Floor Statements

Madam President, now, on another matter, the special counsel investigation.

To date, the special counsel's investigation has produced no less than 35 indictments or plea deals--35--and that does not include two additional guilty pleas of people initially investigated by Mueller but were handed off to other branches of the Justice Department.

Just this morning, Michael Cohen has pled guilty to lying to Congress about projects in Russia.

It is a reminder that there has been a remarkable volume of criminal activity uncovered by the special counsel's investigation. No one, especially not the President, can credibly claim that the investigation is a fishing expedition. Calling Mueller's investigation a witch hunt is just a lie--plain and simple, a lie.

The President's actions clearly show he has a lot to hide, that he is afraid of the truth, and doesn't want Mueller or anyone else to uncover it, but it hasn't stopped the President from repeating these lies. In fact, in recent days, President Trump has escalated his attack on Special Counsel Mueller. Almost daily, the President's Twitter feed is littered with baseless accusations about the investigation. President Trump retweeted an image of several of his political opponents, including Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, behind bars. Can you believe that? The Deputy Attorney General behind bars? And this is the man--the President--our Republican colleagues refuse to call out against?

Just yesterday, President Trump said this about a potential pardon for Paul Manafort, now accused of lying to prosecutors and violating his plea agreement. He said:

I wouldn't take it off the table. . . . Why would I take it

off the table?

That is a pardon.

Let's not forget, President Trump has already fired the Attorney General and replaced him with a lackey without Senate approval. The nominee's only qualification seems to be that he has a history of criticizing the special counsel.

So this idea that we don't need to pass legislation to protect the special counsel because there is no way President Trump will interfere with the investigation is flatout absurd.

I once again call on my friend the majority leader to schedule a vote on the bipartisan bill to protect the special counsel. If he continues to refuse, we will push for the bill in the yearend spending agreement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, next Friday, appropriations expire for 7 of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019, and we are in good faith negotiations with our Republican counterparts here in the Congress to get them enacted. The good news is that because of the bipartisan work in the Senate, approximately 75 percent of the Federal Government is funded for 2019. The bad news is that the 7 bipartisan appropriations bills are hanging in the balance for one reason and one reason only--President Trump.

President Trump has said that he wants to shut down the government unless he gets $5 billion from the American taxpayers for an unnecessary border wall. The President hasn't even tried to get Mexico to pay for it, as he promised in his campaign over and over and over. He hasn't outlined a plan to deal with eminent domain concerns or even a plan as to how it would be built. He hasn't even spent the $1.3 billion Congress allocated last year in the fiscal year 2018 budget for border security--fences, drones, technology--which actually makes sense. Now he is asking, having not spent that money, for more. So this isn't actually about border security. This is the President's way of trying to manufacture a shutdown to fire up his base.

Make no mistake. The President is the only person who holds the ultimate responsibility for a government shutdown. He can decide if we are going to have one or not have one. He, certainly, has the power to shut down the government, but he has two very reasonable ways to avoid one.

First, he could agree to sign the bipartisan DHS appropriations bill that the Senate Democrats and Republicans have already agreed to, which includes $1.6 billion for border security on top of the $1.3 billion that President Trump still hasn't spent from last year. It is just what we have done in previous years--funding for fencing on the border where the experts say it makes the most sense. It would protect our border far more effectively and far more quickly than any wall.

Leader McConnell voted for that bill. Chairman Shelby voted for it, as did Senator Rubio. Even Senator Graham, the President's strongest supporter and closest ally in the Senate, voted for that bill. Now, all of a sudden, it seems that the Republicans, afraid to buck the President even when they know he is wrong, want to renege on that agreement to go along with the President's shutdown plan. But it doesn't have to be that way. This bipartisan negotiated deal remains on the table and would, certainly, receive more than 60 votes in the Senate.

Second, if the President doesn't want to agree to that bipartisan bill, we could avoid a shutdown by passing a continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security. We think it should be for a whole year. It would keep the government open and still provide another $1.3 billion for border security on top of the $1.3 billion the President has not yet spent. Again, this option would, certainly, receive more than 60 votes in the Senate.

So President Trump has a simple choice of two good bipartisan options. If he decides to support either the bipartisan DHS bill or a continuing resolution, I am confident that both would pass by comfortable margins. The only position that cannot garner 60 votes is the President's position. He is adamant

about having a partial shutdown. He keeps repeating over and over that he wants a shutdown. Make no mistake about it. He is the only reason there would be a shutdown.

If President Trump wants to throw a temper tantrum and shut down some Departments and Agencies over Christmas, that is, certainly, within his power, but he has two more sensible options available to him. It would be a shame if the country suffered because of a Trump temper tantrum. It is the President's choice.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this weekend President Trump will head to Argentina for the G20 summit, where he is expected to meet with President Xi of China to discuss our trading relationship.

Now, I have opposed the President on most things. That is hardly a secret. But we agree--we actually agree--on the issue of China. In fact, I agree more with President Trump's views on China than I did with either President Bush or Obama, and I have been supportive of the administration's aggressive course of action on China.

China must be made to understand that we are dead serious about changing its behavior on trade: to allow foreign companies to compete in its markets, to end illegal dumping of cheap goods into our markets, and, most importantly, to end the abusive practice of technology transfers and trade espionage that threatens our intellectual property and know-how. These things don't just threaten our intellectual property, an abstract concept. They threaten good-paying jobs--millions of them--and wealth, billions and trillions of dollars that China has stolen, literally and figuratively, through its unfair practices.

When we have a good product, you can't sell it in China unless you transfer the technology, but they sell tons of things here.

My father-in-law--my late father-in-law--a New York City cabdriver, sometimes said: We are not Uncle Sam; we are Uncle Sap.

Well, in the case of China, that has been the case for too long, and President Trump, to his credit, is beginning to reverse that. Yet despite an initial wave of tariffs, China has not offered meaningful concessions on any of the items I have mentioned.

Ambassador Lighthizer recently put out a report concluding that China is still rapaciously stealing American intellectual property. In fact, the number of Chinese state-sponsored cyber attacks has been rising. So we need to stay the course until China feels the heat.

That is why I was deeply disturbed--very disturbed--to read this morning in the New York Times that President Trump and his advisers--at least some of them--are already considering backing down on further action against

China in order to reach an agreement at the G20.

Let me be clear to the President. Backing off on China for some quick handshake agreement without substantive--real, deep, substantive-- commitments, will be seen as a victory by no one. It will be seen as capitulation. It will be seen as weak to cave on tariffs this early before China starts to feel the real pressure and come to a real, deep, and long-lasting agreement that is worth having.

So, Mr. President, don't back down on China. American jobs and American wealth are at stake. You have headed out on a correct course, but you have to follow through. All too often this administration starts out doing something and then backs off. It cannot happen.

I am worried--deeply worried--because I love America and I want us to be No. 1 economically, as well as in every other way. I fear that Trump's eagerness to make a deal--any deal, just like he did with North Korea in Singapore--will be devastating to the long-term interests of the United States. Now that we are finally putting the screws to China, we cannot relent for the sake of a photo-op at the G20.

Yes, our actions will cause some pain, but in the long term, there is much more gain than pain. If we ever needed to do something, it is now. I don't agree with treating Canada or Europe the same as China. That is for sure. But China is a different, different breed of economic cat, and they are robbing us, stealing from us, doing everything they can to become No. 1 economically at our expense, not in a fair competitive way but in a way that is one-sided.

So today, I will be sending a letter to President Trump with some colleagues laying out this position, saying to the President: Please, don't back off on China. American jobs and American wealth depend on it.

Mr. President, later this morning, the Senate will receive a classified all-Senators briefing from Secretaries Pompeo and Mattis on the conflict in Yemen, Saudi Arabia's role in that conflict, and the recent murder of U.S. resident and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi. This is an important and timely briefing, but there is a gaping hole.

I am concerned and disappointed that President Trump has reportedly forbidden CIA Director Haspel from attending today's briefing. Without her presence at the briefing, there will be no one from our intelligence community.

Director Haspel has heard the Turkish audiotape of the murder, and her Agency has also reportedly made conclusions about the role of various Saudi leaders. Members of this body have a right to hear from Director Haspel. No offense to Secretary Mattis and Secretary Pompeo, but it was the CIA that had jurisdiction to find out what exactly happened, and, according to press reports, they did. Now Congress is not going to get the briefing.

What is the White House trying to hide?

Well, we all know that President Trump seems to favor the Crown Prince to an extent that he will look the other way at the greatest of transgressions, but it is even a further step down the road of darkness, lack of sunlight to prevent the CIA from giving us their conclusions.

Members of this body have a right to hear from Director Haspel, and her absence today speaks volumes--volumes--about the White House's intention for congressional oversight in Saudi Arabia.

President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid criticizing the Crown Prince and the Saudis for the Khashoggi murder, drawing grotesque moral equivalencies and controverting well-known facts to avoid placing blame. It seems so similar to what he has been doing with Putin and Russia, looking the other way for reasons that don't serve America's interests or security.

It has been a shameful abdication of moral leadership from the President. It must give comfort to autocrats everywhere: Go ahead. Behave despicably, and the United States, at minimum, will look the other way and may even pat you on the back.

We have strength for a lot of reasons. We have a strong military. We have a great economy. We have a wonderful people. But one of the reasons we have strength is that we have been the shining city on the hill. We have been the country that has guided doing the right thing in morality and has tried to spread that around the world.

Donald Trump is taking a giant step backwards, and that is not just an abstract concept or something that would be a nice thing to do. It hurts economically, militarily, and security-wise when we don't maintain being that shining city on the hill.

So Leader McConnell has rightly called the Saudi murder operation ``abhorrent.'' I hope he agrees with me that Director Haspel should be made available to Congress on this issue. I would ask him to join with me in asking her to come in the same kind of closed, SCIF, intelligence-protecting session.

Relatedly, possibly as early as this afternoon, we expect to have a vote in relation to the Lee-Sanders Yemen War Powers Resolution. Even though they are not here at the moment, I want to applaud the sponsors for their steadfast commitment to this important issue. I will support their resolution once again.

The conflict in Yemen, exacerbated by Saudi Arabia's intervention and its reckless tactics, must be brought to an end. The Yemeni people have endured unending suffering. The United States should once again be the moral leader and lead the diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict.

Mr. President, first, I would like to talk about the unfortunate news we heard from General Motors.

Yesterday, General Motors announced it was closing five factories and laying off 15,000 workers. The news is a gut punch to workers in Ohio, Michigan, and Maryland. Our hearts go out to them and their families. Many of these people have labored for decades, and many in their families have worked at GM. I know this from our GM plants in New York. To lose your job when you have put so much into it, only to wake up in the morning and say, ``my job is to make the best car possible,'' is a gut punch and worse.

We need to do more--a lot more--to encourage investments in American jobs, in American infrastructure, and to bring back manufacturing. What we don't need is more rhetoric from the President, who has made a whole lot of promises but who has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for these workers.

Here is what President Trump said last year about manufacturing jobs in Ohio:

They're all coming back. . . . Don't move. Don't sell your

house. . . . We're going to fill those factories up or rip

them down and build new ones.

Here is what else he said:

If I am elected, you won't lose one plant. . . . You're

going to have jobs again. You won't lose one plant. I promise

you that.

President Trump promised people in the campaign that we would not lose one plant. A lot of people voted for him for that reason. Guess where he said we would not lose one plant. Guess where President Trump promised the people we would not lose one auto plant--in Warren, MI. It is one of the plants that is now slated to close. The words are a painful reminder of just how bankrupt many of President Trump's promises turn out to be.

Do you remember Carrier? The President swept into office and promised that Carrier would stay open, thanks to him. He had done a big rally, and 6 months later, Carrier had laid off hundreds of workers in Indiana and had moved its positions to Mexico.

This is what the President does. He makes big, bold, impossible promises without having much care for the results. Instead of overpromising, the President should roll up his sleeves and work with GM to prevent it from cutting jobs.

The American taxpayer has supported GM through tough times. Last year, the Republicans handed GM a windfall of $150 million in its tax bill so GM could bring back money from overseas. It said it would do it and employ people. Well, it is bringing back money from overseas, but it is not employing people. That is what American companies are doing. GM pocketed the tax break we gave it and is closing up shop anyway-- with nary a word from the President until after the fact.

I see my friend from Illinois here. We Democrats believe you don't give tax breaks to big companies unless they do something for their workers--not stock buybacks, but employ people, train people, pay them good wages, give family leave. The President gives corporate America-- wealthy, big corporations--just what they wish but does nothing to protect workers, except to talk a lot.

So I would ask my friends in New York State and throughout the Midwest and throughout America--working families, the kind of people I came from: When are you going to understand that this man sells you a bill of goods? that this President talks a good game but never delivers on his promises? That is what Americans and working Americans, in particular, should understand about President Trump.

The awful closings from yesterday are terrible. They are a sad symbol of a President who has failed the American working people and given them a

lot of hot air and no real gains. Corporate America--the wealthy--are doing great. Working people--average Americans, people who sweat--get nothing. They are losing jobs.

We need more from this Congress than another tax cut for the wealthy, and the American worker needs more from President Trump than empty rhetoric. Just yesterday, he said: Well, there will be new plants. How many people are going to believe that? He has been saying that for 2 years.

Mr. President, last week, the Trump administration released an important report on climate change that warned of dire consequences by 2050--of devastating storms, hundreds of billions of dollars of damage, a massive drain on the economy. The fact that this administration released the report on Black Friday is wrong. It is an obvious attempt to bury the findings. But guess what. Even though he released them on the Friday after Thanksgiving, those findings were not buried. They were on the front page of every newspaper. Then, of course, while his own administration issued a very strong report on climate change, he said: ``I don't believe it.''

I have said it before, and I will say it again: President Trump and the Republican Party are like ostriches when it comes to climate change. They bury their heads in the sand as the world changes and as more and more of America and American workers are put in danger.

The Trump administration itself has reported on how devastating the costs of their policies will be for future generations of Americans. This report is going to live on day after day, month after month, and year after year. This is not a 1-day story. This is conclusive evidence by the President's own administration of how bad climate change will be for incomes, for families, for workers, for farmers, and for cities. They can't run away from it anymore. It is about time they face the reality and work with us to do something before it is too late.

This report will be in the news again and again and again. It will bolster those who are going to court to prevent the administration from undoing many of the things the previous administration did on climate change.

It is a turning point--a very significant turning point--in the war, which it is, to keep our globe from getting far too hot for everybody's comfort.

Mr. President, on the pending judicial nomination of Thomas Farr for a seat in the Eastern District of North Carolina, in his legal career, Mr. Farr has repeatedly defended efforts by North Carolina's Republicans to undermine voting rights generally and disenfranchise African-American voters specifically.

This man was chief cook and bottle washer of the State that probably did more to prevent people, and particularly minorities, from voting than any other State. It is so bad that the discriminatory congressional maps, drawn by the Republican legislature, which Mr. Farr defended, were struck down by the very conservative Supreme Court.

Mr. Farr defended North Carolina's absurdly restrictive voter ID law, also passed by the conservative Republican State legislature, and they tailored their election laws to disadvantage African-American voters after requesting race-specific data on voting practices. The law was one of five changes to registration and voting, all of which--all of which--disproportionately affected African Americans. That wasn't a coincidence; that was designed.

Mr. Farr called the provisions, which a Federal judge said ``targeted African-Americans with surgical precision,'' a minor inconvenience.

Finally, Mr. Farr was a lawyer for the reelection campaign of Senator Jesse Helms and may well have had preknowledge of a mailer sent overwhelmingly to Black voters, with the purpose of intimidating them from voting.

Partisan affiliation, my friends, should not matter in this debate. Voting rights are sacred. It is part of our soil in which the tree of democracy is nurtured. It shouldn't be a Democratic issue or Republican issue. Taking away the voting rights of Americans, of whatever race, creed, color, party, or region is a despicable act. It cuts against the very thing that generations of soldiers have died for--the right of democracy, the right to vote.

Every Senator here, including our Republican friends, should be disturbed by the fact that Mr. Farr has been involved, often directly, in multiple attempts to disenfranchise minority voters.

What sticks in the craw is, we are voting on Mr. Farr only because Republican Senators--when we Democrats were in the majority and still respected the blue slip, they blocked two nominees, both African American, both women, to represent a jurisdiction that is 27 percent African American and doesn't have a single African American judge, even though one-quarter of the people are African American. I don't care what the ideology is here. Then, adding insult to injury, they are putting on the bench someone who would disenfranchise people, particularly people of color. It is a disgrace.

This morning I called Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum, both of whom were hurt by attempts to limit voting rights, and they issued the following statement together:

When it comes to the trifecta of voter disenfranchisement--

voter suppression, racial gerrymandering, and restriction of

voting rights--Thomas Farr is, sadly, one of the most

experienced election lawyers in the country. . . . Thomas

Farr's record of hostility and disregard for fundamental

civil rights disqualifies him for a lifetime appointment that

will allow him to codify his discriminatory ideology into

law.

I couldn't agree more. I urge my Republican colleagues to see the better part of reason, to let, as Abraham Lincoln said--and we all know what he did--the better angels of their nature appeal to them, not just the political machine that says: This guy helped us get elected. Even if he took away voting rights of people, let's put him in.

One more point, the great Chief Justice John Roberts, who told us he would call balls and strikes, allowed a lot of this to happen when he authored the Shelby decision, which took away protections against horrible things that Mr. Farr helped perpetrate. He said there wasn't much discrimination anymore. Well, clearly there is. Nineteen States have rolled back voting rights since Shelby. Mr. Roberts tries to portray himself as a middle-of-the-road, call-the-balls-and-strikes person, but in his decisions he is very far from that, and that is why people see the courts as so political.

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

Mr. President, first let me welcome everybody back from Thanksgiving, which I hope was a joyous one for everyone here today.

On a subject not so joyous, the majority leader has indicated that the Senate will move to the pending nomination of Thomas Farr to the Eastern District of North Carolina. I have been in the Senate long enough to see a whole bunch of questionable nominees, frankly, from both parties, but Thomas Farr is unquestionably one of the worst. It is hard to believe President Trump nominated him. It is even harder to believe Senate Republicans are considering him again.

This is a man who stands for disenfranchisement of voters, particularly minority voters. That is what he stands for. You can try to parse it any way you want, but that is what he has done. That is not America.

In addition, he has spent his long legal career working against the rights of unions, but he has demonstrated to be a dyed-in-the-wool partisan with particular hostility to voting rights. We all know North Carolina has done more to hurt voting rights than just about any other State. That is an ignominious title for a State that is trying to be more progressive and forward-looking. We all know that.

We also know Justice Roberts will go down in history as one of those who worked to take away voting rights when he authored the Shelby decision and more or less stated that he didn't believe discrimination existed any longer so we wouldn't need section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That allowed people like Mr. Farr and those in North Carolina to do a wholesale taking away of voting rights, particularly those of minorities.

After challenging multiple congressional maps drawn by North Carolina's Democrats, Farr vigorously defended the congressional maps drawn by North Carolina's Republicans. Even this conservative Supreme Court, often so insensitive to the voting fairness and rights of minorities--the Supreme Court actually overturned this map for discrimination--not partisanship, discrimination.

Farr defended North Carolina's restrictive voting laws. The law, passed by a very conservative Republican legislature, requested data on the use by race of a number of voting practices. After receiving the data, North Carolina Republicans made five changes to voting and registration, every one of which disproportionately hurt the voting ability of African Americans. Under the law, even citizens who showed government employee IDs, student IDs, or IDs used to receive public assistance were not allowed to vote.

Here is what the Fourth Circuit said--again, not a liberal court circuit. It said: The law had ``discriminatory intent'' and ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' Farr, as he defended this law, said it was a minor inconvenience for voters. This is despicable. That law is particularly designed to prevent African Americans from voting, and we are nominating such a man to the court of appeals, when he was chief cook and bottle washer for much of the time these laws came about. I don't care what your party is, and I don't care what your political ideology is. How can you elevate this man to the court?

Remarkably, Mr. Farr was involved in another sordid affair regarding the voting rights of African Americans. In 1990, Farr was a lawyer for the reelection campaign of Jesse Helms, during which the Department of Justice alleged that 120,000 postcards had been sent overwhelmingly to Black voters, intending to intimidate them from voting. Isn't that amazing? That man is the man we are elevating.

I believe the Republican Party is going to have huge trouble in the future and will shrug its shoulders or say: Oh, this is political correctness. No, it isn't. It is because they tolerate things just like this--not all but too many. Right now, we only have one person on the other side of the aisle who has said he will vote against Farr. I don't care what the marching orders are, they are wrong.

Here, in response to a question from Ranking Member Feinstein, Farr denied that he had participated in any meetings in which the postcards were discussed before they were sent. However, the Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division said Farr's response was contrary to the facts. In effect, that DOJ person was saying Farr did participate. We don't know the exact circumstances of the mail, but at a minimum, it is disturbing that Farr was involved, often directly, in defending multiple attempts by North Carolina Republicans to disenfranchise African-American voters.

As the Congressional Black Caucus said, ``Had the White House deliberately sought to identify an attorney in North Carolina with a more hostile record on African-American voting rights . . . than Thomas Farr, it could hardly have done so.'' It is well said.

I don't care if you are a Republican; I don't care if you are a Democrat or something in between, we should not elevate a person to the Federal bench who has spent a good part of his career defending those who want to undermine the rights of Americans to vote.

Let's look at the circumstances of this nomination. You know, Mitch McConnell brags as to how many seats he has filled. These seats were held

back because we respected the blue slips when we were in the majority, and there were a lot of empty seats. Well, this one is the longest running judicial vacancy in the United States.

Why, you might ask, has the seat remained open for so long?

Republican Senators blocked two Obama nominees, both of whom were African-American women. Let me say that again. Republican Senators from North Carolina--they may not have been, but they were in the circuit-- blocked two Obama nominees, both of whom were African-American women. Yet now we put this man in that place--all because Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley changed the rules and eliminated the last bit of comity by eliminating the blue slip? Either of those women would have been the first African American ever--not just the first African American woman but the first African American ever--to serve in that judicial district, when the population of that district was 27 percent African American. Two women were knocked out by Republican Senators under the tradition of the blue slip--both African American--in a district that was 27 percent African American.

They are not on the bench, and we are nominating this man who has stood steadfastly against the right of people--in this case, Black people--to vote. That is despicable. Considering Farr's record on voting rights--on the disenfranchisement of African-American voters, in particular--his nomination to the Eastern District vacancy is not just a dash of salt in the wound, it is the whole shaker.

I plead with my Republican colleagues. After an election in which voting rights and voting suppression were major issues in States like Georgia and Florida and at a time when our President always says elections are fixed and that Americans should have faith in the wellspring of our democracy--the right to vote and to have votes counted and correctly tabulated in a fair way--what message does the Senate send if it approves Farr's nomination?

This is our democracy. For the first time in the history of America, nasty creatures are gnawing at its roots. The tree could fall down. I hope it will not. It is a strong tree, but it could fall down, and it will be aided and abetted by those who put people like Mr. Farr on the bench. I vociferously oppose his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, the President of the United States swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, including bedrock principles like the rule of law and the sanctity of our elections. But nearly every day, President Trump ignores this fundamental responsibility and tramples on the values that have made our country the light of the world. No President has come close to defaming and trying to destroy the democratic values of this country. No President has come close--none.

This morning, for what seemed like the millionth time, the President angrily, wildly, and baselessly ranted about the special counsel's investigation. It doesn't matter to him that his claims have no basis. It doesn't matter to him that his words may degrade faith in our independent law enforcement agencies and the rule of law. He proceeds only according to self-interest. He is offended that someone might look into the fact that he did something wrong--this happens with every President--and he lashes out in ways that hurt our democracy permanently.

Just look at how over the past few weeks President Trump has tried to intimidate and bully election officials in Florida and Arizona with fantastical claims of voter fraud. It doesn't matter to him that there is no evidence to the charges. It doesn't matter to him that in both States--Arizona and Florida--Republican officials have said there is no fraud, debunking the President's claims. It doesn't matter to him that his claims erode faith in the integrity of our elections among a segment of his supporters. If the President thinks it will help him personally, he will say it.

One of the most recent examples of this just happened yesterday. The President keeps getting more and more absurd. He makes things up. He most recently claimed in an interview with the Daily Caller that ``illegal'' voters ``go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, and vote again.''

Name one. Name a few. When did it happen and when? Or did you just read this on some rightwing, nasty, dishonest blog and just repeat it? Donald Trump, you are the President of the United States. Because you read something in a blog that has no basis in fact, you don't have the right to repeat it, if you are President and behaving Presidentially, and yet he does it over and over. It is the height of irresponsibility.

Since his first day in office, President Trump has made these ridiculous claims about voter fraud that even his sham voting commission, led by Kris Kobach, couldn't prove. The real disgrace is how low the President and

some Republicans will stoop to prevent American citizens from exercising their right to vote and how far they will go to undermine faith in our democracy, even to the point of disenfranchising military voters--people who may be overseas defending our freedom, risking their lives, who want to vote--and if their ballots don't come in at exactly the right moment, they shouldn't be counted--disgraceful.

The tendency is to treat the President's words as an extension of our modern, partisan politics. Well, we have too much partisan politics, but the truth is that the President's blatant disregard for basic norms, constitutional constraints, and truth is unique to him. No President has come close to going as far to destroy democratic norms. He is doing severe and possibly irreparable damage to our democracy all to suit his goal and often, it seems, just his ego.

Democrats condemn this behavior, but where are our Republican friends? They should know better. They do know better. I hear the private chatter. The silence of the Republican majority as the President takes an ax to democratic norms will go down as one of the least bright moments in the history of the Republican Party. It will go down as one of the bad marks in the history of the Senate, and we don't hear a peep. Are our Republican colleagues afraid? Are they just being mercenary? After this last election, I wouldn't think that would be the case. Trump didn't lead them to overwhelming victory. When are we going to hear from them?

This is not an issue of partisanship. When a President, Democrat or Republican, does so much to destroy democratic norms and does so much to just make up things--like that people went into a car and put on a different hat to vote--where are our colleagues decrying this, at least saying that the President shouldn't do it? They are embracing a President whom they know has done so many bad things. I am not talking ideologically. I am talking about honor and respect for democracy. It is something they should not be proud of.

Madam President, now, on the Russia investigation itself. There is this idea out there on the Republican side that the President doesn't intend to interfere with the Russia investigation. Republicans, including my friend the Republican leader, say President Trump has not threatened the special counsel investigation, and so there is no need to protect it. That is a laugh. He threatens the investigation almost every day. He did this morning in his tweets. To say that the President hasn't threatened the special counsel is not only logically dubious, but it is just dead wrong and untrue.

A few weeks ago, President Trump said the investigation ``should end.'' This morning, again, President Trump made clear that he does not want the Mueller investigation to reach a fair and impartial conclusion. Last week, President Trump went around the traditional line of succession in the Justice Department--what many believe to be a violation of the Constitution--to install an Acting Attorney General whose only qualification for the job seems to be that he has publicly criticized the Russia probe.

My friends--particularly my friends, again, on the Republican side-- the writing is on the wall. Let's avoid this constitutional crisis. Let's at least stand up for the rule of law. We should pass legislation now, in the lameduck, to protect the special counsel's investigation from the President and from his woefully unqualified henchman, Mr. Whitaker.

Senators Flake and Coons tried yesterday--bipartisan--but the Republican leader objected. They are going to keep trying, as they should, and Democrats will try to add this proposal to the must-pass spending bill because we believe it is so important for our democracy. There is too much at stake to sit around and wait until the President crosses the line, creating the constitutional crisis we all abhor.

But waiting until that happens would be too late. We need to act on legislation to protect the special counsel, to protect the rule of law, and to protect democracy, accountability, and the fundamental checks and balances that is the hallmark of our great Nation.

Finally, last Tuesday's election was historic for not only the number of ballots cast by Americans in the midterms but also for whom those ballots were cast. Americans sent to our Nation's Capital the most diverse Congress in the history of the country. In several States, the first Native American women, the first African- American women, and the first Muslim women were elected in the history of those States. Finally, the men and women walking the corridors of power are beginning to look more like the Nation they represent, at least on our side of the aisle, I am proud to say. We are not there yet, but we are a lot closer.

In light of this progress, it is perhaps fitting that exactly half a century ago, a fellow Brooklynite, Shirley Chisolm, became the first African-American woman elected to Congress and eventually the first African-American woman to run for a major party's nomination for President, breaking that glass ceiling and paving the way for so many others to follow. Whether they know Shirley Chisolm or not, so many who are elected on the other side in the House of Representatives owe a lot to her, as do all Americans.

So I have introduced a resolution in the Senate, along with my friends in the House--Representative Yvette Clarke, my Congresswoman whom I was proud to vote for in November, and Barbara Lee of California--to honor Shirley Chisolm's achievements and her legacy of public service.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I am here.

Reserving the right to object. Very simply, there has to be some comity here. Republicans cannot

block Democratic nominees and then expect Republican nominees to go through, so I object.

Mr. President, we have to have some bipartisanship here. I understand my friend from Tennessee. He is my friend. I hope he would work with us to create bipartisan packages to get nominees through. That is not happening. We need to do it.

I yield the floor.