Floor Statements

Mr. President, at this time, pursuant to rule IV of the Senate Rules on Impeachment and the U.S. Constitution, the President pro tempore emeritus, the Senator from Iowa, will now administer the oath to the President pro tempore, Patrick J. Leahy.

Mr. President, the theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis: constitutional text, historical practice, precedent, and basic common sense. It has been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.

Now, the junior Senator from Kentucky read one clause from the Constitution about the Senate's impeachment powers. He left out another from article I, section 3: ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

If the Framers intended impeachment to merely be a vehicle to remove sitting officials from their office, they would not have included that additional provision: disqualification from future office. The Constitution also gives the Senate the ``sole power'' to try all impeachments.

So what did past Senates decide on this question? In 1876, President Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap, literally raced to the White House to tender his resignation before the House was set to vote on his impeachment. Not only did the House move forward with the impeachment, but the Senate convened a trial and voted as a Chamber that Mr. Belknap could be tried ``for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.''

The language is crystal clear, without any ambiguity. The history and precedent is clear. The Senate has the power to try former officials, and the reasons for that are basic common sense. It makes no sense whatsoever that a President or any official could commit a heinous crime against our country and then defeat Congress's impeachment powers and avoid disqualification by simply resigning or by waiting to commit that offense until their last few weeks in office.

The theory that the Senate can't try former officials would amount to a constitutional get-out-of-jail-free card for any President who commits an impeachable offense.

Ironically, the Senator from Kentucky's motion would do an injury to the Constitution by rendering the disqualification clause effectively moot. So, again, by constitutional text, precedent, and common basic sense, it is clearly and certainly constitutional to hold a trial for a former official. Former President Trump committed, in the view of many, including myself, the gravest offense ever committed by a President of the United States.

The Senate will conduct a trial of the former President, and Senators will render judgment on his conduct.

Motion to Table

Therefore, the point of order is ill-founded and, in any case, premature. If Senators want this issue debated, it can and will be argued during the trial. Therefore, I move to table the point of order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a resolution to organize the pretrial proceedings at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, adjourn until Tuesday, February 9, 2021, under the provisions of S. Res. 16.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this week, the Senate will continue confirming President Biden's highly qualified and history-making nominees.

In a few hours we will hold a vote on Janet Yellen to serve as the next Secretary of the Treasury. Janet Yellen, of course, is no stranger to this Chamber. She has been confirmed by the Senate no fewer than four times and was reported favorably to the floor by a unanimous vote of the Finance Committee on Friday.

The bipartisan support of Ms. Yellen's multiple nominations reflects her breathtaking range of experience and just how well suited she is to manage the economic challenges of our time. Ms. Yellen, I am proud to report, is a native of working-class Brooklyn, the daughter of a schoolteacher and physician, raised during the Great Depression. She went to Fort Hamilton High School, one of James Madison High School's rivals. A graduate of Brown and Yale, Ms. Yellen has taught economics at some of the world's most prestigious universities. Of course, Janet Yellen is best known for her tenure as Chair of the Federal Reserve, overseeing a period of falling unemployment and steady economic recovery from the global financial crisis.

Few people possess the experience and expertise that Ms. Yellen would bring to the Treasury, particularly during this moment of economic crisis. At the Treasury Department, there are long hallways on the third floor where the portraits of all 77 Treasury Secretaries hang-- all of them men, all the way back to Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary. I am thrilled today to vote to confirm the first woman to ever hold the position of Treasury Secretary and someday add her portrait to that hallway.

On that note, I would add it was a great pleasure to read the Biden administration's announcement today that the Treasury Department plans to speed up the plans to add the portrait of Harriet Tubman to the $20 bill. This is an issue I have long championed and something that should have been done a long time ago. I feel particularly strong about it since Harriet Tubman was an Auburn, NY, resident, and our office worked for years to successfully make her home in Upstate New York a national historic monument.

I am glad the Biden administration is reversing the Trump administration's foot-dragging. It is the kind of thing they did--no excuse, no reason, just didn't do it. But now the Biden administration is reversing the Trump administration's foot-dragging and will press forward with plans to circulate new currency celebrating Harriet Tubman's life and legacy.

After Ms. Yellen's confirmation tonight, the Senate will continue to process nominations to President Biden's Cabinet for the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and Transportation. With cooperation, the Senate could complete both confirmations this week. Again, those are the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and Transportation, in addition to Treasury this evening.

I remind my colleagues that President Trump had his Secretary of Homeland Security installed on Inauguration Day. We cannot allow our national security and our domestic security to be compromised in any way by the prolonged delay of Mr. Mayorkas' nomination

Madam President, as I announced on Friday, the Republican leader and I have come to an initial agreement about the timing of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This evening, managers appointed by the House of Representatives will deliver

to the Senate the Article of Impeachment and will read the article here in the well of this Chamber.

Tomorrow, Senators will be sworn in as judges and jurors in the impending trial, and the Senate will issue a summons to former President Trump. After that, both the House managers and the former President's counsel will have a period of time to draft their legal briefs, just as they did in previous trials. Once the briefs are drafted, presentations by the parties will commence the week of February 8.

I want to thank the Republican leader for working with us to reach this agreement, which we believe is fair to both sides and will enable the Senate to conduct a timely and fair trial on the Article of Impeachment. The schedule will also allow us to continue the important work of the people, including confirming more members of President Biden's Cabinet.

I want to be very clear about that last point. The Senate will conduct a timely and fair trial.

I want to be very clear about that because some of my Republican colleagues have latched on to a fringe legal theory that the Senate does not have the constitutional power to hold the trial because Donald Trump is no longer in office. This argument has been roundly debunked by constitutional scholars from the left, right, and center. It defies precedent, historic practice, and basic common sense. It makes no sense whatsoever that a President--or any official--could commit a heinous crime against our country and then defeat Congress's impeachment powers by simply resigning so as to avoid accountability and a vote to disqualify them from future office.

This is not merely a hypothetical situation. In 1876, President Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap, implicated in a corruption scheme, literally raced to the White House to tender his resignation mere minutes before the House was set to vote on his impeachment. Then, as a matter of historical record, he burst into tears. Not only did the House move forward with the five impeachment articles against him, but a trial was then convened in the Senate.

Of course, the question came up as to whether the Senate could try former officials, and guess what. The Senate voted as a Chamber that Mr. Belknap could be tried ``for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.''

Those are the words of the Senate vote in 1876.

Mr. Belknap was ultimately acquitted, but the record is clear. The Senate has the power to try former officials, and the reasons are obvious. A President or any official, for example, could wait until their final 2 weeks in office to betray their country, knowing they could escape accountability or merely resign moments before the Senate decides to convict and disqualify them from future office. The theory that the Senate cannot try former officials would amount to a constitutional get-out-of-jail-free card for any President who commits an impeachable offense.

Now, it is certainly appropriate for the Senate to take the resignation of an official into account. After all, the House decided not to impeach Richard Nixon because, in that sense, Nixon took some responsibility for his actions. But to state the obvious, President Trump did not resign. He has not demonstrated remorse. He has not even acknowledged his role in the events of January 6, and he has never disavowed the lies that were fed to the American people by him about who actually won the election.

Just to put a final nail into the coffin of this ridiculous theory, I remind my colleagues, if a President is convicted on an Article of Impeachment, the Senate holds a separate vote on whether to bar them from future office. Once a President is convicted of an impeachment charge, they are removed from office. In other words, they become a former official. If we are to believe that the Senate can't hold former officials to account, then the Senate could never proceed to that second vote of disqualification, which is provided for in the Constitution, even for a sitting President.

In saying this, I am expressing the view of legal scholars across the political spectrum. Stephen Vladeck, a prominent constitutional expert at the University of Texas, wrote in the New York Times that Donald Trump is the ``poster child'' for why the conviction of an ex-President is not just constitutionally permissible but necessary. More than 150 legal scholars signed a letter last week forcefully stating that an impeachment trial of a former President is constitutional. Among the signatories, one of the cofounders of the Federalist Society, as well as one of President Reagan's Solicitors General, among other prominent conservatives.

It is so obviously wrong to suggest that impeaching the President is unconstitutional--that impeaching a former President is unconstitutional. So why are some suggesting it?

Well, there seems to be a desire on the political right to avoid passing judgment, one way or the other, on former President Trump and his role in fomenting the despicable attack on the Capitol on January 6. There seems to be some hope that Republicans could oppose the former President's impeachment on process grounds, rather than grappling with his actual awful conduct.

Let me be very clear. This is not going to fly. The trial is going to happen. It is certainly and clearly constitutional, and if the former President is convicted, there will be a vote to disqualify him from future office.

There is only one question at stake--only one question that Senators of both parties will have to answer before God and their own conscience: Is former President Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection against the United States?

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding Rule III of the Senate Rules of Impeachment, at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow, January 26, 2021, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Article of Impeachment of Donald John Trump, former President of the United States.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 15, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of morning business on Tuesday, January 26, the Senate proceed to executive session, and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the nomination of Antony Blinken to be the Secretary of State; further, that the time until 12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senator Menendez permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes; and that at 12 noon, the Senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, January 26; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the Blinken nomination, as provided under the previous order; that following the confirmation vote on Blinken, the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and that Senator Paul be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes for debate only; finally, following the remarks of Senator Paul, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, for the information of all Senators, there will be a live quorum at 2:15 p.m.; Senators are asked to report to the floor at that time; at 2:30, the oath will be administered to the Presiding Officer and Members of the Senate for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, former President of the United States.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have made good progress in our efforts to determine the timing and structure of the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump.

For the information of all Senators, the House managers will come to read the Article of Impeachment at 7 p.m. on Monday, January 25. Members will then be sworn in the next day, Tuesday, January 26.

After that, both the House managers and the defense will have a period of time to draft their legal briefs, just as they did in previous trials. During that period, the Senate will continue to do other business for the American people,

such as Cabinet nominations and the COVID relief bill, which would provide relief for millions of Americans who are suffering during this pandemic.

Then, once the briefs are drafted, presentation by the parties will commence the week of February 8.

The January 6 insurrection at the Capitol, incited by Donald J. Trump, is a day none of us will ever forget. We all want to put this awful chapter in our Nation's history behind us, but healing and unity will only come if there is truth and accountability, and that is what this trial will provide

Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 21, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a closed hearing.