February 5, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 24 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in House sectionPrev86 of 108Next
STILL I RISE; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 24
(House of Representatives - February 05, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H844-H845] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] STILL I RISE The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2019, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for 30 minutes. Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, with the love of my country at heart, and I rise today on this day when the Senate has concluded its trial of the President. I rise to say that this House can be very proud of the job that it has done because, notwithstanding all that has been said, this House had the courage to do what the Constitution required pursuant to Article II, Section 4, in terms of the standard for finding a President guilty. The House did what it was supposed to do. The House impeached this President, charged this President with two Articles of Impeachment. One was the obstruction of Congress. I like to think of it as an obstruction of a congressional investigation. The other was abuse of power. The Senate did not find the President guilty of either of the Articles of Impeachment, but the House still did its job because the House has the duty, the responsibility, and the obligation to move forward, notwithstanding what may be the case in the Senate. The House doesn't act based on what the Senate is perceived to do or not do. The House must act based upon the evidence that is before it. And the House did act. And the House did impeach. And as a result, regardless as to the finding of the Senate, the President is impeached forever. And it will be forever written in history that this President was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Why is this so important? It is important because notwithstanding the finding in the Senate, the President knows now that the House has the courage to do its job. The House will put the guardrails up. The President knows that he cannot escape the House because this is where the bar of justice lies in terms of presenting Articles of Impeachment such that they can go to the Senate. The President has to know now that the House is the sword of Damocles. For those who may not know, Damocles was a courtier. He was a person who would flatter the king, let the king believe and tell the king that he was great and that all of his subjects loved him. The king, on one occasion, decided to allow Damocles to occupy the throne. But in so doing, he wanted Damocles to understand that occupying the throne carries with it more than the accolades and all of the kind words that were being said. So he had a sword hung above Damocles by a single hair from a horse's tail. As Damocles sat there, he understood that, at any moment, the sword might fall upon him and do him great harm. To some extent, he was proud and pleased to occupy the throne, but the reality was he realized that it was not the easy occupation that he thought it to be. So he begged the king to release him and allow him to remove himself from under the sword that was hanging over him. The House is the sword of Damocles. We hang there above the President so that he will know that if he commits impeachable acts that the House will act. Now, I understand that there will be those who will say that the Senate acted and found the President not guilty. Yes, ``not guilty,'' not ``innocent.'' The Senate did not proclaim the President innocent. They simply said he is not guilty--a lot of difference between not guilty and innocent. To be innocent means you have been found to have done absolutely nothing wrong, you are totally without blame, and you are a person who can claim that you have done absolutely nothing wrong without any blame at all. Well, ``not guilty'' simply means that the evidence presented, as they reviewed it, they did not conclude that the President could be found guilty. So he was found not guilty, but he was not proclaimed innocent by the Senate. And the Senate cannot proclaim that a President who has been found not guilty cannot be impeached again. The Senate deals with the question of a trial, and there is some question as to whether or not this was an appropriate trial pursuant to the Constitution. But the Senate deals with the trial. It is the House that deals with impeachment. As such, the House found that the President should have been impeached, did impeach, but also, the law under the Constitution allows the House to impeach again if the President is found to have engaged in impeachable offenses. The House is not allowed simply one opportunity to impeach a reckless, ruthless, lawless President. The House can impeach each and every time the President commits an impeachable act. And if the President has committed an impeachable act, the House can impeach. There will be those who will say that we are now calling for impeachment again. This is not true. I will make it perspicuously clear: Not the case. Not calling for impeachment at this time, but indicating that the rules, pursuant to the Constitution, allow for impeachment at any time the President commits acts that are impeachable. Madam Speaker, I must say if the President does commit another impeachable act, I believe that this House will uphold its responsibility, its duty, and its obligation, as it has done. I am proud to be associated with the House and what it has done because I am proud to say we have upheld the Constitution. This is what we were required to do, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and not allow a President to simply do as he would without any restrictions on him. I understand that the President has decided that, as the executive, he can dictate the rules for a trial, the rules for impeachment, but the House did not allow him to do so, such that it would retreat from its responsibility. The House has said: Mr. President, there are guardrails, and these guardrails we will not allow you to simply ignore. The guardrails are such that you will have to conform to the Constitution. I believe that what the Senate has done has not benefited the country, but I also know that what the House has done was send a message that the President is not beyond reproach, that the House of Representatives still stands here as a sentinel on duty to assure this country that if the President steps out of line and does something that is impeachable, the House will indeed act upon what the President may have done. I believe in the separation of powers. I believe that the executive branch has certain powers. I believe that the judicial branch has certain powers and that the legislative branch has certain powers. But I know that only the House has the power to impeach. And I know that the President cannot withhold witnesses, cannot withhold evidence from the House such that it cannot move forward with the proper investigation. I know that he cannot do this with impunity. He can't do it with immunity of some sort. He is not immune, and the House has demonstrated this, that he is not immune. Notwithstanding his behavior, the House can still move forward with its duty and responsibility as it did and impeach. It is also now clear that the House does not have to find out a crime has been committed, in the sense of a statutory, codified offense. There does not [[Page H845]] have to be a crime that has been defined in law such that it is penally punished. Not so. The Constitution doesn't require it. In fact, Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for offenses that were not crimes, in the sense that they were something defined by statute, something that has already been codified. It wasn't required then; it isn't required now. Andrew Johnson was impeached on Article X of the articles against him for acts rooted in his bigotry and his hatred. He was impeached, and the root of it was he did not want the freed slaves to enjoy the same rights as other people in this country. He fought the Freedmen's Bureau. He did everything that he could to prevent them from having the same rights as others in this country. The radical Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson in 1868 for having utterances and statements that were harmful. He demeaned the House of Representatives. But it was all rooted in his hate and racism, and as a result, no crime, but he was impeached. {time} 1930 We now know that this can be done. And this President has done some things that are dreadful, some things that I would not want to see a President do and that, in my opinion, are in violation of the Constitution. You don't have to commit a statutory offense to be found guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor. We know this now. When we first started this journey, we had to fight this battle to convince people, and people have finally been convinced. There are some outliers who will contend that you have to commit a crime in the sense that it is defined and codified as a statute, but this is not the case. All of the leading scholars agree with the comments that I am sharing with you tonight. So we know now that, if the President inculcates bigotry into his policies, he can be impeached. For bigotry in policies emanating from the Presidency, he can be impeached. We don't have to have bigoted policies emanating from the President. We don't have to have this. There is no requirement in this country that we must suffer a President who presents bigotry into public discourse. There is no requirement. We have an obligation in this country to defend all people. All of the people in this country should have equal protection under the law. We can't allow anyone in this country to present circumstances or cause circumstances to come into existence that may cause harm to people. When you say ugly things about people and you tell police officers that you don't have to be nice when you are arresting a person, you are inviting harm to be caused to a certain person who may be arrested. Anybody who is arrested should still be treated as a human being with certain dignity and respect simply because that certain person is in the care, custody, and control of the authorities. The authorities have a duty to respect the people that they arrest. Well, you don't invite persons to behave otherwise, which is something this President has done. So I want the persons within the sound of my voice to know that I am proud of what the House has done. The President now knows that he can be impeached, that we are the sword of Damocles. The House has a duty and responsibility to do what it did, and it can do it again if the President commits additional impeachable acts. The President has said he could go out on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and do it with immunity. He didn't use those exact words. Well, if he does, using his phraseology of going out and doing this dastardly deed, he will be impeached. We will not allow a President to do such a thing. And I, quite frankly, think it is inappropriate for him to joke about such a thing. I say it only because I want people to know that I take seriously the possibility of the President doing something else, not going out on Fifth Avenue, but doing something else. The President has demonstrated that he is a recidivist, and he will engage in recidivism; and when he does engage in recidivism, we have a responsibility to the Constitution to impeach him for his misdeeds. Finally, this: I love this country. It means something to me to be a citizen of this country. I respect the opportunity that I have to be a part of this Congress. I don't want it said that, on my watch, when we had a reckless, ruthless President, I failed to live up to my responsibilities. I want it said that, though I may have had to stand alone at some point, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. I want it said that I recognize the fact that, if you tolerate bigotry, you perpetuate it. And I want it said that I did not tolerate it, and that I did all that I could to bring a President who engaged in bigotry and racism and Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, nativism, all of the invidious phobias, anti-Semitism, that I did all that I could to bring him to the bar of justice in the House of Representatives. But I also would want the record to show that I said tonight that I will do all that I can, if he engages again, to bring him before the bar of justice, and that certain offenses that he has committed have not been brought to the bar of justice and that it is never too late, as long as he is in office, to bring the President before the bar of justice. This is where it all starts, right here in the House of Representatives. I am so proud of my colleagues who voted to impeach this President. The House can be proud of what it has done. The President knows that here there is courage and there is the courage to bring him to justice. He will forever be an impeached President. He may have been found not guilty, but the impeachment is not eradicated, it is not obliterated, it is not eliminated by virtue of the fact that the Senate chose not to find the President guilty. I happen to absolutely, totally, and completely disagree with the Senate and its findings. I think the Senate made the wrong decision, but it made a decision, and that decision will stand. But I also know that that decision can be appealed. The decision of the Senate can be appealed, and it will be appealed to a higher court, the court that will convene in November. I believe that that court will have a different finding in November of this year. I love my country. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President. ____________________
All in House sectionPrev86 of 108Next