[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S790-S805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMPEACHMENT

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, and all of my colleagues in the Senate, 
throughout this impeachment trial, I thought a lot about what this 
country stands for. For me, as the son of an immigrant whose family 
came to the United States from Germany in the 1930s, America stands as 
a beacon of liberty, equal justice, and democracy.
  We are a nation forged by a revolution against a monarchy and its 
absolute power. We are a nation founded by the ratification of the most 
radically democratic document in history, the Constitution of the 
United States of America.
  Under the Constitution, we are governed not by monarchs--who act with 
impunity and without accountability--but by elected officers who answer 
to, and work for, ``We the People.''
  Generations of Americans have struggled and sacrificed their lives to 
defend that audacious vision. The Senate has a duty and a moral 
responsibility to uphold that vision.
  Over the last 2 weeks, I fear that the Senate has failed in that 
duty. I am deeply disappointed that nearly all of my Republican 
colleagues refused to allow for the kind of witness testimony and 
documentary evidence that any legitimate trial would include. You 
cannot conduct a fair trial without witnesses.
  In my view, you also can't have a legitimate acquittal without a fair 
trial; that the Senate refused to shed more light on the facts is truly 
astonishing. Despite this, the facts as we know them are clear and 
plain. President Trump pressured the Government of Ukraine, an American 
ally, not for our national security interests but for his own selfish 
and corrupt political interests. When he was caught, he sought to cover 
it up by suppressing documents and preventing witnesses from testifying 
before Congress and the American people.
  The President's defense team had every opportunity to present us with 
evidence that would explain his actions or give us reason to doubt this 
clear pattern of fact. Instead, they shifted their defense away from 
the damning facts and embraced an extreme legal philosophy that would 
allow any President to abuse their power and ignore the law.
  This dangerous argument is not new. It was used by President Richard 
Nixon when he said: ``Well, when the president does it, that means it 
is not illegal.''
  President Nixon also strayed far from his duties to our Nation for 
his own personal and political gain. It was only after courageous 
Members of the U.S. Senate, in his own political party, put their 
country first and stood up to him that President Nixon finally 
resigned.
  We are now in yet another time when our Chief Executive has failed 
us, and our Nation requires more leadership and conscience from the 
U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are unwilling to 
deliver that kind of moral leadership.
  President Donald Trump has proven to be unfit for the office he 
occupies. He abused his powers and continues to engage in a coverup. He 
presents a clear and present danger to our national security and, more 
fundamentally, to our democracy itself.
  That is why my conscience and my duty to defend our Constitution 
compel me to vote to convict Donald Trump. I

[[Page S791]]

hope the rest of you will join in this vote, but I am not naive. I 
understand how President Trump operates. I know how ugly it can become 
if you dare to challenge him. But your fear of this bully cannot 
outweigh your duty to the American people. Your fear cannot blind you 
to how you will be viewed by history. What you should really fear is 
what will happen when there are no limits on any President, even when 
he is risking our national security and our foreign alliances to 
illegitimately maintain his grip on power.
  What we should all fear is what President Trump will do next if the 
Senate does not hold him accountable for the clear abuses of power he 
has already committed. This is the same President who praises dictators 
and despots and jeopardizes our international alliances. This is the 
same President who stole billions of dollars from military construction 
funds to pay for his monument to division and racism. This is the same 
President who is more focused on lobbing insults and spreading Russian 
conspiracy theories on Twitter than he is on his own intelligence 
briefings.

  Let me just say that I pay close attention to the intelligence that I 
am allowed to see, and from my seat on both the Armed Services and 
Intelligence Committees, I am acutely aware of the threats that our 
Nation faces. They include an emboldened North Korea, the Iranian 
regime, and terrorist organizations across several continents.
  Russia and China are acting aggressively to assert their 
authoritarian influence and provoke American interests and our allies, 
including the Ukraine. Finally, with the 2020 Presidential election 
mere months away, Russia is once again targeting our election systems 
and manipulating our democratic discourse.
  Right now, patriotic Americans working in the State Department, for 
our intelligence agencies, and serving in the military are defending us 
from those very threats. These Americans pledge to obey the orders of 
their Commander in Chief. They trust that their Commander in Chief's 
loyalty and sole focus is squarely on the best interests of the United 
States of America. I don't say this lightly: President Trump has 
betrayed that trust. He promised us that he would put America first. 
Instead, he put himself first.
  Throughout our history, the defense of our Nation has depended on the 
leadership of men whose names we now remember when we visit their 
memorials, names like Lincoln and Washington and Roosevelt. These men 
all swore the same oath that President Trump did when they assumed our 
Nation's most powerful office. Our Presidents swear to ``faithfully 
execute the Office of President of the United States'' and to 
``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.'' President Trump has violated that oath.
  So I will ask us once again, what does America stand for? In 
considering that question, I think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--the 
only man who did not serve as President whom we recognize with a 
memorial on our National Mall. More than 50 years after his 
assassination, Dr. King's life's work to make our Nation more fully 
live up to our founding principles still resonates. These are the same 
principles that compelled my father's family to come to this country: 
liberty, equal justice, democracy.
  While fighting for those principles, Dr. King wrote in his letter 
from a Birmingham jail: ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he 
stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in 
times of challenge and controversy.'' My colleagues, this is one of 
those times.
  Two years after writing the Birmingham Jail letter, Dr. King led 
thousands on a 5-day, 54-mile march from Selma to Montgomery for our 
fundamental American right: the right to vote in free and fair 
elections. Remember, that right is what President Trump has threatened 
by inviting foreign interference in our elections. Upon reaching the 
steps of the Alabama State Capitol, Dr. King proclaimed: ``We must come 
to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a 
society that can live with its conscience.'' I sincerely hope that 
those of us in this body can keep seeking that society, that America.
  Before I finish, I also want to address Americans who have watched 
this trial unfold and are rightly disappointed by the coverup that it 
has become. I would urge you to remember what Dr. King said about 
accepting finite disappointment but never losing infinite hope. Despite 
what the Senate is about to do and the danger I fear it will bring 
about, I will never lose hope in what America stands for because we the 
people--not any King or dictator--still hold immense power in this 
Nation, and it is up to all of us now to wield that power.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Senators, we cast many votes during 
our time here. I have cast over 13,200. Each one of those votes is 
important, but a vote to convict or acquit the President on charges of 
impeachment is perhaps the most important vote a Senator could ever 
cast. Until now, it has happened only twice in our Nation's history, 
and it is something that should never be taken lightly.
  President Trump has been charged of committing, according to the 
Constitution and in these articles, ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' 
for requesting that a foreign leader investigate his potential 
political opponent and, No. 2, obstructing Congress's inquiry into 
those actions. For this, we are asked to permanently remove him from 
office.
  As a judge and juror, as we all are, I first ask whether the charges 
rise to an offense that unquestionably demands removal from office. If 
so, I then ask whether the House proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 
it actually occurred.
  The House's case fails on the first of those questions. The 
President's request is not impeachable conduct under our Constitution. 
A President isn't prohibited by law from engaging the assistance of a 
foreign ally in an anti-corruption investigation.
  The House tries to make up for this hurdle by suggesting that 
subjective motive--in other words, political advantage--can turn an 
otherwise unimpeachable act into an act that demands removal from 
office. I won't support such an irreversible break from the 
Constitution standard for impeaching a President.
  The Senate is an institution of precedent. We are informed and guided 
by history and the actions of our predecessors, but our choices also 
actually make history. These days, that can be difficult to keep in 
mind. A rush to convict or acquit can lead to cut corners and 
overheated rhetoric.
  We are each bound by our oath to ``do impartial justice.'' As 
President pro tempore of this institution, I recognize that we must 
also do justice to the Senate and to the Republic that this Senate 
serves.
  This trial began with a full and fair debate on the rules to guide 
our process. We considered and voted on 11 amendments over nearly 13 
hours. Consistent with precedent, the Senate adopted rules allowing the 
same length of time for arguments and questions as was agreed to 
unanimously in the 1999 Clinton impeachment. Consistent with precedent, 
we engaged in a robust debate on calling witnesses and pursuing 
additional evidence. We sat as a Court of Impeachment for over 70 
hours. The final vote will be the product of a fair and judicial 
process consistent with precedent of the Senate.
  I cannot say the same of the Articles of Impeachment that we are 
considering today from the House of Representatives, which has the sole 
power of impeachment. After 9 days of presentation and questions and 
after fully considering the record, I am convinced that what the House 
is asking the Senate to do is constitutionally flawed and dangerously 
unprecedented.
  The House's abuse of power article rests on objectively legal 
conduct. Until Congress legislates otherwise, a President is within his 
authority to request that a foreign leader assist with anti-corruption 
efforts. To make up for this, the House of Representatives' abuse of 
power theory rests entirely on the President's subjective motive. This 
very vague standard cannot be sustained.
  The House offers no limiting principle of what motives are allowed. 
Under such a flexible standard, future House of Representatives could 
impeach Presidents for taking lawful action for what a majority thinks 
are the wrong reasons.

[[Page S792]]

  The House also gives no guidance whatsoever on whether conviction 
rests on proving a single, corrupt motive or whether mixed motives 
suffice under their theory. In its trial brief, the House of 
Representatives argues that there is ``no credible alternative 
explanation''--those are their words--for the President's alleged 
conduct, but once the Senate heard from the President's counsel in 
defense, then all of a sudden, the House changed its tune. Now, even a 
credible alternative explanation shouldn't stop the Senate from 
removing the President.
  Reshaping their own standard midtrial only serves to undercut their 
initial arguments. And simply asserting--at least 63 times that I 
counted--that their evidence was ``overwhelming'' doesn't make the 
House of Representatives' allegations accurate or prove an impeachable 
offense. Even after arguments had concluded, the House managers started 
repeating the terms ``bribery'' and ``extortion'' on the floor of the 
Senate, while neither term appears anywhere in their Articles of 
Impeachment.
  So you get down to this point. It is not the Senate's job to read 
into House articles what the House failed or didn't see fit to 
incorporate itself. Articles of Impeachment shouldn't be moving targets 
like moving a goalpost. The ambiguity surrounding the House's abuse of 
power theory gives this Senator reason enough to vote not guilty. If we 
are to lower the bar of impeachment--and that is what the House of 
Representatives is trying to do--we better be clear on where the bar is 
being set.
  The House's second article impeaching the President for what they 
call obstruction of Congress is equally unprecedented and equally 
patently frivolous. This Senator takes great pride in knowing a thing 
or two about obstruction by the executive branch from both Republican 
Presidents and Democratic Presidents in the 40 years that I have been 
doing oversight. Congressional oversight--like rooting out waste, 
fraud, and abuse--is central to my role as a Senator representing Iowa 
taxpayers. In the face of obstruction, I use the tools the Constitution 
provides to this institution. Now, that is the very core of the checks 
and balances of our governmental system.

  For example, I fought the Obama administration to obtain documents 
related to Operation Fast and Furious. Under the House's obstruction 
standard, should President Obama have been impeached for his failure to 
waive privileges during the course of that investigation? We fought 
President Obama on this for 3 years in the courts, and we still didn't 
end up with all that we asked for. We never heard a peep from the 
Democrats when Obama pulled that trick.
  The hypocrisy here by the House Democrats has been on full display 
for the last 2 weeks. In the case before us, the House issued a series 
of requests and subpoenas to the executive branch, but the House failed 
to enforce those requests. When challenged to stand up for its 
subpoenas in court, the investigating committee simply retreated.
  The House may cower at defending its own authority, but the Senate 
shouldn't have to clean up the mess of the House's own making. For the 
many ways in which the House failed in the fundamentals of oversight 
and for the terrible new precedent this obstruction article would set, 
I will vote not guilty.
  Another point: There has been debate about the whistleblower, whose 
complaint motivated the House's impeachment inquiry. I have worked for 
and with whistleblowers for more than 30 years. I have sponsored 
numerous laws to strengthen whistleblower protections. Attempts by 
anyone to ``out'' a whistleblower just to sell an article or to score a 
political point are not helpful at all. It is not the treatment any 
whistleblower deserves. However, it is important for investigators to 
talk to whistleblowers and to evaluate their claims and credibility 
because those claims form the basis of an inquiry under checks and 
balances of government.
  My office does this all the time. When whistleblowers bring 
significant cases of bipartisan interest, we frequently work closely 
with the Democrats to look into those claims. I know the House 
committees have followed that course in the past. Both parties 
understand how to talk to whistleblowers and respect confidentiality.
  Why no efforts were taken in this case to take these very basic, 
bipartisan steps is very baffling to me. I fear that, to achieve its 
desired goal, the House majority weaponized and politicized 
whistleblowers for purely partisan purposes. I hope that the damage 
done will be short-lived. Otherwise, the separation of powers under our 
Constitution will be weakened.
  Finally, I have always made it a priority to hold judicial nominees 
to a standard of restraint and fidelity to the law, and as judges in 
this case, which every Senator is, we should consider those factors 
which counsel restraint.
  These articles came to the Senate as a product of a flawed, 
unprecedented, and partisan process. When the articles were voted on by 
the full House, the only bipartisanship was of those in opposition. 
Moreover, tonight, the Iowa caucuses will be finished. The 2020 
Presidential election is underway. Yet we are all asked to remove the 
incumbent from the ballot based on an impeachment that is supported by 
only one party of the Congress.
  The Senate should take no part in endorsing the very dangerous new 
precedent that this would set for future impeachments. We need no new 
normal when it comes to impeaching a President. We have precedents of 
the past that should be followed, and they have not been followed. We 
have had more than 28,000 pages of evidence. We have had 17 witnesses 
and over 70 hours of open, transparent consideration by the Senate. The 
American people are more than adequately prepared to decide for 
themselves the fate of the President in November. This decision belongs 
to the voters. It is time to get the Senate back to work for the 
American people on issues of substance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate now for two 
Presidential impeachment trials, and I can tell you that this is never 
a situation I want to find our country in--not back then and certainly 
not today--when the odds of bipartisan cooperation, even on 
responsibilities as solemn as these, are brutally low.
  In spite of this, I called for impeachment proceedings to begin in 
the House in July of this past year, and I did so because of the 
gravity of the threats to our democracy that has been outlined in 
Mueller's report. At the time, I felt, if we did not fully explore 
those threats, we would fall short of our constitutional duty and set a 
precedent of congressional indifference to potentially flagrant 
violations of our Constitution--ones that could jeopardize our core 
democratic institutions.
  After hearing both sides' presentations and after reviewing every 
available source of information and testimony, I believe it is 
painfully clear that the President of the United States has abused his 
power and obstructed Congress and that he should be removed from 
office.
  I want to talk about how I reached this conclusion, which I did not 
do lightly, and take a few minutes to reflect on the consequence of the 
decision each of us is individually about to make.
  Throughout the trial, the contrast between the presentations by the 
House managers and the President's defense team could not have been 
starker or more damning for the President.
  The House managers built an ironclad case that shows the President 
abused his power and obstructed Congress in ways that present grave, 
urgent threats to our national security and to the rule of law. Over 
the course of their arguments, it became undeniably clear: The 
corruption we have learned so much about in recent months starts at the 
very top--with the President of the United States.
  President Trump demanded a foreign government to intervene in our 
elections for his own political gain, and he did so by withholding 
American taxpayer dollars and by ignoring congressional authority. The 
President's associates acted with his full knowledge and consent, and 
he himself pressured Ukraine's leader, knowing how much Ukraine 
depended on United States support. These actions have already made us 
less secure as a nation. By delaying vital military aid to Ukraine--a 
key partner--President Trump has

[[Page S793]]

emboldened Russia, one of our chief adversaries, and he has undermined 
our credibility with other allies worldwide.
  Critically, the President has also given every indication he will 
continue to put his own interests ahead of American interests, 
including in our upcoming elections, and he has, time and again, 
refused to recognize Congress's constitutional authority to oversee the 
executive branch. In addition, information continues to come out that 
further implicates the President and demonstrates not only his intent 
to abuse the power of our highest office but his direct personal 
engagement and efforts to do so.
  To summarize, the House's arguments made it impossible to ignore a 
reality our Founders deeply feared--a President who betrays our 
national security for his own personal benefit and disregards the 
system of checks and balances on which our democratic institutions 
depend, who believes he is above the law--contrary to the most 
fundamental American principles.
  The President's defense did not directly refute those charges against 
the President or the thorough case that the House presented. In fact, 
the President's defense only served to illustrate how indefensible the 
President's actions were. We heard complaints from the President's 
defense about the House's process, which the President refused to 
engage in.
  We heard a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian election 
interference even though the President's own advisers repeatedly 
explained to him that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in our 2016 
election.
  We heard the denial of a quid pro quo that, as the House managers 
laid out in excruciating detail, was borne out not only on the 
President's July 25 call with President Zelensky but in hundreds of 
documents from before and after that call.
  We did not, however, hear any substantive defense of the President's 
actions. Tellingly, the President's defense vehemently opposed 
commonsense requests for the President's own key aides to testify and 
for the consideration of his aides' documents as part of this trial.
  If the President were as innocent as he claims, surely, his aides and 
his administration's materials would bear those claims out, and he 
would want them considered. He and his team do not.
  In 1999, I said that, if we were to remove a sitting President, none 
of us should have any doubts. Based on the facts we have heard today 
and the distraction and obfuscation that has been offered in response, 
none of us should have any doubts that the President committed the 
impeachable offenses of which he is accused.
  What we now know is the President of the United States demanded that 
a foreign government interfere in our elections to help him win his 
upcoming campaign. That truth is indisputable. The question is, What 
does each of us as an individual do with that information?
  In sitting here, I have been reminded that this trial is so much 
larger than any one of us--larger than any political party and much 
larger than President Trump. It is fundamentally about whether we will 
stand up for the institutions that secure our autonomy as a people--
institutions we hope to leave stronger for our children and 
grandchildren.
  To go a step further, really, this trial is about freedom in our 
country because, if the President feels he owes his office to a foreign 
government, not to Americans, then whom does the President truly serve? 
How can he be trusted? If foreign governments can skew our elections in 
their favor, if they interfere with Americans at the ballot box this 
November, then are Americans truly represented in the White House? Is 
there any American who is really free if a President can owe his 
election to an entity outside and aside from the American people and if 
foreign governments can help to decide who is in our highest office?
  These questions and their chilling answers have led me to my final 
decision, and I hope others consider them carefully as they make their 
own.
  I also want to speak for a minute about fear. There are really two 
different kinds at work in this moment. One is the fear of political 
consequences. I remember how many Members of Congress felt compelled to 
vote for the war in Iraq. The political pressure was palpable. That 
kind of political fear is palpable again today, but fear of political 
consequences must never supersede concern for our country, and we 
should be fearful for our country today.
  We should be fearful for our future, for our safety, and the rule of 
law if the evidence we have heard cannot persuade this body to act on 
the painful truth before us. Our President has betrayed the public 
trust, flagrantly violated our laws, and proved himself a threat to our 
national security. So I ask my colleagues how they want to feel not in 
this moment here today but in the years ahead and as part of our 
Nation's history as more information continues to come out about this 
administration--and it will--as we get closer to an election we still 
have a unique opportunity to help protect, and as we explain this 
difficult but pivotal time to our grandchildren. Looking back, whom or 
what will you want to have stood for--this President or our country?
  I believe, as Representative Schiff said so simply and powerfully, 
that in America, ``right matters.''
  But I also note right matters only because so many people have, 
throughout our history, stood up for what is right, even when--
especially when--it may be difficult.
  Today each U.S. Senator is called to do the same.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak during a sad and 
perilous moment in our Nation's history.
  Our Nation was founded on important, basic principles that ``all 
men'' and women ``are created equal'' and ``that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''
  With rights, of course, always come responsibilities. America is a 
nation of laws, and no person, not even the President of the United 
States, is above these laws. No person, not even the President of the 
United States, is above these laws. That has been true since our Nation 
was founded, and it is still true today.
  Unfortunately, President Donald Trump has abused his power and acted 
as if he is above the law. He did this by holding up critical military 
aid to pressure a new foreign leader to investigate a political rival 
for his own political benefit. Then he did everything he could to try 
and cover it up after he got caught.
  As U.S. Senators, it is our constitutional duty to fairly and 
thoughtfully consider Articles of Impeachment, listen to the evidence, 
and make a decision that honors our Nation's values and our fundamental 
belief that no one is above the law.
  That is exactly what I did, and it is why I will vote to convict 
President Trump and remove him from office.
  The facts show the President did everything he could to cover up the 
truth, put our elections under even greater risk of foreign 
interference, and damaged the constitutional checks and balances 
essential to our democracy.
  Let's be clear. We are here because of one person. We are here 
because of one person--President Donald J. Trump. The President was 
provided multiple opportunities to prove his innocence, as he should 
be. The House made countless requests for documents during the 
impeachment inquiry. The White House ignored them.
  The House issued 42 subpoenas. The White House refused to comply and 
even went so far as to threaten and intimidate those people who chose 
to appear.
  Yet, even with this unprecedented level of obstruction, the House 
made a strong case for impeachment.
  Once impeachment moved to the Senate, the President again had 
numerous opportunities to defend himself. The American people and the 
people of Michigan strongly supported having additional documents and 
relevant witnesses--firsthand witnesses who could speak to the Articles 
of Impeachment. That is what a trial is supposed to be about.
  Yet the Senate did not hear from people who clearly have key, 
relevant

[[Page S794]]

information, including the former National Security Advisor, John 
Bolton, who is willing to testify, and, in fact, it is just a matter of 
time when we will hear publicly, all of us, what he would have said to 
the Senate; Acting White House Chief of Staff and Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney; OMB Associate Director 
of National Security Programs Michael Duffy; and White House National 
Security Aid Robert Blair.
  Common sense--common sense--says that if President Trump's top staff 
have evidence of his innocence, he would have insisted that we hear 
from them, as we should. They would have rushed into this Chamber.
  Unfortunately, the exact opposite happened, lending strong support 
for the evidence presented by the House of Representatives.
  Instead, the President's defense team argued that abuse of power is 
not a crime and, therefore, not an impeachable offense, and it became 
clear that they believe, as the President himself has said on many 
occasions, that he has power to do anything he wants under article II 
of the Constitution.
  They also argued that if the President thinks his reelection is in 
the public interest, and if he does anything to benefit his reelection, 
including getting help from a foreign country, then that too is in the 
public interest and not an abuse of power.
  Common sense would tell us otherwise.
  Keep in mind that these are far from mainstream legal arguments, even 
in conservative legal circles.
  These arguments have been made up to protect President Trump and 
cover up his wrongdoing. These arguments are nothing short of 
appalling, and I am alarmed at what they suggest President Trump could 
do next week, next month, in November, or what any President in the 
future could do.
  Is it now OK for the President of the United States to ask a foreign 
leader to investigate a Member of Congress or any citizen if it helps 
him get reelected and, thus, in his mind, benefits the country? Is it 
now OK for the President of the United States to tell a Governor that 
they are not getting any critical disaster relief until they endorse 
him in the next election? Is it now OK for the President of the United 
States to ask foreign leaders to give campaign contributions or other 
political help in exchange for official visits?
  I don't think any of this is OK. The people of Michigan don't think 
any of this is OK, and I intend to do everything I can to ensure that 
it doesn't become our new normal.
  The Founders were smart. They had lived under a King, and they had no 
intention of doing so ever again. I have to wonder why so many of my 
Republican colleagues seem so, so eager to give it a try. This is the 
United States of America. In our country, no President is above the 
law, and it is illegal for a candidate or any elected official to 
receive political help from a foreign government. Americans must decide 
American elections. This is fundamental to our democracy and worth 
continuing to fight for, which I intend to do.
  Having said that, I am also deeply concerned about the divisions in 
our country, in our families, in our communities. It is critical that 
we find ways to listen to each other, respect differences, and find 
common ground so that we can address the important issues affecting our 
families and our country. These are indeed serious and perilous times. 
It is up to all of us to stand up for what we believe is right and to 
work to strengthen our democracy by coming together as Americans, by 
finding ways to work together to solve problems. Our children and our 
grandchildren are counting on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. For the past 2 weeks, the President's defense team has 
spun bizarre legal arguments, conspiracy theories, and flatout lies 
that are unbecoming of the Office of the President of the United 
States.
  The country knows the facts. The President pursued his personal and 
political interests in a way that harmed the national security of 
America. He smeared our own Ambassador to the Ukraine. He promoted 
Kremlin propaganda on 2016 election interference. He sent his personal 
lawyer and willing members of his administration to trade official acts 
in exchange for fabricated dirt on a political rival. He stopped $391 
million dollars in aid from going to the Ukraine, and when the 
Ukrainians made clear they were desperate for that aid to come through, 
he made his demands--come up with dirt on the Bidens, find or invent 
the server.
  Donald Trump's defense team has claimed the President wanted to fight 
corruption in Ukraine, but they have produced zero hard evidence to 
support that claim.
  Never in the history of our government has the President pursued a 
policy end without generating what usually is mountains of paper, and 
yet here there are no memos, no meeting records, no communiques on 
anticorruption--nothing. This defense is fiction.
  It is fiction because the President was not fighting corruption in 
Ukraine. He was causing it.
  We also know the President was telling the people around him to do 
what he wanted with respect to the Ukraine. He was telling them to talk 
to his personal lawyer--talk to Rudy. Because the President had 
forgotten what is good for the American people, he ignored the needs of 
our allies and forgiven the attacks on American democracy.
  What the American Government under this President was after--the only 
thing it was after--was a corrupt favor for the personal benefit of 
Donald Trump. This favor was to get a foreign government to target an 
American citizen when our own intelligence services were legally 
prohibited from doing so--an action that even Trump's own Secretary of 
State, Mike Pompeo, once admitted is illegal. Mike Pompeo said: ``It is 
not lawful to outsource that which we cannot do.'' Yet that is what the 
President was seeking.
  And that was not the only illegal action. The GAO has said that 
holding up the Ukraine aid was a violation of the Impoundment Control 
Act. And when the aid eventually went through in September of last 
year, it wasn't because they suddenly had a whole lot of new respect 
for the constitutional powers of the Congress; it was because they got 
caught.
  When this abuse came to light, Donald Trump's response was: I pretty 
much can do what I want. I am above the law.
  On the south lawn of the White House, he confirmed that he wanted 
Ukraine to smear the Bidens, smear them by announcing investigations. 
He said he wanted the same thing from China.
  In a White House press briefing, Mick Mulvaney, the Chief of Staff, 
confirmed that the scheme had been politically motivated. A reporter 
who was clearly stunned at the Mulvaney admission asked for some 
clarification, and Mulvaney said: ``I have news for everybody: Get over 
it.''
  And that, I would submit, is what this trial is all about, whether 
the Senate and the country have to simply get over it. I know some 
Senators are apparently prepared to do exactly that, but let's consider 
the precedent that just ``getting over it'' sends.

  If this ends in an acquittal, it will signal that politicians can get 
away with selling out American interests to foreign coconspirators to 
rig an election. What is to stop the Russians from approaching a future 
President with their own proposition: Dial back your support for the 
Baltic States, and we will take down your opponent. What would prevent 
the Chinese Government from approaching a Senator and offering 
fabricated dirt on Senators of the other party in order to smooth the 
way for a sweetheart trade deal? What if the President hands the Saudis 
an enemies list of political opponents to hack in exchange for military 
tech and a few regiments of American soldiers in Yemen?
  Ending in acquittal without hearing from any witnesses or getting any 
new evidence will say that the President can rig impeachment trials as 
well. Every impeachment trial--every one--included witness testimony. 
That is just good government 101. It is what Americans expect. It is 
what I heard in open-to-all townhall meetings in Oregon from counties 
Donald Trump won and from counties Hillary Clinton won. The Republican 
Senate majority is apparently ready to acquit the Republican President 
without even going

[[Page S795]]

through the motions, ignoring what the American people expect.
  How will we sustain a functioning democracy when our leaders are 
allowed to rig an election and there are no consequences? The Congress 
is going to struggle to unwind that precedent. It could outlive all of 
us.
  After these long days of arguments and questioning, in my view, this 
comes down to two simple questions.
  First, the President swears an oath, just like we do, to protect and 
defend our revered Constitution. Does the President's oath of office 
mean anything? When a President puts his own interests first, when he 
extorts fabricated dirt from a foreign government for his political 
gain, he is obviously in violation of his oath. He is not protecting 
the constitutional right of Americans to choose their own leaders in 
free and fair elections. What he is doing is protecting himself and his 
own power.
  What does the President's oath of office mean if violating it carries 
no consequences? If his oath means nothing and he cannot be charged 
with a crime, then he is bound by nothing. And if we will not hold him 
to his oath, are we not surrendering our own oath--our own oath to 
protect and defend the Constitution?
  The second question is, Do we believe that this is a government of 
the people, by the people, and for the people? Because the President's 
lawyers stood on the floor right over there and said, in short, it is 
not.
  Alan Dershowitz argued that nothing the President does to get 
reelected can be impeachable as long as he believes his reelection is 
in the public interest. The President's counsel continued to build on 
that argument even after they claimed it was misunderstood--this from 
the same administration that holds that the President cannot be charged 
with a crime, that he exists on a plane--literally a plane above the 
law, as it applies to everyone else.
  If the President may commit crimes in office and cheat in an election 
to stay in power, then it is no longer a government of, by, and for the 
people. This is a government of, by, and for Donald Trump. The 
proposition of free and fair elections in America is gone, replaced by 
elections that happen on terms set by Donald Trump or on terms set by a 
future President with the same sort of boost from a foreign power.
  Putting aside whatever political fallout there may be in the days and 
weeks ahead, we have to ask, how can the Senate accept this degradation 
of the sanctity and security of free elections? Isn't this institution 
supposed to protect our elections and defend our Constitution?
  The President's attempt to cheat in the election and the extreme 
lengths he has gone to cover it up are obviously dangerously wrong. 
What he did is a violation of his oath. It is a betrayal of the system 
of democratic government left for us by the Founders. And we have no 
choice. He is guilty. He must be convicted.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to make remarks 
today, if I may, until I conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the 
impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump. I know this was not a 
difficult decision for many of my friends and colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, but it is one that has weighed heavily on me. Voting 
whether or not to remove a sitting President is no easy decision, and 
it shouldn't be, as the consequences for our Nation are severe.
  As a moderate, centrist Democrat from West Virginia with one of the 
most bipartisan voting records in the Senate, I have approached every 
vote I have cast in this body with an open mind and pride myself in 
working across the aisle to bring my Republican and Democratic friends 
together to do what is best for our country.
  Where I come from, party politics is more often overruled by just 
plain old common sense, and I have never, in over 35 years of public 
service, approached an issue with premeditated thoughts that my 
Republican friends are always wrong and my Democratic friends are 
always right. Since the people of West Virginia sent me here in 2010, I 
have never forgotten the oath I took to defend the Constitution and 
faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which I am honored to 
hold.
  It is by the Constitution that we sit here today as a court for the 
trial of impeachments. It is the Constitution that gives us what 
Hamilton called the ``awful discretion'' to remove the President from 
office.
  At the start of this trial, my colleagues and I took an oath 
swearing--swearing--to do impartial justice.
  I have taken this oath very seriously throughout this process, and I 
would like to think my colleagues have done the same, because, as the 
House managers and our former colleague Republican Senator John Warner 
from Virginia said: It is not just the President who is on trial here 
but the Senate itself.
  The Framers of the Constitution chose the Senate for this grave task 
because, according to Hamilton, they expected Senators to be able to 
``preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality'' to 
discharge this awesome responsibility fairly, without flinching.
  The Framers knew this would not be easy, but that is why they gave 
the job to us, the Senators. They believed the Senate was more likely 
to be impartial and independent, less influenced by political passion, 
less likely to betray our oaths, and more certain to vote on facts and 
evidence.
  This process should be based simply on our love and commitment to our 
country, not the relationship any of us might have with this President. 
I have always wanted this President and every President to succeed, no 
matter what their party affiliation, but I deeply love our country and 
must do what is best for the Nation.
  The Constitution refers to impeachment ``trials'' and says the Senate 
must ``try'' impeachments. The Framers chose their words carefully. 
They knew what a trial was and what it meant to try a case. By using 
the term ``standards of judicial fact finding,'' it calls on us to do 
what courts do every day and receive relevant evidence and examine 
witnesses.
  Sadly, the Senate has failed to meet its constitutional obligation, 
set forth by the Framers, to hold a fair trial and do impartial 
justice, and we have done so in the worse way, by letting tribal 
politics rule the day.
  I supported President Trump's calls for a fair trial in the Senate, 
which he suggested himself would include witnesses. But instead this 
body was shortchanged, with a majority of my Republican colleagues, led 
by the majority leader, voting to move forward without relevant 
witnesses and evidence necessary for a fair trial, as our Framers 
intended.
  History will judge the Senate harshly for failing in its 
constitutional duty to ``try'' this case and do impartial justice, to 
defend the Constitution, and to protect our democracy. Sadly, this is 
the legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren.
  Removing a President from the office to which the people have elected 
him is a grave step to take, but the Framers gave the Senate this 
solemn responsibility to protect the Constitution and the people of 
this Nation.
  Over the duration of this trial, I have listened carefully as both 
the House managers and the White House Counsel make their case for and 
against the Articles of Impeachment. I commend both sides for their 
great and grueling work in defending their respective positions.
  The House managers have presented a strong case, with an overwhelming 
display of evidence that shows what the President did was wrong. The 
President asked a foreign government to intervene in our upcoming 
election and to harm a domestic political rival. He delayed much needed 
security aid to Ukraine to pressure newly elected President Zelensky to 
do him a favor, and he defied lawful subpoenas from the House of 
Representatives.
  However, the President's counsel, too, defended their actions by 
laying out their case of the President's actions. They pointed to the 
unclassified transcript of President Trump's July 25 call with newly 
elected Ukrainian President Zelensky to make the argument that Trump 
discussed burden-sharing with other European countries and a mutual 
interest in rooting out

[[Page S796]]

corruption. They presented their views that the President was not given 
due process in the House of Representatives and highlighted the 
expedited nature of the House's proceedings. Finally, they argued: If a 
President does something which he believes will help him get elected 
and reelected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid 
pro quo that results in impeachment.
  Over the long days and nights of this trial, I have listened to both 
sides present their case and answer our questions. I remain undecided 
on how I will vote, but these points I believe to be true. First, it 
was not a ``perfect'' call. A newly elected President Zelensky, with no 
experience in international politics, gets a call from the leader of 
the free world asking for a favor related to U.S. domestic political 
affairs.
  No one--no one--regardless of political party, should think what he 
did was right. It was just simply wrong. Pressuring a NATO ally who is 
actively fighting off Russian aggression in his country is wrong. 
President Zelensky, or anyone else, should never feel beholden to the 
superpower of the world for a ``favor'' before they can receive 
military aid. It is not who we are as a country. We stand shoulder to 
shoulder with our allies and never, ever condition our support of 
democracy for a political favor.
  Of all of the arguments we have heard from the House managers and 
White House Counsel during the long days and nights we have sat here, 
the most dangerous and the most troubling to me is the false claim that 
the President can do no wrong, that he is above the law, and if it is 
good for the reelection of the President, then, it is good for our 
country. That is simply preposterous. That is not who we are as 
Americans.
  That is not how I was raised in the small coal mining town of 
Farmington, WV. Where I was raised, no one believed they were better 
than anyone else and could act with total disregard for the well-being 
of their neighbor if it was for their best interest. That is not why, 
over 230 years ago, the founding generation rebelled against a King and 
refused to crown a new one in this Republic. So let me be clear. No 
one, not even the President, is above the law.
  Finally, the purpose of impeachment is not to punish the President 
but to protect the public. The ultimate question is not whether the 
President's conduct warrants his removal from office but whether our 
Nation is better served by his removal by the Senate now with 
impeachment or by the decision the voters will make in November.
  As Hamilton warned us, impeachments ``seldom fail to agitate the 
passions of the whole community.'' They divide us on party lines and 
inflame our animosities. Never before in the history of our Republic 
has there been a purely partisan impeachment vote of a President. 
Removing this President at this time would not only further divide our 
deeply divided Nation but also further poison our already toxic 
political atmosphere.
  In weighing these thoughts, and of all of the arguments brought 
forward in the case, I must be realistic. I see no path to the 67 votes 
required to impeach President Trump and haven't since this trial 
started. However, I do believe a bipartisan majority of this body would 
vote to censure President Trump for his actions in this manner. Censure 
would allow this body to unite across party lines and as an equal 
branch of government to formally denounce the President's actions and 
hold him accountable. His behavior cannot go unchecked by the Senate, 
and censure would allow a bipartisan statement condemning his 
unacceptable behavior in the strongest terms.
  History will judge the Senate for how we have handled this solemn 
constitutional duty, and without bipartisan action, the fears of the 
great Senator Byrd will come true. As he said during the Clinton 
impeachment, the Senate will ``sink further into the mire'' because of 
this partisanship. ``There will be no winners on this vote,'' Byrd 
said. ``Each Senator has not only taken a solemn oath to support and 
defend the Constitution, but also do `impartial justice,' '' to help 
the Nation, ``so help me God . . . . . That oath does not say anything 
about political party; politics should have nothing to do with it.''
  I am truly struggling with this decision and will come to a 
conclusion reluctantly, as voting whether or not to remove a sitting 
President is the most consequential decision that I or any U.S. Senator 
will ever face.
  But regardless of my decision, and in the absence of 67 votes, I am 
reminded again of the words of Senator Byrd: The House and Senate--
Republicans and Democrats--and the President ``must come together to 
heal the open wounds, bind up the damaged trust, and, by our example, 
again unite our people.''
  ``For the common good, we must now put aside the bitterness that has 
infected our Nation . . . . We [must] begin by putting behind us the 
distrust and bitterness caused by this sorry episode, and search for 
common ground instead of shoring up the divisions that have eroded 
decency and good will and dimmed our collected vision.''
  It is not the legacy of the individual Senators we should be 
concerned about, but it is the legacy of this great institution, the 
U.S. Senate, that we leave for generations to come.
  I thank you, and I ask the good Lord to continue to bless this great 
country of ours during this trying time.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, before I begin, I really want to 
take a moment to thank our friend and Majority Leader McConnell for the 
manner in which he has worked to make this trial run so smoothly. I 
also thank our colleagues for their perseverance and, of course, the 
staff that has worked so diligently and has been so patient as we have 
worked through this process.
  The impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump was a moment in 
history that should have been shrouded in the gravity of its potential 
consequences. Instead, day by day, we endured hyperbole in its most 
unserious form.
  It is easy to forget that America's appetite for scandal fades 
quickly once you exit the beltway around Washington, DC, but I 
encourage my colleagues to recognize that the enthusiasm with which the 
House managers have sought President Trump's removal is completely and 
inarguably divorced from reality in the heartland.
  As it appeared to my fellow Tennesseans, the intentional mishandling 
of the House of Representatives' constitutional duty was nothing more 
than an attempt to prelitigate the 2020 election. That is correct--to 
prelitigate the 2020 election and to remove President Trump from office 
and thereby remove him from the ballot.
  Our partisan friends had decided on the outcome that was necessary 
for them. They just needed to find a path that was going to get them 
there. So they had their outcome. They needed a path.
  We saw House Democrats freeze out the President's counsel, refusing 
them an opportunity to fairly participate in the House Intelligence 
Committee's investigation.
  House Manager Schiff created the supposed conversations he falsely 
attributed to the President and waited to see if his assertions would 
be questioned or if they were going to be accepted as fact.
  Let me tell you something. I am a mom and I am a grandmother. I will 
tell you this. I don't think there is any mother on Earth who would 
stand for it if her child did such a thing to a coach or a teacher or a 
Scout leader or a minister. They would not stand for it, and yet the 
Senate was expected to indulge this unseemly behavior. This is 
something that is appropriate that we question.
  The House managers relied heavily on the assertions of a 
whistleblower but refused to reveal anything about the circumstances 
that led to the whistleblower's report. So here we are at the end of 
the trial. Do we know if the whistleblower is a person or if it is a 
group of people? Does the report represent a consensus of ideas or just 
biased opinion? Was it prepared by an individual or prepared by a 
committee?
  No one can answer that question except House Manager Schiff and his 
staff from the House Intel Committee, but that is not something they 
wanted to come down and talk about.
  When it became clear that the White House would push back on witness 
subpoenas seeking testimony protected by executive privilege, House 
Democrats chose to move on rather than fight as

[[Page S797]]

hard as they could for their case. They looked at those subpoenas, 
thought about the evidence that might come from them, and decided: not 
worth the trouble. Instead, they tried to rely on the pandemonium 
created by a historic moment to convince their colleagues and the 
American people that justice demanded a do-over--a do-over for the 
House impeachment.
  When that strategy failed, they blamed the Members of the U.S. Senate 
for our unwillingness to go in and clean up their mess. This wasn't a 
pressure tactic; it was a manipulation tactic aimed right at the hearts 
of the American people.
  Unfortunately for the House managers, the people see with dazzling 
clarity what has transpired within the four walls of this Chamber. The 
House managers have asked us to go on the record and rubberstamp 
history's first--history's first--impeachment inquiry to be filed 
solely on the basis of partisan politics--first one. They have asked us 
to ignore how quickly they moved to impeach President Trump and to not 
compare their timeline to the timelines from the Nixon or the Clinton 
impeachment.
  Colleagues, I did my constitutional due diligence. I have read the 
House managers' brief and those reports prepared by the House 
Republicans and the President's counsel. I saw it all in black and 
white, and it was my due diligence that has led me to support 
acquittal.
  Now, when I was serving in the House, there were times when I became 
frustrated with President Bush or, then, with President Obama. And when 
we, as Members of the House, at that point in time were faced with 
President Obama's apology tour, his senseless pursuit of government-run 
healthcare, and his involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal or the 
DACA executive memo, my colleagues and I discussed the possibilities of 
impeachment: What are we going to do about this? We looked at all the 
facts, and ultimately we chose a different path, a different path that 
respected the American people. We litigated our policy differences in 
the courts, where those battles belong.
  So, Madam President, I ask my colleagues that, when the time comes, 
they exercise the same restraint. I implore every Member of this body 
to recognize the supremacy of the Constitution over partisan spin. Vote 
to acquit. Vote to reject the two Articles of Impeachment.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to join my 
colleagues speaking about what has transpired over the last several 
weeks and also to say something that I think is maybe not as obvious as 
what people realize, and that is that election interference is the 
issue of our day. It is not because we just spent 11 days talking about 
it, and what might have happened in the Oval Office about interference 
in the upcoming 2020 election. It is the issue of our day because we 
live in an information age, and weaponizing misinformation has become a 
lethal campaign tool. That is to say that, if you tarnish your opponent 
enough with misinformation, accuse them of corruption, then you can 
either score by wounding them fatally--that is, by getting people not 
to vote for them or by disincentivizing people to vote at all.
  Claiming corruption seems to be a pretty good tool these days to 
wound anybody, to wound institutions, the free press, legitimate 
government oversight, but most seriously, it wounds our democracy by 
sowing doubt into free and fair elections. Once voters believe the 
election results are corrupt, it is hard for them to have faith in the 
results, and it is hard to make tough decisions that we need to make as 
a society to move forward. Voting, in and of itself, does give us 
confidence as a nation, unless we know there are free and fair 
elections, we know the public has spoken and the results are 
legitimate.
  I am personally grateful to my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton, for 
how he handled the 2000 election. After a 3-week recount and a margin 
of less than one half of 1 percent, with control of the Senate, a 50-50 
split to be decided, he conceded. Since then--and even at that time--
some States tried to suppress provisional ballots. But Senator Gorton 
not only believed that provisional ballots were legitimate, but he 
believed that the election was correctly decided. That must have been a 
tough moment for him as he saw a shift in public sentiment in the State 
of Washington, as we have moved more toward a different direction.
  But today we live in a world of disinformation, where distrust can be 
served up like your own personal cocktail. After consuming and 
analyzing endless amounts of personal data about you, someone knows 
exactly what disinformation tactic will work best with you. It is 
almost like disinformation on steroids.
  Our adversaries, the Russians, are especially sowing these seeds of 
distrust into our democracy trying to dissuade people from even voting 
and more seriously trying to divide us as a Nation and tarnish our 
democracy. I don't know if this is some payback from President Putin, 
who believes that the United States helped in the demise of the Soviet 
Union, or if Russia is just trying to undermine American and European 
trust and free and open democratic systems; or if Russia is trying to 
divide Europe so it can dominate European energy supplies and exert its 
influence over European policies. I just know this: We are not the 
first act of this play.
  This has been going on for many years and in many places. They have 
interfered in European elections. A 2018 report shows, ``the Europeans 
launched several multilateral and regional initiatives to improve 
Europe's reliance to improve Europe's resilience to building collective 
defenses against disinformation and cyber-attacks, improving cross-
border cooperation . . . and applying sanctions against malicious 
actors.''
  The Russians interfered in our 2016 election, our own intelligence 
agencies agreed.
  The Special Counsel's investigation ``established Russia interfered 
in the 2016 election principally through two operations. First, a 
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored 
Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged Presidential 
candidate Hillary Clinton, and second, a Russian intelligence service 
conducted computer intrusions and operations against entities, 
employees, and volunteers working for the Hillary Clinton campaign and 
released stolen documents.''
  We must fight back against Russia or anyone who interferes in our 
elections. Protecting our elections should be a bipartisan effort. We 
should listen to what the intelligence community says, because they are 
warning us now that Russia will interfere again in the 2020 elections.
  That is why I take so seriously the House charges that President 
Trump was involved in a scheme, over a long period of time, involving 
many people, to ask the Ukrainians to interfere in our election.
  As Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said, ``let me make 
something 100% clear to the American people and anyone running for 
office. It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive 
anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. 
election. This is not a novel concept.''
  So why has President Trump continued to sow distrust in our 
elections? He thought it was okay to ask the Russians to interfere in 
2016, and he seems to be inviting Ukrainian interference in 2020.
  As one of my former campaign staffers asked last weekend, ``are 
campaigns now going to be communications directors, fundraising 
directors, and foreign operations directors? You know, those people who 
go around and seek influence, perhaps dark money or endorsements from 
foreign governments? Will this become some sort of norm because we're 
not acting?''
  We already know what the dark, murky world of Paul Manafort looks 
like. That is why it is so important for us to be clear here. Seeking, 
requesting, and accepting interference in a

[[Page S798]]

U.S. election campaign is wrong. It is not just inappropriate, it is 
not just improper, it is illegal. By calling it improper or turning a 
blind eye in this case, is enabling more election interference.
  What is not clear is who are all the President's men in this 
administration who are helping him abuse his power. He is using his 
office for political gain. How are they accomplishing this task for 
him?
  It is so disappointing to see that this might be happening in our 
Nation. Where will the abuse stop? I know this. As a young girl, I 
remember the Saturday Night Massacre, the time when Bill Ruckelshaus 
and Elliot Richardson stood up to illegal behavior. My father, at the 
time was definitely a Democrat, but he wanted me to understand this 
lesson. People of the other party might not share the same philosophy, 
but they did share the same Constitution, and the scales of justice are 
balanced.
  Yes, there is probably no harder task than to stand up to the 
President of your own party, but that is what Bill Ruckelshaus and 
Elliot Richardson did.
  I remember that lesson and called Bill Ruckelshaus after Jeff 
Sessions recused himself and was fired. Bill's advice was prophetic. He 
said, ``You should use this opportunity now to make sure the next 
Attorney General will be an independent and help rein in this 
president's abuse of power.'' Well, we obviously did not get that done, 
and we all know what that outcome has been.
  It occurred to me last weekend that maybe the Saturday Night Massacre 
in this case has happened. Maybe John Bolton and Fiona Hill will turn 
out to be those people who stood up to the abuse of power. I know this: 
It is important to have listened to them.
  Twice in this gallery over the last several weeks I heard a young 
baby cry. I thought how unusual that somebody would bring a child to an 
event like this. Probably their parents wanted to be part of history. 
And then I thought about what that child would say, probably over the 
rest of their life: that they had been at this impeachment trial.
  But what I want to know is about the reflections 30 or 40 years from 
now. Will we be remembered for rooting out illegal activity, stopping 
interference in our elections or not, or will this moment have been 
forgotten?
  I know my constituents have been clear about this--and I don't mean 
my constituents that support the President or my constituents that 
don't support the President. I mean my constituents who want to know 
that we are going to enforce the law. They don't care about what the 
outcome is in the next election or how it might benefit either party. 
And it is clear that either party could overstep in this situation. 
They want to know if we are going to uphold the oath of office and hold 
people accountable for wrongdoings that they pursue.
  I hope that we have taken this election interference issue seriously. 
I plan to work with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to get more 
laws passed on election security and to stop interference. I have been 
a loud and consistent spokesperson for better cybersecurity in our 
Nation. I am not going to let our democracy be eroded by foreign 
interests that want to harm what is so precious in our Nation. I will 
be voting for both articles, and for impeachment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Hawaii is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the American experiment was a radical one. 
It imagined equal justice under the law. It imagined equal protection 
under the law. It imagined a cumbersome system in which tyranny could 
be avoided by the constant struggle between elected and appointed 
leaders, and it intentionally sacrificed speed, efficiency, and 
convenience to avoid the abuse of power. And so it is with unending 
regret that I see what is happening.
  I grieve for the Senate, an institution both hallowed and flawed, an 
elite place in the worst sense of the word, and yet still the main 
place where American problems are to be solved. To paraphrase Winston 
Churchill, the Senate is the worst legislative body, except for all of 
the others.
  There are millions of Americans who have formed a basic expectation 
about how a trial is to function based on hundreds of years of law and 
based on their common sense. Make no mistake--what the Senate did was 
an affront to the basic idea of a trial. And for all of the crocodile 
tears of my colleagues, all of the fake outrage at the accusation, we 
must call this what it was--it is a coverup.
  I don't know what Mulvaney or Bolton or Pompeo would say. I don't 
know what the documents would illuminate. And I believe it is normally 
very dangerous to ascribe motives to fellow Senators when criticizing 
their vote. But it is impossible for me to escape the conclusion that 
they don't want to know; that they wanted to get this over with before 
the Super Bowl, of all things. They are afraid of this house of cards 
falling all the way down.
  As I look at the Republican side of the Chamber, I know this moment 
in history has made their particular jobs extraordinarily difficult, 
requiring uncommon courage. They have to risk the scorn of their 
voters, their social circle, their colleagues, and their President in 
order to do the right thing.
  On one level, I knew the likely outcome, but the bitter taste of 
injustice lingers in my mouth.
  On behalf of everyone who couldn't get away with an unpaid traffic 
fine, is in jail for stealing groceries so they could eat that night, 
who can't get a job because of medical debt, I say shame on anyone who 
places this President or any President above the law. The President is 
not above the law. No one is above the law. The President is guilty on 
both counts.
  The Constitution gives extraordinary powers to the President under 
article II, and that makes sense because without a powerful magistrate, 
the government can't function. But in granting these powers, the 
Framers thought carefully about how to constrain them, and they decided 
that a President could be controlled to greater or lesser degrees by 
the legislature, by the judiciary, and by the voters. But the Framers 
couldn't contemplate this level of polarization where, even in the face 
of the overwhelming evidence of high crimes, one party would not just 
exonerate him for it but, in fact, ratify these crimes. They didn't 
imagine that one party would be so uniformly loyal to its President 
that it could maintain a hammerlock on the Senate, preventing the 
prospect of 67 votes from ever being available for removal.
  I don't think we are in danger of the impeachment process becoming 
routine; I think we are in much greater danger of making the 
impeachment process moot. And if so, God help us all.
  But all is not lost. We remain a government of, by, and for the 
people. If people across the country find this as odious to our basic 
values as we do, in 8 months the American public can render their own 
verdict on the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in 
morning business for whatever time I shall consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, nearly 20 years ago, I was here in this 
exact spot--I remember it so well--deliberating the guilt or innocence 
of a President. It happens that at that time, it was President Clinton 
from your State of Arkansas. At that time, I said that I thought it 
would probably be the most important vote I would cast as a Senator. I 
was wrong. I think my vote on Wednesday--the day after tomorrow--to 
acquit President Trump will be the most important vote of my career. I 
really believe that.
  Over the past few weeks, as we have considered impeachment, there has 
been a lot made of the fact that I was willing to vote to convict 
President Clinton 20 years ago and yet to vote the other way in the 
current process

[[Page S799]]

we are under right now. Putting the morality question from President 
Clinton aside, this supposed debate highlights the central point of the 
differences in the impeachment process and why President Trump should 
not be impeached.
  Before Clinton was even impeached, he admitted to the crime of 
perjury. This is a big difference because we have a President right now 
who has not admitted that. In fact, there have not really been 
accusations of a crime. Our debate then was about whether perjury was a 
high crime or misdemeanor. I believe it was. As I said then, the 
President should be held to the highest standard.
  But that was substantially different than the question before us 
today. The question put to us by the House managers is an evidentiary 
one. It is one that asks the question if, according to the evidence 
presented, there is a determination that President Trump is guilty of a 
crime, and the answer is no. Presidents should be held to the highest 
standard, but that standard can't be a false, moving standard that 
isn't based on evidence or is established by a court of public opinion.
  Here is why I will vote to acquit the President. The whole 
impeachment inquiry was initiated on the basis that President Trump 
orchestrated the quid pro quo with Ukrainian's President during a phone 
call on July 25 of 2019. It is kind of confusing.
  A lot of people don't really understand what it is all about, but 
Ukraine has had serious problems. You know what is happening. The 
Russians have been there mass murdering the Ukrainians for a long 
period of time. We have watched that happen. So they kind of put this 
thing together saying: Well, there was an arrangement made by President 
Trump that they would withhold military aid to Ukraine unless there was 
a deal they could make and have something investigated by the President 
of Ukraine. Now, the House managers spent 75 percent of their time on 
this point and driving home the importance of our partnership with 
Ukraine and talking about the Russian aggression. The facts weren't 
there, but, worse, it is hypocritical. There was nothing wrong with 
President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky.
  You might wonder how I can be so sure. It is simple. The House 
Democrats' allegations were secondhand, and that means they were 
hearsay. There was not one direct witness. In fact, they had 17 
witnesses in the House of Representatives and not one of them were 
firsthand. The transcript speaks for itself. There was no evidence of a 
quid pro quo or of any wrongdoing, whatsoever, just of a President who 
understands both the importance of Ukraine as an ally and the 
importance of rooting out corruption. President Zelensky said publicly 
that he felt no pressure. He testified about this and Trump asking to 
investigate anything in exchange for foreign aid.
  You have to keep in mind we have a very conservative President. He 
doesn't just dish out foreign aid to everybody who needs it. In this 
case, there was a necessity to have military aid. We couldn't get any 
lethal military aid from President Obama. All he wanted to send was 
blankets and K-rations. They don't have K-rations anymore; they call it 
something else. MREs. But, nonetheless, there was not going to be any 
military aid sent to them.
  The Trump administration placed a brief, temporary hold on the aid to 
Ukraine to ensure that the American taxpayers were not going to be 
abused. This is very significant. He did this to Ukraine to make sure 
that the amount of money that was sent in there was going to be used 
properly and the amount of military aid that was going to be used.
  But at the same time, you have to keep in mind he was doing that with 
everybody else too. He is just not a fast-spending President. He is 
going to make sure things have to be made in accordance with their 
needs. In fact, at other times, he withheld the same type financial aid 
to Afghanistan, South Korea, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Lebanon, 
and Pakistan. So the fact that he did it with Ukraine was consistent 
with his other policies. This is what he does and what he has always 
done.
  I am confident about this because I talked to President Trump 
directly about it. I am the chair of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, the committee is responsible for authorizing lethal aid to 
Ukraine. I have been working on securing that lethal aid for a long 
period of time, dating back to 2014. In 2014, we had a different 
President. It was President Obama. And then the Ukraine President 
Poroshenko--I can remember being in Ukraine with Poroshenko, and I 
talked to him about this. This was the same time Russia was in Ukraine 
and was mass killing the Ukrainians. We went to President Obama to get 
help, and he wouldn't do it. He didn't want to send any lethal military 
aid. And he said over and over again--we talked about blankets and K-
rations. When President Trump came into office, he changed it. He is 
the first President to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. He has been a 
committed partner in the region helping them withstand Russian 
aggression.
  I bring this up because during the first 3 days of the House 
managers' presentation, about 75 percent of that time was spent on this 
issue talking about his lack of support for Ukraine, when in reality, 
this President has been supporting Ukraine. The House managers who were 
serving in the House at that time--this is significant. Of the House 
managers--however many were sitting over here for the last week--they 
are all talking about things they want to do for Ukraine. Yet the first 
vote that was taken originated in the Armed Services Committee for FY 
2016, and it happened to be that the Democrats--the very three 
Democrats who were serving at that time--voted against it. They didn't 
vote for it. This is the type of thing you get when this hate-motivated 
stuff was going on for such a long period of time.
  The House didn't prove that Trump committed a crime. I am the first 
to admit I am not a lawyer. Sometimes I think that plays to my 
advantage. I look at things in a different way. I try to just inject a 
little bit of common sense. I listened to the lawyers and, frankly, I 
didn't even understand what some of them were saying, but I do know 
pretty much what is going on around here.
  In this case, the reasons behind why the President should not be 
impeached are common sense. He didn't commit a crime. That didn't come 
just from me. You would expect me to say that. That came from others 
who were the well-respected attorneys who were involved in each side of 
this case. Each of the past impeachment cases in the House of 
Representatives accused Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton of 
committing a crime. This President didn't commit a crime. But Clinton 
did, and he admitted that he did. It was perjury at that time. That is 
a crime. It was the same thing with Nixon and the same thing with 
Johnson. So all those things that have happened in recent history have 
been crimes but not with this President.
  The Democrats wanted to impeach President Trump since he took office. 
I think there was a witness we had today--I believe it was today--they 
had a visual up here that showed all the people who have been trying to 
impeach President Trump ever since he took office. I am talking about 
the first week he was in office. It was all documented up there. They 
are still at it. I have no doubt they will continue to do that, but it 
is not going to work. It didn't work in this case.
  Democrats have wanted to impeach him since he took office. The 
Washington Post reported the concerted effort by the leftwing advocacy 
groups to move toward impeachment of the President only minutes after 
his inauguration. So they have been looking for a reason to impeach 
President Trump.
  I think one of the stars of the testimony that went on was Alan 
Dershowitz. He is someone who is held in the highest regard. He is a 
law professor at Harvard University, and he is a strong Democrat. He is 
not a Republican. First thing he did was admit he voted for Hillary 
Clinton in 2016, so that qualifies him in a different way than most of 
the people who were here as witnesses. He was direct in his 
presentation and shredded the Democrats' case. He made it clear that 
abuse of power should be a political weapon suited for a campaign, not 
impeachment, as abuse of power is not a crime or impeachable conduct.

[[Page S800]]

  Dershowitz also explained that virtually every President since 
President Washington could have been accused of impeachment if they 
used the criteria that the House managers--the ones who were sitting 
over here--were using. That was a level that could not be used or it 
would have affected every other President if it had been used at that 
time.
  He also had an important comment on whether or not we needed to hear 
sworn testimony from John Bolton. This is what he said. This is a quote 
by Dershowitz. He said: ``Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if 
true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable 
offense.'' That is Alan Dershowitz.
  It is clear that President Trump must be acquitted of the charge of 
abuse of power on its merits. A vote to convict in this case would be a 
dangerous precedent.
  I would say, time and time again, that during the trial, the House 
managers have preached at us that the truth matters, that facts matter; 
that we must convict the President and remove him from office. In fact, 
the House managers' closing arguments--I tried to keep count of every 
time they made the accusations using the words ``cheat,'' 
``obstruction,'' ``crimes,'' and it was so many times, I lost track--
but truth matters. Just because you say the President has committed a 
crime doesn't make it true.
  Here is what is true. This has been a partisan process from start to 
finish. Compare that to the past. The impeachment inquiry against 
President Nixon was authorized by a vote of 410 to 4 in the Congress, 
an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The same thing was true with Clinton. 
They had 31 Democrats who voted to impeach the President. Yet in the 
vote of this impeachment inquiry, the final vote to impeach President 
Trump was strictly partisan. Not a single House Republican voted to 
impeach the President. On the contrary, nearly every House Democrat 
did. The only bipartisan vote was against impeachment.
  I listened to the facts and I have listened to the evidence and I am 
convinced President Trump has not committed a crime. All the legal 
minds who gave testimony pretty much agreed with that, including 
Dershowitz.
  I think, though, it has to be said there is a hatred for Trump. We 
have to admit there is something about him that a lot of people don't 
like, whether it is his demeanor or it is his style. I understand that. 
But when you listen to the substance, look at what he has done right 
now rebuilding the military, including killing the top terrorists. I am 
particularly sensitive to this because this is my committee. We have 
watched what he has done to the military.
  Back during the Obama administration, using constant dollars during 
the last 5 years of his 8-year tenure, he actually reduced the spending 
in military by 25 percent. I don't think that has ever been done in the 
history of this country, except maybe immediately following World War 
II. Yet there he is, rebuilding the military, and we are now back to 
where we are competitive. I have to admit, though, during those last 5 
years of Obama, we really hurt ourselves in terms of our relationships 
in terms of China and Russia taking the leadership positions they have 
taken. He has been rebuilding the military. He has been confirming 
constitutional judges. Confirming 187 judges in the last 3 years is a 
record that hasn't been done before. Oddly enough, these are judges who 
have actually read the Constitution. That is a novel idea.
  I would say that this is the best economy we have had in decades. 
Last week we went to 3.5 percent unemployment. We used to consider 4 
percent unemployment as being fully employed, and yet I don't even have 
a memory to when it has been down to 3.5 percent.
  The trade deal we did is new. It shows we are getting things done. We 
have more Americans working today than ever before, and the median 
household income is the highest it has ever been.
  We are going to have a very significant vote on Wednesday. I think 
you know how I am going to vote. I am going to vote to acquit the 
President on both Articles of Impeachment. That will be a very 
significant vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full 
statement be included in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, constitutional experts will be debating 
President Trump's misconduct for generations to come, but I think they 
will reach consensus as to the misconduct of the Senate in the Trump 
impeachment. This is the first time in the history of impeachment that 
no witnesses and documents were allowed to be called by the U.S. 
Senate. It violates the Constitution in the impeachment trial of Donald 
Trump by its failure to hold a constitutionally fair trial.
  At one time, I had the opportunity to present as a House manager an 
impeachment case here in the U.S. Senate on a district court judge by 
the name of Nixon. I remember, when I appeared before the Senate, I was 
cautioned immediately, even though Judge Nixon had been convicted of a 
bribery type of an offense in a criminal court, that it was incumbent 
for us to present the witnesses and documents in the U.S. Senate and 
that the Senate would conduct its own record in regard to the 
proceedings. Yet, here, we are not having witnesses in the President's 
impeachment trial.
  We had some help from the Supreme Court on this. In Nixon v. United 
States, 1993, pertaining to Judge Nixon's trial, Justice Byron White 
had a concurring opinion. Justice White said that the term ``try,'' as 
used in article I, section 3, clause 6, meant that the Senate should 
conduct a proceeding in a manner that a reasonable judge would deem a 
trial.
  We failed to conduct a constitutionally fair trial here in the U.S. 
Senate, and we can look to the President's own counsel here for help in 
evaluating our own conduct of this trial. The President's counsel, 
Philbin, said that you need to cross-examine witnesses in order to get 
to the truth. We had no witnesses under oath and no witnesses cross-
examined. The tragedy here is, if the President is acquitted, there 
will always be a question as to whether this was a legitimate trial 
here in the U.S. Senate.
  Let me just spend a moment comparing the impeachment proceedings of 
President Clinton's versus those of President Trump's.
  With President Clinton, there was a trial in the Senate. It was 
acknowledged to be fair. Witnesses were called. President Clinton and 
his administration officials had testified under oath and had been 
subject to cross-examination. President Clinton showed remorse for his 
conduct and apologized for his misconduct, and President Clinton's 
misconduct was personal in nature.
  Compare that to President Trump. He blocked all witnesses and 
documents and then, through counsel, prevented the Senate trial from 
calling any witnesses or producing any documents. He has never shown 
any remorse. Even though most Senators here know that what he did was 
wrong, he has shown no remorse whatsoever, and his misconduct was that 
of abusing his office for personal gain--getting a foreign power to 
help in his election campaign.
  Let me briefly go through article I.
  Article I states that he solicited a foreign government, Ukraine, to 
interfere in the 2020 elections by its publicly announcing 
investigations that would benefit his reelection, conditioned on 
official U.S. Government acts of significant value to Ukraine. The 
House managers have submitted a voluminous amount of information that 
supports that, and I refer to that in my attached statement, so I will 
not spend the time here to go through that.
  Yet, even though there is enough in the full record to establish the 
charges, there are other issues that add to the President's committing 
these acts.
  First, as I mentioned before, the President issued a blanket 
obstruction for any witness with firsthand knowledge of the President's 
conduct to provide testimony on these articles here in the U.S. Senate. 
Yes, we can infer that, if the President had exculpatory witnesses, he 
would have produced those exculpatory witnesses.
  Secondly, the President's impeachment attorney, Mr. Sekulow, said 
that you cannot view this case in a vacuum. I agree. The President has 
consistently

[[Page S801]]

misrepresented the facts and defamed anyone who challenges him.
  Let me just give you one concrete example: the Mueller investigation, 
which has been cited in this impeachment trial. The President denies 
Russia's initial involvement in our elections. He resisted efforts to 
hold Russia accountable. He defamed the reputation of the special 
counsel. He willfully impeded the investigation. He attacked the 
integrity of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. He also 
wrongfully claimed that the investigation exonerated him. He has done 
that over and over again. The findings in the report speak to a 
contrary conclusion. It says Russia interfered in our 2016 elections in 
a sweeping and systematic fashion. It reads: ``If we had confidence 
that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said 
so.''
  There are numerous instances in which the President may have 
obstructed justice, but we left the further pursuit of that to Congress 
or to a prosecutor after he leaves office.
  Since he has taken office, the President's pattern has been to 
mislead and misstate facts and to act as a bully against those who have 
had anything to say against him that he has not liked. It makes it 
easier for us to understand how the illegal scheme in article I 
unfolded.
  I have one additional fact of why this points to establishing the 
facts.
  The President has consistently shown no remorse. He continuously 
tells us that the summary of the July 25 call shows a perfect call. We 
know how controversial that call was. It was far from perfect.
  The next hurdle was, is this an impeachable offense? I concluded that 
it was. It is an abuse of power, which is an abuse of trust, which is 
clearly what our Founders intended as being a high crime and 
misdemeanor while in office.
  The President's own analysis of this leads to the only conclusion, 
that being that abuse of power must be an impeachable offense. I say 
that because we had the President's counsel--once again, Professor 
Dershowitz--who told us that it was not an abuse of power and that it 
was not an impeachable offense. Professor Dershowitz said that if your 
election is in the public interest--if a President does something which 
he believes will help him get elected in the public interest--that it 
cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
  Well, that is an absurd situation if you adopt the logic of the 
President's counsel that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. 
It is clearly an impeachable offense. The President's conduct has 
jeopardized America's global leadership in promoting our values. Our 
values are our strength.
  I thought it was very telling, the conversation of Ambassador Volker 
with Mr. Yermak, who is the principal counsel to President Zelensky of 
Ukraine.
  Ambassador Volker said: Don't start an investigation in Ukraine on 
your opponent in your election because that will sow division in your 
community.
  Mr. Yermak responded: Do you mean like asking us to investigate 
Clinton and Biden?
  President Trump's conduct has endangered our national security, our 
global leadership, and American values.
  Article II is a lot easier--obstruction of Congress--because the 
facts clearly establish that the President's blanket obstruction, which 
he orchestrated, denied any access to individuals or to documents in 
order to facilitate a coverup of what was uncovered under article I of 
the Articles of Impeachment.
  It is essential for Congress to carry out our responsibilities and to 
be able to get that type of information from the President. It is 
exactly what the Framers of our Constitution intended when they 
developed the checks and balances in our system--that there would be no 
branch that would have absolute power. We do not have a Monarch.
  President Trump has crossed the line with his personal interests over 
the country's interests. He used the power of his office for his own 
personal benefit. No one is above the law. We must act to protect the 
Constitution and our democratic system of government. It is with a 
heavy heart that I will support both Articles of Impeachment.
  Senators have a grave responsibility when it comes to the power of 
impeachment, particularly when it involves the President of the United 
States. This is a very profound responsibility in which Senators have 
to do what is right for our country. Our decision here will affect not 
only this President but the future of the Presidency itself.
  The Constitution leaves to the Senate ``the sole power to try all 
impeachments.'' The Constitution clearly requires the Senate to conduct 
a trial. The Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the 
Constitution, has given the Senate some guidance in carrying out its 
responsibility to conduct impeachment trials. Supreme Court Justice 
Byron White, in a concurring opinion in Nixon v. United States, 506 
U.S. 224 (1993), found that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution 
clearly intended ``that the term `try' as used in article I, section 3, 
clause 6 meant that the Senate should conduct its proceeding in a 
manner that a ``reasonable judge'' would deem a trial. Justice White 
acknowledged that the Senate ``has very wide discretion in specifying 
impeachment trial procedures,'' but stated that the Senate ``would 
abuse its discretion'' if it were to ``insist on a procedure that could 
not be deemed a trial by reasonable judges.'' Justice Blackmun 
concurred in Justice White's opinion.
  The Senate has the sole power to ``try'' impeachments. Yet how can 
the Senate hold an actual ``trial'' without hearing direct evidence 
from witnesses? The Senate chose not to hear additional relevant 
evidence and key witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the President's 
conduct. However, the Senate is not bound solely to the House record 
when conducting an impeachment trial. The Senate should have heard new 
and relevant evidence that bore directly on the Articles of 
Impeachment, including testimony from former White House National 
Security Advisor John Bolton, Acting White House Chief of Staff and 
Acting OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, as well as various other OMB and DOD 
officials. The Senate should have demanded additional documents from 
the White House, State Department, OMB, and DOD that bore directly on 
the Articles of Impeachment. The Senate should have been able to 
receive further evidence before concluding its trial in this case, 
whether or not the additional evidence was incriminating or 
exculpatory. As one of President Trump's counsel Mr. Philbin said 
during the trial, the best way to find out the truth is for witnesses 
under oath to be subject to cross-examination. The Senate therefore 
failed in its responsibility when it did not conduct a constitutionally 
fair trial. I suspect that Justice White in the Nixon case would have 
concluded that no ``reasonable judge'' would conclude these proceedings 
constitute such a trial.
  The evident deficiencies of the Senate trial has made it more 
difficult for me to carry out my responsibility, and if the Senate 
fails to convict, that acquittal will always be questioned because of 
the absence of a fair trial. This process is not fair to the House, 
Senate, American people, or the President.
  Now, in regards to the specific Articles of Impeachment, article I 
alleges ``abuse of power'' by the President, stating: ``Using the 
powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference 
of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States 
Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct 
that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce 
investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election 
prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States 
Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to 
pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning 
official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine 
on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump 
engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in 
pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump 
used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the 
national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of 
the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the 
interests of the Nation.''
  I reluctantly conclude that the President has indeed engaged in the 
conduct

[[Page S802]]

alleged. I come to this conclusion based first on the record during 
this impeachment trial.
  In weighing the facts and evidence in this case, I have listened 
carefully to all of the trial proceedings and taken extensive notes, 
including during the managers' presentations and Senators' questioning 
period. Let me highlight a few key facts and pieces of evidence that 
were determinative for my thinking, with the understanding that this is 
not an exhaustive list.
  First, President Trump indicated his strong interest in having 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky open a political investigation 
into the Bidens, in a July 26, 2019, phone call between the President 
and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.
  Second, Acting Chief of Staff and Office of Management and Budget 
Director Mick Mulvaney admitted that a quid pro quo existed in terms of 
tying the release of U.S. funding to Ukraine to the opening of a 
political investigation to help President Trump.
  Third, there are numerous examples in the record of direct pressure 
on the Ukrainian Government to open political investigations for the 
personal benefit of President Trump, including a September 1, 2019, 
Warsaw meeting between Ambassador Sondland and Andriy Yermak, a top 
adviser to the Ukrainian President, which directly tied U.S. military 
assistance to Ukraine to the opening of political investigations to 
hurt President Trump's political rivals. These accounts were later 
confirmed in testimony by other U.S. diplomats, and on September 7, 
Ambassador Sondland reiterated these themes following discussions with 
President Trump.
  Fourth, before the July 25 phone call between Presidents Trump and 
Zelensky, former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker communicates 
with Yermak and conditions a White House visit to the launching of a 
political investigation against the President's rivals in Ukraine.
  Fifth, on July 10, 2019, the White House held a series of meetings 
with high-level Ukrainian defense officials, which conditioned a White 
House visit from the Ukrainian President with the opening of political 
investigations in Ukraine sought by President Trump. Notably, former 
National Security Advisor John Bolton refused to be part of any ``drug 
deal'' and asked his staff to report these meetings to National 
Security Council lawyers. It was explained by National Security Council 
Member Fiona Hill that, by ``drug deal,'' Ambassador Bolton was 
referring to conditioning a White House meeting for the President of 
Ukraine with the Ukrainians starting the political investigations 
desired by the President.
  Mr. Bolton should have testified before the Senate, and we should not 
have to wait for his book release, after this Senate trial concludes, 
to get a full accounting of firsthand conversations here that bear 
directly on the impeachment charges against the President. Press 
reports indicate that, in his upcoming book, Bolton will state that the 
President explicitly told him that he did not want to release $391 
million in aid to Ukraine until it announced investigations into his 
Democratic rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden. Also, the 
President specifically asked Bolton to arrange a meeting for President 
Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, with President Zelensky to 
further the illegal scheme. Notably, the former White House Chief of 
Staff at the time, John Kelly, believes Bolton's account.
  Sixth, the language used in the July 25, 2019, phone call between 
Presidents Trump and Zelensky was a direct solicitation of foreign 
interference (a ``favor'') by using a political investigation to help 
President Trump's campaign and hurt his Democratic rivals.
  Seventh, why did the Administration keep secret its hold on 
assistance to Ukraine in order to allegedly combat corruption? The U.S. 
has generally notified countries, Congress, and the public when it is 
withholding foreign aid in order to change the country's behavior and 
let them know what steps they need to take to resolve the hold.
  As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission and as a senior 
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I know the importance 
of promoting American values in foreign policy. The President's conduct 
has weakened America's global leadership in fighting corruption, 
promoting democracy, and strengthening the rule of law.
  President Trump's corrupt use of his foreign policy power compromised 
America's ability to help shape the global community that protects 
American values.
  The record shows that Ambassador Volker tried to discourage Mr. 
Yermak and the Ukrainian Government from trying to prosecute the 
country's previous President. Ambassador Volker says he warned it would 
sow deep societal divisions. Ambassador Volker says that Mr. Yermak 
quipped in response, ``You mean like asking us to investigate Clinton 
and Biden?''
  In addition to the record, I am supported in my conclusions by three 
other considerations. First, why hasn't the President presented to the 
impeachment trial the testimony of the witnesses that have direct 
knowledge concerning the factual allegations in the Articles of 
Impeachment? I draw from the absence of such testimony that it would 
only corroborate the record presented by the House Managers. Secondly, 
counsel to President Mr. Sekulow acknowledged ``you cannot view this 
case in a vacuum.'' I agree. President Trump, during his Presidency, 
has consistently misrepresented the facts and defamed anyone who has 
challenged him.
  One clear and relevant example of this is how he tried to obstruct 
the Mueller investigation and how, to this date, he mischaracterizes 
its conclusion. The President was not exonerated by the Mueller report, 
which found that Russia interfered in our 2016 Presidential election in 
a ``sweeping and systematic fashion.'' President Trump consistently 
took steps to deny Russia's involvement in tampering in our elections, 
resisted efforts to hold Russia accountable, besmirched the reputation 
of the special counsel while trying to dismiss him or willfully impeded 
his investigation, and repeatedly attacked the integrity of our 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
  Indeed, the Mueller report stated: ``If we had confidence after a 
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not 
commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts 
and applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that 
judgment.'' At a press conference, Special Counsel Mueller reiterated: 
``If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a 
crime, we would have said so.'' The report detailed numerous instances 
in which the President may have obstructed justice, but left further 
pursuit of the matter to Congress or future prosecutors once the 
President leaves office.
  With such a track record, it is easier to understand how the facts 
presented by the House managers tie together supporting an illegal 
scheme, orchestrated by the President, to get Ukraine involved in our 
2020 elections to help Mr. Trump's reelection.
  Third, the President has consistently failed to show any remorse for 
his conduct, leading to the conclusion that he will continue to violate 
the sacred trust of the office.
  Having been satisfied that the President did commit the offenses in 
the first Article of Impeachment, the next hurdle is whether these 
constitute impeachable offenses. I conclude they do. President Trump is 
not a King or Monarch. The Founding Fathers wisely created a system of 
separation of powers and checks and balances so as not to concentrate 
power in only one office or department of government. The Senate must 
reject President Trump's statement on July 23, 2019, that his right 
under article II of the Constitution is ``to do whatever I want as 
president.''
  As noted in the House Judiciary Committee report on constitutional 
grounds for Presidential impeachment (December, 2019), President 
Trump's claim here ``is wrong, and profoundly so, because our 
Constitution rejects pretensions to monarchy and binds Presidents with 
law. That is true even of powers vested exclusively in the chief 
executive. If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded 
in an abusive manner harming the constitutional system, the President 
is subject to impeachment for `high crimes and misdemeanors.' This is a 
core premise of the impeachment power.'' I agree.

[[Page S803]]

  The President's counsel notes that abuse of power could become too 
subjective a standard for Presidential impeachments. But as 
Representative William Cohen remarked in President Nixon's case, ``It 
has also been said to me that even if Mr. Nixon did commit these 
offenses, every other President . . . has engaged in some of the same 
conduct, at least to some degree, but the answer I think is that 
democracy, that solid rock of our system, may be eroded away by degree 
and its survival will be determined by the degree to which we will 
tolerate those silent and subtle subversions that absorb it slowly into 
the rule of a few.''
  The premise that abuse of power being a too subjective standard 
belies common sense and could lead to the absurd conclusion given by 
Professor Dershowitz--one of President Trump's impeachment counsel--
during the trial. He stated: ``Your election is in the public interest. 
And if a president does something which he believes will help him get 
elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo 
that results in impeachment.'' Abuse of power, as used by President 
Trump, to further a scheme to get Ukraine to help in President Trump's 
campaign must be an impeachable offense if we believe our Constitution 
guarantees that no one, including the President of the United States, 
is above the law.
  The President's counsel also observes that, when initiating Articles 
of Impeachment, the House should only proceed if there is bipartisan 
support, but that decision is left solely to the House. Once the House 
has acted, the Senate shall proceed to trial and must render a decision 
based upon the case presented.
  There are clear distinctions between the Clinton and Trump 
impeachments. In Clinton, the trial was acknowledged to be fair; 
witnesses testified before the Senate; President Clinton and members of 
his administration testified under oath; and documents were produced 
for review by the President. President Clinton showed remorse for his 
conduct and apologized. His misconduct was personal in nature.
  In contrast, President Trump blocked all witnesses and documents, and 
the Senate called no witnesses to testify under oath. President Trump 
has shown no remorse, continuing to say that the controversial call 
with President Zelensky was ``perfect.'' Unlike President Clinton's 
misconduct, President Trump has abused the power of his office for 
personal gain.
  Turning to the second Article of Impeachment, Obstruction of 
Congress, the House alleges, that, in response to their impeachment 
inquiry, President Trump ``directed the unprecedented, categorical, and 
indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of 
Representatives . . . without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump 
directed Executive branch agencies, offices, and officials not to 
comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers 
of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of 
Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments 
necessary to exercise of the `sole power of impeachment' vested by the 
Constitution in the House of Representatives.''
  In particular, the second article alleges that the President: No. 1, 
directed the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the 
production of documents; No. 2, directed other executive branch 
agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the 
production of documents, including OMB and the Departments of State, 
Defense, and Energy; and No. 3, directed current and former executive 
branch officials not to cooperate with the investigating committees, 
including Mick Mulvaney and numerous other officials.
  After reviewing the evidence, I believe that the Senate record 
supports conviction under article II as an impeachable offense.
  President Trump carried out an extraordinary and unprecedented 
campaign of obstruction of Congress. Note that President Clinton 
provided evidence that was requested by the House and Senate during 
impeachment proceedings, and allowed multiple White House aides to 
testify in the underlying investigation. President Nixon cooperated to 
an extent in his investigation, allowing numerous White House officials 
to testify and providing substantial evidence to Congress in its 
inquiry. By contrast, President Trump issued an edict directing his 
administration to refuse to ``participate'' in all aspects of the 
House's impeachment inquiry. In particular, the October 8, 2019, letter 
from the White House Counsel did not even attempt to assert any 
specific privileges.
  This trial has been very difficult for the Senate and our Nation, but 
each Senator must in his or her own judgment carry out the oaths we 
have taken as Senators to support the Constitution as well as our 
special oath to do ``impartial justice'' as participants in this Senate 
impeachment trial, with Chief Justice Roberts presiding over the 
Senate.
  Weighing the credibility of President Trump, I find a clear pattern 
of misconduct in office. President Trump's obstruction of Congress 
shows a deep and abiding disrespect for Congress and lack of 
appreciation for the separation of powers and system of checks and 
balances in our government.
  As the President and Commander in Chief, President Trump used his 
power to compromise and corrupt America's values. Our values are our 
strength. In particular, President Trump has undermined the rule of 
law, weakened our efforts to fight corruption both at home and abroad, 
damaged our national security, and helped our adversary, Russia.
  President Trump's conduct clearly crossed the line when he put his 
own personal interests over the country's interests, using the power of 
his office for his own personal benefit.
  No one is above the law. We must act to protect the Constitution and 
our democratic system of government. It is with a heavy heart that I 
support both Articles of Impeachment, requiring the removal of the 
President from office as well as the disqualification to hold and enjoy 
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mrs. LOEFFLER. Mr. President, I am honored and humbled to stand 
before you today as Georgia's and our country's newest U.S. Senator.
  As the 100th Senator, I have spent the least time in Washington, but 
as the least senior Senator, I am also the most recently attached to 
the private sector, where the vast majority of Americans live and work. 
I am intensely aware of the needs and the expectations that Americans 
hold for us.
  Just 2 months ago, I left nearly a three-decade business career to 
serve the great people of Georgia and our Nation, but being here in 
this respected, historic Chamber is a very long way from where I 
started.
  I was born and raised as the fourth generation of corn and soybean 
farmers, and I grew up working in our fields and with our cattle on the 
feedlot. I waitressed and sold watches and shoes to put myself through 
school. Then I moved around the country to pursue my dream of a 
business career. I have been a job seeker and a job creator. I haven't 
spent my life trying to get to Washington, but I worked hard to stand 
where I am today.
  I have lived the American dream, and each day, I remember where I 
came from, and I am proud of my beginnings. While I am an outsider to 
politics, I am not new to getting results. I came here to get things 
done for the people of Georgia.
  So why does all of this matter today, in this historic moment right 
now, just 2 days from my vote to acquit President Trump? Because for 
months and, sadly, years for many, Members of Congress who have meant 
to serve the American people have been tied up in a political game.
  There is much to regret here--the House's false urgency to push 
through deficient articles, only to ask for more time, more evidence, 
more testimony; the deception of the House managers, who are more 
focused on political power than they are on pursuing the facts; the 
media who ran with the narrative the Democrats planted, with selective, 
unlawful leaks.
  For the last 132 days, Congress has been neglecting the American 
people. I came here to get things done for Georgians, but for the last 
2 weeks, we have been stuck in the Senate Chamber, working on something 
that most Americans have little interest in.
  As my notebooks filled up, I thought to myself, how did this case 
even make it to the Senate?

[[Page S804]]

  When I am around the State, it is very clear that this is not what 
people at home care about. Georgians aren't losing sleep over a call 
the President made or questioning his constitutional right to conduct 
foreign policy. They are concerned with taking care of their families, 
their jobs, and their freedom to achieve the American dream and live 
the lives they imagined. I think of young kids, whether in the inner 
city or on a farm or in the suburbs. What example are we setting in 
Washington? Why should employers feel that Washington cares about job 
creation when there is a neglect of the engine that makes America 
strong?
  Why are we here? We are public servants, charged with protecting the 
Constitution and our country and I hope, in the process, bettering the 
lives of all Americans.
  Despite this monumental distraction, this administration has worked 
tirelessly to move our country forward.
  Last week, the President signed into law the United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement. Sadly, this sat on Speaker Pelosi's desk for 1 year, 
denying American farmers and workers untold economic opportunity.
  Last month, the administration completed a phase one deal with China, 
now holding China accountable for unfair trade practices and adding to 
our thriving economy.
  For 3 years, as the Democrats have focused on taking down a duly 
elected President, President Trump's pro-growth policies have given us 
a booming economy. These policies have resulted in record employment, 7 
million new jobs, and a blue-collar boom that is lifting up hard-
working Americans.
  This administration charges on, but it needs Congress's support if 
America is to move on with the American dream for all.
  With that in mind, I say: Enough. Let's put our trust in the American 
people. They are the ones who should make a judgment about the 
President, and they will do that in 9 months. Let's not be so arrogant 
as to take that decision away from the American people. Instead, let's 
focus all of our energies on improving their lives. Impeachment does 
not do that. It is time to move on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I come before this body ith a deep sadness 
that this institution has failed the Constitution and failed the 
American people.
  We have reached a low point in our history. We have failed to hold a 
fair and honest impeachment trial, and we are nearing a vote wherein we 
will fail to hold the President accountable for his abuse of power and 
a coverup. Thanks to the Senate's Republican majority, this body is 
complicit in that coverup in its refusing to call witnesses and obtain 
documents to get the full truth. How can we turn a blind eye to the 
truth as we cast one of the most important votes we will ever take?
  Yes, we are approaching a sad day for this body and for this country, 
but to those across the country who feel profoundly angry and saddened 
by this miscarriage of justice, my message is this: Do not give up. Do 
not stop fighting to save our democracy because America is worth the 
fight. America is worth the fight.
  Make no mistake--try as they might to cover it up, the full truth 
will come out. And the facts that have already been revealed are 
damning.
  The President's handpicked Ambassador, Gordon Sondland, testified, 
``Everyone was in the loop.'' The more we find out, the more revealing 
his testimony becomes.
  Not only is the President implicated, so is the Vice President and 
the Secretary of State and the Attorney General and the President's 
acting Chief of Staff and his former Energy Secretary and even the 
White House Counsel, the lead lawyer in this very proceeding.
  This is a pandora's box the Republican Party is fighting to keep 
shut, but it will not stay shut. The President's misdeeds and his wide 
circle of accomplices will go down as one of the ugliest episodes in 
American history.
  Even now, the evidence gathered by the House--that the President 
abused his office and taxpayer funds for personal gain--is staggering. 
Ambassador Sondland didn't sugarcoat the truth. ``Was there a quid pro 
quo? The answer is yes.'' That was his quote. Using official power for 
personal gain--that is the very essence of abuse of power, and that is 
precisely what this President did. That is hardly even in dispute. The 
evidence is overwhelming.
  The President first withheld a coveted meeting until the Ukrainian 
President would announce investigations into the Bidens and the 
debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in our 
2016 election. The President next withheld congressionally appropriated 
military aid illegally to try to force the Ukrainian President into 
making the announcement of the investigations.
  The independent Government Accountability Office confirmed that the 
President acted illegally.
  The President threatened our national security, the security of an 
ally, and the integrity of our next Presidential election. How much 
more could be at stake?
  Ukrainian officials began asking about the aid only hours after the 
President's now-infamous July 25 call with President Zelensky. That is 
according to Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia. A former Deputy Foreign Minister in 
Ukraine reports Ukraine knew of the freeze in July, and the whole world 
knew once the story broke the news on August 28.
  Fortunately, the President got caught and was forced to release the 
aid. He got caught red-handed and immediately commenced a scorched-
earth blockade in Congress and the courts to cover up his grave 
misdeeds.
  Again, the facts are not in dispute.
  So knowing that these are some of the most serious and solemn words I 
will ever say or utter on this floor, I will vote to convict the 
President on both Articles of Impeachment. He is guilty by any 
standard. If he is allowed to act with impunity, he will be a 
continuing threat to the sanctity of our democracy. He is patently 
unfit to hold the highest office in our land.
  While the Senate may vote to acquit him, he will not be exonerated--
not by this sham trial. While the Senate may vote to acquit the 
President, history will not.
  Now, Senators on the other side of the aisle are publicly and not so 
publicly admitting that they believe the President is guilty, that the 
House managers proved their case. But these same Senators did not vote 
to hear witnesses and get documents. They will fail to hold the 
President accountable for the wrongdoing they now say he is guilty of.
  This is one of the worst abuses of Presidential power in our Nation's 
history. This is as bad as or worse than President Nixon's. Nixon tried 
to corrupt the 1972 election and cover it up, but he didn't try to 
extort an ally or invite foreign interference into our election.
  At that time, members of his party with courage refused to turn a 
blind eye. The Republican Party of today bears no resemblance to the 
party of Howard Baker, who insisted on getting to the truth. Howard 
asked: What did the President know and when did he know it? It bears no 
resemblance to the party of Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, and Hugh 
Scott, who went to Nixon to tell him the Republican Party could no 
longer protect him from impeachment and removal.
  I am grateful to the honorable officials who had the courage to act 
this time around, who defied the President's order not to come 
forward--Ambassador Yovanovitch, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Ambassador 
Taylor, Mr. Kent, and the others. They risked their careers and even 
their personal safety. We should at least--at least--show the same 
courage because the consequences of failing to hold this President to 
account could not be graver.
  The guardrails have been taken off. The President invited Russian 
interference in the 2016 election and invited Chinese interference in 
the upcoming 2020 election. He said on national television he would 
probably take foreign interference again. He is unapologetic and 
unrepentant. What is he going to do next once the Senate Republicans 
let him get away with this abuse, once we show that we are no longer a 
coequal branch?
  We have never ceded so much power to the Executive. You can rest 
assured that this President of all Presidents will use that power and 
abuse it. Take

[[Page S805]]

his word for it. He said, ``Article II allows me to do whatever I 
want.'' Pulitzer Prize-winning Presidential historian Jon Meacham said 
the President is now, and this is his quote, ``functionally a 
monarch.'' That is stunning.
  Again, these are sad days for our Nation, but as I said at the 
outset, we cannot and will not concede our democracy. We cannot and 
will not concede the values and principles that make this Nation 
strong. We must restore the balance of power in our government. We must 
restore accountability. Most importantly, we must start doing the work 
the American people sent us here to do. Our institutions are not 
representing what the American people want. Senate Republicans' refusal 
to hold a fair impeachment trial, which is what 75 percent of the 
American people wanted, is just the latest example.
  While the Senate and the Constitution took a terrible battering the 
last 2 weeks, I am even more committed to breathing life into our 
shared principles of representative government. I am going to continue 
the fight to take obscene amounts of secret money out of our elections, 
to make it easier to vote, and to bring power back to the American 
people and not hand it over to an imperial Presidency.
  The Senate will have future opportunities to restore our 
constitutional system. The only question is whether Senators will rise 
to the occasion.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Colleagues, over the past few weeks, we have 
conducted the third impeachment trial in our entire Nation's history 
for a President.
  Let's be perfectly clear about something: Democrats did not want to 
impeach President Trump. From the start, efforts to begin an 
impeachment inquiry in the House were met with resistance until the 
President's reckless behavior and unprecedented actions forced the 
Speaker's hand. The Speaker could not sit idly by after the President 
withheld congressionally approved military aid from a U.S. ally in 
order to orchestrate foreign interference in our upcoming election.
  We have worked hard to find common ground with this President, and at 
times, Democrats have worked together to get good, bipartisan 
legislation accomplished. But President Trump's brazen misconduct 
forced this issue. His misdeeds posed a moral challenge to every single 
Member of Congress. How much corruption should we stomach? How much of 
our integrity should we sacrifice? How much malfeasance should we 
tolerate? Will we look the other way as the President flaunts our laws 
and ignores the Constitution?
  Sometimes it can seem far easier to just stay silent. All of us know 
that it can be easier to avoid angry phone calls. But think about how 
much harder it would be to explain this moment in history to our 
children and our grandchildren. Think about how painful it will be to 
explain if you knew what President Trump did was wrong and you did 
nothing; if you knew what President Trump did was wrong under the 
Constitution that you swore to uphold; that you knew it was wrong, but 
you voted to acquit anyway because of your ambition, because of your 
political party.
  Lest you think you can convince them otherwise, let me dispel this 
fiction. History's record of this time will be very clear. The American 
people can see through these lies. They recognize the inconsistencies 
and the double-speak. The American people are not naive. They are not 
stupid. They are not ignorant. They are not immoral.
  My Republican colleagues are not naive or ignorant or immoral either. 
They are good men and women. They love their children, their neighbors, 
and our country. I consider many of them my friends. When we have 
dinner together, when we go to visit the troops overseas. We don't do 
it as Democrats and Republicans. We do it as colleagues, friends, and 
as peers in this body. We do so as elected Members of Congress, as 
Senators representing our States and our country.

  It should be the very same when we judge President Trump. In I John 
2:21, John writes to a group of believers who are in turmoil. He wrote: 
``I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because 
you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.''
  This trial had the goal of accomplishing one thing--to discover the 
truth, to know what happened, to hold the President accountable. We 
pledged to listen to receive that evidence fairly and to judge 
honestly. We swore to defend the Constitution, not to defend a man or a 
political party, and we should all remember this when we cast our 
votes, because President Trump is not like you. He is not honest, kind, 
or compassionate. He doesn't have integrity or moral conviction. He is 
neither fair nor decent.
  We, as Senators who swore to uphold the Constitution, should, based 
on the facts laid before us, vote to convict. Hold President Trump 
accountable for what he has done. We have to show the American people, 
ourselves, that President Trump does not represent our values, that we 
still believe that we must fight for what is right, for truth, for 
justice, for honesty, for integrity, and that laws mean something, and 
we don't put ourselves before the law.
  For those who lack courage in this moment, those who are unwilling to 
do what they know in their heart of hearts, in their conscience and in 
their deepest thoughts to be right, if they do not do what they know 
they should, they will be remembered as complicit. They will be 
remembered as not telling the truth. They will not be remembered well.
  I urge you to vote your conscience.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________