Shelter us until the violent storms are passed. Let your glory shine on your lawmakers. May their thoughts, words, and deeds prompt people to glorify you. Inspire our senators to place their confidence completely in you. Eternal god, you are our salvation. We will trust and not be afraid, for you are our strength and song. We pray in your loving name. Amen. The presiding officer please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The presiding officer the clerk will read a communication to the senate. The clerk washington d. C. , january 7, 2020. To the senate under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable cindy hydesmith a senator from the state of mississippi, to perform the duties of the chair. Signed chuck grassley, president pro tempore. Mr. Mcconnell madam president . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i spoke yesterday about President Trumps decision to remove the chief architect of tehrans terrorism from the battlefield, and i discussed the senates obligation to approach this matter in a serious, sober, and factual way. 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. Secretary of defense, secretary of state, chairman of the joint chiefs, and the c. I. A. Director will give classified context behind the president s decision, and theyll discuss the administrations strategy to protect our personnel and defend our nations interest in the new landscape. Id ask every senator on both sides to bring an open mind to the briefing. And, 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, tehrans simmering antiamerican 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 they have taken painstoa void direct conflict to avoid direct conflict, irans authoritarian regime has shown no conpunks about kidnapping, torture, 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 442 days back in 1979 to the hundreds of u. S. Service members killed in bombings carried out by irans proxies, beirut in 1983, riyadh in 1995, khobar in 1996, to the hundreds more killed or maimed in iraq by the explosives and indirectfire attacks ordered by general soleimani himself, to the constant flows of resources and equipment that prop up despots and terrorist organizations throughout the region, irans game plan has been an open book use thirdparty 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 Prime Minister netanyahu or 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 profligate Foreign Policy should reflect on the recent history of the Previous Administration. Iran exploited president obamas withdrawal from iraq. Soleimani and his agents filled the void dramatically expanding iranian influence inside iraq. They were able to impose a sectarian vision on iraq that disenfranchised sunnis, fueled the rise of isis, and plunged the region into chaos. And over in syria, more weakness from the Obama Administration opened yet another door for iran. The Democratic Administration failed to confront the Iranianbacked 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 legacyshopping Nuclear Application that sent billions of dollars to fuel irans further violence. Even my friend, the current democratic leader, knew at the time, because he himself voted for a resolution of disapproval on president obamas deal. Senator schumer said at that time, quote, after ten years if iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off worse off with this agreement than without it. That was the democratic leader, who opposed the Iran Nuclear Deal of president obama. Well, the democratic leader was prescient. Thats exactly what happened. The Previous Administration failed to confront iran when necessary, so the mullahs used their windfall from the Disastrous Nuclear Deal to down on the hegemonic as doesster all across the middle east. The Democratic Administration just had eight years to deal with the growing threat posed by iran. They failed. Demonstrably, iran was stronger and more lethal at thent of the Obama Presidency than at the beginning. So id ask my democratic colleagues today, do not rush to lash out at President Trump when he actually demonstrates that he means what he says. When he enforces his red lines, 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 stand by as iran kills americans or whether were prepared to work with the president to stand up to tehrans terrorism and shadow wars. So, madam president , on another matter, every day that House Democrats refuse to stand behind their historically partisan impeachment deepens the embarrassment for the leaders who choose to take our nation down this road. You cant say we didnt warn them. You cant say they didnt warn themselves. It was less than one year ago that Speaker Pelosi said impeachment is so divisive so divisive unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we should go down this path. That was the speaker a year ago. And back during the clinton impeachment, it was congressman jerry nadler who said, quote, an impeachment substantially supported by one of our Major Political parties and largely opposed by the other will lack legitimately legitimacy. Will lack legitimacy. Well, chairman nadler was right 20 years ago. At this point they may wish theyd taken their own advice. Instead, what the country got was the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair president ial impeachment in american history. And now the prosecution seems to have gotten cold feet. Nearly three weeks after the rush vote they claimed was so urgent, they are still debating whether or not they even want to see the trial proceed. They have voted for it they voted for it three weeks ago. House democrats say theyre waiting for some mythical leverage. Ive 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 handdesign a different procedure for this senate trial, then they might not ever dump this mess in our lap. 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 a partisan temptation of a subjective impeachment that every other house had resisted for 230 years. Now now they need to erode our Constitutional Order even further. They want to invent a new sort of pretrial hostage negotiation where the house gets to run the show over here in the senate. Meanwhile, theyre creating exactly the kind of unfair and dangerous delay in impeachment that Alexander Hamilton specifically specifically warned against in the federalist papers. This is already the longest delay between Impeachment Vote and the delivery of the houses impeachment message in american history. Already. Its almost as though this House Democrat majority systemically took all the framers warnings about partisan abuses of the impeachment power, took everything the founders said not to do not to do and thought, now theres an idea. Why dont 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 and treat, madam president , what youve 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 pelosis actions over the past three weeks have confirmed what Many Americans suspected about this impeachment process all along. That House Democrats have only ever wanted to abuse this great constitutional process for partisan ends. Thats exactly what they had in mind. To use this grave constitutional process for partisan ends right from the beginning. Well, heres where we are. The senate is not about to let the speaker corrode our own senate process and precedence in the same way. The first organizing resolution for the 1999 clinton trial was approved unanimously. 1000. It left mid trial 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. Its not going to happen. Look, these are serious matters. At some point in time, democrats rage at this democrats rage at this particular president will begin to fade, but the sad precedence they are setting will live on. The American People deserve a lot better than this. The presiding officer under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. Morning business is closed. Under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The clerk nomination, Small Business administration, carnz Jovita Carranza of Jovita Carranza of illinois to be administrator. Mr. Schumer madam president. The presiding officer the democratic leader. Mr. Schumer no quorum. Thank you, madam president. Now, in the aftermath of the u. S. Military operation that took out iranian general soleimani, we need to be asking the right questions and remain cleareyed about what might happen next. Ive grown increasingly concerned about the strike against soleimani and what it might mean for the safety of american troops in the region and the future of americas involvement in the middle east. The president has promised that he would not drag the American People into another endless war in the middle east. The president s actions, however, have seemingly increased the risk that we could be dragged into exactly such a war. Unfortunately, this contradiction is far too typical of how the president has conducted Foreign Policy over the last three years. The president s decisionmaking has been erratic, its been impulsive without regard for the longterm consequences of americas actions abroad. He prefers reality show diplomacy and photo ops with foreign leaders to substantive progress. As a result, the president s Foreign Policy has been dangerously incompetent. When you look at nearly every hot spot around the globe, hes made the situation worse, not better. North korea, three years after failed, quote, negotiations, north Korea Remains belligerent, defiant, and intent on developing icbms. Syria, after years of sacrifice and struggle against isis, one impulsive decision to withdraw our troops risks undoing all our progress. Russia, every meeting the president holds with putin always seems to result in putin coming out ahead. We are now at risk of the situation with iran heading for a similar deterioration. The president s Foreign Policy actions so far in north korea, in syria, in russia, and just about everywhere else can be described in two words erratic, impulsive. I am worried a few months from now, his iran policy will be described in exactly the same way. As the president s circle of advisors has gotten smaller and more insular, as nearly all the dissident voices have been forced out of the administration, there seems to be no one left to tell the president no. At times like this, skeptical voices need to ask the right questions, and congress, Congress Must provide a check on the president and assert our constitutional role in matters of war and peace. In my view, President Trump does not, does not have authority for a war with iran. There are several important pieces of legislation by both senators kaine and sanders to further limit, to limit further escalation with iran and assert kongs prerogative on these matters. Both should receive votes in the senate. Also, i plan to ask pointed questions of this administration at a briefing for the gang of eight later this afternoon. We need answers to some crucial questions, and there are many. Here are the two that are most on americans minds what are irans most probable responses to the strike on soleimani . And are we prepared for each of these responses, and how effective will our counterresponses be . There was some alarming confusion yesterday about the militarys position on the future of u. S. Troops in iraq. What in truth does the soleimani strike mean for the longterm stability of iraq and our presence there . How does the Administration Plan to prevent an escalation of hostilities and the potential for large scale confrontation with iran in the middle east. These are just some of the questions the administration has to answer. The safety and security of our american troops and of American People are at stake. Now, on impeachment. This morning, i returned to the most pressing question facing my colleagues at this moment will the senate conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the United States of america . The framers suspected that any impeachment would ignite the passions of the public and naturally would create partisans who are either sympathetic or animical to the president s interests. But thats why the framers gave the senate the responsibility to try impeachment cases. When it came to a matter as serious as the potential removal of a president , they believed the senate was the only body of government with enough independence to rise above partisan considerations and act with the necessary impartiality. Will we live up to that vision . Right now, the republican leader and i have very different ideas about what it means to conduct a fair trial. Democrats believe a fair trial considers all the relevant facts and allows for witnesses and documents. We dont know what the evidence will say. It may exculpate the president. It may further incriminate him. We only want a trial that examines all the facts and lets the chips fall where they may. The republican leader, in contrast, apparently believes that a trial should feature no witnesses, no relevant documents, and proceed according to the desires of the white house, the defendant. The republican leader seems more concerned with being able to claim he went through the constitutional motions than actually carrying out our constitutional duty. Because the republican leader has been completely unwilling to help get the facts for a senate trial, the question will have to be decided by a majority of senators in this chamber. That means four republican senators at any point can compel the senate to call the fact witnesses and subpoena the relevant documents that we know will shed additional light on the truth. Now ive heard several arguments from the other side why we shouldnt vote on witnesses and documents at the outset of the trial. The republican leader and several republican senators have suggested that each side complete their arguments and then we decide on witnesses. This idea is as backward as it sounds. Trials should be informed by witnesses and documents. Theyre not an afterthought. Theyre reasoning. Mcconnells reasoning has an alice in wonderland logic to it. Lets have each side make their case, he says, and then vote on whether the prosecutors and defense should have all the Available Evidence to make those cases. We know whats going on here. Our republican colleagues, even leader mcconnell, knows that the American People want witnesses and documents. 60 of over 60 of republicans do. So theyre afraid to say no, but they dont want to vote on them because that might offend the defendant in this trial, President Trump. So theyre trying to kick the can down the road. Its a strange position fo