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 ForeignSecurity 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 Development Operations in the northern triangl