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

The president pro tempore the senate will come to order. The chaplain, dr. Black, will open the senate with prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Eternal god, you are high and lifted up, deliver us from estrangement or dissension. Teach our lawmakers to disagree with respect, civility, and humility. Lord, lead them into a deeper reverence for you and one another, as they remember that patriots reside on both sides of the aisle. May our senators celebrate the pleasure you receive when colleagues of faith dwell together in unity. Let the words of their mouths and the meditations of their hearts receive your divine approval. We pray in your merciful name. Amen. The president pro tempore please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Grassley madam president. The presiding officer the senator from a. M. Mr. Grassley could i address the senate for one minute in morning business . The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley i want to recognize democracy working in taiwan. On saturday the 23 million proud people of taiwan exercised their democratic right to select their own leaders. I congratulate their president on her reelection. I would also like to take this moment to congratulate all taiwanees for being a shining light amidst dark times in other parts of east asia and all of us remember whats been going on in hong kong for the last several months as they try to exercise just rights that the Chinese Government gave them in 1997 when they signed an agreement with the British Government turning back hong kong to china, and they would have the rights for the next 50 years to have the same democratic principles they had under the british empire. Despite continued intimidation by the Chinese Communist party across the taiwan straits, this proud island stood up to protect its democracy and sovereignty, and thats exemplified by the election saturday. Let us all congratulate the people of taiwan for their remarkable accomplishment and continue to work in this chamber to strengthen u. S. Taiwan relations. I yield the floor. Mr. Mcconnell madam president. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell tomorrow will be four weeks four weeks since House Democrats impeached the president of the United States with purely partisan support. Speaker pelosi and chairman schiff did not wait to fill out the factual record. They did not even wait to see their own subpoenas through the legal system. They plowed ahead for two reasons. They said impeachment was too urgent to wait too urgent to wait and they said they had already proven their case. But since then the House Democrats have spent four weeks contradicting both of those claims. They spent four weeks demonstrating through their actions that impeachment is actually not that urgent, not that urgent, and they do not actually have much confidence in their case. An arbitrary fourweek delay does not, madam president , show urgency. And these demands for the senate to precommit for opening the house investigation do not show confidence. Theres a reason why the house inquiry that led to president nixons resignation took 14 months of hearings in addition to the separate special prosecutor. Theres a reason why the clinton impeachment inquiry drew on years of prior investigation and mountains of testimony from firsthand fact witnesses. Thats because both of those houses of representatives knew they had to prove their case prove their case before submitting it to the senate for judgment. Both situations involved legal battles over executive privilege, extensive litigation both times not after a trial had been handed to the senate, but beforehand. When the case was actually being compiled. Mountains of evidence, mountains of testimony, long legal battles over privilege, and none of this discovery took place over here in the senate. The constitution gives the sole power of impeachment to the house. If a House Majority wants to impeach a president , the ball is in their court, but they have to do the work. They have to prove their case. Nothing, nothing in our history or our constitution says a House Majority can pass what amounts to a halfbaked censure resolution and then insist that the senate fill in the blanks. Theres no constitutional exception for a House Majority with a short attention span. Look, i think everyone knows this process has not been some earnest Factfinding Mission with House Democrats following each thread wherever it leads. The speaker of the house did not reluctantly decide to impeach after poring over secondhand impressions of civil servants. That was a predetermined political conclusion. Members of her conference had been publicly promising it literally for years. Thats why the investigation stopped long before the house had come anywhere near proving what they allege. They pulled the plug early because the facts were never the point. They were never the point. The point was to check a political box. For goodness sake, the very morning after the houses historic vote, Speaker Pelosi literally chastised reporters for asking too many questions about impeachment. She tried to change the subject to economic policy. She said any other questions . Anybody want to talk about the salt tax . Im not going to answer any more questions on this, referring to impeachment. Really . Really . You impeach a president of the United States, and the very next morning theres nothing to see here . Does that sound like a speaker of the house who really thinks that survival of the republic is on the line . Does anyone really think that if democrats truly believe the president of the United States was a criminal who was imperilling our country, they would have abandoned the search for evidence because they didnt want to make time for due process . That they would have pulled the plug on the investigation just because it sounded good to finish by christmas . That they would have delayed the trial for a month while they test drove new talking points . That they would have been trying to change the subject 12 hours atmosphere vote 12 hours after the vote . Madam president , i cannot say what democrats do and do not really believe, but they certainly do not seem to display the urgency or the seriousness youd expect from people who actually thought they had proven the president should be removed. Last weekend on television the speaker bragged that this president is impeached for life regardless of what the senate does. Regardless of what the senate does. As if the ultimate verdict were sort of an afterthought. Likewise, Senate Democratic leader recently said that as long as he can try to use the trial process to hurt some republicans reelection chances, quote, its a winwin. Thats what this is all about. The democratic leader just laid it right out there in case anybody had any doubt. What a revealing admission. Forget about the fate of the presidency, forget about the constitution. As long as the process helps democrats political fortunes, our colleagues, democratic colleagues call it a winwin. Do these sound like leaders who are really, who really believe were in a constitutional crisis, one that requires the most severe remedy in our entire system of government . Does it sound like that . Heres how deep we have come into bizarreo world. The latest democratic talking point is that if the senate conducts a trial based on what the house itself looked at, well be engaged in a coverup. Did you get that . Unless the senate steps outside our lane and takes it upon ourselves to supplement the house case, its a coverup . Do they think the entire country has forgotten what they were saying just a couple of days ago . We heard over and over that the house case on its own was totally damning and convincing. Thats what they were saying a few days ago. Clearly a majority of the house felt it was sufficient to impeach, and a number of Senate Democrats were happy to prejudge the case publicly and suggest the house had proven enough for removal. But now, madam president , all of a sudden the story has reversed. Now we hardly know anything. Now the investigation is just beginning. Now what the house has produced is so weak that theyre calling their own investigation a coverup. Who would be the author of this coverup . Chairman schiff . Weve arrived at a simple contradiction. Two things cannot be both true. House democrats case cannot simultaneously be so robust that it was enough to impeach in the first place but also so weak that the senate needs to go fishing. If the existing case is strong, theres no need for the judge and the jury to reopen the investigation. If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place. I think im beginning to understand why the speaker wanted to change the subject to tax policy. But unfortunately, no matter how irresponsibly this has been handled across the capitol, impeachment is not a political game, and the United States senate will not treat it like one. Madam president , the senate is not in order. The presiding officer the senate will come to order. Mr. Mcconnell the House Majority fueled by political animus may have started this with practice olity, but it will fall to the senate, to the senate to end it with seriousness and sobriety. It will fall to us to do what the founders intended, to take the long view, move beyond partisan passions, and do what the longterm good of our institution and our nation demands. Now, on another matter, every day brings more repudiation of the conventional wisdom of the democratic Foreign Policy establishment. Breathlessly, breathlessly amplified by the Mainstream Media that the strike on soleimani would unite iranians behind the regime. Remember, thats what they were all saying. That the strike on soleimani would unite iranians behind the regime. The proud iranians continue, however, to take the streets, not to rage against america or israel, but to vent their frustration against the corrupt theocratic regime that has led iran down a ruinous path. I spoke about these protests before the strike on soleimani, and i will continue to speak out about them. Ive long believed the United States should care about human rights and democracy, whether in russia, china, hong kong, burma, cuba, venezuela, afghanistan, syria, or iran. The promotion of human rights in defense of democracy should not necessarily be the driving force of our Foreign Policy, but it should be an important component. So i ask my democratic colleagues who share this view to set aside their hatred for donald trump, even just for a moment, and step back to look at what has been happening across iran for years. The repression of women, the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, the brutal suppression of dissent. Was the Obama Administration right to meet the 2009 green revolution with silence . Consider the story of irans only female olympic medalist who this week defected, defected from iran and requested asylum. Only Iranian State tv broadcasters or the Iranian State tv broadcasters who quit, apologizing to the public for years of lying on behalf of mul. Or the innocent protesters who are being killed and wounded by agents of the state. So, madam president , these are wellknown realities. They were well known when 12 days ago the United States took the worlds most dangerous terrorist off the battlefield. But mystifyingly, many voices here in washington and in the media sought to blame the escalating tensions in the region on President Trump. We heard from leading democrats that the operation to eliminate soleimani was one of the administrations, quote, needless provocations, needless provocations. We heard the cycle of violence was americas responsibility. All of this, all of it lies in the face of the reasonable analysis some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were offering before, before donald trump became president. In 2007, 30 Democratic Senators joined republicans to support an amendment warning of the need to prevent, quote, iran from turning shia militia extremists in iraq into a hezbollahlike force that could serve its interests inside iraq, including by overwhelming subverting or coopting institutions of the legitimate government of iraq. Few more that was back in 2007, with 30 democrats. Few more prescient warnings have been pronounced by this body, but unfortunately it went unheeded by the Obama Administration which withdrew u. S. Forces from iraq, effectively abandoning it to soleimani and his proxies. As recently as 2015, the democratic leader warned that the jcpoa failed to address irans destabilizing maligned activities and that iran would use its windfall to, quote, redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the middle east and perhaps beyond. That was the democratic leader in 2015. Senator menendez hit the nail on the head as well. He warned, quote, if there is fear of war in the region, it will be fueled by iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows iran to possess an industrialsized Nuclear Program and enough money in sanctions relief to significantly continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region, end quote. Senator menendez. So many of our democratic colleagues understood all this quite clearly when a democrat occupied the white house, and it came true. It came true. Irans aggression only accelerated after the Obama Administrations deal. The question for us is not who to blame. That much is clear. The question is what to do about it. So as irans aggression became focused on the United States, as the risks to our personnel and interests grew, after months of repeated warnings, President Trump took action. Im glad the strike against soleimani has provided some justice, some justice to his countless victims. Hundreds of americans and many more across the middle east. We dont yet know if soleimani will prove irreplaceable, but his death will significantly disrupt irans death machine, and it will change irans longheld misconception that they could literally get away with the murder of americans without a meaningful response. President trumps strategy seems to have reestablished deterrence , but the senate risks jeopardizing what we have gained with this strike if it ties the militarys hand and tells iran we have no stomach for this. America can hardly be defeated on the battlefield, but we can be defeated at home on the political front. We can allow ourselves to become divided and play into the hands of our adversaries. Our divisions at home are lets not make our adversaries lives easier by tying our militarys hands. The presiding officer the leadership time is reserved. Morning business is closed. Under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The clerk nomination, department of homeland security, peter gaynor of rhode island to be administrator of the federal Emergency Management agency. Mr. Mcconnell i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Schumer madam president. The presiding officer the democratic leader. Mr. Schumer are we in a quorum . I ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer thank you, madam president. Now, the house of representatives has impeached the president for a very serious offense. Coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections, using the powers of the presidency, the most powerful Public Office in the nation to benefit himself, to actually influence the election, which should be decided by american citizens, not by a foreign power. When debating the impeachment clause of the constitution, the founders worried about foreign capitals havingundue influence over our country. Hamilton writing in the federalist papers described impeachable offenses as abuses or violations of some public trust. In the impeachment of President Trump, the question the senate will be asked to answer is whether the president did, in fact, abuse his public trust, and by doing so invite the very foreign influence the founders feared would be a corruption of our democracy. To answer that question, to decide whether the president merits acquittal or removal from office, the Senate Must Conduct a fair trial. A fair trial has witnesses. A fair trial has relevant documents as a part of the record. A fair trial seeks the truth. No more, no less. Thats why democrats have callel four fact witnesses and subpoena three specific sets of relevant documents related to the president s misconduct with ukraine. At the moment, my republican colleagues are opposing these witnesses and documents, but they cant seem to find a real reason why. Most are unwilling to argue that witnesses shouldnt come before the senate. They can only support delaying the decision until most of the trial is over. Like a magic eight ball that keeps asking, ask again later. The most the republican leader can do is smear our request as some partisan fishing expedition intended to damage the president. But the leader himself has warned that the witnesses weve requested might not help the house managers case against the president. Hes right about that. These are the president s top advisors. They are appointed by him, vetted by him. They work with him. We dont know what those witnesses will say or what the documents will reveal. They could hurt the president s case or they could help the president s case. We dont know, but we know one thing we want the truth on something as weighty and profound as an impeachment trial. Does leader mcconnell want the truth . Do Senate Republicans want the truth . Id remind the leader our request for witnesses and documents is very much in line with the senates history. The republican leader keeps citing precedent. Well, heres precedent, mr. Leader. There have been two president ial impeachment trials in history. Both, both had witnesses. The trial of Andrew Johnson had 41 witnesses. There have been 16 completed impeachment trials in the senates entire history. In every one except one, the trial in 1799 of senator william blunt which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, every Senate Impeachment trial in history has included witnesses. You want precedent . Precedent says witnesses overwhelmingly. The long arc of history casts a shadow on the proceedings were about to undertake. It suggests something obvious that the senate has always believed trials were about evidence and getting the truth. Of the 16 impeachment trials, 15 has witnesses, and one was dismissed early. Do Senate Republicans want to break that lengthy historical precedent by conducting the first impeachment trial of a president in history with no witnesses. Let me ask that question again. This is weighty. This is vital. This is about the republic. Do Senate Republicans want to break the lengthy historical precedent that said witnesses should be at an impeachment trial by conducting the first impeachment trial of a president in history in history, since 1789 with no witnesses . I ask that question, mr. President , because that seems to be where the republican leader wants us to be headed. The republican leader has designed a schedule for a senate trial that might might have us vote on witnesses and documents after the presentations from both sides have been concluded, the judicial equivalent of putting the cart before the horse. Of course leader mcconnell has made no guarantee he will support voting on witnesses and documents at that time. Only that supposedly hell be open to the idea. I want my colleagues, my republican colleagues, to bear in mind that if we consider witnesses at a later date, it could extend the trial by several days, maybe several weeks, as witnesses did during the clinton trial. Leader mcconnell has said that after the arguments are made, we should vote and move on. Do my republican colleagues really believe that leader mcconnell will have an open mind about witnesses at a later date when they might extend the trial much longer than he wants . Im not in the prediction business, but i can bet that when the time comes leader mcconnell will say, weve heard enough. The trial shouldnt drag on any longer, that the senate doesnt need witnesses and documents and we should just, as he once said, vote and move on. Before Senate Republicans are so quick to reject the democratic proposal for a limited list of relevant witnesses and documents, i want them to consider that our proposal would save the senate time. We want to confront the issue now, not be forced to extend the trial later. We want both the house managers and the White House Defense counsel to have time to incorporate the testimony of witnesses into their presentations. Thats the proper way to proceed. Thats what happens at trials, to collect all the evidence at the beginning, not at the end. All were asking is for the president s own men, his appointees, to come forward and tell their side of the story. The American People want a fair trial in the senate. The American People know that a trial without witnesses and documents is not a real trial, its a sham trial, and the American People will be able to tell the difference between a fair hearing of the facts and the coverup. On iran. The senate will soon consider senator kaines war power resolution, which would prevent further escalation of hostilities of iran without congressional approval. Its a crucial vote that will correctly assert this bodys Constitutional Authority over matters of war and peace, and it is certainly timely. The past few weeks have highlighted the president s impulsive, erratic, and often reckless Foreign Policy, the consequences of which have made americans less safe and unnecessarily put our armed forces in harms way. From north korea to syria to russia, its impossible to say the worlds a safer player today than when President Trump took office, and it is very possible to say that President Trump, by his impulsive, erratic and egodriven actions have made things worse. And with respect to iran, the president s recent actions have increased the risk of further hostilities in the middle east. The president campaigned on getting the u. S. Out of the, quote, endless wars, unquote, in the middle east, but the president has deployed thousands more troops to the middle east without hardly an explanation to congress or the American People. I thought this might stumble us into war. With iran, like with many other places around the globe, the president s policy has brought us closer to the kind of endless war the president promised wed avoid. It is past time for congress to place a check on this president. On matters of war and peace, congressional oversight, congressional prerogatives are not optional. I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote in favor of the kaine resolution. Senator sanders also has a bill that would deny funding for a war with iran of which im a proud cosponsor. The senate should consider that legislation as well. And as the situation with iran continues to evolve, the Administration Must come back and brief congress on all major developments, troop deployments, and longterm strategy in the region. Finally, madam president , on china. Tomorrow the United States will compete will complete a a signing ceremony for a phase one trade agreement with china. After 18 months of negotiations with china, the phase one deal is remarkable for how little it achieves at an enormous price. President trump has agreed to scale back some tariffs on chinese goodsor in exchange that china will increase its purchase of u. S. Exports over the next few years, particularly in agriculture. For all the turmoil, the deal President Trump will sign tomorrow hardly seems to advance the United States past square one. It fails to address the deep structural inequalities in the trade relationship between china and the United States. For the past decade china has stolen American Intellectual and through cyber threat. The preaz phase one deal doesnt address this issue. China routinely subsidizes domestic industries, not just labor intensive industries, but even Industries Like huawei are subsidized to gain unfair advantage over american companies. China has dumped goods illegally into our markets, its manipulated our currency to keep prices low. The president s phase one deal doesnt address any of these issues. Not only does this deal fail to make any meaningful progress toward ending chinas most flagrant abuses, what it does achieve on the agricultural side may well be a daylight and a dollar short. China has already made longterm contracts with other producers of soybeans and other goods in places like argentina and brazil. American farmers have already lost billions over the last two years, watched their markets disappear and too Many American farms have gone bankrupt in the time that it took President Trump to reach this deal. Now, i publicly praised the president when hes tough on china at some political cost, i said hes had better instringts on china than instincts on china than previous administrations. But i fear with an election around the corner, the president s taking the easy way out, settling for a weak deal that will cost american businesses, american farmers, and American Workers for years and years to come. I yield the floor. Mr. Thune madam president. The presiding officer the majority whip. Mr. Thune madam president , this week we expect to vote on a war powers resolution related to operations in iran. Im pleased that at the that the president s demonstration of strength has restored our position of deterrence, some challenge that the president s actions was escalatory. The United States responded in selfdefense, and as the president has said, it appears that iran is standing down. Hopefully irans tragic error in shooting down a passenger plane is a sobering check on the regimes activities. We have seen i hope that the people of iran are able to organize and demonstrate in safety and that their hopes and prayers for change are answered. Soleimanis death provides an opportunity for iran to rethink its direction, to move away from brutally oppressing its citizens and fomenting violence throughout the middle east we should encourage rethinking through the sanctions the president has imposed that we will not accept iranian aggression. Madam president , on an issue closer to home, at the end of last week, Speaker Pelosi announced she was ready to send over the articles of impeachment, the next step in a saga that began three years ago. Thats right, madam president. On january 20, 2017, inauguration day, the Washington Post ras an article ran an article entitled, the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun. Its important that we not forget this, madam president. We need to remember how we got here. Democrats would like us to think that the impeachment is the result of a highminded, impartial, thoughtful process. It wasnt. It was the result of a threeyear long partisan crusade to damage or remove this president. Its fair to say that the actual impeachment process was the most rushed, most bias, and least impartial impeachment process in history. For evidence, look no farther than the democrats behavior. Democrats rushed the articles of impeachment through the house because we were told it was urgent that the president be removed from office. One democrat even said that the house was acting hastily because there was, and i quote, a crime spree in progress, end quote. And then what did democrats do . Instead of sending the impeachment articles over to the senate so the senate could conduct a trial, Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrat caucus sat on the articles for close to a month. The delay was so flag antly un flagrantly unjustified even Senate Democrats expressed their impatience with the house. If its serious and urgent, send them over. Thats a quote from the highest Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary committee, and she said if it isnt, dont send them over. A fair point. But House Democrats never believed in the seriousness and urgency of the articles. If they had, they would have sent them to the senate immediately. While Senate Democrats have gotten impatient with the house, they have shown partisan around the impeachment. Senate republicans have proposed modeling the rules for the first phase of this impeachment trial on the rules that governed the clinton impeachment trial. Rules that were voted on unanimously at the time. Senate democrats are having none of it. These rules were eminently fair, and as i said, were supported by every single democrat before president clintons impeachment trial. These rules gave poth sides, the both sides, the house impeachment managers and the president and his team to make their case. It gave senators an opportunity to question both sides and only then make a determination as to whether or not Additional Information or witnesses were needed. These rules were good enough for democrats and republicans back then, they ought to be good enough for democrats and republicans today. Madam president , im glad the speaker that Speaker Pelosi is finally sending over the articles so we can move forward with this process and then get back to doing the work that the American People sent us here to do. But im saddened by the damage democrats have done to the institution and the processes of government. The overturning of an election, the overturning of the American Peoples choice is a very serious thing. It is a remedy to be wielded only with careful deliberation in the most serious circumstances. Democrats have spent the past three years treating impeachment not as a remedy of last resort but as a way of overturning an election where they didnt like the outcome. Thats not what impeachment was intended to be. By hijacking the impeachment process, democrats made it clear they believe Election Outcomes dont matter. That they believe it should be the democratic party, not the democratic process that decides elections and that is profoundly disturbing, madam president. This fall the American People will have a chance to render their verdict on the trump presidency. In fact, president ial primary voting begins in just a few short weeks. Its a great pity that democrats have sought to preempt the next president ial election with a partisan impeachment process in washington, d. C. I hope that we can move beyond this impeachment and the hyper partisanship that democrats have engaged in over the past three years. This institution should be in the business of governing, not endlessly trying to overturn an election. And i hope in the future we can keep impeachment as a serious remedy for the most serious of crimes, not as a political weapon to be used whenever a partisan majority in congress despises the occupant in the white house. We will do our constitutional duty here in the senate over the next few weeks, and after that, i look forward, madam president , to getting back to the business of the American People. Madam president , i yield the floor. Mr. Durbin madam president. The presiding officer the senator from illinois. Mr. Durbin madam president , the senate as its currently meeting is in the normal course of business, but in just a few days this Senate Chamber will change. It will no longer be the senate considering resolutions and legislation, but it will be a senate considering an impeachment proceeding. Its a piece of history for those who are watching. This will only be the third time in the history of the United States of america that the senate will be convening for an impeachment proceeding relative to the president of the United States. Its a matter of the most serious constitutional gravity, and i hope that all of us as members of the senate will consider it and approach it that way. Under the constitution, we have a unique role as members of the senate. We are the jurors. We are the jury, 100 senators will decide whether or not the articles of impeachment should be voted on and the impeachment of the president of the United States proceed. We are also in a unique role in the constitution in that we arent just jurors sitting silently in the jury box. Were also judges in one respect. We set up the procedure the way the trial moves forward. Now before i was elected to congress, i used to practice law, trial law, and jurors had the ultimate word in terms of the fate of my clients. But the jurors didnt decide the procedure of the trial. That was decided by a judge. When it comes to an impeachment proceeding under the constitution, the actual process, the procedure of the impeachment trial is decided by the jurors, the senators. Very unusual. But it was a decision made by our Founding Fathers to put this ultimate test of impeachment in the hands of United States senators. Why . Why pick the senate . It could have gone to the Supreme Court or some other tribunal. Alexander hamilton said there were two reasons why we wanted to bring the impeachment trial to the floor of the United States senate. He believed that senators by their nature and by their political composition would be independent and dignified, his words. Independent and dignified. I hope hes right. I was here 20 years ago during the clinton impeachment trial, and i can remember very well how the temperament and mood and environment on the floor of the senate changed when the impeachment proceedings began. The arrival of the chief justice of the Supreme Court in his judicial robes to sit where the current president of the senate is sitting and to preside over the trial. Instantly you knew when you walked in the chamber and saw the chief justice, this is different. This is a new challenge. This is being treated differently by the constitution. And then of course each of us having been sworn in to be United States senators representing the states that sent us, take a separate oath when it comes to our responsibilities under impeachment. That oath is fairly routine, but it includes one phrase that stands out when i read it. We swear that we will impart impartial Justice Impartial justice as impeachment jurors. Impartial justice. Hold up our hands and swear, sign the book at the desk in the front of the senate as a matter of history that we have made this oath for impartial justice. Thats why ive been troubled as we lead up to this impeachment proceeding when i hear some of the statements and speeches that have been made on the floor of the United States senate. The republican leader from kentucky said several weeks ago very openly that he was going to work with the president s defense team to prepare for how he would handle the impeachment proceedings in the senate. Now i understand there are some elements of this which just makes sense that there be conversation with the managers of the impeachment as to the procedure to be followed, but what weve heard even today on the floor of the senate is more than just cooperation in setting up the workings of impeachment proceeding. What we hear from the republican majority leader is nothing short of an Opening Statement at a trial. Hes come to the floor even today to question, challenge, diminish, even ridicule the entire impeachment proceeding. To me, that steps over a line, a line where we are sworn to show impartial justice in this proceeding. When the senator from kentucky comes to the floor and says, for example, this is a hurried process, raising the question as to whether or not the impeachment proceedings in the house were appropriate, hes correct when he says that previous impeachments have had lengthy investigations up to them. In fact one i recall before i was elected to congress involving president nixon, went on for months on questions of the watergate scandal which was at the heart of the proposed nixon impeachment. There were special prosecutors and investigators and people that worked constantly for month after month after month before the articles of impeachment were being prepared. You may recall president nixon resigned before the actual impeachment proceeding. Then there was the ken starr investigation under president clinton. It went on for months with sworn testimony and depositions and videotaped proceedings of witnesses. This is different. The case is being brought to us from the house of representatives for the impeachment of President Trump. It is true in comparison had a shorter investigative process, shorter than the two i just referenced. But its also true that the second count of the impeachment articles raises the question as to whether or not the president cooperated in providing witnesses and evidence that led to the impeachment articles in the house, and that is one of the counts of impeachment against him, that he didnt participate and cooperate. So for the senator from kentucky to stand here and say it should have been a lengthier proceeding in the house, there should have been more witnesses, there should have been more evidence, is to ignore the obvious. One of the counts of impeachment raises the question as to whether the president appropriately denied any cooperation with the house impeachment proceeding. Secondly, the senator from kentucky comes to the floor and consistently says that the suggestion that we should allow witnesses and evidence to be considered is evidence of the weakness of the case coming out of the house of representatives. There arent an exact number of parallels between ordinary, civil, criminal investigation and an impeachment proceeding, but in the world of law and trials there is usually an opening pleading or proceeding, if youre a grand jury, that leads to charges against an individual. Ive been through that many times on the civil side, rarely but once in a while on the criminal side. And a trial itself takes that initial pleading, that initial statement of a case and elaborates on it, opens up, brings in evidence and witnesses on both sides. So when we talk about witnesses and evidence coming before the senate on any articles of impeachment proceeding with President Trump, it isnt just on one side of the case. What we are suggesting is that there should be witnesses from both sides. Let the president bring those who he believes can speak most convincingly to his innocence. Let the house managers supporting the impeachment take the opposite position and find those witnesses that they think tell the story from their side of the case. Thats the nature of a trial, and the American People have seen it over and over again in their personal lives and what theyve witnessed on television and other placed. Places. Both sides put on their best evidence and ultimately the jury decides the truth of the matter. Thats all the democrats are asking for here. Were asking that at the impeachment proceeding witnesses be allowed on both sides, evidence be allowed on both sides, and ultimately, as senator schumer said earlier, we get to the truth of the matter. We make our decision in the senate, and the American People get to witness this democratic process. What senator mcconnell has said, at least many different places, that he resists this idea of witnesses and evidence. I hope he reconsiders. I hope at least four republican senators will reconsider if theyre in senator mcconnells position and opt instead for the historic precedent of witnesses and evidence at a trial. The senate will change this week. If youre witnessing it through cspan or in the audience and the galleries youll notice it. First the senators will be on the floor of the senate, which is rare. And second, with the chief justice presiding, theres a much Different Air in the proceedings and business of the United States senate. And the final point i want to make is this, im troubled by the continued suggestion that the prospect of an impeachment trial is holding the senate hostage, that we cannot consider serious legislation because of the possibility of impeachment trial. It is true that once the trial starts we devote ourselves to it, but that hasnt happened. So how do the leaders in the senate on the republican side explain the year 2019 and the history of the United States senate . It was a unique year, unique for what we failed to do. During the course of the entire year the United States Senate Considered 22 amendments, total. 22 amendments on the floor of the United States senate. Six offered by the junior senator of kentucky, all of which i believe failed, but 22 amendments in a year. I can tell you its not unusual, if you look at the history of the senate, for us to consider 22 amendments in the course of a week, sometimes in the course of a day. But in the entire year only 22 amendments. Why . Because senator mcconnell, who has the power under the senate rules, decided, he decided there would be no business before the senate but for the filling of judicial vacancies and other executive appointments. That was it. A handful of other pieces of legislation were considered. A Defense Authorization bill, finally a massive spending bill, but never with amendments. So to suggest that the impeachment trial has something to do with the invisitor in the senate is to ignore the obvious. Last year without articles of impeachment senator mcconnell called virtually nothing to be debated on the floor of the United States senate. Ive said and i stand by it, this is a Senate Chamber, but too many days and too many respects it is a storage facility. We are storing the desks of the senate once occupied by senators who came to work here, offer bills, offer amendments, have real debates and votes. We look at these desks and say, it must have been a great day in the senate when you actually did that. For the republicans to blame the impeachment process on the inactivity of last year defies common sense. For that reason, i hope that when the impeachment trial ends senator mcconnell of kentucky, the republican majority leader, will consider at least one of the more than 200 bills that the Democratic House of representatives have sent us to consider. Bills relating to health care, bills relating to the price of prescription drugs, bills relating to student loans, bills relating to immigration, all sitting somewhere in a file cabinet, in a computer, somewhere in senator mcconnells office. Maybe we can be the senate after the impeachment trial. Its in the hands of senator mcconnell to make that decision. Let me, madam president , speak to an issue which has been raised this morning, which is timely and critically important. The president tweeted last week to the country, all is well. As we are teetering on the verge of war with iran, he tweeted, all is well. But now details have come to light, and it is clear that all is not well. U. S. Service members at the air base in iraq faced a sustained hour and a half of retaliatory attacks last year, a barrage described by one of the most senior u. S. Commanders on the base as designed and organized to inflict as many casualties as possible. Contrary to the tweet by our president that all is well, reports from witnesses suggest that despite heroic planning, we were in fact very fortunate, if not lucky, that none of our u. S. Personnel were killed, which gets me to the issue that needs to be brought before the senate, one that goes to the heart of this senates critical, often neglected constitutional responsibility. Its not whether iranian general soleimani was an enemy with american blood on his hands. Thats a fact. But its too simplistic to stop there. Weve known that fact for a long time. Previous president s of both Political Parties have known general soleimanis background. Its not in dispute. Its a distraction to stop with that conversation. The real question was whether President Trump, when he made the decision to target general soleimani, considered the possibility that it would quickly escalate into a much larger confrontation with iran, a possibility of a war. A distinct possibility and one never authorized by congress. Based on the administrations briefing last week, which i sat through, i doubt if even they think they need congressional authorization to ask our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters to participate in another war in the middle east. The first question asked at the briefing, which was attended by the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the first question asked by senator mcconnell was whether or not there was need for authorization under the war powers act before the United States continued to have its conflict with iran. The answer came from the secretary of defense the answer that came from the secretary of defense was no, no authorization was necessary. And he went on to say that he thought even the debate over authorization could be unsettling and troublesome for our troops if it appeared that we were even uncertain as to whether or not we were ready to go to war. Based on that briefing, i doubt that this administration believes any congressional authorization is needed for the military action that has been taken or might even be contemplated. Quite simply, the fact that the senate has not exercised its constitutional right, authority, and responsibility to determine whether we should go to war with iran troubles me. Im deeply concerned that if iran retaliates further or if the president decides to escalate the confrontation, this chamber will not even recognize let alone act on its constitutional responsibility under article 1, section 8. Thats why ive joined my colleague and friend, senator tim kaine of virginia in revoking the war powers act, a law passed over president nixons veto after president s of both parties deliberately misled the American People on the vietnam war. It is hard for those who did not live during that era to appreciate what that war did to this nation. First and foremost, it cost us almost 50,000 american lives, hundreds of thousands of americans injured, men and women in uniform who bravely served our country, giving their lives and coming home with the scars that they carried for a lifetime. The billions of dollars that were spent, the involvement in that war that divided this country at its core is hard to put in words in just a few moments. At the end of it, though, congress realized that it had failed its own responsibility to even declare a war against vietnam, and so we passed the war powers act, setting up a process that said were not going to let that happen again. The American People will participate in any future decisions about whether they go to war, and they will do it through their elected congressmen and elected senators. The war powers act passed the congress, was sent to president nixon. He vetoed it and said we dont want to give that Additional Authority to congress. In a rare, rare moment, congress overrode the veto of president nixon, and the war powers act is now the law of the land. That war powers act, i believe, applies to the Current Situation that is escalating with iran, and thats why i have joined senator kaine in his invoking the war powers resolution. What i find particularly troubling about the administrations march to war in iran is that its own actions have contributed to the current tension and problems we have with iran. Before taking office, Irans Nuclear Weapons Program was halted because of an historic agreement president obama negotiated in cooperation with our allies in europe as well as china and russia. President obama negotiated a treaty requiring for International Inspectors to be on the ground in iran to make certain they lived up to its terms. Iran, of course, was not happy about these inspectors but accepted them, and on several different occasions, we had representatives of those inspectors come and say yes, they had virtual unlimited access to iran to make certain they didnt violate the Nuclear Agreement. Iran continued in its maligned behaviors of the region but containment was easier without the threat of an Iranian Nuclear bomb. President trump said during the campaign the first thing he would do is to eliminate that International Agreement requiring International Inspectors that stopped iran from developing a nuclear weapon. It made no sense. It made no sense for the president to take the position that he did, but thats the position that he announced in the campaign, and thats exactly what he did after he was elected president. He withdrew the United States from this agreement that stopped iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Then he greafd sanctions on iran and the tensions then he increased sanctions on iran and the tensions between our countries grew. The president pursued a policy very difficult to explain if not justify of regime change, trying to flatter on one day and then confront on the next day. He met he proposed to meet with the president of iran rouhani to negotiate a supposedly bigger deal, better deal, that he would threaten iran militarily, and that he would tighten sanctions soon after. These efforts went nowhere except to increase tensions between the United States and iran. Iran lashed out at american interests. We were alienated from many of our allies, particularly those who were party to the Nuclear Agreement, and iran inched closer to restarting its Nuclear Program. In recent weeks alone, President Trump managed to reverse the recent iraqi protest settlement that wanted iran to stop meddling in its particulars politics, leading to the real possibility that american troops in iraq critical to countering isis would be expelled. Similarly, after months of antigovernment protests in iran, President Trump almost instantaneously united the iranian Public Opinion against us with the targeting of general soleimani. Iran now announced it will exceed the limits of that Nuclear Program that were imposed by the Nuclear Agreement which President Trump walked away from, and our interests around the region are on high alert for fear of a retaliatory attack by the iranians. So there are real questions as to how President Trumps iran policy serves longterm American Security interests and whether this body is ready to at least debate, to debate the possibility of another war with iran. Before President Trump plunges us into another reckless middle east war, shouldnt we first remember how we were fooled into invading iraq in the first place . I remember it full well. I was a member of the senate. When we were given the proposal of taking military action against iraq because of their purported possession of these devices, these military devices which were threatening to the United States and to the region. Many of us were skeptical. The weapons of mass destruction charge didnt have the evidence that we thought was convincing. In the end, 23 senators, 22 democrats and one republican, joined in voting against the invasion of iraq. I was one of those senators. I was not convinced there were weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion and careful inspection, it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction. The signal event that really brought us into the conflict. Then as now, we were led to believe there was an urgent spiraling of events that required u. S. Military intervention. Mark me down as skeptical, skeptical as to whether another invasion by the United States of a muslim nation in the middle east is in the best interests of American National security. Many around President Trump, particularly secretary of state pompeo, have been speaking of this conflict with iraq for a long period of time. Some of these are the same people who endorsed the invasion of iraq almost 20 years ago. Were still in iraq. Weve given up more than 5,000 american lives, many injured. A trillion or more dollars having been spent, and its possible the iraqis will just ask us to leave. Think of that, after all that we have put into their country, their legislature, parliament voted just several weeks ago to tell us to leave. In fact, one of the great tragedies of the iraq war, one that few of its architects ever owned up to is that iraq was actually the iraq war was actually empowering iran and the region. Iran became a potent force because the United States in its efforts in the middle east created that opportunity in many respects. These same unrepentant voices are again beating the drum for regime change in iran and another war in the middle east. They do so with the president who has made more than 15,000 false or misleading statements in office. 15,000. Even going so far as to trust vladimir putin, the leader of russia, over our own intelligence sources, making it impossible to trust anything hes saying when it comes to matters as grave as war. Some have even had the audacity to argue that the 2001 authorization for use of military force in iraq is somehow a permission slip for the invasion of iran. That is preposterous. I cannot imagine anyone here who took that vote 18 years ago thought that they were authorizing future president s 18 years later to invade another country in the middle east. I certainly didnt. The constitution is clear. Article 1, section 8 says the power to declare war is an explicit power of congress, as it should be. One should never send our sons and daughters into war without the knowledge and consent of the American People. Our Founding Fathers were wise in making sure this awesome power did not rest with a king or a queen or anyone pretending to be, but with the people of the United States through their elected representatives. Ive made this same argument and much of the same speech in the past, regardless of whether the occupant of the white house was a democrat or republican. This congress, already afraid to stand up to many of President Trumps worst instincts, must not do so in a march to another war in the middle east. As such, i urge my colleagues here to do our job and reaffirm the senates constitutional role in matters of war. Madam president , i yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from texas. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , on january 20, 2017, at 12 19 p. M. , the Washington Post ran a story with this headline the campaign to impeach donald trump has begun. Donald trump had only been president for 19 minutes when that headline ran. And so, as we have since learned, it is abundantly clear that many of our democratic colleagues simply dont recognize the president as a legitimately elected and have been doing everything they can to remove him from office since he was first elected in 2016. Now this has taken a new form of impeachment, impeachment that occurred 27 days ago when the house voted for two impeachment articles. Their impeachment inquiry lasted 12 weeks, but it became clear that Speaker Pelosi and chairman schiff and chairman nadler were in a big hurry to try to get those impeachment articles voted out of the house before the holidays. In the end, only democrats voted for these partisan impeachment articles, but then the house, the speaker, and the democratic in the house declared victory. But thats when the breakneck pace of the impeachment process came to a screeching halt. Thats when it appears that Speaker Pelosi got cold feet when she realized that the president would be afforded a fair trial in the senate, that was not good enough for her. When we offered her the same terms we offered President Trump the same terms that president clinton got during his trial, that wasnt good enough for Speaker Pelosi. She wanted guarantees from the senate. The speaker of the house flat refused to send the impeachment articles to the senate in order to gain leverage somehow over senate trial procedures, a responsibility that falls far yowdz of her Job Description. She was seeking assure abcs assurances from the majority leader that she would redo the houses shoddy investigative work, something thats not part of our Job Description under the constitution. After weeks of holding the articles hostage with nothing to show for it, the speaker has apparently finally caved. In holding the articles, she managed to accomplish something all too uncommon these days. She brought together republicans and democrats from both chambers. Unfortunately for the speaker, this bipartisan, bicameral chorus of voices stern in opposition to her decision to with hold the articles and last week we finally announced that she would be sending the articles over this week and it looks like a vote is scheduled for wednesday, tomorrow, where impeachment managers will be identified and the process of sending it to the senate will begin in earnest. In a letter to her house colleagues on friday, Speaker Pelosi said she will send the articles over this week and it looks like we are going to start that trial. As the majority leader made clear from the beginning, this should be a far cry from the partisan impeachment process we saw in the house. We simply dont want to repeat the circuslike partisan rush to impeachment like we saw in the house. Our responsibility as senators is to sit as a court, literally as a jury, to consider the cases being presented by the impeachment managers in the house as well as the president s lawyers. Despite the speakers insistence, we, the senate, the jury, are not going to be hand picking the witnesses before the trial even begins and no courtroom in america in no courtroom in america does the jury decide how the case before them will be tried. Thats decided by the parties to the lawsuit, whether its the prosecution in the case of a criminal case and the defense lawyer or the plaintiff and defense counsel in a civil case. The jurys job is to sit and listen and to weigh the evidence and to reach a verdict. The senate will instead of the process that Speaker Pelosi is advocating for, we will follow the only modern precedent we have, and that is the clinton impeachment trial. If it was good enough for president clinton, its good enough for President Trump. Were going to follow that precedent and provide for some order and fairness in the process, and, again, not repeat the circus we saw in the house. Just as we did in 1999 in the clinton impeachment, well begin with opening arguments, Speaker Pelosis lawyers will come over present their case and argue their case and then well turn to the president s lawyers who will have a chance to respond. They can refer to some of the testimony of the 17 witnesses who have testified during the house impeachment inquiry. They could offer additional evidence for the senate to consider. This is not a question of witnesses or no witnesses. Thats a blatant misrepresentation by those who are trying to some how warp the publics understanding of exactly how this will proceed. As in the clinton impeachment trial, all 100 senators will have opportunity to hear the case from both sides before making a decision whether we, the jury, want to have additional witnesses presented. Thats what happened in the clinton case and thats what should happen with President Trump. Well have an opportunity to ask written questions, which will be transmitted to the chief justice who will then put those questions to the lawyers representing the impeachment managers and the president. And then well be able to get the information from them based on those questions. But the more ive thought about it, mr. President , ordinarily in a trial you would have disputed facts and then youd have the law applied to the facts as found by the jury. But the more and more i heard about this impeachment inquiry, the more and more im inclined to believe that the facts are not disputed. If the facts are not really disputed, why would you need additional witnesses . Theres people with opinions, there are people who draw inferences, there are people who draw their own conclusions, but in the end thats our job, not the witness job. The witness job is to provide the facts should they be disputed, and its our job then to decide whether this meets the constitutional standard of treason, bribery, or high crimes and merchandise misdemeanors. What i find interesting is that neither claim that President Trump committed a crime unlike president clinton. President trump is not charged with a crime. In the first article of impeachment, basically we have a disagreement with the way the president handled aid voted by congress that would then be given to the government of ukraine. Thats what this impeachment is about. This is not about high crimes and misdemeanors. This is about political differences, this is about stylistic differences, this is where diplomats and others disagree with the way the president handled himself. Fair enough, youre entitled to your opinion, but that doesnt make impeachment the appropriate remedy. Here we are 11 months, more or less until the next general election. I, for one, think its dangerous to have 535 members of congress essentially be asked to convict and remove a president 11 months before the next general election, in other words, to substitute our views for those of the voters, of the American People. I think thats very dangerous, and if it succeeds here, i guarantee this wont be the last time. Unfortunately, the house has normalized this concept of impeachment for essentially for political differences. Thats a dangerous concept and it would be a dangerous precedent if we were to accept it. This is the third time in american history, in the history of our entire country where this process will go forward here in the senate. We need to be very careful, very sober, very serious, very deliberate in how we conduct ourselves and how we conduct this trial. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi has violated her own admonition when in march of 2019, she said impeachment is too decisive and its just not worth it unless its bipartisan, unless its compelling. Well, this impeachment is neither bipartisan nor compelling. But Speaker Pelosi apparently got stampeded by the more radical members of her caucus into this position which now shes trying to find some facesaving way out of. Thats what this is about. And, in the end, we know that the politics, unfortunately, will continue here in the senate. We know that there under the present circumstances, its highly unlikely that 67 senators, based on the record that we know now, would vote to convict and remove the president. So what does all this all the posturing and grandstanding about with regard to witnesses or no witnesses, which, as i said earlier, is a false choice. There will be witnesses. There will be evidence. Were going to let the parties present it and were going to listen and make a decision. This is about the democratic leader trying to put incumbent senators who are on the ballot in 2020 in a tough position. Thats what this is all about. In the end this is not about President Trump, this is about whos going to maintain the majority in the senate, whether republicans will or whether the democratic leader will accomplish his lifes dream and become the next majority leader. Thats what this is about. Well, unfortunately, the speakers senseless delay tactics robbed us all of valuable time that we could have spent conducting this trial and moved on to more constructive business. Were waiting for the speaker to deliver the articles, but in the meantime, were not sitting around twiddling our thumbs. Last week the Senate Finance committee overwhelmingly passed the United Statesmexicocanada agreement which will replace native and guide our trade relation with canada and mexico. This is a big deal for this country. 13 million jobs depend on mexico, canada, and the United States. We waited for a long time to take up the usmca. The heads of all three countries initially signed the deal back in november of 2018, and for over a year this is another example of the house foot dragging. At several points we were left wondering whether the speaker would intentionally blow up the trade deal over their own political motivations, but fortunately that didnt happen. We had a long delay, but were finally to the point where the senate can take up and pass the usmca now that the house has acted just before christmas. This week several Senate Committees will view various portions of the committee, and i hope we can actually get this trade agreement approved before we go to the impeachment trial. Well have the war powers resolution, which is privileged, and so that will come first, but hopefully there will be an opportunity to pass the usmca before we go to this impeachment trial. Ive heard from countless of my constituents whose livelihoods depend on Strong International trade, particularly with our southern neighbor, and they are eager to see this usmca put to bed. Its frustrating that this process has already been prolonged and uncertainty has prevailed and kept farmers and manufacturers waiting for months on end not knowing what will would ultimately happen to the usmca. So im ready for the speaker to deliver on her promise and finally transmit the articles of impeachment to the senate so we can conduct that sober, deliberate trial according to the constitution and then move on from these partisan games and get back to the work that we were sent here to do. Mr. President , i yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Reed thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to finish my remarks before the vote is called. I dont anticipate i will be very long. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reed mr. President , i rise to support the nomination of peter t. Gaynor to be the administrator of fema. Ive known and worked with pete gaynor for over a decade before taking over as fema deputy administrator in 2018 and becoming acting administrator in 2019, pete was the managing director for the city providence. As a marine he was on duty on september 11, 2001, and helped direct important aspects of the response and Recovery Efforts in the hours, days and weeks that followed. Later he served in u. S. Operations in iraq before returning home to rhode island. As e. M. A. , Emergency Management administrator and director in rhode island, pete led the response of federally declared disasters in our state and worked to earn disaster emergency manager accreditation for the providence and rhode island Emergency Management agencies. I know he will tap his full experience to serve the American People as fema administrator and fema needs solid leadership. As the flagship federal agency for Disaster Preparedness and response, fema faces extraordinary challenges confronting the very real effects of climaterelated disasters, reforming the National Flood insurance program, administering the critical Grant Programs and readying the nation for chemical, and biological attacks. I have deep concerns about many aspects of the administrations approach to disaster recovery. Puerto rico is a case in point and now it is facing new challenges. As Ranking Member of the transportation and h. U. D. Appropriation subcommittee, ive been dismayed by the housing and urban developments slow walking of billions of dollars of recovery assistance for puerto rico. As the lead agency for disaster recovery, fema must set the standard for professionalism and compassion for people and communities going through the worst experience of their lives, and it is my expectation, my confidence that peter gaynor will make sure it happens. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm him. With that, mr. President , i would thank you and yield the floor. Mr. Reed mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Reed mr. President , i would ask for the yeas and nays on the pending nomination of gain peter gaynor. The presiding officer is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The yeas and nays are ordered. Vote vote the presiding officer the yeas and nays were previously ordered. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote . If not, the yeas are 81. The nays are 8. The nomination is confirmed. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senates actions. The majority whip. Mr. Thune mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Thune mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the Senate Recess until 2 15 p. M. The presiding officer without objection. The Senate Stands in recess the Senate Stands in recess great. So were going to jump right in on this panel, and with me to my immediate right is nancy was the Editorial Page Editor of miami herald. You been in the position since 2013 comes to delight at you here. First time weve had the herald participates a very warm welcome to you. Thank you much. Natasha is on her way picture