Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the Blunt amendment to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; that the Blunt amendment to the title be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, yesterday, the U.S. Army and the Commonwealth of Kentucky both received some really great news. Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff GEN James McConville announced that Fort Knox will be the headquarters for the new Army Corps. They stopped by my office last night to discuss the good news. The new Fifth Corps will support U.S. forces and operations in Europe, helping fulfill requirements of the national defense strategy. It is expected to bring more than 600 additional soldiers to Fort Knox. Along with Congressman Brett Guthrie and Senator Paul, I had urged Army leadership to select Fort Knox for this new corps headquarters, and, obviously, we think they made a great choice. Now Fifth Corps will join the eight commands already stationed there, including the Army's Human Resources, Recruiting, and Cadet Commands. I have worked for years to help ensure that Fort Knox receives the national attention that it deserves. It is really great to see the Army agrees that its high-quality facilities are perfect for this new headquarters. The extraordinary work of the Knox Regional Development Alliance has made it a wonderful place both to live and to work--both for servicemembers and for their families. Last year I was proud to host Defense Secretary Mark Esper in Kentucky to meet with members of the Fort Knox community. I am certainly grateful to him, Secretary McCarthy, and General McConville for recognizing our potential.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, today, the Senate will consider a War Powers Resolution offered by the junior Senator from Virginia. Our colleague's resolution is deeply flawed on a number of levels. As I explained yesterday, it is too blunt and too broad. It is also an abuse of the War Powers Act, which was designed to strike a balance between the President's constitutional war powers and Congress's own war powers and oversight responsibilities. Some of us believe the War Powers Act went too far in undermining the separation of powers and infringing upon the authorities of the Commander in Chief. But apart from that debate, everyone should acknowledge that it was designed to stop Vietnams--the deployment of thousands of troops into sustained combat without congressional authorization, not the one-off uses of limited force that Presidents have carried out literally for centuries. Until recently, most in this body recognized the need for Presidents to have flexibility with respect to the threat of military force. They saw the deterrent effect and diplomatic utility of keeping our options open. During President Obama's tenure, Democrats said frequently that when it comes to Iran, we should never take the military option off the table. But now they seek to use this privileged resolution to do precisely that. The collateral institutional damage of this action would fall on our military. Its ability to operate quickly and adaptively to emerging threats would be jeopardized. Colleagues, if you want to take the truly significant step of preemptively taking options off the table for defending our troops, if you really want to remove troops from Syria or Iraq altogether, why don't you just be honest about it and make your case? Find 60 votes to pass legislation. Find 67 votes to override a Presidential veto. Don't use a blunt and imprecise War Powers Resolution to end-run around the constitutional structures that make this a difficult proposition by design. There is no ongoing, protracted combat with respect to Iran. Our troops are not mired in unending hostilities. The War Powers Act aims to impose a 60-day clock on combat operations. The strike that killed Soleimani took maybe 60 seconds. Let me say that again. The strike took about 60 seconds. Clearly, this is the wrong tool for this subject. We have just come through an impeachment trial because House Democrats rushed to use this serious tool as a political weapon of first resort rather than patiently conducting more normal oversight using the more normal tools that Congresses of both parties typically use. No patience for ordinary oversight--just rush to grab the bluntest tool available to make a political statement against the President. Well, this war powers debate bears an eerie resemblance to that pattern. To listen to some of the advocates of Senator Kaine's resolution, you would think that sweeping resolutions like this were the only means available to Senators to express any discomfort with White House foreign policy. Of course that isn't so. If Senators' priority is genuine oversight, there are countless tools in their toolbox. They can hold hearings. They can engage the administration directly. They can ask questions and raise issues they feel were not sufficiently addressed in interagency deliberations. Instead, like impeachment, this War Powers Resolution cuts short that interplay between the branches. It short-circuits the thoughtful deliberation and debate. It is a dangerously overbroad resolution that should not pass Congress and is certain to be vetoed if it does. If my colleagues want to make a real difference, this is not the way to go. The amendments my Republican colleagues and I have filed expose the shortcomings and unintended risks of this approach. Senator Kaine has drafted a rule of construction that tries to provide an exception allowing U.S. troops to defend themselves against an attack if it is ``imminent.'' My amendment exposes the absurdity of this by simply removing the word ``imminent.'' How imminent, exactly, is imminent enough? When do our men and women in uniform get to defend themselves? I would like to know. Should our servicemembers need to sit on intelligence until an attack is a week away? A day away? An hour away? Until they see the whites of the enemy's eyes? And who makes the determination about imminence? Five hundred thirty- five Members of Congress? The President? A Pentagon lawyer? A battlefield commander? Some young private? This resolution imposes a new constraint on the military without answering any of those questions. If we have intelligence warning that an enemy is planning to attack our forces, can we not disrupt the plot until the attack is almost underway? Senators Cotton, Rounds, and Sullivan have also filed amendments. They propose sensible additions to give our troops and their commanders more confidence we aren't trying to tie their hands against precisely the threat they might face if Iran were again to become emboldened enough to attack us--oh, and to make sure we can defend our diplomats and Embassies, too, if they were to face renewed threats. So clearly this resolution is not ready for prime time. I believe it is just an effort to broadcast a political message, but even that message can be harmful to our troops and to our national security. So what message will the Senate send to American servicemembers? Should they doubt whether their own leaders are authorized to defend them? What message should we send to our regional allies and partners? Can they count on continued solidarity from the United States? What would it say to real great-power competitors like Russia and China if we cannot even remain united in the face of a lesser challenge, such as Iran? Let's send the right message with our vote. Let's defeat this misguided resolution.

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, with the impeachment trial behind us, the Senate can now get back to the business of the American people. As the President laid out in his bold speech last Tuesday, the state of our Union is strong. Over the past 3 years, a combination of major Republican policy victories and important bipartisan achievements have helped to create a historic economic moment for working Americans and middle-class families. Unemployment remains right around its lowest point in half a century. The percentage of Americans aged 25 to 54 who have jobs is the highest it has been in 20 years. The market for American workers is hot, and it is pulling people off of the sidelines. As the New York Times recently explained, ``Employers are hiring candidates with disabilities, criminal records and other barriers to employment, and are offering perks to attract workers.'' No wonder the percentage of Americans who say they are financially better off now than they were a year ago just hit a 44-year high. We have finally seen a drop in opioid deaths. In my home State of Kentucky, we recently saw the largest decrease in fatal drug overdoses in a decade. We are rebuilding and modernizing the world's greatest military, and we are continuing to renew our Federal judiciary with thoroughly qualified men and women who understand that a judge's job is to interpret our laws and our Constitution as they were actually written. There is plenty more for the Senate to do to keep up this momentum for the American people, so we are glad to get back to business. We will start this week by confirming more of President Trump's well- qualified nominees to lifetime judicial appointments. The first up is Judge Andrew Brasher, of Alabama, to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Brasher currently serves on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. He is a Harvard Law graduate who previously clerked on the Eleventh Circuit, excelled in private practice, and found his way into public service as solicitor general for his home State. In that role, he was recognized by the National Association of Attorneys General for his legal writing, and his nomination earned a unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating from the ABA. I look forward to confirming Judge Brasher to his next post this afternoon.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, this week, we expect the Senate will take up a War Powers Resolution by the junior Senator from Virginia that would severely limit the U.S. military's operational flexibility to defend itself against threats posed by Iran. I will strongly oppose our colleague's effort and urge the Senate to defeat it. First, let's discuss what prompted this: the President's successful decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield last month. This limited yet decisive precision strike eliminated the terrorist mastermind who had been responsible for more American military casualties than anyone else alive. This was not some reckless act. It was a calculated and limited response to a significant, growing threat of attack against U.S. personnel in Iraq by an emboldened adversary. Years ago, Soleimani had concluded America was a paper tiger whose people he could kill with relative impunity. It was a strike designed to stop an escalation cycle we all knew was underway and to restore deterrence and reduce the risk of war. Yet, when Soleimani's record of brutality was brought to an end, some Washington Democrats immediately suggested President Trump was leading us into World War III. While the Middle East masses rejoiced at the death of a principal architect of Iran's campaign of terror, the Washington elites fretted. Yet, thus far, it appears the Soleimani strike has, indeed, had the intended effect. As I observed back in January, ``We appear to have restored a measure of deterrence in the Middle East. So let's not screw it up.'' Well, I am afraid that is just what our colleague's resolution would do. Just as we have successfully sent Iran the strong signal of our strength and resolve, a blunt and clumsy War Powers Resolution would tie our own hands. With China's and Russia's watching, is it really a good idea to suggest that we are willing to let a meddling power like Iran push us around? This self-flagellation and self-limitation would be tantamount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. For 8 years, President Obama and Senate Democrats, like my friend the Democratic leader himself, frequently said that, when it comes to Iran, we should never take the military option off the table. Yet, now that someone else is in the Oval Office, they seem to want to remove all options from the table. Lest we forget, the fact is that we are not conducting ongoing hostilities with Iran. This was a one-off operation to disrupt and deter planned attacks--not a campaign, not a conflict, not a war. This discrete and limited exercise of American power pales in comparison to the ways in which past Presidents of both parties have routinely used Presidential authorities to utilize our military might without their having the prior consent of Congress--President Clinton in Kosovo, President Obama in Libya, and so on. Do most of my distinguished Democratic colleagues really agree with several of their party's leading Presidential candidates who have suggested President Trump made a mistake by taking this sort of Executive action to eliminate this brutal terrorist? Do my colleagues really agree with the prominent voices on their side who have proposed to exit the Middle East altogether rather than to continue to work to support our local partners and defend our national security and national interests in this critical region? I have been trying to have this broader debate for more than a year now. I have repeatedly sought to give my Democratic colleagues the opportunity to go on record about their actual, big-picture strategic vision for the Middle East. Are they willing to support a continued military presence in Syria? in Iraq? Do they believe we can magically support our partners, like the Kurds, without having a military presence; that we can counter Iranian and Russian influence if we are nowhere to be found in the region? Do they believe Israel will be safer in a region without American influence? Ill-conceived potshots at Presidential authorities--in the wake of a strike that succeeded--by using the blunt instrument of a War Powers Resolution is no substitute at all for answering these broader questions. I will oppose my colleague's resolution tomorrow, and I encourage our colleagues to do likewise.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 558, 559, 560, and 561.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Katharine MacGregor, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Secretary, and Lanny Erdos, of Ohio, to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, both of the Department of the Interior. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection The Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management The Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.J. Res. 80 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 491 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

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., Wednesday, February 12; 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, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Kindred nomination.

Mr. McCONNELL. So for the information of all Senators, we will vote on the confirmation of the Kindred, Schelp, Kness, and Halpern nominations at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow.

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 understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.