Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

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

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 when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, January 13; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Gaynor nomination; finally, that the cloture motion filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, first, this morning I want to associate myself with a statement made yesterday by one of our distinguished colleagues about the House Democrats treating impeachment like a political toy. Here is what the Senator said: ``If it's serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn't, don't.'' That was our Democratic colleague, the senior Senator from California, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. She wasn't alone. ``It's time to get on with it.'' That is our Democratic colleague the junior Senator from Delaware. ``At some point, it's appropriate to send them and pass the baton to Senators.'' That is our Democratic colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut. ``I think the time has past. She should send the articles.'' That is our Democratic colleague the junior Senator from Connecticut. Now, this is a challenging time to create bipartisan agreement in the Senate on any subject, but the Speaker of the House has managed to do the impossible. She has created this growing bipartisan unity here in the Senate in opposition to her own reckless behavior. The Senators may not agree on much, but it appears most of us still recognize the threat to our institution when we see one. Article I, section 3, says: ``The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments''--period. The House can begin the process, and Speaker Pelosi's majority has certainly done that, but the Senate alone can resolve it. Yet, for weeks now, the House majority has blocked the Senate from fulfilling our constitutional duty. In a precedent-breaking display of partisanship, the Speaker has refused to let her own allegations proceed normally to trial unless she gets to hand-design various elements of our Senate process. In other words, the House Democrats already spent 12 weeks undermining the institution of the Presidency with a historically unfair and subjective impeachment, and now, for a sequel, they have come after the institution of the Senate as well. That is where we are. The dwindling number of our Senate Democratic colleagues who remain complicit in this must realize what they are doing. Should future House majorities feel empowered to waste our time with junior varsity political hostage situations? Should future Speakers be permitted to conjure up this sword of Damocles at will and leave it hanging over the Senate unless we do what they say? Of course not. This week, a majority of the Senate stepped forward to make it perfectly clear that this conversation is over. A majority of this body has said definitively that we are not ceding our constitutional authority to the partisan designs of the Speaker. We will not let the House extend its precedent-breaking spree over here to our Chamber. There will be no unfair new rule book written solely for President Trump. The basic organization of the first phase of this trial will track the phase one of the Clinton trial, which all 100 Senators voted for in 1999. I have said for months that this is our preferred route. By the way, that is exactly what the American people want. Seventy- seven percent told a Harvard-Harris survey that the basic outline of a Clinton trial, reserving the witness question until later in the proceedings, ought to be good enough for this President as well. Fair is fair. In the same survey, 58 percent of Americans said they want Speaker Pelosi to do her job and send the articles to the Senate rather than continue delaying. It makes sense that American families have lost patience with this act just like we Senators have lost patience with it because this is not just some intramural tiff between the two Houses in our bicameral legislature. This recklessness affects our entire country. When you take a step back, what has really happened over the last 3 weeks? What has happened? When you take a step back from the political noise and the pundits discussing ``leverage''--by the way, that never existed--what have House Democrats actually done? This is what they have done. They have initiated one of the most grave and most unsettling processes in our Constitution and then refused to allow a resolution of it. The Speaker began something that she herself predicted would be ``so divisive to the country,'' and now she is unilaterally saying it cannot move forward to resolution. It is bad enough that House Democrats gave in to the temptation of subjective impeachment that every previous House for 230 years has managed to resist. However unwise, that is their constitutional prerogative. They get to start it, if they choose, but they do not get to declare that it can never be finished. They do not get to trap our entire country into an unending ``Groundhog Day'' of impeachment without resolution. Alexander Hamilton specifically warned against a procrastinated resolution of impeachments. In part, that is because our duly-elected President deserves a verdict, just like every American who is accused by their government deserves a speedy trial. This goes deeper than fairness to one individual. This is about what is fair to the entire country. There is a reason why the Framers did not contemplate a permanently unsettled Presidency. That is true under any circumstances, but consider especially the circumstances of recent days. Even as the Democrats have prolonged this game, we have seen Iran escalate tensions with our Nation. We live in a dangerous world. So, yes, the House majority can create this temporary cloud over a Commander in Chief if they choose--if they choose--but they do not get to keep the cloud in place forever. Look, there is real business for the American people that the Senate needs to complete. If the Speaker continues to refuse to take her own accusations to trial, the Senate will move forward next week with the business of our people. We will operate on the assumption that House Democrats are too embarrassed--too embarrassed--to ever move forward, and we will get back to the people's business. For example, the Senate continues to process President Trump's landmark trade deal, the USMCA, through our committees of jurisdiction. It passed the Senate Finance Committee this week by a landslide vote of 25 to 3, a major victory for the President and for working families. Now our other committees will continue their consideration. And there is more. The epidemic of opioids, fentanyl, and other substance abuse continues to plague our Nation. Some colleagues have signaled they may raise privileged resolutions on war powers. The Senate has plenty of serious work to do for our country. So while the Speaker continues her irresponsible games, we will continue doing the people's business.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I had planned to discuss the corrosive political games that the Speaker of the House continues to play with the solemn issue of Presidential impeachment, but the deadly serious events of yesterday evening threw those political squabbles into the starkest possible relief. I was troubled but not surprised by reports that Iran fired ballistic missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq last night. As I have warned, the threat posed by Iraq has been growing for years, and this threat will continue even beyond the death of Tehran's master terrorist, Soleimani. We must remain vigilant in the face of serious threats posed by Tehran. Apparently, these strikes did not kill or wound Americans, but they demonstrate the significant progress Iran has made over the last decade in building a large, long-range, and accurate ballistic missile force. Many of us have long cited the absence of any constraint on Iran's sophisticated missile program as one of the primary shortcomings of the Obama Iran deal, and this strike stands as a reminder to the world of this growing threat. We rightly talk a lot in this Chamber about American interests, but last night was another stark reminder that Iran and its proxies have been a cancer on Iraq's sovereignty and Iraq's politics for some time. Tehran has long shown disregard for Iraqi lives. Just in the last few weeks, its militia proxies have slaughtered innocent Iraqi protesters, and it has launched ballistic missiles at its territory. The millions of Iraqis who have been taking to the streets for months to protest have understood this perfectly well. I spoke to the President last night. I am grateful for his patience and prudence as he and his Cabinet deliberate on how to respond appropriately to the latest Iranian provocation. As a superpower, we have the capacity to exercise restraint and to respond at a time and place of our choosing, if need be. I believe the President wants to avoid conflict or needless loss of life but is rightly prepared to protect American lives and interests. I hope Iran's leaders do not miscalculate by questioning our collective will and launching further attacks. For our part, I certainly hope our own congressional deliberations do not give Tehran a reason to question our national will. Top officials will provide a classified briefing to Senators today. As I have said before, I hope all Senators will wait for the facts before they pass judgment on the recent strike on Soleimani. Patience, caution, and restraint can sometimes be in short supply around here, but when matters of national security are at hand, it is imperative that we seek out the facts, restrain our partisan urges, and concentrate on protecting our country. For this reason, it has troubled me that Speaker Pelosi responded to the earliest reports yesterday by leaping to blame ``needless provocations'' by our administration. In other words, she was blaming the United States. So let's be clear. We can and should debate how to responsibly respond to Iranian threats, but the notion that our administration is to blame for Iranian aggression--that is nonsense. Utter nonsense. For 40 years since the founding of the Islamic Republic, Iran has consistently pursued aggression against the United States, against Israel, and against its Arab neighbors. The question before us is not who is to blame for the aggression. It is how best to deter and defend against it.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I do need to say a few words about the other serious matter occupying the Congress. Late last year, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats sped through a slapdash impeachment of President Trump in 12 weeks because they insisted the need to undo the 2016 election was urgent--urgent, they said. Since then, the same people have spent 3 weeks dragging their heels and refusing to proceed to a Senate trial. Supposedly, the explanation for this shameless game playing is that Speaker Pelosi wanted leverage--leverage--to reach into the Senate and dictate our trial proceedings to us. I have made clear from the beginning that no such leverage exists. It is nonexistent. Yesterday, we made it clear it will never exist. A majority of the Senate has decided that the first phase of an impeachment trial should track closely with the unanimous bipartisan precedent that all 100 Senators supported for the first phase of the Clinton trial back in 1999. There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure. We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats' turn is over. The Senate has made its decision. The 1999 precedent does not guarantee witnesses or foreclose witnesses. Let me say that again. It neither guarantees witnesses nor forecloses witnesses. It leaves those determinations until later in the trial, where they belong. I fully expect the parties will raise questions of witnesses at the appropriate time. I would remind my friends on the other side that I strongly suspect that not all of the potential witnesses would be people the Democrats are eager to hear from. The Senate will address all of these questions at the appropriate time, and that is for the Senate and the Senate only to decide, period. Now even fellow Democrats are expressing public concern over the Speaker's endless appetite for these cynical games. Here is what the senior Senator from Connecticut told the press yesterday. He said: ``I think the time has passed. She should send the articles over.'' And the senior Senator from West Virginia said: ``I think it needs to start; I really do.'' And the junior Senator from Maine said: ``I think it is time for the Speaker to send the articles over.'' My Democratic friends are losing patience, just as the American people are losing patience. The country knows this absurdity should not go on. So what do the American people say? A recent Harvard-Harris poll found that 58 percent of Americans believe Speaker Pelosi should send the articles to the Senate, not continue holding them up. Let me say that again. This is a Harvard poll. It found that 58 percent of Americans believe Speaker Pelosi should send the articles to the Senate, not continue holding them up. In the same survey, 77 percent believe Democrats need to accept the same structure as the Clinton trial rather than hold out for special new rules. So we are beginning to hear from the American people how they view this standoff. We all know that Senators have a diversity of opinions about President Trump, about the House inquiry, and about the optimal structure for a trial. But notwithstanding all of this, no Senator--no Senator--should want the House of Representatives to steamroll institutional norms and dictate our business to us. Haven't enough toxic new precedents been set in recent months? Hasn't the House broken enough constitutional china already? This is not about the current Speaker and the current President. Do my colleagues believe this is what a future Democratic President would deserve? Do they believe it is good for the country? There is a reason the Constitution reads the way it does. The House has the sole power of impeachment. They have exercised it. It is the Senate to whom the Founders gave the sole power to try all impeachments, end of story. Yet, even as her fellow Democrats are jumping ship, the Speaker is trying to double down. Yesterday evening, in the midst of these deadly serious events, Speaker Pelosi put out yet another statement saying that she has no intention to end her political game playing. At the very same time that a global crisis was unfolding in realtime, she published yet another ``Dear Colleague'' letter saying that she intends to keep our Commander in Chief in this limbo indefinitely. I am glad Democratic Senators are losing patience with this. I would urge my friend the Democratic leader to listen to his own Members. My distinguished colleague from New York, as the minority leader in the U.S. Senate, is a senior Member of an independent branch of our bicameral legislature. The Senate is not a creature of the House. The Democratic leader does not need to continue to be in thrall to the Speaker. He does not need to keep colluding with outside efforts to supplant the judgment of his own colleagues. Stand up for the Senate. Stand up for our institutions. Stand up for the country.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I spoke yesterday about President Trump's decision to remove the chief architect of Tehran's terrorism from the battlefield, and I discussed the Senate's obligation to approach this in a manner that is serious, sober, and factual. It is right for Senators to want to learn more about the President's major decision. Once again, I encourage all of our colleagues to attend the classified briefing which the administration will provide tomorrow. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the CIA Director will give a classified context behind the President's decision, and they will discuss the administration's strategy to protect our personnel and defend our Nation's interests in the new landscape. I would ask every Senator on both sides to bring an open mind to this briefing. In particular, we should all remember that the history of Iranian aggression began long, long before this news cycle or this Presidency. In the decades since the Islamic revolution of 1979, as the White House has changed parties and our administrations have changed strategies, Tehran's simmering anti-American hatred, proxy violence, and steady support for terrorism worldwide have remained entirely constant through all of these years. In effect, Iran has been at war with the United States for years. While it has taken pains to avoid direct conflict, Iran's authoritarian regime has shown no compunction about kidnapping, torturing, and killing Americans since its earliest days--or Iraqis or fellow Iranians, for that matter. From the 52 diplomatic personnel held hostage in Tehran for 444 days back in 1979, to the hundreds of U.S. servicemembers killed in bombings carried out by Iran's proxies--Beirut in 1983, Riyadh in 1995, Khobar in 1996--to the hundreds more killed or maimed in Iraq by the explosives and indirect fire attacks ordered by General Soleimani himself, to the constant flows of resources and equipment that prop up despots and terrorist organizations throughout the region, Iran's game plan has been an open book: Use third-party terrorism to inflict death and suffering on its enemies while avoiding direct confrontation. The threat Iran poses is, certainly, not new. Its violence is not some unique reaction to President Trump or to Prime Minister Netanyahu or to any other current leader. Violence runs in the bloodstream of this evil regime. In particular, our colleagues who apparently want to blame President Trump for Iranian provocative foreign policy should reflect on the previous administration's recent history. Iran exploited President Obama's withdrawal from Iraq. Soleimani and his agents filled the void and dramatically expanded Iranian influence inside Iraq. They were able to impose a sectarian vision on Iraq that disenfranchised the Sunnis, fueled the rise of ISIS, and plunged the region into chaos. Over in Syria, more weakness from the Obama administration opened yet another door for Iran. The Democratic administration failed to confront the Iranian-backed Assad regime as it slaughtered literally hundreds of thousands of Syrians and displaced millions more. Once again, amid the chaos, Soleimani worked and thrived. Of course, all of this was the backdrop for the brazen, legacy- shopping nuclear arrangement that sent billions of dollars to fuel Iran's further violence. Even my friend the current Democratic leader knew it at the time. Before he himself voted for a resolution of disapproval on President Obama's deal, Senator Schumer said: ``After 10 years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.'' That was the Democratic leader, who opposed President Obama's Iran nuclear deal, and the Democratic leader was prescient, for that is exactly what happened. The previous administration failed to confront Iran when necessary. So the mullahs used their windfall from the disastrous nuclear deal to double down on hegemonic aspirations all across the Middle East. A Democratic administration just had 8 years to deal with the growing threat posed by Iran, and it failed demonstrably. Iran was stronger and more lethal at the end of the Obama Presidency than at the beginning. So I would ask my Democratic colleagues today not to rush to lash out at President Trump when he actually demonstrates that he means what he says--when he enforces his redlines, when he takes real action to counter lethal threats against Americans. Wishing away tensions with Iran is really not an option. The Iranians have spent decades making that perfectly clear to all of us. The question is whether we as a body would prefer the administration to stand by as Iran kills Americans or whether we are prepared to work with the President to stand up to Tehran's terrorism and shadow wars.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, every day that the House Democrats refuse to stand behind their historically partisan impeachment, it deepens the embarrassment for the leaders who chose to take our Nation down this road. You can't say we didn't warn them. You can't even say they didn't warn themselves. It was less than 1 year ago that Speaker Pelosi said: ``Impeachment is so divisive . . . unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path.'' That was the Speaker a year ago. Back during the Clinton impeachment, it was Congressman Jerry Nadler who said: ``An impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other . . . will lack legitimacy.'' Chairman Nadler was right 20 years ago. At this point, they may wish they had taken their own advice. Instead, what the country got was the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair Presidential impeachment in American history, and now the prosecution seems to have gotten cold feet. Nearly 3 weeks after the rushed vote they claim was so urgent, they are still debating whether or not they even want to see the trial proceed. They voted for it 3 weeks ago. The House Democrats say they are waiting for some mythical leverage. I have had difficulty figuring out where the leverage is. Apparently, this is their proposition: If the Senate does not agree to break with our own unanimous, bipartisan precedent from 1999 and agree to let Speaker Pelosi hand-design a different procedure for this Senate trial, then, they might not ever dump this mess in our lap. It is one cynical political game right on top of another. It was not enough for the House to blow through its own norms and precedents and succumb to the partisan temptation of a subjective impeachment that every other House had resisted for 230 years. Now it needs to erode our constitutional order even further. Those in the House want to invent a new, sort of pretrial hostage negotiation wherein the House gets to run the show over here in the Senate. Meanwhile, they are creating exactly the kind of unfair and dangerous delay in impeachment that Alexander Hamilton specifically warned against in the Federalist Papers. This is already the longest delay in American history between the impeachment vote and the delivery of the House's impeachment message. It is almost as though this House Democrat majority systematically took all of the Framers' warnings about partisan abuses of the impeachment power--took everything the Founders said not to do--and thought: Now, there is an idea. Why don't we try that? Impeaching a President is just about the most serious action that any House of Representatives can ever take. How inappropriate and how embarrassing to rush forward on a partisan basis and then treat what you have done like a political toy. How contemptuous of the American people to tell them, for weeks, that you feel this extraordinary step is so urgent and then delay it indefinitely for political purposes. How embarrassing, but also how revealing. Speaker Pelosi's actions over the past 3 weeks have confirmed what many Americans have suspected about this impeachment process all along--that the House Democrats have only ever wanted to abuse this grave constitutional process for partisan ends right from the beginning. Well, here is where we are. The Senate is not about to let the Speaker corrode our own Senate process and precedents in the same way. The first organizing registration resolution for the 1999 Clinton trial was approved unanimously, 100 to nothing. It left midtrial questions to the middle of the trial where they belong. If that unanimous bipartisan precedent was good enough for President Clinton, it should be our template for President Trump. Fair is fair. The Speaker of the House is not going to handwrite new rules for the Senate. It is not going to happen. Look, these are serious matters. At some point in time, the Democrats' rage at this particular President will begin to fade, but the sad precedent they are setting will live on. The American people deserve a lot better than this.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, at 11 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar Nos. 329, 462, and 525, in the order listed; further, that if cloture is invoked on the nominations, all postcloture time be expired at 5 p.m. tomorrow and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nominations with no intervening action or debate; finally, that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 554.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

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 move to proceed to legislative session.

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, following the remarks of Senator Brown.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, January 8; 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 Solomson nomination, under the previous order.

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, as the Senate convenes this afternoon, we find our Nation facing two grave and serious choices. One concerns our unity at home and the future of our Constitution. The other involves our strength abroad and the security of our homeland. Both situations demand serious, sober treatment from Congress. Both require that we put enduring national interests ahead of the factionalism and short-termism the Founding Fathers warned us about. But, unfortunately, seriousness has been in short supply lately--in very short supply--from the determined critics of President Trump, and our Nation, of course, is worse for it. Last Thursday, the United States took decisive action to end the murderous scheming of Iran's chief terrorist. Qasem Soleimani had spent numerous years masterminding attacks on American servicemembers and our partners throughout the Middle East and expanding Iran's influence. Despite sanctions and despite prohibitions by the U.N. Security Council, he roamed throughout the region with impunity. His hands bore the blood of more American servicemembers than anyone else alive. Hundreds of American families have buried loved ones because of him. Veterans have learned to live with permanent injuries inflicted by his terrorists. In Iraq, Syria, and beyond, the entire region felt the effects of his evil tactics. We should welcome his death and its complication of Tehran's terrorism-industrial complex, but we must remain vigilant and soberly prepared for even further aggression. It is completely appropriate that this decision would generate interest and questions from this body. We can and we should learn more about the intelligence and thinking that led to this operation and the plan to defend American personnel and interests in the wake of it. I am glad the administration will hold an all-Senators briefing on Wednesday. It will be led by Secretary of Defense Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley, Secretary of State Pompeo, and CIA Director Haspel. Unfortunately, in this toxic political environment, some of our colleagues rushed to blame our own government before even knowing the facts, rushed to split hairs about intelligence before being briefed on it, and rushed to downplay Soleimani's evil while presenting our own President as the villain. Soon after the news broke, one of our distinguished colleagues made a public statement that rightly called Soleimani a ``murderer'' and then, amazingly, walked that message back when the far left objected to the factual statement. Since then, I believe all of her criticism has been directed at our own President. Another of our Democratic colleagues has been thinking out loud about Middle East policy on social media. Mere days before President Trump's decision, this Senator tore into the White House for what he described as weakness and inaction. ``No one fears us'' he complained. ``Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East.'' But since the strike, he has done a complete 180. That same Senator has harshly criticized our own President for getting tough. Ludicrously, he and others on the left have accused the administration of committing an illegal act and equated the removal of this terrorist leader with a foreign power assassinating our own Secretary of Defense. Here is what one expert had to say about it. Jeh Johnson, President Obama's own former Pentagon general counsel and Secretary of Homeland Security, said: If you believe everything that our government is saying about General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective, and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without-- Without-- an additional congressional authorization. Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective. That was the former Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, Jeh Johnson, an expert on these things. Our former colleague, Joe Lieberman, who ran for Vice President on the Democratic ticket in 2000, wrote this morning: ``In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani's death, Democrats are . . . creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.'' That is how a former Democratic Senator sees it. The Senate is supposed to be the Chamber where overheated partisan passions give way to sober judgment. Can we not at least wait until we know the facts? Can we not maintain a shred--just a shred--of national unity for 5 minutes--for 5 minutes--before deepening the partisan trenches? Must Democrats' distaste for this President dominate every thought they express and every decision they make? Is that really the seriousness that this situation deserves? The full Senate will be briefed on Wednesday. I expect the committees of oversight will also conduct hearings and that the Senators will have plenty of opportunities to discuss our interests and policies in the region. I urge my colleagues to bring a full awareness of the facts, mindfulness of the long history of Iran's aggression toward the United States and its allies, and a sober understanding of the threat Iran continues to pose. Could we at least remember we are all Americans first, and we are all in this together?

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in the meantime, at this dangerous time, House Democrats continue to play political games with their partisan impeachment of the Commander in Chief. Last year, House Democrats conducted the least thorough, most rushed, most unfair impeachment inquiry in history. For weeks, Democrats said they could not wait for due process, could not conduct a normal or fair inquiry because removing the President from office was so incredibly urgent-- incredibly urgent. Well, the unseriousness was obvious then and should be even more obvious now because Speaker Pelosi is now sitting on the articles she claimed were so very urgent. She has delayed this indefinitely so the architects of the failed House process can look for ways to reach over here into the Senate and dictate our process as well. Democrats have tried to insist that the Senate deviate from the unanimous bipartisan precedent set in the 1999 trial of President Clinton and write new rules for President Trump. They have tried to precommit the Senate to redoing House Democrats' slapdash work for them and pursuing avenues Chairman Schiff himself didn't bother to pursue. The Senate has a unanimous bipartisan precedent for when to handle midtrial questions such as witnesses: in the middle of the trial. That is when that was done the last time, and that is the way it should be done this time. In 1999, every single U.S. Senator agreed to establish basic parameters for the start of the trial upfront and reserve midtrial questions, such as witnesses, until later. The vote was 100 to 0. That was good enough for President Clinton, so it ought to be good enough for President Trump. Fair is fair. House Democrats' hunger to break our Senate precedents, just like they broke their own House precedents, could not be more telling, but the Senate does not just bob along on the currents of every news cycle. The House may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt President Trump, but that is not the Senate. Even with a process this constitutionally serious, even with tensions rising in the Middle East, House Democrats are treating impeachment like a political toy--like a political toy--treating their own effort to remove our Commander in Chief like some frivolous game. These bizarre stunts do not serve our Constitution or our national security. They erode both. My Democratic colleagues should not plow away American unity in some bizarre intramural competition to see who dislikes the President more. They should not disdain our Constitution by rushing through a purely partisan impeachment process and then toying around with it. Governing is serious business. The American people deserve better, a lot better than this.

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.