Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 565.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment on the Articles against Donald John Trump adjourn sine die.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 535.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for these cloture motions be waived.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to move to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Schumer, I send to the desk a resolution authorizing the production of testimony, documents, and representation by the Senate Legal Counsel, and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for evidence in a criminal action pending in California Federal district court. In this action, the defendant is charged with making threatening telephone calls last year to the Washington, D.C. offices of Senator Sherrod Brown and Senator Shelley Moore Capito. Trial is scheduled to commence on February 11, 2020. The prosecution is seeking testimony at trial from three Senate witnesses who received the telephone calls at issue: current employees of Senator Brown's and Senator Capito's offices and a former employee of Senator Brown's office. Senators Brown and Capito would like to cooperate with this request by providing relevant employee testimony and, if necessary, documents from their offices. The enclosed resolution would authorize those staffers, and any other current or former employee of the Senators' offices from whom relevant evidence may be necessary, to testify and produce documents in this action, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 493, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11:30 a.m., Thursday, February 6, for a pro forma session only, with no business being conducted; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, February 6, it next convene at 3 p.m. on Monday, February 10; 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; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Brasher nomination; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

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 have 5 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Kipp Kranbuhl, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Sarah C. Arbes, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Jason J. Fichtner, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Social Security Advisory Board. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, these past weeks, the Senate has grappled with as grave a subject as we ever consider: a request from a majority of the House to remove the President. The Framers took impeachment extremely seriously, but they harbored no illusions that these trials would always begin for the right reasons. Alexander Hamilton warned that ``the demon of faction'' would ``extend his sceptre'' over the House of Representatives ``at certain seasons.'' He warned that ``an intemperate or designing majority of the House'' might misuse impeachment as a weapon of ordinary politics rather than emergency tool of last resort. The Framers knew impeachments might begin with overheated passions and short-term factualism. But they knew those things could not get the final say, so they placed the ultimate judgment not in the fractious lower Chamber but in the sober and stable Senate. They wanted impeachment trials to be fair to both sides. They wanted them to be timely, avoiding the ``procrastinated determination of the charges.'' They wanted us to take a deep breath and decide which outcome would reflect the facts, protect our institutions, and advance the common good. They called the Senate ``the most fit depositary of this important trust.'' Tomorrow, we will know whether that trust was well-placed. The drive to impeach President Trump did not begin with the allegations before us. Here was reporting in April of 2016, before the President was the nominee: ``Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet . . . [but] `Impeachment' is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress.'' Here was the Washington Post headline minutes after President Trump's inauguration: ``The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,'' the Washington Post says. The Articles of Impeachment before us were not even the first ones House Democrats introduced. This was go-around number, roughly, seven. Those previously alleged high crimes and misdemeanors included things like being impolite to the press and to professional athletes. It insults the intelligence of the American people to pretend this was a solemn process reluctantly begun because of withheld foreign aid. No, Washington Democrats' position on this President has been clear literally for years. Their position was obvious when they openly rooted for the Mueller investigation to tear our country apart and were disappointed when the facts proved otherwise. It was obvious when they sought to impeach the President over and over. Here is their real position: Washington Democrats think President Donald Trump committed a high crime or misdemeanor the moment he defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. That is the original sin of this Presidency: that he won and they lost. Ever since, the Nation has suffered through a grinding campaign against our norms and institutions from the same people who keep shouting that our norms and institutions need defending--a campaign to degrade our democracy and delegitimize our elections from the same people who shout that confidence in our democracy must be paramount. We have watched a major American political party adopt the following absurd proposition: We think this President is a bull in a China shop, so we are going to drive a bulldozer through the China shop to get rid of him. This fever led to the most rushed, least fair, and least thorough Presidential impeachment inquiry in American history. The House inquiry under President Nixon spanned many months. The special prosecutors' investigation added many more months. With President Clinton, the independent counsel worked literally for years. It takes time to find facts. It takes time to litigate executive privilege, which happened in both those investigations. Litigating privilege questions is a normal step that investigators of both parties understood was their responsibility. But this time, there was no lengthy investigation, no serious inquiry. The House abandoned its own subpoenas. They had an arbitrary political deadline to meet. They had to impeach by Christmas. They had to impeach by Christmas. So in December, House Democrats realized the Framers' nightmare. A purely partisan majority approved two Articles of Impeachment over bipartisan opposition. After the Speaker of the House delayed for a month in a futile effort to dictate Senate process to Senators, the articles finally arrived over here in the Senate. Over the course of the trial, Senators have heard sworn video testimony from 13 witnesses, over 193 video clips. We have entered more than 28,000 pages of documents into evidence, including 17 depositions. And our Members asked 180 questions. In contrast to the House proceedings, our trial gave both sides a fair platform. Our process tracked with the structure that Senators adopted for the Clinton trial 20 years ago. Just as Democrats such as the current Democratic leader and then- Senator Joe Biden argued at length in 1999, we recognized that Senate traditions imposed no obligation to hear new live witness testimony if it is not necessary to decide the case--if it is not necessary to decide the case; let me emphasize that. The House managers themselves said over and over that additional testimony was not necessary to prove their case. They claimed dozens of times that their existing case was ``overwhelming'' and ``incontrovertible.'' That was the House managers saying their evidence was overwhelming and incontrovertible at the same time they were arguing for more witnesses. But in reality, both of the House's accusations are constitutionally incoherent. The ``obstruction of Congress'' charge is absurd and dangerous. House Democrats argued that anytime the Speaker invokes the House's ``sole power of impeachment,'' the President must do whatever the House demands, no questions asked. Invoking executive branch privileges and immunities in response to House subpoenas becomes an impeachable offense itself. Here is how Chairman Schiff put it back in October. ``Any action''-- any action--``that forces us to litigate, or have to consider litigation, will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.'' That is nonsense impeachment. That is nonsense. ``Impeachment'' is not some magical constitutional trump card that melts away the separations between the branches of government. The Framers did not leave the House a secret constitutional steamroller that everyone somehow overlooked for 230 years. When Congress subpoenas executive branch officials with questions of privilege, the two sides either reach an accommodation or they go to court. That is the way it works. So can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? How would Democrats and the press have responded if House Republicans had told President Obama: We don't want to litigate our subpoenas over Fast and Furious. So if you make us step foot in court, we will just impeach you. We will just impeach you. Of course, that is not what happened. The Republican House litigated its subpoenas for years until they prevailed. So much for ``obstruction of Congress.'' And the ``abuse of power'' charge is just as unpersuasive and dangerous. By passing that article, House Democrats gave in to a temptation that every previous House has resisted. They impeached a President without even alleging a crime known to our laws. Now, I do not subscribe to the legal theory that impeachment requires a violation of a criminal statute, but there are powerful reasons why, for 230 years, every Presidential impeachment did in fact allege a criminal violation. The Framers explicitly rejected impeachment for ``maladministration,'' a general charge under English law that basically encompassed bad management--a sort of general vote of no confidence. Except in the most extreme circumstances, except for acts that overwhelmingly shocked the national conscience, the Framers decided Presidents must serve at the pleasure of the electorate--the electorate--and not at the pleasure of House majorities. As Hamilton wrote, ``It is one thing to be subordinate to the laws, and another to be dependent''--dependent--``on the legislative body. So House Democrats sailed into new and dangerous waters--the first impeachment unbound by the criminal law. Any House that felt it needed to take this radical step owed the country the most fair and painstaking process, the most rigorous investigation, the most bipartisan effort. Instead, we got the opposite--the exact opposite. The House managers argued that the President could not have been acting in the national interest because he acted inconsistently with their own conception of the national interest. Let me say that again. The House managers were basically arguing that the President could not have been acting in the national interest because he acted inconsistently with their conception of the national interest, a conception shared by some of President's subordinates as well. This does not even approach a case for the first Presidential removal in American history. It doesn't even approach it. Such an act cannot rest alone on the exercise of a constitutional power, combined with concerns about whether the President's motivations were public or personal, and a disagreement over whether the exercise of the power was in the national interests. The Framers gave our Nation an ultimate tool for evaluating a President's character and policy decisions. They are called elections. They are called elections. If Washington Democrats have a case to make against the President's reelection, they should go out and make it. Let them try to do what they failed to do 3 years ago and sell the American people on their vision for the country. I can certainly see why, given President Trump's remarkable achievements over the past 3 years, Democrats might feel a bit uneasy about defeating him at the ballot box. But they don't get to rip the choice away from the voters just because they are afraid they might lose again. They don't get to strike President Trump's name from the ballot just because, as one House Democrat put it, ``I am concerned that if we don't impeach [him], he will get re-elected.'' The impeachment power exists for a reason. It is no nullity. But invoking it on a partisan whim to settle 3-year-old political scores does not honor the Framers' design. It insults the Framers' design. Frankly, it is hard to believe that House Democrats ever really thought this reckless and precedent-breaking process would yield 67 votes to cross the Rubicon. Was their vision so clouded by partisanship that they really believed--they really believed--this would be anywhere near enough for the first Presidential removal in American history? Or was success beside the point? Was this all an effort to hijack our institutions for a month-long political rally? Either way, ``the demon of faction'' has been on full display, but now it is time for him, the demon, to exit the stage. We have indeed witnessed an abuse of power--a grave abuse of power--by just the kind of House majority that the Framers warned us about. So tomorrow--tomorrow--the Senate must do what we were created to do. We have done our duty. We considered all the arguments. We have studied the ``mountain of evidence,'' and, tomorrow, we will vote. We must vote to reject the House's abuse of power, vote to protect our institutions, vote to reject new precedents that would reduce the Framers' design to rubble, and vote to keep factional fever from boiling over and scorching our Republic. I urge every one of our colleagues to cast the vote that the facts in evidence, the Constitution, and the common good clearly require. Vote to acquit the President of these charges. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 24, following the prayer and pledge; further, that Senator Baldwin be recognized to deliver the address.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 8:25 p.m. tonight, and upon reconvening, proceed as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives for the joint session of Congress provided under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 86; that upon dissolution of the joint session, the Senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 5; finally, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues. Today the Senate will hear up to 4 hours of closing statements by the two sides. We will take a 30-minute lunch break after the House has made its initial presentation. Then we will come back and finish this afternoon.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, we will take a 30- minute break for lunch.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the order of January 31 to allow the Senators to have until Wednesday, February 26, 2020--that would be the Wednesday after we come back--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, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 4; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business under the previous order.