[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H229-H231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 STILL I RISE: SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas

[[Page H230]]

(Mr. Green) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise.
  I rise because I love my country, and I rise today to talk about 
impeachment and the trial thereof, the trial associated with 
impeachment.
  Madam Speaker, there is much to be said. However, I assure all that I 
will not say it all.
  I do want to call to the attention of those who are paying attention 
that we are now about to embark upon a trial in the Senate.
  Impeachment was a function of the House of Representatives pursuant 
to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the trial is a 
function of the Senate pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the 
Constitution. The trial is to take place in the Senate. The House has 
done its job.
  The House acts similar, not the same, but it behaves in a fashion 
similar to that of a grand jury--similar but not the same. The House 
determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial to take place, 
simply put--similar but not the same as a grand jury.
  Then it becomes a function of the Senate to have a trial. The Senate 
is the only place on planet Earth where a President can be tried.
  The President will not be punished at this trial, assuming that the 
President is found guilty. There is no punishment. The President can be 
removed from office, but there won't be any punishment similar to what 
we call punishment, as it were, with a court, for example, wherein you 
might be fined or accorded some sort of incarceration. None of that has 
to do with removal from office.
  There was a big debate about this trial of the President. In 
Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton speaks at great length 
about the trial of the President.
  It was contemplated in making a final decision that perhaps the 
Supreme Court would be the place to try the President. With much 
debate, without going into the nuances, the details, this was not 
concluded to be the appropriate place for a trial of the President.
  It was finally concluded that the trial would take place in the 
Senate but that, in doing this, there would be a presiding officer, and 
this person would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate 
tries the case with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.
  In Federalist Paper No. 65, there was much talk about this trial and 
how it might move forward. Clearly, the Framers of the Constitution 
contemplated that the trial would receive evidence, that there would be 
evidence received. Clearly, a fair reading of Federalist Paper No. 65 
would cause one to conclude that.
  Of course, the Federalist Papers, as it were, there was a conclusion 
drawn that in this trial, there would be evidence presented. The 
evidence would be presented, of course, by the House. We call the 
persons presenting the evidence managers. They will act as lawyers. The 
Senate will receive this evidence.
  It was anticipated, in my opinion, after perusing Federalist Paper 
No. 65, that the trial could consist of evidence beyond what the House 
might present because at a trial, it is expected that one might call 
witnesses and present documents, present additional evidence.
  It is my opinion that this is especially true, and I believe a good 
many constitutional scholars agree with me, this is especially true if 
it is known that there are witnesses who have evidence that would be of 
great value, witnesses who have evidence, material evidence that is 
relevant, would be of great value in coming to a just conclusion, a 
trial that would have a just conclusion, a trial that would afford not 
only the accused to have witnesses to testify but also the managers to 
have witnesses to testify.
  You see, the country, the United States of America, is entitled to a 
fair trial. The President should have a fair trial, but the people 
should have a fair trial.
  If the trial is to be fair in the Senate and there are witnesses 
available, then those witnesses ought to be called. If the witnesses 
are not called, and it is known that there are witnesses, then the 
question becomes: What are we doing? What is the Senate doing? I say 
``we''; I mean as a country. I am not a Senator, obviously.
  What is the Senate doing? If there are witnesses who are available 
and are willing to testify, and the Senate decides to simply dismiss 
the case, what is the Senate doing?
  Before I answer that question, let me just share this with you. The 
truth be told, not only will the President be on trial but also the 
Senate would be on trial. I will answer what the Senate is doing, but I 
must say first that the Senate is on trial.
  People are watching not only here in the United States of America but 
across the globe. The world wants to see the kind of justice that the 
United States of America accords. The world wants to know whether the 
United States of America will pursue justice such that witnesses who 
are material and relevant will have the opportunity to testify.

                              {time}  1500

  What is the Senate doing if the Senate declines to hear from these 
relevant witnesses? The Senate is having something less than a trial. 
No question, because a trial contemplates witnesses and evidence.
  If the Senate is going to have what may amount to a briefing, then 
there is no need to have Chief Justice Roberts. The Framers constituted 
a trial. They contemplated a trial with the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court presiding.
  If we are going to have only a briefing, why have the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court present? This would be tantamount to a briefing, 
to simply call the Senate to order, receive some comments, some 
statements, and perhaps whatever the House has sent over. But knowing 
that a witness is available--multiple witnesses, I might add--and not 
call any of the multiple witnesses would be tantamount to a briefing.
  If the Senate but engages in a briefing, what would we call the 
results of a briefing? In my opinion, justice delayed, if not denied--
justice delayed, if not denied.
  The Framers of the Constitution contemplated a trial. Federalist 
Paper No. 65 contemplates a trial.
  The Senate acts as the triers of fact. They conclude with their 
findings with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.
  One can easily conclude that the simple dismissal of a case, wherein 
others are available to give testimony, would cause something less than 
a trial and, quite frankly, will be an embarrassment to the Senate, to 
the country, and to our sense of justice. It would be an embarrassment 
to do such a thing.
  As I have read in various publications, this is being contemplated, 
to simply dismiss the case knowing that there are additional witnesses 
to be heard.
  Could it be that in so doing, whether by accident or with intent, 
whether by accident or design, if this occurs, could it be that we are 
now seeing a coverup, a coverup if you know that there are witnesses 
who are available and who would testify but you denied them the 
opportunity to testify by simply dismissing the case? Are you 
participating in a coverup?
  I pray that there are enough Senators who will say: ``I will not 
participate in what appears to be a coverup,'' and will ask for 
witnesses to testify. If a majority of the Senators should so ask, 
there will be testimony presented.
  We live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right. 
They must also look right. It would not and will not look right if the 
Senate knows that there are witnesses available and declines to call 
them. It won't look right.
  Some would say it is right because the Constitution doesn't have 
strict guidelines, in terms of how the Senate is to perform. But I 
assure you, the Framers contemplated a trial.
  If there is no trial, a simple dismissal, there are many people who 
will say that the Senate has engaged in a coverup because evidence that 
should be revealed has been concealed, has been covered, has been 
pushed aside.
  The Senate, in my opinion, will do our country a disservice if it 
simply dismisses this cause.
  It is my belief that the Senate will not dismiss the cause summarily. 
It is my belief that the Senate consists of honorable people who are 
going to take

[[Page H231]]

an oath, and they are going to abide by the oath that they will take.
  I was a judge of a small claims justice court. I will tell you that I 
marveled at how people, after taking the oath as jurors, would rise 
above the many things that would ordinarily influence them and see to 
it that justice was done. It is a wonderful thing to see how people 
take an oath and take that oath seriously.
  I believe that a majority of the Senators will take the oath 
seriously, and I believe that there will be witnesses, or at least one, 
called to testify.
  I believe that this will happen because I think that the Senators who 
will do this will understand that justice is in their hands and that 
this justice has much to do with what the witness will say, but it also 
has much to do with the balance of power that they are there to 
protect.
  The Senators are there to protect the balance of power as it relates 
to the cause that has been presented to them. The Senators will have to 
decide whether or not the House of Representatives is going to become 
less than a coequal branch of government because one of the articles 
deals with the fact that the President has blocked the appearance of 
witnesses in the House and has blocked the presentation of certain 
evidence, documents, if you will, in the House.
  Now it is left up to the Senate to determine whether or not they are 
going to allow a President to block the presentation of evidence and 
walk away without some consequence.
  Blocking evidence without consequence, that is going to be one of the 
considerations before the Senate. Will you protect the balance of 
power? Will you assure this country that no one is above the law?
  Madam Speaker, I assure you that if the Senators do not take this 
cause seriously and simply dismiss it out of hand, they are simply 
saying that the President is above the law.
  The President deserves a trial. The country deserves a trial. We 
ought to have witnesses presented.
  There ought to be some degree of deliberation. The Senate acts as the 
trial jury, the petit jury, if you will, similar to a petit jury, a 
trial jury, but not the same. It is not the same because they can make 
decisions about whether evidence will be presented.
  I had a constituent ask me whether or not the Chief Justice could 
decide to receive the evidence, and I had to tell the truth. The 
response is that the ultimate judge of whether evidence will be 
received will be 51 Senators. The Chief Justice can make rulings, but 
the Senators can overrule the Chief Justice with a vote.
  The world is watching, and the House of Representatives hangs in the 
balance, as it relates to the balance of power.
  If this Senate simply dismisses out of hand, we will have a President 
with no guardrails. There will be no guardrails. It doesn't matter how 
you feel about the President. The question is: How do you feel about 
the country that we love? How do you feel about the notion that no one 
is above the law, a very bedrock principle in this country? How do you 
feel about this?
  What happens once can happen twice, and what happens twice can happen 
multiple times.
  We should not allow this to take place. My clarion call to my 
brethren, my friends, the ladies and gentlepersons of the Senate, is: 
Do more than have a briefing. Do more than simply dismiss the cause out 
of hand.
  There will have to be 51 who will conclude that there will be more 
than a briefing, that there will be a trial.
  I assure you that there are many of us who are waiting to see what 
will happen. Some of us will traverse great distances across the 
country to be in Washington, D.C., to make it clear that they want to 
be a part of this history for various and sundry reasons.
  The world is watching. We have a duty, a responsibility, and an 
obligation to the country to have a fair trial, a trial where witnesses 
are called and witnesses are examined.
  This is not unusual. This is what every person in this country 
anticipates if he or she is charged with an offense. Why would we have 
the President be above this basic premise of calling witnesses to have 
a fair trial? Why would we have one person in the country who is above 
this, above the law? Every person is subjected to the law in this 
country.
  Madam Speaker, I will close with these words: It is not enough for 
things to be right. They must also look right.
  If the Senate does this simply because it has the power, meaning if 
the Senate simply dismisses because it has the power and doesn't call 
witnesses, that won't look right, and in my opinion, it won't be right.
  The Senate has a responsibility to have a trial, and witnesses must 
be called. I do believe that witnesses will be called.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________