[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Page 1043]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 1043]]

                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                   OPENNESS ON THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of 
opening Senate deliberations to the public during the course of the 
impeachment trial against President Clinton. I will therefore support 
the motion to be offered by Senators Harkin and Wellstone to suspend 
the rules in order to open these proceedings to public scrutiny.
  In this trial, the United States Senate is charged by the 
Constitution with deciding whether to remove from office a President 
twice elected by the American people. Although I am certain that every 
member of the Senate will undertake this Constitutional responsibility 
with the utmost gravity and perform ``impartial justice'' as our oath 
commands, I am concerned that the American people will be shut out of 
this process at some of its most crucial moments.
  America's great experiment in democracy trusts the people to elect a 
President in a process that consists of months of public discussion, 
primaries, caucuses, debates, and finally an election open to everyone 
who chooses to participate. In stark contrast, the Senate's rules 
preclude the public from seeing its deliberations on whether an 
impeachment case will be dismissed, whether witnesses will be called or 
further evidence introduced, and even the ultimate debate regarding the 
guilt or innocence of the President. In short, Mr. President, the 
Constitution trusts the people to elect a President, but our current 
Senate impeachment rules do not trust them to have even the most 
passive involvement in our deliberative process, even when the debate 
might result in overturning the people's judgment in a national 
election.
  Let me take a moment to describe again for my colleagues how our 
current impeachment rules work. The Senate is not only the trier of 
fact in this case, but it also acts as the ultimate arbiter of law. It 
can overturn the Chief Justice's rulings on evidentiary questions and 
make decisions, which cannot be appealed to any court, on motions. But 
the Senate's impeachment rules, which were first drafted in connection 
with the Andrew Johnson impeachment and most recently revisited in 
1986, do not permit the Senate to debate any of the decisions that it 
must make, except in closed session. In fact, the rules provide that 
decisions on evidentiary rulings are to be made with no debate 
whatsoever.
  Other motions can be debated, but only in private. So, for example, 
we expect that after the presentations are made on both sides, a motion 
will be made to dismiss the case against the President. Under our 
current rules, the House managers and the President's lawyers will 
argue that motion, but the Senate cannot debate it in open session. In 
fact, if a majority of the Senate wants to preclude debate entirely, it 
can do that by simply voting against a motion to take the Senate into 
private session for deliberations. Thus, before we vote on what could 
be a dispositive motion in this case, our only options are to discuss 
it behind closed doors or not discuss it at all.
  I think this is wrong. We need a chance to debate this motion as 
Senators. I want to hear from my colleagues before I vote, not just 
afterward on television. I intend to carefully and respectfully 
entertain my colleagues' arguments, and I refuse to rule out the 
possibility that a well-reasoned argument offering a different 
perspective will influence my decision. But the American people also 
deserve to hear what we say to each other as we debate this motion. I 
see little to be gained from closing these deliberations and much to be 
lost. We must do everything we can to ensure public confidence in our 
fairness and impartiality. How can we expect the public to have faith 
in us if we close the doors at the very moment when we finally will 
speak on the dispositive questions of this historic trial?
  Opponents of openness argue that in the only Presidential impeachment 
trial in our Nation's history, that of Andrew Johnson, the Senate's 
deliberations were closed. While it may be tempting to rely on the 
precedent of the one previous Presidential impeachment trial, which 
occurred one-hundred and thirty years ago, I believe we should take a 
fresh look at this issue. In particular, we should consider how 
drastically the rules of the Senate and the composition of the Senate 
have changed.
  The Senators who presided over President Johnson's impeachment were 
not elected by the American people directly, but were chosen by the 
various state legislatures, and thus were not directly responsive to 
the popular will. Today, we as Senators represent the citizens of our 
state directly and we are accountable to them at the ballot box. 
Furthermore, until 1929, the Senate debated nominations and treaties in 
closed sessions; and until 1975, many committee sessions took place in 
private. Today, all of our proceedings are open to the public, except 
in rare cases involving national security. The rules governing 
membership in the Senate as well as the openness of Senate proceedings 
have consistently evolved throughout our history toward greater public 
involvement. The rules governing impeachment trial deliberations must 
move in that direction as well.
  Opening these proceedings as Senators Harkin and Wellstone have 
proposed will make the American public feel more involved in the 
process. With the percentage of voters who cast their ballot on 
election day declining in each succeeding election and polls showing 
that the public feels increasingly alienated from the political 
process; and with people openly questioning the relevance of their 
elected representatives and the Congress as a whole to their daily 
lives, we must lay open to the American people our deliberations on the 
most crucial decision short of declaring war that the Constitution 
ultimately entrusts to us. Democracy can only flourish when the people 
feel that they have a stake in the process. Conducting our impeachment 
deliberations in private sends the message that when the really 
important decisions need to be made, the American public is not welcome 
to observe. This is precisely the wrong message to send.
  Thus far in the impeachment process, there has been little to 
celebrate. Most Americans have concluded that the House of 
Representative's inquiry was plagued by partisanship. Many fear that 
the Senate will do the same. With the eyes of the country upon it, the 
Senate has an opportunity to restore America's trust in the 
constitutional process. Open deliberations will enhance the public's 
understanding and discussion of this case. It may even serve to chip 
away some of the pervasive cynicism in our country as Americans watch 
how their elected representatives conduct themselves during 
consideration of the articles. I trust that my colleagues will reach 
their decisions on the merits after careful, reasoned and informed 
consideration of the evidence and the arguments presented. If my trust 
in my colleagues is justified, our deliberations will be thoughtful, 
high-minded, vigorous, and non-partisan. And if we have that 
deliberation in the open, it will be remembered as one of the Senate's 
finest hours.

                          ____________________