mr. president, this legislation that we're going to be considering is not compliant with trade promotion authority. that doesn't mean it can't move. it simply means it needs to move under the regular order. it should be an ordinary bill on the floor, as any ordinary legislation, and sadly from my point of view, i'm pretty sure the votes are there to pass it. i think there's probably going to be the votes to pass what i think is a badly flawed agreement, an agreement that restricts trade rather than expanding trade. but i certainly hope that we will do it under regular order because it does abuse trade promotion authority. the last point i would make, mr. president, is i certainly hope that this does not become a template for future trade agreements. we've got an opportunity to do wonders for our constituents, our consumers, our workers by reaching new an -- and additional trade agreements with all kinds of countries that have

tremendous growth potential, and our economy will grow if we can work out mutual free trade agreements with these countries. i am very much in favor of that. i wouldn't want this protectionist, restrictionist policies that found their way into this agreement to be part of future agreements. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i

have a unanimous consent request for five committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cornyn: finally, mr. president, about four weeks after the house voted on the articles of impeachment, the house will name the impeachment managers and we'll see the articles delivered here to the senate. that will conclude but for the impeachment managers' role in the senate. that will include the house's participation in the impeachment process. and ours, the senate's responsibilities will begin. as i said, this vote occurs four weeks after the house concluded its whirlwind impeachment investigation. as i look more and more closely at this, it strikes me as a potential case of impeachment malpractice. and i'll explain. four weeks after they passed

these two articles of impeachment, four weeks after they concluded the president had acted in a way to invoke our most extreme constitutional sanction that he should be removed from office, they finally have sent -- will send these impeachment articles to us. as i looked at the impeachment articles, i'm astonished that even though we heard discussions of quid pro quo, bribery, and other crimes, that the house of representatives chose not to charge president trump with a crime. now, how you then go on to prove a violation of the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors when you don't even charge the president with a crime, i'm looking forward to having the impeachment managers and the president's lawyers address that. it is -- it does not at least at

first blush appear to meet the constitutional standard. bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. president clinton was charged with a crime, the crime of perjury, but here president trump has not been accused of a crime. the vague allegation is that he abused his office. now that could mean anything to anybody. but just think about if we dumb down the standard for impeachment below the constitutional standard, what that does is opens up the next president who may have a house majority composed of the other party, that makes the next president vulnerable to charges of impeachment based on the allegation he abused his office, even if he did not commit a high crime or misdemeanor. and so impeachment becomes a political weapon which is what

this appears to be rather than a constitutional obligation for the house and the senate. well, last month the chairman of the house judiciary committee jerry nadler said on national television there was a rock solid case against the president, rock solid. but in the moments after the house voted to impeach the president, there seemed to be a lot of doubt about whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the president of high crimes and misdemeanors. so much doubt in fact that it led the speaker of the house to withhold the articles until the senate promised to fill in the gaps left by the house's inadequate record. she sought promises from senator mcconnell, the majority leader, that the senate would continue the house's investigation, continue the house's investigation, the one

which only a few weeks prior, one of her top members said was a rock solid case. well, it either is or it isn't. but i would say that the speaker's actions and her cold feet and a reluctance to send the articles of impeachment here for the last month indicate to me that she is less than confident that the house has done their job. as a matter of fact, they've actually in the second article of impeachment, they charged the president with obstruction of congress. but here's the factual underpinning of that allegation. chairman schiff would issue a subpoena to somebody who works at the white house. they would say well, i have to go to court to get the judge to direct me because i have conflicting obligations. a subpoena from the congress and perhaps a claim of privilege, some privilege based on confidential communications with the president. well, rather than pursue that in court which is what happened in

the clinton impeachment and what should happen in any dispute over executive privilege, chairman adam schiff of the house intelligence committee dropped him like a hot potato and they simply moved on in their rush to impeach without that testimony, without that evidence. so now they want the senate to make up for their failure here by calling additional witnesses. you know, i sometimes joke that i am a recovering lawyer and a recovering judge. but i spent 20 years or more in my life either in courtrooms trying cases or presiding over those cases or reviewing the cases that had been tried based on an appellate record in the texas supreme court. our system of justice is based on an adversary system. you have a prosecutor who charges a crime. that's basically what the articles of impeachment or

natural juice -- analagous to. we have the strange, even bizarre suggestion by the democratic leader here in the senate that somehow the jury ought to call additional witnesses before we even listen to the arguments so the president and his lawyers and the impeachment managers who spent 12 weeks getting a hundred hours or more worth of testimony from 17 different witnesses. so this discussion about whether there will be witnesses or no witnesses is kind of maddening to me. of course there will be witnesses. the witnesses that the impeachment managers choose to present maybe through their sworn testimony, not live in the well of the senate but it's no different in terms of its legal

effect or witnesses and evidence, documentary evidence that the president's lawyers chooses to preside. i think the majority leader has wisely proposed and now it looks like 53 senators have agreed that we defer this whole issue of additional witnesses until after both sides have had their chance to present their case. and senators have a chance to ask questions in writing. this is going to be a very difficult process for people who make their living talking all the time which is what senators do. sitting here and being forced to listen and let other people do the talking is going to be a challenge. but we'll have a chance to ask questions in writing and the chief justice will direct those questions to the appropriate party, either the impeachment managers or the president's lawyers. and they will attempt to answer those questions. but as i look at this record more, i'm beginning to wonder

whether the basic facts are really disputed. so when people talk about calling additional witnesses, i think what they're more interested in is a show trial and getting cameras and media coverage rather than actually resolving any disputed facts and applying the legal standard which is the constitution provides in order to decide whether the president should be convicted or acquitted. that should be the role of the senate sitting as a jury. well, the house it seems was under no deadline other than an internally imposed deadline to complete their impeachment investigation. they could have subpoenaed more witnesses. they could have waited for those subpoenas to play their way out in court and held a vote. once they truly believed they had sufficient evidence to impeach the president, enough evidence that they felt confident presenting it at a senate trial.

you know, if a prosecutor were to do in a court of law what the house impeachment inquiry did, they'd be -- they'd be justly accused of malpractice. i mean, to drop the witnesses rather than to actually go to court and try to get the testimony you need in order to support the articles of impeachment, that's malpractice. because you know if this were a court of law, in all likelihood the judge would summarily dismiss the case saying you haven't shown the evidence to support the charges that the grand jury, in this case the house, has made under the articles of impeachment. but we know rather than develop the record that would be sufficient to prove their case,

members of the house gave themselves an arbitrary deadline for their investigation and made speed their top priority. so now finding themselves with the short end of the stick, they're trying to pin their regrets and their malpractice on members of the senate. our democratic colleagues are trying to paint the picture in a way that makes it look like senate republicans are failing in their duties. but we will fulfill our constitutional role and duties. the only question is did the house perform their constitutional duties in an adequate way to meet the constitutional standard. speaker pelosi went so far to say failing to allow additional witnesses would result in a coverup. i think i've heard that same charge by the democratic leader here. i don't really understand the logic of that one. it seems like the only coverup happening is when the speaker is

covering up her caucus' shoddy and insufficient investigation. she's trying to distract from the fact that there's very little if any evidence to support the articles of impeachment. she's trying to place the blame on the senate, a strategy that you don't have to have x-ray vision to see through. the speaker went so far to say last sunday that senators will, quote, pay a price for not calling witnesses. when i think now they're beginning to take the mask off and expose their true motivation. this isn't about -- is no longer based on what we know now about getting 67 votes to convict and remove president trump. this is about forcing senators who are running for election in 2020 to take tough political votes that can then be exploited in tv ads. that seems to me to demean this

whole impeachment affair. this is a thermonuclear weapon in a constitutional sense. to accuse someone of high crimes and misdemeanors, to convict them in a court, sit ago as court -- sitting as a court and remove them from office is a very serious matter, but it's been treated and is being treated like a trivial political matter, a political football. well, based on the way that speaker pelosi and others have characterized the need for additional witnesses, you'd think no one had testified or had been deposed. but that would be to ignore the house intelligence committee's 298-page report. 298-page report detailing their impeachment inquiry. it details the actions of the committee, including dozens of subpoenas, taking more than 100

hours of testimony from 17 witnesses. so when somebody says, this is a question of witnesses or no witnesses, i say, that's not true. that's not the facts. we've already got 100 hours of testimony that could be presented to the senate, if it's actually relevant to the impeachment articles, to what's charged. so, to be clear, all the information will be available to the senate in the testimony of 17 of those witnesses likely presented by the impeachment managers. but, again, our democratic friends in the house apparently are having a little bit of buyers' remorse, cold feet -- pick your metaphor. with four weeks of deep contemplation separating them from the impeachment vote they took, they no longer believe apparently they have enough evidence to prove a high crime and misdemeanor, which is the constitutional standard.

that 298-page report that they were once so proud of apparently now they concede, by their actions, falls short of that rock-solid case that they promised. so rather than taking the responsibility for their own impeachment malpractice, rather than admitting that they rushed through the investigation, skipped over witnesses who they now deem critical to the inquiry, they try to now blame the senate and put the burden of proof on our shoulders. well, as i said earlier, there's no question whether witnesses will be presented. some of them will be presented that were -- that testified in the house of representatives, the 17 witnesses who testified over 100 hours. and i think the senate, based on the vote of 53 senators, has widely deferred whether additional witnesses will be subpoenaed until after we've had

chance to hear from the parties to the impeachment. and an opportunity by senators to actually ask clarification questions. well, leader mcconnell has been consistent in saying we wouldn't be naming witnesses before the start of the trial in line with the precedent set by the clinton impeachment trial. ironically, the democratic leader was in a position during the clinton impeachment trial that no additional witnesses should be offered and now finds himself, ironically enough, in the opposite posture based on something more than the -- based on nothing more than the difference in the identity of the president being impeached. so we'll have chance to hear the arguments from both sides, along with any documents they choose to present. we'll move to the senators'

questions and then we'll decide whether more evidence is required. i personally believe that that's -- i'm disinclined to have the jury conduct the trial by demanding additional evidence. i think that's the role of the impeachment managers and of the president's lawyers. but i know fair-minded people with differ. if 50 people want additional witnesses, they'll have the opportunity to have them subpoenaed. but this is going to have a fair process. unlike the house process, which has been -- well, i was going to say a three-ring circus, but that's not fair to the circus. but we're going to have a dignified and sober and deliberate process here befitting the gravity of what we've been asked to decide.

no one, neither the prosecution nor the defense, will be precluded from participating. as a matter of fact, they will drive the process. that's the way trials are conducted in every courthouse in america, and that's the process we should adopt here. so in stark contrast to the partisan chaos that consumed the impeachment inquiry in the house, we're going to restore order, civility, and fairness. over the last four weeks there's been a whole lot of talk but not much action from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the house. they've taken what should be a serious and solemn responsibility of congress and turned it into a partisan playground. less than a year before the next election where millions -- he tens of millions of americans will be voting on their choice for president of the united states -- by needlessly

withholding the articles for four weeks, the speaker has all but ensured the senate's impeachment trial will overlap with the iowa caucuses. that's where our democratic friends will choose their presidential primary winner starting with the iowa caucuses. this trial could even stretch into the new hampshire primary or the nevada caucuses. i find it curious that the speaker's decision will force four senators who are actually running for president in those primary contests to leave the campaign trail in these battleground states and come back to washington, d.c., and be glued to their seat, sitting as jurors during this trial, when i'm sure they would rather be out. rather than shaking hands with voters, they'll be sitting here with the rest of us. that will be a big blow to their election. based on what we've seen in the

press, these four senators aren't what i would call happy campers, and i don't blame them. you better believe, though, that they are competitors are celebrating. they're going to have the iowa caucuses perhaps, maybe new hampshire and nevada, all to themselves. all these four senators who are running for president in the democratic primary will have to be here like the rest of us. so in holding the articles for four weeks, the speaker just cleared out some of the top contenders in the presidential primaries, the early ones, and it's pretty clear that the candidate who stands the most to gain from their absence is former vice president biden. the politics of this impeachment circus show that it was never a serious one. the constitutional issue -- wrong, it was a political exercise from the start, meant to hurt this president and help

the speaker's party elect a democrat in his stead in november, or at least nancy pelosi's friends in the democratic party. over these last four weeks we've been standing by, waiting to do our duty, wasting valuable time while the democrats in the house try to come to terms with their embarrassing and inadequate investigation and how they -- and watching them as they try to figure out how, how could they possibly get themselves out of this embarrassing box canyon that they've walked into. so i know we're all eager for the process to finally shift from the house's hands to the senate. and i'm hopeful that later this evening we'll finally be free from speaker pelosi's manipulative games when it comes to impeachment. finally, mr. president, there is some good news here in

washington that we'll actually get some important things done, particularly i am talking about the usmca, the united states-mexico-canada agreement. i'm hopeful that we can get it voted out of the senate tomorrow and get it on the president's desk. that is top priority for my constituents, who are farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, as well as consumers whose daily lives impacted by trade with our neighbors to the north and south and we'll soon be able to market as yet another win for texas under this administration. for more than a quarter of a century, nafta, the north american free trade agreement, the predecessor to the usmca, has been the guiding force in our trading relationships with mexico and canada and virtually any measure it's been a great success. the u.s. chamber of commerce estimates that 13 million american jobs have been created and are dependent on trade with

mexico and canada. that's a big deal. but a lot that is changed over the last 25 years. back then the internet was in its infancy, smartphones didn't exist and the only shopping you did was at a brick-and-mortar store. so the way business is conducted today has evolved significantly. it is time we bring our trade agreements up to date. that's where the usmca comes in. it preserves the basic hallmark provisions of nafta, like duty-free access to mexican and canadian markets, and adds measures to modernize the agreement. additionally, the usmca includes strong protections for intellectual property, which is critical to protecting the incredible innovation that americans create right here at home. it also cuts the red tape that has been preventing countless small businesses from tapping into foreign markets. and it accounts for e-commerce and digital products at a time when governments around the

world are proposing all kinds of new taxes on e-commerce. it's actually the first free trade agreement that the digital trade chapter -- with a digital trade chapter. that's why a lot of folks call the usmca nafta 2.0. it's better, it's stronger, and it's up to date. i have no doubt that this agreement will be a boon to both our national and texas economies, but i do have some concerns about the path it's taken to ratification. this product was essentially negotiated with the house and given to the senate as a fait accompli. and i worry that that could set a dangerous precedence for future trade agreements. i hope that's not something we will allow to become a habit, but it doesn't diminish the fact that this trade agreement will bring serious benefits to my constituents and my state and continue to strengthen our national economy. i appreciate the president's commitment to strengthening our

trading agreements with our neighbors and bolstering a stronger north america. usmca is a big win for all three countries involved, and it is a big win for the state of texas. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. last week we were very close to an act of war between the united states and iran. i must tell you, we've been talking about this potential threat for a long time. i am a member of the senate foreign relations committee. we've held numerous meetings in our discussion about the fact that there is no authorization for the use of military force by the united states against iran that's been approved by congress. and i remember during hearings

listening from administrative witnesses who said, well, there's no intent to use force against iran. well, congress did not act, even though i must tell you several of our colleagues, including this senator, had urged us to take up an authorization for the use of military force in regards to the problems in the middle east. but there was no action taken. and i want to applaud senator kaine, who's been working on this for several years, and our former colleague, senator flake, who did everything they could to bring a bipartisan discussion and action in regards to exercising congressional responsibility on the use of our force by our military. well, we now know that this is a real threat, that we may be going to war without congress' involvement, which is contrary not only to our constitution but the laws passed by the united states congress.

so i want to thank senator kaine and senator lee for filing senate joint resolution 6 8, a bipartisan resolution. i hope it will receive the expedited process that's envisioned on a war power resolution, and i hope that we'll have a chance to act on this in the next few days. it's our responsibility -- congress' responsibility -- to commit our troops to combat, and it rests squarely with the legislative branch of government. let me first cite the constitution of the united states. you hear a live discussion here about -- you hear a lot of discussion here about the constitution on the floor of the senate. it says congress has the power to declare war. now, that was challenged in the 1970's after congress had passed the gulf of tonkin resolution in

regard to our presence in vietnam. it was passed in an innocent way. to protect american troops and ships that were in that region. but as we know, that resolution was used by justification by president johnson and others to expand our involvement in vietnam and ultimately led to a have a -- very active and costly war for the united states and lengthy war i might add. so in 1973 congress passed the war powers act. it wasn't easy. president nixon vetoed it. we overrode the veto in a bipartisan vote in the united states congress. we did that because of the abuse of power during the vietnam war. now let me just read what the war powers act provides, because it is very telling in

regards to what we saw last week in regards to iran, a little over a week ago now. it requires consultation with congress by the president in every possible instance before committing troops to war. so, number one, it requires the president to consult with us. before he commits any of our troops to an engagement. secondly, the president is required to report within 48 hours into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. so it provides for the imminent involvement or threat to the united states. and then, third, the president is required to end foreign military action after 60 days unless congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation

to continue. we now know that to be an aumf, an authorization for the use of military force. so now let's fast forward from the passage of that bill in 1973 to rein in the abuse of power by the executive during the vietnam war. let's fast forward to what happened in early january, on january 2 when president trump ordered the action against soleimani in baghdad and took out his life. now let me start off by saying none of us have any sorrow over the loss of mr. soleimani, general soleimani. he was a bad guy. he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. he was a person who was very much a person who should have been held accountable for his activities. but there's a reason for our constitutional protections of checks and balances as it relates to the use of military

force by the united states. the commander in chief has certain powers, congress has certain powers. the framers of our constitution intentionally provided for there to be a robust discussion and debate between the legislature and the executive on war and peace and that we should have that open discussion, and that in many cases diplomacy needs to be pursued much more aggressively before we use our military might, that our national security interests in keeping america safe rests with these checks and balances. and again, to bring it to current times in regards to the circumstances with iran, every witness i've listened to, every expert i've talked to in regards to the middle east says it's in the united states national security interest to find a diplomatic way to handle our

issues in regards to iran. a military option would be very costly, longtime and most likely counter productive with the united states having to keep its troops in that region for a very, very long time. diplomacy is clearly the preferred path and these constitutional provisions provide us for an opportunity to be able to make sure we do what's in the best interest of american national security. so president trump ordered this attack, and the senate now needs to act. as we saw in the 1970's, when congress did act. so let me start with the war powers act and how president trump has violated the war powers act in all three of the provisions that i had mentioned earlier. first, was there an imminent involvement or threat?

well, we've all now heard the explanations given by this administration. it was short on detail. it was basically the general concerns. and what is most disturbing, we now read press accounts that the president had been planning for months, or the generals had been planning and going over with the president for months whether they should take out general soleimani. if they had been planning fogger months, why didn't they consult with congress as required under the war powers act? violation number one to the war powers act, congress was not consulted by president trump. number two, if there is an intent to use force, there needs to be -- excuse me. after consultation, there also has to be -- there's two violations so far. the fact there wasn't an

imminent threat and the fact that there was no consultation with congress. two violations of the war powers act. and then if he continues to use force beyond the 60 days, he has to come to congress and get authorization or he has to remove the troops. now does anyone here believe that the president will not hesitate again to use force against iran, and yet there is no intentions to submit a resolution. so we find that the president has violated the war powers act in three ways. first, by having no evidence of imminent threat. secondly, by not consulting with congress before the attack. and, third, by not submitting to us an authorization for the use of military force. now there are some that say, well, the president already has that authority under the authorizations for the use of military force that was passed by congress after the attack on

our country on september 11, 2001. now we're getting to the 18 years beyond when that attack took place and those authorizations were passed, but let me go through them. the one that's cited the most by the president is the 2002, which is, quote, to defend the national security of the united states against the continuing threat posed by iraq. first let me say i voted against that resolution, and i believe that was the correct vote. but i think almost everybody in this body would say that that authorization is no longer relevant since that resolution was passed the united states has worked with iraq and has worked with the government of iraq that this is a country that we tried to do business with, so they no longer present the threat that was supposedly present when this

resolution was passed. but even you get beyond that, what does iran have to do with iraq? i understand they may start with the first letter "i" but there is no relationship here. and under any stretch of the imagination there is no way you can use the 2002 resolution. so let's go to the 2001 resolution that was passed on the authorization for use of military force. that was immediately after the attack on september 11, to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons, planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. there is absolutely zero connection between that language and general soleimani or iran as it relates to 9/11. and i think no one could make

that connection. i understand that 2001 has been misused by many administrations, and there is no question i would concur in that conclusion. but in all of those cases they at least tried to connect dots. there's no connection of dots here whatsoever. so as we saw in the 1970's when the, we had, late 1960's and 1970's in vietnam when we had the golf of tonkin resolution that was passed to defend our assets in the vietnam area, in the gulf of tonkin, how it was used by administrations to commit us to a long engaged military operations, here one cannot argue that there even, even a semblance of authorization that has been passed by congress as it relates to iran. we also know the president is violating the war powers act, and he's likely to use force again in violation of our

constitution and the war powers act. it was my generation that paid a very heavy price because of the vietnam war. i lost a lot of my high school classmates in the vietnam war. let us not see our responsibility under -- let us not cede our responsibility under the constitution or allow the president to cede his. we need to act. the senate needs to act. we don't need another endless war. the resolution before us allows us to do what is responsible, and what it says -- i'm going to quote from the resolution that senator kaine has filed, senate joint resolution 68. the president to terminate the use of the united states armed forces for hostilities against iran or any part of its government or military unless explicitly authorized, explicitly authorized by declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force against iran.

and, by the way, the resolution also provides that we always have the right to defend ourselves from an imminent threat provided that it is an imminent threat. and we comply with the war powers act. i'm adding this. the war powers act that was passed by congress. the president has a long track record of exceeding his constitutional authority on matters of foreign policy. we cannot afford to become accustomed or complacent in the face of those excesses. it's our responsibility to carry out our constitutional responsibility. i would urge my colleagues to strongly support the resolution, senate joint resolution 68 when we have a chance to vote on that, i hope, within the next few days. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. garnd garnd thank you. congress has had significant -- a senator: the u.s. usmca, incredibly important as we turn to that debate. what it meant to native was significant, the number of jobs it created. the u.s. create a free trade agreement, the number of jobs that that agreement created. we have seen the benefits of trade in a state like colorado for a number of years and we have seen it with additional trade agreements in the future as well. this past year, this past congress, we adopted the asia reassurance initiative act which created a u.s.-asia trade

partnership in energy, whether it's renewable or traditional energy. but this week congress turns its focus too -- its entire focus on usmca, and it's modernization of the north america free trade agreement. we have to continue looking for new trade opportunities, ways to open up trade around the globe. it's vitally important for agriculture to your electronic sector, to our service sector, and people of all -- of all walks of life and business in colorado who understand the importance of trade and what it means to our industry. mr. gardner: if we don't seek out new trade opportunities, it's not like we're operating just by ourselves. we know what will happen. we will see china, india, and other countries displace us, build new supply chains, go around the united states, and we will end up losing those market

opportunities, those investment opportunities and the jobs that go along with it. we don't -- if we don't open up new trade opportunities, farmers and ranchers in my home state will suffer and we have seen incredibly low commodity prices hurt our agricultural communities. one way to overcome that is to open up new markets. that's how we can add one more potential tool to our ag economy to help make them survive and thrive. we have new product flows all the time out of our states and this usmca agreement is one more way that we can create that new flow of opportunity. the united states-mexico-canada agreement supports nearly 14 million jobs around the united states. that's thousands of jobs in all 50 states. despite its benefits, however, we can always do a better job of making sure it meets the need of our modern day economy, that we modernize native, to expand energy exports, to maximize

domestic energy production, including provisions on intellectual property and e-commerce will make it more beneficial. if you think back to 1994, and that time frame, pre-eye phones phones -- i phones, that agreement was before this. and that's why modernizing it makes sense. this -- the united states-mexico-canada agreement is incredibly important to the state of colorado. 200,000 jobs in colorado, a great protrade state that is directly related to usmca, out of 750,000 trade-related jobs. canada and mexico are our are largest trading partners. between colorado, canada, and mexico, we trade more than $2.7 billion worth of goods supporting those 200,000 jobs i talked about. colorado farmers produce nearly

half of all tomatoes for mexico, and we supply 93% of all u.s. beverages to mexico. mexico has been able to tap the rockies when it comes to our beverage supply. beef accounts for $$880 of goods. colorado exported dairy products to mexico. meanwhile we only -- we -- we exported about 2.2 million worth of those products to canada. usmca will reform canada's protectionist dairy policies and help dairy farmers access the dairy markets in canada so we can increase our exports to canada in creating milk, cheese, and other dairy areas. we sent wheat to mexico in 2018 and more than $2 million to canada. even the sugar and candy

manufacturers benefit. i had a meeting with the sugar cooperative in colorado talking about the importance of trade and getting this agreement right. both countries have received $14 million each worth of colorado sugar and confection ordinary exports. increased trade with these countries will benefit the beverages. 97% of the beverages is exported to mexico from colorado. and beyond this wheat, dairy, sugar, beyond those commodities, colorado electronic manufacturers shipped to canada $405 million worth of goods in 2018 and mexico received $260 million worth of electronic goods. we need to account for our changing landscape of new technologies. advanced manufacturing products and tackles the issue of cross

border data flow which was at its em -- infa is when nafta was enacted. we know the trade agreements add to the household income across our state. that it benefits our economy. this agreement brings opportunity to all four corners of our state. new customs and trade rules will cut red tape and make it easier for colorado startupups and entrepreneurs. food exports are expected to rise more than $2 billion every year if usmca is adopted. what it means to colorado, so many goods from colorado and our top ten exported items are ag related, this $2 billion increase will mean significant opportunities for agriculture industry. the finance committee reported it out favorably last week. i voted for it this morning.

vote it -- voted it out of the commerce committee and the finance committee, two committees i serve on and i look forward to its passage here in the united states senate. i live in colorado, surrounded by corn farms, wheat farms, hog producers, feed lots, and i know how important trade is to our state. this agreement to modernize and continue our agreement with canada and mexico is critical to the survival of agriculture in colorado and this country. and i know with new markets opening around the world, this agreement will continue to be the keystone of colorado trade. we stand to benefit tremendously from this update. our farmers and ranchers are counting on us to get this done, our manufacturers are counting on us getting this done. our economy is counting on us getting this done. thank you, mr. president.

i have a colleague on the senate floor so i will not ask for a quorum call. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. at this particular moment in our history, we are witnessing the convergence of three events. tomorrow the senate will likely be sworn in for the impeachment trial of president trump. one of the articles of impeachment that will be coming over from the house relates to the president's abuse of power, the change that -- the charge that he as used the power and

prestige of the office of the presidency to, among other things, with hold vital u.s. security assistance to the ukraine in order to pressure them to announce an investigation into hunter biden and possibly joe biden in an attempt to get ukraine to interfere in the upcoming 2020 election on behalf of president trump. now, mr. president, i'm not here today to go into issues directly related to that trial. it is vitally important that we get relevant witnesses, that we get relevant documents and that we have a fair trial and get to the truth. the second event that we learned about just this week that relates to the impeachment trial

was that russian military hackers broke into the barisma computers in ukraine using the same fishing techniques that the g.r.u., that's the russian military intelligence, used to break into the democratic national committee headquarter servers during the 2016 presidential elections. and all the evidence points to another attempt by vladimir putin using his military g.r.u. hackers to interfere in an american election. this time in the 2020 election. mr. president, i don't know what's going to happen during the election on november 3 of this year. obviously each of us has our

hopes as to what the result will be, but that's not the purpose of my being here on the floor today. my focus today is on what should unite all of us in this body, that should unite all 100 united states senators, and that is that we should all agree that it's outrageous for any foreign power to interfere in an american election the way russia interfered in our elections in 2016. and that it would be equally outrageous for us knowing that that is russia's intent in 2020 to sit here and not do anything to protect the integrity of our democracy. look, we all know what happened in 2016. just to refresh our memories, it

was the unanimous conclusion of all u.s. intelligence agencies that russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. that was the unanimous conclusion of the leaders of intelligence agencies appointed by president trump. it was also the bipartisan verdict of the senate intelligence committee who painstakingly documented the fact that election systems in all 50 of our states were targeted to one degree or another by russian hackers in the 2016 elections. in fact, we know from the outcome from of the mueller investigation that led to the indictment of 12 russian military intelligence individuals, members of the

g.r.u., they were indicted because of their interference in the 2016 elections. and we also know that vladimir putin and the russians intend to interfere in our elections again in 2020. we know that because of the revelations this week about the actions the g.r.u. has taken with respect to burisma. same fingerprint, same techniques. but we also know that from our own u.s. intelligence agencies who in november of last year all got together to issue a warning that russia was going to interfere again in 2020. mr. president, i'm holding in my hand a joint statement from the leaders of u.s. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

and what they say is that our adversaries -- and they point to russia -- will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. this document is not about the past. this document is not about 2016. this document is about the here and now and the november 2020 elections. and this is again from the heads of our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies who have been appointed by president trump. so now we have overwhelming evidence that russia interfered in 2016. we have overwhelming evidence and predictions that russia will interfere again in our elections in 2020.

and so we clearly are facing an immediate danger to the integrity of our elections and the integrity of our democracy. it's like we have a russian missile in the air right now headed toward our election integrity systems and our electoral process. that's what the intelligence agencies are telling us right now. we learned the hard way in 2016 and now it's happening all over again. so, mr. president, the question is for this body when you know something is happening, what are you going to do about it? and there are two things that we should be doing about it. we should be working to strengthen our election systems here at home, to harden them, to

make it more difficult for russian military intelligence to hack into them. we should be working with social media companies to prevent the russian government and their agents from spending money on advertising on social media or using other techniques on social media to influence american voters. so we need to be doing all that. we have appropriated some funds to do that. we should be doing more than we have. but, mr. president, the best defense is a good offense. we can and should spend money to strengthen and protect our election systems. but that's not enough because it's kind of like the arms race. we will work to try to better

strengthen and protect those systems and the hackers who are trying to get in will develop new techniques to try to get around them. and it's an endless cycle. that doesn't mean we shouldn't harden them. we should. but that's not enough to protect the integrity of our elections. we have to apply the principle that the best defense is a good offense and make it clear upfront to vladimir putin and russia that the costs of interfering in another american election far outwhi the benefits -- outweigh the benefits. that's what we need to do. because right now it's absolutely cost free to vladimir putin to mess around in our elections. in fact, it's a big benefit to

vladimir putin and the russians. that's why they do it. what have they accomplished? first of all, they succeed in dividing americans against one another. they succeed in undermining public confidence in the outcome of our elections. and that's part of their overall strategy, to try to undermine democracies whether here in the united states or in europe or in other places around the world. and maybe they also succeed ultimately in weighing in and helping their preferred candidate in an election. but the point is right now if you're putin, there is zero cost to getting caught interfering in our elections. and lots of perceived benefits by vladimir putin. and so that's why more than two

years ago senator marco rubio and i introduced the bipartisan deter act, and there are other senators, both democrats and republicans, that are on that bill. the deter act is very straightforward. it would enact into law a very straightforward proposition. it says to russia and also to other countries but the main attack seems to be coming from russia, it says to putin and russia if we catch you again interfering in our elections, there will be immediate and very harsh penalties for you to pay, that this will happen virtually automatically. so vladimir putin will know upfront if our intelligence agencies catch them again, which

they're likely to do, then he will finally pay a price for interfering in our elections and trying to undermine our democratic processes. and these are not sanctions against a couple of putin's pals. these are not sanctions against a couple oligarchs. these would be sanctions against major sectors of the russian economy, state-owned banks, state-owned parts of their energy industry. so their economy would take a big hit if we catch them attacking our democracy once again. and that's actually appropriate because what putin is doing is undermining faith and confidence in our democratic process, and we need to make it clear upfront

there is a big price to pay, not because we want those sanctions to go into effect but because we don't. that is the entire idea behind deterrence. you raise the cost, you raise the price on putin and russia to the point that it's no longer worth it to interfere in our elections. so that's why senator rubio and i introduced this legislation two years ago. we hoped it would be in place before the 2018 mi midterm elections but that date has passed and still here we are in the united states senate having failed to adopt this bipartisan legislation. now, i was right here on the floor of the senate just a few months ago when we were debating the ndaa, the national defense authorization act. and i asked for a vote to

include the essential provisions of the deter act in the defense authorization bill. because it makes a lot of sense that in a bill that's supposed to defend the united states, we include a provision to defend the integrity of our democracy and electoral system against russian attack or any other attack. and apparently every single senator in this body agreed because it passed unanimously. so the senate went on record unanimously saying that we should include provisions like the deter act to deter russian interference in our elections in the ndaa. so then we're in negotiations on the ndaa, and it turns out that in the back rooms behind closed doors the trump administration gets republican senators to

insist on throwing that provision out of the ndaa bill. this was one of the matters that was discussed until the final stages of negotiations on the ndaa. and apparently the majority leader and other republican senators at the behest of the trump administration said no. said no to a provision that had been agreed to unanimously by this body to help protect our elections by deterring russian interference. the question is why, why when our own intelligence agencies are telling us that russia is planning to do in 2020 what they did in 2016 would republican senate leaders block a provision that let's putin know you will be punished if you do that again, you'll be punished if you attack our democracy.

and i haven't gotten a straight answer to that question. why not? why not include that provision? clearly there are senators who don't want to build up our defenses and deterrence against russian interference in our elections. so when we fail to get that into the ndaa, i came to the senate floor and i asked for unanimous consent to bring up the bipartisan deter act because every one of the senators in this body had voted or said through lack of objection that they wanted the deter act in the ndaa so i brought up the bill for unanimous consent passing here. well, the chairman of the senate banking committee came to the floor and objected. and we had a back and forth conversation about the deter act.

now yesterday i was planning to come to this floor and again asked for unanimous consent to take up the deter act. but we heard from the chairman of the banking committee that he wanted to find a way to get this done. and so i'm going to take the chairman of the banking committee up on that offer and i hope we can get it done. but i want to be really clear. if we're not able to work this out in a smart, straightforward way which is what the bill does right now -- as i said, it's got strong bipartisan support right now -- then i will be back on this senate floor regularly to ask for unanimous consent. and any other senator that wants to come down here and object can

do that. that's their right. but i'm going to keep pushing this issue because the clock is ticking. every day that passes while we know from our own intelligence agencies that russia plans to interfere in the 2016 -- in the 2020 election and we don't do anything about it, we are grossly negligent. and i want senators who be not going to support that to come here in the light of day and let the american public know that they're blocking that effort. i hope we don't have to do that. i hope we can work this out. i hope we can pass the legislation, the bipartisan legislation that's been sitting in the united states senate for over two years now as we get warning after warning after warning that vladimir putin, the g.r.u., and the russians intend to interfere in our democratic

process again and attack the integrity of our electoral system. let's get this done, mr. president. let's protect our democracy. let's make it clear in advance to putin that the price he will pay for trying to interfere and interfere in our democracy will be much higher than any benefit he expects to gain. and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i would ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss united states policy regarding iran. we know that in 2009, the new obama administration came into office at a time when the iranian regime was racing to develop a nuclear weapon. the prospect of the iranian regime with a nuclear weapon would present a substantial

threat to america and to our allies. at the same time iran was engaged in a host of other maligned activities, but the most urgent and significant threat was nuclear. in 2013, iran was two- to three months from being able to build a nuclear weapon. the obama administration decided to use hard-nosed diplomacy, resulting in in the 2015 joint comprehensive plan of action known by that acronym jcpoa. this agreement was entered into with a number of countries. three of them are allies -- the united kingdom, france, and germany. we also had two partner countries, countries that we have a lot of tensions with and conflict with, but we were partners on this agreement. those countries being china and russia.

so this agreement stretched from one end of the world to the other. the joint comprehensive plan of action prevented iran from requiring a nuclear weapon by, among other steps, authorizing some of the most intrusive inspections that have ever been put into place. this agreement, the jcpoa, did not cover several other nonnuclear maligned activities that the iranian regime was and is engaged in. the jcpoa isolated and largely solved the most dire threat; that of a nuclear-armed iran in the near future. this agreement from its signingn 2015 through 2018 worked.

until recently, iran was complying with the joint comprehensive plan of action. that's the considered judgment of the international atomic energy agency, known as iaea. that's also the considered judgment -- the judgment that iran was complying with the agreement -- the considered judgment of the united states intelligence community. it was also the judgment made by the united states department of state and the united states department of defense, in both the obama administration and the trump administration. that determination, that judgment that iran was complying with the agreement, is also the assessment of our allies and partners with whom the obama administration worked to bring into a coalition.

here's a sampling of assessments prior to recent events. september 2017 -- then-secretary of state rex tillerson stated that iran is in, quote, technical compliance, unquote, with the jcpoa. second, october 2017 -- then-defense secretary jim mattis stated that iran is, quote, fundamentally, unquote, in compliance with the jcpoa. quote, overall, our intelligence community believes that they have been compliant in the iaea -- and the iaea also says so, unquote. said general matter physical, then-secretary of defense -- said general mattis, then-secretary of defense. then you go to march 2018 -- iaea director amman know, quote, iran is implementing its

nuclear-related commitments. if the jcpoa were to fail, it would be a great loss for nuclear verification and for multilateralism, unquote. and finally, number four, january 2019 -- former director of national intelligence dan coats, a former republican senator from the state of indiana -- director of national intelligence coats said, quote, we continue to assess that iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device, unquote. three of these four officials -- secretary of state tillerson, secretary of defense mattis, and director of national intelligence coats -- all three,

of course, were athe pointed by president trump -- were appointed by president trump. president trump came into office determined to pull out of this agreement, despite the fact that it was working. he surrounded himself with advisors who support a policy of regime change. of course, the words regime change are words that will -- they will not say out-loud. the president nor his administration. but that is the policy. the american people, after nearly two decades of conflict, know that regime-change policy is a march to war. this the administration calls their regime-change policy, quote, a maximum-pressure campaign, unquote. its states goal was to force iran to negotiate a new agreement that would include a host of other nonnuclear issues. despite the stated goal, an

examination of the methods used to achieve it make it obvious that the administration was engaged in a policy that would most likely lead to war instead of a new agreement. the administration pulled out of the nuclear agreement, which was working. and while it was in effect took the threat of a nuclear-armed iran off the table. the administration reimposed sanctions which were lifted as part of the nuclear agreement. they engaged in a host of other activities that resulted in increased risks and moved us further away from a diplomatic resolution. the administration's regime-change policy was supported -- i'm sorry -- was supposed to deter the iranian regime from threatening our nation and its allies. this policy has not done that. this policy was supposed to bring iran to the bargaining

table. it has not. it was supposed to cajole iran to behave like a, quote, normal nation, unquote. once again, it has not. tensions have increased, threats to our service members, our citizens, and allies have increased -- not decreased. the region, the middle east, is less stable. iran is closer -- closer -- to obtaining a nuclear weapon. the terrible results of this policy were predictable. the administration, including secretary pompeo and former national security advisor john bolton, have never had any intention of forging a new diplomatic agreement with iran. all of this is how our nation has found itself on the brink of war with iran, facing the potential of another bloody

conflict in the middle east. americans across our country are well aware of the events leading up to the killing of iranian general qasem soleimani, the leader of iran's quds force, on january 2. followingthe killing of an american contractor at a u.s. military compound in kirkuk, iraq, the u.s. military retaliated with a strike against the iranian-backed hezbollah terrorist group killing at least 25 members of the militia and wounding others. in response, the iranian government orchestrated protests in baghdad, which led hundreds of pro-iranian protesters to storm the u.s. embassy in baghdad on new year's eve. the strike against iran's quds' force commander soleimani followed. soleimani was a military figure who inflicted terror and killed

thousands in israel, iraq, and syria combined as well as other places added into that. killed thousands. he worked to prop up bashar ael al asad in syria. he aided forces that killed hundreds of americans in iraq. we've been told he was behind the attacks on the u.s. embassy in baghdad new year's eve. qasem soleimani was directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of american soldiers and civilians and wounding many more. he was a despicable person who was the leader of an entity designated as a terrorist organization. across the international stage, there are many committed enemies of america who plot every day to do our nation and our allies harm -- every single day. those entrusted with the national security of our nation

have to assess -- have to assess -- whether taking direct action against one of those individual enemies increases or decreases risks over time; whether taking actions against those individuals is consistent with our values and our commitment to the rule of law. this is a high standard, and it should be. we're the united states of america, and we believe that conflicts have rules and limits. we strive for a higher standard that both honors our values and protects our security. and because we have high standards and because we expect our leaders to act prudently and with deliberation, the constitution requires substantial consultation with congress regarding matters of war, except in limited, urgent

circumstances. acting with disregard for these standards, president trump took this unilateral action. the president may have endangered the lives of u.s. service members in the middle east. he may have also prompted near-lethal retaliation from iran. iran's retaliatory strikes against u.s. bases at al asad and irbil on january 7 thankfully did not claim any american lives. however, conflicting reports continue to emerge about whether iran intentionally avoided hitting u.s. personnel and raises questions about whether iran sought to escalate or de-escalate its conflict with the united states. video evidence has emerged in recent days showing that the iranians absolutely decimated housing units for soldiers on the base.

without having received a classified briefing from the administration about this incident, as opposed to the briefing that we had on the killing of soleimani, which i'll get to later, without having that classified briefing, we can rely upon press reports for some information. press reports indicate that the iranians were aiming to take american lives. so the fallout from the soleimani strike didn't end there. on january 8, the iranian government covered up the fact that it mistakenly shot down a civilian aircraft killing 176 people on board. the iranian people have since taken to the streets in protest of the cover-up. i strongly condemn the iranian government's crackdown on protesters and support the iranian people's right to rise up and demand human rights and democratic governance in their

country. but let's not lose focus on a very important matter. president trump ordered a targeted killing of a high-ranking military official of a country with which we are not in a declared or authorized conflict. this is a serious step which requires both a rigorous examination as well as an explanation from the administration. thus far, the explanations we've received from this administration have been woefully inadequate and inconsistent. and i think that's an understatement. we've been told that this strike was in response to, quote, an imminent threat. both words are in quotations. imminent threat that four u.s. embassies abroad were being targeted, which defense

secretary esper almost immediately contradicted. the word imminence is importance here. imminence derives from the doctrine of self-defense, which under article 51 of the united nations charter in the broader, quote, laws of war, imminence justifies use of force in another state's territory when the armed attack occurs -- occurs -- or when an armed attack is imminent. some national security scholars define, quote, imminence, unquote, as leaving no reasonable time for nonforceful measures to obviate such a threat, unquote. i have yet to see -- and this is true of a number of senators, i believe. i'll speak for myself only. i have yet to see clear evidence that there was, quote, no reasonable time, unquote, to

seek nonlethal diplomatic options prior to killing soleimani. the administration has failed to disclose sufficient detail regarding the imminence of this threat. when asked on friday, secretary pompeo said he did not know when this asserted imminent threat was supposed to take place. the american people have also heard from secretary pompeo and president trump that the attack was a matter of retribution from events that occurred in the past. we've heard from secretary pompeo that this attack was designed to, quote, restore deterrence, unquote, but it's unclear that he coordinated his national security colleagues across -- i'm sorry. it's unclear that secretary pompeo coordinated with his national security colleagues across the interagency. we know from reporting from "the new york times" that secretary

pompeo was, quote, -- was among, quote, the most hawkish voices arguing for response to iranian regregs. the argument goes on to say top l pentagon officials were stunned, unquote, in reference to the strike. so the question of why this strike was launched, when it was launched remains unanswered. both democratic senators and republican senators have asked this question in a classified briefing last week, and few received a satisfactory answer. we still lack answers on the, quote, imminent threat, unquote. the president spent the last week at rallies and other appearances triumphantly marking the killing and indicating the iranian threat is behind us. the strike authorized by president trump may have been reckless, taken without appropriate planning for the consequences and aftermath and

done without serious consultation with congress and -- and -- within the administration. contrary to the president's boast, i am gravely concerned we will feel the adverse consequences of this administration's actions across the iran policy landscape for years to come. if we think the attacks on the al-assad and kirkuk bases last tuesday were the end of iranian retaliation for soleimani's death we are likely mistaken, due to the continued threat of the iranian regime's proxy forces throughout the middle east. so let's examine the potential negative consequences of the strike. i hope this is something that the administration engaged in before the strike, but it's important to review this. on january 5 iran announced it is no longer bound by the

restrictions of the joint comprehensive plan of action as it relates to uranium enrichment. this agreement unequivocally extended iran's p breakout time, which is the time it would take to obtain enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. they extended that breakout time, the agreement extended the breakout time to 12 months, one year. again, before the agreement iran's breakout time was two to three months. so the agreement extended that time, meaning making the world safer by extending that time from two to three months to one year. that's where we were with the implementation of the agreement. without this agreement, the jcpoa, without that agreement in place, iran could reach the requisite uranium stockpile in as little as six months if not sooner. iran is closer today to a

nuclear weapon than it was just a week ago -- i should say a week or so ago, and certainly it's closer to a nuclear weapon since 2018 when the administration withdrew from the joint comprehensive plan of action. so that's one consequence we have to consider. iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. number two, isis. if the president's october 2019 withdrawal of u.s. forces from syria and the concurrent abandonment of our kurdish allies, if that did not create space for the resurgence of isis in the middle east, the president's recent action will almost certainly allow for isis to regain a foothold in the region. just three days after the soleimani strike, "the new york times" reported that, quote, here's the headline -- u.s.-led coalition halts isis fight as it steals for iranian attacks.

unquote. halts isis fight. nato has already suspended its operations against isis. how does that outcome make us safer? we have to consider. next, number three, we have to consider what's happening in iraq. iraq voted to expel united states troops from their country as a result of the strike. if we fully withdraw from iraq, where are we going to launch counter-isis operations in both iraq and syria? how do we do that? from where? where was the effort to work with the iraqi government in quashing hezbollah and countering iran influence in iraq? what is the plan now that the iraqi government opposes u.s. troop presence in its country? how is the administration -- how does the administration plan to restart conversations with

iran to negotiate a, quote, better, unquote, nuclear deal that will ensure iran never has a nuclear bomb? how do they restart those negotiations? this strike looks more like another step forward in a policy of regime change rather than a coherent strategy designed to keep our nation safe by using tough diplomacy and alliance building to confront iran. i have been one of the most determined advocates of being tough on iran, especially with regard, regarding sanctions. since i came to the senate in 2007, i've been part of almost every sanctions push in efforts to so call tighten the screws on the iranian regime and hold them fully accountable for their actions. all those steps that i've been part of, and people of both parties have been part of, were part of a strategy to get the

results that we saw when the jcpoa was signed. now two years and after one particularly dangerous week, president trump has badly undermined all that progress. the advocates of regime change in iran are closer than ever to getting the united states into a shooting war with iran. the events of the last few weeks remind me of the lead up to the united states invasion of iraq in 2003. across both the house and the senate, congress held only seven hearings that dealt directly with the proposed 2002 authorization for the use of military force to authorize the iraq war. aumf being the acronym for that. seven hearings over a period of three weeks between the house

and the senate is sufficient discussion and debate prior to voting to go to war with iraq? no. no, that is not sufficient time and not a sufficient number of hearings. at last count 201 pennsylvanians were killed in iraq and over 1,200 were wounded. have we learned from the mistakes of 2002 and 2003 that led to those deaths and all those pennsylvanians being wounded and many thousands beyond that killed and wounded in the iraq war? have we learned? have we learned those lessons yet? we have a duty and an abiding obligation, a duty not to repeat the mistakes of the past and to constrain the actions of a president that may endanger the lives of u.s. service

members and americans abroad. before we get too far down this path, congress must reassert its constitutional duty to debate and authorize war. prior to authorizing a strike, we must assess -- and i hope the administration did this -- we must assess whether such an action will have an adverse impact on our national security. before we march our sons and daughters off to fight another war, we need to make sure we're doing everything possible to prevent the loss of american lives. i've been clear in opposing a direct confrontation with iran without -- without a clear authorization from congress. the trump administration acted without a congressionally approved authorization for the use of military force last week. that is why i and many others

have cosponsored senator tim kaine's bipartisan s.j. res. 68 to prevent the president from going to war with iran without congressional authorization. you want to go to war with iran, you ought to be compelled to vote for it, up or down, vote for or against as a member of congress. specifically, this resolution, s.j. res. 68, requires the president to, quote, terminate the use of the united states armed forces for hostilities against the islamic republic of iran or any part of its government or military unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force, unquote, as enacted by congress.

nothing in this resolution prevents the united states from, quote, defending itself against imminent attack, unquote. those are exact words. so authorization or declaration before you go to war with iran? i think a lot of americans, most americans believe that that is not just the right thing to do, but that is our duty, no matter who is president. when the administration fails to brief congress on threats we face and concurrently takes unilateral actions that could lead to all-out war, we must act quickly and decisively to prevent further escalation and demand a strategy. we owe it to pennsylvanians. we owe it to all americans, and especially our men and women in uniform and their families, to engage in a substantial, robust

public debate on what edge gauging in hostilities -- engaging in hostilities with iran would mean for u.s. national security and how it could endanger american lives. the house voted last thursday to reassert this congressional authority, and the senate will vote this week. i urge a vote in support of s.j. res. 68 which has several bipartisan cosponsors. mr. president, this is a dark time, and i cannot overstate my level of concern. i know that concern is shared widely here in congress, but also across the country. as to iran, we're headed down a path to war, one which could be more bloody, more complicated, and more protracted than any in my lifetime. we've been walking down this path since president trump pulled out of the joint comprehensive plan of action.

and every week since we are a little closer to an armed conflict, and the events of these past weeks have likely turbo charged the dangerous path that we're on. going back to the time of the vietnam war and thereafter, elected leaders of both political parties have lied to the american people. the american people were told we're making progress when we weren't. the american people were told that insurgencies were, quote, in their last throes, unquote, when the opposite was true. and the american people demand that politicians don't make serious mistakes that lead to war. the good news is we still have time. we have time to get it right, time to engage in hard-nosed diplomacy, time to reject a policy of regime change regarding iran. there's time for this administration to outline