[Pages S169-S176]
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 Peter 
Gaynor, of Rhode Island, to be Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
  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. Madam 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the House of Representatives has 
impeached the President for a very serious offense: coercing a foreign 
leader into interfering in our elections, using the powers of the 
Presidency, the most powerful public office in the Nation, to benefit 
himself--to actually influence the election, which should be decided by 
American citizens, not by a foreign power. When debating the 
impeachment clause of the Constitution, the Founders worried about 
foreign capitals having undue influence over our country. Hamilton, 
writing in the Federalist Papers, described impeachable offenses as 
abuses or violations of some public trust.
  In the impeachment of President Trump, the question the Senate will 
be asked to answer is whether the President did, in fact, abuse his 
public trust and, by doing so, invite the very foreign influence the 
Founders feared would be a corruption of our democracy. To answer that 
question, to decide whether the President merits acquittal and removal 
from office, the Senate must conduct a fair trial. A fair trial has 
witnesses. A fair trial has relevant documents as a part of the record. 
A fair trial seeks the truth--no more, no less.
  That is why Democrats have asked to call four fact witnesses and 
subpoena three specific sets of relevant documents related to the 
President's misconduct with Ukraine. At the moment, my Republican 
colleagues are opposing these witnesses and documents, but they can't 
seem to find a real reason why. Most are unwilling to argue that 
witnesses shouldn't come before the Senate. They can only support 
delaying the decision until most of the trial is over, like a magic 
eight ball that keeps saying: Ask again later.
  The most the Republican leader can do is smear our request as some 
partisan fishing expedition intended to damage the President, but the 
leader himself has warned that the witnesses we have requested might 
not help the House managers' case against the President. He is right 
about that. These are the President's top advisers. They are appointed 
by him, vetted by him. They work with him.
  We don't know what those witnesses will say or what the documents 
will reveal. They could hurt the President's case or they could help 
the President's case. We don't know.
  We know one thing. We want the truth on something as weighty and 
profound as an impeachment trial. Does Leader McConnell want the truth? 
Do Senate Republicans want the truth?
  I would remind the leader that our request for witnesses and 
documents is very much in line with the Senate's history. The 
Republican leader keeps citing precedent. Well, here is precedent, Mr. 
Leader. There have been two Presidential impeachment trials in history. 
Both--both--had witnesses. The trial of Andrew Johnson had 41 
witnesses. There have been 16 completed impeachment trials in the 
Senate's entire history. In every one, except one, the trial in 1799 of 
Senator William Blount, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, 
every Senate impeachment trial in history has included witnesses.
  You want precedent? Precedent says witnesses overwhelmingly.
  The long arc of history casts a shadow on the proceedings we are 
about to undertake. It suggests something obvious--that the Senate has 
always believed trials were about evidence and getting the truth. Of 
the 16 impeachment trials, 15 had witnesses and 1 was dismissed early. 
Do Senate Republicans want to break that lengthy historical precedent 
by conducting the first impeachment trial of a President in history 
with no witnesses? Let me ask that question again. This is weighty. 
This is vital. This is about the Republic. Do Senate Republicans want 
to break the lengthy historical precedent that said witnesses should be 
at in impeachment trial by conducting the first impeachment trial of 
the President in history--in history, since 1789--with no witnesses?

  I ask that question because that seems to be where the Republican 
leader wants us to be headed. The Republican leader has designed a 
schedule for a Senate trial that might--might--have us vote on 
witnesses and documents after the presentations from both sides have 
been concluded--the judicial equivalent of putting the cart before the 
horse. Of course, Leader McConnell has made no guarantee that he will 
support voting on witnesses and documents at that time--only that 
supposedly he will be open to the idea.
  I want my Republican colleagues to bear in mind that if we consider 
witnesses at a later date, it could extend the trial by several days, 
maybe several weeks, as witnesses did during the Clinton trial.
  Leader McConnell has said that after the arguments are made, we 
should vote and move on. Do my Republican colleagues really believe 
Leader McConnell will have an open mind about witnesses at a later date 
when they might extend the trial much longer than he wants? I am not in 
the prediction business, but I can bet that

[[Page S170]]

when the time comes, Leader McConnell will say that we have heard 
enough, that the trial shouldn't drag on any longer, that the Senate 
doesn't need witnesses and documents, and that we should, just as he 
once said ``vote and move on.''
  Before Senate Republicans are so quick to reject the Democratic 
proposal for a limited list of relevant witnesses and documents, I want 
them to consider that our proposal would save the Senate time. We want 
to confront the issue now, not be forced to extend the trial later. We 
want both the House managers and the White House defense counsel to 
have time to incorporate the testimony of witnesses into their 
presentations. That is the proper way to proceed. That is what happens 
at trials--collect all the evidence at the beginning, not at the end.
  All we are asking is for the President's own men, his appointees, to 
come forward and tell their side of the story. The American people want 
a fair trial in the Senate. The American people know that a trial 
without witnesses and documents is not a real trial; it is a sham 
trial. And the American people will be able to tell the difference 
between a fair hearing of the facts and a coverup.


                                  Iran

  Madam President, on Iran, the Senate will soon consider Senator 
Kaine's War Powers Resolution, which would prevent further hostilities 
with Iran without congressional approval. It is a crucial vote that 
will correctly assert this body's constitutional authority over matters 
of war and peace, and it is certainly timely.
  The past few weeks have highlighted the President's impulsive, 
erratic, and often reckless foreign policy, the consequences of which 
have made Americans less safe and unnecessarily put our Armed Forces in 
harm's way. From North Korea, to Syria, to Russia, it is impossible to 
say the world is a safer place today than when President Trump took 
office, and it is very possible to say that President Trump, by his 
impulsive, erratic, and ego-driven actions, has made things worse.
  With respect to Iran, the President's recent actions have increased 
the risk of further hostilities in the Middle East. The President 
campaigned on getting the United States out of ``endless wars'' in the 
Middle East, but the President has deployed thousands more U.S. troops 
in the Middle East with hardly an explanation to Congress or to the 
American people.
  I have long been concerned that the President's chaotic, impulsive 
decisionmaking might stumble us into war. With Iran, like with many 
other places around the globe, the President's policy has brought us 
closer to the kind of endless war the President promised we would 
avoid.
  It is past time for Congress to place a check on this President. On 
matters of war and peace, congressional oversight and congressional 
prerogatives are not optional. I urge my colleagues on both sides to 
vote in favor of the Kaine resolution.
  Senator Sanders also has a bill that would deny funding for a war 
with Iran, of which I am a proud cosponsor. The Senate should consider 
that legislation as well. As the situation with Iran continues to 
evolve, the administration must come back and brief Congress on all 
major developments, troop deployments, and long-term strategy in the 
region.


                                 China

  Madam President, finally, on China, tomorrow the United States will 
complete a signing ceremony for the so-called phase one trade agreement 
with China. After 18 months of negotiations, the phase one deal is 
remarkable for how little it achieves at an enormous price.
  President Trump has agreed to scale back some tariffs on Chinese 
goods in exchange for temporary assurances that China will increase its 
purchase of U.S. exports over the next few years, particularly in 
agriculture.
  For all the effort and turmoil over the past few years, the deal 
President Trump will sign tomorrow hardly seems to advance the United 
States past square one. It fails to address the deep structural 
inequalities in the trade relationship between China and the United 
States.
  For the past decade, China has stolen American intellectual property 
through forced technology transfers of our companies and through 
outright cyber theft. The President's phase one deal doesn't even 
address this issue. China has routinely subsidized its most important 
domestic industries. Not just labor-intensive industries but even 
industries like Huawei are subsidized to gain unfair advantage over 
American companies. China has dumped goods illegally into our markets. 
It has manipulated its currency to keep prices low. The President's 
phase one deal doesn't address any of these issues.
  Not only does this deal fail to make any meaningful progress toward 
ending China's most flagrant abuses, what it does achieve on the 
agricultural side may well be a day late and a dollar short. China has 
already made long-term contracts with other producers of soybeans and 
other goods in places like Argentina and Brazil. American farmers have 
already lost billions over the last 2 years, watched their markets 
disappear, and too many American farms have gone bankrupt in the time 
that it took President Trump to reach this deal.
  I have publicly praised the President when he is tough on China, at 
some political cost. I have said he has had better instincts on China 
than previous administrations. Few politicians have been talking about 
securing real reforms to China's economic policies longer than I have. 
But I fear that with an election around the corner, the President is 
taking the easy way out--settling for a weak deal that will cost 
American businesses, American farmers, and American workers for years 
and years to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                                  Iran

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, this week we expect to vote on a War 
Powers Resolution related to operations in Iran. I am pleased that the 
President's demonstration of strength has restored our position of 
credible deterrence. Some have challenged that the President's action 
was escalatory, but the reality is that Iran had become increasingly 
bold. The United States responded in self-defense, and, as the 
President has said, it appears that Iran is standing down.
  Hopefully Iran's tragic error in shooting down a civilian passenger 
plane has served as a sobering check on the regime's activities. We 
have seen thousands of Iranians rallying in the streets in recent days 
protesting the bringing down of the passenger plane and calling for 
change. I hope the people of Iran are able to organize and demonstrate 
in safety and that their hopes and prayers for change are answered.
  Soleimani's death provides an opportunity for Iran to rethink its 
direction, to move away from brutally oppressing its citizens and 
fomenting violence throughout the Middle East. We should encourage such 
rethinking by continuing to make it clear through the sanctions the 
President has imposed and other measures that we will not accept 
Iranian aggression against Americans or our allies.


                              Impeachment

  Madam President, on an issue closer to home, at the end of last week, 
Speaker Pelosi announced that she was finally ready to send over the 
Articles of Impeachment--the next step in a saga that began 3 years 
ago. That is right, on January 20, 2017--Inauguration Day--the 
Washington Post ran an article entitled ``The campaign to impeach 
President Trump has begun.''
  It is important that we not forget this. We need to remember how we 
got here. Democrats would like to think that this impeachment was the 
result of a high-minded, impartial, thoughtful procession. It wasn't. 
It was the result of a 3-year-long partisan crusade to damage or remove 
this President.
  It is fair to say that the actual impeachment process was the most 
rushed, most biased, and least impartial impeachment process in 
history. For evidence, look no further than the Democrats' behavior in 
the wake of the impeachment vote.
  Democrats rushed the Articles of Impeachment through the House 
because, we were told, it was urgent that the President be removed from 
office. One Democrat even said that the House was acting hastily 
because there was ``a crime spree in progress.'' And then what did 
Democrats do? Instead of

[[Page S171]]

sending the Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate so the Senate 
could conduct a trial, Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic caucus 
sat on the articles for close to a month.
  The delay was so flagrantly unjustified that even Senate Democrats 
started to express their impatience with the House. ``If it's serious 
and urgent, send them over.'' That is a quote from the highest ranking 
Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She went on to say: ``If it 
isn't, don't send it over.'' A fair point. But House Democrats never 
really believed in the seriousness and urgency of the articles. If they 
had, they would have sent them over to the Senate immediately.
  Of course, while Senate Democrats have gotten impatient with the 
House, Senate Democrats have also demonstrated a healthy dose of 
partisanship around the impeachment.
  Senate Republicans have proposed modeling the rules for the first 
phase of this impeachment trial on the rules that governed the Clinton 
impeachment trial--rules that were agreed to unanimously by Democrats 
and Republicans at the time--but Senate Democrats are having none of 
it. These rules were eminently fair and, as I said, were supported by 
every single Democrat before President Clinton's impeachment trial. 
These rules gave both sides--the House impeachment managers and the 
President and his team--an opportunity to make their case, and they 
gave Senators an opportunity to question both sides and only then make 
a determination as to whether additional information or witnesses were 
needed. These rules were good enough for Democrats and Republicans back 
then; they ought to be good enough for Democrats and Republicans today.
  I am glad Speaker Pelosi is finally sending over the articles so we 
can move forward with this process and then get back to doing the work 
the American people sent us here to do, but I am saddened by the damage 
Democrats have done to the institution and the processes of government.
  The overturning of an election--the overturning of the American 
people's choice--is a very serious thing. It is a remedy to be wielded 
only with careful deliberation, in the most serious circumstances.
  The Democrats have spent the past 3 years treating impeachment not as 
a remedy of last resort but as a way of overturning an election where 
they didn't like the outcome. That is not what impeachment was intended 
to be. By hijacking the impeachment process for political purposes, 
Democrats have made it clear that they believe election outcomes don't 
matter and that they believe it should be the Democratic Party, not the 
democratic process, that decides elections. And that is profoundly 
disturbing.
  This fall, the American people will have a chance to render their 
verdict on the Trump Presidency. In fact, Presidential primary voting 
begins in just a few short weeks. It is a great pity that Democrats 
have sought to preempt the next Presidential election with a partisan 
impeachment process in Washington, DC.
  I hope we can move beyond this impeachment and the hyper-partisanship 
the Democrats have engaged in over the past 3 years. This institution 
should be in the business of governing, not endlessly trying to 
overturn an election. I hope in the future we can keep impeachment as a 
serious remedy for the most serious of crimes, not as a political 
weapon to be used whenever a partisan majority in Congress despises the 
occupant in the White House.
  We will do our constitutional duty in the Senate over the next few 
weeks, and after that, I look forward to getting back to the business 
of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senate as it is currently meeting is 
in the normal course of business, but in just a few days, this Senate 
Chamber will change. It will no longer be the Senate considering 
resolutions and legislation; it will be a Senate considering an 
impeachment proceeding. It will be a piece of history for those who 
watch. This will be only the third time in the history of the United 
States of America that the Senate will be convening for an impeachment 
proceeding relative to the President of the United States. It is a 
matter of the most serious constitutional gravity, and I hope all of us 
as Members of the Senate will consider it and approach it that way.
  Under the Constitution, we have a unique role as Members of the 
Senate. We are the jurors; we are the jury. There are 100 Senators who 
will decide whether the Articles of Impeachment should be voted on and 
whether the impeachment of the President of the United States should 
proceed.
  We are also in a unique role under the Constitution in that we aren't 
just jurors sitting silently in the jury box. We are also judges in one 
respect. We set up the procedure, the way the trial moves forward.
  Before I was elected to Congress, I used to practice trial law, and 
jurors had the ultimate word in terms of the fate of my clients, but 
the jurors didn't decide the procedure of the trial. That was decided 
by a judge. When it comes to an impeachment proceeding under the 
Constitution, the actual process or the procedure of the impeachment 
trial is decided by the jurors, the Senators. It is very unusual, but 
it was a decision made by our Founding Fathers to put this ultimate 
test of impeachment in the hands of the Senators.
  Why pick the Senate? It could have gone to the Supreme Court or some 
other tribunal. Alexander Hamilton said that there were two reasons 
they wanted to bring the impeachment trial to the floor of the Senate. 
He said that the Senators, by their nature and political composition, 
would be ``independent and dignified''--his words, ``independent and 
dignified.'' I hope he is right.
  I was here 20 years ago during the Clinton impeachment trial, and I 
can remember very well how the temperament and mood and environment on 
the floor of the Senate changed when the impeachment proceedings began. 
There was the arrival of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his 
judicial role to sit where the current Presiding Officer of the Senate 
is sitting and to preside over the trial. Instantly, when you walked 
into the Chamber and saw the Chief Justice, you knew this was 
different. This was a new challenge. This was being treated differently 
by the Constitution.
  Then, of course, each of us, having been sworn in to be Senators 
representing the States that sent us, take a separate oath when it 
comes to our responsibilities under impeachment. That oath is fairly 
routine, but it includes one phrase that stands out when I read it. We 
swear that we will impart ``impartial justice'' as impeachment jurors--
impartial justice. We hold up our hands and swear. We sign the book on 
the desk at the front of the Senate, as a matter of history, that we 
have made this oath for impartial justice. That is why I have been 
troubled, as we lead up to this impeachment proceeding, when I hear 
some of the statements and speeches that have been made on the floor of 
the Senate.
  The Republican leader from Kentucky said very openly several weeks 
ago that he was going to work with the President's defense team to 
prepare for how he would handle the impeachment proceedings in the 
Senate. I understand there are some elements of this that just make 
sense that there would be conversation with the managers of the 
impeachment as to the procedure to be followed. But what we have heard, 
even today, on the floor of the Senate is more than just cooperation in 
setting up the workings of the impeachment proceeding. What we have 
heard from the Republican majority leader is nothing short of an 
opening statement at a trial. He has come to the floor even today to 
question, challenge, diminish, even ridicule the entire impeachment 
proceeding. To me, that steps over a line--a line where we were sworn 
to show impartial justice in this proceeding. When the Senator from 
Kentucky comes to the floor and says, for example, that this is a 
hurried process, he raises the question as to whether the impeachment 
proceedings in the House were appropriate. He is correct when he says 
that the previous impeachments have had lengthy investigations leading 
up to them. In fact, one I recall before I was elected to Congress 
involving President Nixon went on for months on questions of the 
Watergate scandal, which was at the heart of the proposed Nixon 
impeachment. There were special prosecutors and investigators and 
people who worked

[[Page S172]]

constantly for month after month after month before the Articles of 
Impeachment were being prepared. You may recall that President Nixon 
resigned before the actual impeachment proceeding.
  But, then again, there was the Ken Starr investigation under 
President Clinton. It, too, went on for months with sworn testimony and 
depositions and videotaped proceedings of witnesses that led up to the 
impeachment.
  This is different. The case is being brought to us by the House of 
Representatives for the impeachment of President Trump. It is true that 
in comparison it had a shorter investigative process, shorter than the 
two I just referenced. But it is also true that the second count of the 
Articles of Impeachment raises the question as to whether the President 
cooperated in providing witnesses and evidence that led to the Articles 
of Impeachment in the House, and that is one of the counts of 
impeachment against him--that he didn't participate and cooperate.
  For the Senator from Kentucky to stand here and say that it should 
have been a lengthier proceeding in the House--there should have been 
more witnesses; there should have been more evidence--is to ignore the 
obvious. One of the counts of impeachment raises the question as to 
whether the President appropriately denied any cooperation with the 
House impeachment proceeding.
  Secondly, the Senator from Kentucky comes to the floor and 
consistently says that the suggestion that we should allow witnesses 
and evidence to be considered is evidence of the weakness of the case 
coming out of the House of Representatives. Well, there aren't an exact 
number of parallels between ordinary civil and criminal litigation and 
impeachment proceedings, but in the world of law and trials, there is 
usually an opening pleading or proceeding through a grand jury that 
leads to charges against an individual. I have been through that many 
times on the civil side--rarely, but once in a while, on the criminal 
side. The trial itself takes that initial pleading, that initial 
statement of a case, and elaborates on it, opens up, brings in evidence 
and witnesses on both sides.
  When we talk about witnesses and evidence coming before the Senate on 
any impeachment proceeding with President Trump, it isn't just on one 
side of the case. What we are suggesting is there should be witnesses 
from both sides. Let the President bring those who he believes can 
speak most convincingly to his innocence. Let the House managers 
supporting impeachment take the opposite position and find those 
witnesses who they think tell the story from their side of the case. 
That is the nature of a trial. The American people have seen it over 
and over again in their personal lives and in what they have witnessed 
on television and other places. Both sides put on their best evidence, 
and, ultimately, the jury decides the truth of the matter. That is all 
the Democrats are asking for here.
  We are asking that the impeachment proceeding witnesses be allowed on 
both sides, evidence be allowed on both sides, and, ultimately, as 
Senator Schumer said earlier, we get to the truth of the matter; we 
make our decision in the Senate; and the American people get to witness 
this democratic process.
  Senator McConnell has said in many different places that he resists 
this idea of witnesses and evidence, but I hope he will reconsider. I 
hope at least four Republican Senators will reconsider--if they are in 
Senator McConnell's position--and opt, instead, for the historic 
precedent of witnesses and evidence at a trial.
  The Senate will change this week. If you are witnessing it through C-
SPAN or in the audience in the Galleries, you will notice it. First, 
the Senators will be on the floor of the Senate, which is rare, and 
second, with the Chief Justice presiding, there is a much different air 
in the proceedings and business of the Senate.
  The final point I want to make is that I am troubled by the continued 
suggestion that the prospect of an impeachment trial is holding the 
Senate hostage, that we cannot consider serious legislation because of 
the possibility of an impeachment trial. It is true that once the trial 
starts, we devote ourselves to it. But that hasn't happened.
  So how do the leaders of the Senate on the Republican side explain 
the year 2019? It was a unique year in the history of the Senate. It 
was unique for what we failed to do. During the course of the entire 
year, the Senate considered 22 amendments total. There were 22 
amendments on the floor of the Senate. Six were offered by the junior 
Senator from Kentucky, all of which, I believe, failed. But there were 
22 amendments in a year. I can tell you that it is not unusual if you 
look at the history of the Senate for us to consider 22 amendments in 
the course of a week, sometimes in the course of a day. But in the 
entire year, there were only 22 amendments. Why? Because Senator 
McConnell, who has the power under the Senate rules, decided there 
would be no business before the Senate but for the filling of judicial 
vacancies and other Executive appointments. That was it. A handful of 
other pieces of legislation were considered--the Defense authorization 
bill and, finally, a massive spending bill--but never with amendments. 
So to suggest that the impeachment trial has something to do with the 
inactivity in the Senate is to ignore the obvious.
  Last year, before there were any Articles of Impeachment, Senator 
McConnell, under his leadership, called for virtually nothing to be 
debated and considered on the floor of the Senate. I have said this 
before, and I stand by it. This is a Senate Chamber, but too many days, 
in too many respects, it is a storage facility. We are storing the 
desks of the Senate, once occupied by Senators who came here to work. 
They offered bills, offered amendments, had real debates and votes. We 
look at these desks and say: Boy, it must have been a great day in the 
Senate when you actually did that.
  For the Republicans to blame the impeachment process for the 
inactivity of last year defies common sense. For that reason, I hope 
that when the impeachment trial ends, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, 
the Republican majority leader, will consider at least 1 of the more 
than 200 bills that the Democratic House of Representatives has sent us 
to consider--bills relating to healthcare, bills relating to the price 
of prescription drugs, bills relating to student loans, bills relating 
to immigration. They are all sitting somewhere in a file cabinet and a 
computer somewhere in Senator McConnell's office. Maybe we can be the 
Senate after the impeachment trial. It is in the hands of Senator 
McConnell to make that decision.


                         War Powers Resolution

  Madam President, let me speak to an issue that has been raised this 
morning, which is timely and critically important. The President 
tweeted last week to the country: ``All is well.'' As we were teetering 
on the verge of war with Iran, he tweeted: ``All is well.''
  But now details have come to light, and it is clear that all is not 
well. U.S. servicemembers of Ain Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq faced a 
sustained hour and a half of Iranian retaliatory attacks last week--a 
barrage described by one of the most senior commanders on the base as 
``designed and organized to inflict as many casualties as possible.'' 
Contrary to the tweet by our President that all is well, reports from 
witnesses suggest that despite heroic planning, we were, in fact, very 
fortunate--if not lucky--that none of our U.S. personnel were killed.
  This gets me to the issue that needs to be brought before the Senate, 
one that goes to the heart of this Senate's critical, often neglected, 
constitutional responsibility. It is not whether Iranian General 
Soleimani was an enemy with American blood on his hands--that is a 
fact--but it is too simplistic to stop there. We have known that fact 
for a long time. Previous Presidents of both political parties have 
known General Soleimani's background--it is not in dispute--but it is a 
distraction to stop with that conversation.

  The real question is whether President Trump, when he made the 
decision to target General Soleimani, considered the possibility that 
it would quickly escalate into a much larger confrontation with Iran, 
which is the possibility of a war--a distinct possibility and one never 
authorized by Congress.
  Based on the administration's briefing last week, which I sat 
through, I

[[Page S173]]

doubt if even they think they need congressional authorization to ask 
our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters to participate in 
another war in the Middle East. The first question asked by Senator 
McConnell at the briefing, which was attended by the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, was whether there was a need for authorization under the War 
Powers Act before the United States continued to have its conflict with 
Iran. The answer that came from the Secretary of Defense was that there 
was no authorization necessary. He went on to say that he thought even 
the debate over authorization could be unsettling and troublesome for 
our troops if it appeared that we were uncertain as to whether we were 
ready to go to war.
  Based on that briefing, I doubt this administration believes any 
congressional authorization is needed for the military action that has 
been taken or that might even be contemplated. Quite simply, the fact 
that the Senate has not exercised its constitutional right, authority, 
and responsibility to determine whether we should go to war with Iran 
troubles me. I am deeply concerned that if Iran retaliates further or 
if the President decides to escalate the confrontation, this Chamber 
will not even recognize--let alone act on--its constitutional 
responsibility under Article I, Section 8.
  That is why I have joined my colleague and friend Senator Tim Kaine, 
of Virginia, in invoking the War Powers Act--a law passed over 
President Nixon's veto after Presidents of both parties deliberately 
misled the American people on the Vietnam war. It is hard for those who 
did not live during that era to appreciate what that war did to this 
Nation. First and foremost, it cost us almost 50,000 American lives, 
and hundreds of thousands of Americans were injured--men and women in 
uniform who bravely served our country. They gave their lives and came 
home with the scars they carried for their lifetimes. The billions of 
dollars that were spent and our involvement in that war, which divided 
this country at its core, are hard to put into words in just a few 
moments.
  At the end of it, though, Congress realized that it had failed in its 
own responsibility to even declare a war against Vietnam. So we passed 
the War Powers Act and set up a process that said we are not going to 
let that happen again, that the American people will participate in any 
future decisions about whether we go to war, and that they will do it 
through their elected Congressmen and elected Senators.
  The War Powers Act passed the Congress, and it was sent to President 
Nixon. He vetoed it and said we didn't want to give that additional 
authority to Congress. Then, in a rare, rare moment, Congress overrode 
President Nixon's veto, and the War Powers Act became the law of the 
land. That War Powers Act, I believe, applies to the current situation 
that is escalating with Iran. That is why I have joined with Senator 
Kaine in his invoking the War Powers Resolution.
  What I find particularly troubling about the administration's march 
to war in Iran is that the administration's own actions have 
contributed to the current tensions and problems we have with Iran. 
Before taking office, Iran's nuclear weapons program was halted because 
of an historic agreement President Obama negotiated. In cooperation 
with our allies in Europe, as well as with China and Russia, President 
Obama negotiated a treaty that required international inspectors to be 
on the ground in Iran to make certain that Iran lived up to its terms. 
Of course, Iran was not happy about these inspectors, but it accepted 
them. On several different occasions, we had representatives of those 
inspectors come and say, yes, that they had had virtually unlimited 
access to Iran in order to make certain Iran didn't violate the nuclear 
agreement. Iran continued in its malign behaviors in the region, but 
containment was easier without the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
  During the campaign, President Trump said the first thing he would do 
would be to eliminate that international agreement that required 
international inspectors, which is what stopped Iran from developing a 
nuclear weapon. It made no sense for the President to take the position 
that he did, but that is the position that he announced during the 
campaign, and that is exactly what he did after he was elected 
President. He withdrew the United States from this agreement that 
stopped Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Then he increased 
sanctions on Iran, and the tensions between our countries grew.
  The President pursued a policy of regime change that is very 
difficult to explain, if not to justify--trying to flatter on one day 
and to confront on the next day. He proposed to meet with President 
Rouhani, of Iran, to negotiate a supposedly bigger deal, a better deal. 
Then he threatened Iran militarily and tightened sanctions soon after. 
These efforts went nowhere except to increase tensions between the 
United States and Iran. Iran lashed out on American interests. We were 
alienated from many of our allies, particularly those who were party to 
the nuclear agreement, and Iran inched closer to restarting its nuclear 
program.
  In recent weeks alone, President Trump has managed to reverse the 
recent Iraqi protest settlement that warned Iran to stop meddling in 
its particular politics, which has led to the real possibility that 
American troops in Iraq that are critical to countering ISIS will be 
expelled.

  Similarly, after months of anti-government protests in Iran, 
President Trump has almost instantaneously united the Iranian public 
opinion against us with the targeting of General Soleimani. Iran has 
now announced it will exceed the limits of the nuclear program that 
were imposed by the nuclear agreement, from which President Trump 
walked away, and our interests around the region are on high alert for 
fear of a retaliatory attack by the Iranians.
  So there are real questions as to how President Trump's Iran policy 
serves long-term American security interests and as to whether this 
body is ready to at least debate the possibility of another war with 
Iran.
  Before President Trump plunges us into another reckless Middle East 
war, shouldn't we first remember how we were fooled into invading Iraq 
in the first place? I remember full well.
  I was a Member of the Senate when we were given the proposal of 
taking military action against Iraq because of its purported possession 
of these military devices that were threatening to the United States 
and to the region. Many of us were skeptical. The weapons of mass 
destruction charge didn't have the evidence that we thought was 
convincing. In the end, 23 Senators--22 Democrats and 1 Republican--
joined in voting against the invasion of Iraq. I was one of those 
Senators. I was not convinced there were weapons of mass destruction. 
After the invasion and after careful inspection, it turned out that 
there were no weapons of mass destruction--the single event that really 
brought us into the conflict.
  Then, as now, we were led to believe there was an urgent spiraling of 
events that required U.S. military intervention. Mark me down as 
skeptical--skeptical as to whether another invasion by the United 
States of a Muslim nation in the Middle East is in the best interest of 
national security.
  Many around President Trump, particularly Secretary of State Pompeo, 
have been speaking of this conflict with Iraq for a long period of 
time. Some of them are the same people who endorsed the invasion of 
Iraq almost 20 years ago. We are still in Iraq. We have given up more 
than 5,000 American lives, with many having been injured and with $1 
trillion or more having been spent.
  It is possible the Iraqis will just ask us to leave. Think of that. 
After all that we have put into their country, their legislature--their 
Parliament--voted several weeks ago to tell us to leave. In fact, one 
of the great tragedies of the Iraq war and one that few of its 
architects ever owned up to was that the Iraq war was actually 
empowering Iran in the region. Iran became a potent force because, in 
many respects, in its efforts in the Middle East, the United States 
created that opportunity.
  These same unrepentant voices are again beating the drums for regime 
change in Iran and another war in the Middle East. They do so with a 
President who has made more than 15,000 false or misleading statements 
while he has been in office--15,000--with his

[[Page S174]]

even going so far as to trust Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia, 
over our own intelligence sources, making it impossible to trust 
anything he says when it comes to matters as grave as war.
  Some have even had the audacity to argue that the 2001 authorization 
for use of military force in Iraq is somehow a permission slip for the 
invasion of Iran. That is preposterous. I cannot imagine anyone here 
who took that vote 18 years ago thought that he was authorizing for 
future Presidents 18 years later to invade another country in the 
Middle East. I certainly didn't. The Constitution is clear. Article I, 
section 8 says the power to declare war is an explicit power of 
Congress, as it should be. One should never send our sons and daughters 
into war without having the knowledge and consent of the American 
people. Our Founding Fathers were wise in making sure this awesome 
power did not rest with a King or a Queen or anyone pretending to be 
but with the people of the United States and their elected 
Representatives.
  I have made this same argument and much of the same speech in the 
past regardless of whether the occupant of the White House was a 
Democrat or a Republican. This Congress, already afraid to stand up to 
many of President Trump's worst instincts, must not do so in a march to 
another war in the Middle East. As such, I urge my colleagues here to 
do our job and reaffirm the Senate's constitutional role in matters of 
war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from Texas.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on January 20, 2017, at 12:19 p.m., the 
Washington Post ran a story with this headline: ``The campaign to 
impeach President Trump has begun.'' Donald Trump had been President 
for only 19 minutes when that headline ran.
  As we have since learned, it has been made abundantly clear that many 
of our Democratic colleagues simply don't recognize the President as 
having been legitimately elected, and they have been doing everything 
they can to remove him from office since he was first elected in 2016.
  This has now taken a new form, that of impeachment--an impeachment 
that occurred 27 days ago when the House voted for two Articles of 
Impeachment. Their impeachment inquiry lasted 12 weeks, but it became 
clear that Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler were 
in a big hurry to get those Articles of Impeachment voted out of the 
House before the holidays. In the end, only the Democrats voted for 
these partisan Articles of Impeachment. Then the Speaker and the 
Democrats in the House declared victory.
  That is when the breakneck pace of the impeachment process came to a 
screeching halt. It appears Speaker Pelosi got cold feet when she 
realized the President would be afforded a fair trial in the Senate. 
That was not good enough for her. When we offered President Trump the 
same terms that President Clinton received during his trial, that 
wasn't good enough for Speaker Pelosi, for she wanted guarantees from 
the Senate. The Speaker of the House flatly refused to send the 
Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in order for her to somehow gain 
leverage over Senate trial procedures--a responsibility that falls far 
outside her job description. She was seeking assurances from the 
majority leader that he would redo the House's shoddy investigative 
work--something that is not part of our job description under the 
Constitution.

  After weeks of holding the articles hostage with nothing to show for 
it, the Speaker has, apparently, finally caved. In holding the 
articles, she managed to accomplish something all too uncommon these 
days: she brought together Republicans and Democrats from both 
Chambers. Unfortunately, for the Speaker, this bipartisan, bicameral 
chorus of voices stood in firm opposition to her decision to withhold 
the articles.
  Last week, she finally announced that she would be sending over the 
articles this week, and it now looks like a vote is scheduled for 
Wednesday, tomorrow, where impeachment managers will be identified, and 
the process of sending it to the Senate will begin in earnest. In a 
letter to her House colleagues on Friday, Speaker Pelosi indicated she 
would be sending the articles this week, and it looks like we are 
rapidly closing on the start of that trial.
  As the majority leader has made clear from the beginning, this should 
be a far cry from the partisan impeachment process we saw in the House. 
We simply don't want to repeat the circuslike, partisan rush to 
impeachment that we saw in the House. Our responsibilities as Senators 
is to sit as a court--literally, as a jury--to consider the case that 
is being presented by the impeachment managers in the House as well as 
the President's lawyers.
  Despite the Speaker's insistence, we, the Senate--the jury--are not 
going to be handpicking the witnesses before the trial begins. In no 
courtroom in America does the jury decide how the case before them will 
be tried. That is decided by the parties to the lawsuit, whether it is 
the prosecution in the case of a criminal case and the defense lawyer 
or the plaintiff and defense counsel in a civil case. The jury's job is 
to sit and listen and to weigh the evidence and to reach a verdict.
  The Senate will--instead of the process Speaker Pelosi is advocating 
for--follow the only modern precedent we have, and that is the Clinton 
impeachment trial. If it was good enough for President Clinton, it is 
good enough for President Trump. We are going to follow that precedent 
and provide for some order and fairness in the process and, again, not 
repeat the circus we saw in the House.
  Just as we did in 1999, in the Clinton impeachment, we will begin 
with opening arguments. The impeachment managers, Speaker Pelosi's 
lawyers, will come over and present their case and argue their case. 
Then we will turn to the President's lawyers who will have a chance to 
respond. They can refer to some of the testimony of the 17 witnesses 
who testified during the House impeachment inquiry. They could offer 
additional evidence for the Senate to consider.
  This is not a question of witnesses or no witnesses. That is a 
blatant misrepresentation by those who are trying to somehow work the 
public's understanding of exactly how this will proceed. As in the 
Clinton impeachment trial, all 100 Senators will have an opportunity to 
hear the case from both sides before making a decision whether we, the 
jury, want to have additional witnesses presented. That is what 
happened in the Clinton case, and that is what should happen with 
President Trump.
  We will have an opportunity to ask written questions, which will be 
transmitted to the Chief Justice, who will then put those questions to 
the lawyers representing the impeachment managers and the President. 
Then we will be able to get information from them based on those 
questions.
  The more I thought about it--ordinarily, in a trial you would have 
disputed facts, and then you would have the law applied to the facts as 
found by the jury, but the more and more I have heard about this 
impeachment inquiry, the more and more I am inclined to believe that 
the facts are not disputed. If the facts are not really disputed, why 
would you need additional witnesses?
  There are people with opinions, there are people who draw inferences, 
and there are people who draw their own conclusions, but in the end, 
that is our job, not the witnesses' job. The witnesses' job is to 
provide the facts, should they be disputed, and it is our job then to 
decide whether this meets the constitutional standard of treason, 
bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.
  What I find so amazing about these impeachment articles is neither 
one of them claim that President Trump committed a crime. Unlike the 
Clinton impeachment, where he was charged with perjury--with lying 
under oath--President Trump is not charged with any crime.
  In the first Article of Impeachment, basically, what we have is a 
disagreement in the way in which the President handled aid voted by 
Congress that would then be given to the Government of the Ukraine. 
That is what this impeachment is about. This is not about high crimes 
and misdemeanors.
  This is about political differences. This is about stylistic 
differences. This

[[Page S175]]

is where diplomats and others disagree with the way the President 
handled himself. Well, fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, 
but that doesn't make impeachment the appropriate remedy.
  Here we are 11 months more or less until the next general election. 
I, for one, think it is dangerous to have 535 Members of Congress 
essentially be asked to convict and remove a President 11 months before 
the next general election; in other words, to substitute our views with 
those of the voters, the American people. I think that is very 
dangerous. If it succeeds here, I guarantee this will not be the last 
time.
  Unfortunately, the House has normalized this concept of impeachment 
essentially for political differences. That is a dangerous concept, and 
it would be a dangerous precedent if we were to accept it.
  This is the third time in American history--the history of our entire 
country--where this process will go forward in the Senate. We need to 
be very careful, very sober, very serious, and very deliberate in how 
we conduct ourselves and how we conduct this trial.
  Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi has violated her own admonition when, 
in March of 2019, she said that impeachment is too divisive, and it is 
just not worth it unless it is bipartisan, unless it is compelling. 
Well, this impeachment is neither bipartisan nor compelling. Speaker 
Pelosi apparently got stampeded by the more radical members of her 
caucus into this position, which now she is trying to find some face-
saving way out. That is what this is about.
  In the end, we know the politics, unfortunately, will continue in the 
Senate. We know that under the present circumstances, it is highly 
unlikely that 67 Senators, based on the record we know now, would vote 
to convict and remove the President. So what is all this posturing and 
grandstanding about with regard to witnesses or no witnesses--which I 
said earlier is a false choice. There will be witnesses, and there will 
be evidence. We are going to let the parties present it, and we are 
going to listen and make a decision.
  This is about the Democratic leader trying to put incumbent Senators 
who are on the ballot in 2020 in a tough position. That is what this is 
all about.
  In the end, this is not about President Trump. This is about who is 
going to maintain the majority in the Senate--whether Republicans will 
or whether the Democratic leader will accomplish his life's dream and 
become the next majority leader. That is what this is about.
  Well, unfortunately, the Speaker's senseless delay tactics have 
robbed us all of the valuable time that we could have spent conducting 
this trial and moving on to more constructive business. We are waiting 
for the Speaker to deliver the articles, but in the meantime we are not 
sitting around twiddling our thumbs.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. President, last week, the Senate Finance Committee overwhelmingly 
passed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which will replace NAFTA 
and guide our trade with Mexico and Canada into the future. This is a 
big deal for Texas and a big deal for the country. About 13 million 
jobs depend on trade between Mexico, Canada, and the United States.
  We waited a long time for the opportunity to take up the USMCA. The 
heads of all three countries initially signed the deal back in November 
of 2019, and for over a year this is another example of the House foot-
dragging.
  At several points, we were left wondering whether the Speaker would 
intentionally blow up the trade deal over their own political 
motivations, but fortunately that didn't happen. We had a long delay, 
but we are finally to the point where the Senate can take up and pass 
the USMCA now that the House acted just before Christmas. This week, 
several Senate committees will review various portions of the 
agreement, and I hope we can actually get this trade agreement approved 
before we go to the impeachment trial. We will have the War Powers 
Resolution, which is privileged, and so that will come first, but 
hopefully there will be an opportunity to pass the USMCA before we go 
to this impeachment trial.
  I have heard from countless of my constituents whose livelihoods 
depend on strong international trade, particularly with our southern 
neighbor, and they are eager to see this USMCA put to bed. It is 
frustrating that this process has already been prolonged and 
uncertainty has prevailed and kept farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers 
waiting for months on end, not knowing what ultimately would happen 
with the USMCA.
  So I am ready for the Speaker to deliver her promise and finally 
transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate so we can conduct 
that sober, deliberate trial according to the Constitution and then 
move on from these partisan games and get back to the work we were sent 
here to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
finish my remarks before the vote is called. I don't anticipate I will 
take very long.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Peter Gaynor

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Peter T. 
Gaynor to be the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA.
  I have known and worked with Pete Gaynor for over a decade. Before 
taking over as FEMA Deputy Administrator in 2018 and becoming the 
Acting Administrator in 2019, Pete was the emergency management 
director for the city of Providence and then the State of Rhode Island.
  As a U.S. marine, he was on duty near the Pentagon on September 11, 
2001, and helped direct important aspects of the response and recovery 
efforts in the days and weeks that followed. Later, he went on to serve 
in U.S. operations in Iraq before returning home to Rhode Island.
  As EMA, emergency management agency director in Rhode Island, Pete 
led the response to federally declared disasters in our State and 
worked to successfully earn national emergency management accreditation 
for both the Providence and Rhode Island emergency management agencies. 
I know he will tap this full experience to serve the American people as 
FEMA Administrator, and FEMA needs solid leadership.
  Indeed, as the flagship Federal Agency for disaster preparedness and 
response, FEMA faces extraordinary challenges, confronting the very 
real effects of climate-related disasters, reforming the National Flood 
Insurance Program, administering critical grant programs, and helping 
ready the Nation for possible chemical, biological, and radiological 
attacks.
  Make no mistake, I have deep concerns about many aspects of the 
administration's approach to disaster recovery. Puerto Rico is a case 
in point. Now it is facing new challenges. As ranking member of the 
Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been dismayed by 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's slow-walking of 
billions of dollars of disaster recovery assistance for Puerto Rico.
  As the lead Agency for disaster response and recovery, FEMA must set 
the standard for professionalism and compassion for people and 
communities going through the worst experience of their lives. It is my 
expectation and my confidence that Peter Gaynor will work to make sure 
it happens.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm him.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending 
nomination of Peter Gaynor to be the Administrator of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Gaynor 
nomination?
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Cramer),

[[Page S176]]

 the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Johnson) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 8, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 12 Ex.]

                                YEAS--81

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

                                NAYS--8

     Brown
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Menendez
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Booker
     Cassidy
     Cramer
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Murphy
     Sanders
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
  The majority whip.

                          ____________________