Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 512, S. Res. 513, S. Res. 514, S. Res. 515, S. Res. 516, S. Res. 517, S. Res. 518, S. Res. 519, S. Res. 520, and S. Res. 521.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the resolutions.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the preambles be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today, every Senator will be able to take a clear moral stand. We will have the chance to proceed to commonsense legislation that will move our Nation closer to the international mainstream with respect to defending innocent human life. There are only seven nations left in the entire world where an unborn child can be killed by elective abortion after 20 weeks, and the United States of America, unfortunately, is one of them. Set aside all of the far-left rhetoric that will greet Senator Graham's straightforward legislation and consider this simple fact: Do our Democratic colleagues really believe that what our country needs is a radical fringe position on elective abortion that we only share with China, North Korea, and four other countries in the entire world? The American people don't seem to think that is what we need. One recent survey found that 70 percent of all Americans believe that at a minimum--at a minimum--elective abortion should be limited to the first 3 months of pregnancy. That even includes about half of the respondents who self-identify as pro-choice. I hope this body will proceed to Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act later today. I see no reason why at the very least our Democratic colleagues should vote against even proceeding to this legislation and having a debate. If there is a persuasive and principled case why America should remain on the radical international fringe on this subject, let us hear it. Let us have the debate. Few Americans agree with that radical position, but let's have the debate. If my Democratic colleagues block the Senate from even proceeding to consider this legislation here today, the message they will send will be chilling and clear. The radical demands of the far left will drown out common sense and the views of most Americans. The same goes for Senator Sasse's legislation, the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act. Even if most Washington Democrats persist in their resistance to any commonsense protections for the unborn, surely, we must be able to agree that children who are born deserve protection. Surely, that much cannot be controversial. There is currently no Federal mandate that children who are delivered alive following an attempted abortion should receive medical care. There is no clear guarantee that every child born alive in the United States, whether they were intended to be or not, is entitled to the same life-giving medical attention. The Kentuckians whom I speak with cannot comprehend why this could be some hotly debated proposition. It almost defies belief that an entire political party can find cause to object to this basic protection for babies. Yet, today, we will see if our Democratic colleagues will even permit the Senate to proceed to this legislation. We will see whether even something this simple and this morally straightforward is a bridge too far for the far left. I would urge all of my colleagues: Let's advance these bills. Let's take these modest steps. Let's have the courage to say that the right to life must not exclude the most vulnerable among us.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on a totally different matter, I have a duty this morning that somehow ranks among my most favorite activities and least favorite activities simultaneously. The good news is that I get to recognize a key member of my staff whom I have come to know and admire a great deal. The bad news is the occasion. This week, after 15 years of outstanding service, he is bidding farewell to the Senate. So I am unhappy with the circumstances, but I could not be more happy to talk about Jay Khosla. For just shy of 2 years, Jay has served as my chief economic policy counsel. Trade, taxes, banking, and financial services; pensions and retirement; housing--for 2 years, any answer I needed on any of these subjects was one phone call, one email, or one quick meeting away. You can go a long way in this town if you master either the policy details of big issues or the politics surrounding those issues. Jay has mastered both. When you have a lot of talent and intelligence, major projects tend to find their way to your desk. So consider the fact that Jay has been at the center of practically every major economic policy achievement over the past decade-plus. Jay arrived as a young healthcare staffer for then-Majority Leader Bill Frist. Talk about an opening act--not just working for a majority leader, but one who is also an M.D. and who is focused on healthcare. The bar was set high, but Jay, of course, exceeded it. He moved to the Budget Committee and then crafted policy for Senator McCain's Presidential campaign. Then, he returned to work for Senator Hatch and the Finance Committee. Before long, Jay was Senator Hatch's secret weapon. As he rose through the ranks to policy director and then to staff director, he rapidly became a not-so-secret weapon. He was an invaluable asset to the chairman, to the committee, and, really, to our entire conference. His relationships extended across the aisle as well. Our Democratic colleagues respect him greatly. His colleagues on the committee remember that, even when it might have been easier to pull back behind party lines and just try to craft a bill within the majority, Jay stayed stubbornly dedicated to the bipartisan process as long as possible. A team player, an honest broker, Jay doesn't want to just get big things done, he wants to get them done the right way. From trade promotion authority in 2015 and historic tax reform in 2017, to USMCA this past year, these huge accomplishments and many more, like fighting the opioid epidemic and fixing the dysfunctional sustainable growth rate that has plagued Medicare--all of these issues had this staff leader right at the center. In many cases, his work started months or years in advance, meeting with leaders, pouring the foundation for new policy, and staying on the case right through to the finish line. Needless to say, this is a resume that, basically, anyone in Washington would kill for, but effectiveness is only part of Jay's magic. The colleagues whom Jay supervised at the Finance Committee remember a boss who was kind, generous, patient, and unflappable, even as he guided them through legislation of the highest consequence. More recently, we in the majority leader's office have relished his laugh-out-loud punch lines, his deadpan sarcasm, and his creative nicknames. Jay is willing to take everyone down a peg when they need it, including himself. I have worked with all kinds of talented staff, but I have to say that the demeanor that Jay brings to work is somewhat unique. Despite being so knowledgeable, connected, and hard-working, Jay seems to flow through all the challenges with a confidence and calmness that almost borders on relaxation. If you didn't know better, you would almost be suspicious. Somehow, you never see Jay sweat--well, at least not in the office, anyway. Jay's colleagues like to rib him about the personal training regimen he maintains, along with the ultra-healthy diet and other enviable aspects of work-life balance that he somehow manages to carve out in this place that is so notorious for none of that. It is all part of the unique Jay Khosla magic. This is someone who has been known to reply to serious email inquiries with a funny photo of a cat dangling from a tree branch, captioned ``Hang In There!'' Jay is someone who frequently concludes his answers to pressing questions, including from Senators, with a smile and this catchphrase: ``I have a feeling it's all going to work out.'' Somebody less accomplished would never get away with this. From someone with less mastery of the details, you would scoff and find someone else to talk with, but when it is Jay, you know everything will actually work out because he is the one on the case. Jay helps make everyone around him as calm, confident, and cheerful as he is. It is not just because of his charisma. It is because he is so good at what he does. So, look, it is never fun to bid farewell to someone who is a big part of the brains of your operation, and it is never fun to say goodbye to someone who is a big part of the heart of your team either, and it is really no fun to say goodbye to somebody who has managed to be both. Jay has only formally worked for me for a couple of years, but he has been a trusted advisor and an honorary part of my team for a lot longer. He has been a big part of the Senate for more than a decade. When I say that Jay knows how to prioritize, I mean it, and his real bottom line is family. He and his beloved wife Lisa have two boys, Shya and Asher. They form a tight-knit unit together with Jay's parents, Vijay and Suman, and his sister Anchal and beyond. Jay may have made it look suspiciously easy all these years, but jobs like this are never easy, least of all on your family. It turns out that the Khosla clan would like to see a little more of this guy, and Jay doesn't mind the sound of a new chapter and some new challenges either. We are really going to miss him. We thank him for everything. We feel certain his next chapters will bring new happiness all their own. As a wise man once told me, ``I have a feeling it's all going to work out.''

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, February 27; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Greaves nomination, under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned, under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the order of January 31 to allow Senators to have until Thursday, February 27, 2020, to have printed statements and opinions in the Congressional Record, if they choose, explaining their votes and include those in the documentation of the impeachment proceedings; finally, I ask that the two-page rule be waived.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first, this afternoon I would like to recognize the career and public service of retired VADM Joseph Maguire, whose tenure as Acting Director of National Intelligence and Director of National Counterterrorism Center concluded last week. Joe Maguire spent 36 years serving our Nation as a U.S. Navy special operator. His leadership record included SEAL Team 2 and the U.S. Navy Special Warfare Command, where he guided some of our Nation's most sensitive military operations. Admiral Maguire retired from the Navy in 2010, but it was not long before public service came calling again. In 2018, the President asked him to direct the NCTC. The Senate confirmed him on a voice vote. He took on an even more challenging assignment last summer when he agreed to follow our former colleague Senator Dan Coats and act in the role of the DNI. Our Nation asks our intelligence community to fulfill an enormous array of sensitive missions. These men and women work day and night to protect the homeland from terrorists. They fight nuclear proliferation. They keep watch on dangerous adversaries, like Russia and China. They guard against what hostile intelligence services are doing in our Nation, and they work to protect American elections from foreign interference that seeks to sow division and chaos and reduce public confidence in our democracy. Recent reports suggest that adversaries, including Russia, are likely continuing efforts aimed at dividing Americans, sowing chaos in our politics, and undermining confidence in our elections. Fortunately, in stark contrast to the failures of the Obama administration in 2016, the Trump administration, once again, appears to be doing the right thing-- in this case, by promptly providing a specific counterintelligence briefing to a Democratic Presidential candidate in question. This is just the latest example of the vigilance and the action we have seen from this administration on this crucial issue. In parallel with hundreds of millions that Congress has appropriated in new election security assistance for State and local authorities, the administration has taken major proactive steps. The Treasury Department has sanctioned numerous Russian entities involved in the 2016 interference. The Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with States, local jurisdictions, and the private sector to bolster our cyber security defenses. The Obama administration's naive and belated efforts failed to deter or to defend against Russian interference in 2016 and failed to provide substantive counterintelligence briefings to the Trump and Clinton campaigns. By contrast, the Trump administration has been vigilant and appears to be providing timely warnings to candidates affected by foreign intelligence activities. This is critically important work, and it wouldn't be possible without the hard work of our intelligence community to identify the hostile activities. This is just one of many critical tasks the intelligence community performs for our country. Our country is safer and stronger when they have the tools and the resources they need and leadership that understands that political bias must have no quarter in intelligence work and that all Americans' rights need protecting.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on another matter, this week the Senate will continue to fulfill both of our constitutional charges: We will vote on important legislation, and we will provide advice and consent on a number of Presidential nominations. We will begin with two nominations to the Federal bench in U.S. territories. Judge Robert Molloy, who currently sits on the U.S. Virgin Islands Superior Court, is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands for a term of 10 years. Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll currently serves as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Puerto Rico and has been nominated to be a U.S. district judge. Both nominations were reported out of committee on a voice vote. This week we will also consider Katharine MacGregor, the President's nominee to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and Travis Greaves, a nominee to serve as judge on the U.S. Tax Court for a term of 15 years. But first, following the first two nominations, the Senate will turn to important legislation put forward by Senators Graham and Sasse to expand protections for innocent lives. Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would finally remove the United States from a list of only seven nations, including China and North Korea, that permit elective abortion after 20 weeks. It would bring our Nation's regard for the unborn off this sad and radical fringe and bring us more in line with the global mainstream. I do not believe this legislation should be controversial, but even less controversial should be Senator Sasse's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It would simply ensure that infants who survive abortion attempts receive the same level of professional care as any other children. My colleagues and I will have more to say on this subject in the days ahead, but I will urge all Senators to join me in supporting these nominees and these pieces of legislation when we vote on them this week. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this week, I offered thanks to a long list of Senate officers and staff who helped this body fulfill our unique constitutional responsibilities in recent weeks, but we are soon saying goodbye to one of those distinguished servants of the U.S. Senate. So I would like to begin this morning by sharing my gratitude and the whole Senate's gratitude for Bob Swanner. Bob first joined the staff of the Senate Recording Studio more than two decades ago. Back then, he was already somewhat of an expert in designing and constructing television and radio studios. In fact, I understand that his record was so impressive that he was offered the job on the spot, and as anyone knows who has worked with Bob for even a few minutes, he has spent every day since then demonstrating how lucky we were to have him on board. By his second year on the job, Bob had already successfully spearheaded the transition of Senate broadcasts to high-definition TV, and he didn't stop there. Over the past two decades, Bob has guided the overhaul of the camera and audio systems in every Senate hearing room. He masterminded the design of the new Senate Recording Studio's facilities in the Capitol Visitor Center, and he has made sure that speeches here on the floor are delivered under only the best TV lighting. Let's face it--Hollywood, this place is not. Frankly, capturing a U.S. Senator's ``good side'' is not always an easy assignment, but as Bob knows better than anyone, our audio-visual capabilities in this institution are not about glamor; they are about civics. They are about making sure the American people can look and listen to their government. Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the small fact that Presidential inaugurations take place here on the Capitol grounds as well. Not long after Bob was promoted to general manager of the Recording Studio came the 2017 inauguration--one big professional challenge after another and one success after another on behalf of the institution that Bob has served. It is no surprise that Bob's colleagues at the Recording Studio are sorry to see him go. The Senate is better for his dedicated efforts over these many years, but he will begin his well-deserved retirement with our sincere thanks for a job well done. Impeachment Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, it has been 1 week since the Senate concluded the third Presidential trial in American history. Things move quickly in Washington, as always, so it is natural that our focus is now shifting to the many policy subjects where we have more work to do for families all across our country. But when the Senate acts, we do not only address the particular issue before us; we create lasting precedent. This is especially true during something as grave and uncommon as an impeachment trial. Just as citizens, scholars, and Senators ourselves studied the past precedents of 1868 and 1999, so will future generations examine what unfolded over the past few months. So before we adjourn for the upcoming State work period and leave impeachment fully in the rearview mirror, I wanted to speak about it one more time--not about the particulars that have been so exhaustively discussed and debated but the deeper questions, to record some final observations for the future. The Senate did its job. We protected the long-term future of our Republic. We kept the temporary fires of factionalism from burning through to the bedrock of our institutions. We acted as Madison wished--as an ``impediment'' against ``improper acts.'' The Framers' firewall held the line. But in this case, all is not well that ends well. We cannot forget the abuses that fueled this process. We cannot make light of the dangerous new precedents set by President Trump's opponents in their zeal to impeach at all costs. We need to remember what happened so we can avoid it ever happening again. As we know, the leftwing drive to impeach President Trump predated-- predated--any phone call to Ukraine--and, in fact, his inauguration. This isn't a Republican talking point; it is what was reported by outlets like POLITICO and the Washington Post. House Democrats barely tried to hide that they began with a guilty verdict and were simply shopping for a suitable crime. So, unfortunately, it was predictable that the House majority would use the serious process of impeachment as a platform to politically attack the President. It was less predictable that they would also attack our Nation's core institutions themselves. But that is what happened. First, the House Democrats chose to degrade their body's own precedents. The majority sprinted through a slapdash investigation to meet arbitrary political deadlines. They trivialized the role of the House Judiciary Committee, the body traditionally charged with conducting impeachment inquiries. They sidelined their own Republican minority colleagues and the President's counsel to precedent-breaking degrees. All of this was very regrettable, but from a purely practical perspective, breaking the House's own china was Speaker Pelosi's prerogative. What was truly outrageous is what came next--a rolling attack on the other institutions outside the House. To begin with, the recklessly broad Articles of Impeachment were an attack not just on one President but on the Office of the Presidency itself. Their first article criticized the alleged motivation behind a Presidential action but failed to frame their complaint as definable ``high Crimes [or] Misdemeanors.'' This House set out into unchartered constitutional waters by passing the first-ever Presidential impeachment that did not allege any violations of criminal statutes. Clearly, they owed the Senate and the country a clear limiting principle to explain why removal on these grounds would be different from the malleable and subjective ``maladministration'' standard, which the Framers rejected as a ground for impeachment. But they offered no such thing. And their second article sought to criminalize the normal and routine exercise of executive privileges that Presidents of both parties have rightly invoked throughout our history. This was, in effect, criminalizing the separation of powers themselves. So the House articles would have sharply diminished the Presidency in our constitutional structure. To extract a pound of flesh from one particular President, House Democrats were willing to attack the office itself. But it did not stop with the House and the Presidency. Next in the crosshairs came the Senate. The very night the House passed the articles, the Speaker began an unprecedented effort to reach outside her own Chamber and dictate the contours of the Senate trial to Senators. The bizarre stunt of withholding the articles achieved, of course, nothing, but the irony was enormous. The House had just spent weeks jealously guarding their ``sole power'' of impeachment and criticizing other branches for perceived interference. Indeed, this reasoning was the entire basis for their second Article of Impeachment, but their first act out of the gate was to try to bust constitutional guardrails and meddle in the Senate. When that stunt went nowhere and the trial began, House Democrats brought their war on institutions over to this Chamber. From the very first evening, it was clear the House managers would not even try to persuade a supermajority of Senators but simply sought to degrade and smear the Senate itself before the Nation. Senators were called ``treacherous'' for not structuring our proceedings to the managers' liking. Finally, when the trial neared its end and it became clear that bullying the Senate would not substitute for persuading it, the campaign against institutions took aim at yet another independent branch--the Supreme Court--in particular, the Chief Justice of the United States. A far-left pressure group produced ads impugning him for presiding neutrally--neutrally--and not seizing control of the Senate. One Democratic Senator running for President made the Chief Justice read a pointless question gainsaying his own ``legitimacy.'' So, in summary, the opponents of this President were willing to throw mud at the House, the Presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court-- all for the sake of short-term partisan politics. The irony would be rich if it were less sad. For years, this President's opponents have sought to cloak their rage in the high- minded trappings of institutionalism. The President's opponents profess great concern for the norms and traditions of our government. But when it really counted--when the rubber met the road--that talk proved cheap. It was they who proved willing to degrade public confidence in our government. It was they who indulged political bloodlust at the expense of our institutions: reckless--reckless--insinuations that our 2016 election was not legitimate; further insinuations--right here on the floor--that if the American people reelect this President in 2020, the result will be presumptively illegitimate as well; bizarre statements from the Speaker of the House that she may simply deny reality and refuse to accept the Senate's verdict as final. There has been much discussion about the foreign adversaries who seek to reduce the American people's faith in our democracy and cause chaos and division in our country--rightly so--but we must also demand that our own political leaders exercise some self-restraint and not do the work of our adversaries for them. The critics of our Constitution often say that because our Framers could not have imagined modern conditions, their work is outmoded. We hear that the First Amendment or the Second Amendment or the separation of powers must be changed to suit the times. But the geniuses who founded this Nation were actually very prescient. Case in point: The reckless partisan crusade of recent weeks is something they predicted more than two centuries ago. Hamilton predicted ``the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his scepter'' over the House of Representatives. He predicted that partisan anger could produce ``an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives,'' capable of destroying the separation of powers if left unchecked. The Framers predicted overheated House majorities might lash out at their peer institutions and display ``strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of . . . rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.'' They knew the popular legislature might be ``disposed to exert an imperious control over the other departments.'' They predicted all of this. They predicted it all. So they did something about it. They set up a firewall. They built the Senate. This body performed admirably these past weeks. We did precisely the job we were made for. We did precisely the job we were made for, but impeachment should never have come to the Senate like this. This most serious constitutional tool should never have been used so lightly--as a political weapon of first resort, as a tool to lash out at the basic bedrock of our institutions because one side did not get their way. It should never have happened, and it should never happen again. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerks be allowed to make technical corrections to the engrossing of the amendments to S.J. Res. 68.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 491.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 420.