Tremendous growth potential, and our economy will grow if we can work out mutual Free Trade Agreements with these countries. I am very much in favor of that. I wouldnt want this protectionist, restrictionist policies that found their way into this agreement to be part of future agreements. And i note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call the presiding officer the senator from texas. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , id ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , i have a unanimous consent request for five committees to meet during todays session of the senate. Theyve been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. The presiding officer duly noted. Mr. Cornyn finally, mr. President , about four weeks after the house voted on the articles of impeachment, the house will name the impeachment managers and well see the articles delivered here to the senate. That will conclude but for the impeachment managers role in the senate. That will include the houses participation in the impeachment process. And ours, the senates responsibilities will begin. As i said, this vote occurs four weeks after the house concluded its whirlwind impeachment investigation. As i look more and more closely at this, it strikes me as a potential case of impeachment malpractice. And ill explain. Four weeks after they passed these two articles of impeachment, four weeks after they concluded the president had acted in a way to invoke our most extreme constitutional sanction that he should be removed from office, they finally have sent will send these impeachment articles to us. As i looked at the impeachment articles, im astonished that even though we heard discussions of quid pro quo, bribery, and other crimes, that the house of representatives chose not to charge President Trump with a crime. Now, how you then go on to prove a violation of the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors when you dont even charge the president with a crime, im looking forward to having the impeachment managers and the president s lawyers address that. It is it does not at least at first blush appear to meet the constitutional standard. Bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. President clinton was charged with a crime, the crime of perjury, but here President Trump has not been accused of a crime. The vague allegation is that he abused his office. Now that could mean anything to anybody. But just think about if we dumb down the standard for impeachment below the constitutional standard, what that does is opens up the next president who may have a House Majority composed of the other party, that makes the next president vulnerable to charges of impeachment based on the allegation he abused his office, even if he did not commit a high crime or misdemeanor. And so impeachment becomes a political weapon which is what this appears to be rather than a constitutional obligation for the house and the senate. Well, last month the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee jerry nadler said on National Television there was a rock solid case against the president , rock solid. But in the moments after the house voted to impeach the president , there seemed to be a lot of doubt about whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the president of high crimes and misdemeanors. So much doubt in fact that it led the speaker of the house to withhold the articles until the senate promised to fill in the gaps left by the houses inadequate record. She sought promises from senator mcconnell, the majority leader, that the senate would continue the houses investigation, continue the houses investigation, the one which only a few weeks prior, one of her top members said was a rock solid case. Well, it either is or it isnt. But i would say that the speakers actions and her cold feet and a reluctance to send the articles of impeachment here for the last month indicate to me that she is less than confident that the house has done their job. As a matter of fact, theyve actually in the second article of impeachment, they charged the president with obstruction of congress. But heres the factual underpinning of that allegation. Chairman schiff would issue a subpoena to somebody who works at the white house. They would say well, i have to go to court to get the judge to direct me because i have conflicting obligations. A subpoena from the congress and perhaps a claim of privilege, some privilege based on Confidential Communications with the president. Well, rather than pursue that in court which is what happened in the clinton impeachment and what should happen in any dispute over executive privilege, chairman adam schiff of the House Intelligence Committee dropped him like a hot potato and they simply moved on in their rush to impeach without that testimony, without that evidence. So now they want the senate to make up for their failure here by calling additional witnesses. You know, i sometimes joke that i am a recovering lawyer and a recovering judge. But i spent 20 years or more in my life either in courtrooms trying cases or presiding over those cases or reviewing the cases that had been tried based on an appellate record in the texas supreme court. Our system of justice is based on an adversary system. You have a prosecutor who charges a crime. Thats basically what the articles of impeachment or natural juice analagous to. We have the strange, even bizarre suggestion by the democratic leader here in the senate that somehow the jury ought to call additional witnesses before we even listen to the arguments so the president and his lawyers and the impeachment managers who spent 12 weeks getting a hundred hours or more worth of testimony from 17 different witnesses. So this discussion about whether there will be witnesses or no witnesses is kind of maddening to me. Of course there will be witnesses. The witnesses that the impeachment managers choose to present maybe through their sworn testimony, not live in the well of the senate but its no different in terms of its legal effect or witnesses and evidence, documentary evidence that the president s lawyers chooses to preside. I think the majority leader has wisely proposed and now it looks like 53 senators have agreed that we defer this whole issue of additional witnesses until after both sides have had their chance to present their case. And senators have a chance to ask questions in writing. This is going to be a very difficult process for people who make their living talking all the time which is what senators do. Sitting here and being forced to listen and let other people do the talking is going to be a challenge. But well have a chance to ask questions in writing and the chief justice will direct those questions to the appropriate party, either the impeachment managers or the president s lawyers. And they will attempt to answer those questions. But as i look at this record more, im beginning to wonder whether the basic facts are really disputed. So when people talk about calling additional witnesses, i think what theyre more interested in is a show trial and getting cameras and Media Coverage rather than actually resolving any disputed facts and applying the Legal Standard which is the constitution provides in order to decide whether the president should be convicted or acquitted. That should be the role of the Senate Sitting as a jury. Well, the house it seems was under no deadline other than an internally imposed deadline to complete their impeachment investigation. They could have subpoenaed more witnesses. They could have waited for those subpoenas to play their way out in court and held a vote. Once they truly believed they had sufficient evidence to impeach the president , enough evidence that they felt confident presenting it at a senate trial. You know, if a prosecutor were to do in a court of law what the house impeachment inquiry did, theyd be theyd be justly accused of malpractice. I mean, to drop the witnesses rather than to actually go to court and try to get the testimony you need in order to support the articles of impeachment, thats malpractice. Because you know if this were a court of law, in all likelihood the judge would summarily dismiss the case saying you havent shown the evidence to support the charges that the grand jury, in this case the house, has made under the articles of impeachment. But we know rather than develop the record that would be sufficient to prove their case, members of the house gave themselves an arbitrary deadline for their investigation and made speed their top priority. So now finding themselves with the short end of the stick, theyre trying to pin their regrets and their malpractice on members of the senate. Our democratic colleagues are trying to paint the picture in a way that makes it look Like Senate Republicans are failing in their duties. But we will fulfill our constitutional role and duties. The only question is did the house perform their constitutional duties in an adequate way to meet the constitutional standard. Speaker pelosi went so far to say failing to allow additional witnesses would result in a coverup. I think ive heard that same charge by the democratic leader here. I dont really understand the logic of that one. It seems like the only coverup happening is when the speaker is covering up her caucus shoddy and insufficient investigation. Shes trying to distract from the fact that theres very little if any evidence to support the articles of impeachment. Shes trying to place the blame on the senate, a strategy that you dont have to have xray vision to see through. The speaker went so far to say last sunday that senators will, quote, pay a price for not calling witnesses. When i think now theyre beginning to take the mask off and expose their true motivation. This isnt about is no longer based on what we know now about getting 67 votes to convict and remove President Trump. This is about forcing senators who are running for election in 2020 to take tough political votes that can then be exploited in tv ads. That seems to me to demean this whole impeachment affair. This is a thermoNuclear Weapon in a constitutional sense. To accuse someone of high crimes and misdemeanors, to convict them in a court, sit ago as court sitting as a court and remove them from office is a very serious matter, but its been treated and is being treated like a trivial political matter, a political football. Well, based on the way that Speaker Pelosi and others have characterized the need for additional witnesses, youd think no one had testified or had been deposed. But that would be to ignore the House Intelligence Committees 298page report. 298page report detailing their impeachment inquiry. It details the actions of the committee, including dozens of subpoenas, taking more than 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses. So when somebody says, this is a question of witnesses or no witnesses, i say, thats not true. Thats not the facts. Weve already got 100 hours of testimony that could be presented to the senate, if its actually relevant to the impeachment articles, to whats charged. So, to be clear, all the information will be available to the senate in the testimony of 17 of those witnesses likely presented by the impeachment managers. But, again, our democratic friends in the house apparently are having a little bit of buyers remorse, cold feet pick your metaphor. With four weeks of deep contemplation separating them from the Impeachment Vote they took, they no longer believe apparently they have enough evidence to prove a high crime and misdemeanor, which is the constitutional standard. That 298page report that they were once so proud of apparently now they concede, by their actions, falls short of that rocksolid case that they promised. So rather than taking the responsibility for their own impeachment malpractice, rather than admitting that they rushed through the investigation, skipped over witnesses who they now deem critical to the inquiry, they try to now blame the senate and put the burden of proof on our shoulders. Well, as i said earlier, theres no question whether witnesses will be presented. Some of them will be presented that were that testified in the house of representatives, the 17 witnesses who testified over 100 hours. And i think the senate, based on the vote of 53 senators, has widely deferred whether additional witnesses will be subpoenaed until after weve had chance to hear from the parties to the impeachment. And an opportunity by senators to actually ask clarification questions. Well, leader mcconnell has been consistent in saying we wouldnt be naming witnesses before the start of the trial in line with the precedent set by the clinton impeachment trial. Ironically, the democratic leader was in a position during the clinton impeachment trial that no additional witnesses should be offered and now finds himself, ironically enough, in the opposite posture based on something more than the based on nothing more than the difference in the identity of the president being impeached. So well have chance to hear the arguments from both sides, along with any documents they choose to present. Well move to the senators questions and then well decide whether more evidence is required. I personally believe that thats im disinclined to have the jury conduct the trial by demanding additional evidence. I think thats the role of the impeachment managers and of the president s lawyers. But i know fairminded people with differ. If 50 people want additional witnesses, theyll have the opportunity to have them subpoenaed. But this is going to have a fair process. Unlike the house process, which has been well, i was going to say a threering circus, but thats not fair to the circus. But were going to have a dignified and sober and deliberate process here befitting the gravity of what weve been asked to decide. No one, neither the prosecution nor the defense, will be precluded from participating. As a matter of fact, they will drive the process. Thats the way trials are conducted in every courthouse in america, and thats the process we should adopt here. So in stark contrast to the partisan chaos that consumed the impeachment inquiry in the house, were going to restore order, civility, and fairness. Over the last four weeks theres been a whole lot of talk but not much action from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the house. Theyve taken what should be a serious and solemn responsibility of congress and turned it into a partisan playground. Less than a year before the next election where millions he tens of millions of americans will be voting on their choice for president of the United States by needlessly withholding the articles for four weeks, the speaker has all but ensured the senates impeachment trial will overlap with the Iowa Caucuses. Thats where our democratic friends will choose their president ial primary winner starting with the Iowa Caucuses. This trial could even stretch into the New Hampshire primary or the nevada caucuses. I find it curious that the speakers decision will force four senators who are actually running for president in those primary contests to leave the campaign trail in these battleground states and come back to washington, d. C. , and be glued to their seat, sitting as jurors during this trial, when im sure they would rather be out. Rather than shaking hands with voters, theyll be sitting here with the rest of us. That will be a big blow to their election. Based on what weve seen in the press, these four senators arent what i would call happy campers, and i dont blame them. You better believe, though, that they are competitors are celebrating. Theyre going to have the Iowa Caucuses perhaps, maybe New Hampshire and nevada, all to themselves. All these four senators who are running for president in the democratic primary will have to be here like the rest of us. So in holding the articles for four weeks, the speaker just cleared out some of the top contenders in the president ial primaries, the early ones, and its pretty clear that the candidate who stands the most to gain from their absence is former Vice President biden. The politics of this impeachment circus show that it was never a serious one. The constitutional issue wrong, it was a political exercise from the start, meant to hurt this president and help the Speakers Party elect a democrat in his stead in november, or at least Nancy Pelosis friends in the democratic party. Over these last four weeks weve been standing by, waiting to do our duty, wasting valuable time while the democrats in the house try to come to terms with their embarrassing and inadequate investigation and how they and watching them as they try to figure out how, how could they possibly get themselves out of this embarrassing box canyon that theyve walked into. So i know were all eager for the process to finally shift from the houses hands to the senate. And im hopeful that later this evening well finally be free from Speaker Pelosis manipulative games when it comes to impeachment. Finally, mr. President , there is some good news here in washington that well actually get some important things done, particularly i am talking about the usmca, the United Statesmexicocanada agreement. Im hopeful that we can get it voted out of the senate tomorrow and get it on the president s desk. That is top priority for my constituents, who are farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, as well as consumers whose daily lives impacted by trade with our neighbors to the north and south and well soon be able to market as yet another win for texas under this administration. For more than a quarter of a century, nafta, the north American Free trade agreement, the predecessor to the usmca, has been the Guiding Force in our trading relationships with mexico and canada and virtually any measure its been a great success. The u. S. Chamber of commerce estimates that 13 million american jobs have been created and are dependent on trade with mexico and canada. Thats a big deal. But a lot that is change