January 6, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 2 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in Senate sectionPrev33 of 39Next
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. ____________________
All in Senate sectionPrev33 of 39Next