Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this Friday marks the 2-year anniversary of the shooting at the school in Parkland, FL, where 17 innocent lives were lost at the hands of evil. We will never forget that tragic moment and day. I am dedicated to keeping weapons from dangerous people. That is why I have introduced the EAGLES Act over the past 2 years. This bipartisan, bicameral bill reauthorizes and expands the leading center in threat assessment and prevention. This bill is a tribute to the victims and the families. Also, the Justice Department still hasn't provided to Congress its report on the shooting. I hope the Department of Justice will get off the stick. It owes it to the families to get this report done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, our colleague Senator Martha McSally, of Arizona, announced her support yesterday for the bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. I like to refer to it as the Grassley-Wyden prescription drug bill, reducing prices. Senator McSally and I worked together on several parts of the bill. Her Arizonans should know that Senator McSally's leadership is making all the difference in moving this bill forward. I thank her for her cosponsorship. President Trump, Vice President Pence, and nearly a dozen Senate Republicans have, so far, endorsed this bill. Several other Senate Republicans will soon announce their support as well. I expect to introduce an updated version in the coming weeks. I am confident that, if this bill were to be brought up for a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly. Let's not miss an opportunity then to deliver real progress for Americans. This always shows up--in other words, drug pricing legislation--as one of the three, four, or five top issues of the upcoming election. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, since tax reform was enacted in December of 2017, our economy has grown and strengthened with American families' and businesses' seeing real benefits, and you just heard Senator Barrasso say some of the same things about how the economy is booming. Unemployment rates have dropped dramatically, with unemployment among Hispanic, Latino, and African-American workers at record lows. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average hourly earnings have grown at a rate of 3 percent or higher for 16 consecutive months, with the largest wage gains being concentrated in the bottom quarter of the wage scale. We should duly note that production workers' wages are growing much faster than are the wages for the manager class. In short, lower income workers are seeing the highest wage growth. Yet, instead of looking at the positive economic effects of tax reform, our Democratic colleagues insist that large corporations have received a massive giveaway and that only the wealthy have benefited. That is simply not true. Tax reform has addressed a number of issues that have been frequently highlighted by both political parties. In particular, tax reform has made enormous progress toward creating a more competitive environment for American companies. Before tax reform, the combined U.S. Federal and State corporate tax rate was the highest in the developed world--15 percentage points higher than the average of the other 35 advanced economies that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which we commonly refer to around here as OECD. Over the last few years and before the tax bill, you heard of companies going overseas. We had inversions, foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies, and the erosion of the U.S. tax base. These were all very significant problems that we addressed in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. With our worldwide tax system, companies were actually incentivized to store corporate profits in low-tax jurisdictions overseas rather than to reinvest them back here in the United States. How can that help the U.S. economy? We had perverse incentives to keep wealth out of this country. Ironically, even the Democrats highlighted these same issues in the lead-up to tax reform--a bipartisan recognition that we shouldn't have a tax system that encourages the storing of money overseas but rather one that brings that money and capital back to the United States to create jobs here. They are only partisan issues now, as it turns out, because tax reform was a Republican effort, but both sides of the aisle knew that these issues had to be addressed in order for U.S. companies to remain competitive and for the U.S. economy to continue leading the world. Critics of tax reform complain that the 21-percent rate is too low, but with the average corporate tax rate of 21.7 percent among the OECD countries today, the United States is finally in line with its peers. In other words, we can be competitive. As a result, U.S. companies are competitive, and investments in the United States are more attractive not only to foreign companies but to U.S. companies that used to store money overseas. After tax reform legislation passed in 2017, business investment rose by 6.4 percent in 2018. While a weaker global economy, tariffs, and other factors subdued growth last year in 2019, business investment in 2018 and 2019 combined was still $5.7 trillion, hitting record highs. Capital expenditures of S&P 500 companies have risen by 17 percent since tax reform, and research and development expenditures of S&P 500 companies rose by 18 percent. All of this is showing that our law accomplished what we wanted it to accomplish. It is hardly, then, the anemic response to tax reform that the Democrat critics would have us believe. Tax reform has changed our international tax rules to remove barriers that previously prevented companies from bringing foreign earnings home. In the seven quarters since enactment of tax reform, U.S. companies have brought back to the United States more than $1 trillion of foreign earnings. Obviously, U.S. companies are using these earnings to finance new capital expenditures, increase research and development, increase payrolls, pay down debt, and return cash to shareholders and retirement accounts. Companies are putting those earnings to work in this country, not leaving them abroad. That economic gain and the jobs created as a result of it are because of the 2017 tax cut legislation. But we also took care to ensure that companies wouldn't be able to take advantage of the new U.S. tax system. Tax reform made signature strides to address inversions, foreign takeovers of U.S. companies, and base erosion. You will remember the outrage we had before the tax bill when there were inversions and foreign takeovers of U.S. companies, and then the result of the erosion of our tax base. Together, the lower tax rate and new international rules have changed the way that companies structure their business operations. For example, Assurant, a global insurance company, changed its acquisition agreement so that its new parent company remains here in the United States. Broadcom, a technology firm, announced that it would return its headquarters to the United States, and this came after tax reform. Similarly, several energy and pharmaceutical companies that had previously moved out of the United States also made the decision to return, primarily because of tax reform. You know, the old, old saying can apply to this tax legislation. What we wanted to accomplish was accomplished, and that old saying is: The proof is in the pudding. So tax reform has leveled the playing field and made the United States a far more attractive place to do business--hardly the dire consequences that critics would have us believe. Now, you know critics never give up. Not to be deterred, the critics continue to look for misleading information to distort the picture. Most recently, they pointed to the Congressional Budget Office projections as evidence that tax reform and recently issued U.S. Treasury Department regulations have provided a windfall to corporations. I hate to see the Congressional Budget Office's professional work and nonpartisan work manipulated to say something it clearly does not--and I meant to use the word ``manipulated.'' First and foremost, CBO's--that is the Congressional Budget Office-- downward adjustment of expected corporate tax receipts does not imply that CBO scores particular Treasury regulations or that a regulation departs from congressional intent. Rather, CBO's adjustments broadly reflect significant economic factors and changes in government data. In particular, CBO adjusted its projections because we now know that Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates of corporate receipts between 2016 and 2018 were actually overstated. So you have to make adjustments for that. In short, even pretax reform projections of corporate profits were really too high. So when the estimate of corporate profits is corrected, it translates into lower tax receipts, but the other side doesn't seem to acknowledge this. CBO also took into account current economic factors, like recent trade actions and tariffs, strengthening of the U.S. dollar, and the softening of foreign economies, all of which affected expected corporate profits and ultimate tax receipts. But our critics don't seem to acknowledge that fact. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office revised its projections to reflect everything that we are learning about implementation of the new tax rules, including regulatory guidance, new forms and instructions that go with the tax forms, and modeling improvements to better reflect updated economic projections. CBO is only beginning to take into account how U.S. businesses are responding very positively to the new tax rules and Treasury guidance. As many regulations are still being finalized, businesses are only starting to have needed certainty to invest in new property and equipment, to engage in mergers and acquisitions, and to enter into new business transactions. The Congressional Budget Office's projections are also based upon preliminary data. Tax returns for the first year of the new law were filed less than 6 months ago, but the critics don't take that into consideration. The final data will not be available from the IRS until later this year, and, even then, it will still take time to fully analyze, but our critics don't recognize that. All of these factors go into CBO's revised projections of corporate tax receipts, and none of them support the claim that Treasury provided a windfall to corporations. I think the critics ought to go the extra mile to study and understand the impact of the tax cut law. There simply is no basis, then, for the critics' claim that the revision to CBO's estimate of corporate receipts means that Treasury has given away the store to big corporations through its regulations. Despite the critics' relentless attacks, the benefits of tax reform are, in fact, proving out. All you have to do is look at the good economy to know that that is the case. I am encouraged by the promising economic data that I just referred to that suggests that American workers, American families, and American businesses are seeing positive effects. Now, we must continue to promote policies that encourage U.S. businesses to keep operations on American soil--the 2017 bill does that--increase wages--the 2017 bill did that--and reinvest foreign earnings in the United States, instead of leaving them overseas--and the 2017 tax bill does that. I hope that my Democratic colleagues will stop criticizing the policies that have strengthened our economy and, in fact, consider how we can work together to make our tax laws work even better for American businesses and workers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I pay tribute to a remarkable Iowan. She is one of the longest serving newspaper columnists in America. She has an uncommon work ethic, having never missed a deadline in 70 years. Her weekly commentary in the Shenandoah Valley News has blanketed her close-knit community in southwest Iowa for seven decades. Now--get this--at age 100 years young, Evelyn Birkby--mother, farmer's wife, radio commentator--better yet, radio homemaker for KMA Radio--columnist, and author--is now retiring. Her readers will miss her byline and storytelling. Her neighborly columns about ordinary life in rural America have brought extraordinary joy to generations of Iowans. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last night, in the State of the Union Address, President Trump called on Congress to put bipartisan legislation to lower prescription drug prices on his desk and that he would sign it. Here are the facts. The House is controlled by Democrats. The Senate requires bipartisanship to get any legislating done. There are only a couple of months left before the campaign season will likely impede anything from being accomplished in this Congress. So the time to act is right now. I am calling on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get off the sidelines and to work with me and Senator Wyden, as President Trump already is, to heed the call to action that he gave us last night and pass the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It is the only significant bipartisan bill in town. President Trump, the AARP, and the libertarian Cato think tank, to name just a few people involved, have all endorsed the bill. If you are serious about fulfilling promises to lower drug costs, my office door is open, as Senator Wyden's door is open. It is time for the Senate to act and to deliver for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Senators, we cast a lot of votes throughout our tenure in this body. I have cast over 13,200 of them. Each vote is important. A vote to convict or acquit the President of the United States on charges of impeachment is one of the most important votes a Senator could ever cast. Until this week, such a vote has only taken place twice since the founding of our Republic. The President has been accused of committing ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for requesting that a foreign leader launch an anti- corruption investigation into his potential political opponent and obstructing Congress's subsequent inquiry into his actions. For such conduct, the House of Representatives asks this body to remove the President from office and prohibit him from ever again serving in a position of public trust. As both a judge and juror, this Senator asks first whether the conduct alleged rises to the level of an offense that unquestionably demands removal. If it does, I ask whether the House has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct actually occurred. The House's case clearly fails on the first of those questions. Accordingly, I will vote not guilty on both articles. The President's request, taken at face value, is not impeachable conduct. A President is not prohibited by law or any other restriction from engaging the assistance of a foreign ally in an anti-corruption investigation. The House attempts to cure this defect by suggesting that the President's subjective motive--political advantage--is enough to turn an otherwise unimpeachable act into one that demands permanent removal from office. I will not lend my vote in support of such an unnecessary and irreversible break from the Constitution's clear standard for impeachment. The Senate is an institution of precedent. We are informed and often guided, especially in times like this, by history and the actions of our predecessors. While we look to history, however, we must be mindful of the reality that our choices make history, for better or for worse. What we say and do here necessarily becomes part of the roadmap for future Presidential impeachments and their consideration by this body. These days, that reality can be difficult to keep front and center. Partisan fervor to convict or acquit a President of the United States who has been impeached can lead to cut corners, overheated rhetoric, and rushed results. We are each bound by the special oath we take while sitting as a Court of Impeachment to ``do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.'' But as President pro tempore, I recognize we must also do justice to the Senate as an institution and to the Republic that it serves. This trial began with a full and fair opportunity to debate and amend the rules that would guide our process. The Senate considered and voted on 11 separate amendments to the resolution, over the span of nearly 13 hours. Consistent with precedent, the Senate adopted a resolution to allow the same length of time for opening arguments and questions as was agreed to unanimously in 1999 during the Clinton impeachment trial. Consistent with precedent, the Senate agreed to table the issue of witnesses and additional evidence until after the conclusion of questions from Members. Consistent with precedent, the Senate engaged in a robust and open debate on the necessity of calling witnesses and pursuing additional evidence. We heard nearly 24 hours of presentation from the House managers, nearly 12 hours of presentation from the President's counsel, and we engaged in 16 hours of questioning to both sides. Up to today, the Senate has sat as a Court of Impeachment for a combined total of over 70 hours. The Senate did not and does not cut corners, nor can the final vote be credibly called a rushed result or anything less than the product of a fair and judicious process. Future generations, if faced with the toxic turmoil of impeachment, will be better served by the precedent we followed and the example we set in this Chamber. I cannot in good conscience say the same of the articles before us today. I have said since the beginning of this unfortunate episode that the House's articles don't, on their face, appear to allege anything satisfying the Constitution's clear requirement of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Yet I took my role as a juror seriously. I committed to hear the evidence in the record and to reflect on the arguments made. After 9 days of presentation and questions and after fully considering the record as presented to the Senate, I am convinced that what the House is asking us to do is not only constitutionally flawed but dangerously unprecedented. The House's first article, impeaching the President for ``abuse of power,'' rests on objectively legal conduct. Until Congress legislates otherwise, a President is well within his or her legal and constitutional authority, as the head of state, to request that a foreign leader assist with an anti-corruption investigation falling outside of the jurisdiction of our domestic law enforcement authorities. Short of political blowback, there is also nothing in the law that prohibits a President from conditioning his or her official acts upon the agreement by the foreign leader to carry out such an investigation. In an attempt to cure this fundamental defect in its charge, the House's ``abuse of power'' article sets out an impermissibly flexible and vague standard to justify removing the Chief Executive from office. As the House's trial brief and presentation demonstrated, its theory of the case rests entirely on the President's subjective motive for carrying out objectively permissible conduct. For two reasons, this cannot be sustained. First, the House would seemingly have the Senate believe that motive by itself is sufficient to prove the illegality of an action. House managers repeatedly described the President's ``corrupt motive'' as grounds for removal from office. But this flips basic concepts in our justice system upside down and represents an unprecedented expansion of the scope of the impeachment authority. With limited exception, motive is offered in court to show that the defendant on trial is the one who most likely committed the illegal act that has been charged. Jealously might compel one neighbor to steal something from the other. But a court doesn't convict the defendant for a crime of jealousy. Second, let's assume, however, that motive could be grounds for impeachment and removal. The House offers no limiting principle or clear standard whatsoever of what motives are permissible. Under such an amorphous standard, future Houses would be empowered to impeach Presidents for taking lawful action for what the House considers to be the wrong reasons. The House also gives no aid to this institution or to our successors on whether impeachment should rest on proving a single, ``corrupt'' motive or whether mixed motive suffices under their theory for removing a President from office. In its trial brief presented to the Senate, the House asserts that there is ``no credible alternative explanation'' for the President's alleged conduct. This formulation, in the House's own brief, necessarily implies that the presence of a credible alternative explanation for the President's conduct would defeat the ``abuse of power'' theory. But once the Senate heard the President's counsel's presentation, the House changed its tune. Even a credible alternative explanation--or multiple benign motives--shouldn't stop this body from removing the President, so long as one ``corrupt'' motive is in the mix. This apparent shift in trial strategy seems less indicative of a cohesive theory and more reflective of an ``impeach-by- any-means-necessary'' mindset. But reshaping their own standard mid- trial only served to undercut their initial arguments. Simply asserting at least 63 times, as the House managers did, during the trial that their evidence was ``overwhelming'' and that the President's guilt was proven does not make the underlying allegations accurate or prove an impeachable offense. Even in the midst of questions and answers, after opening arguments had concluded, the House managers started repeating the terms ``bribery'' and ``extortion'' on the floor of the Senate, while neither appears anywhere in the House's articles. These are serious, statutory crimes that have specific elements of proof; they shouldn't be casually used as window dressing to inflame the jury. And the House's attempts to shoehorn those charges into their articles is itself a due process violation. It is not the Senate's job to read into the House's articles what the House failed or didn't see fit to incorporate itself. No more so is it the job of a judge to read nonexistent provisions into legislation that Congress passes and the President signs. Articles of Impeachment should not be moving targets. The Senate, accordingly, doesn't need to resolve today the question of whether a criminal violation is necessary for a President's conduct to be impeachable. The text of the Constitution and the Framers' clear intent to limit the scope of the impeachment power counsels in favor of such a brightline rule. And until this episode, no President has been impeached on charges that didn't include a violation of established law. Indeed, the only Presidential impeachments considered by this body included alleged violations of laws, and both resulted in acquittals. But the stated ambiguities surrounding the House's ``abuse of power'' theory, acknowledged even by the House managers, give this Senator reason enough to vote not guilty. If we are to lower the bar of impeachment, we better be clear on where the bar is being set. The President himself, however, should not conclude from my vote that I think his conduct was above reproach. He alone knows what his motives were. The President has a duty to the American people to root out corruption no matter who is implicated. And running for office does not make one immune from scrutiny. But the President's request was poorly timed and poorly executed, and he should have taken better care to avoid even the mere appearance of impropriety. Had he done so, this impeachment saga might have been avoided altogether. It is clear that many of the President's opponents had plans to impeach him from the day he took office. But the President didn't have to give them this pretense. The House's second article, impeaching the President for ``obstruction of Congress,'' is equally unprecedented as grounds for removal from office and patently frivolous. It purports that, if the President claims constitutional privileges against Congress, ``threatens'' to litigate, or otherwise fails to immediately give up the goods, he or she must be removed from office. I know a thing or two about obstruction by the executive branch under both Democrat and Republican administrations. Congressional oversight-- rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse--is central to my role as a Senator representing Iowa taxpayers and has been for 40 years. If there is anything as sure as death and taxes, it is Federal agencies resisting Congress' efforts to look behind the curtain. In the face of obstruction, I don't retreat. I go to work. I use the tools the Constitution provides to this institution. I withhold consent on nominees until I get an honest answer to an oversight request. I work with my colleagues to exercise Congress's power of the purse. And when necessary, I take the administration to court. That is the very core of checks and balances. For years, I fought the Obama administration to obtain documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. I spent years seeking answers and records from the Obama administration during my investigation into Secretary Clinton's mishandling of highly classified information. Under the House's ``obstruction of Congress'' standard, should President Obama have been impeached for his failure to waive privileges during the course of my and other committees' oversight investigations? We fought President Obama on this for 3 years in the courts, and we still didn't end up with all we asked for. We never heard a peep from the Democrats then. So the hypocrisy here by the House Democrats is on full display. When I face unprecedented obstruction, I don't agitate to impeach. Rather, my office aggressively negotiates, in good faith, with the executive branch. We discuss the scope of questions and document requests. We discuss the intent of the inquiry to provide context for the requested documents. We build an airtight case and demand cooperation. Negotiations are difficult. They take time. In the case before us, the House issued a series of requests and subpoenas to individuals within the White House and throughout the administration. But it did so rather early in its inquiry. The House learned of the whistleblower complaint in September, issued subpoenas for records in October, and impeached the President by December, 4 months from opening the inquiry to impeachment for ``obstruction.'' As one who can speak from experience, that is unreasonable and doesn't allow an investigation to appropriately and reasonably run its course. That timeline makes clear to me that the House majority really had one goal in mind: to impeach the President at all costs, no matter what the facts and the law might say. Most importantly, the House failed to exhaust all legal remedies to enforce its requests and subpoenas. When challenged to stand up for the legality of its requests in court, the investigating committee simply retreated. Yet, now, the House accuses the Senate of aiding and abetting a coverup, if we don't finish their job for them. The evidence is ``overwhelming,'' yet the Senate must entertain more witnesses and gather more records that the House chose to forgo. The House's failure to proceed with their investigation in an orderly, reasonable, good-faith manner has created fundamental flaws in its own case. They skipped basic steps. It is not the job of the Senate to fix the fundamental flaws that directly result from the House's failure to do its job. The House may cower to defend its own authority, but it will not extort and demean this body into cleaning up a mess of the House's own making. For the myriad ways in which the House failed to exercise the fundamentals of oversight, for the terrible new precedent the House wants us to endorse, and for the risk of future generations taking it up as the standard, I will vote not guilty on the obstruction article. Now, there has been much discussion and debate about the whistleblower whose complaint framed the House's inquiry in this case. I have worked for and with whistleblowers for more than 30 years. They shed light on waste, fraud, and abuse that ought to be fixed and that the public ought to know about, all frequently at great personal cost. Whistleblowers are patriots, and they are heroes. I believed that in the 1980s. I believe it today. I have sponsored, cosponsored, and otherwise strongly supported numerous laws designed to strengthen whistleblowers protections. I have reminded agencies of the whistleblowers' rights to speak with us and of their protection under the law for doing so. And this is how it works. Of course, it is much better to have firsthand information because it is more reliable. However, whether it is firsthand information or secondhand, it is possible to conduct a thorough investigation of a whistleblower's claims and respect his or her request for confidentiality. As I said in October of last year, attempts by anyone in government or the media to ``out'' a whistleblower just to sell an article or score a political point is not helpful. It undermines the spirit and purpose of the whistleblower protection laws. I remember very well the rabid, public lashing experienced by the brave whistleblowers who came to me about the Obama administration's Operation Fast and Furious. President Obama's Justice Department worked overtime to discredit them and tarnish their good names in the press, all to protect an operation that it tried to keep hidden from Congress and the American people, and that resulted in the death of an American Border Patrol agent. That was not the treatment those whistleblowers deserved. It is not the treatment any whistleblower deserves, who comes forward in good faith, to report what he or she truly believes is waste, fraud, or abuse. But whistleblower claims require careful evaluation and follow up, particularly because their initial claim frames your inquiry and forms the basis for further fact finding. The questions you ask and the documents and witnesses you seek all start there. Any investigator worth their salt will tell you that part of the investigative process involving a whistleblower, or indeed any witness, requires the investigator to evaluate that individual's claim and credibility. It is standard procedure. So we talk to the whistleblowers, we meet with them when possible, we look at their documents. We keep them confidential from potential retaliators, but not from the folks who need to speak with them to do their jobs. When whistleblowers bring to us significant cases of bipartisan interest, where we have initially evaluated their claim and credibility and determined that the claim merits additional follow up, we also frequently work closely with the other side to look into those claims. We have done many bipartisan investigations of whistleblowers' claims over the years and hopefully will continue to do so. We trust the other side to respect the whistleblower's confidence as well and treat the investigation seriously. We have also worked with many witnesses in investigations who want to maintain low profiles and who request additional security measures to come and speak with us. We are flexible on location. We have the Capitol Police. We have SCIFs. We have interviewed witnesses in both classified and unclassified settings. We are willing to work with those witnesses to make them comfortable and to ensure they are in a setting that allows them to share sensitive information with us. I know the House committees, particularly the oversight committees, have all taken that course themselves. They routinely work with whistleblowers too. Both sides understand how to talk to whistleblowers and how to respect their role and confidentiality. So why no efforts were taken in this case to go through these very basic, bipartisan steps is baffling. I do not under any circumstances support reprisal or efforts to throw stones without facts. But neither do I support efforts to skirt basic fundamental investigative procedures to try and learn those facts. I fear that, to achieve its desired ends, the House weaponized and politicized whistleblowers and whistleblower reporting for purely partisan purposes. I hope that the damage done from all sides to these decades-long efforts will be short lived. Finally, throughout my time on the Judiciary Committee, including as chairman, I have made it a priority to hold judicial nominees to a standard of restraint and fidelity to the law. As judges in the Court of Impeachment, we too should be mindful of those factors which counsel restraint in this matter. To start, these articles came to the Senate as the product of a flawed, unprecedented and partisan process. For 71 of the 78 days of the House's expedited impeachment inquiry, the President was not permitted to take part or have agency counsel present. Many of the rights traditionally afforded to the minority party in impeachment proceedings were altered or withheld. And an authorizing vote by the full House didn't occur until 4 weeks after hearings had already begun. When the articles themselves were put to a vote by the full House, just in time for Christmas, the only bipartisanship we saw was in opposition. Moreover, the Iowa caucuses have already occurred. The 2020 Presidential election is well underway. Yet we are being asked to remove the incumbent from the ballot, based on Articles of Impeachment supported by only one party in Congress. Taken together, the Senate should take no part in endorsing the dangerous new precedent this would set for future impeachments. With more than 28,000 pages of evidence, 17 witnesses, and over 70 hours of open, transparent consideration by the Senate, I believe the American people are more than adequately prepared to decide for themselves the fate of this President in November. This decision belongs to them. When the Chief Justice spoke up at the start of this trial to defuse some rising emotions, he challenged both sides addressing the Chamber to ``remember where they are.'' We, too, should remember where we are. The U.S. Senate has ably served the American people through trying times. These are trying times. And when this trial adjourns, the cloud of impeachment may not so quickly depart. But if there is any institution best equipped to help bridge the divide and once again achieve our common goals, it is this one. Let's get back to work for the People.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President I would like to recognize a remarkable Senate career that has drawn to a close after nearly 30 years. Donna Pasqualino began her career with the Office of the Legislative Counsel in May of 1990. Donna came to the office having spent several years at the Naval Research Lab. Hired to serve as a staff assistant in the office Donna quickly mastered the job and became a valuable asset to the office attorneys as they worked to produce draft legislation for the Senate. In 2001, Donna was promoted to office manager. She flourished in that position, carrying out her duties with the highest degree of professionalism keeping the office running smoothly and efficiently for the last 20 years. Donna is a people person. While working for the office, she was frequently seen in the halls of the Senate office buildings, hustling to the Disbursing Office to drop off vouchers and other important papers for the office, just doing her daily walk during her lunch break to get in some exercise. Whether she was on official office business or just getting in some exercise, Donna always had a smile on her face or a kind word for the many Senators and Senate staffers that she met along the way. Donna is now moving on to a well-earned retirement. She has relocated to the Eastern Shore of Maryland with her husband Frank and plans to learn to read music, to speak Italian, and spend more time with her four grandchildren. She departs with the immeasurable thanks and gratitude of the staff of the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Senate and with our best wishes for her and for her family.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Senators, we cast many votes during our time here. I have cast over 13,200. Each one of those votes is important, but a vote to convict or acquit the President on charges of impeachment is perhaps the most important vote a Senator could ever cast. Until now, it has happened only twice in our Nation's history, and it is something that should never be taken lightly. President Trump has been charged of committing, according to the Constitution and in these articles, ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for requesting that a foreign leader investigate his potential political opponent and, No. 2, obstructing Congress's inquiry into those actions. For this, we are asked to permanently remove him from office. As a judge and juror, as we all are, I first ask whether the charges rise to an offense that unquestionably demands removal from office. If so, I then ask whether the House proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it actually occurred. The House's case fails on the first of those questions. The President's request is not impeachable conduct under our Constitution. A President isn't prohibited by law from engaging the assistance of a foreign ally in an anti-corruption investigation. The House tries to make up for this hurdle by suggesting that subjective motive--in other words, political advantage--can turn an otherwise unimpeachable act into an act that demands removal from office. I won't support such an irreversible break from the Constitution standard for impeaching a President. The Senate is an institution of precedent. We are informed and guided by history and the actions of our predecessors, but our choices also actually make history. These days, that can be difficult to keep in mind. A rush to convict or acquit can lead to cut corners and overheated rhetoric. We are each bound by our oath to ``do impartial justice.'' As President pro tempore of this institution, I recognize that we must also do justice to the Senate and to the Republic that this Senate serves. This trial began with a full and fair debate on the rules to guide our process. We considered and voted on 11 amendments over nearly 13 hours. Consistent with precedent, the Senate adopted rules allowing the same length of time for arguments and questions as was agreed to unanimously in the 1999 Clinton impeachment. Consistent with precedent, we engaged in a robust debate on calling witnesses and pursuing additional evidence. We sat as a Court of Impeachment for over 70 hours. The final vote will be the product of a fair and judicial process consistent with precedent of the Senate. I cannot say the same of the Articles of Impeachment that we are considering today from the House of Representatives, which has the sole power of impeachment. After 9 days of presentation and questions and after fully considering the record, I am convinced that what the House is asking the Senate to do is constitutionally flawed and dangerously unprecedented. The House's abuse of power article rests on objectively legal conduct. Until Congress legislates otherwise, a President is within his authority to request that a foreign leader assist with anti-corruption efforts. To make up for this, the House of Representatives' abuse of power theory rests entirely on the President's subjective motive. This very vague standard cannot be sustained. The House offers no limiting principle of what motives are allowed. Under such a flexible standard, future House of Representatives could impeach Presidents for taking lawful action for what a majority thinks are the wrong reasons. The House also gives no guidance whatsoever on whether conviction rests on proving a single, corrupt motive or whether mixed motives suffice under their theory. In its trial brief, the House of Representatives argues that there is ``no credible alternative explanation''--those are their words--for the President's alleged conduct, but once the Senate heard from the President's counsel in defense, then all of a sudden, the House changed its tune. Now, even a credible alternative explanation shouldn't stop the Senate from removing the President. Reshaping their own standard midtrial only serves to undercut their initial arguments. And simply asserting--at least 63 times that I counted--that their evidence was ``overwhelming'' doesn't make the House of Representatives' allegations accurate or prove an impeachable offense. Even after arguments had concluded, the House managers started repeating the terms ``bribery'' and ``extortion'' on the floor of the Senate, while neither term appears anywhere in their Articles of Impeachment. So you get down to this point. It is not the Senate's job to read into House articles what the House failed or didn't see fit to incorporate itself. Articles of Impeachment shouldn't be moving targets like moving a goalpost. The ambiguity surrounding the House's abuse of power theory gives this Senator reason enough to vote not guilty. If we are to lower the bar of impeachment--and that is what the House of Representatives is trying to do--we better be clear on where the bar is being set. The House's second article impeaching the President for what they call obstruction of Congress is equally unprecedented and equally patently frivolous. This Senator takes great pride in knowing a thing or two about obstruction by the executive branch from both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents in the 40 years that I have been doing oversight. Congressional oversight--like rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse--is central to my role as a Senator representing Iowa taxpayers. In the face of obstruction, I use the tools the Constitution provides to this institution. Now, that is the very core of the checks and balances of our governmental system. For example, I fought the Obama administration to obtain documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. Under the House's obstruction standard, should President Obama have been impeached for his failure to waive privileges during the course of that investigation? We fought President Obama on this for 3 years in the courts, and we still didn't end up with all that we asked for. We never heard a peep from the Democrats when Obama pulled that trick. The hypocrisy here by the House Democrats has been on full display for the last 2 weeks. In the case before us, the House issued a series of requests and subpoenas to the executive branch, but the House failed to enforce those requests. When challenged to stand up for its subpoenas in court, the investigating committee simply retreated. The House may cower at defending its own authority, but the Senate shouldn't have to clean up the mess of the House's own making. For the many ways in which the House failed in the fundamentals of oversight and for the terrible new precedent this obstruction article would set, I will vote not guilty. Another point: There has been debate about the whistleblower, whose complaint motivated the House's impeachment inquiry. I have worked for and with whistleblowers for more than 30 years. I have sponsored numerous laws to strengthen whistleblower protections. Attempts by anyone to ``out'' a whistleblower just to sell an article or to score a political point are not helpful at all. It is not the treatment any whistleblower deserves. However, it is important for investigators to talk to whistleblowers and to evaluate their claims and credibility because those claims form the basis of an inquiry under checks and balances of government. My office does this all the time. When whistleblowers bring significant cases of bipartisan interest, we frequently work closely with the Democrats to look into those claims. I know the House committees have followed that course in the past. Both parties understand how to talk to whistleblowers and respect confidentiality. Why no efforts were taken in this case to take these very basic, bipartisan steps is very baffling to me. I fear that, to achieve its desired goal, the House majority weaponized and politicized whistleblowers for purely partisan purposes. I hope that the damage done will be short-lived. Otherwise, the separation of powers under our Constitution will be weakened. Finally, I have always made it a priority to hold judicial nominees to a standard of restraint and fidelity to the law, and as judges in this case, which every Senator is, we should consider those factors which counsel restraint. These articles came to the Senate as a product of a flawed, unprecedented, and partisan process. When the articles were voted on by the full House, the only bipartisanship was of those in opposition. Moreover, tonight, the Iowa caucuses will be finished. The 2020 Presidential election is underway. Yet we are all asked to remove the incumbent from the ballot based on an impeachment that is supported by only one party of the Congress. The Senate should take no part in endorsing the very dangerous new precedent that this would set for future impeachments. We need no new normal when it comes to impeaching a President. We have precedents of the past that should be followed, and they have not been followed. We have had more than 28,000 pages of evidence. We have had 17 witnesses and over 70 hours of open, transparent consideration by the Senate. The American people are more than adequately prepared to decide for themselves the fate of the President in November. This decision belongs to the voters. It is time to get the Senate back to work for the American people on issues of substance. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators McConnell, Hoeven, and Wicker.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I send a question to the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this coming Monday, the first in the Nation Iowa caucuses kick off the Presidential nomination process. The Presidential preference part of the caucus is just one part, however. In truth, the Iowa caucuses are an example of grassroots democracy. Iowa voters for each political party gather in each of the 1681 precincts across my State. At these neighborhood meetings, voters discuss issues of local and national importance and elect party officers and convention delegates. The platform planks approved and the officers and delegates elected often have a longer lasting impact on the political parties than the Presidential preference votes. Mr. President, in a week, all political focus will be set on my home State of Iowa for the first in the Nation precinct caucuses. Many pundits ask why Iowa should be awarded this much impact in the Presidential nomination process? Iowans take this job seriously. They study the candidates' backgrounds and positions on issues and they thoughtfully listen to the debates. In Iowa, Presidential candidates must explain and discuss their positions and answer tough questions directly to citizens instead of relying on advertising. Candidates who have done this successfully will be rewarded with momentum and excitement that could launch the rest of their candidacy.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I join my colleagues on an important resolution condemning human trafficking both at home and around the world. Congress made human trafficking a federal crime 20 years ago with passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Since then, I have worked with my colleagues on several pieces of legislation to strengthen existing protections and continue putting victims first. President Trump has also made addressing human trafficking one of his top priorities. He signed my bill, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017 into law, as well as other measures that I cosponsored, such as the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, the Abolish Human Trafficking Act and the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Reauthorization Act. He also proclaimed January as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Friday marks the 47th annual March for Life. This year's theme is ``Life Empowers: Pro-Life is Pro-Woman.'' This theme recognizes that 2020 is the centennial anniversary of the 19th amendment. The earliest feminists regarded abortion as a terrible consequence of our society's failure to embrace women's intrinsic value. These women instinctively embraced the sanctity of innocent human life, even though they could not have foreseen the advances in technology that have made it possible for newborn babies to survive at earlier and earlier stages of fetal development. Two examples of such miracle babies are Micah Pickering of Iowa, born prematurely at 22 weeks gestation, who is now 7 years old, and Jaden Wesley Morrow, born at 23 weeks gestation, who died a few weeks after his birth in Des Moines last year. We today celebrate the lives of these miracle babies, remember all the others who were lost to abortion, and focus on how women are empowered by upholding the dignity of life.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, January 22 is celebration of life day, and I wanted to take that opportunity to recognize women facing unplanned pregnancies or parenting young children. Women with unplanned pregnancies sometimes lack access to advice and support. They deserve the backing of their community and access to information, resources, and quality care. In Iowa, programs like Ruth Harbor in Des Moines provide a safe place for young women, giving them counseling, education support, life-skills training, parenting training, adoption assistance, and access to health care at no cost. Programs like these are critical.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today is a very important day that we recognize once a year--National Religious Freedom Day. It is a day when we celebrate America's longstanding commitment to religious freedom. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects that right for Americans. Unfortunately, this fundamental right we have great respect for in the United States is under attack internationally in many autocratic countries. Around the world, people are being persecuted for their faith by authoritarian dictatorships and terrorist groups. Countries like China, North Korea, and Russia restrict their citizens' rights to practice their own religion. China, for example, plans to enforce additional restrictions on religious groups starting February 1. That is already on top of a very bad record they have for religious freedom. That is in regard to China, but it would apply to all countries. I have legislation to require the United States to work to block World Bank projects in wealthy countries like China and Russia that abuse religious freedoms. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this is a very serious claim being made by Senator Toomey, and I don't take this lightly because the privilege afforded by the trade promotion authority is a very important matter. The appropriations language that Senator Toomey takes issue with is, indeed, trade promotion authority-compliant. The appropriations ensure that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement's commitments are fulfilled and enforceable by providing adequate resources to do so. The commitments cover bipartisan priorities, including the monitoring, enforcement, and recapitalization of the North American Development Bank. If funds were only authorized, as Senator Toomey has suggested, there would be no guarantee that we would be able to fulfill the commitments made in the USMCA, and the credibility of our good-faith negotiations with Mexico and Canada is the presumption that we will carry out this agreement and carry it out year after year after year. Besides, historically, all trade bills result in changes to Federal spending and revenue. This bill has the benefit of reducing the deficit even with the funds discussed by Senator Toomey. Striking the emergency designations could lead to a sequestration of discretionary funding as regular appropriations for fiscal year 2020 have already been enacted. The emergency designation is, in this precise context--and in a very precise context--considered strictly necessary or appropriate under section 103 of the trade promotion authority 2015. Here is the oddity of the Senator's argument: If Senator Toomey is suggesting funds be authorized, I think he inherently agrees that enforcement funding is either strictly necessary or appropriate to implement the USMCA. This is a very important clarification to make; that the trade promotion authority language is ``strictly necessary or appropriate.'' It is for Congress, then, to decide what is strictly necessary or appropriate. The Committee on Finance, with jurisdiction over the entire bill, and the Committees on the Budget and Appropriations, with jurisdiction over the language at issue, voted overwhelmingly to support the bill. It is important to note that the final appropriation was significantly reduced in consideration of concerns about spending, including my own concerns. Finally, I emphasize this was a negotiated outcome, which was necessary in order to achieve the broad bipartisan support that this bill is going to get--particularly to get it through the House of Representatives. I am satisfied with the final outcome, so I will make a motion to waive the point of order, if it is made, and I urge my colleagues to support waiving the point of order and to vote yes for the USMCA so we can deliver a victory to the American people.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of H.R. 5430, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds for me and 1 minute for Senator Wyden for closing remarks.