Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, a few minutes ago, the Senate was notified that the House of Representatives is finally ready to proceed with their Articles of Impeachment. So, by unanimous consent, we have just laid some of the groundwork that will structure the next several days. We have officially invited the House managers to come to the Senate tomorrow at noon to exhibit their Articles of Impeachment. Then later tomorrow afternoon, at 2 p.m., the Chief Justice of the United States will arrive here in the Senate. He will be sworn in by the President pro tempore, Senator Grassley. Then the Chief Justice will swear in all of us Senators. We will pledge to rise above the petty factionalism and do justice for our institutions, for our States, and for the Nation. Then we will formally notify the White House of our pending trial and summon the President to answer the articles and send his counsel. So the trial will commence in earnest on Tuesday. First, Mr. President, some important good news for the country. We anticipate the Senate will finish the USMCA tomorrow and send this landmark trade deal to President Trump for his signature. This is a major victory for the administration, but more importantly, for American families. Let me close with this: This is a difficult time for our country, but this is precisely the kind of time for which the Framers created the Senate. I am confident this body can rise above short-termism and factional fever and serve the long-term best interests of our Nation. We can do this, and we must. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 that the Presiding Officer be authorized to appoint a committee of Senators, two upon the recommendation of the majority leader and two upon the recommendation of the Democratic leader, to escort the Chief Justice into the Senate Chamber. I further ask consent that the Secretary of the Senate be directed to notify the House of Representatives of the time and place fixed for the Senate to proceed upon the impeachment of Donald John Trump in the Senate Chamber.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 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 that all debate time on H.R. 5430 expire at 11 a.m. tomorrow; further, that prior to the expiration of debate time, it be in order for Senator Toomey, or his designee, to raise a budget point of order; and that if a point of order is raised, it be in order for Senator Grassley, or his designee, to make a motion to waive the point of order.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this means we will have two rollcall votes tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 336, H.R. 133.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 338, S. Res. 371.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the resolution, as amended.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 473, submitted earlier today.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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 9:45 a.m., January 16; 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 resume consideration of H.R. 5430 under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Hoeven and Cramer.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 472, submitted earlier today.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. Madam President, tomorrow will be 4 weeks--4 weeks-- since House Democrats impeached the President of the United States with purely partisan support. Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff did not wait to fill out the factual record. They did not even wait to see their own subpoenas through the legal system. They plowed ahead for two reasons: They said impeachment was too urgent to wait--too urgent to wait--and they said they had already proven their case. But since then, House Democrats have spent 4 weeks contradicting both of those claims. They spent 4 weeks demonstrating through their actions that impeachment is actually not that urgent--not that urgent--and they do not actually have much confidence in their case. An arbitrary 4-week delay does not show urgency. These demands for the Senate to precommit to reopening the House investigation do not show confidence. There is a reason why the House inquiry that led to President Nixon's resignation took 14 months of hearings in addition to the separate special prosecutor. There is a reason why the Clinton impeachment inquiry drew on years of prior investigation and mountains of testimony from firsthand fact witnesses. That is because both of those Houses of Representatives knew they had to prove their case-- prove their case before submitting it to the Senate for judgment. Both situations involved legal battles over executive privilege and extensive litigation, both times not after a trial had been handed to the Senate but beforehand. When the cases were actually being compiled, there were mountains of evidence, mountains of testimony, and long legal battles over privilege. None of this discovery took place over here in the Senate. The Constitution gives the sole power of impeachment to the House. If the House majority wants to impeach a President, the ball is in their court, but they have to do the work. They have to prove their case. Nothing--nothing in our history or our Constitution says a House majority can pass what amounts to a half-baked censure resolution and then insist that the Senate fill in the blanks. There is no constitutional exception for a House majority with a short attention span. I think everyone knows this process has not been some earnest, factfinding mission with House Democrats following each thread wherever it leads. The Speaker of the House did not reluctantly decide to impeach after pouring over secondhand impressions of civil servants. This was a predetermined political conclusion. Members of her conference had been publicly promising it literally for years. That is why the investigation stopped long before the House had come anywhere near proving what they allege. They pulled the plug early because the facts were never the point. They were never the point. The point was to check a political box. For goodness' sake, the very morning after the House's historic vote, Speaker Pelosi literally chastised reporters for asking too many questions about impeachment. She tried to change the subject to economic policy. She said: Any other questions? . . . Anybody want to talk about the SALT tax. . . . I'm not going to answer any more questions on this-- Referring to impeachment. Really? Really? You impeach a President of the United States, and the very next morning, there is nothing to see here? Does that sound like the Speaker of the House really thinks the survival of the Republic is on the line? Does anyone really think that if Democrats truly believe the President of the United States was a criminal who is imperiling our country, they would have abandoned the search for evidence because they didn't want to make time for due process; that they would have pulled the plug on the investigation just because it sounded good to finish by Christmas; that they would have delayed the trial for months while they test-drove new talking points; that they would have been trying to change the subject 12 hours after the vote? I cannot say what Democrats do and do not really believe, but they certainly do not seem to display the urgency or the seriousness you would expect from people who actually thought they had proven the President should be removed. On television last weekend, the Speaker bragged that ``this President is impeached for life,'' regardless of what the Senate does--regardless of what the Senate does, as if the ultimate verdict were sort of an afterthought. Likewise, the Senate Democratic leader recently said that as long as he can try to use the trial process to hurt some Republicans' reelection chances, ``it's a win-win.'' That is what this is all about. The Democratic leader just laid it right out there in case anybody had any doubt. What a revealing admission. Forget about the fate of the Presidency. Forget about the Constitution. As long as the process helps Democrats' political fortunes, our Democratic colleagues call it a ``win-win.'' Do these sound like leaders who really believe we are in a constitutional crisis, one that requires the most severe remedy in our entire system of government? Does it sound like that? Here is how deep we have come into bizarro world. The latest Democratic talking point is, if the Senate conducts a trial based on what the House itself looked at, we will be engaged in a coverup. Did you get that? Unless the Senate steps outside of our lane and takes it upon ourselves to supplement the House case, it is a coverup? Do they think the entire country has forgotten what they were saying just a couple of days ago? We heard over and over that the House case, on its own, was totally damming and convincing. That is what they were saying a few days ago. Clearly, a majority of the House felt that it was sufficient to impeach, and a number of Senate Democrats were happy to prejudge the case publicly and suggest the House had proven enough for removal. But now, all of a sudden, the story has reversed. Now, we hardly know anything. Now, the investigation is just beginning. Now, what the House has produced is so weak that they are calling their own investigation a coverup. Who would be the author of this coverup--Chairman Schiff? We have arrived at a simple contradiction. Two things cannot both be true. House Democrats' case cannot simultaneously be so robust that it was enough to impeach in the first place but also so weak that the Senate needs to go fishing. If the existing case is strong, there is no need for the judge and the jury to reopen the investigation. If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place. I think I am beginning to understand why the Speaker wanted to change the subject to tax policy. Unfortunately, no matter how irresponsibly this has been handled across the Capitol, impeachment is not a political game, and the U.S. Senate will not treat it like one. A House majority fueled by political animus may have started this with frivolity, but it will fall to the Senate--to the Senate--to end it with seriousness and sobriety. It will fall to us to do what the Founders intended: to take the long view, to move beyond partisan passions, and to do what the long-term good of our institution and our Nation demands.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, every day brings more repudiation of the conventional wisdom of the Democratic foreign policy establishment, breathlessly--breathlessly--amplified by the mainstream media, that the strike on Soleimani would unite Iranians behind the regime. Remember, that is what they were all saying, that the strike on Soleimani would unite Iranians behind the regime. Proud Iranians continue, however, to take to the streets not to rage against America or Israel but to vent their frustration against the corrupt, theocratic regime that has led Iran down a ruinous path. I spoke about these protests before the strike on Soleimani, and I will continue to speak out about them. I have long believed the United States should care about human rights and democracy, whether in Russia, China, Hong Kong, Burma, Cuba, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Syria, or Iran. The promotion of human rights and the defense of democracy should not necessarily be the driving force of our foreign policy, but it should be an important component. I ask my Democratic colleagues who share this view to set aside their hatred for Donald Trump--even just for a moment--and to step back to look at what has been happening across Iran for years: the repression of women, the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, and the brutal suppression of dissent. Was the Obama administration right to meet the 2009 Green Revolution with silence? Consider the story of Iran's only female Olympic medalist, who this week defected--defected--from Iran and requested asylum; or the Iranian state TV broadcasters who quit, apologizing to the public for years of lying on behalf of the mullahs; or the innocent protesters who are being killed and wounded by agents of the state. These are well-known realities. They were well known when, 12 days ago, the United States took the most dangerous terrorist off the battlefield, but mystifyingly, many voices here in Washington and the media sought to blame the escalating tensions in the region on President Trump. We heard from leading Democrats that the operation to eliminate Soleimani was one of the administration's ``needless provocations''-- needless provocations. We heard that the cycle of violence was America's responsibility. All of this--all of it--flies in the face of the reasonable analysis some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were offering before--before--Donald Trump became President. In 2007, 30 Democratic Senators joined Republicans to support an amendment warning of the need to prevent ``Iran from turning Shia militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or coopting institutions of the legitimate government of Iraq.'' That was back in 2007, with 30 Democrats. Few more prescient warnings have been pronounced by this body, but, unfortunately, it went unheeded by the Obama administration, which withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq, effectively abandoning it to Soleimani and his proxies. As recently as 2015, the Democratic leader warned that the JCPAO failed to address Iran's destabilizing malign activities and that Iran would use its windfall to ``redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East and, perhaps, beyond.'' That was the Democratic leader in 2015. Senator Menendez hit the nail on the head as well. He warned: ``If there is a fear of war in the region, it will be fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program and enough money in sanctions relief to significantly continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region.'' Senator Menendez. So many of our Democratic colleagues understood all this quite clearly when a Democrat occupied the White House, and it came true. It came true. Iran's aggression only accelerated after the Obama administration's deal. The question for us is not whom to blame. That much is clear. The question is what to do about it. As Iran's aggression became focused on the United States, as the risk to our personnel and interests grew, after months of repeated warnings, President Trump took action. I am glad the strike against Soleimani has provided some justice--some justice--to his countless victims, hundreds of Americans and many more across the Middle East. We don't yet know if Soleimani will prove irreplaceable, but his death will significantly disrupt Iran's death machine and will change Iran's long-held misconception that they could literally get away with the murder of Americans without a meaningful response. President Trump's strategy seems to have reestablished deterrence. The Senate risks jeopardizing what we have gained with this strike if it ties the military's hands and tells Iran that we have no stomach for this. America can hardly be defeated on the battlefield, but we can be defeated at home on the political front. We can allow ourselves to become divided and play into the hands of our adversaries. Our divisions at home are significant. Let us not allow them to pollute our judgment on foreign affairs. Let's not make our adversaries' lives easier by tying our military's hands.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

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, it is a pleasure to join the residents of Warren County, as well as law enforcement professionals throughout Kentucky, in congratulating my friend Tommy Loving as he marks 50 years of distinguished service in law enforcement next month. With a dedication to service, Tommy has been instrumental in the protection of Kentucky's families and communities. He continues to answer the call of duty each and every day, and our Commonwealth is safer as a result. Tommy's career in law enforcement began at age 21 when he joined the Kentucky State Police, KSP, as a dispatcher. He would wear the gray uniform for more than two decades, serving as a trooper and then sergeant at posts across the Commonwealth. In response to the ongoing struggle against illegal drugs, local leaders established the Bowling Green-Warren County Drug Task Force in 1997. They asked Tommy to put his experience to work protecting families from the spike of substance abuse as the organization's inaugural director. For the last 23 years, Tommy has done just that. The task force is a collaborative team from the local police department, the county sheriff, Western Kentucky University's police force, the KSP, professionals from the Kentucky Governor's and Attorney General's Offices, and Federal law enforcement. These officers, bolstered by chemists, prosecutors, and support staff, lead the fight against the spread of dangerous substances in Warren County. As Kentucky continues to endure the devastating consequences of the opioid epidemic and a resurgence of methamphetamine use, the task force's expertise is vital now more than ever. Because of his decade-long record leading this highly specialized team, Tommy was asked to take on an additional responsibility as the executive director of the Kentucky Narcotic Officers' Association, KNOA. With a mission to assist law enforcement personnel throughout the State with training and support as they combat illicit drug abuse, KNOA has increased the wellbeing of communities throughout the Commonwealth. In recognition of his success in both local and State law enforcement, Tommy was selected to be the regional director for the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition in 2010. Now, he coordinates with officers and policymakers across six States and our Nation's Capital to share best practices and enhance public safety. Other States are looking to Kentucky for leadership, and Tommy's experience is benefiting families and communities around the country. Thankfully, last year Kentucky saw the largest decrease in drug overdose fatalities in a decade. It was a long-awaited glimmer of hope in our fight against addiction. The service of law enforcement officers, like Tommy, is a critical part of our comprehensive response to the addiction epidemic, and I hope he and his colleagues are proud of their contributions to this good news. In 2018, the KNOA Board unanimously voted to bestow on Tommy their Lifetime Distinguished Service Award for his decades of work protecting families and communities from substance abuse. It is a distinct pleasure for me to join the chorus praising Tommy for his half-century in law enforcement. We may never be able to repay the selfless sacrifices of the brave men and women who protect our communities, but we can and should show our gratitude. Tommy's leadership and service are a great asset to Kentucky, and I know I speak for many when I say thank you. As he celebrates this milestone, I hope my Senate colleagues join me in sharing our congratulations with Tommy Loving and thanking him for his faithful service to Kentucky families.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the community in Harlan County, KY, will gather next month in honor of a devoted caregiver and friend as he prepares to begin a well-deserved retirement. Today, I would like to join them in paying tribute to Dr. Samir Guindi for the 45 years of devotion he has given to Southeastern Kentucky. Dr. Guindi--Sam to his friends--and his wife, Laila, are originally from Egypt. They arrived in Harlan in 1975, where Sam spent much of his career as the only ear, nose, and throat surgical specialist in the area. As a result, his services were constantly in demand, and he dedicated himself wholeheartedly to the vital work. Conservative estimates by his colleagues show Sam conducted more than 200,000 patient visits during his impressive career. He performed approximately 30,000 procedures. Many of the patients Sam treated were children at high risk of ear damage and deafness. On top of his busy professional schedule, Sam partnered with the well-regarded Appalachian Regional Healthcare System to provide charitable care for families in need. He was based in Harlan, but Sam's work extended into nearby Bell, Letcher, and Perry Counties as well. He spent countless hours on the road to see scores of patients in a single day, often without any compensation. In a region that has long faced a scarcity of medical professionals, Sam's tireless generosity and kindness made a remarkable impact on families in Southeastern Kentucky. Sam's life has been a wonderful example of selflessness. Both of his sons, Alfi and Sherif, are successful attorneys, and Sherif followed his father into the service of his community by working as a public defender and an assistant Commonwealth's attorney. It is my privilege to join the Guindi family, the Harlan community, and all of Sam's patients in thanking him for his decades of providing vital medical care in Appalachia. I wish Sam the very best as he enjoys a relaxing retirement. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in commending this outstanding Kentuckian.

Mr. McCONNELL

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