Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate U.S. Senate 20240713 : co

The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Cornyn madam president , before congress adjourned for the holidays, our colleagues in the house of representatives carried out their sole priority for 2019, which was to impeach President Trump. That was their numberone objective in 2019. While its no secret this is something theyve been dreaming of since the day that President Trump was inaugurated on january 20 of 2017, it certainly took our colleagues in the house on a roller coaster ride and the country as well. Ive likened it really to not a roller coaster ride but to a threering circus. It does not reflect particularly well i think on their on their body or on the seriousness of the process. In marv last year, here in march of last year heres an important quote to remember speak pelosi cast a lot of doubt that an Impeachment Vote would even happen. This is march 2019. She said, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country, and hes just not worth it. Thats what Speaker Pelosi said in march of 2019. But as weve seen, it was only a matter of time before the radical members of her caucus forced Speaker Pelosis hand and sent the house down a partisan impeachment rabbit hole. Thats where they ended up. House democrats dove headfirst, into as something our majority leader as said here in the senate, the most rushed, least fair, and least thorough impeachment inquiry in american history. And weve only been through this three times before in american history. This is an extraordinary undertaking under our constitution, to seek to impeach and remove a president less than year before the upcoming election, over something that does not even allege any crime but, rather, a disagreement with the way the president has conducted Foreign Policy, which is his role under our constitution. For as long as democrats have been dreaming about this moment, youd think they would be wellprepared for a thorough investigation and a presentation of their case to the United States senate. Well, as it turns out, thats not even close. They moved through closeddoor depositions, public hearings, and a vote at an alarming pace, all to ensure that they could wrap up the process by the end of the year. And before the clock struck midnight, they managed to get it done. Despite Speaker Pelosis insistence less than a year ago that impeachment should be a bipartisan process, the house passed articles of impeachment with votes from just one party, which is the definition of partisan, not bipartisan. In spite of the partisanship that has ensnared this process in the house of representatives, we in the senate have vowed to follow the framework set by the only modern precedent for an impeachment trial in the senate, and that is of president bill clinton. In 1999 all 100 senators, including both the current majority and minority leaders, voted in support of a pretrial resolution that laid the foundation for the trial ahead. This was in fairness to all concerned, and so the senate could know how this would proceed and what they would be called upon to do. Back in 1999, all 100 senators decided to begin with opening arguments, to move to senators questions and then vote on a motion to dismiss. This would provide an opportunity to hear the case presented by the parties before the decision was made whether to hear from additional witnesses. I might add, i believe the house heard from 17 different witnesses, all of that testimony certainly could be presented by the impeachment managers in the senate. Sometimes i hear people talking about whether were going to have any witnesses or not. Well of course. But witnesses come in different shapes and sizes and form. There could be a live witness, there could be a witness sworn testimony presented in a hearing or in a deposition outside of the chamber and excerpts are read into evidence in the impeachment trial. This is not a question of whether were going to have any witnesses or no witnesses. This is going to be a question of whether we are going to allow the impeachment managers from the house and the president s lawyers to try their own case. In an ordinary civil or criminal case, you dont have the jury trying the case for the prosecution or defense or for the plaintiff or defendant. The role of the jury is to sit an listen and then to decide after the evidence is presented. Well, when the time came to vote on the motion to dismiss during the clinton trial, every single one of our democratic colleagues who were here in 1999 voted to dismiss the charges, every single one. That was the clinton trial in 1999. Then when members voted on whether or not to hear additional witnesses, every single one of our democratic colleagues who were here in 1999 voted no. No additional witnesses. Everyone voted no. That includes our friend, the minority leader, senator schumer, who said on the senate floor yesterday that everyone whos opposed to additional witnesses is participating in a coverup. Talk about a change of heart. You know, thats the danger here in the United States senate. If youve been here long enough, you can yourself on the opposite you can find yourself on the opposite side of almost any question that could come up, and certainly senator schumer has found himself first saying in president clintons case, no additional witnesses and now in the case of President Trump, hes changed the standard and says, if you dont vote for additional witnesses, you are somehow engaged in a coverup. Well, i think people are smart enough to understand what that represents. Not only a change of heart, but it represents hypocrisy and a double standard. But president clinton when president clinton was on trial, democrats had zero interest in hearing from additional witnesses beyond that preferenced by the impeachment manager and the president s lawyers or spending more time on the trial. The way they saw it, all the information had been presented, so they voted to throw the charges out. Now, im not faulting them for that per se. All 100 members agreed to the process that gave them the opportunity to make that vote and they had every right to do so. But now that a republican president is on trial instead of a democrat, our democratic colleagues say the same process is not good enough. In other words, what was good enough for president clinton is not good enough in their opinion for President Trump. Instead of following the exact same framework used in the clinton impeachment trial, they want to set the rules for the entire trial before weve even had a chance to hear the opening arguments. Here again, i realize we have a lot of typea personalities here, people who like to take charge, but thats not the role of the senate during an impeachment trial. Were here to listen to the case presented by the impeachment managers from the house and the president s own lawyers, not to try to take over the process. In fact, the hardest thing senators are going to have to do during this impeachment trial is sit and be quiet and let the parties present their case. Well, our democratic colleagues are even going so far as requesting specific witness lists even before nancy pelosi has sent the articles of impeachment over. They obviously are having buyers remorse about voting out articles of impeachment now and essentially is admitting that the evidence is so flimsy that it needs to be bolstered by additional witnesses here in the senate. Well, im sure it comes as no surprise that Senate Republicans are not on board with this partisan approach to impeachment. And as you can imagine, nancy pelosi isnt happy that the power to make this decision is in the senates hands. One thing ive learned whoer in the senate one thing ive learned here in the senate, in the congress, is that the senate and the house are pretty jealous of the prerogatives of their body, to be able to make decisions for themselves. The last thing the house ordinarily wants to do is to have the senate tell them what to do and certainly the opposite is true. The last thing the senate wants to do is to have the house try to direct how the impeachment trial is conducted here in the senate. Well, thats not the way it works, and thats not going to happen. The speaker has pulled the emergency brake on this rushed impeachment process and is refusing to send the articles of impeachment over here to the senate because she doesnt think the framework used in the clinton trial is good enough. Shes now trying to use her role as speaker of the house an admittedly very powerful position in our congress to try to make the rules of the senate. She wants to set the parameters force what the senates trial will look like, which is not in her job description. I know its a terrible revelation, but it is beyond her authority, beyond her power, and it aint going to happen. The way i see it, this dogged determination to interfere in the senate process isnt because the framework were planning to use is unfair or partisan. Obviously all the democrats who were here during the clinton trial agreed to the similar process then and now they want to change the rules for President Trump. Speaker pelosi also wants the senate to do the work that members of her caucus were either too rushed or too lazy to do for themselves. Ordinarily, if the chance are going to be brought, lets ordinarily, if the charges are going to be brought in a criminal case, the facts would be presented. Well, here, i think the analogy is that it is it is the responsibility of the house to prove the articles of impeachment that theyve charged. Its their responsibility, not ours. Were supposed to be the jury. Speaker pelosi knows, as we do, that the house did not do a good job in investigating the facts and she thinks the United States senate should mop up after the house created the mess that they did. Thats not going to happen, madam president. The house had an ample opportunity and time to look at all the facts. The problem the house has is the facts that theyve discovered and allege simply dont represent a high crime and misdemeanor, much less bribery or treason, which is a constitutional standard for an impeachment. What they have is a disagreement on a manner in which Foreign Policy was unanimous consent canned with a president who they hate. Thats the reason theyve impeached President Trump. Its not because of any bribery or treason or high crime and misdemeanor. As a matter of fact, they dont even charge a crime. What they do is charge obstruction of congress. But heres what happened . Adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, issued subpoenas to certain witnesses. The white house said, hey, wait a minute. We have we believe we have a valid claim of executive privilege. Ordinarily that would then go to a court and the court would say yes or no or cut the baby in half. But, when the witnesses said we need to go to court for direction, adam schiff dropped them like a hot potato and didnt even bother to call the witnesses or go to court to pursue the testimony he said was important. Now, thats on him. Thats not on President Trump. And to claim that their own mismanagement of the impeachment inquiry is grounds to impeach the president for obstruction of congress, well, it would be laughable if it wasnt so serious. At their own volition, they rushed through the impeachment inquiry with reckless abandon, and its not the senates job to reopen and to redo their inglorious investigation. The senates role, as i said, is to take the evidence compiled by the house and presented by the impeachment managers and conduct a trial based on the evidence that they present. Not to somehow initiative initiate a new investigation before weve even heard from the impeachment managers from the house or to somehow say, well, were going to essentially become the impeachment managers ourselves, something a a role that the constitution gives to the house and not the senate. The senates role is to listen and to decide. Not to try to hijack the process and to try to do something for the house that theyve been unable to do themselves. So once the speaker transmits the articles of impeachment to the senate, the houses role as a body is done, and they speak and act through the impeachment managers who will be presenting the case on behalf of the house. When the speaker decides to send the articles of impeachment to the senate, we will be prepared to do our job, and unlike the house, we will do so in a serious and deliberative fashion and perform our constitutional duties under the constitution and the rules of the senate with regard to impeachment trials. Madam president , i yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from new jersey. Mr. Menendez madam president , for three years now, everyday americans, members of this body, our diplomatic corps, and our allies and adversaries alike wonder whether there is any sort of coherent strategy regarding the National Foreign Security Policy of President Donald Trump. If recent days are any indication, the answer is a resounding no. The Trump Administration has no vision for how we might build a world that is more stable, peaceful, and prosperous for future generations. To be sure, the administration has some serious reports outlining global challenges and nightly drafted statements proclaiming their America First strategy, but in practice, the president s erratic leadership and failure to invest in the very institutions we need to promote American National security have sowed chaos and increasingly left america alone. Our nation has faced great challenges before, and yet having served nearly three decades in congress, i cannot recall a time when so many of them were of our own making and as predictable as they were avoidable. Simply put, President Trumps Foreign Policy, like President Trump himself, is completely shortsighted, selfinterested, and transactional. The president s abandonment of our core values has already eroded americas standing abroad. Near the end of the last administration, the Gallup Organization found that 48 of respondents in more than 100 Countries Worldwide had confidence in the United States. Today its gone from 48 to it hovers around 31 . Furthermore, more people around the world likely trust, according to the poll, china or russia than the United States. Now, i know that National Security is not a popularity contest, but the erosion of americas standing in the world matters because it makes it less safe for americans. It undermines our diplomacy. It hinders Economic Opportunity. And it undercuts our ability to promote our values, betraying our centurieslong vision of a nation as a city on a hill. Our nation was founded on noble ideas, and it is those ideals more than our unrivaled economic strength, p more than our unparalleled more than our unparalleled military might that have rallied the world to our side. From the defeat of fascism in europe to the rise of International Institutions and security partnerships to the fall of the berlin wall and beyond. If President Trump has squandered this Precious Resource of our values, our soft power through actions that betray our ideals, abandon our allies, and appease our enemies. Far from the America First, this administration is leaving america isolated, corrupted, and behind. We see it again and again from ukraine to syria to iran and beyond. Consider russia. Even as our Intelligence Community and bipartisan congressional reports point to, quote, incontrovertible proof of russias interference in our 2016 elections and plan to do so this year in 2020, to this date, the president s own fragile ego still prevents him from even acknowledging the threat let alone standing up to continued russian aggression. Turning to north korea, two years ago the president said he achieved a breakthrough and that we didnt have to worry about north korea anymore. We could sleep well at home. And yet satellite for all the madefortv moments, his poorly conceived and poorly executed effort has left north korea greater threat in 2020. Under President Trumps watch, north korea has expanded, expanded its nuclear arsenal, successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile, and conducted its most powerful nuclear testing, and his administration has undercut our critical defense of alliance with south korea and japan or walked away from serious sanctions enforcement. Nearby in china, the administrations efforts have failed to change chinas actions in the south china sea, resolve the structural issues that play in our trade relationship or address its worsening human rights and governance behavior, from the crown in hong kong from the crackdown in hong kong to the growing russian technological influence used to spy and oppress. Turning to the western hemisphere, a year ago, the president rightly denounced maduro but declared the success of his venezuela policy. Today the president sits silently as millions of venezuelans are fleeing a massive humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands of venezuelans already in the United States remain in desperate need of temporary protected status. President trump says he wants to confront the root causes of migration. He says he wants to combat Drug Trafficking and the opioid epidemic, yet he has repeatedly weakened our counternarcotics Law Enforcement and President Trump<\/a>. That was their numberone objective in 2019. While its no secret this is something theyve been dreaming of since the day that President Trump<\/a> was inaugurated on january 20 of 2017, it certainly took our colleagues in the house on a roller coaster ride and the country as well. Ive likened it really to not a roller coaster ride but to a threering circus. It does not reflect particularly well i think on their on their body or on the seriousness of the process. In marv last year, here in march of last year heres an important quote to remember speak pelosi cast a lot of doubt that an Impeachment Vote<\/a> would even happen. This is march 2019. She said, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country, and hes just not worth it. Thats what Speaker Pelosi<\/a> said in march of 2019. But as weve seen, it was only a matter of time before the radical members of her caucus forced Speaker Pelosi<\/a>s hand and sent the house down a partisan impeachment rabbit hole. Thats where they ended up. House democrats dove headfirst, into as something our majority leader as said here in the senate, the most rushed, least fair, and least thorough impeachment inquiry in american history. And weve only been through this three times before in american history. This is an extraordinary undertaking under our constitution, to seek to impeach and remove a president less than year before the upcoming election, over something that does not even allege any crime but, rather, a disagreement with the way the president has conducted Foreign Policy<\/a>, which is his role under our constitution. For as long as democrats have been dreaming about this moment, youd think they would be wellprepared for a thorough investigation and a presentation of their case to the United States<\/a> senate. Well, as it turns out, thats not even close. They moved through closeddoor depositions, public hearings, and a vote at an alarming pace, all to ensure that they could wrap up the process by the end of the year. And before the clock struck midnight, they managed to get it done. Despite Speaker Pelosi<\/a>s insistence less than a year ago that impeachment should be a bipartisan process, the house passed articles of impeachment with votes from just one party, which is the definition of partisan, not bipartisan. In spite of the partisanship that has ensnared this process in the house of representatives, we in the senate have vowed to follow the framework set by the only modern precedent for an impeachment trial in the senate, and that is of president bill clinton. In 1999 all 100 senators, including both the current majority and minority leaders, voted in support of a pretrial resolution that laid the foundation for the trial ahead. This was in fairness to all concerned, and so the senate could know how this would proceed and what they would be called upon to do. Back in 1999, all 100 senators decided to begin with opening arguments, to move to senators questions and then vote on a motion to dismiss. This would provide an opportunity to hear the case presented by the parties before the decision was made whether to hear from additional witnesses. I might add, i believe the house heard from 17 different witnesses, all of that testimony certainly could be presented by the impeachment managers in the senate. Sometimes i hear people talking about whether were going to have any witnesses or not. Well of course. But witnesses come in different shapes and sizes and form. There could be a live witness, there could be a witness sworn testimony presented in a hearing or in a deposition outside of the chamber and excerpts are read into evidence in the impeachment trial. This is not a question of whether were going to have any witnesses or no witnesses. This is going to be a question of whether we are going to allow the impeachment managers from the house and the president s lawyers to try their own case. In an ordinary civil or criminal case, you dont have the jury trying the case for the prosecution or defense or for the plaintiff or defendant. The role of the jury is to sit an listen and then to decide after the evidence is presented. Well, when the time came to vote on the motion to dismiss during the clinton trial, every single one of our democratic colleagues who were here in 1999 voted to dismiss the charges, every single one. That was the clinton trial in 1999. Then when members voted on whether or not to hear additional witnesses, every single one of our democratic colleagues who were here in 1999 voted no. No additional witnesses. Everyone voted no. That includes our friend, the minority leader, senator schumer, who said on the senate floor yesterday that everyone whos opposed to additional witnesses is participating in a coverup. Talk about a change of heart. You know, thats the danger here in the United States<\/a> senate. If youve been here long enough, you can yourself on the opposite you can find yourself on the opposite side of almost any question that could come up, and certainly senator schumer has found himself first saying in president clintons case, no additional witnesses and now in the case of President Trump<\/a>, hes changed the standard and says, if you dont vote for additional witnesses, you are somehow engaged in a coverup. Well, i think people are smart enough to understand what that represents. Not only a change of heart, but it represents hypocrisy and a double standard. But president clinton when president clinton was on trial, democrats had zero interest in hearing from additional witnesses beyond that preferenced by the impeachment manager and the president s lawyers or spending more time on the trial. The way they saw it, all the information had been presented, so they voted to throw the charges out. Now, im not faulting them for that per se. All 100 members agreed to the process that gave them the opportunity to make that vote and they had every right to do so. But now that a republican president is on trial instead of a democrat, our democratic colleagues say the same process is not good enough. In other words, what was good enough for president clinton is not good enough in their opinion for President Trump<\/a>. Instead of following the exact same framework used in the clinton impeachment trial, they want to set the rules for the entire trial before weve even had a chance to hear the opening arguments. Here again, i realize we have a lot of typea personalities here, people who like to take charge, but thats not the role of the senate during an impeachment trial. Were here to listen to the case presented by the impeachment managers from the house and the president s own lawyers, not to try to take over the process. In fact, the hardest thing senators are going to have to do during this impeachment trial is sit and be quiet and let the parties present their case. Well, our democratic colleagues are even going so far as requesting specific witness lists even before nancy pelosi has sent the articles of impeachment over. They obviously are having buyers remorse about voting out articles of impeachment now and essentially is admitting that the evidence is so flimsy that it needs to be bolstered by additional witnesses here in the senate. Well, im sure it comes as no surprise that Senate Republicans<\/a> are not on board with this partisan approach to impeachment. And as you can imagine, nancy pelosi isnt happy that the power to make this decision is in the senates hands. One thing ive learned whoer in the senate one thing ive learned here in the senate, in the congress, is that the senate and the house are pretty jealous of the prerogatives of their body, to be able to make decisions for themselves. The last thing the house ordinarily wants to do is to have the senate tell them what to do and certainly the opposite is true. The last thing the senate wants to do is to have the house try to direct how the impeachment trial is conducted here in the senate. Well, thats not the way it works, and thats not going to happen. The speaker has pulled the emergency brake on this rushed impeachment process and is refusing to send the articles of impeachment over here to the senate because she doesnt think the framework used in the clinton trial is good enough. Shes now trying to use her role as speaker of the house an admittedly very powerful position in our congress to try to make the rules of the senate. She wants to set the parameters force what the senates trial will look like, which is not in her job description. I know its a terrible revelation, but it is beyond her authority, beyond her power, and it aint going to happen. The way i see it, this dogged determination to interfere in the senate process isnt because the framework were planning to use is unfair or partisan. Obviously all the democrats who were here during the clinton trial agreed to the similar process then and now they want to change the rules for President Trump<\/a>. Speaker pelosi also wants the senate to do the work that members of her caucus were either too rushed or too lazy to do for themselves. Ordinarily, if the chance are going to be brought, lets ordinarily, if the charges are going to be brought in a criminal case, the facts would be presented. Well, here, i think the analogy is that it is it is the responsibility of the house to prove the articles of impeachment that theyve charged. Its their responsibility, not ours. Were supposed to be the jury. Speaker pelosi knows, as we do, that the house did not do a good job in investigating the facts and she thinks the United States<\/a> senate should mop up after the house created the mess that they did. Thats not going to happen, madam president. The house had an ample opportunity and time to look at all the facts. The problem the house has is the facts that theyve discovered and allege simply dont represent a high crime and misdemeanor, much less bribery or treason, which is a constitutional standard for an impeachment. What they have is a disagreement on a manner in which Foreign Policy<\/a> was unanimous consent canned with a president who they hate. Thats the reason theyve impeached President Trump<\/a>. Its not because of any bribery or treason or high crime and misdemeanor. As a matter of fact, they dont even charge a crime. What they do is charge obstruction of congress. But heres what happened . Adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, issued subpoenas to certain witnesses. The white house said, hey, wait a minute. We have we believe we have a valid claim of executive privilege. Ordinarily that would then go to a court and the court would say yes or no or cut the baby in half. But, when the witnesses said we need to go to court for direction, adam schiff dropped them like a hot potato and didnt even bother to call the witnesses or go to court to pursue the testimony he said was important. Now, thats on him. Thats not on President Trump<\/a>. And to claim that their own mismanagement of the impeachment inquiry is grounds to impeach the president for obstruction of congress, well, it would be laughable if it wasnt so serious. At their own volition, they rushed through the impeachment inquiry with reckless abandon, and its not the senates job to reopen and to redo their inglorious investigation. The senates role, as i said, is to take the evidence compiled by the house and presented by the impeachment managers and conduct a trial based on the evidence that they present. Not to somehow initiative initiate a new investigation before weve even heard from the impeachment managers from the house or to somehow say, well, were going to essentially become the impeachment managers ourselves, something a a role that the constitution gives to the house and not the senate. The senates role is to listen and to decide. Not to try to hijack the process and to try to do something for the house that theyve been unable to do themselves. So once the speaker transmits the articles of impeachment to the senate, the houses role as a body is done, and they speak and act through the impeachment managers who will be presenting the case on behalf of the house. When the speaker decides to send the articles of impeachment to the senate, we will be prepared to do our job, and unlike the house, we will do so in a serious and deliberative fashion and perform our constitutional duties under the constitution and the rules of the senate with regard to impeachment trials. Madam president , i yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from new jersey. Mr. Menendez madam president , for three years now, everyday americans, members of this body, our diplomatic corps, and our allies and adversaries alike wonder whether there is any sort of coherent strategy regarding the National Foreign<\/a> Security Policy<\/a> of President Donald Trump<\/a>. If recent days are any indication, the answer is a resounding no. The Trump Administration<\/a> has no vision for how we might build a world that is more stable, peaceful, and prosperous for future generations. To be sure, the administration has some serious reports outlining global challenges and nightly drafted statements proclaiming their America First<\/a> strategy, but in practice, the president s erratic leadership and failure to invest in the very institutions we need to promote American National<\/a> security have sowed chaos and increasingly left america alone. Our nation has faced great challenges before, and yet having served nearly three decades in congress, i cannot recall a time when so many of them were of our own making and as predictable as they were avoidable. Simply put, President Trump<\/a>s Foreign Policy<\/a>, like President Trump<\/a> himself, is completely shortsighted, selfinterested, and transactional. The president s abandonment of our core values has already eroded americas standing abroad. Near the end of the last administration, the Gallup Organization<\/a> found that 48 of respondents in more than 100 Countries Worldwide<\/a> had confidence in the United States<\/a>. Today its gone from 48 to it hovers around 31 . Furthermore, more people around the world likely trust, according to the poll, china or russia than the United States<\/a>. Now, i know that National Security<\/a> is not a popularity contest, but the erosion of americas standing in the world matters because it makes it less safe for americans. It undermines our diplomacy. It hinders Economic Opportunity<\/a>. And it undercuts our ability to promote our values, betraying our centurieslong vision of a nation as a city on a hill. Our nation was founded on noble ideas, and it is those ideals more than our unrivaled economic strength, p more than our unparalleled more than our unparalleled military might that have rallied the world to our side. From the defeat of fascism in europe to the rise of International Institutions<\/a> and security partnerships to the fall of the berlin wall and beyond. If President Trump<\/a> has squandered this Precious Resource<\/a> of our values, our soft power through actions that betray our ideals, abandon our allies, and appease our enemies. Far from the America First<\/a>, this administration is leaving america isolated, corrupted, and behind. We see it again and again from ukraine to syria to iran and beyond. Consider russia. Even as our Intelligence Community<\/a> and bipartisan congressional reports point to, quote, incontrovertible proof of russias interference in our 2016 elections and plan to do so this year in 2020, to this date, the president s own fragile ego still prevents him from even acknowledging the threat let alone standing up to continued russian aggression. Turning to north korea, two years ago the president said he achieved a breakthrough and that we didnt have to worry about north korea anymore. We could sleep well at home. And yet satellite for all the madefortv moments, his poorly conceived and poorly executed effort has left north korea greater threat in 2020. Under President Trump<\/a>s watch, north korea has expanded, expanded its nuclear arsenal, successfully tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile, and conducted its most powerful nuclear testing, and his administration has undercut our critical defense of alliance with south korea and japan or walked away from serious sanctions enforcement. Nearby in china, the administrations efforts have failed to change chinas actions in the south china sea, resolve the structural issues that play in our trade relationship or address its worsening human rights and governance behavior, from the crown in hong kong from the crackdown in hong kong to the growing russian technological influence used to spy and oppress. Turning to the western hemisphere, a year ago, the president rightly denounced maduro but declared the success of his venezuela policy. Today the president sits silently as millions of venezuelans are fleeing a massive humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands of venezuelans already in the United States<\/a> remain in desperate need of temporary protected status. President trump says he wants to confront the root causes of migration. He says he wants to combat Drug Trafficking<\/a> and the opioid epidemic, yet he has repeatedly weakened our counternarcotics Law Enforcement<\/a> and Development Operations<\/a> in the northern triangle of mexico while continuing to push for a border wall he promise the American People<\/a> that mexico would pay for. And the administrations abhorrent treatment of Asylum Seekers<\/a> from separating children from their parents to placing people in cruel and inhuman conditions have only further weakened americas moral standing. Likewise, President Trump<\/a>s functional restructuring of our Refugee Resettlement<\/a> program and the slashing of refugee admissions to the United States<\/a> not only damages americas reputation as a beacon of hope for Vulnerable People<\/a> around the world but deprives us of the contributions refugees have always brought to our economy and our communities. We also face immense challenges like Climate Change<\/a> and yet even as our close ally, australia, faces the most deadly conflagration this administration continued to deny a threat that is already costing american taxpayers billions of dollars in the wake of increasingly severe storms, fires, and floods. Withdrawing from the paris climate agreement was a gross abdication of american leadership, one that has allowed china yes, china to position itself as the world leader on clean energy. The Trump Administration<\/a> has also ceded ground to the United Nations<\/a> to china and russia. Recently, china beat us out for a leadership seat at the food and Agricultural Organization<\/a> while russia won out support for its cyber crime treaty. And while the Administration May<\/a> seek to explain away these losses on an individual basis, this is, in fact, the steady drip, drip, drip of the loss of American Power<\/a> and influence due to President Trump<\/a>s abject mismanagement. Turning to africa, at a time when our allies as well as adversaries like russia and china are ramping up their engagement, the United States<\/a> is pulling back. Indeed, secretary pompeo has visited kansas on multiple occasions during his tenure, but he has yet to visit a single sub saharan country. Likewise, we see a complete absence of diplomatic strategies for challenges across africa, from preventing a return to conflict in south sudan to supporting the democratic transition in ethiopia to curbing terrorism, and the recent tragic deaths of americans in kenya demonstrate a lack of progress in weakening terrorist organizations like alshahab and boca harry am. Likewise, for a year, the administration refused to yield Human Trafficking<\/a> sanctions so the usaid could adequately sponsor the deadly ebay epidemic in congo. On human rights, the Trump Administration<\/a>s approach is, in one word, abysmal. The administration has supported the saudi iled campaign in yemen amid reports of despicable war crimes. It stood silent on the willing of Washington Post<\/a> reporter chog Jamal Khashoggi<\/a> at m. B. S. Direction. In guatemala, the philippines, burma, turkey, and beyond. Likewise, the Trump Administration<\/a> has rolled back the rights of women and girls worldwide from cutting off funding for lifesaving maternal care they falsely claim for most abortions to reinstating the global gag rule. And it has set back the clock on equality and protection for lgbtq citizens in International Instruments<\/a> at the u. N. And elsewhere. I want to remind my colleagues why america must champion human rights. Not just because it is right, although it certainly is right, but because democracy and respect for human freedom are the foundation of a safer, better world for the American People<\/a> to thrive in, and as the president s be as the presidt abdicates our leadership, we have witnessed attacks on americas closest friends. President trumps verbal broadsides against the united kingdom, canada, australia, south korea, just to mention a few, the latter during the Ongoing Nuclear<\/a> standoff of north korea, are deeply regrettable and completely counterproductive. This is not how america leads the world. This is how america finds itself alone, isolated, and more vulnerable. This administration has attacked the very idea of diplomacy. They have proposed enormous cuts to the state departments budget, removed senior diplomatic leaders with no replacements and marginalized the state departments input on key decisions. And finally, nowhere in the world is President Trump<\/a>s reckless Foreign Policy<\/a> and total lack of strategy more painfully obvious than the middle east. Now, let me be clear. I do not shed a tear for qasem soleimani. As a commander of the quds, he was responsible for deaths and terrorism in the middle east. They always chose not to act against him because the decision was that the action against him, the value of that was less of value than the consequences of retaliation and longterm military action. The president must come to congress and present clear and compelling intelligence as to why the strike against soleimani was absolutely necessary. What was the imminent, imminent threat that soleimani uniquely possessed . We need to know the threats we face have materially changed, and in the wake of all the misleading statements, we must make clear to the administration that the president by himself does not, does not have the authority to launch a war against iran. Mr. President , let me send you a message. Attacks on cultural sites are war crimes. They are war crimes. We observes flrl law not only because it is right but because then we can demand other countries to observe International Law<\/a> as well. The consequences of President Trump<\/a>s strike on iranian Commander Qasem Soleimani<\/a> are unfolding as we speak. Already the Iraqi Parliament<\/a> has called for an expulsion of american forces, and now there is confusion about what u. S. Policy is. Are we keeping troops to fight isis . Are we going to start sanctions on iraq . Confusion, contradiction, chaos. Amid such confusion, the one thing that has taken place for sure is that instead of our mission there to fight isis, we are now having to recalibrate to use that mission to protect our own forces there. What a reprieve isis gets. And despite what the president may say, iran is not a different country than it was two years ago. Iranianbacked protesters just stormed our embassy. Previously, they were storming iranian embassies the iranian people were storming excuse me the iraqi people were storming iranian embassies because of irans influence in iraq. Now they are massively protesting against us. A regime that continues to oppress its own people and its proxies now has a solidified populace behind it. Soleimanis legacy, ultimately what he could not achieve in life, he may very well have achieved in death, pushing the United States<\/a> out of iraq. Its no secret that i did not support the joint comprehensive plan of action, but lets be clear, iran is today closer to a Nuclear Breakout<\/a> than when President Trump<\/a> took office. And we have isolated ourselves from the International Alliance<\/a> that we built to constrain irans ambitions. Meanwhile in syria, the president s green light for turkeys incursion has weakened americas interest in the region, allowed russia to grow its influence and open the door for isis to reconstitute. By turning our backs on the kurds, we signal to the world that well abandon our allies on the battlefield. And while the president promised to stop endless wars in the middle east, over the weekend thousands of military family members are unexpectedly saying goodbye as their loved ones receive orders to do just the opposite. President trump has not brought the American People<\/a> a more peaceful, more stable, more prosperous world. On the contrary, the president has brought us closer to war, closer to facing a nucleararmed iran, closer to facing an existential threat to israel, closer to witnessing a destabilizing arms race and greater conflict in the entire middle east region fueled by emboldened iranian proxy forces. Madam president , a show of strength with no strategy in place is no show of strength at all. President trump spent the better part of three years on the golf course eviscerating the clear lines between a president s responsibilities to the American People<\/a> and his devotion to his own. The president and family continue to put their business interests over american interests. The president flouted the constitutions emoluments clause and refused to divest himself from the trump organization. He and his family maintain unprecedented business interests and real estate projects in about 20 Foreign Countries<\/a> that undoubtedly entangled him with foreign governments whenever local cooperation or financing is needed. It is clear that that creates a conflict that does not put the nations interest first. He operates with no moral compass. Indeed the president s pursuit of the own personal profit at the expense of the National Security<\/a> interest in ukraine led to his impeachment in the house of representatives. So i urge my colleagues to remember why americas conduct on the world stage matters, why our values matter, why our leadership matters. We strive to create a more peaceful, more stable world so that we can protect the security of americans at home, so that we can create greater prosperity and Economic Opportunity<\/a> for our people. And at the end of the day avoid at all costs the need to send our sons and daughters to war. Every president faces new threats that challenge our quest for this brighter future, and weve worked hard to create institutions and provide resources to help every administration navigate this increasingly complex world. And we pray that the moral character of every president provides them with the foresight and judgment necessary to protect American Security<\/a> and our Strategic Interests<\/a> when it matters the most. Instead President Trump<\/a> has taken difficult security challenges and made them even harder to resolve. Thats why the Congress Role<\/a> in shaping and advancing u. S. Foreign policy has never mattered more, why ill continue to advance strategic legislation from turkey to Climate Change<\/a> to Ukraine Support<\/a> to conduct oversight and speak on behalf of the American People<\/a> that defines us and our place in this world. We here in the senate have an obligation. We cannot cynically look the other way or be silent or enable that which we know to be wrong, risky, and morally reprehensible. History will not judge us kindly if we do. I for one will not stand idly be and be judged that way. With that, madam president , i yield the floor. A senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from wyoming. Mr. Barrasso thank you, madam president. Madam president , i come to the floor today following the u. S. Air strike in iraq, the air strike that killed iranians terrorist mastermind. I fully support President Trump<\/a>s decision. As commander in chief, i believe he had an obligation to do what he did to act when american lives are at stake. With the death of irans general soleimani, the American People<\/a> and people around the world are much safer. This general was an emboldened bloodthirsty terrorist. He was a killer. He has the blood of countless people around the world on his hands. In the last two months weve seen 11 attacks 11 attacks on u. S. Forces and bases, including the killing of an american citizen. He became bolder, he became more aggressive in both his actions and his ambitions. And he was stepping up his attacks on americans. In fact, general soleimani was at war with the United States<\/a> his entire career, and it was a military career. He was the commander of irans terrorist network. We watched in recent months as he personally directed brazen attacks on our embassy and our personnel in iraq. We knew that more attacks were coming, and so the United States<\/a> took action. Soleimanis death makes america safer in the long run. Taking out this war criminal will help us avoid war in the future. Let me be clear, i dont want war with iran. The United States<\/a> does not want war with iran. We know that appeasement does not work. The Obama Administration<\/a> strategy, of Wishful Thinking<\/a> failed. Soleimanis terrorist network was made more powerful by u. S. Money. The Obama Administration<\/a> gave billions and billions of dollars in u. S. Dollars as part of that iran nuclear deal. What did they do with the money . They used the money to support terrorists around the world. Without a doubt, appeasement only brought failure. It made iran stronger and it hurt the United States<\/a> and our allies. Madam president , we know that the Winning Strategy<\/a> is peace through strength. We knew it through ronald reagan, and we know it today. Already u. S. Sanctions on iran have been crushing and crippling. We must continue President Trump<\/a>s maximum pressure campaign. Now iran knows that the United States<\/a> means what it says. We are prepared for retaliations should they come. This past weekend joe biden actually said, he said iran is in the drivers seat. Madam president , iran is not in the drivers seat. Iran is in the center of the bulls eye. U. S. Forces will respond, will respond to any future attacks on americans or americans safety. And we will do it swiftly and with a punishing response. It would be a grave mistake for iran to further escalate tensions. Instead what iran ought to do is dial down its aggressive nature and posture. The facts are these, general soleimani was a blood thirty terrorist. He had the blood of innocent civilians on his hands and he would have killed many more if given the chance. This general spent his entire career at war with the United States<\/a>. He was responsible for the deaths of american soldiers, hundreds of deaths with i. E. D. s, and more for the maiming of american soldiers hit with roadside bombs, and that would be thousands of americans who have been permanently disabled because of him. Thankfully the generals 20year reign of terror has now ended, and there is broad condemnation all around the world over the mass destruction and the death that he caused. Its time now, madam president , for iran to take a step back away from nuclear weapons, away from terrorism, away from aggressions. Come to the table. Its time for them to discuss peace. Thank you, madam president , and i yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call quorum call quorum call the presiding officer the senator from virginia. Mr. Kaine might i inquire if were in a quorum call . The presiding officer we are. Mr. Kaine could it be suspended. The presiding officer yes, it could. Mr. Kaine thank you, madam president. Before i speak about the war powers amendment, i would like to ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to jay c. Jane, a state department fellow, and to mark ecacue, for the duration Reagan Administration<\/a> of the 116th congress. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Kaine thank you. I rise today to discuss the war powers resolution that i filed on friday, january 3, with senator durbin. I spoke yesterday at some length about the painful history of relations between iran and the United States<\/a> and the escalating tensions in the last three years that have brought us to the brink of war. As we stand at the brink with military actions by iran and the United States<\/a> causing battlefield casualties on the other side, i believe that its imperative for congress to reassert itself and make plain that no president should have been the ability to take the nation to war on his or her own. Let me talk about the constitution, about the value judgment underlying the allocation of war powers in the constitution, and then the resolution thats now pending having been filed in the senate. First, the constitution. The constitution is drafted in as drafted in 17897 has a series of provisions, some are somewhat vague in the bill of rights, what is an unreasonable search. Some precise, you have to be 35 years to be president. And if you look at the constitution, you can see a variety of provisions, some more specific and some a little more openended. Actually, the war powers part of the constitution, though not completely without ambiguity, is one of the clearest parts of the constitution. In article 1, the power to declare war is given to congress, not to the president , not to the judiciary. To congress. In article 2, the president is declared to be the commander in chief of the military. If you read the constitutional debates at the time, what emerges is a fairly clear understanding by those who were at the Constitutional Convention<\/a> in philadelphia that was both clear but also quite unusual. The understanding was that for a war to start, congress should vote for it to be initiated. But then once started, the last thing you would need is 535 chiefs. So once congress voted to start a west africa, the to start a war, the this was fairly clear and it was very unusual. It was very unusual because at that point in history, 1787, war and the declaration of war was not primarily legislative. It was for the executive. It was for the king, for the monarch, for the emperor, for the constitutional tax war had been throughout history an executive function. But the framers of the stand up constitutional debates made plain that they were really trying to change Human History<\/a> at least insofar as the United States<\/a> went. In this country, the initiation of war would be done by congress. Why was it done that i . Why was it done that way . Well, we have the virtue of a virginian who was not only one of the drafters of the constitution but kept notes of the Constitutional Convention<\/a> and then wrote letters about what they intended. And ten years after the constitution was written in 1787, James Madison<\/a> wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson<\/a> and directly addressed why is it that the power to declare war is something for congress . And he said this. Our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate that its the executive most prone to war and the executive most interested in it. For this reason, we have with studied care vested the question of war with the legislature. They recognize that executives were prone to war and they wanted the legislature to have to sign off on the initiation of war. It was unusual then, and its unusual now that the initiation of war is to be left to the legislature. Why is that provision in the constitution . Why would we want to leave the question about whether war should be started to Congress Rather<\/a> than let the president do it, as would be the case in other nations . Its about a value judgment. So as important as the constitutional provision is, i would argue that whats more important is the value judgment that underlies this requirement of congressional authorization. And the value judgment is about the men and women who serve in our military. Any war runs the risk that the young men and women who serve in our military could lose their lives or could be injured or could see their friends lose their lives or be injured. When we send troops into war, they may suffer an injury traumatic brain injure, posttraumatic stress disorder that will affect the entire remainders of their lives. If we affect their lives in that way, we also affect the lives of their families and friends. So the value judgment that sort of served as the pillar behind the provision that says congress has got to authorize war is this if were going to force young men and women to risk their lives, it should be based on a around open debate and a vote in full view of the american public. Then there should be a vote about whether were at war, and if at the end of that debate, with the questions it asked and the trading of perspectives, at the end of that debate before the peoples elected legislative branch the legislature says this is in the National Interest<\/a> and we should be at war, then those men and women who serve, yes, theyre going to go serve and risk their lives and risk their health and risk what might happen to them for the rest of their life, but well only ask them to do that if there is a considered judgment that war is in the National Interest<\/a>. Thats the value judgment that underlies the most unusual part of the constitution that war cant be started except by congress. If we have that debate and vote, then its a fair request to ask of people like my boy in the marines or the 1 millionplus people who serve in the military to risk their lives. But how dare we, how dare we order troops into harms way where they could risk their lives or health possibly for the rest of their lives if we in congress are unwilling to have augite or have a vote . And sadly, madam president , throughout the history of this country and this is a completely nonpartisan statement whigs and partisans and democrats and republicans, with different parties, representatives in the white house, congress has managed to figure out a way to avoid debate and avoid voting if they can. War votes are tough. Ive had to cast two as a member of the Foreign Relations<\/a> committee. And ive cast thousands of votes in my life. Ill tell you, a war vote is categorically different than any other vote youll cast. Theyre hard, unpopular. Theres going to be hard consequences of a war vote. So there may be an understandable human tradition in congress to try to avoid it, but its a responsibility thats cannot be avoided. How can we order people to risk their lives when were unwilling to risk the political challenges of a vote on war . So thats the constitutional history. Thats why the article 1 branch, the first among equals, is charged with the responsibility of initiating war and thats the value judgment that underlies that constitutional provision. So what does our resolution do . Our resolution is filed pursuant to the war powers act, passed at the talenteds of the vietnam war. Senator durbin did a good job yesterday of going into the history of the passage of the war powers act. The war powers act was trying to do two things in the aftermath of the vietnam war and as they were analyzing what had gone wrong during it there were a number of points along the way where the president did not Keep Congress<\/a> informed. There was a Bombing Campaign<\/a> that was started in laos where congress wasnt informed. Activities in cambodia where congress wasnt informed. And then the second thing we were trying to do is not just require president s to inform congress but also give congress the ability to have a debate and have a vote on the floor in case the president started hostilities without coming to congress. The president should Keep Congress<\/a> informed, not hide the wall from congress, and Congress Needs<\/a> a procedure to stop a war that is initiated by a president who doesnt come to congress. So heres the procedure under which we have filed our resolution. If a president puts u. S. Troops into hostilities without a congressional authorization, even if the president claims a legal right to do so selfdefense, article of due power but if the president puts u. S. Troops into hostilities without a congressional authorization, any member of congress can file a resolution to remove the u. S. Troops from hostilities and force a vote on that resolution within a prompt period of time. That is the resolution that senator durbin and i filed last friday. President trump has engaged the u. S. In hostilities with iran. We all have different points of view about whether thats a good thing or bad thing. But now that there are battlefield casualties on both the u. S. And iranian sides, it is clear that this provision of the statute has been met, that were engaged in hostilities with iran. Not only are the u. S. And iran engaged in hostilities that have inflicted casualties, but the president is acknowledging that there were hostilities because he is sending war powers notices to congress, one in november and one last saturday, reporting on his actions and saying that the reports are consistent with the war powers act. He recognizes that hostilities are you understand way. Are under way. The current hostilities are not pursuant to too a previously passed congressional authorization. The 2001 authorization for use of military force authorized military action against the perpetrators of the 9 11 attack. Iran was not a perpetrator of the 9 11 attack and there is no argument that they are covered by that authorization. There was a separate authorization passed by congress in 2002. Thats the most recent one thats been passed and it authorized action to topple the Iraqi Government<\/a> of saddam hussein. That government is long gone. Long gone. And that authorization does not permit attacks on iran or on the current iraqi leadership, such as the individuals who were killed in the two sets of u. S. Strikes. So with these two threshold questions met hostilities are under way as defined by the war powers act and theyre not subject to a previously congressional authorization weve now filed an authorization to get congress to reassert its constitutional role. The resolution demands that the u. S. Forces be withdrawn from hostilities against iran unless unless congress affirmatively passes a declaration of war or authorization or the United States<\/a> needs to defend itself from an imminent attack. If my resolution passes, congress would still have the ability to pass an authorization, if it chose to, and the use would still be able to defend and the United States<\/a> would still be able to defend itself against imminent attack. But the president could not act on his own to start a war with iran except in those circumstances. The resolution does not require that u. S. Troops withdraw from the region. We are doing many things in the region, thousands of americans are there partaking in missions that increase the security of the United States<\/a> and our allies. Theres no requirement that with withdraw from the region. These missions include securing cooperation with partner forces, fighting against elements of al qaeda and isis and the taliban, ensuring the safe passage of commercial vehicles through freedom of navigation operations. All those activities that are being conducted by the United States<\/a> in the region can continue. The resolution does not call those forces into question or question their mission. The only thing the resolution would accomplish, if passed, is to back the United States<\/a> troops away from engagement in hostilities with iran unless for imminent defense or pursuant to a separate authorization. I would hope to have the support of all my colleagues on this resolution. Its passage would preserve the option of u. S. Military action for selfdefense. It would preserve the ability of congress to preserve war, pass a war authorization. It would only prohibit this president or any president from taking us to war on his own. I heard one colleague say the last thing America Needs<\/a> is 535 commanders in chief. I completely agree. Once Congress Authorizes<\/a> a war, it should be up to the commander and the military leadership to wage that war and make the tactical decisions about how to fight it. But the question of whether we should be at war at all is one that is specifically left to congress. Let me finish, madam president , again by focusing on our troops. So many members of the military were home for the holidays enjoying time with their families, and then received surprise notices that they must redeploy to the middle east yet again. Imagine the cost of two decades of war on these troops and their families. Some of these folks have deployed over and over and over again. And imagine being at home at christmas and receiving the notice that you have to deploy yet again to the middle east. Were living in a challenging time. Many americans know nothing but permanent war. Weve been at war since 2001, and there are americans, including americans in the military, thats been their whole life. Thats all that they know. And yet at the same time Many Americans<\/a> know nothing about war because we have an allvoluntary service. Many American Families<\/a> are completely untouched by the war. Only 1 of our Adult Population<\/a> serves in the military. So we have an interesting dynamic that may be sort of unique to our history, whether weve been at war for 20 years and some only know permanent war while many other American Families<\/a> know nothing about war because members of their families dont serve in the military. Weve put war on a footing where it can go on forever, sort of like on executive auto pilot by president ial order, and congress, in my view and again, this is bipartisan has hidden from its responsibilities. At this moment a very grave danger where both americans and iranians are losing their life in hostilities. Its time for congress to shoulder the burden of making the most important decision that we will ever face, and that is why i intend to bring this resolution to the floor of the senate and ask my colleagues to debate and vote on it in the coming weeks. With that, madam president , i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll quorum call a senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from massachusetts. Mr. Markey madam president , i ask for a vitiation of the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Markey i thank you, madam president. Madam president , i ask unanimous consent that omar ba sheer, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Markey thank you, madam president , very much. Madam president , members of the senate, i rise first to express my great concern over President Trump<\/a>s recent actions and words that have brought us to the brink of an unauthorized war with iran. Today i am introducing a resolution with senator warren and senators leahy and reed and booker and wyden thats very simple, because on saturday President Trump<\/a> tweeted that his administration is targeting 52 sites, some of which are cultural sites treasured by the iranian people. My resolution is very simple. It says that attacks on cultural sites in iran are war crimes. Its as straightforward as that. The president would compound the mistake which he has made and turn it into something that could be catastrophic for that region, for our country, for the world. President trumps repeated threats to add iranian cultural sites to his military target list is a betrayal of american values. It is wrong, it is a needless escalation which ignores International Law<\/a>, and the defense departments own policies. Attacking cultural sites is a violation of International Law<\/a>. Article 53 of protocol 1 to the geneva conventions prohibits any act of hostility against cultural objects, including making cultural sites the target of reprisals. The 1954 Hague Convention<\/a> for the protection of Cultural Property<\/a> in the event of Armed Conflict<\/a> which has been ratified by this body also prohibits the attack or destruction of cultural sites. And attacking cultural sites would also violate the defense departments own policies. The department of defense law of war manual states that, quote, Cultural Property<\/a>, the areas immediately surrounding it and appliances and use for its protection should be safeguarded and respected. The fact that President Trump<\/a>s threatened attacks of cultural sites in iran violate International Law<\/a> and department of defense policies may be why yesterday defense secretary mark esper appeared forced to contradict the president when asked if cultural sites would be targeted, as the president had suggested over the weekend, secretary esper stated that the United States<\/a> follows the laws of Armed Conflict<\/a>. Well, the United States<\/a> senate then should speak clearly with one voice to tell President Trump<\/a> that it does not condone attacks on cultural sites in iran. And given secretary espers comments yesterday, i cannot see why my friends on the other side of the aisle would not support this resolution to make that statement very clear and to make it now, before iran potentially retaliates against us and the president begins to select the targets inside of iran. Because attacking cultural sites is what isis does. Its what al qaeda does. Its what the worlds most heinous terrorists do. Theres no excuse for the president to threaten war crimes by intentionally targeting the cultural sites of another country. This is not who we are. Were the United States<\/a> of america. We are better than this. We actually fight against this. We condemn isis. We condemn others who destroy the culturally sacred objects in other countries. And just a few years ago, in 2017, the Trump Administration<\/a> itself opposed and condemned the unlawful destruction of Cultural Heritage<\/a> at the hands of isis. As a top u. S. Official to the United Nations<\/a>, u. S. Deputy permanent representative to the u. N. Ambassador Michelle Sisson<\/a> said on the president s behalf, quote, the unlawful destruction or trafficking of Cultural Heritage<\/a> is deplorable. We unequivocal oppose it and we will take all feasible steps to halt, limit, and to discourage it. But now the president himself is threatening to engage in exactly these sorts of illegal and reprehensible attacks on iran. Well, the United States<\/a>, it had a choice to make back in world war ii. Because our military kept putting japans ancient capital kyoto back on the target list for the atomic bomb. Kyoto is home to more than 2,000 buddhist temples, shinto shrines, including 17 World Heritage<\/a> sites. It was secretary of war, henry stimson, who went directly to president truman to argue that kyoto should be removed because, quote, the bitterness which would be caused by such a wanton act might make it impossible during the long postwar period to reconcile the japanese to us. So if we want any ultimate reconciliation with iran, we cannot allow donald trump to order the destruction of the cultural history of iran, so that reconciliation may never be possible. Imagine just imagine the outcry the American People<\/a> would have if our symbols of Cultural Heritage<\/a> were destroyed. The statue of liberty destroyed. Independence hall with the declaration of independence and the constitution were drafted destroyed. The memorials along the National Mall<\/a> destroyed. These places house and embody our collective history and the culture of the United States<\/a> of america. The assassination of general soleimani was a massive, deliberate, and dangerous escalation of conflict with iran. On what conditions prompt us to go to war the United States<\/a> constitution and the war powers act leave little ambiguity. The congress and not the president has the power to make or authorize the war. The congress has the authority to determine when and how we go to war. We cannot and must not get drawn into a costly war with iran. We need to deescalate now. But President Trump<\/a>s threats to illegally attack culture sites in iran only align us with the worlds most sinister and draw us further along the path to war. Now some might say, well, secretary of defense esper says that President Trump<\/a> will not do this. With let me read you well, let me read you President Trump<\/a>s tweet at 5 52 p. M. On saturday evening. Heres what he said. Targeted 52 iranian sites, some at a very high level and important to iran. The iranian culture and those targets in iran itself will be hit very fast and very hard. Thats the president of the United States<\/a>, just saturday night, 5 52 p. M. And were supposed to be assured by secretary of defense esper that we dont have to worry . Well, heres what weve learned in just the last couple of days. The generals were stunned the generals were shocked that President Trump<\/a> ordered the assassination of soleimani. So we cant depend upon the representations of secretary esper. We have to make a statement ourselves, because no one in his administration controls donald trump. If he says that hes going to target the most valuable cultural sites inside of iran, we should believe him. He does what he says hes going to do. He wanted to kill soleimani, even if the generals were shocked . He does it. He doesnt understand the longterm consequences from his perspective . Just get over it. Well, were going to reap the whirlwind in iran. If the president decides to take the next step after iran retaliates and they say that they are, and these sacred culture sites are on the list, then taking secretary stimsons advice from world war ii, our ability to ever reconcile may be impossible. So this is the moment that we have to speak as a senate, because we do not know how much time will elapse before iran strikes back at us, as they have promised. We should make our statement right now to donald trump in the oval office. That we do not want him, under any circumstances, to order the destruction of the most sacred cultural sites signed of iran. Inside of iran. It would be a war crime. It would be in violation of the geneva convention, it would be in violation of the Hague Convention<\/a>, and it would have catastrophic consequences for our country and for the middle east for a generation. So this is the time for us to speak before it happens, before the president fulfills his promise to destroy those sites. He is the commander in chief. He said he wants to do this. He just killed, assassinated the top military official, the second most powerful person in iran, to the shock of his own generals. So do not think for a second he will not do this. This is a potential tragedy for our country. This is a potential source of eternal friction between our two countries. Reconciliation with iran would become nearly impossible, so lets make this statement as the United States<\/a> senate. Lets follow up on what secretary of defense esper represents as the position of President Trump<\/a>, of the administration, that they dont want to destroy it. But lets take make the statement because we know that the defense secretary just may not speak for donald trump. No one speaks for donald trump. Only his tweets speak for donald trump. And we know what his tweets said. Very high level and important to iran. The iranian culture and those targets in iran itself will be hit very fast and very hard. We have a chance here to make a statement before this happens. Forewarned is forearmed. We have been forewarned. A and our ability to act is a unanimous resolution here from the floor of the United States<\/a> senate saying to the president , as secretary stimson said to president truman in 1945, do not do this, mr. President. It will be a mistake of historic proportions and a war crime. Do not order a war crime to be conducted in the name of the American People<\/a>. So the resolution, which i bring out here to the floor, is intended to have this body vote and vote unanimously for him not to take that action. This is our moment to speak before he compounds his original mistake an assassination of general soleimani and turns it into a tragedy, which we will have to live with for a generation. So, madam president , as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. Con. Res. 32 submitted earlier today, and i further ask that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer is there objection . Mr. Inhofe mr. President , reserving the right to object the presiding officer the senator from oklahoma. Mr. Inhofe you know, i sit here and listen to this and a lot of American People<\/a> do, too. And my good friend from massachusetts has said things here that i know he actually believes. He actually believes it. So here we are with the president of the United States<\/a>, who has given us with the over the objections of the gentleman my friend from massachusetts the best economy weve had maybe in my lifetime you could argue that. Hes been able to do this two ways. One was a way that was designed first by a democrat, by john kennedy, when he said the best way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal rates. We reduced marginal rates and it worked. Unfortunately, president kennedy died after that. Then we have the judges right now that are taking place. We have right now i think were just over 170 judges. The unique thing about this, these are judges who are really constitutional judges. Theyve actually read the constitution. Thats a unique notion. And then the military and again, its hard to sit sheer and listen to its a hard to sit here and listen to someone should has that level you hear so much hatred about this breadth. But hes getting so many great things done. If you look at the military, not many people know this. I chaired the Senate Armed Services<\/a> committee. I know a little bit about it. And we know that during the Obama Administration<\/a>, during the last four years this would have been from 2010 to 2015 that he reduced the budget for the military by 25 , using constant dollars. Thats never happened before. Even after world war i and world war ii when those reductions took place, this was even more than that. At a time when you could argue it is the most dangerous thyme in history. So here the president has been responsible for that and yet theres so much hatred out there, and then the issue at hand now, the subject of the gentlemans document, is rather interesting. Hes talking about culture sites. I can remember in the very beginning of the Obama Administration<\/a>, he went out of his way to protect cultural sites. You talk to people in different religions, minority religions in different countries, and they talk about what hes done to protect minority sites and churches that have been torn down, so heres a guy, our president , whos been right in the middle of the very thing that hes been accused of offending. So i ask that the lines that line one noted that secretary esper has made it quite clear that the United States<\/a> will follow the laws of the Armed Conflict<\/a>. He will. I know him well. Ive known him for many, many years. I. I heard him say it himself. Along these linings i note that expect esper has made it quite clear that the United States<\/a> will follow the laws of Armed Conflict<\/a>. I, therefore, appreciate the spirit of senator markeys resolution opposing attacks on cultural sites. I agree with that. However, since our votes carry the force of law, we need to be specific in our resolutions, and its simply not true that attacking cultural sites is always a war crime, because there are many instances in which cultural sites have been used as staging grounds for hostilities. We all know that. I can give examples. There isnt time for that. As president clinton noted in his message to the senate when he sent the hague Cultural Property<\/a> convention over for ratification almost exactly 21 years ago on january 6, 1999 and im quoting from it now a Cultural Property<\/a> is protected from intentional attacks so long aces it is not being used for military tear purposes for otherwise may be regarded as a military objective. Misuse may subject such property to attack. Thats a direct quote. That was from president clinton. And to be clerks im not saying that we should target cultural sites. We should not restrict any of our militarys ability to defend itself when rogue actors appropriate cultural sites for a strategic reason. To use the use of a cultural site to the construct i. E. D. s, or give snipers cart branch, is not accounted for in this resolution. I therefore object to this resolution on those grounds and hope that the resolution will be amended to acknowledge an exception for when cultural sites are used for staging military attacks or other improper purposes. I object. The presiding officer objection is heard. The senator from massachusetts. Mr. Markey madam president , i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be referred to the appropriate committee. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Markey madam president , just in response to the senator from oklahoma, it is deeply disheartening when on the floor of the United States<\/a> senate we cannot agree to a simple commitment that the United States<\/a> of america should never engage in military actions that are war crimes by attacking cultural sites in iran. When isis attacks cultural sites in the middle east, we condemn that because we know what the impact on the cultures of those countries will be. When al qaeda attacked us on september 11, 2001, which targets did they select in they selected the world trade center, the symbol of capitalism in the United States<\/a>. They selected the pentagon, the symbol of our defense. And but for those brave passengers on that plane in pennsylvania, when they said lets roll, that target could have been the Capitol Building<\/a> of the United States<\/a> of america where we are standing right now. The symbol of democracy. They knew what they were doing. They were striking at capitalism, at our defense department, and at democracy. And they knew what the impact would have been on our country. And so we have a choice to make right now out here on the floor of the United States<\/a> senate. And that is to make a statement before we do that to the iranians, because we ourselves experienced it and we know what our reaction was. They will rise up in a way that will make it impossible to reconcile. We will be in eternal war in the middle east. So my request to the members is to have this resolution come back out here on the floor. I understand the gentlemans objection. But the president could be ordering additional retaliatory strikes against the ierns against the iranians within a week if the iranians are good for their word that they are going to hit us. And we have to ensure that if the president does act, he does so in a way that does not commit a war crime, that does not destroy these culturally significant parts of the iranian culture that go back thousands of years. It would be something that ultimately would be catastrophic. We are better than this. We are the United States<\/a> of america. President trump has already made one mistake in assassinating general soleimani. We should not allow him to compound that. Mr. Inhofe may i be recognized for a parliamentary inquiry . The presiding officer does the senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry . Mr. Markey i do. Mr. Inhofe are we in morning business . The presiding officer we are not. Mr. Inhofe i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of my friend from massachusetts that i be recognized for such time as i may consume. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection,so ordered. Mr. Markey madam president. The presiding officer the senator from massachusetts. Mr. Markey i yield back. The presiding officer the senator yields. The senator from oklahoma. Mr. Inhofe madam president , five days ago President Trump<\/a> made a, i guess the boldest defensive policy decision of his presidency to date. He authorized the air strike against the leader of irans quds force, soleimani, in accordance with his authorities as commander in chief of the United States<\/a> under article 2 of the constitution. Now lets remember who soleimani was. He was a terrorist. He was responsible for training and funding militias across the middle east, the very militias that have targeted american personnel at our facilities, our partners for decades. He was behind the plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador in washington. That was back in 2011. Hes been doing this for a long time now. He was responsible for the brutal repression of democratic protests within iran. The terrorist groups that he armed and trained attacked our partners, including israel. Some of the people out there are more focused on criticizing President Trump<\/a> for taking out soleimani than they are about protecting american diplomats and american troops. Conveniently forgetting that soleimani is the architect of irans terrorism and is responsible for over 600 american deaths during the iraq war. You think about how bad it doesnt get any worse than that. We hear a lot about recently and im very happy that this president was able to put together something to take out a baghdadi, but this guy was worse than al bag bad did i albaghdadi, even worse than bin laden. They think it was reckless and represents a rush to war. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just remember how we got where we are today. Remember the obama apology tour. I remember it well. When they first came into office, he went to adversaries and friends alike talking about how bad america was. We remember that. It was a changing, a game changer for our behavior throughout the world at that time. First american credibility hit an alltime low under the Obama Administration<\/a>. President obama set a red line in syria. We all remember that. The red line in syria, that was because syria was using weapons of mass destruction. He had said, president obama had said if you continue to do that, well take you out, or words to that effect. Then the red line occurred when syria started dropping weapons of mass destruction on its own people there. Now that kind of, i think, changed the thinking of what america does, does and says and what they mean. To make matters worse, obama signed a deal with iran that didnt address irans support for terrorism at all which gave iran over 100 billion including 1. 7 billion in cash. That was a john kerry thing. That was when john kerry was the secretary of state and president obama was the president. And at that time 1. 7 billion was given to this terrorist group in small bills in foreign currency for obvious reasons. You dont have to stop and think that through. But then in addition, over 700 billion, and they even admitted at that time that that could be used to expand terrorist activities. One of the quotes in 2016 and i wrote it down and used it many times since then, and want you to listen to this, madam president. This is a quote from john kerry in 2016. He said i think that some of it will end up in the hands of the irgc or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. He also said im still quoting john kerry. You know, to some degree, im not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented. So is it any wonder that irans regional aggression has gotten bolder and bolder. Look whats happened in the last few months. In may this year the iranians attacked oil tankers with land mines. We know about that. In june they shot down a u. S. Drone, a United States<\/a> drone. By the way, the cost of that was classified for awhile. Its not classified any more except it is in excess of 100 million. Thats what they did. What did our president do . He sat back and he didnt, just didnt cause him to get all excited. He handled it in a very diplomatic way. Then in september they attacked the saudi oil fields, taking some 50 of the saudi arabias Oil Production<\/a> capability offline. President trump showed incredible restraint. After each one of these provocations, he responded by increasing pressure on iran, ramping up economic sanctions, increasing their diplomatic isolation, but not anything that would suggest getting into any type of violence at that time. But the president avoided military action while setting a very clear red line. And what was the red line . He said soleimani, slong as long as you dont kill an american. You kill an american, were going to come after you. Thats the red line, and thats the red line that 95 of the people in america agree with. On december 27 iran crossed that red line. Soleimani directed the attack and killed an american and wounded four other service members. President trump made it clear that there were consequences for spilling american blood. He said you kill an american, were going to come after you, and hes dead now. Now iran never believed there would be consequences after all. Obama never enforced his red line, and even President Trump<\/a> was hesitant to use military force. Only a day before the strike that killed soleimani irans Supreme Leader<\/a> tweeted at our president. In fact, you have to read this. This is a tweet that came from the president. That guy was tweeting that we see iran responsible for the events in baghdad and we will respond to iran. First, you cant do anything. This is the guy telling our president that you cant do anything. Thats a quote. The whole thing is a quote that came from him. They never believed that there would be consequences, but there were consequences. Only a day after the strike, he said you cant do anything. And were talking about irans Supreme Leader<\/a> tweeting our president of the United States<\/a>, you cant do anything. Well, obviously they know better now. President trump could and he did. His actions restored americas credibility around the world. He showed that we mean what we say. You tell me what is reckless. They talk about what is reckless. A president who means what he says and takes protection of american lives seriously or the fringe democrats who want to tie the president s hands and deny him the tools to uphold the constitutional responsibility to defend its citizens. There is right now before this senate, theres a resolution. Not the one that my friend from massachusetts was talking about, but another one that would take away a lot of president s powers of negotiation. Were talking about powers that are there as a result of article 2 of the constitution. Thats what our president has, those constitutional powers. Yet, the president and he did not use military force until they crossed the red line. And that is not a rush to war. Listen to folks like former democrat is not joe lieberman. Senator joe lieberman, i served here in the senate with him. He was a democrat. I have a quote. One of the quotes that he said just recently analyzing this, and of course he was in a position i dont recall but i think he was here probably more than 30 years. This is a quote from joe lieberman, democrat joe lieberman, former senator, quote, President Trump<\/a>s order to take out Qasam Soleimani<\/a> was morally, constitutionally, and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow democrats. Thats a quote. And then we have another quote about the same time frame, just recently. Listen to, it was obamas secretary of Homeland Security<\/a>. I got to know him. His name is jeh johnson. He is the one who was eminently qualified for that position and did a good job when he was there. But this is what he said about the action with soleimani that the president is being accused all these terrible things about from this secretary of Homeland Security<\/a> under president obama, jeh johnson. He said, quote, he was a lawful military objective, and the president under his Constitutional Authority<\/a> as commander in chief had ample domestic Legal Authority<\/a> to take him out without an additional congressional authorization, whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in attacks against our people. He was a lawful military objective. Everything was perfectly appropriate that this president did. And these are two prominent democrats that have come out with this. You know, there are a lot of people out there that are pretty fed up with whats been going on. I keep hearing that somethings going to happen this week in terms of the, of all the accusations that have been made. And i dont know. I have a personal opinion that a lot of people dont agree with, im sure. I dont think even the speaker knows right know just whats going to happen. Are the articles going to come over . I think a lot of her farleft friends are saying, yeah, lets go over there, lets continue this thing. Lets continue beating up the president. But she also has a bunch of her liberal friends who are saying, look, the polls dont look too good. People are on to this thing, and they realize that there is a, maybe we shouldnt be sending them at all. Well find out tomorrow. I understand there is a big democratic meeting. Im not invited. But there is one over in the house and theyre going to make a determination, well all find out at that time whats going to happen to the articles of impeachment. Again, a lawful military objective, one President Trump<\/a> took out under article 2 authority. More to the point, nobody is talking about war. Nobody is calling for an invasion. Nobody is calling for a rampup. We all know what that looks like here. Its very plainly not what is happening. An air strike is not war. Defending american lives is not war. The president has made it clear that he does not desire war, which is why he has continued to call for negotiations with iran to end the standoff. And thats the very thing that some people are trying to take away from him. It is not just a constitutional right. Its a constitutional responsibility. So nobody here wants war. But at the same time nobody should want a policy that would leave americans vulnerable to the whims of irans terrorist supporting regime. If we do that, if we tie the president s hands so that he cannot defend american lives, we leave ourselves more vulnerable and, therefore, make war infinitely more likely. Thats how reckless he is not. So i just would the would be anxious for this time period to get by so we dont have to face this on a daily basis. And, with that, i yield the floor. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from arkansas. Mr. Boozman thank you, mr. President. Today i rise to recognize members of the greatest generation who courageously helped defeat the german army at the battle of the bulge and dealt a critical blow to the nazi regime. On this day 75 years ago, american soldiers continued the resilience they demonstrated for four weeks. The forest of the the luks allied forces were unprepared, they were outnumbered and facing recordlow temperatures and dwindling supplies. Still the men on the front lines dug in to defend against the enemy. Arkansan bill strauss was one of the brave men who faced the bitter cold. With lack of sleep and shortage of food, he and his fellow troops endured this extreme test of will be resolve. I met with bill in 2019 to help him sell operate his 100th birthday and thank him force his service and continued commitment to sharing his experiences with others. Its been 75 years, but bills recollection of the details of the unimaginable circumstances he faced was still very clear. He talks about his memories as part of the battle of the bulge in order to honor his fellow soldiers who werent so fortunate as well as teach succeeding generations about the realities of war and the remarkable perseverance of american troops. The sixweek battle demonstrated the commitment, courage, and resilience of bill and all american soldiers. It was the largest battle ever fought by the u. S. Army, british Prime Minister<\/a> Winston Churchill<\/a> called it the greatest American Battle<\/a> of the war. It came at a considerable cost. More than 89,000 american soldiers were casualties including 19,000 soldiers killed, 24,500 wounded and 2,300 captured or missing in action. The people of belgium have a close place in their heart for american soldiers who sacrificed their lives on foreign soil. They continue to display that gratitude today. A couple of weeks ago i led a group of my fellow senators of both countries to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge, we observed how they observe this anniversary. The Community Support<\/a> was welcoming of americans whose fate brought together in 1944 there in the town and in the nearby forest to defend baston and hold off the german advance. I was honored to be there with americans who fought in the battle. There are fewer and fewer who were able to join, but that doesnt diminish what they did there or the steadfast way they fought and sacrificed in the name relief freedom. My colleagues and i are also had the unique opportunity to witness a ceremony among the fox halls in belgium. These foxholes occupied by soldiers, including easy company, the celebrated band of brothers book, remain preserve. They stand as a stark reminder of the bitter cold and inhospitable conditions our soldiers with stood for so many days. This solemn ceremony was a special way to remember those who had fought and honor those whose lives were taken too early. Following world war ii, they built a memorial to show their appreciation of the selfless sacrifice of american troops. The walls of the starshaped structure commemorate the battle paying tribute to the units that fought there and representing the states where those wounded or whose lives were lost hailed from. This memorial is in need of repairs, thats why i support legislation that senator tillis introduced that would let experts at the American Battle<\/a> Monuments Commission<\/a> oversee its restoration. Maintaining this memorial is critical to ensuring making sure that what the monument stands for, the service, the sacrifice made by americans at the battle of the bulge will be continued to be remembered for generations to come. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill so future generations are reflect on the heroism and bravery of our troops. We can be proud of the unwavering bravery of the American Service<\/a> members and the allied forces whose efforts defeated the german attack and led to the end of the nazi regime. It is fitting we recognize the 75th anniversary of the battle that both shaped the future of combat and ushered in a new era of comity between europe and the United States<\/a>. And, with that, mr. President , i yield the floor. A senator the senator from rhode island. Mr. Whitehouse mr. President , may i first thank the senator from arkansas for his wonderful remarks. We had a similar celebration in rhode island with those who were at the battle of the bulge and recounted their stories and joined by state leaders and crowed of admirers. And it was a wonderful moment and memory. I thank him for calling it up on the senate floor. Here we are, mr. President , 2020, and i am still coming to the floor to try to wake this chamber up to the perils of Climate Change<\/a>. Pathetic. Why do i have to be doing another one of these speeches . Why dont we heed the warnings of our foremost scientists, of our military, of top financial institutions, heck, of our own home state universities . What does it take to get our attention around here . Why is the fossil fuel industrys unlimited dark money still flooding our politics . Why are the biggest lobbying forces in washington, like the u. S. Chamber of commerce, rated as americas worst climate obstructers . Where are those trade groups members who claim to support Climate Action<\/a> when their own groups are leading the obstruction . What is going on . And who around here is so cynical as to still take fossil fuel money and block Climate Action<\/a> . How in 2020 is that a legitimate deal . Who hasnt noticed the world spinning toward climate catastrophe, the forests burning, the seas rising, the ocean water acidifying, the glaciers melting . How could you miss that . To the liars and the deniers and stooges, i predict 2020 is going to be a bad year for you. The sand beneath your castle of lies is eroding fast. 2019, that was a tough year for you. 2020 will be worse. We were going to bring down your we are going to bring down your castle of lies. The fossil fuel fossil fuel fossil fuel campaign of obstruction hides behind an armada of phony front groups. 2020, we will out you and your fossil fuel funding too. Big Oil Companies<\/a> who pretend to want progress while still using that climate denial and obstruction apparatus to attack the very progress you claim to want, that truth we will out, we will expose your twofacedness. The fossil fuel industry spoons up the biggest subsidy in the history of the planet. The International Monetary<\/a> fund estimates their global subsidy in the trillions of dollars every year, globally. In the United States<\/a> alone, the fossil fuel industry was subsidized to the tune of 650 billion in 2015, the last year that the i. M. F. Has calculated. We will out that massive subsidy and your dark money schemes to protect it. The fossil fuel industrys biggest schemers against Climate Action<\/a> in congress are the big corporate trade associations. The worst two, the u. S. Chamber of commerce and the National Association<\/a> of manufacturers. The watchdog influence map outed in the chamber a virtual tie as the two most obstructive forces on Climate Change<\/a> in america. Some prize. The Chamber Works<\/a> its evil in legislation through regulatory action, in courts, in elections, even fighting statelevel progress on carbon pollution. The chamber funded the phony debunk report that President Trump<\/a> used to disparage the Paris Agreement<\/a>. The chamber stooged for the fossil fuel industry for years and got away with it. 2019 saw an end to that. My colleagues and i took to social media, to oped pages and to the senate floor to out the chamber for its disgraceful record on Climate Change<\/a>. We pushed on Chamber Members<\/a> to demand change within the organization. We countered the chamber with amicus briefs laying out its dirty history when its evil little head popped up in climate law suits. Senator warren and i lodged a complain with the clerk of the house and the secretary of the senate over the chambers refusal to disclose who is behind the lobbying activities, discan closures, by the way, required by law. Senators even got hashtag chamber of carbon trending on twitter. And i made a little yearend visit to the chamber to make for no charge a little correction to their sign out front so that it says, welcome to the u. S. Chamber of carbon. So weve been after them, and by years end, there were signs of discomfort over at the chamber. Up popped a post on its website that said that on climate, inaction is not an option. For years inaction had been a purpose, now they say its not an option. The chamber formed a new Climate Change<\/a> working group. The chamber of carbon even quietly posted that it reversed itself on the Paris Agreement<\/a> and now was for staying in. Okay, baby steps, but in the right direction. I think the chamber and naam became the two worst climate obstructors because they were paid to with fossil fuel dark money, and in 2020 i intend to find that out. If the chamber is still taking fossil fuel money, its hard to take those baby steps very seriously. They are probably just p. R. To placate the Chamber Members<\/a> who are embarrassed that their organization got caught and outed as a top climate obstructer. And for that prize, by the way, Chamber Members<\/a> have a lot to be embarrassed about. All state, metlife, i. B. M. , fedex, bayer, ford motors, united airlines, delta, american, they all funded and directed a top climate obstructer. Really . Did they know it . Did they know the chamber, their own organization was secretly getting fossil fuel money to become a top climate obstructer . If they did know, by god theyve got some explaining to do. If they did not know, what standard of governance makes it okay for a board member to not even know whos funding your organization . So lookout, board members. Were not legal that go either. 2020 is the year we intend to get to the bottom of all of this nasty mess. The real test for the chamber, not baby steps, the real test for the chamber will be whether it puts its back into passing a real comprehensive climate bill. Will the chamber stop scheming with climate denial organizations . Will the chamber stop opposing Climate Action<\/a> candidates . Those are the tests. This, by the way, is not a p. R. Test. Its not a p. R. Test of how little you can get away with. This is a science test. Its a science test of how we keep our planet below 1. 5 degrees celsius global warming. If we fail the science test, how well we did on the p. R. Test is going to look pretty silly. So help us meet that 1. 5 degrees celsius. Well be talking gladly. I look forward to working with you. But until then, expect the pressure on you to rise in 2020. We called out one other miscreant in 2019, marathon petroleum. This gasoline refiner orchestrated the trump attack on fuel economy standards for automobiles. As i laid out in testimony in a House Oversight<\/a> subcommittee hearing last year, marathon pressured members of congress, governors, and the Trump Administration<\/a> and the corrupt Trump Administration<\/a> was only too eager to oblige issuing an errorriddled proposal to freeze the fuel economy standards. The Trump Administration<\/a> went after californias authority under the Clean Air Act<\/a> to set fuel standards. Trumps d. O. J. Cooked up a bogus antitrust investigation i believe to punish the automakers that had worked with california to hammer out a separate deal on fuel economy standards that defeated marathons scheme. It looks like the Trump Administration<\/a> also pressured automakers to support the administrations legal battle with california. 2020 is the year i hope we expose all this. In 2019 investors started noticing marathons bad behavior on climate. In fact, in september 200 investors with 6. 5 trillion, 6. 5 trillion in assets under management sent a letter to 47 u. S. Companies including marathon to urge those companies to align their lobbying with the Paris Agreement<\/a> 2 degrees celsius climate goal and to warn that their lobbying against that goal is an investment risk. Well, the your biggest shareholders in marathon are black rock, j. P. Morgan, state street, and vanguard. They claim to care about climate. We will see in 2020 if they keep condoning all this marathon misbehavior. Happily there are some things the crooked fossil fuel industry apparatus cant stop. Even with its massive subsidy for fossil fuel, renewables are starting to win on price. New Green Energy Technologies<\/a> are powering up like offshore wind and battery storage, electric vehicles are driving costs down and performance up for consumers. Old coal plants are closing 546 closed since 2010. New coal plants are unfinancable. And 2019 saw Murray Energy<\/a> become the eighth coal company in a year to file for bankruptcy and the biggest drop in coal consumption ever. Another trend the industry couldnt stop was economists, central bankers, wall street, real estate professionals, and Asset Managers<\/a> waking up to the crash risks that Climate Change<\/a> poses to the global economy. Its not just that its recking our atmosphere and oceans and climate. Our economy stands on those pillars. And at some point there will be economic crashes. Climate crash warnings used to be scarce. Now theyre everywhere. Freddie mac warns that rising sea levels will prompt a crash in Coastal Property<\/a> values worse than the housing crash that caused the 2008 financial cris crisis. First Street Foundation<\/a> found that rising seas have already resulted in 16 billion in lost Property Values<\/a> in coastal homes from maine to mississippi. Moodies warns that climate risk will trigger downgrades in coastal communities bond ratings. Black rock estimated that by the end of the century, Climate Change<\/a> will cause coastal communities annual losses that could average up to 15 of local g. D. P. , average up to 15 of local g. D. P. With the hardest hit communities hit far worse. Look out, florida. And by the way, louisiana is not too far from florida. The bank of england, the bank of france, the bank of canada, European Central<\/a> bank backed by toptier review papers are all warning of systemic economic risk, system economic risk is economist speak for a risk to the entire economy. Systemic economic risk from stranded fossil fuel assets, the socalled carbon asset bubble. On top of that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission<\/a> here in the u. S. Has launched a climate risk review. Even the trump fed is starting to echo those warnings with reports out of local federal basks, Federal Reserve<\/a> banks. And its not just big institutions that are grasping the risks of Climate Change<\/a>. I visited louisiana, wyoming, and colorado last year to hear about Climate Change<\/a>. And see what red and purple state americans are doing about it. And the answer is plenty. In louisiana Sea Level Rise<\/a> and subdance are mega threats. A meant a hunter and fisherman whose personal efforts to restore marshlands have let his lands rebound. Over 30 species of birds just while we were standing around were counted waiting to board the boat. The sights and sounds of a healthy marsh were an encouraging reminder of natures ability to find a way to not only survive but to flourish if we give her a chance. In wyoming, well, dont get me wrong. Climate change isnt always a popular subject in wyoming. The state is basically run by the fossil fuel industry. But there i met a Younger Generation<\/a> that really gets it. I will not forget the determination of leading Winter Sports<\/a> athletes in jackson fighting to preserve their winters. Nor in lander, the impassioned argument for Climate Action<\/a> from a young outdoor instructor from noeknowles nor out at their campsite, the firelit passionate faces of Central Wyoming College<\/a> students on their way up to take glacier measurements, who well understand the stakes of Climate Change<\/a> for their future and the future of the state that they love. Typically these climate road trips that i do land me in states where the fight for Climate Change<\/a> may need a little, say, boost. But the opposite was true in colorado. Its a state on a major climate winning streak. A spate of good climate bills passed during the last legislative session. Their biggest public utility, transitions to renewable energy, building impressive renewable electric vehicle infrastructure. And leading Research Institutes<\/a> bringing new renewable Energy Technologies<\/a> to the marketplace. 2019 also showed polling that showed Climate Action<\/a> was becoming a top issue for American Voters<\/a> everywhere. A big part is young voters and especially young republicans. More than threefourths of all millennials and a majority of millennial republicans agree on the need for Climate Action<\/a>. Last year a Republican Former<\/a> member of congress wrote about Climate Change<\/a>. My party will never earn the votes of millennials unless it gets serious about finding solutions. And its not just younger voters. Americans of all innings and of all ages and political stripes favor many of the solutions that scientists and economists say are needed to tackle Climate Change<\/a>. In october 2019, pew poll found that twothirds of americans believe the federal government needs to do more to combat Climate Change<\/a>. The same poll showed 77 of americans believe the u. S. Ought to prioritize developing alternative energy over fossil fuels. So the decadeslong fossil fuel campaign of obstruction and lies and denial wont be tolerated much longer. In new england in the springtime, a moment comes when the roof of your house warms up enough to send the snow sliding down off the roof in a big woof. The snow may have piled up slowly over weeks and months but it comes down all at once in a woomf. The fossil fuel energy and its network of front groups and trade associations have spent years piling up their crooked apparatus of climate obstructi obstruction. Increasingly, their evil behavior is facing blow back from the public and from regulators and from investors. Alarm bells are ringing ever louder from all quarters about the economic risks. Renewable energy and other Green Technologies<\/a> are ever more cost competitive. Awareness of Climate Change<\/a> danger is ever growing among the American People<\/a>. These are all signs of the thaw, the woomf is near. 2020 could be the moment. Mr. President , i know things in washington can seem hopeless but 2019 gave me some reasons to hope and for 2020, well, its game on. To tear down the crooked castle of climate denial and solve this problem while still we can. I yield the floor. Mr. White house mr. President , i note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk shall call the roll. Quorum call quorum call quorum call quorum call quorum call mr. Mcconnell madam president. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, at 11 00 a. M. Tomorrow, the senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the executive calendar numbers 329, 462, and 525, in the order listed. Further, if cloture is invoked on the nominations, all postcloture time be expired at 5 00 p. M. Tomorrow, and the senate vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed with no intervening action or debate. Finally, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senates action. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to legislative session. The presiding officer the question is on the motion. All in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 554. The presiding officer the question is on the motion. All in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination, executive office of the president , paul j. Wray of tennessee to be administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs, office of management and budget. Mr. Mcconnell i send a cloture motion to the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report the motion. The clerk cloture motion. We, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, on the nomination of paul j. Wray of tennessee to be medicare of the office of information and regulatory affairs, office of management and budget. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 00 a. M. Wednesday, january 8. Further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business 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, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the solomson nomination under the previous order. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell so 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 senator brown. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell and finally i i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Mr. Brown madam president. The presiding officer the senator from ohio. Mr. Brown i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Brown thank you, madam president. Three and a half years ago or so, i heard i live in cleveland, and i was in my state watching the president ial campaign, and i heard candidate trump repeatedly talking about renegotiating nafta or getting rid of the north American Free<\/a> trade agreement. While i did not support his candidacy and have generally disagreed with most of what he has said and done, i it was a bit of music to my ears to hear candidate trump talk about renegotiating or getting rid of nafta because i have voted in my time in the senate and before this, every single trade agreement starting with the north American Free<\/a> trade agreement of twoplus decades ago, i voted no on these trade agreements. I have never voted for a trade agreement because, frankly, every trade agreement coming in front of the house or senate has been a corporate trade agreement. Its been written by corporate lobbyists to serve Corporate Executives<\/a> to serve their biggest stockholders. Thats what these trade agreements are about. In every case it was an attack on the middle class. In every case it undermined worker protections, depressed wages, meant loss of jobs. I know what these corporate trade agreements did to my hometown of mansfield, ohio. I know what they have done to my adopted city of cleveland, ohio. I know what they have done to the entire industrial midwest, well beyond that too in places like arizona and elsewhere. Ive seen what these corporate trade deals do. So the president of the United States<\/a>, candidate trump was elected president. He then says hes going to do away, either back out of nafta or renegotiate. And i looked at that with some optimism. I talked to the u. S. Trade rep a number of times, ambassador lighthizer. I spoke with the president about it. I offered my assistance. And then lo and behold about a year ago the president came out with the renegotiated nafta. It was the same old same old. It was another corporate trade agreement that served his corporate interests, that served the drug companies, that served those companies that are looking for cheap labor across the rio grande river. So under the president s new nafta, he called it usmca, United States<\/a>mexicocanada, under the president s new nafta, it was the same corporate template, the same corporate trade agreement that undermines, that helps corporate investors, that undermines workers, that gives incentives to companies to shut down production in zanesville, and in marietta and in cleveland and in lima and toledo and bryan and move their jobs to mexico. So what did we do . Instead initially i continued to talk to the u. S. Trade rep, some of my colleagues, knowing this draft was unacceptable. It was not nearly what the president said he would do for workers. In fact, it was more than that. It was another betrayal of workers. The same president thats betrayed lowincome workers by refusing to raise the minimum wage. Its been more than a decade. The same president that took away the overtime, the new overtime rule costing at least 50,000 ohioans. That is 50,000 in my state. Thousands in arizona. Tens of thousands, probably 100,000 in california. Tens of thousands around the country and different states costing them overtime pay, they would work 50 hours a week and only get paid for 40. We saw the president again is betraying workers. It has taken us months and amongst of fighting alongside Speaker Pelosi<\/a> and senator wyden, the senior democrat on the finance committee and unions to organize labor to secure the brownwyden provisions that now with usmca amount to the strongest labor enforcement in a u. S. Trade agreement ever. It means that wages will go up in mexico, which is good news for american workers, because fewer jobs will move to mexico. A worker in mexico now will be able to report a company that violates her labor rights or Worker Rights<\/a>. Within months we can determine whether Worker Rights<\/a> have been violated, can take action against that company. Now for the first time, madam president , in my whole career, i will vote for a trade agreement. I wouldnt have voted for the trump trade. I didnt vote for nafta and central American Free<\/a> trade agreement, pntr with china and all these other trade agreements. I would not have voted against the trump usmca because it didnt look out for workers. Instead of putting workers at the center of trade agreements, which is what we should do, it again put there was a trade agreement written by and for corporate interests. What senator wyden and i did and others is that we have now, were now about to pass a trade agreement that puts workers in the center of the trade agreement, meaning a stronger middle class, meaning workers will get a fair shake. It means that ohio workers will be able to compete. We know why companies took advantage of these corporate trade agreements. They shut down production in ohio and moved to mexico so they can pay lower wages, so they can take advantage of workers who dont have rights. American workers cant compete with that when its a race to the bottom on wages. Brownwyden will work to stop that, and for the first time ever, as i said, put workers in the center of a trade agreement. We must be straight with american workers. This isnt a perfect trade agreement. One trade deal the democrats fixed, even though the president resisted it, finally gave in, a trade deal a democrat fixed will not do undo the rest of policies that puts cormingses over workers, that supports corporations over workers, to support wall street over consumers. I voted yes, i voted yes today in finance committee, the first time i ever have on a trade deal, because by including brownwyden, democrats have made this agreement much more proworker, and equally as important, we set an important precedent that brownwyden must be included in every future trade agreement that comes in front of this body. Madam president , i yield the floor. The presiding officer under the previous order, the Senate Stands<\/a> adjourned until 10 00 a. M. Tomorrow. U. S. Canada trade agreement and the impeachment trial of donald trump. The house is yet to send the two articles of impeachment to the senate. For to decide on impeachment managers. Eventually, the senate will sit a sneak jury to hear the case against President Trump<\/a>. Follow the senate live on cspan2 would members gaveled back in. The impeachment of President Trump<\/a>. Continue to follow the process on cspan leading to a senate trial. Live unfiltered coverage on cspan. On demand at cspan. Org impeachment. And listen on the free cspan radio app. Our Live Campaign<\/a> 2020 coverage continues thursday at 7 00 p. M. Eastern with President Donald Trump<\/a> is the lead of ohio how to keep America Great<\/a> valley. Watch 11 cspan to ondemand as he its been on art. Artists on the go with a free cspan radio app. Campaign 2020, watch our continuing coverage of the president ial candidates on the campaign trail. Make up your mind. A sneak voting begins next month, watch our live coverage of the iowa caucuses. On monday, february 3rd. Cspan News Campaign<\/a> 2020. Your unfiltered view of politics. Next, Senate Majority<\/a> leader Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> and other Republican Leaders<\/a> speak to reporters at the capital about the upcoming legislative agenda. This is 15 minutes","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia802808.us.archive.org\/18\/items\/CSPAN2_20200107_191500_U.S._Senate_U.S._Senate\/CSPAN2_20200107_191500_U.S._Senate_U.S._Senate.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20200107_191500_U.S._Senate_U.S._Senate_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}