[Pages S64-S69]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Matthew 
H. Solomson, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the United States Court of 
Federal Claims for a term of fifteen years.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                                  Iran

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last night, the Department of Defense 
confirmed reports that Iran launched missiles at a number of our 
installations in Iraq that housed U.S. and coalition forces. As details 
continue to emerge, it appears that there have been no casualties. We 
commend the professionalism and bravery of our servicemembers and other 
personnel in harm's way.
  While we are thankful that there were no casualties and we are 
thankful for the safety of American forces and personnel in the region, 
I condemn the attack by the Iranian Government and remain concerned 
about the risk of further escalation of hostilities in the Middle East. 
Now, more than ever, the

[[Page S65]]

United States must be clear-headed and sure-footed about what comes 
next. The American people do not want a war with Iran, and the 
President does not have the authority to wage one.
  Yesterday, we learned that the President had ordered the deployment 
of at least as many as 4,500 soldiers to the region--potentially more. 
Beyond Iraq, the U.S. military now has more than 70,000 troops in the 
Middle East, from Kuwait to Qatar, to Afghanistan, to the UAE, to Saudi 
Arabia, to Jordan, Oman, and Bahrain.
  The President has promised to get the United States out of these 
forever wars in the Middle East, but the arrow is headed in the wrong 
direction.
  Mr. President, how many more is it going to be? How long will they 
remain abroad? What is their objective? How will we assure their 
safety? Will more be deployed in the weeks and months ahead?
  These are urgent questions. The administration must answer them. But 
so far, there has been a profound lack of information provided to 
Congress from the Department of Defense concerning what the Department 
is doing in response to Iran.
  So I join Senators Reed and Durbin in requesting regular briefings 
and documents from the administration detailing the number of troops 
the President has deployed and plans to deploy in support of 
contingency plans with respect to Iran. We need to know if the 
administration is committing additional troops to the region and for 
how long.
  Our letter urges the administration to clarify to the American people 
and our military that international law prohibits the deliberate 
targeting of cultural sites and that such an order would be unlawful 
and should not be followed.
  The American people, rightfully, have serious concerns about a war 
with Iran and whether we are safer today because of this President's 
foreign policy, which is so often impulsive and erratic. I am afraid 
these impulsive and erratic actions throughout the world are making us 
less safe.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. President, now, on impeachment, yesterday, Leader McConnell 
announced that he has the votes to pass a partisan resolution to set 
the rules for the impeachment trial of President Trump. It was another 
unfortunate confirmation that Leader McConnell has no intention of 
working with the minority to establish rules of a fair and honest trial 
that examines the evidence, hears from witnesses, and receives the 
relevant documents.
  I have asked Leader McConnell repeatedly to sit down and negotiate a 
plan where we would have witnesses and documents, and he has refused. 
Instead, Leader McConnell, by his own admission, took his cues from the 
White House when it came to setting the parameters of a trial. Rather 
than engaging in any serious negotiation with the Senate minority, he 
only spent time trying to convince his caucus that we should punt the 
questions of witnesses and documents to a later date.
  I have explained why this proposal makes very little sense from the 
perspective of having a fair trial. The evidence should inform 
arguments in a trial. Evidence should not be an afterthought. Why would 
it make sense for both sides to present their entire case and then 
decide whether the Senate should request the evidence that we already 
know is out there?
  It is extremely telling that Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans 
are not willing to take a forthright position on whether we should call 
witnesses and request documents. They can only say that the issue 
should be addressed later. Their only refuge--not much of one--is to 
kick the can down the road. No one--no one--has advanced an argument as 
to why the four eyewitnesses we have proposed should not testify. No 
one has advanced an argument as to why the three specific sets of 
documents related to the charges against the President should not be 
provided. Republicans can only get behind kicking the can down the road 
because they know we have the full weight of the argument on our side. 
There is virtually no argument why we shouldn't have witnesses and why 
we shouldn't have documents.
  I want to make one thing very clear: There will be votes--repeated 
votes--on the question of witnesses and documents at the trial. The 
initial votes will not be the last votes on the matter. Republicans can 
delay it, but they cannot avoid it. And when those votes come up, 
Senate Republicans--not Leader McConnell, who has already cast his lot 
completely with the defendant, the President--will have two crucial 
things to worry about.
  First, if the Senate runs a sham trial without witnesses, without 
documents, and without all of facts, then the President's acquittal at 
the end of the trial will be meaningless. A trial without all the facts 
is a farce. The verdicts of kangaroo courts are empty.
  Leader McConnell is fond of claiming that the House ran the ``most 
rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern 
history.'' I know that is his talking point, but, in truth, Leader 
McConnell is plotting to run the most rushed, least thorough, and most 
unfair impeachment trial in modern history. If the Senate rushes 
through the President's impeachment, if we actually fail to try the 
case, as the Constitution demands, then the true acquittal the 
President craves will be unobtainable.
  The American people will see right through a partisan trial and 
understand that a rush to judgment renders that moot. They will 
understand that, when you don't want witnesses and documents, you are 
afraid of the truth and that you are covering something up, and that 
the likelihood is strong that you did something very wrong. That is 
common sense. That is what all the polling data shows most Americans 
believe.
  Second, when the Senate has votes on witnesses and documents, my 
Republican colleagues will have to answer to not just the President. 
The American people do not want a coverup. Whatever their view of the 
President, the American people want the Senate to have a fair trial. 
All the data shows that, with two more polls in the last few days. 
Every Senator will be under massive public pressure to support a fair 
trial that examines all the facts.
  The American people understand the gravity of the charges against the 
President. The House has impeached the President for using the powers 
of his public office to benefit himself. The President was impeached 
because the House believes he tried to shake down a foreign leader into 
investigating his political opponent, pressuring a foreign power to 
interfere in our elections. He was impeached because he undertook an 
unprecedented campaign of obstruction to prevent Congress from 
investigating his wrongdoing.
  The Articles of Impeachment suggest the President committed a grave 
injury to our democracy. The conduct they describe is exactly what the 
Founders most feared when they forged the impeachment powers of 
Congress.
  If the Senate fails to hold a fair hearing of those charges, if one 
party--the President's party--decides to rush through a trial without 
hearing all the facts, witnesses, and documents, it will not just be 
the verdict of history that falls heavy on their shoulders. The 
American people, in the here and now, will pass a harsh judgment on 
Senators who participate in a coverup for the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                                  Iran

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night Iran fired more than a dozen 
ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq where American troops 
were based. It was a brazen escalation with dangerous implications for 
the United States and the world.
  We are fortunate. As of today, at this moment, none of our personnel 
have been reported to have been harmed, but the outrageous act was a 
clear and unsurprising retaliation to President Trump's killing of 
Iranian General Soleimani.
  Our first order of business must be the safety of our military and 
civilian personnel in Iraq and the region, and I call on the Trump 
administration to make that the highest priority. Another immediate 
requirement is that the Congress step up and play one of the most 
important and long-neglected constitutional roles that we can envision. 
Article I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution is clear in stating that 
the power to declare war is an explicit authority and power of 
Congress, as it

[[Page S66]]

should be. One should never send our sons and daughters into conflict 
without the knowledge and consent of the American people. Our Founding 
Fathers were wise in making sure that this awesome power did not rest 
with a King-like leader but with the people's elected representatives. 
I have made this same argument regardless of whether the occupant of 
the White House was a Democrat or a Republican.
  Some have had the audacity to argue that the 2001 authorization for 
the use of military force approved by this Congress to respond to the 
September 11, 2001, attacks or the 2002 AUMF, the war with Iraq, apply 
to the situation today in Iran. That is clearly wrong.
  Let me be clear. I cannot imagine that anyone--anyone--who took 
either of those votes nearly 20 years ago--and I was here at that 
time--thought that they were approving a war with Iran two decades 
later. I certainly didn't.
  This Congress should not be a troubling rubberstamp for President 
Trump's worst instincts by marching into another war in the Middle 
East. Simply, it is time for Members of this important body to show 
some courage and do their constitutional jobs. If you want a war with 
Iran, step up and face your constituents and record your vote 
accordingly.
  The War Powers Resolution I filed last week, with the leadership of 
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, will be a first step regarding 
Congress's role in any conflict with Iran but not a last step. 
Ultimately, this President cannot start a war with Iran without the 
approval, under the Constitution, of Congress, and the Republican 
leadership should not roll over and play the role of lapdog when it 
comes to such a serious, life-and-death matter.
  Tragically, this escalation with Iran--and the heightened risk to our 
personnel and security interests--was entirely predictable, except, it 
appears, to President Trump and Secretary Pompeo. The question was 
never the simplistic canard over whether killing Soleimani, a genuinely 
loathsome terrorist actor, was warranted or not, but, clearly, whether 
taking him off the face of the Earth was in the best interest of the 
United States.
  Would such an act really advance the cause and interest and policies 
of our country or precipitate another war in the Middle East? The 
answer is increasingly upon us, and we here must debate this crisis 
before President Trump drags us even closer to this precipice.
  Mr. President, sadly, President Trump's erratic and incoherent 
policies toward Iran have greatly contributed to the current crisis.
  Before taking office, Iran's nuclear weapons program was halted in a 
historic agreement President Obama negotiated in cooperation with our 
European allies, China, and Russia.
  Iran continued its malign behaviors in the region, but containing 
them was much easier without the threat of a nuclear bomb.
  President Trump petulantly withdrew from the nuclear agreement and 
tried to starve Iran of benefits it was to receive from that deal.
  He pursued an incomprehensible erratic policy of regime change by 
trying to flatter and meet with Iranian President Rouhani to negotiate 
a supposedly better deal . . . threating Iran militarily . . . and 
tightening sanctions.
  Those efforts were going nowhere. Iran was lashing out at American 
interests, we were alienated from our key allies, and Iran inched 
closer to restarting its nuclear program.
  And in just the last week alone, President Trump's impulsive actions 
managed to reverse the recent Iraqi protest sentiment that wanted Iran 
to stop meddling in its politics, leading instead to a vote this 
weekend in the Iraqi parliament to expel all U.S. forces.
  Similarly, after months of anti-government protests in Iran, he 
almost instantaneously united Iranian public opinion in hostility 
toward the U.S.
  Iran now announced it is restarting its nuclear program and our 
interests around the region are on high alert and are at risk from 
further Iranian attack for considerable time to come.
  Tragically, all President Trump has to show for his foolish, quote, 
``maximum pressure'' campaign is an enflamed region, attacks on our 
personnel, the U.S. military potentially being evicted from Iraq, 
greater U.S. troop deployments to the Middle East, and an America less 
safe and on the brink of war.
  Most certainly not ``all is well.''
  Have we learned nothing from the thousands of lost lives and injuries 
and trillions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq--a war sold to this 
country on false pretenses?
  Are we going to be led to yet such another fiasco by some of the same 
voices around President Trump who have yet to account for their 
failures in their disastrous war in Iraq?
  Will my Republican colleagues finally show some backbone to an 
unchecked, uninformed, and untrusted President about to bumble into 
another war in the Middle East?
  For the sakes of the sons and daughters who would be sent to any war 
with Iran, I certainly hope so.
  I see that my colleague from Illinois is here and has asked for 
permission to speak on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                 Nomination of Michael George DeSombre

  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I am here to speak on two matters.
  The first is the nomination for Ambassador to the Kingdom of Thailand 
of Michael DeSombre. The Kingdom of Thailand has been a longtime U.S. 
ally and is a key partner for our efforts in the Southeast Asia region, 
both economically and militarily.
  Unfortunately, this nominee has failed to reach out to either me or 
my colleague and my senior Senator, Dick Durbin, both of whom are his 
home-State Senators. He has not reached out to me. So I am asking my 
colleagues to please vote no on cloture on Michael DeSombre to be our 
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Thailand until such time as I am able to 
have a chance to sit down with him.


                                  Iran

  Mr. President, now I would like to speak on the attacks from Iran.
  ``All is well.'' That is what Donald Trump said just hours after a 
dozen missiles were fired at two U.S. military bases last night. That 
is what he said as thousands of troops are readying to deploy to the 
Middle East, to a hotbed of anger, where wearing an American flag on 
your shoulder gets more dangerous by the day. That is what he said as 
his own Nation careens toward a reckless and unauthorized war of his 
own making, born out of his illiteracy in matters ranging from foreign 
policy to common sense.
  Donald Trump never deigned to put on the uniform of this great 
Nation, using his father's money to buy his way out of military service 
when his country needed him in Vietnam.
  Let me make something clear to Donald Trump. All is certainly not 
well when war is on the horizon, just because you want to look like the 
toughest kid on the playground. I am incredibly thankful that no 
Americans were killed last night in Iran's rebuttal attack, but some 
missed missiles should be no cause for celebration for the President. 
Just because there weren't fatalities yesterday doesn't mean there will 
not be any tragedies tomorrow.
  We got into this situation because of Trump's glibness, because he 
liked the feeling of thumping his chest and the roar it got from FOX 
News, because he was so enamored by maximum pressure that he laughed at 
the idea of even minimum diplomacy. Now America is less safe as a 
result. So, no, Mr. President, all is certainly not well.
  Sadly, Trump's glibness is shocking but not surprising. Last weekend, 
he was at his golf course in Florida, while more and more American 
troops were packing their rucks and getting ready to deploy 7,000 miles 
east. He was tweeting from Mar-a-Lago while the Iraqi Parliament was 
voting to expel U.S. servicemembers from their nation. He was rubbing 
shoulders with fellow millionaires from the comfort of his ritzy 
country club while the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS was announcing 
that we no longer have the resources to fight ISIS in Iraq and that, 
instead, we have to hunker down and focus on protecting our troops from 
the acts of revenge that Iran has promised are on the way.
  A potential global conflict is veering closer by the hour, and it is 
because of Donald Trump. It is because of his impetuousness and his 
ignorance. It is because, once again, he has been manipulated by a 
hostile regime into decisions that further their goals while 
endangering the security of the Nation

[[Page S67]]

Trump is actually supposed to be leading.
  When I deployed to Iraq in 2004, I saw firsthand just how eager the 
country was to shake off Iran's influence. I watched as the anti-Iran 
protests continued long after I flew my last mission, as young Iraqis 
spoke out against Iran while I was back in Baghdad just this past 
spring, as protests roiled as recently as last month, when tens of 
thousands of Iraqis flooded the streets, raising voices and picket 
signs, demanding that their government crawl out from under Tehran's 
thumb.
  Now, after Donald Trump decided to kill Major General Qasem Soleimani 
on sovereign Baghdad soil, those same streets are now filled with 
protesters once more. Yet, this time, they are marching in solidarity 
with the enemy that hundreds of Iraqis died marching against just a few 
short weeks ago.
  With one choice, Donald Trump squandered the opportunity that existed 
to push against Iranian influence and for greater democracy and 
stability in the Middle East. In one fell swoop, he somehow managed to 
villainize the United States and victimize Iran, our enemy, isolating 
us from a long-term partner in Iraq and amping up Iran's influence in a 
country that everyone knows is vital to our security interests 
throughout the Middle East.
  Look, Iran didn't want Trump to kill Soleimani, but they were hungry 
for all that has happened as a result. They were starving to go on the 
offensive, desperate to change the narrative, to swing public opinion 
and solidify their power in Iraq, to have a new excuse to attack anyone 
with an American flag on their shoulder and to shrug off the restraints 
of the nuclear deal.
  Like a pawn in a game of chess he didn't even seem to know he was 
playing, Trump was baited into handing them all of that. Like a child 
who is blind to consequences, ignorant of his own ignorance, he has 
given Iran everything they could have asked for in the end, making it 
far more likely that tomorrow--or next week or next month--more 
Americans will be sent into another one of the forever wars he has 
bragged that he, and he alone, would be able to end.
  We used to have the Monroe Doctrine and the Truman doctrine. Now we 
have the Trump doctrine, in which the leader of the free world, the 
Commander in Chief of the greatest fighting force ever assembled, gets 
manipulated again and again by dictators of hostile regimes. We have 
already seen it too many times since he was sworn into office. We have 
seen it played out on the streets of Venezuela and the deserts of 
northeast Syria. We have seen him get manipulated by tyrants in 
Pyongyang and Riyadh, subjugated by despots in Moscow and Ankara, as 
our allies laughed--literally laughed--at him behind his back.
  All these dictators and hostile regimes know. They have realized the 
same thing: The President of the United States is as easy to control as 
a toddler. Sweet-talk him or thump your chest and issue a few 
schoolyard threats and you have got him. He will fall for it every 
time, doing your bidding as if it is his own. I wish this weren't true, 
but my diaper-wearing, 20-month-old daughter has better impulse control 
than this President. Kids in school cafeterias know not to look up when 
someone tells them that ``gullible'' is written on the ceiling, but I 
am pretty sure Donald Trump, a man who once stared directly into a 
solar eclipse, will be caught stealing a glance, just to be sure.
  The thing is, Trump told us who he was long before he stepped into 
the Oval Office, and too many chose not to believe him. As a so-called 
businessman, he left a string of bankruptcies wherever he went, 
destroying both his own companies and the small businesses unlucky 
enough to be caught in his wake.
  Now, though, as Commander in Chief, his incompetence has cost us our 
standing in the world, endangered our national security, and placed an 
even bigger target on our deployed troops. Now, the currency that he is 
spending isn't just the money that his father left him but the blood of 
the men and women who have sworn an oath to defend this Nation to their 
deaths.
  Sixteen years ago, I was one of the many Americans deployed to Iraq, 
one of the many who was willing to sacrifice everything, after our 
Commander in Chief convinced Congress that our Nation's security 
depended on removing Saddam Hussein and replacing his regime with a 
democracy. A decade and a half later, we have spent trillions of 
dollars to achieve that goal. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens 
have been killed or displaced. Thousands of our bravest have died for 
that goal. Thousands more have been wounded and maimed.

  We did not sacrifice all of that for this President to turn our Iraqi 
partners into adversaries who vote to kick us out of the very democracy 
we helped to build.
  I have friends who have done 8, 9, 10 tours in Iraq, who go each time 
knowing they will probably be back on that same stretch of sand in a 
couple of years, who proudly answer the call and who will continue to 
answer the call, fighting for that same patch of desert over and over 
again because they believe--they believe--us when we tell them that 
will make America safer and more secure. They gain a few feet one tour, 
lose an inch or two the next, watching their buddies lose limbs or 
lives over that same piece of ground time and again.
  Those troops show up ready to do their jobs whenever we ask, no 
matter what. We need to honor that. We need to honor their willingness 
to show up and carry out the mission. Now, especially after the attacks 
last night, we in Congress can honor them by doing our job. We are the 
branch vested with that most solemn duty of declaring war, so we need 
to exert our constitutional control over this out-of-control toddler-
in-chief and vote to prevent him from entangling us in another major 
war without legal authorization from Congress. In this moment, at this 
precipice, we need to be doing whatever we can to break the cycle of 
escalation. We need less chest-thumping and more diplomacy.
  Don't get me wrong--I am glad this general is dead. He was 
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American servicemembers over 
the last decades. I also want to stop Iranian influence, but this 
decision by this President has not done that.
  If we truly want to honor our heroes in uniform, we wouldn't send 
them into harm's way without a clear-eyed discussion of the mission we 
are asking them to carry out and the consequences for both them and our 
Nation. Then, after we have that discussion, if we still believe war is 
the right path, I will vote yes. But so far, Trump has not even managed 
to come to us to give us his reasons for his actions. Having never 
sacrificed much himself, he doesn't understand our troops' sacrifices. 
Having never really served anything other than his own self-interests, 
he doesn't give a second thought to their service, treating their 
dedication to our Nation with the kind of reckless abandon he did the 
cash he blew through with each of his bankruptcies.
  I don't need to remind anyone that Donald Trump is a five-deferment 
draft dodger. But his ignorance about military service isn't captured 
just by the privilege he showed when he dodged service in Vietnam--no, 
it is also revealed in his brazen embrace of torture, his hostility 
toward good order and discipline, and his stated desire to commit war 
crimes.
  I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize 
our Commander in Chief for who he really is. Donald Trump will never 
willingly cut the puppet strings that the likes of Vladimir Putin and 
Kim Jong Un are using to make him dance. We need a strong majority in 
the Senate to force such an action, to discuss the AUMF. Until then, 
small-time dictators will continue to have access to the world's most 
powerful marionette, and we will all suffer the consequences.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, let me say that I, along with I think most 
Americans, am grateful that in the rocket attacks launched last night 
by Iran, there were no American casualties. I think I, like most of our 
colleagues here in the Senate, I hope, will have an opportunity later 
today to hear from the administration about the state of events there 
and what the plans are going forward.
  We all know it is a dangerous part of the world. It has been that way 
for decades. The Iranian influence there is a

[[Page S68]]

malign influence that has put at risk and in jeopardy not only American 
lives but lives of countless people throughout that region.
  Mr. Soleimani, who was removed in the last few days, of course, was 
responsible for hundreds of American deaths. His loss is something that 
I think people not only in this country but certainly people in that 
region of the world benefit from because he will no longer be able to 
conduct and operate and commit terrorist attacks and bring about death 
to people all over that region of the world.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. President, I would also like to point out, as I think most know, 
and most of the reporting has reflected this, that Republicans in the 
Senate--and yesterday Leader McConnell made the statement--are prepared 
to take up the Articles of Impeachment when they are delivered to us by 
the House of Representatives. For whatever reason--and it appears that 
the House Democrats under Speaker Pelosi have determined that it is to 
their political advantage for some reason to hang on to those articles 
and to perhaps game this out a little bit. We, of course, don't know 
what that gains them. But in any event, they have not yet, after now 
several weeks, decided to proceed and to bring those over here to the 
Senate.
  I would point out that it can't be because there isn't a process in 
place to deal with those articles when they arrive. Obviously, what 
Republicans in the Senate have agreed to adopt is the Clinton 
precedent--in other words, the precedent that was used when President 
Clinton went through impeachment 21 years ago. At that time, it was 
good enough for all of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate--by a vote of 
100 to 0, a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate--to proceed to those 
articles.
  All Senate Republicans are simply saying is that is a good precedent. 
It was good enough for Democrats and Republicans back then, and it 
ought to be good enough for Republicans and Democrats today.
  What that simply provides for is to allow both sides--the managers in 
the House to come over and make their argument; the President and his 
team to be able to put up their defense; Senators to have an 
opportunity to listen to those arguments and then to propound 
questions, to ask questions through the Chair that could be responded 
to, and then, at that time, to determine whether additional 
information, evidence, witnesses, et cetera, could be brought forward. 
But as a very straightforward process--one, as I said, that met with 
the approval of all 100 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, back 
in 1999--the Clinton precedent seems to me, at least, to be a fair way 
in which to proceed and one that Senate Republicans have agreed to move 
forward with.
  If and when the House Democrats under Speaker Pelosi determine they 
are ready to send those articles over here--it seems like maybe they 
are waiting for something to rescue what I think is an otherwise fairly 
weak argument they have to make, but when those articles arrive here, 
we will have a process in place in which to move forward and get this 
trial underway in the Senate and hopefully hear the arguments and at 
some point--I hope in the not too distant future--conclude this and get 
it behind us and move on to the work the American people sent us here 
to do.
  Obviously, there is an election coming up in November. The first 
votes will start being cast just a few weeks from now in the States of 
Iowa, New Hampshire, and other States, followed very closely on by 
Super Tuesday. The election process is already underway, and I think 
that is the means by which most Americans believe we ought to deal with 
our leadership. In a democratic system of government, we have the 
opportunity as people to express our opinions and to voice our views in 
that manner. I hope that is where we can settle these political 
differences and disputes we have.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. President, while the House continues to be bogged down and 
stalled out over impeachment, the Senate is moving forward with the 
business that I think is important to the daily lives of the American 
people.
  Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee passed the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement out of our committee. I serve as a member of 
that committee. I was pleased to vote to move this agreement one step 
closer to final approval by the full Senate.
  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will benefit almost every 
sector of our economy, from manufacturing, to digital services, to the 
automotive industry. It will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, 
boost our economic output, and increase wages for workers.
  The agreement breaks new ground by including a chapter specifically 
focused on small and medium-sized businesses. This is the first time a 
U.S. trade agreement has ever included a dedicated chapter on this 
topic. Roughly 120,000 small and medium-sized businesses around our 
country export goods and services to Mexico and Canada, including a 
number of businesses in my home State of South Dakota. USMCA will make 
it easier for these businesses to successfully export their product.
  South Dakota businesses and consumers will also benefit from the fact 
that the agreement maintains the current U.S. de minimis threshold--
something I fought hard to protect.
  I am also particularly excited about the benefits the USMCA will 
bring to farmers and ranchers. Farmers and ranchers have had a tough 
time over the past few years. Low commodity and livestock prices, 
natural disasters, and protracted trade disputes have left farmers and 
ranchers in my home State of South Dakota and around the country 
struggling.
  I spend a lot of time at home talking to farmers and ranchers. Again 
and again, they have emphasized to me that the most important thing 
Washington can do to boost our Nation's farm economy is to conclude 
favorable trade deals. That is why I have spent a lot of time this past 
year pushing for adoption of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 
and why I am so pleased that after a long year waiting for the House 
under Speaker Pelosi to take it up and act on it, we are finally going 
to have the opportunity to approve that trade deal in the Senate.
  Canada and Mexico are the No. 1 and No. 2 markets for American 
agricultural products. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will 
preserve and expand farmers' access to these two critical export 
markets, and it will give farmers certainty about what these markets 
will look like long term.
  I am particularly excited about the improvements the agreement makes 
for dairy farmers. If you drive the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, 
SD, you will see firsthand the major dairy expansion South Dakota has 
experienced over the past several decades--I should say, over the past 
several years.
  The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve U.S. dairy farmers' 
role as a key dairy supplier to Mexico, and it will substantially 
expand market access in Canada. In fact, the U.S. International Trade 
Commission estimates that the agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports 
by more than $277 million. The agreement will also expand market access 
for U.S. poultry and egg producers. It will make it easier for U.S. 
producers to export wheat to Canada.
  There is so much more in this agreement.
  Yesterday's Finance Committee vote was a long time coming for South 
Dakota farmers and ranchers. Months of delay by House Democrats left 
agriculture producers wondering if they would ever see the benefits of 
this agreement. But we have at last been able to move forward, and I 
look forward to full Senate passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada 
trade agreement in the very near future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S69]]

  


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Matthew H. Solomson, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the 
     United States Court of Federal Claims for a term of fifteen 
     years.
         Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, 
           Lamar Alexander, John Hoeven, Roger F. Wicker, Pat 
           Roberts, John Thune, Cindy Hyde-Smith, John Boozman, 
           Tom Cotton, Chuck Grassley, Kevin Cramer, Steve Daines, 
           Todd Young, John Cornyn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Matthew H. Solomson, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the 
United States Court of Federal Claims for a term of fifteen years, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Perdue).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 7, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Ex.]

                                YEAS--88

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--7

     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Schumer
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Booker
     Perdue
     Sanders
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 88, the nays are 7.
  The motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________