[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1409-S1410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        MOTIONS PERTAINING TO WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AND TESTIMONY

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Thursday, February 4th, the 
Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, considered several motions 
pertaining to the depositions and live testimony of witnesses Monica 
Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal. I wish to speak briefly 
on the important issues raised by several of these motions.
  First, let me say that I am pleased that the Senate, by a bipartisan 
vote of 30-70, voted not to compel the live testimony of Ms. Lewinsky. 
In my view, this was a sound decision to support the expeditious 
conduct of this trial, preserve the decorum of the Senate, and respect 
the privacy of this particular witness.
  Unfortunately, the Senate retreated from these same worthy aims in 
deciding to permit the videotaped depositions of Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. 
Jordan, and Mr. Blumenthal to be entered into evidence and broadcast to 
the public. I believe that this decision was erroneous for three basic 
reasons:
  First, it needlessly prolonged the trial. Prior to February 4th, 
Senators had an opportunity to view the depositions of each of these 
witnesses--not once, but repeatedly. Numerous times we could have 
viewed the content of their testimony, the tone of their answers, and 
their demeanor while under oath. By requiring that Senators view 
portions of these depositions again on the Floor, in whole or in part, 
the Managers' motion unnecessarily required the Senate to convene for 
an entire day. We learned nothing by viewing excerpts of the 
depositions on the Floor that we had not already had an opportunity to 
learn by viewing those depositions previously, either on videotape or, 
in the case of myself and five other Senators, in person.
  Second, allowing the depositions to be publicly aired on the Senate 
Floor exaggerated their importance. Even Manager Hyde has acknowledged 
that these depositions broke no material new ground in this case. 
Allowing their broadcast thus was not only an injudicious use of the 
Senate's time. It also elevated the significance of this particular 
testimony over all other sworn testimony taken in this matter--solely 
by virtue of the fact that it was recently videotaped. Broadcasting 
these minuscule and marginal portions of the record--while not 
broadcasting other depositions--does not illuminate the record so much 
as distort it. The distortion is only compounded by broadcasting 
selected portions of those depositions rather than the depositions in 
their entirety. The President's counsel obviously had an opportunity to 
rebut the Managers' presentation and characterization of those 
portions. However, that rebuttal only underscores the fact that the 
Managers' motion to use these videotapes gave the videotapes a 
prominence and gravity that they do not merit.
  Thirdly, under the circumstances, publicly airing portions of these 
depositions constituted a needless invasion of the privacy of the 
witnesses whose testimony was videotaped. Let us remember that these 
individuals are not public figures who have willingly surrendered a 
portion of their privacy as a consequence of their freely chosen 
status. They are private citizens, reluctantly drawn into legal 
proceedings. They have attempted to discharge their obligations in 
those proceedings. But that obligation does not extend to the public 
broadcast of their videotaped depositions--particularly given that they 
have testified repeatedly before, and that their videotaped testimony 
contains no new material information. The privacy rights of these 
individuals deserved greater consideration by the Managers and by the 
Senate. The Managers did not need to force the images of these 
witnesses into the living rooms and family rooms of America in order to 
present their case. And the Senate did not need to allow that to happen 
in order to meet its constitutional responsibility in this matter.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I opposed the Managers' motion to

[[Page S1410]]

broadcast the deposition videotapes. In my view, the time has come to 
bring this matter to an end. The record is voluminous, the arguments 
have been made. We know enough to decide the questions before us. That 
is why I supported Senator Daschle's motion to proceed to final 
arguments and a vote on each of the Articles of Impeachment. I regret 
that his motion was not adopted, and that instead the Senate decided to 
needlessly prolong this matter without sufficient regard for the 
privacy of the witnesses deposed last week. However, that said, I am 
pleased that, barring any unforseen developments, this trial will at 
last conclude later this week. It is time for the Senate to move on to 
the other important business of the country that we were elected to 
address.