SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 2
(Senate - January 06, 2020)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S25-S26]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 464--TO CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY PARTY'S MEMBERSHIP ON 
  CERTAIN COMMITTEES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS, OR UNTIL 
                      THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE CHOSEN

  Mr. McCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was 
considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 464

       Resolved, That the following shall constitute the majority 
     party's membership on the following committees for the One 
     Hundred Sixteenth Congress, or until their successors are 
     chosen:
       Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: Mr. 
     Roberts, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Hoeven, Ms. Ernst, 
     Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Braun, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thune, Mrs. 
     Fischer, Mrs. Loeffler.
       Committee on Finance: Mr. Grassley, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Roberts, 
     Mr. Enzi, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Burr, Mr. Portman, Mr. 
     Toomey, Mr. Scott (SC), Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Lankford, Mr. 
     Daines, Mr. Young, Mr. Sasse.
       Committee on Foreign Relations: Mr. Risch, Mr. Rubio, Mr. 
     Johnson, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Romney, Mr. Graham, Mr. Barrasso, 
     Mr. Portman, Mr. Paul, Mr. Young, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Perdue.
       Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: Mr. 
     Alexander, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Burr, Mr. Paul, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
     Cassidy, Mr. Roberts, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Scott (SC), Mr. 
     Romney, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Loeffler.
       Joint Economic Committee: Mr. Lee, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Portman, 
     Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Loeffler.
       Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Moran, Mr. Boozman, Mr. 
     Cassidy, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Sullivan, Mrs. 
     Blackburn, Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Loeffler.
                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 463--AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN 
             THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

  Mr. HAWLEY (for himself, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Braun, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Cotton, Ms. Ernst, 
Mr. Perdue, and Mr. Inhofe) submitted the following resolution; which 
was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

                              S. Res. 463

       Resolved, That rule I of the Rules of Procedure and 
     Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the 
     House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their 
     part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are 
     directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the 
     Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of 
     Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the 
     managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of 
     impeachment, agreeably to such notice. If, following adoption 
     of such articles, the House of Representatives does not so 
     notify the Senate or otherwise provide for such articles to 
     be exhibited to the Senate within 25 calendar days from the 
     date of adoption of such articles, as recorded in the Journal 
     of the House of Representatives, such articles shall be 
     deemed exhibited before the Senate and it shall be in order 
     for any Senator to offer a motion to dismiss such articles 
     with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to 
     prosecute such articles. Such motion shall be adopted by an 
     affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators, duly chosen 
     and sworn, without debate by the yeas and nays, which shall 
     be entered on the record.''.

  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, it has been 19 days today--19 days--since 
the House of Representatives impeached the President of the United 
States. It has been 19 days since we were told that it was urgent that 
President Trump be impeached and removed from office. It was urgent for 
the safety of the country. It was urgent for national security. It was 
urgent to protect the Constitution of the United States. It was urgent; 
it had to be done now. The articles had to be rushed through. The rules 
had to be violated. There couldn't be due process. It was urgent.
  Where are we now? Nineteen days later, the Speaker of the House has

[[Page S26]]

still not transmitted the articles to this body for a trial, has still 
not appointed managers for a trial, has still not exhibited the 
articles before this body for a trial.
  We now have the longest delay in American history in providing notice 
to this body and actually moving forward with a trial, and now I think 
we have a better sense of what was urgent. What was urgent was 
fulfilling the partisan vendetta that the Speaker of the House and the 
Democrats have against this President. What was urgent was overturning 
the results of an election that they have never accepted. That is what 
was urgent.
  But now--now that it is time to actually try the case--well, now the 
Speaker and the Democrats aren't so sure. In fact, now they don't seem 
to want a trial. Now, when it is time to put up or shut up, actually 
put the evidence forward to be judged, Speaker Pelosi is saying that 
she may withhold the articles indefinitely and prevent this body 
indefinitely from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities--
after, of course, a bipartisan coalition in the House of 
Representatives voted against impeachment.
  I think we can probably see, the longer we wait, why the Speaker is 
so reluctant now to have a trial. It was a purely partisan process in 
the House. She had Democrats abandon her and vote with Republicans in a 
bipartisan coalition against impeachment. The articles don't even 
allege a crime. This was the first time in American history in the 
impeachment of a President in which no crime was even alleged in the 
articles, no evidence of a crime even presented. No wonder she doesn't 
want to have a trial. No wonder she is now sitting on the articles and 
will not permit a Senate trial to begin.
  Well, here is the problem with that: The Constitution of the United 
States is really clear. The House has the power to impeach. They have 
done that. But the Senate--and the Senate alone--has the power to try.
  The Constitution, article I, says that the Senate has the sole power 
to try impeachment cases, to adjudicate what has happened in the House, 
to examine the facts, and to render a judgment of some sort. Now the 
House Speaker is attempting to prevent the Senate from carrying out its 
constitutional responsibilities, its constitutional prerogative.
  All of this division and rancor--all of this bitterness that she has 
put the country through now for months on end--she apparently wants to 
continue indefinitely and deny this body its constitutional 
responsibility to conduct a trial.
  It has been 19 days. It could be 90 days. It could be 190 days. There 
is nothing that will stop the Speaker from sitting on these articles 
indefinitely. They could persist into the President's second term, if 
and when he is reelected. That is the situation we are now facing.
  If Americans are sick of this impeachment saga, this partisan circus 
now, just wait until we are still sitting here in October or January of 
next year or January of the year following or who knows when without a 
trial, without adjudication, without any resolution. That is why it is 
time for this body to act.
  It is time for the Senate to act to preserve the Constitution's 
separation of powers, to preserve the Constitution's guarantees--the 
right to due process, the right for the President to be heard, the 
right for the American people to have these Articles of Impeachment 
adjudicated, resolved, as the Constitution commits to and provides for. 
That is why today I am introducing a resolution to update the Senate's 
rules to account for this unprecedented attempt by the Speaker of the 
House to delay, to deny, to obstruct a trial in the U.S. Senate.
  Let's be clear. This has never been done before. It has not even been 
thought of before. Nobody had thought, before Speaker Pelosi launched 
this gambit 19 days ago, that the House could sit on Articles of 
Impeachment indefinitely in order to stop a Senate trial.
  If the Constitution is going to remain in effect, if the Senate is 
going to have the power, as the Constitution provides, to try cases, if 
the President is going to get his day in court, if the American people 
are going to have the ability to have this issue resolved, to see the 
facts, to get a verdict, the Senate has to act.
  Today I am proposing new rules in the U.S. Senate that will set a 
time limit on the actions of the House. It will give the House Speaker 
25 days from the date that the articles are adopted and published to 
transmit those articles here to the Senate, to exhibit them as the 
House rules and Senate rules currently speak of and anticipate, and if 
that is not done, if in 25 days the House Speaker has not acted so that 
the Senate is able to move forward with a trial, then, under my 
resolution and the change in the rules that I propose today, the Senate 
would be able to introduce a motion to dismiss these articles for lack 
of prosecution.
  In the real world, when a prosecutor brings a case but refuses to try 
it, the court has the ability and the defendant has the right--a 
constitutional right, I might add--to have those indictments, those 
charges, dismissed. That is precisely the action that I am proposing 
today.
  It is time to update the Senate's rules to account for this 
unprecedented attempt at obstruction, at denial, at delay. It is time 
for the Senate to act.
  The House has a simple choice in front of it--or it should. That 
choice is to send the Articles of Impeachment to this body to be tried 
before this body, to exhibit the evidence that it has to make the case 
that it can, however poor that case may be, but to make the case that 
it can and to allow the American people the right to have this 
resolution achieved, the right to have the evidence tried, the right to 
have the verdict rendered.
  It is time for the Senate to act to ensure that the constitutional 
balance of power, the constitutional separation of powers, and the 
basic functioning of this government of our Republic are able to go 
forward. This is a matter of great urgency. There is nothing more 
serious than an attempt to overturn the results of a democratic 
election and to remove from office a sitting President, and that is 
exactly what is happening now.
  It is imperative that we act. The country deserves it. It is 
imperative for future Congresses and for the future of the country that 
the Constitution not be subverted in this rush by Speaker Pelosi and 
House Democrats to remove this President from office without evidence, 
on no basis, and solely for political purposes. We must defend the 
Constitution, and we must act now to do so.

                          ____________________