[background noises] >> hello, everyone. happy new year. i think some of you have written this but i wanted to make sure you understood that we have the votes once the impeachment trial has begun. >> we do have to go back to the floor of the senate dabbling in. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, matthew h. solomson of maryland to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that garrett beer, a defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges throughout the remainder of this congress.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, before congress adjourned for the holidays, our colleagues in the house of representatives carried out their sole priority for 2019, which was to impeach president trump. that was their number-one objective in 2019. while it's no secret this is something they've been dreaming of since the day that president trump was inaugurated on january 20 of 2017, it certainly took our colleagues in the house on a roller coaster ride and the country as well. i've likened it really to not a roller coaster ride but to a three-ring circus. it does not reflect particularly well i think on their -- on their body or on the seriousness of the process. in marv last year, here -- in march of last year -- here's an

important quote to remember -- speak pelosi cast a lot of doubt that an impeachment vote would even happen. this is march 2019. she said, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country, and he's just not worth it. that's what speaker pelosi said in march of 2019. but as we've seen, it was only a matter of time before the radical members of her caucus forced speaker pelosi's hand and sent the house down a partisan impeachment rabbit hole. that's where they ended up. house democrats dove head-first, into as something our majority leader as said here in the senate, the most rushed, least fair, and least thorough impeachment inquiry in american

history. and we've only been through this three times before in american history. this is an extraordinary undertaking under our constitution, to seek to impeach and remove a president less than year before the upcoming election, over something that does not even allege any crime but, rather, a disagreement with the way the president has conducted foreign policy, which is his role under our constitution. for as long as democrats have been dreaming about this moment, you'd think they would be well-prepared for a thorough investigation and a presentation of their case to the united states senate. well, as it turns out, that's not even close. they moved through closed-door depositions, public hearings, and a vote at an alarming pace, all to ensure that they could wrap up the process by the end of the year. and before the clock struck midnight, they managed to get it

done. despite speaker pelosi's insistence less than a year ago that impeachment should be a bipartisan process, the house passed articles of impeachment with votes from just one party, which is the definition of partisan, not bipartisan. in spite of the partisanship that has ensnared this process in the house of representatives, we in the senate have vowed to follow the framework set by the only modern precedent for an impeachment trial in the senate, and that is of president bill clinton. in 1999 all 100 senators, including both the current majority and minority leaders, voted in support of a pretrial resolution that laid the foundation for the trial ahead. this was in fairness to all concerned, and so the senate could know how this would proceed and what they would be called upon to do. back in 1999, all 100 senators

decided to begin with opening arguments, to move to senators' questions and then vote on a motion to dismiss. this would provide an opportunity to hear the case presented by the parties before the decision was made whether to hear from additional witnesses. i might add, i believe the house heard from 17 different witnesses, all of that testimony certainly could be presented by the impeachment managers in the senate. sometimes i hear people talking about whether we're going to have any witnesses or not. well of course. but witnesses come in different shapes and sizes and form. there could be a live witness, there could be a witness' sworn testimony presented in a hearing or in a deposition outside of the chamber and excerpts are read into evidence in the impeachment trial. this is not a question of whether we're going to have any witnesses or no witnesses. this is going to be a question of whether we are going to allow

the impeachment managers from the house and the president's lawyers to try their own case. in an ordinary civil or criminal case, you don't have the jury trying the case for the prosecution or defense or for the plaintiff or defendant. the role of the jury is to sit an listen and then to decide after the evidence is presented. well, when the time came to vote on the motion to dismiss during the clinton trial, every single one of our democratic colleagues who were here in 1999 voted to dismiss the charges, every single one. that was the clinton trial in 1999. then when members voted on whether or not to hear additional witnesses, every single one of our democratic colleagues who were here in 1999 voted no. no additional witnesses. everyone voted no. that includes our friend, the

minority leader, senator schumer, who said on the senate floor yesterday that everyone who's opposed to additional witnesses is participating in a cover-up. talk about a change of heart. you know, that's the danger here in the united states senate. if you've been here long enough, you can yourself on the opposite -- you can find yourself on the opposite side of almost any question that could come up, and certainly senator schumer has found himself first saying in president clinton's case, no additional witnesses and now in the case of president trump, he's changed the standard and says, if you don't vote for additional witnesses, you are somehow engaged in a cover-up. well, i think people are smart enough to understand what that represents. not only a change of heart, but it represents hypocrisy and a double standard. but president clinton -- when president clinton was on trial, democrats had zero interest in hearing from additional

witnesses beyond that preferenced by the impeachment manager and the president's lawyers or spending more time on the trial. the way they saw it, all the information had been presented, so they voted to throw the charges out. now, i'm not faulting them for that per se. all 100 members agreed to the process that gave them the opportunity to make that vote and they had every right to do so. but now that a republican president is on trial instead of a democrat, our democratic colleagues say the same process is not good enough. in other words, what was good enough for president clinton is not good enough in their opinion for president trump. instead of following the exact same framework used in the clinton impeachment trial, they want to set the rules for the entire trial before we've even had a chance to hear the opening arguments. here again, i realize we have a lot of type-a personalities here, people who like to take charge, but that's not the role

of the senate during an impeachment trial. we're here to listen to the case presented by the impeachment managers from the house and the president's own lawyers, not to try to take over the process. in fact, the hardest thing senators are going to have to do during this impeachment trial is sit and be quiet and let the parties present their case. well, our democratic colleagues are even going so far as requesting specific witness lists even before nancy pelosi has sent the articles of impeachment over. they obviously are having buyers' remorse about voting out articles of impeachment now and essentially is admitting that the evidence is so flimsy that it needs to be bolstered by additional witnesses here in the senate. well, i'm sure it comes as no surprise that senate republicans are not on board with this partisan approach to impeachment. and as you can imagine, nancy

pelosi isn't happy that the power to make this decision is in the senate's hands. one thing i've learned whoer in the senate -- one thing i've learned here in the senate, in the congress, is that the senate and the house are pretty jealous of the prerogatives of their body, to be able to make decisions for themselves. the last thing the house ordinarily wants to do is to have the senate tell them what to do and certainly the opposite is true. the last thing the senate wants to do is to have the house try to direct how the impeachment trial is conducted here in the senate. well, that's not the way it works, and that's not going to happen. the speaker has pulled the emergency brake on this rushed impeachment process and is refusing to send the articles of impeachment over here to the senate because she doesn't think the framework used in the clinton trial is good enough.

she's now trying to use her role as speaker of the house -- an admittedly very powerful position in our congress -- to try to make the rules of the senate. she wants to set the parameters force what the senate's trial will look like, which is not in her job description. i know it's a terrible revelation, but it is beyond her authority, beyond her power, and it ain't going to happen. the way i see it, this dogged determination to interfere in the senate process isn't because the framework we're planning to use is unfair or partisan. obviously all the democrats who were here during the clinton trial agreed to the similar process then and now they want to change the rules for president trump. speaker pelosi also wants the senate to do the work that members of her caucus were either too rushed or too lazy to

do for themselves. ordinarily, if the chance are going to be brought, let's -- ordinarily, if the charges are going to be brought in a criminal case, the facts would be presented. well, here, i think the analogy is that it is it is the responsibility of the house to prove the articles of impeachment that they've charged. it's their responsibility, not ours. we're supposed to be the jury. speaker pelosi knows, as we do, that the house did not do a good job in investigating the facts and she thinks the united states senate should mop up after the house created the mess that they did. that's not going to happen, madam president. the house had an ample opportunity and time to look at all the facts. the problem the house has is the facts that they've discovered

and allege simply don't represent a high crime and misdemeanor, much less bribery or treason, which is a constitutional standard for an impeachment. what they have is a disagreement on a manner in which foreign policy was unanimous consent canned with a president who they hate. that's the reason they've impeached president trump. it's not because of any bribery or treason or high crime and misdemeanor. as a matter of fact, they don't even charge a crime. what they do is charge obstruction of congress. but here's what happened? adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, issued subpoenas to certain witnesses. the white house said, hey, wait a minute. we have -- we believe we have a valid claim of executive privilege. ordinarily that would then go to a court and the court would say yes or no or cut the baby in

half. but, when the witnesses said we need to go to court for direction, adam schiff dropped them like a hot potato and didn't even bother to call the witnesses or go to court to pursue the testimony he said was important. now, that's on him. that's not on president trump. and to claim that their own mismanagement of the impeachment inquiry is grounds to impeach the president for obstruction of congress, well, it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. at their own volition, they rushed through the impeachment inquiry with reckless abandon, and it's not the senate's job to reopen and to redo their inglorious investigation. the senate's role, as i said, is to take the evidence compiled by the house and presented by the impeachment managers and conduct

a trial based on the evidence that they present. not to somehow initiative -- initiate a new investigation before we've even heard from the impeachment managers from the house or to somehow say, well, we're going to essentially become the impeachment managers ourselves, something a -- a role that the constitution gives to the house and not the senate. the senate's role is to listen and to decide. not to try to hijack the process and to try to do something for the house that they've been unable to do themselves. so once the speaker transmits the articles of impeachment to the senate, the house's role as a body is done, and they speak and act through the impeachment managers who will be presenting the case on behalf of the house. when the speaker decides to send the articles of impeachment to the senate, we will be prepared to do our job, and unlike the

house, we will do so in a serious and deliberative fashion and perform our constitutional duties under the constitution and the rules of the senate with regard to impeachment trials. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, for three years now, everyday americans, members of this body, our diplomatic corps, and our allies and adversaries alike wonder whether there is any sort of coherent strategy regarding the national foreign security policy of president donald trump. if recent days are any indication, the answer is a resounding no. the trump administration has no vision for how we might build a world that is more stable,

peaceful, and prosperous for future generations. to be sure, the administration has some serious reports outlining global challenges and nightly drafted statements proclaiming their america first strategy, but in practice, the president's erratic leadership and failure to invest in the very institutions we need to promote american national security have sowed chaos and increasingly left america alone. our nation has faced great challenges before, and yet having served nearly three decades in congress, i cannot recall a time when so many of them were of our own making and as predictable as they were avoidable. simply put, president trump's foreign policy, like president trump himself, is completely shortsighted, self-interested, and transactional.

the president's abandonment of our core values has already eroded america's standing abroad. near the end of the last administration, the gallup organization found that 48% of respondents in more than 100 countries worldwide had confidence in the united states. today it's gone from 48% to it hovers around 31%. furthermore, more people around the world likely trust, according to the poll, china or russia than the united states. now, i know that national security is not a popularity contest, but the erosion of america's standing in the world matters because it makes it less safe for americans. it undermines our diplomacy. it hinders economic opportunity. and it undercuts our ability to promote our values, betraying

our centuries-long vision of a nation as a city on a hill. our nation was founded on noble ideas, and it is those ideals more than our unrivaled economic strength, p more than our unparalleled -- more than our unparalleled military might that have rallied the world to our side. from the defeat of fascism in europe to the rise of international institutions and security partnerships to the fall of the berlin wall and beyond. if president trump has squandered this precious resource of our values, our soft power through actions that betray our ideals, abandon our allies, and appease our enemies. far from the america first, this administration is leaving america isolated, corrupted, and behind. we see it again and again from ukraine to syria to iran and

beyond. consider russia. even as our intelligence community and bipartisan congressional reports point to, quote, incontrovertible proof of russia's interference in our 2016 elections and plan to do so this year in 2020, to this date, the president's own fragile ego still prevents him from even acknowledging the threat let alone standing up to continued russian aggression. turning to north korea, two years ago the president said he achieved a breakthrough and that we didn't have to worry about north korea anymore. we could sleep well at home. and yet satellite for all the made-for-tv moments, his poorly conceived and poorly executed effort has left north korea greater threat in 2020. under president trump's watch, north korea has expanded,

expanded its nuclear arsenal, successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile, and conducted its most powerful nuclear testing, and his administration has undercut our critical defense of alliance with south korea and japan or walked away from serious sanctions enforcement. nearby in china, the administration's efforts have failed to change china's actions in the south china sea, resolve the structural issues that play in our trade relationship or address its worsening human rights and governance behavior, from the crown in hong kong -- from the crackdown in hong kong to the growing russian technological influence used to spy and oppress. turning to the western hemisphere, a year ago, the president rightly denounced maduro but declared the success of his venezuela policy. today the president sits

silently as millions of venezuelans are fleeing a massive humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands of venezuelans already in the united states remain in desperate need of temporary protected status. president trump says he wants to confront the root causes of migration. he says he wants to combat drug trafficking and the opioid epidemic, yet he has repeatedly weakened our counternarcotics law enforcement and development operations in the northern triangle of mexico while continuing to push for a border wall he promise the american people that mexico would pay for. and the administration's abhorrent treatment of asylum seekers from separating children from their parents to placing people in cruel and inhuman conditions have only further weakened america's moral standing. likewise, president trump's functional restructuring of our refugee resettlement program and the slashing of refugee admissions to the united states not only damages america's

reputation as a beacon of hope for vulnerable people around the world but deprives us of the contributions refugees have always brought to our economy and our communities. we also face immense challenges like climate change and yet even as our close ally, australia, faces the most deadly conflagration this administration continued to deny a threat that is already costing american taxpayers billions of dollars in the wake of increasingly severe storms, fires, and floods. withdrawing from the paris climate agreement was a gross abdication of american leadership, one that has allowed china -- yes, china to position itself as the world leader on clean energy. the trump administration has also ceded ground to the united nations to china and russia. recently, china beat us out for a leadership seat at the food and agricultural organization

while russia won out support for its cyber crime treaty. and while the administration may seek to explain away these losses on an individual basis, this is, in fact, the steady drip, drip, drip of the loss of american power and influence due to president trump's abject mismanagement. turning to africa, at a time when our allies as well as adversaries like russia and china are ramping up their engagement, the united states is pulling back. indeed, secretary pompeo has visited kansas on multiple occasions during his tenure, but he has yet to visit a single sub saharan country. likewise, we see a complete absence of diplomatic strategies for challenges across africa, from preventing a return to conflict in south sudan to supporting the democratic transition in ethiopia to curbing terrorism, and the recent tragic deaths of americans in kenya demonstrate a

lack of progress in weakening terrorist organizations like al-shahab and boca harry am. likewise, for a year, the administration refused to yield human trafficking sanctions so the usaid could adequately sponsor the deadly ebay epidemic in congo. on human rights, the trump administration's approach is, in one word, abysmal. the administration has supported the saudi i-led campaign in yemen amid reports of despicable war crimes. it stood silent on the willing of "washington post" reporter chog jamal khashoggi at m.b.s. direction. in guatemala, the philippines, burma, turkey, and beyond. likewise, the trump administration has rolled back the rights of women and girls worldwide from cutting off funding for lifesaving maternal care they falsely claim for most

abortions to reinstating the global gag rule. and it has set back the clock on equality and protection for lgbtq citizens in international instruments at the u.n. and elsewhere. i want to remind my colleagues why america must champion human rights. not just because it is right, although it certainly is right, but because democracy and respect for human freedom are the foundation of a safer, better world for the american people to thrive in, and as the president's be -- as the presidt abdicates our leadership, we have witnessed attacks on america's closest friends. president trump's verbal broadsides against the united kingdom, canada, australia, south korea, just to mention a few, the latter during the ongoing nuclear standoff of north korea, are deeply regrettable and completely counterproductive.

this is not how america leads the world. this is how america finds itself alone, isolated, and more vulnerable. this administration has attacked the very idea of diplomacy. they have proposed enormous cuts to the state department's budget, removed senior diplomatic leaders with no replacements and marginalized the state department's input on key decisions. and finally, nowhere in the world is president trump's reckless foreign policy and total lack of strategy more painfully obvious than the middle east. now, let me be clear. i do not shed a tear for qasem soleimani. as a commander of the quds, he was responsible for deaths and terrorism in the middle east.

they always chose not to act against him because the decision was that the action against him, the value of that was less of value than the consequences of retaliation and long-term military action. the president must come to congress and present clear and compelling intelligence as to why the strike against soleimani was absolutely necessary. what was the imminent, imminent threat that soleimani uniquely possessed? we need to know the threats we face have materially changed, and in the wake of all the misleading statements, we must make clear to the administration that the president by himself does not, does not have the authority to launch a war against iran. mr. president, let me send you a message.

attacks on cultural sites are war crimes. they are war crimes. we observes flrl law not only because it is right but because then we can demand other countries to observe international law as well. the consequences of president trump's strike on iranian commander qasem soleimani are unfolding as we speak. already the iraqi parliament has called for an expulsion of american forces, and now there is confusion about what u.s. policy is. are we keeping troops to fight isis? are we going to start sanctions on iraq? confusion, contradiction, chaos. amid such confusion, the one thing that has taken place for sure is that instead of our mission there to fight isis, we are now having to recalibrate to use that mission to protect our own forces there. what a reprieve isis gets. and despite what the president may say, iran is not a different

country than it was two years ago. iranian-backed protesters just stormed our embassy. previously, they were storming iranian embassies -- the iranian people were storming -- excuse me -- the iraqi people were storming iranian embassies because of iran's influence in iraq. now they are massively protesting against us. a regime that continues to oppress its own people and its proxies now has a solidified populace behind it. soleimani's legacy, ultimately what he could not achieve in life, he may very well have achieved in death, pushing the united states out of iraq. it's no secret that i did not support the joint comprehensive plan of action, but let's be clear, iran is today closer to a nuclear breakout than when president trump took office. and we have isolated ourselves from the international alliance

that we built to constrain iran's ambitions. meanwhile in syria, the president's green light for turkey's incursion has weakened america's interest in the region, allowed russia to grow its influence and open the door for isis to reconstitute. by turning our backs on the kurds, we signal to the world that we'll abandon our allies on the battlefield. and while the president promised to stop endless wars in the middle east, over the weekend thousands of military family members are unexpectedly saying goodbye as their loved ones receive orders to do just the opposite. president trump has not brought the american people a more peaceful, more stable, more prosperous world. on the contrary, the president has brought us closer to war, closer to facing a nuclear-armed iran, closer to facing an existential threat to israel, closer to witnessing a destabilizing arms race and

greater conflict in the entire middle east region fueled by emboldened iranian proxy forces. madam president, a show of strength with no strategy in place is no show of strength at all. president trump spent the better part of three years on the golf course eviscerating the clear lines between a president's responsibilities to the american people and his devotion to his own. the president and family continue to put their business interests over american interests. the president flouted the constitution's emoluments clause and refused to divest himself from the trump organization. he and his family maintain unprecedented business interests and real estate projects in about 20 foreign countries that undoubtedly entangled him with foreign governments whenever local cooperation or financing is needed. it is clear that that creates a conflict that does not put the

nation's interest first. he operates with no moral compass. indeed the president's pursuit of the own personal profit at the expense of the national security interest in ukraine led to his impeachment in the house of representatives. so i urge my colleagues to remember why america's conduct on the world stage matters, why our values matter, why our leadership matters. we strive to create a more peaceful, more stable world so that we can protect the security of americans at home, so that we can create greater prosperity and economic opportunity for our people. and at the end of the day avoid at all costs the need to send our sons and daughters to war. every president faces new threats that challenge our quest for this brighter future, and we've worked hard to create institutions and provide resources to help every administration navigate this increasingly complex world.

and we pray that the moral character of every president provides them with the foresight and judgment necessary to protect american security and our strategic interests when it matters the most. instead president trump has taken difficult security challenges and made them even harder to resolve. that's why the congress' role in shaping and advancing u.s. foreign policy has never mattered more, why i'll continue to advance strategic legislation from turkey to climate change to ukraine support to conduct oversight and speak on behalf of the american people that defines us and our place in this world. we here in the senate have an obligation. we cannot cynically look the other way or be silent or enable that which we know to be wrong, risky, and morally

reprehensible. history will not judge us kindly if we do. i for one will not stand idly be and be judged that way. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today following the u.s. air strike in iraq, the air strike that killed iranians terrorist mastermind. i fully support president trump's decision. as commander in chief, i believe he had an obligation to do what he did to act when american lives are at stake. with the death of iran's general soleimani, the american people and people around the world are much safer. this general was an emboldened

blood-thirsty terrorist. he was a killer. he has the blood of countless people around the world on his hands. in the last two months we've seen 11 attacks -- 11 attacks on u.s. forces and bases, including the killing of an american citizen. he became bolder, he became more aggressive in both his actions and his ambitions. and he was stepping up his attacks on americans. in fact, general soleimani was at war with the united states his entire career, and it was a military career. he was the commander of iran's terrorist network. we watched in recent months as he personally directed brazen attacks on our embassy and our personnel in iraq. we knew that more attacks were coming, and so the united states took action. soleimani's death makes america

safer in the long run. taking out this war criminal will help us avoid war in the future. let me be clear, i don't want war with iran. the united states does not want war with iran. we know that appeasement does not work. the obama administration strategy, of wishful thinking failed. soleimani's terrorist network was made more powerful by u.s. money. the obama administration gave billions and billions of dollars in u.s. dollars as part of that iran nuclear deal. what did they do with the money? they used the money to support terrorists around the world. without a doubt, appeasement only brought failure. it made iran stronger and it hurt the united states and our allies. madam president, we know that the winning strategy is peace through strength. we knew it through ronald reagan, and we know it today. already u.s. sanctions on iran

have been crushing and crippling. we must continue president trump's maximum pressure campaign. now iran knows that the united states means what it says. we are prepared for retaliations should they come. this past weekend joe biden actually said, he said iran is in the driver's seat. madam president, iran is not in the driver's seat. iran is in the center of the bull's eye. u.s. forces will respond, will respond to any future attacks on americans or americans' safety. and we will do it swiftly and with a punishing response. it would be a grave mistake for iran to further escalate tensions. instead what iran ought to do is dial down its aggressive nature and posture. the facts are these, general soleimani was a blood thirty terrorist. he had the blood of innocent civilians on his hands and he would have killed many more if given the chance.

this general spent his entire career at war with the united states. he was responsible for the deaths of american soldiers, hundreds of deaths with i.e.d.'s, and more -- for the maiming of american soldiers hit with roadside bombs, and that would be thousands of americans who have been permanently disabled because of him. thankfully the general's 20-year reign of terror has now ended, and there is broad condemnation all around the world over the mass destruction and the death that he caused. it's time now, madam president, for iran to take a step back away from nuclear weapons, away from terrorism, away from aggressions. come to the table. it's time for them to discuss peace. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: might i inquire if we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kaine: could it be suspended. the presiding officer: yes, it could. mr. kaine: thank you, madam president. before i speak about the war powers amendment, i would like to ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to jay c. jane, a state department fellow, and to mark ecacue, for the duration reagan administration of the 116th

congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: thank you. i rise today to discuss the war powers resolution that i filed on friday, january 3, with senator durbin. i spoke yesterday at some length about the painful history of relations between iran and the united states and the escalating tensions in the last three years that have brought us to the brink of war. as we stand at the brink with military actions by iran and the united states causing battlefield casualties on the other side, i believe that it's imperative for congress to reassert itself and make plain that no president should have been the ability to take the nation to war on his or her own. let me talk about the constitution, about the value judgment underlying the allocation of war powers in the constitution, and then the resolution that's now pending having been filed in the senate. first, the constitution. the constitution is drafted in -- as drafted in 17897 has a

series of provisions, some are somewhat vague in the bill of rights, what is an unreasonable search. some precise, you have to be 35 years to be president. and if you look at the constitution, you can see a variety of provisions, some more specific and some a little more open-ended. actually, the war powers part of the constitution, though not completely without ambiguity, is one of the clearest parts of the constitution. in article 1, the power to declare war is given to congress, not to the president, not to the judiciary. to congress. in article 2, the president is declared to be the commander in chief of the military. if you read the constitutional debates at the time, what emerges is a fairly clear understanding by those who were at the constitutional convention in philadelphia that was both clear but also quite unusual. the understanding was that for a war to start, congress should vote for it to be initiated.

but then once started, the last thing you would need is 535 chiefs. so once congress voted to start a west africa, the -- to start a war, the -- this was fairly clear and it was very unusual. it was very unusual because at that point in history, 1787, war and the declaration of war was not primarily legislative. it was for the executive. it was for the king, for the monarch, for the emperor, for the constitutional tax war had been throughout history an executive function. but the framers of the stand up constitutional debates made plain that they were really trying to change human history at least insofar as the united states went. in this country, the initiation of war would be done by congress.

why was it done that i? -- why was it done that way? well, we have the virtue of a virginian who was not only one of the drafters of the constitution but kept notes of the constitutional convention and then wrote letters about what they intended. and ten years after the constitution was written in 1787, james madison wrote a letter to thomas jefferson and directly addressed why is it that the power to declare war is something for congress? and he said this. our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate -- that it's the executive most prone to war and the executive most interested in it. for this reason, we have with studied care vested the question of war with the legislature. they recognize that executives were prone to war and they wanted the legislature to have to sign off on the initiation of

war. it was unusual then, and it's unusual now that the initiation of war is to be left to the legislature. why is that provision in the constitution? why would we want to leave the question about whether war should be started to congress rather than let the president do it, as would be the case in other nations? it's about a value judgment. so as important as the constitutional provision is, i would argue that what's more important is the value judgment that underlies this requirement of congressional authorization. and the value judgment is about the men and women who serve in our military. any war runs the risk that the young men and women who serve in our military could lose their lives or could be injured or

could see their friends lose their lives or be injured. when we send troops into war, they may suffer an injury -- traumatic brain injure, post-traumatic stress disorder that will affect the entire remainders of their lives. if we affect their lives in that way, we also affect the lives of their families and friends. so the value judgment that sort of served as the pillar behind the provision that says congress has got to authorize war is this -- if we're going to force young men and women to risk their lives, it should be based on a around open debate and a vote in full view of the american public. then there should be a vote about whether we're at war, and if at the end of that debate, with the questions it asked and the trading of perspectives, at the end of that debate before the people's elected legislative branch the legislature says this

is in the national interest and we should be at war, then those men and women who serve, yes, they're going to go serve and risk their lives and risk their health and risk what might happen to them for the rest of their life, but we'll only ask them to do that if there is a considered judgment that war is in the national interest. that's the value judgment that underlies the most unusual part of the constitution that war can't be started except by congress. if we have that debate and vote, then it's a fair request to ask of people like my boy in the marines or the 1 million-plus people who serve in the military to risk their lives. but how dare we, how dare we order troops into harm's way where they could risk their lives or health possibly for the rest of their lives if we in congress are unwilling to have augite or have a vote? and sadly, madam president,

throughout the history of this country -- and this is a completely nonpartisan statement -- whigs and partisans and democrats and republicans, with different parties, representatives in the white house, congress has managed to figure out a way to avoid debate and avoid voting if they can. war votes are tough. i've had to cast two as a member of the foreign relations committee. and i've cast thousands of votes in my life. i'll tell you, a war vote is categorically different than any other vote you'll cast. they're hard, unpopular. there's going to be hard consequences of a war vote. so there may be an understandable human tradition in congress to try to avoid it, but it's a responsibility thats cannot be avoided. how can we order people to risk their lives when we're unwilling to risk the political challenges of a vote on war? so that's the constitutional

history. that's why the article 1 branch, the first among equals, is charged with the responsibility of initiating war and that's the value judgment that underlies that constitutional provision. so what does our resolution do? our resolution is filed pursuant to the war powers act, passed at the talented's of the vietnam war. senator durbin did a good job yesterday of going into the history of the passage of the war powers act. the war powers act was trying to do two things -- in the aftermath of the vietnam war and as they were analyzing what had gone wrong during it there were a number of points along the way where the president did not keep congress informed. there was a bombing campaign that was started in laos where congress wasn't informed. activities in cambodia where congress wasn't informed. and then the second thing we were trying to do is not just require presidents to inform congress but also give congress the ability to have a debate and have a vote on the floor in case

the president started hostilities without coming to congress. the president should keep congress informed, not hide the wall from congress, and congress needs a procedure to stop a war that is initiated by a president who doesn't come to congress. so here's the procedure under which we have filed our resolution. if a president puts u.s. troops into hostilities without a congressional authorization, even if the president claims a legal right to do so -- self-defense, article of due power -- but if the president puts u.s. troops into hostilities without a congressional authorization, any member of congress can file a resolution to remove the u.s. troops from hostilities and force a vote on that resolution within a prompt period of time. that is the resolution that senator durbin and i filed last friday. president trump has engaged the u.s. in hostilities with iran. we all have different points of view about whether that's a good thing or bad thing. but now that there are battlefield casualties on both

the u.s. and iranian sides, it is clear that this provision of the statute has been met, that we're engaged in hostilities with iran. not only are the u.s. and iran engaged in hostilities that have inflicted casualties, but the president is acknowledging that there were hostilities because he is sending war powers notices to congress, one in november and one last saturday, reporting on his actions and saying that the reports are consistent with the war powers act. he recognizes that hostilities are you understand way. -- are under way. the current hostilities are not pursuant to too a previously passed congressional authorization. the 2001 authorization for use of military force authorized military action against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. iran was not a perpetrator of the 9/11 attack and there is no argument that they are covered by that authorization. there was a separate authorization passed by congress in 2002. that's the most recent one that's been passed and it

authorized action to topple the iraqi government of saddam hussein. that government is long gone. long gone. and that authorization does not permit attacks on iran or on the current iraqi leadership, such as the individuals who were killed in the two sets of u.s. strikes. so with these two threshold questions met -- hostilities are under way as defined by the war powers act and they're not subject to a previously congressional authorization -- we've now filed an authorization to get congress to reassert its constitutional role. the resolution demands that the u.s. forces be withdrawn from hostilities against iran unless -- unless -- congress affirmatively passes a declaration of war or authorization or the united states needs to defend itself from an imminent attack. if my resolution passes, congress would still have the ability to pass an

authorization, if it chose to, and the use would still be able to defend -- and the united states would still be able to defend itself against imminent attack. but the president could not act on his own to start a war with iran except in those circumstances. the resolution does not require that u.s. troops withdraw from the region. we are doing many things in the region, thousands of americans are there partaking in missions that increase the security of the united states and our allies. there's no requirement that with withdraw from the region. these missions include securing cooperation with partner forces, fighting against elements of al qaeda and isis and the taliban, ensuring the safe passage of commercial vehicles through freedom of navigation operations. all those activities that are being conducted by the united states in the region can continue. the resolution does not call those forces into question or question their mission. the only thing the resolution would accomplish, if passed, is

to back the united states troops away from engagement in hostilities with iran unless for imminent defense or pursuant to a separate authorization. i would hope to have the support of all my colleagues on this resolution. its passage would preserve the option of u.s. military action for self-defense. it would preserve the ability of congress to preserve war, pass a war authorization. it would only prohibit this president or any president from taking us to war on his own. i heard one colleague say the last thing america needs is 535 commanders in chief. i completely agree. once congress authorizes a war, it should be up to the commander and the military leadership to wage that war and make the tactical decisions about how to fight it. but the question of whether we should be at war at all is one that is specifically left to congress. let me finish,

madam president, again by focusing on our troops. so many members of the military were home for the holidays enjoying time with their families, and then received surprise notices that they must redeploy to the middle east yet again. imagine the cost of two decades of war on these troops and their families. some of these folks have deployed over and over and over again. and imagine being at home at christmas and receiving the notice that you have to deploy yet again to the middle east. we're living in a challenging time. many americans know nothing but permanent war. we've been at war since 2001, and there are americans, including americans in the military, that's been their whole life. that's all that they know. and yet at the same time many americans know nothing about war because we have an all-voluntary service. many american families are completely untouched by the war. only 1% of our adult population serves in the military.

so we have an interesting dynamic that may be sort of unique to our history, whether we've been at war for 20 years -- and some only know permanent war -- while many other american families know nothing about war because members of their families don't serve in the military. we've put war on a footing where it can go on forever, sort of like on executive auto pilot by presidential order, and congress, in my view -- and again, this is bipartisan -- has hidden from its responsibilities. at this moment a very grave danger where both americans and iranians are losing their life in hostilities. it's time for congress to shoulder the burden of making the most important decision that we will ever face, and that is why i intend to bring this resolution to the floor of the senate and ask my colleagues to debate and vote on it in the coming weeks. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and i note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: madam president, i ask for a vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: i thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that omar ba sheer, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you, madam president, very much. madam president, members of the senate, i rise first to express

my great concern over president trump's recent actions and words that have brought us to the brink of an unauthorized war with iran. today i am introducing a resolution with senator warren and senators leahy and reed and booker and wyden that's very simple, because on saturday president trump tweeted that his administration is targeting 52 sites, some of which are cultural sites treasured by the iranian people. my resolution is very simple. it says that attacks on cultural sites in iran are war crimes. it's as straightforward as that. the president would compound the mistake which he has made and

turn it into something that could be catastrophic for that region, for our country, for the world. president trump's repeated threats to add iranian cultural sites to his military target list is a betrayal of american values. it is wrong, it is a needless escalation which ignores international law, and the defense department's own policies. attacking cultural sites is a violation of international law. article 53 of protocol 1 to the geneva conventions prohibits any act of hostility against cultural objects, including making cultural sites the target of reprisals. the 1954 hague convention for the protection of cultural

property in the event of armed conflict which has been ratified by this body also prohibits the attack or destruction of cultural sites. and attacking cultural sites would also violate the defense department's own policies. the department of defense law of war manual states that, quote, cultural property, the areas immediately surrounding it and appliances and use for its protection should be safeguarded and respected. the fact that president trump's threatened attacks of cultural sites in iran violate international law and department of defense policies may be why yesterday defense secretary mark esper appeared forced to contradict the president when asked if cultural sites would be targeted, as the president had

suggested over the weekend, secretary esper stated that the united states follows the laws of armed conflict. well, the united states senate then should speak clearly with one voice to tell president trump that it does not condone attacks on cultural sites in iran. and given secretary esper's comments yesterday, i cannot see why my friends on the other side of the aisle would not support this resolution to make that statement very clear and to make it now, before iran potentially retaliates against us and the president begins to select the targets inside of iran. because attacking cultural sites is what isis does. it's what al qaeda does. it's what the world's most heinous terrorists do. there's no excuse for the president to threaten war crimes by intentionally targeting the

cultural sites of another country. this is not who we are. we're the united states of america. we are better than this. we actually fight against this. we condemn isis. we condemn others who destroy the culturally sacred objects in other countries. and just a few years ago, in 2017, the trump administration itself opposed and condemned the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage at the hands of isis. as a top u.s. official to the united nations, u.s. deputy permanent representative to the u.n. ambassador michelle sisson said on the president's behalf, quote, the unlawful destruction or trafficking of cultural heritage is deplorable. we unequivocal oppose it and we will take all feasible steps to halt, limit, and to discourage

it. but now the president himself is threatening to engage in exactly these sorts of illegal and reprehensible attacks on iran. well, the united states, it had a choice to make back in world war ii. because our military kept putting japan's ancient capital kyoto back on the target list for the atomic bomb. kyoto is home to more than 2,000 buddhist temples, shinto shrines, including 17 world heritage sites. it was secretary of war, henry stimson, who went directly to president truman to argue that kyoto should be removed because, quote, the bitterness which would be caused by such a wanton act might make it impossible

during the long postwar period to reconcile the japanese to us. so if we want any ultimate reconciliation with iran, we cannot allow donald trump to order the destruction of the cultural history of iran, so that reconciliation may never be possible. imagine -- just imagine the outcry the american people would have if our symbols of cultural heritage were destroyed. the statue of liberty destroyed. independence hall with the declaration of independence and the constitution were drafted -- destroyed. the memorials along the national mall destroyed. these places house and embody our collective history and the culture of the united states of america. the assassination of general

soleimani was a massive, deliberate, and dangerous escalation of conflict with iran. on what conditions prompt us to go to war the united states constitution and the war powers act leave little ambiguity. the congress and not the president has the power to make or authorize the war. the congress has the authority to determine when and how we go to war. we cannot and must not get drawn into a costly war with iran. we need to de-escalate now. but president trump's threats to illegally attack culture sites in iran only align us with the world's most sinister and draw us further along the path to war. now some might say, well, secretary of defense esper says that president trump will not do

this. with let me read you -- well, let me read you president trump's tweet at 5:52 p.m. on saturday evening. here's what he said. targeted 52 iranian sites, some at a very high level and important to iran. the iranian culture and those targets in iran itself will be hit very fast and very hard. that's the president of the united states, just saturday night, 5:52 p.m. and we're supposed to be assured by secretary of defense esper that we don't have to worry? well, here's what we've learned in just the last couple of days. the generals were stunned -- the generals were shocked that president trump ordered the assassination of soleimani. so we can't depend upon the

representations of secretary esper. we have to make a statement ourselves, because no one in his administration controls donald trump. if he says that he's going to target the most valuable cultural sites inside of iran, we should believe him. he does what he says he's going to do. he wanted to kill soleimani, even if the generals were shocked? he does it. he doesn't understand the long-term consequences from his perspective? just get over it. well, we're going to reap the whirlwind in iran. if the president decides to take the next step after iran retaliates and they say that they are, and these sacred

culture sites are on the list, then taking secretary stimson's advice from world war ii, our ability to ever reconcile may be impossible. so this is the moment that we have to speak as a senate, because we do not know how much time will elapse before iran strikes back at us, as they have promised. we should make our statement right now to donald trump in the oval office. that we do not want him, under any circumstances, to order the destruction of the most sacred cultural sites signed of iran. -- inside of iran. it would be a war crime. it would be in violation of the geneva convention, it would be in violation of the hague convention, and it would have catastrophic consequences for our country and for the middle east for a generation. so this is the time for us to speak before it happens, before

the president fulfills his promise to destroy those sites. he is the commander in chief. he said he wants to do this. he just killed, assassinated the top military official, the second most powerful person in iran, to the shock of his own generals. so do not think for a second he will not do this. this is a potential tragedy for our country. this is a potential source of eternal friction between our two countries. reconciliation with iran would become nearly impossible, so let's make this statement as the united states senate. let's follow up on what secretary of defense esper represents as the position of president trump, of the

administration, that they don't want to destroy it. but let's take -- make the statement because we know that the defense secretary just may not speak for donald trump. no one speaks for donald trump. only his tweets speak for donald trump. and we know what his tweets said. very high level and important to iran. the iranian culture and those targets in iran itself will be hit very fast and very hard. we have a chance here to make a statement before this happens. forewarned is forearmed. we have been forewarned. a and our ability to act is a unanimous resolution here from the floor of the united states senate saying to the president, as secretary stimson said to president truman in 1945, do not

do this, mr. president. it will be a mistake of historic proportions and a war crime. do not order a war crime to be conducted in the name of the american people. so the resolution, which i bring out here to the floor, is intended to have this body vote and vote unanimously for him not to take that action. this is our moment to speak before he compounds his original mistake an assassination of general soleimani and turns it into a tragedy, which we will have to live with for a generation. so, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of s. con. res. 32 submitted earlier today, and i further ask that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble 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: is there objection? mr. inhofe: mr. president, reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: you know, i sit here and listen to this and a lot of american people do, too. and my good friend from massachusetts has said things here that i know he actually believes. he actually believes it. so here we are with the president of the united states, who has given us with the -- over the objections of the gentleman -- my friend from massachusetts -- the best economy we've had maybe in my lifetime -- you could argue that. he's been able to do this two ways. one was a way that was designed

first by a democrat, by john kennedy, when he said the best way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal rates. we reduced marginal rates and it worked. unfortunately, president kennedy died after that. then we have the judges right now that are taking place. we have right now -- i think we're just over 170 judges. the unique thing about this, these are judges who are really constitutional judges. they've actually read the constitution. that's a unique notion. and then the military -- and again, it's hard to sit sheer and listen to -- it's a hard to sit here and listen to someone should has that level -- you hear so much hatred about this breadth. but he's getting so many great things done. if you look at the military, not many people know this. i chaired the senate armed services committee. i know a little bit about it. and we know that during the obama administration, during the

last four years -- this would have been from 2010 to 2015 -- that he reduced the budget for the military by 25%, using constant dollars. that's never happened before. even after world war i and world war ii when those reductions took place, this was even more than that. at a time when you could argue it is the most dangerous thyme in history. so here the president has been responsible for that and yet there's so much hatred out there, and then the issue at hand now, the subject of the gentleman's document, is rather interesting. he's talking about culture sites. i can remember in the very beginning of the obama administration, he went out of his way to protect cultural sites. you talk to people in different religions, minority religions in different countries, and they talk about what he's done to protect minority sites and

churches that have been torn down, so here's a guy, our president, who's been right in the middle of the very thing that he's been accused of offending. so i ask that the lines -- that line one noted that secretary esper has made it quite clear that the united states will follow the laws of the armed conflict. he will. i know him well. i've known him for many, many years. i. i heard him say it himself. along these linings i note that expect esper has made it quite clear that the united states will follow the laws of armed conflict. i, therefore, appreciate the spirit of senator markey's resolution opposing attacks on cultural sites. i agree with that. however, since our votes carry the force of law, we need to be specific in our resolutions, and it's simply not true that attacking cultural sites is always a war crime, because there are many instances in

which cultural sites have been used as staging grounds for hostilities. we all know that. i can give examples. there isn't time for that. as president clinton noted in his message to the senate when he sent the hague cultural property convention over for ratification almost exactly 21 years ago on january 6, 1999 -- and i'm quoting from it now -- a cultural property is protected from intentional attacks so long aces it is not being used for military tear purposes for otherwise may be regarded as a military objective. misuse may subject such property to attack. that's a direct quote. that was from president clinton. and to be clerks i'm not saying that we should target cultural sites. we should not restrict any of our military's ability to defend itself when rogue -- actors

appropriate cultural sites for a strategic reason. to use the use of a cultural site to the construct i.e.d.'s, or give snipers cart branch, is not accounted for in this resolution. i therefore object to this resolution on those grounds and hope that the resolution will be amended to acknowledge an exception for when cultural sites are used for staging military attacks or other improper purposes. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be referred to the appropriate committee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: madam president, just in response to the senator from oklahoma, it is deeply disheartening when on the floor of the united states senate we cannot agree to a simple

commitment that the united states of america should never engage in military actions that are war crimes by attacking cultural sites in iran. when isis attacks cultural sites in the middle east, we condemn that because we know what the impact on the cultures of those countries will be. when al qaeda attacked us on september 11, 2001, which targets did they select in they selected the world trade center, the symbol of capitalism in the united states. they selected the pentagon, the symbol of our defense. and but for those brave passengers on that plane in pennsylvania, when they said "let's roll," that target could

have been the capitol building of the united states of america where we are standing right now. the symbol of democracy. they knew what they were doing. they were striking at capitalism, at our defense department, and at democracy. and they knew what the impact would have been on our country. and so we have a choice to make right now out here on the floor of the united states senate. and that is to make a statement before we do that to the iranians, because we ourselves experienced it and we know what our reaction was. they will rise up in a way that will make it impossible to reconcile. we will be in eternal war in the middle east. so my request to the members is

to have this resolution come back out here on the floor. i understand the gentleman's objection. but the president could be ordering additional retaliatory strikes against the ierns -- against the iranians within a week if the iranians are good for their word that they are going to hit us. and we have to ensure that if the president does act, he does so in a way that does not commit a war crime, that does not destroy these culturally significant parts of the iranian culture that go back thousands of years. it would be something that ultimately would be catastrophic. we are better than this. we are the united states of america. president trump has already made one mistake in assassinating general soleimani. we should not allow him to compound that --.

mr. inhofe: may i be recognized for a parliamentary inquiry? the presiding officer: does the senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry? mr. markey: i do. mr. inhofe: are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of my friend from massachusetts that i be recognized for such time as i may consume. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection,so ordered. mr. markey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator yields. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, five days ago president trump made a, i guess the boldest defensive policy decision of his presidency to date. he authorized the air strike against the leader of iran's quds force, soleimani, in

accordance with his authorities as commander in chief of the united states under article 2 of the constitution. now let's remember who soleimani was. he was a terrorist. he was responsible for training and funding militias across the middle east, the very militias that have targeted american personnel at our facilities, our partners for decades. he was behind the plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador in washington. that was back in 2011. he's been doing this for a long time now. he was responsible for the brutal repression of democratic protests within iran. the terrorist groups that he armed and trained attacked our partners, including israel. some of the people out there are more focused on criticizing president trump for taking out soleimani than they are about protecting american diplomats and american troops.

conveniently forgetting that soleimani is the architect of iran's terrorism and is responsible for over 600 american deaths during the iraq war. you think about how bad -- it doesn't get any worse than that. we hear a lot about recently -- and i'm very happy that this president was able to put together something to take out a baghdadi, but this guy was worse than al bag bad did i -- al-baghdadi, even worse than bin laden. they think it was reckless and represents a rush to war. nothing could be further from the truth. just remember how we got where we are today. remember the obama apology tour. i remember it well. when they first came into

office, he went to adversaries and friends alike talking about how bad america was. we remember that. it was a changing, a game changer for our behavior throughout the world at that time. first american credibility hit an all-time low under the obama administration. president obama set a red line in syria. we all remember that. the red line in syria, that was because syria was using weapons of mass destruction. he had said, president obama had said if you continue to do that, we'll take you out, or words to that effect. then the red line occurred when syria started dropping weapons of mass destruction on its own people there. now that kind of, i think, changed the thinking of what america does, does and says and

what they mean. to make matters worse, obama signed a deal with iran that didn't address iran's support for terrorism at all which gave iran over $100 billion including $1.7 billion in cash. that was a john kerry thing. that was when john kerry was the secretary of state and president obama was the president. and at that time $1.7 billion was given to this terrorist group in small bills in foreign currency for obvious reasons. you don't have to stop and think that through. but then in addition, over $700 billion, and they even admitted at that time that that could be used to expand terrorist activities. one of the quotes in 2016 -- and i wrote it down and used it many times since then, and want you to listen to this, madam president. this is a quote from john kerry in 2016. he said i think that some of it

will end up in the hands of the irgc or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. he also said -- i'm still quoting john kerry. you know, to some degree, i'm not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented. so is it any wonder that iran's regional aggression has gotten bolder and bolder. look what's happened in the last few months. in may this year the iranians attacked oil tankers with land mines. we know about that. in june they shot down a u.s. drone, a united states drone. by the way, the cost of that was classified for awhile. it's not classified any more except it is in excess of $100 million. that's what they did. what did our president do? he sat back and he didn't, just didn't cause him to get all excited. he handled it in a very diplomatic way. then in september they attacked

the saudi oil fields, taking some 50% of the saudi arabia's oil production capability off-line. president trump showed incredible restraint. after each one of these provocations, he responded by increasing pressure on iran, ramping up economic sanctions, increasing their diplomatic isolation, but not anything that would suggest getting into any type of violence at that time. but the president avoided military action while setting a very clear red line. and what was the red line? he said soleimani, slong -- as long as you don't kill an american. you kill an american, we're going to come after you. that's the red line, and that's the red line that 95% of the people in america agree with. on december 27 iran crossed that red line. soleimani directed the attack and killed an american and

wounded four other service members. president trump made it clear that there were consequences for spilling american blood. he said you kill an american, we're going to come after you, and he's dead now. now iran never believed there would be consequences after all. obama never enforced his red line, and even president trump was hesitant to use military force. only a day before the strike that killed soleimani iran's supreme leader tweeted at our president. in fact, you have to read this. this is a tweet that came from the president. that guy was tweeting that we see iran responsible for the events in baghdad and we will respond to iran. first, you can't do anything. this is the guy telling our president that you can't do anything. that's a quote. the whole thing is a quote that came from him. they never believed that there would be consequences, but

there were consequences. only a day after the strike, he said you can't do anything. and we're talking about iran's supreme leader tweeting our president of the united states, you can't do anything. well, obviously they know better now. president trump could and he did. his actions restored america's credibility around the world. he showed that we mean what we say. you tell me what is reckless. they talk about what is reckless. a president who means what he says and takes protection of american lives seriously or the fringe democrats who want to tie the president's hands and deny him the tools to uphold the constitutional responsibility to defend its citizens. there is right now before this senate, there's a resolution. not the one that my friend from massachusetts was talking about, but another one that would take away a lot of president's powers of negotiation. we're talking about powers that are there as a result of article 2 of the constitution. that's what our president has,

those constitutional powers. yet, the president -- and he did not use military force until they crossed the red line. and that is not a rush to war. listen to folks like former democrat is not joe lieberman. senator joe lieberman, i served here in the senate with him. he was a democrat. i have a quote. one of the quotes that he said just recently analyzing this, and of course he was in a position -- i don't recall but i think he was here probably more than 30 years. this is a quote from joe lieberman, democrat joe lieberman, former senator, quote, president trump's order to take out qasam soleimani was morally, constitutionally, and strategically correct. it deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow democrats. that's a quote. and then we have another quote about the same time frame, just

recently. listen to, it was obama's secretary of homeland security. i got to know him. his name is jeh johnson. he is the one who was eminently qualified for that position and did a good job when he was there. but this is what he said about the action with soleimani that the president is being accused all these terrible things about from this secretary of homeland security under president obama, jeh johnson. he said, quote, 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 an additional congressional authorization, whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in attacks against our people. he was a lawful military objective. everything was perfectly

appropriate that this president did. and these are two prominent democrats that have come out with this. you know, there are a lot of people out there that are pretty fed up with what's been going on. i keep hearing that something's going to happen this week in terms of the, of all the accusations that have been made. and i don't know. i have a personal opinion that a lot of people don't agree with, i'm sure. i don't think even the speaker knows right know just what's going to happen. are the articles going to come over? i think a lot of her far-left friends are saying, yeah, let's go over there, let's continue this thing. let's continue beating up the president. but she also has a bunch of her liberal friends who are saying, look, the polls don't look too good. people are on to this thing, and they realize that there is a, maybe we shouldn't be sending them at all. we'll find out tomorrow. i understand there is a big democratic meeting. i'm not invited. but there is one over in the

house and they're going to make a determination, we'll all find out at that time what's going to happen to the articles of impeachment. again, a lawful military objective, one president trump took out under article 2 authority. more to the point, nobody is talking about war. nobody is calling for an invasion. nobody is calling for a ramp-up. we all know what that looks like here. it's very plainly not what is happening. an air strike is not war. defending american lives is not war. the president has made it clear that he does not desire war, which is why he has continued to call for negotiations with iran to end the standoff. and that's the very thing that some people are trying to take away from him. it is not just a constitutional right. it's a constitutional responsibility. so nobody here wants war. but at the same time nobody should want a policy that would leave americans vulnerable to the whims of iran's terrorist

supporting regime. if we do that, if we tie the president's hands so that he cannot defend american lives, we leave ourselves more vulnerable and, therefore, make war infinitely more likely. that's how reckless he is not. so i just would -- the would be anxious for this time period to get by so we don't have to face this on a daily basis. and, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. today i rise to recognize members of the greatest generation who courageously helped defeat the german army at the battle of the bulge and

dealt a critical blow to the nazi regime. on this day 75 years ago, american soldiers continued the resilience they demonstrated for four weeks. the forest of the the luks -- allied forces were unprepared, they were outnumbered and facing record-low temperatures and dwindling supplies. still the men on the front lines dug in to defend against the enemy. arkansan bill strauss was one of the brave men who faced the bitter cold. with lack of sleep and shortage of food, he and his fellow troops endured this extreme test of will be resolve. i met with bill in 2019 to help him sell operate his 100th birthday and thank him force his

service and continued commitment to sharing his experiences with others. it's been 75 years, but bill's recollection of the details of the unimaginable circumstances he faced was still very clear. he talks about his memories as part of the battle of the bulge in order to honor his fellow soldiers who weren't so fortunate as well as teach succeeding generations about the realities of war and the remarkable perseverance of american troops. the six-week battle demonstrated the commitment, courage, and resilience of bill and all american soldiers. it was the largest battle ever fought by the u.s. army, british prime minister winston churchill called it the greatest american battle of the war. it came at a considerable cost. more than 89,000 american soldiers were casualties

including 19,000 soldiers killed, 24,500 wounded and 2,300 captured or missing in action. the people of belgium have a close place in their heart for american soldiers who sacrificed their lives on foreign soil. they continue to display that gratitude today. a couple of weeks ago i led a group of my fellow senators of both countries to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge, we observed how they observe this anniversary. the community support was welcoming of americans whose fate brought together in 1944 there in the town and in the nearby forest to defend baston and hold off the german advance. i was honored to be there with americans who fought in the

battle. there are fewer and fewer who were able to join, but that doesn't diminish what they did there or the steadfast way they fought and sacrificed in the name relief freedom. my colleagues and i are also -- had the unique opportunity to witness a ceremony among the fox halls in belgium. these foxholes occupied by soldiers, including easy company, the celebrated band of brothers book, remain preserve. they stand as a stark reminder of the bitter cold and inhospitable conditions our soldiers with stood for so many days. this solemn ceremony was a special way to remember those who had fought and honor those whose lives were taken too early. following world war ii, they built a memorial to show their

appreciation of the selfless sacrifice of american troops. the walls of the star-shaped structure commemorate the battle paying tribute to the units that fought there and representing the states where those wounded or whose lives were lost hailed from. this memorial is in need of repairs, that's why i support legislation that senator tillis introduced that would let experts at the american battle monuments commission oversee its restoration. maintaining this memorial is critical to ensuring -- making sure that -- what the monument stands for, the service, the sacrifice made by americans at the battle of the bulge will be continued to be remembered for generations to come. i encourage my colleagues to support this bill so future generations are reflect on the

heroism and bravery of our troops. we can be proud of the unwavering bravery of the american service members and the allied forces whose efforts defeated the german attack and led to the end of the nazi regime. it is fitting we recognize the 75th anniversary of the battle that both shaped the future of combat and ushered in a new era of comity between europe and the united states. and, with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i first thank the senator from arkansas for his wonderful remarks. we had a similar celebration in rhode island with those who were at the battle of the bulge and

recounted their stories and joined by state leaders and crowed of admirers. and it was a wonderful moment and memory. i thank him for calling it up on the senate floor. here we are, mr. president, 2020, and i am still coming to the floor to try to wake this chamber up to the perils of climate change. pathetic. why do i have to be doing another one of these speeches? why don't we heed the warnings of our foremost scientists, of our military, of top financial institutions, heck, of our own home state universities? what does it take to get our attention around here? why is the fossil fuel industry's unlimited dark money still flooding our politics? why are the biggest lobbying

forces in washington, like the u.s. chamber of commerce, rated as america's worst climate obstructers? where are those trade group's members who claim to support climate action when their own groups are leading the obstruction? what is going on? and who around here is so cynical as to still take fossil fuel money and block climate action? how in 2020 is that a legitimate deal? who hasn't noticed the world spinning toward climate catastrophe, the forests burning, the seas rising, the ocean water acidifying, the glaciers melting? how could you miss that? to the liars and the deniers and stooges, i predict 2020 is going

to be a bad year for you. the sand beneath your castle of lies is eroding fast. 2019, that was a tough year for you. 2020 will be worse. we were going to bring down your -- we are going to bring down your castle of lies. the fossil fuel fossil fuel -- fossil fuel campaign of obstruction hides behind an armada of phony front groups. 2020, we will out you and your fossil fuel funding too. big oil companies who pretend to want progress while still using that climate denial and obstruction apparatus to attack the very progress you claim to want, that truth we will out, we will expose your two-facedness.

the fossil fuel industry spoons up the biggest subsidy in the history of the planet. the international monetary fund estimates their global subsidy in the trillions of dollars every year, globally. in the united states alone, the fossil fuel industry was subsidized to the tune of $ 650 billion in 2015, the last year that the i.m.f. has calculated. we will out that massive subsidy and your dark money schemes to protect it. the fossil fuel industry's biggest schemers against climate action in congress are the big corporate trade associations. the worst two, the u.s. chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers.

the watchdog influence map outed in the chamber a virtual tie as the two most obstructive forces on climate change in america. some prize. the chamber works its evil in legislation through regulatory action, in courts, in elections, even fighting state-level progress on carbon pollution. the chamber funded the phony debunk report that president trump used to disparage the paris agreement. the chamber stooged for the fossil fuel industry for years and got away with it. 2019 saw an end to that. my colleagues and i took to

social media, to op-ed pages and to the senate floor to out the chamber for its disgraceful record on climate change. we pushed on chamber members to demand change within the organization. we countered the chamber with amicus briefs laying out its dirty history when its evil little head popped up in climate law suits. senator warren and i lodged a complain with the clerk of the house and the secretary of the senate over the chamber's refusal to disclose who is behind the lobbying activities, discan closures, by the way, required by law. senators even got hashtag chamber of carbon trending on twitter. and i made a little year-end visit to the chamber to make for no charge a little correction to their sign out front so that it says, welcome to the u.s. chamber of carbon.

so we've been after them, and by year's end, there were signs of discomfort over at the chamber. up popped a post on its website that said that on climate, inaction is not an option. for years inaction had been a purpose, now they say it's not an option. the chamber formed a new climate change working group. the chamber of carbon even quietly posted that it reversed itself on the paris agreement and now was for staying in. okay, baby steps, but in the right direction. i think the chamber and naam became the two worst climate obstructors because they were paid to with fossil fuel dark

money, and in 2020 i intend to find that out. if the chamber is still taking fossil fuel money, it's hard to take those baby steps very seriously. they are probably just p.r. to placate the chamber members who are embarrassed that their organization got caught and outed as a top climate obstructer. and for that prize, by the way, chamber members have a lot to be embarrassed about. all state, metlife, i.b.m., fedex, bayer, ford motors, united airlines, delta, american, they all funded and directed a top climate obstructer. really? did they know it?

did they know the chamber, their own organization was secretly getting fossil fuel money to become a top climate obstructer? if they did know, by god they've got some explaining to do. if they did not know, what standard of governance makes it okay for a board member to not even know who's funding your organization? so lookout, board members. we're not legal that go either. 2020 is the year we intend to get to the bottom of all of this nasty mess. the real test for the chamber, not baby steps, the real test for the chamber will be whether it puts its back into passing a real comprehensive climate bill.

will the chamber stop scheming with climate denial organizations? will the chamber stop opposing climate action candidates? those are the tests. this, by the way, is not a p.r. test. it's not a p.r. test of how little you can get away with. this is a science test. it's a science test of how we keep our planet below 1.5 degrees celsius global warming. if we fail the science test, how well we did on the p.r. test is going to look pretty silly. so help us meet that 1.5 degrees celsius. we'll be talking gladly. i look forward to working with you. but until then, expect the pressure on you to rise in 2020. we called out one other

miscreant in 2019, marathon petroleum. this gasoline refiner orchestrated the trump attack on fuel economy standards for automobiles. as i laid out in testimony in a house oversight subcommittee hearing last year, marathon pressured members of congress, governors, and the trump administration and the corrupt trump administration was only too eager to oblige issuing an error-riddled proposal to freeze the fuel economy standards. the trump administration went after california's authority under the clean air act to set fuel standards. trump's d.o.j. cooked up a bogus antitrust investigation i believe to punish the automakers that had worked with california to hammer out a separate deal on fuel economy standards that defeated marathon's scheme.

it looks like the trump administration also pressured automakers to support the administration's legal battle with california. 2020 is the year i hope we expose all this. in 2019 investors started noticing marathon's bad behavior on climate. in fact, in september 200 investors with $6.5 trillion, $6.5 trillion in assets under management sent a letter to 47 u.s. companies including marathon to urge those companies to align their lobbying with the paris agreement 2 degrees celsius climate goal and to warn that their lobbying against that goal is an investment risk. well, the your biggest shareholders in marathon are black rock, j.p. morgan, state

street, and vanguard. they claim to care about climate. we will see in 2020 if they keep condoning all this marathon misbehavior. happily there are some things the crooked fossil fuel industry apparatus can't stop. even with its massive subsidy for fossil fuel, renewables are starting to win on price. new green energy technologies are powering up like offshore wind and battery storage, electric vehicles are driving costs down and performance up for consumers. old coal plants are closing 546 closed since 2010. new coal plants are unfinancable. and 2019 saw murray energy

become the eighth coal company in a year to file for bankruptcy and the biggest drop in coal consumption ever. another trend the industry couldn't stop was economists, central bankers, wall street, real estate professionals, and asset managers waking up to the crash risks that climate change poses to the global economy. it's not just that it's recking our atmosphere and oceans and climate. our economy stands on those pillars. and at some point there will be economic crashes. climate crash warnings used to be scarce. now they're everywhere. freddie mac warns that rising sea levels will prompt a crash in coastal property values worse

than the housing crash that caused the 2008 financial cris crisis. first street foundation found that rising seas have already resulted in $16 billion in lost property values in coastal homes from maine to mississippi. moodies warns that climate risk will trigger downgrades in coastal communities' bond ratings. black rock estimated that by the end of the century, climate change will cause coastal communities' annual losses that could average up to 15% of local g.d.p., average up to 15% of local g.d.p. with the hardest hit communities hit far worse. look out, florida. and by the way, louisiana is not too far from florida. the bank of england, the bank of france, the bank of canada, european central bank backed by

top-tier review papers are all warning of systemic economic risk, system economic risk is economist speak for a risk to the entire economy. systemic economic risk from stranded fossil fuel assets, the so-called carbon asset bubble. on top of that the commodity futures trading commission here in the u.s. has launched a climate risk review. even the trump fed is starting to echo those warnings with reports out of local federal basks, federal reserve banks. and it's not just big institutions that are grasping the risks of climate change. i visited louisiana, wyoming, and colorado last year to hear about climate change. and see what red and purple state americans are doing about

it. and the answer is plenty. in louisiana sea level rise and subdance are mega threats. a meant a hunter and fisherman whose personal efforts to restore marshlands have let his lands rebound. over 30 species of birds just while we were standing around were counted waiting to board the boat. the sights and sounds of a healthy marsh were an encouraging reminder of nature's ability to find a way to not only survive but to flourish if we give her a chance. in wyoming, well, don't get me wrong. climate change isn't always a popular subject in wyoming. the state is basically run by the fossil fuel industry. but there i met a younger generation that really gets it. i will not forget the determination of leading winter sports athletes in jackson

fighting to preserve their winters. nor in lander, the impassioned argument for climate action from a young outdoor instructor from noeknowles nor out at their campsite, the fire-lit passionate faces of central wyoming college students on their way up to take glacier measurements, who well understand the stakes of climate change for their future and the future of the state that they love. typically these climate road trips that i do land me in states where the fight for climate change may need a little, say, boost. but the opposite was true in colorado. it's a state on a major climate winning streak. a spate of good climate bills passed during the last legislative session. their biggest public utility, transitions to renewable energy,

building impressive renewable electric vehicle infrastructure. and leading research institutes bringing new renewable energy technologies to the marketplace. 2019 also showed polling that showed climate action was becoming a top issue for american voters everywhere. a big part is young voters and especially young republicans. more than three-fourths of all millennials and a majority of millennial republicans agree on the need for climate action. last year a republican former member of congress wrote about climate change. my party will never earn the votes of millennials unless it gets serious about finding solutions. and it's not just younger voters. americans of all innings and -- of all ages and political stripes favor many of the solutions that scientists and economists say are needed to

tackle climate change. in october 2019, pew poll found that two-thirds of americans believe the federal government needs to do more to combat climate change. the same poll showed 77% of americans believe the u.s. ought to prioritize developing alternative energy over fossil fuels. so the decades-long fossil fuel campaign of obstruction and lies and denial won't be tolerated much longer. in new england in the springtime, a moment comes when the roof of your house warms up enough to send the snow sliding down off the roof in a big woof. the snow may have piled up slowly over weeks and months but it comes down all at once in a woomf. the fossil fuel energy and its

network of front groups and trade associations have spent years piling up their crooked apparatus of climate obstructi obstruction. increasingly, their evil behavior is facing blow back from the public and from regulators and from investors. alarm bells are ringing ever louder from all quarters about the economic risks. renewable energy and other green technologies are ever more cost competitive. awareness of climate change danger is ever growing among the american people. these are all signs of the thaw, the woomf is near. 2020 could be the moment. mr. president, i know things in washington can seem hopeless but 2019 gave me some reasons to hope and for 2020, well, its game on. to tear down the crooked castle of climate denial and solve this

problem while still we can. i yield the floor. mr. white house: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow, the senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the executive calendar numbers 329, 462, and 525, in the order listed. further, if cloture is invoked on the nominations, all postcloture time be expired at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, and the senate vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed with no intervening action or debate. finally, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. 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. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 554. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, executive office of the president, paul j. wray of tennessee to be administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs, office of management and budget. 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, on the nomination of paul j. wray of tennessee to be medicare of the office of information and regulatory affairs, office of management and budget. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. 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 therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it

adjourn until 10:00 a.m. wednesday, january 8. 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. finally, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the solomson nomination under the previous order. 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, following the remarks of senator brown. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: and finally i -- -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. brown: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. three and a half years ago or so, i heard -- i live in cleveland, and i was in my state watching the presidential campaign, and i heard candidate trump repeatedly talking about renegotiating nafta or getting rid of the north american free trade agreement. while i did not support his candidacy and have generally disagreed with most of what he has said and done, i -- it was a bit of music to my ears to hear candidate trump talk about renegotiating or getting rid of nafta because i have voted in my time in the senate and before this, every single trade agreement starting with the north american free trade agreement of two-plus decades ago, i voted no on these trade agreements. i have never voted for a trade agreement because, frankly, every trade agreement coming in front of the house or senate has

been a corporate trade agreement. it's been written by corporate lobbyists to serve corporate executives to serve their biggest stockholders. that's what these trade agreements are about. in every case it was an attack on the middle class. in every case it undermined worker protections, depressed wages, meant loss of jobs. i know what these corporate trade agreements did to my hometown of mansfield, ohio. i know what they have done to my adopted city of cleveland, ohio. i know what they have done to the entire industrial midwest, well beyond that too in places like arizona and elsewhere. i've seen what these corporate trade deals do. so the president of the united states, candidate trump was elected president. he then says he's going to do away, either back out of nafta or renegotiate. and i looked at that with some optimism. i talked to the u.s. trade rep a number of times, ambassador

lighthizer. i spoke with the president about it. i offered my assistance. and then lo and behold about a year ago the president came out with the renegotiated nafta. it was the same old same old. it was another corporate trade agreement that served his corporate interests, that served the drug companies, that served those companies that are looking for cheap labor across the rio grande river. so under the president's new nafta, he called it usmca, united states-mexico-canada, under the president's new nafta, it was the same corporate template, the same corporate trade agreement that undermines, that helps corporate investors, that undermines workers, that gives incentives to companies to shut down production in zanesville, and in marietta and in cleveland and in lima and toledo and bryan and move their jobs to mexico. so what did we do? instead initially i continued to

talk to the u.s. trade rep, some of my colleagues, knowing this draft was unacceptable. it was not nearly what the president said he would do for workers. in fact, it was more than that. it was another betrayal of workers. the same president that's betrayed low-income workers by refusing to raise the minimum wage. it's been more than a decade. the same president that took away the overtime, the new overtime rule costing at least 50,000 ohioans. that is 50,000 in my state. thousands in arizona. tens of thousands, probably 100,000 in california. tens of thousands around the country and different states costing them overtime pay, they would work 50 hours a week and only get paid for 40. we saw the president again is betraying workers. it has taken us months and amongst of fighting alongside speaker pelosi and senator wyden, the senior democrat on

the finance committee and unions to organize labor to secure the brown-wyden provisions that now with usmca amount to the strongest labor enforcement in a u.s. trade agreement ever. it means that wages will go up in mexico, which is good news for american workers, because fewer jobs will move to mexico. a worker in mexico now will be able to report a company that violates her labor rights or worker rights. within months we can determine whether worker rights have been violated, can take action against that company. now for the first time, madam president, in my whole career, i will vote for a trade agreement. i wouldn't have voted for the trump trade. i didn't vote for nafta and central american free trade agreement, pntr with china and all these other trade agreements. i would not have voted against the trump usmca because it didn't look out for workers. instead of putting workers at the center of trade agreements, which is what we should do, it

again put -- there was a trade agreement written by and for corporate interests. what senator wyden and i did and others is that we have now, we're now about to pass a trade agreement that puts workers in the center of the trade agreement, meaning a stronger middle class, meaning workers will get a fair shake. it means that ohio workers will be able to compete. we know why companies took advantage of these corporate trade agreements. they shut down production in ohio and moved to mexico so they can pay lower wages, so they can take advantage of workers who don't have rights. american workers can't compete with that when it's a race to the bottom on wages. brown-wyden will work to stop that, and for the first time ever, as i said, put workers in the center of a trade agreement. we must be straight with american workers. this isn't a perfect trade agreement. one trade deal the democrats fixed, even though the president resisted it, finally gave in, a trade deal a democrat fixed will not do --

undo the rest of policies that puts cormingses over workers, that supports corporations over workers, to support wall street over consumers. i voted yes, i voted yes today in finance committee, the first time i ever have on a trade deal, because by including brown-wyden, democrats have made this agreement much more proworker, and equally as important, we set an important precedent that brown-wyden must be included in every future trade agreement that comes in front of this body. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

u.s. canada trade agreement and the impeachment trial of donald trump. the house is yet to send the two articles of impeachment to the senate. for to decide on impeachment managers. eventually, the senate will sit a sneak jury to hear the case against president trump. follow the senate live on "c-span2" would members gaveled back in. >> the impeachment of president trump. continue to follow 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. >> our live campaign 2020 coverage continues thursday at 7:00 p.m. eastern with president

donald trump is the lead of ohio how to keep america great valley. watch 11 c-span to ondemand as he it's been on art. artists on the go with a free c-span radio app. >> campaign 2020, watch our continuing coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail. make up your mind. a sneak voting begins next month, watch our live coverage of the iowa caucuses. on monday, february 3rd. c-span news campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. >> next, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and other republican leaders speak to reporters at the capital about the upcoming legislative agenda. this is 15 minutes.