires secrecy--
which we doubt--then arrangements can be made for informal
closed discussions. But all substantive discussions should be
open. We have some sympathy for the view that some subject
matter conceivably could be so sexually explicit that
Senators will be ashamed to be seen discussing it in public.
But it's not worth closing off almost the entire Clinton
trial over this possibility.
Conceivably--if this is what it takes to sway skittish
Senators--the rules could be altered to permit some
discussion to be held in closed session with a record kept.
But the House debate on impeachment could have been rated PG-
13, and let's face it: The Clinton case record is already so
raunchy that there's little that schoolchildren haven't
already heard. So the proceedings ought to be open.
It will be argued: In court trials, jury deliberations are
conducted in secret. But this is not a court trial. It is
inherently a political proceeding. The ``jurors'' are not
ordinary citizens unused to the glare of publicity. They will
be up for reelection and judged partly on the basis of how
they handle this case. Their constituents, the citizens of
America, have a right to see how they perform and to fully
understand why they decided to retain or remove their elected
President.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me take off a little bit on one aspect
of this. Some people say, ``Well, there is a benefit to Senators
meeting quietly, privately to discuss these.'' I believe that, and I
would not, in any way, want to close, for example, some of the caucuses
that we have--the occupant of the Chair remembers we had the closed
caucus between the two parties to reach an agreement under which we are
operating. I think there is a benefit to that, as the Washington Post
article pointed out. That is fine, as we meet unofficially off the
floor amongst ourselves to discuss things. But when the Senate meets as
the Senate, as soon as that opening prayer is given by the Chaplain,
this place should be open, and the trial should be open.
Next, I believe that unless we open this trial up, we are going to
sow the seeds of confusion, misinformation, suspicion and unnecessary
conflict. Here is why I say that. As some wag once said, there is
nothing secret about any secret meeting held here in Washington.
Think, if you will, of a closed session of the Senate. The galleries
are cleared, the cameras are shut off, reporters are gone, and we
engage in debate on whatever issue we are going to debate. The debate
is over. We open the galleries again, and 100 Senators rush out of here
and they see all the reporters standing out here.
What happens? ``Well, what happened, Senator?''
``Well, don't quote me, not for attribution, but guess what this
Senator said; guess what that Senator said?''
And so you get 100 different versions of what happened here on the
Senate floor.
I believe that will sow a lot of confusion, misinformation and
unnecessary conflict. If the doors are open and if we debate in the
open, there is no filter, it is unfiltered, and the public can see how
and why we reached the decisions we reached.
The press, quite frankly, obviously, as perhaps is their nature, is
quick to pick up on conflict and rumor. I believe if we follow the
rules to close the doors of this trial it will turn it more into a
circus than anything else. If we open the debate, I don't believe we
will have any problems.
I was interested in an op-ed piece that was in the New York Times by
former Senator Dale Bumpers. I read it, and there is a part in there I
think really hits home. Former Senator Bumpers said:
In a visit with Harry Truman in his home in Missouri in
1971, he admonished me to always put my trust in the people.
``They can handle it,'' he said.
[[Page S732]]
``They can handle it.'' I believe the American people can handle it,
too. I believe they can handle any debate, any discussion, any
deliberation that we have on the Senate floor. Not only can they handle
it, I believe they have a right to it.
So Senator Wellstone and I will, at the first opportunity, when the
first motion is made to dismiss the case, if that motion is made--
obviously the debate about that under the rules would be held in
secret--we intend at that point to offer a preferential motion that the
debate, the discussion in the Senate on the motion to dismiss be held
openly, to suspend the rules.
Obviously, that is a hurdle. To suspend the rules requires a two-
thirds vote. It means that two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote
to suspend the rules. As a further kind of anomaly, Mr. President, the
motion to open up the Senate, to open up our debate and deliberation,
the debate on that has to be held in private under the rules, strange
as it may seem. And so we will at that point ask unanimous consent that
the debate and discussion on whether we will open up the debate on the
motion to dismiss be held openly. Of course, one Senator can object,
and then we would have to go into a secret debate on our motion to open
up the deliberation and the debate. And so that will happen sometime
soon.
Another issue has been raised, Mr. President--I would just like to
cover it and then I am going to yield the floor to Senator Wellstone.
The point has been raised, well, you know, if Senators start debating
this and it gets in the open, then they get in front of the cameras,
and, why, then this thing can go on and on and on because Senators--you
know, we Senators like to talk, we can talk forever. Under the rules of
the Senate, when we go into debate and deliberation on any motion, each
Senator can be recognized only for 10 minutes--only for 10 minutes. And
I think a lot of people are forgetting about that.
Lastly, Mr. President, I remember in January of 1991 when I sat at
the desk on that side over there and Senators had just been sworn in;
housekeeping motions were being made. One motion was being made by the
majority leader at that time that the Senate recess or adjourn--I
forget--adjourn to a date certain--I think it was for the State of the
Union--but during that period of time, that we would not have been in
session, and the time would have run out on whether or not we would use
force to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait, the gulf war.
I stood at that time and raised an objection to the Senate recessing
or adjourning over to that point. And I raised an objection that
enabled us to have an open and public debate on whether or not we would
authorize the President of the United States to conduct military
operations in the gulf. We had that debate. And I think it was one of
the Senate's finest hours. Even those with whom I disagreed I thought
were eloquent and forceful in their arguments. We had the debate, we
had the vote, and then we moved on. And I think the American people
were better for that debate because it was held in the open.
Mr. President, if we in the Senate can debate whether or not to send
our sons and daughters off to distant lands to fight and die in a war--
something that touches every single American citizen--if we can debate
that in open and in public, then in the name of all that is right about
our Republic and our country and our openness and our system of
government, why can we not debate and deliberate in the open something
else that touches every American citizen? And that is, why or if the
President of the United States should or should not be removed from
office. If we can debate it openly, the issue of war, then certainly we
can debate an issue in the open, the issue of whether or not the
President would be removed from office.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank my colleague, Senator
Harkin. We have been working very hard on this. There are other
Senators who support this motion--Senator Leahy, Senator Feingold,
Senator Boxer, and Senator Lieberman. And I know Senator Hutchison has
indicated interest in this question. This will be a very important vote
coming up next week.
First, let me just, if I could, Mr. President, say that I feel very
honored to be speaking from Dale Bumpers' desk. I don't think there is
anybody who could match his oratory, but I am sure lucky to have this
desk and this long cord. And Dale Bumpers, wherever you are, I will do
my very best to try to carry on in your tradition, or at least give it
everything that I have.
Mr. President, next week before the Senate goes into its own
deliberations on this question of whether to dismiss charges, we will
take this one step at a time. We most definitely will try to move
forward with a motion to suspend the rules so that the Senate
deliberations will not be in closed session. We also would like to make
sure that the very debate as to whether our deliberations are in closed
session or secret session be open to the public. And we will, on the
floor of the Senate, make every effort possible to keep that debate in
the open.
I am going to be very brief and just make the following arguments
because there are some very, very good people who do a lot of work when
it comes to interpretation of the rules. I will say, since the
Parliamentarian is here, that Bob Dove has been eminently fair. He has
treated all of us from both political parties with the utmost respect.
My own feeling about this is that this trial has been momentous. I
personally wish that it had not come over from the House. I have always
made my point that I believe the House overreached on the impeachment
charges. But, Mr. President, they are here in the Senate.
I think here are the following questions: If in fact we as a Senate
are going to go into deliberations over whether to dismiss the charges
against the President, or later on whether we will have witnesses, or
later on whether the President shall be removed, I cannot imagine that
the U.S. Senate would go into closed session. I cannot imagine that our
deliberations and our debate and the arguments we make would not be
open to the public.
The public isn't going to believe in this political process if we go
into secret or closed session. The public is not going to have trust in
what we are doing if they don't get a chance to evaluate our debate and
what we are saying and why we reached the conclusions we reached.
Mr. President, I really do believe that if there is to be healing in
our country--and I certainly pray that there will be--it would be a
terrible mistake for the U.S. Senators, Democrats or Republicans, to
cut the public out. The part of the public that is looking at the
proceedings right now, that is evaluating the arguments that are being
made--and there are people who have made very good arguments on both
sides of the question--to then say to them, ``Listen, when it comes to
now the Senate, the U.S. Senate, going into our own deliberations and
making our own decisions, you, the public, you're cut out of it,'' this
goes against the very essence of accountability. It goes against the
very essence of what a representative democracy is about.
Mr. President, some of these rules go back to 1868. That was a time
when the U.S. Senators were not even directly elected. They were
elected by State legislatures. The 17th amendment changed all that in
1913 as part of the Progressive movement and the progressive change in
the country. The idea was that the U.S. Senators would be a part of
representative democracy, directly elected by the people, accountable
to the people.
This is a huge decision we are going to be making in the U.S. Senate.
And I think it will be a terrible mistake for the U.S. Senate to go
into closed session, to cut the public out, to not let people have the
opportunity to hear what we are saying in the debate.
Mr. President, it is really quite amazing, if you think about it.
People will know what our votes are--dismissal of charges, witnesses,
whether the President should be removed from office--and somewhere
there will be a transcript of the proceedings, but I don't think they
will even be published. There will not even be a public record of what
U.S. Senators--the Senator from Arkansas or the Senator from Minnesota
or the Senator from Iowa--had to say in this debate.
[[Page S733]]
I just say to all of my colleagues, I hope that, No. 1, you will
agree to a unanimous-consent agreement that in our discussion or our
debate whether or not we go into closed session, that it be open to the
public. What an irony it would be if, in the very debate about whether
or not our deliberations will be open or closed, our deliberations were
closed. It seems to me that debate ought to be open to the public.
Second, I certainly hope that we will have the two-thirds vote that
it will take to suspend the current rule that says we must be in closed
session.
Mr. President, I think it is important for the public right now to be
engaged in this process. I hope people will be calling their Senators,
because I really do believe that part of our deliberations, part of our
modus operandi as Senators, whatever States we represent, should be to
stay in touch with people. Of course, we reach our own independent
judgment. We reach our own independent judgment about the facts, about
the charges.
Then there is another question, the threshold question, about whether
or not these charges rise to the level of removing a President from
office.
I think part of what we are about as Senators is to try to stay in
close touch with the public, with people in our States, whatever
decision we make. It can be a matter of individual conscience, but I
think it is terribly important that we operate as a representative
body, as the U.S. Senate, as a part of representative democracy of the
United States of America. We can't on this question, we can't on these
questions, if we go into closed session.
____________________