they will continue debate on present times pick to head the small business administration and the senate continues to wait for the house to send over the two articles of impeachment. we take you live now to the senate floor here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, when open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we are gratefully aware that you are the giver of

every good and perfect gift. you shower us with your mercies. each day we are further aware of our unworthiness because of your goodness. all we like sheep have gone astray. lord, we are prone to wander, to leave you, the god we love. as our senators work today, make them extensions of your power in our world. use them as your eyes, ears, hands, and feet to accomplish your purposes.

lord, make them your ambassadors. may they arrange their priorities according to your will and view their challenges from an ethical perspective, striving to seek your will in all they think, say, and do. may they find in challenging moments opportunities to renew their faith in you. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please help me with the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask permission to address the senate for one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i want to wish all iowans and maybe, in turn, all americans a happy new year. as 2020 begins, i'm focused on passing the united states-mexico-canada trade agreement. i'm leading a meeting of the finance committee tomorrow to report out the bill so the senate floor can have a vote as

eminent as possible. i'm continuing to work in a bipartisan way to lower the cost of prescription drugs with the grassley-wyden prescription drug-pricing reduction act. in the coming weeks, i will begin my 40th annual 99-county tour of my state to continue to hear what's on the minds of iowans so i can better serve them in the united states senate. i look forward to remaining in touch with iowans as the new decade begins. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: as the senate convenes this afternoon, we find our nation facing two grave and

serious choices. one concerns our unity at home and the future of our constitution. the other involves our strength abroad and the security of our homeland. both situations demand serious, sober treatment from congress. both require that we put enduring national interests ahead of the factionalism and short-termism the founding fathers warned us about. but unfortunately, mr. president, seriousness is in short supply. lately, in very short supply from the determined critics of president trump and our nation, of course, is worse for it. last thursday, the united states took decisive action to end the murderous scheming of iran's chief terrorist.

qasem soleimani had spent new nw numerous years in expanding iran's influence. despite sanctions, despite prohibitions by the u.n. security council, he roamed throughout the region with impunity. his hand bore the blood of more american service members than anyone else alive. hundreds of american families have buried loved ones because of him. veterans have learned to live with permanent injuries inflicted by his terrorists. and in iraq, and in syria and beyond, the entire region felt the effects of his evil tactics. we should welcome his death and its complication of tehran's terrorism industrial complex,

but we must remain vigilant and soberly prepare for even further aggression. now, it is completely appropriate this decision would generate interest and questions from this body. we can and we should learn more about the intelligence and thinking that led to this operation and the plan to defend american personnel and interests in the wake of it. i'm glad the administration will hold an all-senators briefing on wednesday. it will be led by secretary of defense esper, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general milley, secretary of state pompeo, and c.i.a. director haspel. unfortunately, in this toxic political environment, some of our colleagues rushed to blame our own government before even knowing the facts, rushed to split hairs about intelligence before being briefed on it, and rushed to down play soleimani's

evil while presenting our own president as the villain. soon after the news broke, one of our distinguished colleagues made a public statement that rightly called soleimani a murder and then amazingly walked that message back when the far left objected to the factual statement. since then, i believe all her criticism is directed at our own president. another of our democratic colleagues has been thinking out loud about middle east policy on social media. mere days before president trump's decision, this senator tore into the white house for what he described as weakness and inaction. no one fears us, he complained. trump has rendered america i am potent in the middle east. -- impotent in the middle east. but since the strike, a complete 180. that same senator has harshly criticized our own president for

getting tough. ludicrously, he and others on the left have accused the administration of committing an illegal act and equated the removal of this terrorist leader with a foreign power assassination of our own secretary of defense. well, here's what one expert had to say about it. jeh johnson, president obama's own former pentagon general counsel and secretary of homeland security. here's what he said. if you believe everything that our government is saying about general soleimani, he was a lawful military objective and the president under his constitutional authority as commander in chief had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without, without an additional congressional authorization, whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military

objective. that's the former secretary of homeland security in the obama administration, jeh johnson, an expert on these things. and our former colleague, joe lieberman, who ran for vice president on the democratic ticket in 2000 wrote this morning that in their uniformly skeptical or negative reaction to soleimani's death, democrats are creating the risk that the u.s. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time. that's how former -- a former democratic senator sees it. look, the senate is supposed to be the chamber where overheated partisan passions give way to sober judgment. can we not at least wait until we know the facts? can we not maintain a shred, just a shred of national unity

for five minutes, for five minutes before deepening the partisan trenches? must democrats distaste dominate every thought they express and every decision that they make? is that really the seriousness that this situation deserves? the full senate will be briefed on wednesday. i expect the committees of oversight will also conduct hearings and the senators will have plenty of opportunities to discuss our interest and policies in the region. so i would urge my colleagues to bring a full awareness of the facts, mindfulness of the long history of iran's aggression towards the united states and its allies and a sober understanding of the threat iran continues to pose. could we at least remember we're all americans first and we're

all in this together. meantime at this dangerous time, house democrats continue to play political games with their partisan impeachment of the commander in chief. last year house democrats conducted the least thorough, most rushed, most unfair impeachment inquiry in history. for weeks democrats said they could not wait for due process, could not conduct a normal or fair inquiry, because removing the president from office was so incredibly urgent, incredibly urgent. well, the unseriousness was obvious then and should be even more obvious now. because speaker pelosi is now sitting on the articles she

claimed were so very urgent. she's delayed this indefinitely so that the architects of the failed house process can look for ways to reach over here into the senate and dictate our process as well. democrats have tried to insist that the senate deviate from a unanimous bipartisan precedent set in the 19 1999 trial of president clinton and write new rules for president trump. they are pursuing avenues that chairman schiff himself didn't bother to pursue. mr. president, the senate has a unanimous bipartisan precedent for when to handle midtrial questions such as witnesses in the middle of the trial, was when that was done the last time, and that's the way it should be done this time. in 1999, every single u.s.

senator agreed to establish basic parameters for the start of the trial up front and be reserved mid-trial questions such as witnesses until later. the vote was 100-0. that was good enough for president clinton, so it ought to be good enough for president trump. fair is fair. house democrats hunger to break our senate precedents just like they broke their own house precedents could not be more telling. but the senate does not just bob along on the currents of yef news sigh -- every news cycle. the house may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt president trump, but that is not the senate. even with a process this constitutionally serious, even with tensions rising in the middle east, house democrats are treating impeachment like a

political toy. like a political toy. treating their own effort to remove our commander in chief like some frivolous game. these bizarre stunts do not serve our constitution or our national security. they erode both. my democratic colleagues should not plow away american unity in some bizarre intra mural competition to see who dislikes the president more. this should not disdain our constitution by rushing through a purely partisan impeachment process and then toying around with it. governing is serious business. the american people deserve better, a lot better than this.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, small business administration, jovita carranza of illinois to be administrator. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session session. the presiding officer: the question sont motion. -- is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 329. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

is the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination. the judiciary. math it thiew h.solomson of maryland to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 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 15 years, signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be wavered. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider

calendar number 462. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. eleni maria roumel of maryland to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of eleni maria roumel of maryland to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims for a term of 15 years signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 525. the presiding officer: the question is the on the motion. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, michael george desombre of illinois to be ambassador to the kingdom of thailand. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of michael george desombre of illinois to be ambassador to the kingdom of thailand signed by 16 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ?end the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ?end the mandatory -- i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: now it's been four days since the united states carried out a military operation that killed major general qasam soleimani, the commander of the islamic revolutionary guard corps quds force. in the days since i've become increasingly alarmed about the strike, a strike that was carried out with insufficient transparency, without consultation of congress, and

without a clear plan for what comes next. president trump had promised to keep the united states out of endless wars in the middle east. the president's actions, however, have seemingly increased the risk that we could be dragged into exactly such a war. it's indicative of president trump's foreign policy record which is riddled by chaotic, uninformed, erratic and impulsive decision making without adequate consideration for the consequences. in just about every foreign policy area president trump touches, we're worse off than we were before he started with it. with china, north korea, syria, russia, the president has careened from one action to the next with no coherent strategy. north korea today, despite what

president trump said we don't have to worry about them, is a greater nuclear threat than they have ever been. trump's actions have been disastrous. north korea has more nuclear weapons and by all reports has developed or is close to developing an icbm that can hit the united states mainland. that is a result of president trump's bumbling. the situation in syria is much worse than before. doing what he did in syria, pulling out those troops made no sense to anybody, even the most hawkish foreign policy people we have. and every time the president seems to deal with putin, putin seems to come out ahead. looking at the president's chaotic and rudderless foreign policy in hot spots around the globe, it's hard to conclude that any of the situations are better off than when the president took office three years ago.

his policies seem to be characterized by erratic, impulsive and often egotistical behavior with little regard to a long-term strategy that would advance the interests of the united states. at times like this it's essential for congress to provide a check on the president and assert our constitutional matter, our constitutional role in matters of war and peace. in my view, president trump does not -- does not -- have authority to go to war with iran, and there are several important pieces of legislation that seek to again assert congress' authority and prerogative on these matters. senator kaine has a war powers resolution that would force a debate and vote in congress to seek to prevent further escalation of hostilities with iran. that resolution will be

privileged, so it will have to come to the floor, my colleagues, we're going to vote on it. senator sanders has introduced a bill that would block funding for the war with iran. i am supportive of both senator kaine and senator sanders' efforts, and i urge the senate to consider both in the coming days. additionally, the trump administration must start acting with greater transparency. by law, the trump administration must make a notification to congress when it conducts a military operation like the one last friday. that's known as a war powers act notification. unusually, the trump administration made the notification saturday, after the action occurred, and then they did it in a completely classified format. let me be clear, an entirely classified notification in the case of this particular military operation is simply not

appropriate, and there appears to be no legitimate justification for classifying this notification. so ranking member menendez and i sent a letter to the president urging declassification. it is critical that national security matters of such importance, war and peace, the possibility of another, quote, endless war in the middle east, that knowledge of the actions and justification should be shared with the american people in a timely manner. it's americans who will be asked to pay for such a war if it occurs. it's american soldiers who will risk their lives once again, and i'm sure it will be bravely. the reason, mr. president, that the founding fathers gave congress the war-making authority is very simple. they were afraid of an

overreaching executive. they wanted to make sure that any act as important as war -- war and peace -- be discussed in an open manner by the congress so it could be vetted, so questions could be asked, so a small little incident insular group, anyone of strength, people like mattis and mcmaster who disagree with the president because he's so erratic leave and leave a bunch of yes people who seem to do whatever the president wants. and that means having a debate in congress where questions are asked, coming to the american people so that people can hear a justification and see if it's actually a valid one is vital.

the administration still has to answer several really crucial questions about their actions last week. among them, iran has many dangerous surrogates in the region and a whole range of possible responses. which response do we expect? which responses do we expect? which are the most likely? what do we know about what iran would plan to do in retaliation? and then what are our plans to counter all of these responses? and how effective does our military, does our c.i.a., does our state department think these responses will be? next question, what does this action mean for the long-term stability of iraq? what does it mean to our presence in iraq? and what does it mean to the trillions of dollars --

trillions and thousands of american lives sacrificed there? how does what we're doing now fit into that? how does the administration plan to manage any escalation of the hostilities? and how does the administration plan to avoid a larger and potentially endless conflagration in the middle east? these are questions that has not been answered by the president or anyone in the administration. all of the tweeting and bravado is strategic thinking and long-term foreign policy goals and ways to achieve those goals. this administration seems to be devoid of that. it certainly was when it came to north korea, it certainly was when it came to syria and it occurred with russia and it seems likely to happen again

iran. this is an important moment for our nation. the american people need clarity that the trump administration has a plan, not just a tweet, a plan to keep our troops, our nation and our people safe. on impeachment. as my colleagues return from the holiday recess, one question looms before us. will the united states senate conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the united states? will we search for all of the facts or will we look for a coverup, a sham trial on one of the most important powers the founding fathers gave the american people. the framers gave the senate the sole power to try presidential peoples because they could not -- because they could not

imagine a body confident enough to sustain the impartiality. it is up to every senator to live up to that awesome, profound responsibility. at the moment, there is a very clear difference of% between the republican leader and myself about what it means to have a fair trial. i believe a fair trial is one that considers all the relevant facts that allows for relevant witnesses and documents, a feature of every single impeachment trial of a president in the history of our nation. we have never had one with no witnesses, not once. leader mcconnell likes to cite precedent, that precedent stairs him in the -- stares him in the face and can't answer it. there should be no relevant witnesses and no relevant documents and as he made clear

on fox news should proceed according to the desires of the white house, the defendant in this case. glarely, the republican leader has yet to make one single argument why witnesses should not testify -- one single argument. i'm waiting to hear it, leader mcconnell. give a specific answer why these witnesses should not come forward. don't call names. don't finger point. get get angry at nancy pelosi. tell us why here in the senate witnesses and documents should not come forward that are directly relevant to the charges against the president of the united states of america. so leader mcconnell has sort of exempted himself from fair debate. he doesn't want a fair trial. he wants a quick and sham trial. now it's up to every senator -- every other senator, every senator will have a say in

deciding which of the two views wins out. will we have a fair trial or a coverup? will we hear the evidence or will you try to hide it? and it will not be me and not the republican leader alone but a majority of senators who will decide whether we have the fair trial with facts and evidence or will we have a senate-sponsored coverup of the president's alleged misconduct? make no mistake, there will be votes on are whether to call each of the four witnesses we proposed and subpoena the documents we identified. under the rules of the senate trial, the minority will be able to offer motions subject to a majority vote. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, your constituents and the voice of history is watching. you will be required to vote on whether we have a fair trial

with witnesses and with documents or you will say i'm running away from the facts, i'm scared of the facts or go for a coverup. a few hours ago the momentum for uncovering the truth in the senate trial gathered even more momentum. one of the key witnesses i asked for, mr. john bolton, former national security advisor to president trump correctly acknowledged that he needs to comply with the senate subpoena for his testimony if issued. previously mr. bolton said he was leaving his question of testimony up to the courts. today he made it perfectly clear that he'll come if the senate asks, as he should. the other potential witnesses we've identified, mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy, mr. blair, should do the same. we know that mr. bolton, like mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy, and mrr

witnesses has crucial -- crucial eyewitness knowledge of the president's dealings with ukraine about how decisions were made to with hold security assistance and how opposition within the administration to that delay that president trump seemed to want was overcome. a simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the senate issues a subpoena for these witnesses. if only four republicans decide that mr. bolton and the three other witnesses ought to be heard, they will be heard because every democrat will vote to hear them. it is now up to four senate republicans to support bringing in mr. bolton and the three other witnesses as well as the key documents we've requested to ensure all the evidence is presented at the outset of the senate trial. given in a mr. bolton's lawyers have stated he has new and relevant information to share,

if any senate republican poses issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we've requested, they would make it absolutely clear they are participating in a coverup one of the most sacred duties we have in this congress, in this senate, and that is to keep a president in check. now leader mcconnell has suggested we follow the 1999 example of beginning the impeachment trial first and then deciding on witnesses and documents after the arguments are complete. he keeps making this argument. it doesn't gather any steam because it's such a foolish one. let me again respond for the benefit of my colleagues. witnesses and documents are the most important issue and we should deal with them first. to hear leader mcconnell say no witnesses now but maybe some

later is just another indication he has no argument against witnesses and documents on the merits. he's afraid to address the argument because he knows it's a loser for him so he says, let's decide it later. why? why? no reason. in fact, it's sort of backwards. we're going to have all the arguments pro and con and then have witnesses and documents, the arguments first and the evidence later. as i've said leader mcconnell's view of the trial is an alice in wonderland view -- first the trial and then the evidence. and more important than precedent is the fact that his analogy plainly doesn't make sense because you don't have both sides present their arguments first and then afterward ask for the evidence we know out there. the evidence should inform the

trial, not the other way around. when leader mcconnell proposes we follow the 1999 precedent, he's essentially arguing we should conduct the entire impeachment trial first and once it's over decide on whether we need witnesses and documents. again, mcconnell's view is alice in wonderland, first the trial and then the evidence. if the senate were to agree to leader mcconnell's proposal, the senate would act as little more than a nationally televised meeting of a mock trial club. leader mcconnell's witnesses later is a poorly disguised trap. he made clear what his goals are. he said it on fox news radio, after the arguments, we ought to move on, no witnesses, no documents. well, at least 47 democrats, and i hope some republicans, won't fall for that kind of specious

logic. what mcconnell said doesn't sound like someone who will reasonably consider witnesses and documents at a later date. it more sounds like someone has already made up his mind. you cannot -- you cannot have a fair trial without the facts, without the testimony from witnesses with knowledge of the events and related documents. a trial without all the facts is a farce. if the president is acquitted at the end of a partisan sham trial with no witnesses, no documents, his acquittal will not carry much weight in the minds of the american people or in the judgment of history. so if president trump, you're hurting about this acquittal, this impeachment and you're wishing for a fair trial and a real acquittal, join us in asking for the witnesses to come forward. join us in asking for the documents. what are you hiding, president trump? what are you afraid of,

president trump? if you think that you've done nothing wrong, you wouldn't mind having witnesses -- your own witnesses, these are people you have appointed -- to come here. most americans know president trump is afraid -- seems to be afraid -- of the truth. 64% of all republicans who almost always side with president trump in the polling data say there should be witnesses and documents -- 64%. a trial without all the facts is a farce. the verdicts of a kangaroo court are empty. it's time for a bipartisan majority in this chamber, democrat, republican, to support the rules and procedures for a fair trial. a vote to allow witnesses and documents does not presume a vote for conviction in any way. it merely ensures that when the ultimate judgment is rendered, whatever that judgment may be, it will be based on the facts.

we don't know what the witnesses will say. they could be exculpatory for president trump or they could be more condemning. but whatever they will be, we should have the facts come out and let the chips fall where they may. senate democrats believe we must, we must conduct a fair trial. to senate republicans, we'll see. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i have some prepared remarks talking about the soleimani strike and some other related matters but i want to take a moment just to respond briefly to my friend, the democratic leader. there seems to be a lot of irony involved in this question of the articles of impeachment.

first of all, of course, speaker pelosi who said this is an urgent fulfilling of a constitutional duty once the articles of impeachment were voted on in the house, she'd been radio silent and appears to be getting cold feet on whether or not she will even send the articles of impeachment to the senate. so i would suggest that the first thing we need to know is speaker pelosi actually serious about this because if she's not, there's no occasion for us to even begin this conversation about how the senate trial will proceed. speaker pelosi is mistaken if she thinks she can direct or influence the senate's decision on how the trial will proceed. in fact, one of the things i'm pretty sure of is the senate will not replicate the circuit-like atmosphere of the impeachment inquiry in the house which has been one of the most

partisan undertakings that i've seen in my time in the senate. i think they're really grasping at straws now recognizing that they did a poor job of developing the case and leading to the two articles of impeachment, one because of a disagreement over the manner in which the president exercised his authorities under the constitution engaged in foreign relations and the other based on this bogus idea that by saying i need to go to court to get some direction on a claim of executive privilege, it somehow even though mr. schiff drops the subpoena or no longer seeks that witness testimony, that somehow they have obstructed an investigation of the congress. all of this without even alleging any crime. but i suggest that the senate is an institution that follows the rules, and we follow our precedence. the most obvious precedent for

this impeachment trial is the clinton impeachment trial. there we saw 100 senators agree to a procedure which allowed both sides to present their cases after which there was a vote to see whether additional testimony would be required and indeed there was an agreement to provide three additional witnesses, not live in a circus-like atmosphere here on the floor of the senate but through depositions taken out of court that could then be out of the chamber and then those excerpts of those depositions could be offered as additional evidence. that was the procedure that was supported by the democratic leader, the senator from new york. and i suggest that what's fair for president clinton is fair for president trump. it's not much more complicated than that. and that indeed is the most relevant precedent. now, with regard to this claim that some senators aren't

demonstrating impartiality, i recall reading where the senator from new york when he was running against the incumbent, senator d'amato, he said a vote for me for the senate will be a guaranteed vote of acquittal of president clinton. hardly impartial. and now here he protests too much and i think demonstrates his hypocrisy when it comes to the standard by which he holds himself and others. and i'm sorry, madam president, i just can't believe that elizabeth warren, senator warren, and senator sanders would qualify under anybody's deaf decision -- definition as an impartial juror, but that's our constitutional system. i think what's happened, they realize that their case is falling short of any standard by which a president would be convicted and impeached and they're simply grasping at

straws. madam president, on another matter, last friday americans woke up to the news that one of the most brutal terrorist leaders in the world had been killed. qasem soleimani was killed in an air strike by america's military bringing to an end his decades-long reign of terror. cue call soleimani a master of disaster because that described his entire life as leader of iran's military. he was ahead of the islamic force, quds force which is a u.s. designated terrorist organization. general soleimani was the most consequential military leader in iran which has been designated by the u.s. state department as a sponsor -- a state sponsor of international terrorism since 1984. general soleimani orchestrated

iran's efforts to squash democracy movements, both at home and abroad by any means necessary. he and his army of terrorists exported violence around the region and engaged in gross human rights violations against the iranian people. if you're curious how the iranian government treats its own citizens, just look at the recent protests that started as complaints over increased gas prices. when iranian citizens took to the streets in peaceful protests, the ayatollah, the supreme leader, called them enemy arguments and thugs and the government attacked. as many as 450 iranians were killed in those peaceful protests, some 2,000 more were injured and 7,000 were detained. this is not a government protected its people. it's a network of criminals masquerading as a government. and one of the i ie -- ie ayatos

most loyal inchman was soleimani. fueling terrorist operations throughout the middle east, he also played a crucial role in fomenting syria's civil role. cloam helped finance the slaughter of the syrian people. the death toll in the syrian civil war is estimated to be as half -- half a million -- as high as half a million syrians and the number of refugees and internally displaced persons goes into the millions. while the greatest death and destruction orchestrated by soleimani was concentrated in the middle east, the united states was one of his and iran's biggest targets. from the iranian hostage crisis back in 1979 to the khobar

towers bombing to the recent shooting down of a u.s. drone and the death of an american contractor in iraq, iran's actions at every turn have demonstrated it a desire to bring the chant death to america to reality. soleimani was known to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american soldiers. he and his -- the iranian regime supplied explosively formed penetrators which cut through american armor like a hot knife through butter and left hundreds, indeed tens -- more than hundreds, maybe thousand or more american soldiers disabled as a result of this deadly instrument of war. since 2003, at least 600 u.s. soldiers have been killed by iranian proxies in iraq and many more injured, as i've said.

i and others in this chamber have seen their activities firsthand at brook army medical center, the center for the intrepid in san antonio, and other places where they've received treatment, like walter reed hospital here in washington, d.c. it's where the victims of these iranian improvised explosive devices were treated for amputation, for burns, or functional limb loss if they survived those injuries in the first place. these soldiers are a reminder of the selfless commitment our men and women in uniform make each day as well as the perilous threat posed by iran under soleimani's leadership. for decades since the iranian revolution in 1979, tehran has waged war against the unction and our ally -- the united states and our allies. recent reports indicate that soleimani was in the process of

plotting even more acts of aggression against the u.s. and u.s. interests. hardly surprising, though, since he's been doing that for many years. and that's precisely why he was targeted. just as quickly as news of this attack spread, so did anti-trump rhetoric. instead of celebrating the fact that iran's chief terrorist was dead and could kill no more, a number of our democratic colleagues chose to bash the president instead. they claimed his action was unauthorized, even illegal, or that he should have sought congressional approval beforehand. well, none of that is true. the president not only has the authority under the constitution but the responsibility to defend the united states from terrorist organizations like the iranian revolutionary guard corps and its leaders like general soleimani. this was not an assassination. a particularly loathesome

allegation that's made on social media nor was it an unprovoked attack. this was the president of the united states exercising his lawful authorities to protect the united states, our allies, and our national interests, just as presidents before have done. perhaps the most stark comparison is when barack obama directed the killing of osama bin laden. where were the people who now claim that soleimani's death is an abuse of power? i don't recall anyone calling the killing of osama bin laden an assassination. when he was killed, they weren't on cable tv criticizing the move. we were all celebrating. some of our democratic friends will simply never pass on an opportunity to criticize the president no matter how unfair. thank goodness there are democrats like former department of homeland security secretary

jeh johnson and former u.s. senator joe lieberman who said president trump's order to take out qasem soleimani was morley, constitutionally, and strategically correct. it deserves more bipartisan support than the degrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow democrats. that's senator joe lieberman. and i'm also grateful for the informed comments by luminaries like former centcom commander and former general petraeus as well as ambassador ryan crocker who both rightly said that this action was authorized and necessary. it's unquestionable that the death of soleimani was a major blow to the iranian regime and a strong message of deterrence to all state sponsors of terrorism. the blood of hundreds of american soldiers and countless civilians is on soleimani's hands. and because of the decisive

action taken by president trump he is gone. i fully support this move by the president and commend the president's willingness to send a strong message of deterrence to the terrorist threat in the middle east and particularly direct -- that directed against the united states, our citizens, or our interests. and finally, madam president, i wafntle to join my fellow -- i want to join my fellow senators and thank the brave men and women in uniform who fought and continue to fought terrorist acts brought about by people like general soleimani and the quds force as part of the irgc, especially those that are fighting and prepared to defend our interests in the middle east today. america must never back down in the face of this evil. our world is safer today because qasem soleimani is dead. and it would not be possible without the actions that

president trump has undertaken as well as the resolve of our military leaders and our courageous service members who put their lives on the line each day. madam president, briefly on another matter, we've now crossed the halfway point of the 116th congress. and it's safe to say that 2019 was an unconventional and somewhat bumpy year. after two years with republicans controlling both chambers of congress and the white house, we were all prepared for the challenges that would come with the democrat-controlled house. despite the unnecessary foot dragging and political gaming and obsession with foiling the president, we were still able to accomplish a lot of good for the country and the people of my state of texas. last month alone, we made major moves to strengthen our military and support our troops. we passed a funding bill this increased the department of defense funding by near lie $--

nearly $20 billion necessary to restore our readiness and gave our troops the largest pay raise they received in a decade. this complemented the national defense authorization act which authorized $400 million for military construction projects in texas and 90 new f-35 joint striek fighters that will be billion -- striek fighters that will be built in fort worth. and also in you provisions to support veterans. only 46% of active duty military voted by absentee ballot and one-third of those who didn't vote said the absentee voting process was simply too complicated. to to make that better, i introduced the military voter protection act, which became law last month. it makes the absentee voter registration process easier, so a complicated trail of paperwork

doesn't prevent them from casting their well-deserved ballot. i've also heard from my texas constituents it who are veterans who have fallen on hard times and had to fight for their v.a. and department of defense disability benefits in bankruptcy proceedings. that should never be the case. another bill i introduced called the haven act, which is now law, shields those benefits in the same way that social security disability is exempted. no veteran should be penalized for receiving the disability compensation which they are rightly due. and, of course, perhaps the biggest headline news is the continued work we've made on judicial nominations. under this administration, we've confirmed more than 180 federal judges, including 20 in texas, plus two supreme court justices. and though we're still one year shy of the end of president trump's first term, we've

already confirmed more circuit court judges than in any president's first term in the past four decades. having these impressive judges on the federal bench will be a tremendous benefit to the entire country for generations to come and we'll keep working to confirm even more. over the last year we've also built on our work to support victims of hurricane harvey, including the release of $4.6 billion in additional funding from a bill to support communities across the country, including those in texas recovering from natural disasters. more than two years after the storm, many texans are still rebuilding and, sadly, have had the added struggle of fighting to get their hands on federal funds already approved by congress. in february 2018 congress passed a funding package that included more than $4 billion in disaster mitigation for texas, but more than a year later folks at home

still haven't seen a dime of that money. this summer i introduced a bill that would require the office of management and budget to send those and any future funds approved by congress within 90 days of its appropriation by congress. government bureaucrats should not be allowed to stand in the way between communities in need and funds already approved by congress, and i'm happy that those funds are finally going out the door to these texas communities. another challenge that we've faced over the last year is the ongoing crisis at the border, which hit its peak in may. local communities in texas helped carry the weight of these humanitarian crisis, which has placed serious strain on their ability to deliver basic services. they've diverted taxpayer dollars from things like public safety, power, and clean drinking water to do a job that should have been done by the federal government in the first

place. to secure our border. to right this wrong, we passed a funding agreement at my request that provided $30 million in reimbursements for local governments, states, and charitable organizations that have spent millions of dollars in response to this crisis, which seems to be ignored too often here in washington, d.c. nearly 40% of this initial funding went to texas to meet immediate needs, and i expect another round to come soon to cover additional expenses. another big victory came in the form of international trade. through my role as chairman of the senate finance trade subcommittee, i worked with the administration on three trade agreements, the japan, the usmca, the united states-mexico-canada agreement, and with china, all of which i think will enure to the benefit of all americans, including texas.

i commend president trump and ambassador lighthizer for their courage in confronting unfair trade practices, opening new markets and providing economic certainty as we move into this election year. on top of all this, beesed the bipartisan -- we passed the department tax first act, which includes some of the most significant reforms to the internal revenue service in two decades. we stood with victims of sexual assault and violence by finally passing the debbie smith reauthorization act, which strengthens our fight. we helped provide additional resources to secure americans' elections against foreign interference, and the list goes on and on and on. it's safe to say, though, there are a number of items that could have been added to this list of accomplishments had they not been pulled in the political fray and the obsession with impeachment mania by the house of representatives. two things that we could have done that were not accomplished

as a result of this obsession were bills to reduce prescription drug pricing and to reauthorize the violence against women act, which the presiding officer has played such an important leadership role on. in both cases, there's broad bipartisan support for action and in both cases our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided that political point-scoring was more important than actually getting the job done. thus, we found ourselves at an impasse. as we gear up for a new year, those will be two of the top items on my priority list, and i hope our democratic colleagues will work with us this time around to get them done. we're kicking off 2020 with a big, looming question mark hanging over this chamber in the form of of an impeachment trial, which was an urgent constitutional until it wasn't.

we're waiting for the house to transmitt the articles of impeachment, but we're not going to let the grass grow you understand our feet in the interim. we're going to keep working to notch more wins for the american people, confirm more federal judges, and pass the united states-mexico-canada agreement hopefully before further delay. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. hawley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: madam president, it has been 19 days today, 19 days since the house of representatives impeached the president of the united states. 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. and where are we now? 19 days later and the speaker of the house has still not transmitted the articles to this body for a trial, has still notate pointed 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's what was urgent. but now, now that it's 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's time to put up or shut up, actually put the evidence forward to be judged, now speaker pelosi is saying she may withhold the articles indelved and prevent this body indefinitely from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities. after, of course, a bipartisan coalition in the house of representatives voted begins impeachment. i think we can probably see the longer we wait, why the speaker is so reluctant to have a trial. it was purely partisan process in the house. she had democrats abandon her, vote with republicans in a bipartisan coalition against impeachment. and the articles -- the articles don't even allege a crime. first time in american history impeachment of a president where no crime is 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 signature on the articles and won't -- no wonder she is now sitting on the articles and a laetrile to -- and won't allow a trial to again. the constitution of the united states is really clear. the house has the power to impeach. they've done that. but the senate and the senate alone has the power to try. the constitution, article 1, says 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. and now the house speaker is attempting to prevent the senate from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, it's constitutional prerogative. all of this division and rancor, all of this bitterness that she has put the country through now for months on end be, she apparently wants to continue indefinitely and deny this body

its constitutional responsibility to conduct a trial. it's been 19 days. it could be 90 days. it could be 190 days. there is nothing that will stop the speaker for sitting on these articles indefinitely. they could persist into the president's second term, if and when he is reelected. that's the situation that we are now facing. and if americans are sick of this impeachment saga, this partisan circus now, just wait until we're sitting here in october or january of the year following or who knows when without a trial, without adjudication, without any resolution? that's why, madam president, it is time for this body to act. it is time for the senate to act to preserve the constitution, separation of powers, to preserve the constitution's guarantees, the right due process, the right for the president to be hearder you the -- to be heard, the right for the american people to have

these impeachment articles resolved, as the constitution commits and provides for. and that is why today, madam president, 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 united states senate. let's be clear. this has never been done before. it's not even been thought of before. nobody had thought before speaker pelosi launched this gamut 19 days ago, no one had every thought that the house could sit on articles of impeachment indefinitely in order to stop a senate trial. and 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. and so today i am proposing new rules in the united states

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 were adopted and published, 25 days, 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 this 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 -- the constitutional right, i might add -- to have those articles, 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 thisunprecedented -- this unprecedented attempt at denial. the house has a choice -- to send the impeachment articles to this body, to be tried by this body, to make the case that it can, however poor that case may be, but to may be 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 a verdict rendered. and it is time for the senate to act to ensure that the constitutional balance of power, that the constitutional separation of powers, and the basic functioning of this government, of our republic, is able to go forward. this is a matter of greater urgency, madam president.

there's nothing more serious than the attempt to overturn the results of the democratic election, to remove from office a sitting president, and that's exactly what's happening how. -- happening now. it is imperative that we act. the country deserves it. it is gavive for future consequence, for the future of the country that the constitution not be subverted in this rush for -- by speaker pelosi and senate democrats, house democrats to remove this president from office without evidence, on no basis, solely for partisan political purposes. we must defend the constitution, madam president, and we must act now to do so. i yield the floor. mr. kaine: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i am proud to be joined by my colleague from illinois who is a personal mentor with me here today and we are here to talk about the threat of war with iran and about the constitution. i have been warning about this threat for some time, ever since

president trump chose to ignore the advice of his key national security professionals and allies by abandoning america's commitment to a diplomatic deal to limit iran's nuclear program. the president's actions since that tragic decision and the easily predictable responses by iran to his actions have resulted in an escalating set of hostilities between the united states and iran and its proxies. i'll state at the outset by conclusion, i believe that the u.s. should not be at war with iran and that indeed another war in the middle east now would be catastrophic, but i recognize that some of my colleagues may have a different point of view, so i speak in the hopes of forging a consensus on at least one issue, and that issue is this -- if there is to be a war with iran, it should not be initiated by this president or any president acting on his or her own. it should only be initiated by a

vote of congress following an open and public debate in full view of the american people. every member of congress should vote and then be accountable for the question of whether another war in the middle east is a good idea. the demand for congressional accountability is constitutional and required, n in the unique constitutional framework that we have. we pledge to support and friend friend -- defend the principle. it's up to congress to declare war, not the president. if we engage in war, the odds are high that young american men and women will be killed or injured. some will see their friends killed and injured. some will have the remainder of their lives affected by physical and emotional injuries, pros traumatic stress, the pain of losing friends, and their families and friends will bear those scars as well. if we're to order our troops and their families to run that risk, then it should be based on a public consensus as reflected in

an open congressional debate and vote that war's in the national interest, and if congress debates the matter in full view of the public and reaches the conclusion that a war is necessary, so be it. even if i were to vote no, if the majority of my colleagues voted yes, i would agree that the decision to go to war was a legitimate basis to order our best and brightest into harm's way. but by what right do we consign our troops to possible injury and death if we are unwilling to have a debate and cast a vote ourselves? we cannot hide under our desks, outsource our constitutional duty to any president, and pretend that we can avoid accountability for war and its consequences. over the course of this week, i will address three topics about the issue of war with iran. the first subject, which i will address today, is how did we get here? how did we come to the place where the u.s. and iran are trading violent attacks against

one another, and what does that mean for our country, the region, and the world? in the coming days, i'll address two additional topics. i will discuss how congress should reclaim its constitutional war-making powers by acting on a privileged resolution that senator durbin and i have filed on january 3 to remove u.s. troops from hostilities with iran unless congress passes a new declaration or legal authorization initiating such war. the resolution which is also being offered on the house side by representative slotkin will give all 535 members of congress the opportunity to declare where they are on the advisability of a war with iran, and it will also give them an opportunity to affirm their commitments to their oaths of office. finally, later in the week, i will address the larger question of how the united states should de-escalate tensions in the middle east so that we might better protect american lives

and promote peace and stability in a very turbulent part of the world. how did we get here? the u.s. and iran have a very troubled history. when iran's democratically elected prplt, muhammad mosavi, supported efforts to nationalize private energy resources, the u.s. and britain orchestrated a coup that led to his ouster in 1953. the overthrow of iran's democratic governance, partially with u.s. support, led to the rise of one who ruled as an emperor until he was overthrown in 1979. his dictatorial rule, with strong support from the united states, increasingly alienated the iranian population when he fled the country during the revolution, iran abolished the monarchy and declared itself an islamic republic. within a few months after the revolution, iranian protesters took over the american embassy in iran. those of house saw the protests outside the american embassy in

baghdad last week, the images of the iranian embassy hostage taking in 1979 was at the front of our mind. the protesters cited america's role in the 1953 coup, and they asked the u.s. to return the shah who had come to the u.s. seeking medical attention to iran for trial. the u.s. refused. iran held 52 americans hostage for more than 440 days until they were finally released in the first days of the reagan administration. after this attack, this inexcusable attack on the american embassy, u.s.-iran diplomatic relations were severed. the u.s. has imposed significant economic sanctions against iran for decades. the u.s. provided support for iraq in its war, eight-year war against iran, a war in which hundreds of thousands of iranians were killed. and in 1988, the u.s. navy cruiser, the u.s.s. vincennes shot down an iranian airliner,

killing 290 passengers. iran has engaged in hostilities against the united states and our allies as well in many cities, through targeted attacks and assassinations around the world, covert and overt support for terrorist organizations, development of weapons systems in violation of u.n. security resolutions. iran has been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of americans, and indirectly responsible for many, many more. these activities over many decades have led america for years to view iran as a key promoter of terrorism and one of the most concerning nation state adversaries of the united states. in recent years, a particular focus has been iran's nuclear program. despite iran's claim that it sought nuclear power purely for peaceful purposes, legitimate suspicion of its intent led to a global campaign led by the united states to sanction iran even more as a means of getting the country to abandon its western nuclear weapons.

after years of negotiations between six nations -- france, britain, the u.s., germany, russia, china, and iran -- an agreement was reached in 2015 whereby iran would pledge never to seek, acquire, or develop nuclear weapons in exchange for gradual relations, relaxing of u.s. sanctions against iran. the agreement known as the jcpoa contains strict limits on iran's nuclear program that would gradually relax over 25 years. iran's pledge to never acquire or develop nuclear weapons was permanent. as was its commitment to abide by the inspection protocols of the international atomic energy agency to ensure compliance with that fundamental pledge. the jcpoa was not perfect, but it carefully preserved the ability of the u.s. and other nations to continue sanctions against iran for its other activities, and it offered an opportunity for the first time in four decades for the u.s. and iran to communicate through a --

an established diplomatic process. as the trump administration took office, the president pledged to undo this diplomatic deal, the jcpoa. the nations that agreed to a deal pointed out that iran was complying with the deal as did the iaea, and the key officials of president trump's national security team, defense secretary mattis, secretary of state tillerson, national security advisor mcmaster, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dunnford, all agreed that the agreement was working and should be maintained. but president trump made the decision that the u.s. should abandon the diplomatic deal. the u.s. abandonment of a working diplomatic deal was historic. no u.s. president had ever walked away from a diplomatic commitment of this kind. many of us at the time warned the president that abandoning diplomacy against the advice of allies and our national security

professionals would likely lead us to an unnecessary war. it was just a matter of time. and indeed, since the beginning of the trump administration, there have been increasing back and forth provocations that have now led us to the state of active hostilities between the united states and iran. unclassified examples of u.s. activity under the trump administration that have escalated hostilities with iran include the following -- on december 12, 2017, the u.s. and israel reached a joint separate jibbing work plan to counter iranian activity in the middle east that included preparation for military escalation scenarios against iran. may 8, 2018, president trump unilaterally withdraws from the jcpoa after promising to do so for months. on may 21, 2018, secretary of state mike pompeo, who had earlier expressed a preference for bombing iran rather than entering into the jcpoa, vowed

to, quote, crush iranian proxies and operatives. on july 23, 2018, president trump tweeted a threat to iranian president rouhani warning that iran would, quote, suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have suffered before. august 6, 2018, the trump administration unilaterally imposes economic sanctions lifted as part of the jcpoa despite iran's continued compliance with that deal. september, 2018, it was reported that new national security advisor john bolton had asked the department of defense to prepare war plans against iran later the same month bolton warned iran there would be, quote, hell to pay if the nation ever crossed the united states. october 23, 2018, the trump administration terminated a 1955 treaty of amity affirming friendly relations between the united states and iran. the treaty itself had long ago been made irrelevant by the

actual hostilities between the nations, but the action of the u.s. in finding the treaty and publicly terminating it unilaterally was seen as a part of a pattern of hostile intent. as early as the fall of feint, department of defense officials began to express concern that the u.s. maximum security pressure campaign against iran was raising the risk of iranian retaliation against american troops in iraq and syria. in an october 26 article in "the wall street journal," department of defense officials were quoted as expressing concern that iran's belief that the u.s. was helping israel with air strikes would jeopardize american lives in the region. on november 5, 2018, president trump imposed additional sanctions on the iranian oil, banking, and finance sectors. on february 3, 2019, president trump stated on "face the nation" that troops being withdrawn from syria would be moved to iraq -- would be moved to iraq to serve as a check against iran. on february 11, 2019, advisor

bolton released a video addressed to the 40th anniversary of the iranian revolution, stating that iran's leaders would, quote, not have many more anniversaries to enjoy. on february 13, 2019, the trump administration convened a meeting in poland that was publicly described by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu on his official website as designed to, quote, advance the common interest of war against iran. in march, 2019, press accounts revealed that the department of energy had approved seven transfers of nuclear technical information from u.s. companies to saudi arabia without informing congress. the transfers were made despite u.s. awareness that the government of saudi arabia had publicly threatened to develop nuclear weapons to counter iran. on april 8, 2019, the u.s. designated the iranian revolutionary guard, a foreign terrorist organization, the first time that it had ever been used to apply to a foreign governmental entity. on may 5, 2019, advisor bolton

announced the deployment of the lincoln carrier strike group and a bomber task force to u.s. central command for the express purpose of countering iran. on may 8, 2019, the government ordered new sanctions against iran's metal industry. on may 10, 2019, "the new york times" reported on war plans developed by the administration that could deploy up to 120,000 additional u.s. troops to the middle east to counter iran. on the same day, the administration deployed patriot missiles u.s. central command to counter iran. on may 24, 2019, the trump administration bypassed congress, declaring an emergency iranian activity to sell weapons to saudi arabia and the u.a.e. in june, 2019, president trump ordered 3,500 more troops of the u.s. military to the middle east to check iran. on june 20, 2019, the u.s. initiated a strike against

iranian positions that was aborted at the last minute by trump. on june 24, 2019, president trump imposed additional sanctions against iran. on september 15, 2019, after drone attacks on two key oil install ignorations in saudi arabia, president trump tweeted that the u.s. was, quote, locked and loaded, waiting on verification from the kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of the attack. on november 19, 2019, president trump notified congress, quote, pursuant to the war powers resolution that he was deploying additional u.s. weapons and troops to saudi arabia to counter iran. on december 29, 2019, following an attack from an iranian collected backed militia in iraq that killed an american contractor and wounded several others, the u.s. military struck iranian backed militia groups in iraq and syria killing dozens. january 2, 2019 president trump

ordered a drone attack killing soleimani as well as a key iraqi leader. the strikes in aircraft were carried out despite objections of the aircrafti government and without prior notification to congress, two days after the soleimani strike the president notified congress of the action which had been in the newspaper obviously, quote, consistent with the war powers resolution. during the same time iran has conducted escalating activities as well. their behavior includes backing of hezbollah, a defg naftaed terrorist -- a designated terrorist organization. support for the houthis including the supplying of missiles escalating the civil war in yemen. directing troops and commanders in support of bashar al-assad murders campaign against the syrian people. support for the popular

mobilizeation committee, affiliated shia groups in iraq. cyberattacks on u.s. officials, the downing of a u.s. unmanned aerial vehicle in june of 2019. u.a.v. strikes against saudi oil facilities in september 2019. persistent interference of commercial shipping in the straits of hormuz. and stoking popular unrest against the u.s. and iraq that encouraged the assault on the u.s. embassy in baghdad last week. i've given you these examples for a reason, and you can see the reason. there has been an escalation that began with the u.s. decision to destroy a diplomatic deal, and it's been one nation acting and the other responding and the other acting and the other responding, and now we're on the brink of war. the escalation has been so significant between the u.s. and

iran that now each country has been responsible for actively inflicting injuries and deaths on the other, and we're at the brink of war. thousands of american service members enjoying holidays with their families were surprised by notices in the last few days that they must now deploy to the middle east yet again. and the current state of hostilities is causing other serious consequences. the u.s. abandonment of the diplomatic deal together with other actions has seriously jeopardized our relations with many allies, particularly our european allies, the u.s. abandonment of a diplomatic deal over a nuclear program has made it harder to find a diplomatic deal with north korea. the u.s. decision to carry out strikes on iraqi soil over iraqi objections badly damaged u.s. iraq relations. yesterday the iraqi parliament voted to ask all u.s. troops to leave iraq. if that occurs it will further destabilize a country that's

been racked with protests in recent months and it will embolden isis and iran. u.s. actions have had the unlikely effect of driving three of our principal nation-state adversaries into historically unprecedented levels of cooperation. russia, china conducted joint naval operations in the gulf of owe -- oman. the actions have been carried out mostly by president trump without congressional approval and often without any notice or any consultation with congress. members of congress on the relevant committees have had to read about these actions in the newspapers rather than being informed by the trump administration. at this particular moment with the specter of war so present, it is time for congress to assert itself. we cannot let a president destroy american diplomacy on his own. we cannot let a president take

our nation, take our troops, take our best and brightest into an unnecessary war on his own. indeed, we cannot leave the lives of our troops up to the whim of this president or of any president. that's why senator durbin and i have introduced pursuant to the same war powers act referenced by the president, a resolution that will force the removal of u.s. troops from hostilities with iran unless congress independently votes that we should be at war. congress has the responsibility and congress must act to shoulder its responsibility. i'll offer more comments on the resolution later this week, but i appreciate the support of my colleague, as i've said in many ways, my mentor in the senate, the senator from illinois, and i yield the floor to him. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the minority whip. mr. durbin: i want to thank the senator from virginia for his clarion call for the united

states senate to accept its constitutional responsibility when it comes to the prospect of war with iran. he has referenced many times the war powers act. the war powers act, students of history remember, was passed by the united states congress after the end of the vietnam war so that congress would assert with specificity its authority when it came to the execution of a war. the president at the time, richard nixon, opposed the war powers act and vetoed it. and because of what the united states endured during the course of the vietnam war, congress overrode the veto of president nixon. to make it clear with the war powers act that we would never ever by design find ourselves in the same moral predicament we did with the war in vietnam.

almost 50,000 american lives lost in that war in vietnam, a war which was not a declared war under the constitution, but one which still exacted a heavy incalculable price on american families, families i know and everyone knows, whose lives were touched by have -- by that vietnam war, whose sons or daughters may have served or given their lives in service. the decision was made in congress never again, we're not going to let this happen again. we're not going to find ourselves back sliding into a war. the american people through their elected men and women representing them in congress will make the decision as to whether it is time for us to go to war, will make the decision as to whether our men and women in uniform are going to risk their lives at war. the decision will be made by the american people through their elected representatives in

congress. it was not a novel idea. you find it in this little constitution which we're all handed when we take the oath of office. and as senator kaine of virginia has noted, article 1, section 8, in just a few words says, the congress shall have the power to declare war. it's not equivocal. there are no footnotes, asterisks, question marks. the congress shall have the authority to declare war. and now at this moment in time, with the assassination of general soleimani, and the escalation of the conflict between the united states and iran, senator kaine and i come to the floor and ask this congress, republicans and democrats alike, do these words count? do we have a constitutional responsibility to stand up and

speak up and to challenge this president or any president of either political party when they start moving us toward a moment of war which could easily claim the lives of many americans? that's the purpose of our resolution. it is simple and straightforward, but it really goes to a fundamental question. the men and women who serve this country in uniform, god bless them for their sacrifice and their courage. we know that when they take the oath to serve, they are prepared to risk their lives in service. many of us have attended the funerals of service members who gave their lives in iraq and afghanistan and so many other places. it is a heartbreaking experience to see that emotional family leaving a church or a synagogue after a service honoring someone in uniform who has given their

life for this country. that is so fundamental that senator kaine and i come to the floor today to say we are finding ourselves now moving day by day closer and closer to a confrontation with iran that could result in a war. and what senator kaine has cataloged and gone through is this long build-up under the trump administration that brings us to this moment. to think that president trump inherited from president obama an international agreement that included signatories of not only our traditional european allies but also china and russia to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon, to think that that agreement was being monitored by international overseers who reported back to us that they had ready access throughout the nation of iran when it came to making certain that that jcpoa agreement was lived up to, to think that that

at least gave us the assurance that iran would not develop a nuclear weapon and that this president, with a series of tweets and actions would sweep it away and say we're going to ignore this treaty, we're going to walk away from it, we're going to confront the iranians in a variety of ways, as senator kaine has spelled out. so we come to the floor this afternoon to really appeal to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. on behalf of the american people, let us learn the lessons of history, a lesson bitterly learned during the vietnam war that if congress does nothing, a war can develop and continue at great human cost. i know the moments of great decision that are made in the united states congress, and i've been fortunate to be part of some of them.

i remember october 16, 2002, as if it were yesterday. i remember that well at that place that i point to, where in the early morning hours three of us, three senators stood and spoke to one another as we left to go home. there had just been a vote for an authorization of use of military force in iraq. the three of us who gathered in the well included senator paul well ston of minnesota -- paul wellstone of minnesota, senator kent conrad of north dakota. and we looked at one another having voted against the invasion of iraq and realized we were headed home to face the electorate on that decision. it was an emotional moment, and i remember saying to senator wellstone who had voted against the invasion of iraq as i had, paul, i hope this doesn't cost you the election. and he said, dick, if it does, it's all right because that's what i was elected to

do, to come here and to the vote on issues, and is it possible there's any issue more important than the issue of asking american families to give their children in service to this country in a war. senator wellstone passed away a few days later in an airplane crash. but i remember that moment and i remember the responsibility we had. and what senator kaine and i are doing now is to appeal to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do not walk away from our responsibility when it comes to the future decision of whether we go to war with iran. stand up for those american families who sent us here to do our constitutional duty. engage in the debate as to whether it is the right thing at the right moment of history or whether it is an impulsive decision by a president who broke away from a political campaign meeting to authorize the assassination of general

soleimani and then return to the campaign meeting. make the decision as to whether this is the right point in history. don't point to the president as if it is his responsibility. it is our responsibility. that is what this constitution says. and now with that responsibility we need to stand up and act. i am honored to join senator kaine. we have filed our resolution. we are seeking a ruling by the parliamentarian and want to move forward on a schedule for a debate here on the floor of the senate. it may be the single most important debate that we face this year or many years to come. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the vice president: the claire lays before the senate -- the chair lays before the senate the certificate of appointment from the former senator johnny isakson of georgia. the certificate is in the form suggested by the senate. if there be no objection, the reading of ther is tif indicate will be -- certificate will be waived and will be printed in full in the record. no objection heard, if the senate -- senator designate will now present herself at the desk, the chair will administer the oath of office. please raise your right hand.

do you solemnly swear to defend that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? mrs. loeffler: i do. the vice president: congratulations senator.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the united states treasure carranza's nomination to leads the small business administration. treasure carranza's nomination comes at a time of great change for american small businesses. with the growing diversity in america, the face of business ownership in america is nationally also becoming more diverse. i've wilted these changes firsthand in my home state of maryland which currently boasts the highest concentration of women-owned businesses in the country as well as the highest concentration of minority-owned businesses. maryland's success has been no accident. as a result of leaders decade

long commitment to creating opportunities for underserved entrepreneurs which began when the late baltimore congressman perrin j. mitchell created the first federal set aside for minority contractors in 1977. it was this understanding -- it was with this understanding that i requested a seat on the small business committee when i joined this body in 2006. and it is with this understanding that i'm hopeful that treasure carranza will provide much needed leadership at the s.b.a. and serve as an advocate for entrepreneurs, especially those from underserved communities within the administration. if confirmed to lead the s.b.a., treasure carranza will enter an agency that has not had a deputy administrator since april 2018 and that has been led by its general counsel since former administrator linda mcmahon resigned in april 2019. and she will join an administration that has pushed for drastic cuts at the s.b.a.

and every budget it's sent to congress. president, i am grateful that our appropriation committee has consistently objected the administration's devastating budget proposals and i hope that treasure carranza will work to ensure the administration's fiscal year 2021 budget is not more of the same. minorities, women, convention, entrepreneurs from other underserved communities face specific historical barriers to business ownership and they need an s.b.a. thats ha the leadership, vision, and tools required to meet their needs. i would like to use this opportunity to highlight what i believe are the two most critical areas where the s.b.a. is falling short on its support of underserved communities. first, s.b.a. must do a better job of providing affordable capital to entrepreneurs from underserved communities. s.b.a.'s various loan programs provide entrepreneurs with affordable capital to fund their businesses. these loans are especially important for underserved entrepreneurs who typically have

less wealth with which to fund a small business and have lower rates of business loan approvals. instead of filling in the gaps in the credit market, s.b.a.'s highest volume loan program has mirrored the inequities in a credit market. that's something we need to address. addressing this issue is important not only in maryland which is, as i mentioned has one of the most diverse small business communities in the country, it is vital for the future health of measure' -- america's economy considering that women and minorities are driving growth and new business formation. according to a recent american express study, the overall business ownership rate increased only 9% between 2014 and 2019. over the same five-year period, the number of women-owned businesses increased 21%. more than twice as fast as the overall rate. and the number of minority women-owned businesses grew by 43%. it is clear that the underserved communities are driving the

growth in business formation in america and s.b.a. loan programs must catch up to this new reality. second, s.b.a. must do all it can to increase opportunity for small business contractors. recent trends paint an onerous picture of the future of small business contracting. a 2019 bloomberg government report found that despite a steady increase in government spending in the past several years, the federal contracting marketplace is becoming less competitive with a number of contractors working on unclassified contracts at a ten-year low. small businesses are facing the brunt of this decrease which is particularly troubling in maryland where federal contracting accounts for 8%, roughly $33 billion over a state's g.d.p. in 2018. the jobs created by these companies have helped thousands of families in maryland enter the middle class. the senate has taken steps to help small contractors. i am proud to share that today.

s.b.a. will begin implementing the runaway extension act, legislation i introduced that will allow small businesses to make critical investments to grow their businesses without fearing that they will lose access to resources and federal contracting opportunities. congress alone cannot reverse the increasing ininfull laity of the contracting process. s.b.a. must work with large agencies that are driving these trends and federal contracting to ensure that small businesses are given opportunities to become prime contractors and supply the federal government. mr. cardin: treasure carranza's prior experience should serve her well at the s.b.a. in nearly 30 years at u.p.s. where she began as a part time package handler, treasure carranza became the highest ranking latino in the mystery of the company. she also served as deputy administration oorg of s.b.a. under george w. bush in which she chaired the office of

disadvantaged business utilization council. at a time when america's small businesses are experiencing rapid demographic changes and new challenges, s.b.a. needs bold innovative leadership. i'm optimistic that treasure carranza can be the leader and -- and advocate that s.b.a. and american small businesses need right now. i support her nomination. i urge my colleagues to approve her nomination as the s.b.a. administrator. with that i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of jovita carranza of illinois to be administrator of the small business administration signed by 17 senators. 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 jovita carranza of illinois to be administrator of the small business administration shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: has any member not voted or does any member wish to change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 86, the nays are 5. the motion is agreed to. the senator from ohio is

recognized. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise to talk about an issue that the senate may address more this week. tomorrow we start in the senate finance committee, we're going to take up the renegotiated north american free trade agreement. one of my proudest votes as a member of the house a long time ago was to vote against the north american free trade agreement, to vote against nafta. i voted no on every trade agreement since then because every trade agreement that's come in front of this body was written by corporations, was written by corporate interests for their corporate executives and stockholders. they maximized profits always, every one of these trade agreements, cafta, nafta, pntr with china, not technically a trade agreement but it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck. every one of these trade agreements, every case has looked out for corporate interests and jettisoned the

interest of workers. we see the consequences. corporate profits soar every time. executive compensation explodes upward every time. workers continue to produce more than ever before, but even though corporate profits are up, executive compensation is up, workers' wages have been flat. so often they can't join a union, and the middle class continues to shrink. i know what that's meant, and the presiding officer's state of arkansas. i know what it's meant in ohio, what it's done to mansfield. i know what these trade agreements do to dayton, cleveland, cincinnati, canton, youngstown and toledo. then candidate-trump said he was going to renegotiate nafta. he did but he gave us the same thing. his economic policies overall have been that but his renegotiated nafta that he brought to this congress originally, the negotiation that he made with mexico and

canada, was another corporate trade agreement written for corporate interests. again, this president, he betrays workers from his tax giveaways to corporations, to his judges, they put their thumbs on the scale choosing corporations over workers, choosing wall street over consumers. and then last year as he's done one betrayal of workers after another, squeezing the middle class even more, last year when we got an initial draft of this agreement from the administration, the renegotiated nafta, it was another betrayal. his first nafta draft was nowhere near the good deal for workers that president trump promised he'd negotiated, fundamentally he negotiated another corporate trade deal, a deal that helps corporate executives, that helps stockholders, that betray workers. again and again another trade deal just like that. nothing for workers. it meant a sellout to drug companies. it took us months of fighting

alongside speaker pelosi and senator wyden and trade unions to improve this deal and take the real and the important steps towards putting workers at the center of our trade policies. these trade policies should be written for workers so expands, increases their income and expands the middle class, not written for corporations and trickle-down conviction. -- chick -- trickle-down economics. we know what happens in every tax bill that comes before this congress, it's the same thing. instead of building the economy from the middle out, instead of building the economy from the middle out so the middle class grows and america overwhelmingly prospers, just like the tax cuts, the tax cuts for the rich that may they tell us trickle down and help the middle class. that's the way this trade agreement was written, the way these tax bills in congress were written. it tooks months of us fighting alongside senator wyden and

organized labor and speaker pelosi. we now have a provision in the labor chapter and the president finally agreed to this provision. he knew he wasn't going to get a renegotiated nafta unless he followed what we said on workers. for the first time we have a provision in the labor chapter, mr. speaker, for instance, that says violence against workers is always a violation agreement. the language that the president gave us said, well, the first time you commit violence against workers, we might fine you. the second time we might fine you. only if you do it over and over and over is it a violation. if there's violence against workers, the people that committed that violence ought to pay for it. we know that we fix that in this. the -- we've improved some of the legalese that since the beginning has been included in trade agreements to make it nearly impossible to successfully win a case when a country violents its labor commitments. we screwed our brown -- we

secured our brown-wyden provision that amounted to the strongest ever labor enforcement in the u.s. trade deal. this provision that senator wyden and i wrote and fought for is the first improvement to enforcing labor standards in our trade agreements since we've been negotiating them. we know why companies closed factories in ohio and opened them in mexico. they can pay lower wages. they can take advantage of workers who don't have rights. they can keep unions from organizing. american workers can't compete with that kind of low-wage, lack of enforcement in labor laws. and what happens? there's a race to the bottom on wages. if a company threatens to move to mexico and they say, they tell their workforce we're going to move unless you give wage givebacks, what does that do? they move and american workers lose their jobs or they use that to put downward pressure on wages for the american workers. i know what that's done to mansfield, ohio. i know what it's done to chillicothe and zanesville and

every other community. the only way to stop this is by raising labor standards in every country we trade with and most importantly those standards are enforced. if corporations are forced to pay workers a living wage and treat them with dignity no matter where the workers are, we take away incentives for jobs to move abroad, that's what the brown-wyden provision does. a worker under mexico now and this is the first -- a worker in mexico will be able to report a company violating the rights. they can actually call a toll-free number reporting violations against -- against the workers -- a worker can actually make that request. they never had that right in mexico. they often enough don't have it here. we can then determine whether worker rights have been violated and take action against the company that did it. we've never done it that way, we

never had good results because of that. we can apply punitive damages when companies stop workers from organizing and if we keep doing it, we stop the goods from coming into the united states. you enforce it at the factory level by saying if you keep doing this, if you keep violating this trade agreement you're not sending your products under the united states. when mexico can workers can negotiate for higher wages, it helps our workers. right now mexican workers can be paid as little as $6.50, not an hour, but a day. we've been asking american workers to compete with that. we've already heard some critics say brown-wyden will force mexican wages to rise. i plead guilty. that's the entire point. to take away -- if mexican wages go up, it makes u.s. companies less likely to shut down production in -- in -- in -- in steubenville or lis ben or bryan

and move overseas. it takes away insen sent -- incentives for those companies to relocate. i will be straight with american workers. this is not a perfect agreement, one trade deal that democrats fixed will not undo the rest of the economic policies. this deal won't stop outsourcing when we have president trump tax plan that gives companies a tax break to send -- american jobs to mexico. here's how the president's tax bill that was rammed through the senate a year or so ago works. if you're -- if you're in springfield, ohio, your corporate tax rate is 21%. if you pull up stakes and move to mexico or anywhere else, your tax rate is 10.5%. even with the better trade agreement we're not going to stop that kind of outsourcing because the president is insistent on helping corporate buddies. i will keep fighting his corporate trade policies and tax

policies like we did with this agreement. we have a lot more work to do, mr. president, to make our trade agreements more pro-worker, i will vote yes, as i said, for the first time ever on a trade agreement, because by including brown-wyden, we set an important precedent for the future that brown-wyden must now be included in every trade agreement in the years ahead. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 377, s. 3076. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 377,

s. 3076, a bill to release a federal reversionary interest in chester county, tennessee, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 464, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 464, to constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the 116th congress, or until their successors are chosen. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m.

tuesday, january 7. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the carranza nomination and notwithstanding rule 22, the postcloture time expire at 12:15 tomorrow, and if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. finally, i ask that the senate recess following the vote until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings and that at 2:15, the senate resume consideration of executive calendar number 329. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. previous order.

>> in the senate gambling out. earlier today members say the nomination carranza to be the next administrator of the small business administration. mcmahon resigned in april. they also got a new member today, republican of george h. isaacson resigned in december. later this weekend later this month, on the trade agreement and the impeachment trial with president time. the house yet articles of an easement has yet made it to the senate. eventually the senate will sit at the jury to hear the case against president trump. in the senate live on "c-span2", remembers devil back in on tuesday. tonight on the communicators, adrian siobhan of freedom house, a group of advocates for democracy. talks about the organization news report on world internet freedom. >> will urgently see used to be

this loophole playing field for free thanks christian by activists and ordinary users and no it is really been co-opted by someone more powerful and will resources well resourced by actors in our society. in this or social media companies need to let say, like we loophole the playing field. to root out bad actors and it had perhaps make policy majors within the algorithms. to incentivize the dive boat productive democratic discourse and conversation. >> watch the communicators at the eastern printed on "c-span2". the impeachment of president trump. following the process on c-span leading to a senate trial. live unfiltered coverage on c-span. on demand at

cspan.org/impeachment. and listen on the free c-span radio app. c-span news washington journal, live every day, with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, we will talk about congress and war powers. the institutions sara binder pretty later discussion of the escalating u.s. enron tensions. with research fellow william river. be sure to watch c-span news washington journal, lemma seven eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. >> on tuesday, the senate finance committee means to consider the u.s. mexico and canada trade agreement. the house passed the legislation before christmas. by a vote of 385 - 41. watch the markup, live, tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span three.

campaign 2020, watch our continuing coverage of the presidential candidate campaign trail. as the voting begins next month, watch our live coverage of the iowa caucuses on monday, february 3rd. c-span campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. later today senate leaders mitch mcconnell chuck schumer and john clement came to the floor to discuss the killing of a around in general. in the impeachment process against president trump >> as the senate convenes a separate note, we found a nation facing two graven serious choices. one concerned the future of our constitution.

as in short supply. lately, and very shortly in short supply, from the determined critics of president trump, and our nation is of course worse for it. last thursday the united states took decisive action to and murder scheming of iran's chief. terrorist. qassem soleimani had been spent numerous years masterminding attacks on service members and our partners throughout the middle east. an expanding iran's influence. despite sanctions, despite

prohibitions by the un security council, he roamed throughout the region with r impunity. his hands that bore the blood of more american service members than anyone else alive. hundreds of american families have buried loved ones because ofof him. veterans have learned to live with permanent injuries inflicted by his terrorists. in iraq and in syria, and beyond, the entire region felt the effects of his evil tactics. we should welcome his death, and its complication of turnarounds terrorism industrial complex. but we must remain vigilant and soberly prepare for even further aggression. now it is completely appropriate, this decision would generate interest and questions from this body.

we can and we should learn more about the intelligence and thinking that led to this operation. and the plan to defend american personnel and interest in the wake of it. i am glad the administration will hold an all senator briefing on wednesday, it will be led by secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff secretary pompeo, unfortunately in this toxic political environment, some of our colleagues rush to blame our own government before even knowing the facts. rushed to split hairs about intelligence before being briefed on it. and rushed to downplay solo monies evil while representing her own president as the villain. soon after the news broke, one of our distinguished colleagues made a public

statement calling soleimani a murderer and walked that message back to the left for a factual statement. since then i believe all criticism is directed at her own president. another of our democratic colleagues has been thinking out loud about middle east policy on social media. mere days before president trump's decision the senator tore into the white house for what he described as a weakness. and in action. no one fears us he complains, from has rendered america impotent in the middle east. but since the strike, a wncomplete 180. that same senator is harshly criticizing our own president for getting tough. t he and others on the left have accused them of having an illegal act. in saying removing this with

as an assassination with their own secretary of defense. while here is what one expert had to say about it. jay johnson, president obama's own former pentagon general counsel and secretary of homeland security, here's what he said. if you believe everything that our government is saying about general soleimani, he was a lawful military objective and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without, without additional congressional authorization. whether he was a terrorist or a general anded a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful, military objective. that is the former secretary of homeland security in the obama administration. jay johnson. an expert on these things.

and our former colleague, joe lieberman, he ran for vice president on the democratic ticket in 2000, wrote this morning that in their uniformly skeptical oroc negative reaction to soleimani's death, democrats are creating the riff that the u.s. will be saying is acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time. that is how a former democratic i senator sees it. look, the senate is supposed to be the chamber were overheated partisan passion giveaway to sober judgment. can we not at least wait until we know the facts. can we not maintain a shred, just a shred of national unity for just five minutes. for five minutes before deepening the partisan trenches. plus democrats distaste for

this president dominates every thought they express, and every decision they make. is that really the seriousness of the situation deserves? full senate will be briefed onil wednesday. i expect the committees of oversight will also have queries and the senators will plenty of opportunities to discuss our interests and policies in the region. so i would urge my colleagues to bring a full awarenessfa of the facts, mindfulness of the long history of iran's aggression towards the united states and its allies, and a sober understanding of the threat iran p continues to pose. could we at least remember, we are all americans first. and we are all in this together. now meantime, at this dangerous time, house

democrats continue to play political games with their partisan impeachment of the commander-in-chief. last year has democrats rynducted the least thorough, most rushed, most unfair impeachment inquiry in history. for weeks, democrats said they could not wait purdue process, could not conduct a normal or fair inquiry. because removing the president from office was so incredibly urgent, incredibly urgent. well, the unserious and was obvious then and should be even more obvious now. because speaker pelosi is now sitting on the articles she claims were so very urgent. she has delayed this indefinitely so that the architects of the failed house process can look for ways to reach over here into the senate and dictate our process as well.

democrats are trying to insist that the senate deviate from the union unanimous bipartisan precedent that was set in the 1999 trial of clinton and write new rules for president trump. they have tried to pre-commit the senate to redoing house democrats work for them. and pursuing avenues that chairmanship himself did not bother to pursue. now mr. president, the senate has a union nanna must bipartisan precedent to win to handle witnesses. in the middle of the trial is when that was done the last time. and that's the weight should be done this time. in 1999, every single u.s. senate agreed to set basic parameters of the start of the trial upfront. and reserve midterm questions such as witnesses until

later. the vote was 100 to nothing. that was good enough for president clinton, so it ought to be good enough for president trump. fair is fair. house democrats hunger to break our senate precedents just like they broke their own house precedents. it could not be more telling, but the senate does not just bob along on the current of every news cycle. the house may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt president trump, but that is not the senate. even with the process this constitutionally serious, even with tensions rising in the middle east, how's democrats are treating impeachment like a political toy. like a political toy. treating their own efforts to remove ourth commander-in-chief

like a frivolous game. these bizarre stunts do not serve our constitution or our national security. they erode both. my democratic colleagues should not plow away american unity and some is our intramural competition to see who dislikes the president more. they should not disdain our constitution by rushing through a purely partisan impeachment process and then toying around with it. governing is serious business. the american people deserve better. a lot better. a lot better than this. >> mr. president. >> dathe democratic leader. >> it is been four days since the united states carried out a military operation that ed