[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2801-2803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        SENATOR DODD'S HISTORIC SPEECH IN THE OLD SENATE CHAMBER

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to submit a statement 
delivered by our colleague Senator Dodd on January 8th at the 
commencement of the impeachment trial of President Clinton.
  This statement, like the others delivered that day, is remarkable in 
several respects.
  First, it captures the rich history that has transpired over the 
years in the Old Senate Chamber--a history marked often by greatness, 
but occasionally by shame.
  Second, it wonderfully expresses Senator Dodd's own personal sense of 
the history of the Senate. His reflections on past Senators--from Roger 
Sherman, the Founding Father whose seat Senator Dodd occupies, to his 
own father, former Senator Thomas Dodd--remind us that the Senate is an 
institution made up of individuals, and that the totality of their 
actions shapes the destiny not just of the Senate itself but indeed of 
the entire country.
  Third, and most importantly, Senator Dodd's statement stands as a 
powerful plea for cooperation and bipartisanship in the discharge of 
the Senate's profound responsibility in this trial. Senator Dodd's 
statement played a critical role in setting the stage for the historic 
bipartisan agreement reached at the outset of the trial, and for the 
spirit of civility that prevailed throughout this ordeal. I commend 
Senator Dodd's statement to all citizens who in the future may wish to 
learn something of how the Senate was inspired to conduct the 
impeachment trial of President Clinton in a noble and dignified manner.
  I am beginning my 25th year in the Senate. After Senator Dodd spoke I 
told him his speech was one of the finest I had heard in those years.
  No Senator ever spoke more directly--or more persuasively--to other 
Senators about the duty we all have to the Constitution and the Senate. 
I am proud to serve with him.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of Senator Dodd's statement be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page 2802]]



Remarks by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Old Senate Chamber, January 8, 
                                  1999

       Mr. DODD. Let me begin by thanking our two leaders. While 
     none of us can say with any certainty how this matter will be 
     concluded, if we, like every other institution that has 
     brushed up against this lurid tale, end up in a raucous 
     partisan brawl, it will not be because of the example set by 
     Tom Daschle and Trent Lott. The graces have once again 
     blessed this extraordinary body by delivering two noble and 
     decent men to lead us.
       I want to express a special thanks to you, Tom, for asking 
     me to share my thoughts this morning on the issue before us.
       On a light note, it was in this very room four years ago 
     that I lost the Democratic leader's post to Tom Daschle. Of 
     the forty-seven members of the Democratic Caucus, forty-six 
     were here that morning to vote. When the ballots were 
     counted, Tom and I had each received 23 votes--a dead heat. 
     The absent Democratic colleague who voted for Tom with a 
     proxy ballot was Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Several weeks later 
     I received a very late night call from Ben in which he shared 
     with me his decision to change political parties. Ben and I 
     have been good friends for some time, and I told him he ought 
     to do what he felt was right. The next morning I decided to 
     have some fun with our Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, by 
     sending him a note asking that in light of Ben's decision to 
     become a Republican, did Tom think a recount of the leader's 
     race might be in order?
       Considering the wonderful job our leader Tom has done, 
     particularly over these last several weeks, I'm glad he did 
     not even consider the offer.
       Allow me further to note a point of personal privilege. I 
     am deeply proud to share the representation of my state in 
     the Senate with Joe Lieberman. Over these past couple of 
     weeks Joe and Slade Gorton have once again demonstrated the 
     value of their presence in the Senate. While many of us, from 
     time to time, have claimed to speak for the Senate--few 
     rarely do. On that day in September, Joe, your remarks 
     delivered on the Senate floor about the President's behavior 
     were, I believe, the sentiments of the entire Senate. We 
     thank you.
       Joe and I represent the Constitution State. Joe sits in the 
     seat once held by Oliver Ellsworth, the second Chief Justice 
     of the Supreme Court. I sit in the seat of Roger Sherman, the 
     only founding father to sign all four of our cornerstone 
     documents : The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of 
     Confederation, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Roger 
     Sherman was also the author of the Connecticut Compromise 
     which created this Senate in which we now serve.
       So by institutional lineage, I feel a special connection 
     with the Senate. But, on a personal level, I am also very 
     much a product of the Senate. Forty years ago this week, I 
     was a very proud 14 year old watching from the family gallery 
     as my father took the same oath I took on Wednesday. I also 
     remember that day meeting another new Senator, Robert C. Byrd 
     of West Virginia.
       I only mention these facts because I am overwhelmed by a 
     profound sense of history as we embark on this perilous 
     journey over the coming weeks. I want my institutional 
     forebearer, Roger Sherman, and my father to judge that on my 
     watch, as a temporary custodian of this Senate seat, I did my 
     best.
       I want to express a special thanks to Trent Lott for having 
     the wisdom of choosing this most historical room for our 
     joint caucus.
       Trent could have chosen any number of other venues, larger 
     more accommodating rooms around the Capitol for this meeting. 
     But either by divine inspiration or simple choice he decided 
     to bring us--Democrats and Republicans--together here.
       It is one hundred and forty years ago this week--January 4, 
     1859--that our Senate predecessors moved from this room to 
     the chamber we now occupy.
       While in use, this room was the stage of some of the 
     Senate's most worthy and memorable moments.
       The Missouri Compromise was brokered here. So was the 
     Compromise of 1850. And the famous Webster-Hayne debate took 
     place here in 1830. The spirits of Henry Clay, John Calhoun 
     and Daniel Webster--great statesmen, great compromisers, 
     giants of our Senate--are here with us today. And maybe one 
     day, those who come after us will add this joint meeting to 
     the list of those other great moments in the history of the 
     United States Senate.
       But this chamber also witnessed one of the Senate's most 
     regrettable moments--the caning in 1856 of Senator Charles 
     Sumner by Representative Preston Brooks.
       Congressman Brooks walked right through this center door 
     and proceeded to beat Senator Sumner.
       That tragic incident was precipitated by a strong anti-
     slavery speech from Senator Sumner in which Representative 
     Brooks felt Sumner had accused his colleague and Brook's 
     cousin, Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina, of having an 
     illicit sexual relationship with a young woman who was a 
     slave.
       Far from being a momentary bitter, personal dispute, the 
     Sumner caning, according to many historians, effectively 
     ended the thin shred of comity and compromise that existed in 
     the Senate. Forty-eight months later our great Civil War 
     began.
       We are now gathered in this revered room in the face of a 
     great Constitutional question. Which of the spirits that 
     inhabit this chamber will prevail as we begin this process? 
     Can we find the common ground of Clay, Calhoun and Webster? 
     Or will we assault each other by resorting to a rhetorical 
     caning?
       I would urge our two leaders to try once more before the 
     scheduled vote of 1 pm to find a solution to the issue of 
     witness testimony.
       It has been argued that there is little or no difference 
     between the two proposals, and, while they may seem slight, I 
     believe our failure to make the right choice puts the conduct 
     of this process and the public confidence in the Senate at 
     grave risk.
       The President's conduct was deplorable; the conduct of the 
     Office of Independent Counsel has raised grave concerns on 
     all sides; and the highly partisan spectacle in the House has 
     provoked public revulsion. We are the court of last resort--
     the only hope of restoring public confidence rests with us.
       The issue of whether to exclude witnesses altogether or 
     leave open the possibility of their testimony rests on how we 
     weigh the relative risk of prohibiting witnesses against the 
     risk of severely damaging or destroying the shared goals and 
     desires of all Senators.
       Over the past several weeks, in telephone conversations, 
     meetings and joint appearances on news programs, I have 
     concluded there are six points of common agreement:
       (1) There is the sincere desire for this profound burden we 
     did not ask for to be devoid of partisanship;
       (2) We must act with total fairness, and we must be 
     perceived by the public as having acted fairly;
       (3) We must act with deliberate speed and not flounder;
       (4) We must assure that the Senate retains sole custody of 
     how this matter is conducted and concluded;
       (5) We must demonstrate appropriate respect for the 
     Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch and the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (6) We must jealously protect the dignity of the Senate as 
     we consider what most Americans believe to be, at the very 
     least, the most undignified personal behavior of an American 
     President.
       If we permit the House managers and the White House to call 
     witnesses, do we not risk the partisan brawling through 
     party-line voting that will surely ensue? And does not that 
     risk outweigh the risk that some of us may not benefit from 
     body language or voice inflection that some witnesses may 
     provide? I think not.
       A process as proposed by Senators Gorton and Lieberman that 
     allows a full explanation of the House managers case over 
     several days and an equal amount of time allocated for the 
     President's defense, in addition to two days of questions 
     from Senators, would meet any reasonable person's standard of 
     fairness. The added fact that we will have at our disposal 
     more than 60,000 pages of Grand Jury testimony, hearings and 
     evidence should satisfy any objective analysis that we can 
     conduct this process fairly.
       There is no more important business before the Senate than 
     the conduct and conclusion of this impeachment trial. I am of 
     the view that no other business ought to intervene while this 
     matter is pending. As I have said, we must act fairly--but we 
     must also act expeditiously--not rush--but act with 
     deliberate speed and purpose.
       Any first semester law student knows that once witnesses 
     are subpoenaed, fundamental fairness allows for depositions 
     and discovery. Depending on the number of witnesses, the 
     delays will undoubtedly be lengthy.
       I readily acknowledge that there are some risks in 
     excluding the testimony of live witnesses--but does that risk 
     exceed the almost certain risk of causing the Senate to be 
     unnecessarily tied up with this matter for weeks if not 
     months?
       As I have stated, this unsolicited task of disposing of 
     this impeachment is paramount, but we would all agree it is 
     not our only responsibility.
       There are urgent matters, both foreign and domestic, that 
     we must attend to in the 106th Congress. Pete Domenici's 
     concern about the budget and not repeating the budget debacle 
     of last year, social security reform, Ted Stevens' concern 
     about the accuracy of our weapons in Iraq, and the Brazilian 
     economic crisis are just a small sample of the agenda this 
     Senate must address. The risk of not dealing with these 
     matters must be weighed against the wisdom of calling live 
     witnesses in this proceeding.
       The Constitution is clear--only the Senate has the power to 
     try impeachments. We and we alone must be the custodians of 
     our own procedures. While the calling of live witnesses does 
     not necessarily mean the Senate would lose control of the 
     proceedings, there is the undeniable risk that once the 
     witness parade begins, the ability of the Senate, and the 
     Senate alone, to manage these proceedings fairly, 
     expeditiously, and in a non-partisan fashion could be lost.
       We Senators have a serious responsibility to be respectful 
     of the Judicial Branch in the presence of Chief Justice 
     Rehnquist, the Executive Branch in the presence of counsel 
     for

[[Page 2803]]

     the President, and the House of Representatives in the 
     presence of the House managers. Being respectful and 
     deferential to these institutions should not be confused with 
     deferring to these institutions. Chief Justice Rehnquist has 
     indicated to our leaders that he intends to be a passive 
     presiding officer, except in some narrow instances. The White 
     House, through their counsel, indicated that it would prefer 
     to avoid calling witnesses. Only the House managers are 
     insisting on the use of witnesses. Furthermore, the House 
     managers agree that the exclusion of witnesses by the Senate 
     would deprive them of the ability to make their case and be 
     taken as an act of disrespect by the Senate.
       I find it stunningly ironic that the House Judiciary 
     Committee saw no similar disrespect to their fellow House 
     members when they presented their Articles of Impeachment 
     before the full House without the benefit of a single witness 
     appearing before their panel. When asked why no witnesses had 
     been called before the House Judiciary Committee, some 
     members argued that the calling of witnesses would have 
     unduly delayed their proceedings and the presence of some 
     witnesses could have reflected poorly on the dignity of the 
     House.
       The obvious question occurs that if the House managers were 
     unwilling to risk an expeditious handling of their procedures 
     and unwilling to risk the potential for a lewd and lurid 
     spectacle in their chamber, why then should we in the Senate 
     submit our chamber to similar risks when there is no 
     compelling benefit to be gained?
       A process that would allow either side in this matter to 
     call witnesses- with the approval of a bare majority--risks 
     setting in motion a Senate proceeding where we Senators would 
     sit in muted silence, as my friend Mitch McConnell has 
     pointed out, while our chamber becomes the stage for the most 
     lurid and salacious testimony of which we and the American 
     people are all too painfully aware and of which the public 
     wants to hear no more.
       Would whatever marginal benefit this testimony could 
     provide outweigh the cost to the reputation of the Senate or 
     the dignity of this institution?
       I submit that we should not run the risk of allowing this 
     institution to be used by anyone as a forum to appeal to the 
     basest instincts of a few.
       For these reasons, I would strongly urge you, my 
     colleagues, not to run all the substantial risks to the 
     conduct of this process and the reputation of our Senate by 
     permitting the unnecessary procession of witnesses in the 
     well of our chamber.

                          ____________________