Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to enter a statement into the record.

The President swears an oath to faithfully execute the Office of the Presidency and to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' At the very core of that oath is a commitment to democracy, to government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

President Trump tested that commitment. Americans endured a pandemic while casting their votes in the November 2020 election. Following that election, the outgoing President baselessly sowed doubt about its legitimacy and refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power. In the days leading up to January 6, 2021, President Trump agitated his most dangerous supporters, who had already shown a propensity for violence, and called on them to interfere with Congress' duty to formally count the votes of the electoral college. Donald Trump wanted a riot to take place on January 6. We know because he said so. And when police officers defending the Capitol were overrun by his mob, he did nothing. Democracy is at its most fragile at the moment of transition, and that fragility is exactly what the former President sought to exploit.

During President Trump's second impeachment trial, his defense tried to paint for Americans a picture of a President who called for peaceful protest and who bears no responsibility for the January 6 assault on the People's House. But the President's actions took place before our eyes. His conduct before, during, and immediately after the assault on the Capitol is well known to the American public. He is uniquely responsible for the events of January 6.

Americans spoke clearly and forcefully in November when they elected a new President. Donald Trump's attempt to cling to power through lies and violence is just what the Framers of our Constitution feared. But part of the brilliance of our Constitution's separation of powers is that we, the Congress, have the power and obligation to defend against such gross misconduct through impeachment.

I voted to convict and disqualify former President Donald Trump because he violated his oath of office and because our future leaders must know that such abuses of power will not be tolerated in a free and democratic society. I will continue to call out these abuses and to keep those in power accountable.

Mr. President, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. President, more than 350,000 of our loved ones have died from a terrible disease. Small businesses have gone under, never to reopen. Millions have lost their jobs, and too many families don't know how they are going to pay the rent or put groceries on the table.

It is tough out there, but Americans are fighters, and despite all the challenges, in November they did what Americans do when they are unhappy with their leadership--they voted for change. They turned their backs on a sitting President who fans the flames of hatred while bodies pile up in the morgue. Instead, they elected a new President who wants to save lives, to save our economy, and to save our democracy.

Even as the pandemic raged, Americans showed up for democracy. States worked overtime to set up safe systems, ballot drop boxes, early voting, and gallons of hand sanitizer. Voters mailed their ballots earlier, put on masks, and stood in line at the polls. The election of 2020 shattered voting records.

So here we are on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the aftermath of a historic election held in the middle of a pandemic. People are suffering, and we should be working to get them the help they need. Instead, we are here because Donald Trump wants to overturn the results of that election. The Republicans objecting to the results of this election will be judged by history, but the rest of us will be judged as well.

It is our responsibility to stand up for our democracy even while other Senators work to undermine it.

Losing is hard. I ran for President myself. It was a hard-fought primary, but Joe Biden won and I lost. I am not the only one to live through that; a number of Senators in this room have run for President. None of us was successful, and when we lost, we conceded and we got out of the race because that is how democracy works. None of us lied about the results. We didn't throw temper tantrums. We didn't tell our allies in Congress or the States to overturn the results. We didn't feed poisonous propaganda to our supporters. We didn't urge people to march on State capitals or to descend on Washington. We accepted the will of the voters.

And it is not just us; it is everyone who has run for President since the beginning of America. Only once in America's history have the people who lost tried to burn down our democracy on the way out. They caused a civil war that nearly destroyed our Nation.

Make no mistake, the violence we witnessed in this Chamber today was the direct result of the poisonous lies that Donald Trump repeated again and again for more than 2 months. His words have consequences. Our democracy has been grievously injured by this lying coward.

This effort to subvert our democracy is not merely one last Presidential tantrum. This effort is designed to knock out the basic pillar on which democracy is founded: the idea that the voters--not the sitting President and not the Members of Congress but the voters decide who will lead this Nation.

A democracy in which the elected leaders do not bend to the will of the voters is no democracy. It is a totalitarian state. And those who pursue this effort are supporting a coup.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this effort to overthrow our democracy.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this week the country will observe National Police Week, a week in honor of the courageous law enforcement officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their communities.

As we honor the service of our brave men and women in the law enforcement community, I would like to take the opportunity to honor the life and memory of three law enforcement officers from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their communities: Sean M. Gannon, Michael C. Chesna, and Leon F. Moody.

Sergeant Sean Gannon, of New Bedford, was killed in the line of duty on April 12, 2018. He was a lifelong public servant, first serving as a public safety officer and later becoming a police officer with the Yarmouth Police Department, where he served for 8 years. When he wasn't on duty, Sergeant Gannon enjoyed volunteering with Big Brothers Big Sisters, spending time outdoors, traveling, and devoting time to family and friends.

Sergeant Gannon, who lost his life at the age of 32, was the beloved son of Denise Morency Gannon and Patrick Gannon and a devoted husband to his wife Dara.

Sergeant Michael Chesna, who was killed in the line of duty on July 15, 2018, dedicated his life to his country, his community, and his family. A native of Hanover, MA, Sergeant Chesna enlisted in the U.S. Army following the September 11 attacks, serving two

tours of duty with the 187 10th Mountain Division, where he was awarded the Purple Heart. Following his service in the Army, Sergeant Chesna became a police officer with the city of Weymouth, where he served until his untimely death at the age of 42.

Sergeant Chesna was a loving husband to his wife Cindy and father to his children Olivia and Jack. He was an avid Boston sports fan who enjoyed playing basketball, collecting sports memorabilia, and spending time with family and friends.

Patrolman Leon Moody of the Worcester Police Department died of an illness he sustained in the line of duty in 1932. He served the Worcester P.D. bravely for 15 years, before passing away at the age of 44.

Sergeants Gannon and Chesna and Patrolman Moody are among 371 law enforcement officers who died while protecting their communities and whose names were engraved this week on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, DC.

This week and every day, we honor their service and their sacrifice. Most importantly, we honor the lives they lived and legacies they leave behind. May their memories continue to challenge and inspire us.

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

Mr. President, a little while ago, the majority leader stood on this floor to speak about the investigation into the 2016 Presidential election. He triumphantly declared ``case closed''--``case closed.'' Wishing will not make it so.

I read the Mueller report. I read it cover to cover, every page. I read late into the evening on the day it was released and into the next morning. I didn't start reading by expecting to make a statement about it, but I was shaken by the evidence that the special counsel had gathered and by the conclusions that he drew.

The majority leader would have us believe that scrutinizing this evidence is a matter of Democrats refusing ``to make peace with the American people's choice.'' He wants to portray this as just an ``outrage industrial complex'' because some people don't like that President Trump won. Again, wishing will not make it so.

Sure, there is plenty to be outraged about in the special counsel's report, but no one here is pitching a fit that Democrats didn't win the election. No, what is at stake here is the Constitution of the United States of America. Will Congress do its job and fulfill its constitutional duty to serve as a check on the President? The answer from the majority leader and his Republican colleagues is no--``case closed.'' ``Case closed,'' they cry.

Instead of reading the words of the special counsel's report, they just want to circle the wagons around this President. Instead of protecting the Constitution, they want to protect the President. This is a huge difference.

At the core of the Constitution is the principle that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. My oath of office is the same as Mitch McConnell's. I swore and he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution is built on the principle of separation of powers precisely to prevent a dictator, an autocrat, from taking control of our government. This separation of powers is part of the brilliance of our Constitution, and it has served us well for centuries.

Yes, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and so did everybody in the Senate and the House, including the majority leader. Now we must act to fulfill that oath. There is no ``political inconvenience'' exception to the U.S. Constitution. If any other human being in this country had done what is documented in the Mueller report, they would be arrested and put in jail.

The majority leader doesn't want us to consider the mountain of evidence against the President. That is wrong. He and his colleagues have moved to protect the President instead of defending the Constitution. Maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are confused or maybe they just didn't read the report. Well, I did, and there

were some passages that stuck out to me.

Since the majority leader has pronounced his judgment here on the Senate floor, I would like to spend some time reminding him of exactly what this report said. Let's start with this one. Robert Mueller's report makes clear that the President took steps to impede the Mueller investigation and that his report, though it does not charge the President, did not exonerate him from wrongdoing. According to Mueller:

On May 17, 2017, the Acting Attorney General for the Russia

investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the

investigation and related matters. The President reacted to

news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling

advisors that it was ``the end of his presidency'' and

demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his

resignation, but the President ultimately did not accept it.

The President told aides that the Special Counsel had

conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel

therefore could not serve. The President's advisors told him

the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been

considered by the Department of Justice. On June 14, 2017,

the media reported that the Special Counsel's Office was

investigating whether the President had obstructed justice.

Press reports called this ``a major turning point'' in the

investigation: while Comey had told the President he was not

under investigation, following Comey's firing, the President

now was under investigation. The President reacted to this

news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of

Justice and the Special Counsel's investigation. On June 17,

2017, the President called McGahn [who was White House

Counsel] at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney

General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of

interest and must be removed.

That ends the quote from the Mueller report. According to McGahn, the President was extremely insistent, calling him repeatedly and not taking no for an answer. Here is what McGahn told the special counsel-- back to the Mueller report:

On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and

told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn was at

home and the President was at Camp David. In interviews with

this Office, McGahn recalled that the President called him at

home twice and on both occasions directed him to call

Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded

him from serving as Special Counsel.

On the first call, McGahn recalled that the President said

something like, ``You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod.''

McGahn said he told the President that he would see what he

could do. McGahn was perturbed by the call and did not intend

to act on the request. He and other advisors believed the

asserted conflicts were ``silly'' and ``not real,'' and they

had previously communicated that view to the President.

McGahn also had made clear to the President that the White

House Counsel's Office should not be involved in any effort

to press the issue of conflicts. McGahn was concerned about

having any role in asking the Acting Attorney General to fire

the Special Counsel because he had grown up in the Reagan era

and wanted to be more like Judge Robert Bork and not

``Saturday Night Massacre Bork.'' McGahn considered the

President's request to be an inflection point and he wanted

to hit the brakes.

That ends the quote from the Mueller report.

Starting again from the Mueller report:

When the President called McGahn a second time to follow up

on the order to call the Department of Justice, McGahn

recalled the President was more direct, saying something

like, ``Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and

can't be the Special Counsel.'' McGahn recalled the President

telling him ``Mueller has to go'' and ``Call me back when you

do it.'' McGahn understood the President to be saying that

the Special Counsel had to be removed by Rosenstein. To end

the conversation with the President, McGahn left the

President with the impression that McGahn would call

Rosenstein. McGahn recalled that he had already said no to

the President's request, and he was worn down. So he just

wanted to get off the phone.

McGahn recalled feeling trapped because he did not plan to

follow the President's directive, but he did not know what he

would say next time the President called. McGahn decided he

had to resign. He called his personal lawyer, and then he

called his chief of staff, Annie Donaldson, to inform her of

his decision. He then drove to the office to pack his

belongings and submit his resignation letter. Donaldson

recalled that McGahn told her the President had called and

demanded that he contact the Department of Justice and that

the President wanted him to do something that McGahn did not

want to do. McGahn told Donaldson that the President had

called at least twice and, in one of the calls, asked, ``have

you done it?'' McGahn did not tell Donaldson the specifics of

the President's request because he was consciously trying not

to involve her in the investigation, but Donaldson inferred

that the President's directive was related to the Russia

investigation. Donaldson prepared to resign along with

McGahn.

That evening, McGahn called both Priebus and Bannon and

told them that he intended to resign. McGahn recalled that,

after speaking with his attorney and given the nature of the

President's request, he decided not to share details of the

President's request with other White House staff. Priebus

recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to

``do crazy shit,'' but he thought McGahn did not tell him the

specifics of the President's request because McGahn was

trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.

Priebus and Bannon both urged McGahn not to quit, and McGahn ultimately returned to work that Monday and remained in his position. He had not told the President directly that he planned to resign, and when they next saw each other the President did not ask McGahn whether he had followed through with calling Rosenstein. Around the same time, Chris Christie recalled a telephone call with the President in which the President asked what Christie thought about the President firing the Special Counsel. Christie advised against doing so because there was no substantive basis for the President to fire the Special Counsel, and because the President would lose support from Republicans in Congress if he did so.

That is the end of that part of the Mueller report.

Now, the other President's aides ultimately refused to carry out his orders and prepared to resign rather than do so. The President persisted.

Mueller recounts:

Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel

removed, the President made another attempt to affect the

course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the

President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former

campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor

outside the government, and dictated a message for

Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that

Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his

recusal from the Russia investigation, that the investigation

was ``very unfair'' to the President, the President had done

nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special

Counsel and ``let [him] move forward with investigating

election meddling for future elections.'' Lewandowski said he

understood what the President wanted Sessions to do.

One month later, in another private meeting with

Lewandowski on July 19, 2017, the President asked about the

status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special

Counsel's investigation to future election interference.

Lewandowski told the President that the message would be

delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President

publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New

York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it

clear that Sessions's job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did

not want to deliver the President's message personally, so he

asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it

to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did

not follow through.

That is the conclusion of that part of the report.

Now, President Trump also took steps to ``prevent public disclosure of evidence'' that was related to the special counsel's investigation.

Back to the Mueller report:

In early 2018, the press reported that the President had

directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed in June

2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than

carry out the order. The President reacted to the news

stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to

dispute the story and to create a record stating that he had

not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn

told those officials that the media reports were accurate in

stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the

Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn

in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the

reports.

That is the end of that section.

Now, the President also tried to influence witnesses, like Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, while they cooperated with the special counsel.

Back to the Mueller report:

With regard to Flynn, the President sent private and public

messages to Flynn encouraging him to stay strong and

conveying that the President still cared about him before he

began to cooperate with the government. When Flynn's

attorneys withdrew him from a joint defense agreement with

the President, signaling that Flynn was potentially

cooperating with the government, the President's personal

counsel initially reminded Flynn's counsel of the President's

warm feelings toward Flynn and said ``that still remains.''

But when Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no

longer share information under a joint defense agreement, the

President's personal counsel stated that the decision would

be interpreted as reflecting Flynn's hostility toward the

President.

That sequence of events could have had the potential to

affect Flynn's decision to cooperate, as well as the

extent of that cooperation.

With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the

President's actions had the potential to influence Manafort's

decision whether to cooperate with the government. The

President and his personal counsel made repeated statements

suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort,

while also making it clear that the President did not want

Manafort to ``flip''--

That is in quotes in the Mueller report--

and cooperate with the government. On June 15, 2018, the day

the judge presiding over Manafort's D.C. case was considering

whether to revoke his bail, the President said that he ``felt

badly'' for Manafort and stated, ``I think a lot of it is

very unfair.'' And when asked about a pardon for Manafort,

the President said, ``I do want to see people treated fairly.

That's what it's all about.'' Later that day, after

Manafort's bail was revoked, the President called it a

``tough sentence'' that was ``Very unfair!'' Two days later,

the President's personal counsel stated that individuals

involved in the Special Counsel's investigation could receive

a pardon ``if, in fact, the [P]resident and his advisors . .

. come to the conclusion that you have been treated

unfairly,''--using language that paralleled how the President

had already described the treatment of Manafort.

This is Mueller's report.

Those statements, combined with the President's

commendation of Manafort for being a ``brave man'' who

``refused to break,'' suggested that a pardon was a more

likely possibility if Manafort continued not to cooperate

with the government. And while Manafort eventually pleaded

guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, he was found to

have violated the agreement by lying to investigators.

That concludes that portion of the Mueller report.

Now, Mueller declined to take a position because of the existing Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel policy that you cannot indict a sitting President. He intended to leave the matter to Congress. He laid the evidence out in the Mueller report, which made clear that the President of the United States obstructed justice.

And don't just take my word for it. Just yesterday, over 600 former Federal prosecutors wrote a letter stating that ``the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.''

So I am going to read their letter because I think it is important, and I want to make sure it is in the Record here. Here is the letter from more than 600 former prosecutors.

We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both

Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels

of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors,

special prosecutors, United States attorneys, and senior

officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which

we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and

rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump

described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would,

in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of

Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President,

result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

I just want to read that again: ``would . . . result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.''

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all

of the elements for an obstruction of justice charge. Conduct

that obstructed or intended to obstruct the truth-finding

process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and

connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These

include:

The President's efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify

evidence about that effort;

The President's effort to limit the scope of Mueller's

investigation to exclude his conduct; and

The President's efforts to prevent witnesses from

cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

This is under the heading in the letter ``Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence.''

Continuing with the letter:

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don

McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump

directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to

gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting

rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come

into public view, Trump made ``repeated efforts to have

McGahn deny the story''--going so far as to tell McGahn to

write a letter ``for our files'' falsely denying that Trump

had directed Mueller's termination.

Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the

investigation of the President and his associates--

obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation

of false government records in order to prevent or

discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The

special counsel's report states: ``Substantial evidence

indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that

he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the

President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's

account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the

President's conduct toward the investigation.''

Also within the letter, under the header Attempts to Limit the Mueller Investigation, the report describes multiple efforts by the President to curtail the scope of the special counsel's investigation.

First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President stated the reason was that he wanted an Attorney General who would ``protect'' him, including from the special counsel's investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions, and Priebus refused.

Second, after McGahn told the President he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House and instructed his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump's message on to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump's message.

As the report explains, ``[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.''

In other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.

All of this conduct--trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others--is similar to conduct we have seen that has been charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.

The next section of the special counsel's report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements. Other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani's message to Cohen's lawyer that Cohen should ``[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.''

Of course, these aren't the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the special counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.

We emphasize that these are not matters of close, professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent, and it is always the government's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice--the standards set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution--runs counter to logic and our experience.

As former Federal prosecutors, we recognize that

prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because

unchecked obstruction, which allows intentional interference

with criminal investigations to go unpunished, puts our whole

system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that but for

the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional

judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the

conduct outlined in the Mueller report.

Over 600 former Federal prosecutors are saying that if we were talking

about any person in this country other than the President of the United States, that person would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Because of that OLC opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, the only mechanism to hold the President accountable and to ensure that the President is not above the law is for Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings.

There has been more commentary. Scholars at Lawfare have put together a very helpful piece that breaks down all of the examples documented in the Mueller report in which Trump may have obstructed justice. Then it analyzes the strength of the case to be made that the President is guilty of obstruction of justice.

Per Lawfare:

The key question is how Robert Mueller and his team

assessed the three elements ``common to most of the relevant

statutes'' relating to obstruction of justice, which are an

obstructive act, a nexus between the act and an official

proceeding, and corrupt intent.

As Mueller describes, the special counsel's office

``gathered evidence . . . relevant to the elements of those

crimes and analyzed them within an elements framework--while

refraining from reaching ultimate conclusions about whether

crimes were committed'' because of the Office of Legal

Counsel (OLC)'s guidelines against the indictment of a

sitting president.

The Lawfare blog identified four instances in the Mueller report that documented ``substantial'' evidence of all three of those elements. In other words, in the following four examples that were documented in the Mueller report, there is ``substantial'' evidence on all three of the elements that Mueller based his assessment on that the President obstructed justice.

First, when it comes to the President's efforts to fire Mueller, the report found ``substantial evidence''--that is from the report--that the President's actions constituted an obstructive act. On page 89, it found that the former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, was a ``credible witness'' in providing evidence that Trump, indeed, attempted to fire Mueller. The report reads that this ``would qualify as an obstructive act'' if the firing ``would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.''

Then it established that there was a nexus between the act and an official proceeding, reading on page 89 that there is ``substantial evidence'' that Trump was aware that ``his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.''

On the question of intent, the Mueller report found ``substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct[.]''

The second example that Mueller cites is the President's efforts to curtail Mueller. On the question of whether those actions constituted an obstructive act, Mueller found that Trump's effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to investigating only future election interference ``would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.'' The report continues: ``Taken together, the President's directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]''

On the question of whether there was a nexus between the act and an official proceeding, Mueller found that at the relevant point, ``the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.''

On the question of intent, Mueller found ``substantial evidence'' that indicates that Trump's efforts were ``intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.''

Mitch McConnell came to the floor to declare that there will be no more investigation into what the President has done. Yet the Mueller report has made clear that there are repeated instances of obstruction of justice. More than 600 Federal prosecutors have now said that what is laid out in the Mueller report would constitute obstruction of justice and would trigger a prosecution for any human being in this country other than for the President of the United States.

Robert Mueller has put all of the facts and information together for us and has abided by the Trump administration's declaration, under the Office of Legal Counsel, that a sitting President cannot be indicted for his crimes. He has handed it over to the Congress of the United States of America for us to do our constitutional duty.

We are a government that works by a separation of powers. We are not a government that circles the wagon around a leader and says that everything else falls away. Instead, we say there are powers that are given to the President and powers that are given to Congress, and each operates as a check on the other.

The information that has been given to us in the Mueller report clearly constitutes adequate information to begin an impeachment proceeding in the House of Representatives. No matter how many times Mitch McConnell or the rest of the Republicans want to wish that away, it is there in black and white in the report.

I urge every Republican in this Chamber, every Republican and Democrat in Congress, and every person in this country to read the Mueller report.

Robert Mueller makes clear that the President of the United States worked actively to obstruct justice. There is enough here to bring an impeachment proceeding. For us, for this body, for Congress, to back up from that and to say that protecting the President is more important than protecting the Constitution is not only wrong, it is a violation of our oath of office.

I am here to say one more time and publicly this is not a fight I wanted to take on, but this is the fight in front of us now. This is not about politics. This is about the Constitution of the United States of America.

We took an oath not to try to protect Donald Trump; we took an oath to protect and serve the Constitution of the United States of America, and the way we do that is we begin impeachment proceedings now against this President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations to Mr. Andy Silins as he retires from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, where he has served as the general secretary treasurer since 2000. He began his distinguished career in the U.S. Marine Corps and served honorably during the Vietnam war. He furthered his commitment to service through his decades of work in the labor movement, fighting to ensure all of our workers get a fair shot at economic opportunity and respect, dignity, and a voice on the job. He joined the Carpenters Union Local 67 in 1968, and in 1979, the Boston District Council of Carpenters elected him as the general agent and executive secretary. He was elected the council's president in 1989 before moving on to work with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. His dedication to the labor movement helped the Carpenters secure good jobs, fair wages, and strong safety standards for its members. In addition to his labor efforts, he was one of the founders of First Trade Union Savings Bank and also served as a board member of the Massachusetts Housing Authority. I once again offer my gratitude to Andy Silins for his lifelong commitment to America's working families, for all he has done for workers across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for his tireless fight to strengthen our labor unions. I congratulate him on his retirement and wish him the best of luck in the next chapter.

Madam President, I rise to discuss climate change, which is a great crisis currently facing our country and our planet.

Let me start with a statement that is sometimes controversial in this Chamber: I believe in science.

Here are three simple scientific facts: Climate change is real; it is caused by humans; and we are running out of time to fix our troubles.

Here are three more scientific facts: The ocean and the air are getting hotter; storms are getting stronger; and flooding is getting worse.

These facts are widely accepted throughout the world, but the President and Senate Republicans refuse to acknowledge these basic truths. Together, they routinely dismiss the impacts of climate change and deny the clear evidence that we must take action. They refuse even to say the words

``climate change.'' That is not leadership.

Here is the thing about the facts: Refusing to believe them doesn't mean that they will go away. While a small handful--a tiny minority--of my colleagues across the aisle acknowledge that maybe climate change is real, they say that actually doing anything about it would just be too expensive, that the problem is too big to solve, and that we should just give up now--close our eyes and plug our ears again.

Yet ignoring our problems has a much bigger price tag than the commonsense solutions we should already be pursuing. Our coasts are threatened by ever-stronger storms that can destroy our homes and devastate our largest cities. Our food supplies and forests are threatened by an endless barrage of droughts and wildfires. Even our naval bases are under attack, not by enemy fleets but by rising sea levels.

To my Republican colleagues, I say that our biggest problems have to be our top priorities. Instead of protecting big fossil fuel companies that continue to guzzle the polluting fuels of the past, we need bold vision and forward-looking leadership. I support a green new deal that will aggressively tackle climate change, income inequality, and racial injustice. I thank my colleague and my friend and good partner, Senator Markey, for leading the fight on this issue.

This is not the first time America has faced a so-called impossible challenge. Over half a century ago, President Kennedy said: ``No nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space.'' He added that ``we mean to lead it.''

President Kennedy challenged our Nation to lead the space race, and less than 7 years later Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. The impossible had become a reality, and America had led the way.

It is time not only to challenge our country to tackle climate change head-on but also to lead the world in doing so. If we do not lead, then others will. China and other countries will win the race to define the green economy of the future, and we will lose those jobs forever.

I don't accept the Republicans' argument that boldly addressing climate change and having the world's strongest economy are somehow incompatible. The exact opposite is true. Tackling our climate challenges will provide us with the opportunity to grow our economy and to protect public health. We can propel the United States to become the world leader in green innovation in the 21st century. We can address climate change and strengthen our economy by making major upgrades to our crumbling infrastructure, by building more resiliency along our coasts and rivers, by constructing more renewable energy, and by promoting policies that will spur new innovative research. These investments will protect our planet and will create good jobs with living wages, strong benefits, and safe working conditions.

It is time for new ideas, not old ideology. It is time for innovative research, not tired rhetoric. It is time for groundbreaking science, not political stunts. It is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on climate solutions because this crisis is upon us, and it is time to act.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor to oppose the nomination of Neomi Rao to be a judge of the second most powerful court in the country.

My decision boiled down to just this one question: Will Ms. Rao advance equal justice for all or will she continue to tilt the courts in favor of the rich and powerful?

Ms. Rao's record shows that she will continue to tilt our courts in favor of the powerful few and leave everyone else behind, and that is why I oppose her nomination, but that is also exactly why she was selected by the President for this important lifetime appointment.

In the last 2 years, with the Trump administration controlling the White House and Republicans, until January, controlling both Houses of Congress, the rich and powerful have had unparalleled access to the Federal Government, and they have been terrifyingly effective at making Washington work even better for themselves.

Just think of some of their high-profile victories: a tax plan that takes away money from working Americans and gives it straight to the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals, rollbacks of countless protections to protect public health, consumer welfare, and environmental safety. Those are just the policies that people have been paying attention to.

For decades now, billionaire-funded rightwing groups have operated in the shadows to take over our courts by installing rightwing judges who will put the interests of giant corporations and wealthy individuals ahead of everyone else. For those special interests, Neomi Rao is the ideal candidate.

In 2017, I came to the floor to oppose Ms. Rao's nomination to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs--the small but powerful Agency that reviews and signs off on economically significant Federal rules. I was concerned about Ms. Rao's advocacy for weakening or handcuffing Federal Agencies that are there to help protect the public from giant corporations that prey on consumers, that mistreat their workers, and that pollute our environment.

I worried that confirming her to lead OIRA would threaten the health and safety of all Americans. For example, Ms. Rao attacked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--the Agency that has returned $12 billion to working families who were cheated--arguing against its authority to protect consumers from predatory lending practices.

That was exactly the kind of candidate that Big Business and billionaires wanted, so the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Ms. Rao, and the all-too-predictable happened.

Under Ms. Rao's leadership, OIRA approved the EPA's decision to roll back important environmental positions, OIRA rubberstamped changes at the Department of Labor that allowed certain employers to hide workplace injuries, and Ms. Rao blocked a proposed measure from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that would have helped uncover pay discrimination. The list goes on.

Ms. Rao pairs her pro-corporate stance with harmful, regressive views about sexual assault. In college, she wrote an article placing blame on the

survivors of sexual assault if they drank alcohol, claiming that such behavior was ``part of their choice.''

At her hearing, she refused to fully disclaim this line of thought, claiming she was just recommending certain actions women could take to make themselves less likely to be assaulted.

If that wasn't worrisome enough, Ms. Rao also argued in a book review that public protections for women, for people of color, and for Americans with disabilities are bad because they have eroded the power of traditional elites, going so far as to call affirmative action the ``bane of all good elitists.''

For President Trump, congressional Republicans, and their billionaire buddies, Ms. Rao's commitment to protecting the interests of the rich and powerful over everyone else was a feature of her tenure at OIRA, not a bug. Now, as a reward for spending a year and a half rolling back public protections and rubberstamping corporate America's wish list, the Trump administration has selected her to be a judge on the second highest court in this country.

At the DC Circuit, Ms. Rao would have even more power to stop Federal efforts to protect Americans from abusive corporations and billionaires. She would rule on attempts to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. She would have the power to overturn protections for workers from unsafe working conditions, and she would have the chance to upend rules to prevent big corporations from discriminating against people of color, LGBTQ Americans, and other marginalized communities.

Throughout her career, Ms. Rao has made very clear what her preferred hierarchy looks like: corporations and billionaires up at the top, and everybody else at the bottom.

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ms. Rao will have an opportunity to practice that philosophy at an even larger scale.

Madam President, our Federal courts are supposed to defend equal justice for all Americans, not cater to the wealthy and well connected. Neomi Rao's record shows that she will continue the corporate takeover of our courts.

A vote for her is a vote against the millions of Americans who have already borne the consequences of the radical, pro-corporate policies she has advanced throughout her career. That is why I believe the Senate should reject her nomination.

Nomination of William Beach

Madam President, I also want to express my strong opposition to the nomination of William Beach to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS's accurate and impartial analysis is crucial to policymakers, workers, and businesses.

In Mr. Beach, President Trump has chosen someone who has spent years at so-called think tanks that are funded by radical rightwing billionaires pushing so-called studies that criticize Social Security and support draconian budget cuts and tax cuts for the richest Americans--studies that have since been discredited. That is not whom we need running one of our country's most important statistical Agencies.

Besides Mr. Beach's radical, pro-corporate background, I want to join Ranking Member Murray in expressing my serious concern with my Republican colleagues' refusal to confirm Democratic nominees to other important Agencies for workers--the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This obstruction is a total departure from precedent, and it is preventing these Agencies from protecting the rights of millions of American workers to bargain collectively and to go to work without worrying about illegal discrimination and harassment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the Senate floor to discuss William Barr, President Trump's nominee to serve as America's next Attorney General.

The Attorney General's job is to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, and to stand up for the rights of all Americans, but President Trump has a different view of the Attorney General's role. He has made it quite clear that he is not interested in an Attorney General who is committed to working for the American people. For President Trump, only two criteria matter when it comes to picking an Attorney General.

No. 1 is loyalty to President Trump. William Barr easily checks this box. Just look at the Mueller investigation. As Special Counsel Mueller's team investigates whether there are connections between Russia's meddling in the U.S. elections and the Trump campaign and indicts more and more people with close ties to the President, President Trump has viciously attacked the investigation, calling it a ``witch hunt.''

Trump was not pleased that his first pick for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the Mueller investigation. He doesn't want to make the same mistake twice. In Barr, the President has found someone he believes will put the President's interests above those of the country, and it is not hard to see why.

Barr has taken extraordinary steps to undermine the Mueller investigation, even voluntarily submitting an unsolicited memo to the Justice Department arguing that the special counsel doesn't have the power to investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. Man, that is quite the cover letter for a job application when the job is overseeing the very investigation you don't think should exist in the first place.

Loyalty to President Trump--check.

The second criterion for President Trump when picking an Attorney General or any nominee to serve in the

highest levels of the Federal Government is whether the nominee will continue to tilt our government further and further in favor of the powerful few over everyone else.

Once again, Barr checks the box. Barr's record on women's rights, criminal justice reform, immigration, and so many more issues shows that he will promote the interests of the powerful few instead of defending the rights of all.

Take women's rights. Barr believes Roe v. Wade--the Supreme Court case establishing the right to abortion care--was wrongly decided and should be overturned. He also joined the amicus brief arguing that employers should be allowed to deny women access to contraceptive care based on employers' religious beliefs.

On criminal justice reform, Barr has endorsed harmful policies that have perpetuated America's broken criminal justice system. While serving as Attorney General in the early 1990s, the Justice Department issued a report arguing that the United States had an under- incarceration problem--that we put too few people in jail in this country--and Barr has personally made many statements in line with that misguided approach. He has argued that children should be prosecuted as adults. Despite the fact that Black people are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and more harshly sentenced than their White counterparts for exactly the same crimes, Barr has denied that racial disparities exist in the criminal justice system and has championed discriminatory sentencing policies.

On immigration, Barr supported the first and harshest iteration of President Trump's unconstitutional and immoral Muslim ban. In his stint as Attorney General in the 1990s, he advocated for denying political asylum to Haitian asylum seekers who happened to be HIV positive.

On healthcare, Barr has argued that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

On LGBTQ equality, he has opposed efforts to promote LGBTQ equality.

The list goes on and on. There is no doubt that if confirmed, Barr would continue the same broken system that protects the wealthy and well-connected while it leaves everyone else behind.

The President doesn't hide what he wants from an Attorney General. He wants someone who will put protecting the President ahead of protecting our Constitution and someone who will help maintain America's two very different justice systems--one that protects and coddles the wealthy and the powerful and another harsh, unjust system for everyone else.

Barr's record shows that he is not the Attorney General America desperately needs--an Attorney General who will stand up for the rule of law and for the rights of all Americans. That is why I will vote no on Barr's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today is the 26th day of the longest government shutdown in American history.

Weeks ago, the Senate voted unanimously to keep the government open. The House has now passed multiple bipartisan bills to end the shutdown, but President Trump refuses to come to the negotiating table, and Leader McConnell refuses to let the Senate vote on these bipartisan bills. As a result, over 800,000 people across this country have been sent home or are working without pay.

Senate Democrats are here to share the stories of people whose lives are being upended. I want to thank Senator Murray for organizing these speeches and Leader Schumer for leading our efforts to reopen the government.

I am speaking today on behalf of 8,200 Federal workers in Massachusetts who have been affected, including TSA workers at Logan airport, servicemembers, air traffic controllers, healthcare providers, and staff at our national parks.

Janelle, one of my constituents, works at Native American Lifelines of Boston, an urban Indian health program. This program does crucial work helping to meet the health, dental, and behavioral health needs for Native people in the Boston metropolitan area. It is a contract site with the Indian Health Service, an Agency whose funding has been cut off by the shutdown.

Janelle loves her job, and she cares deeply about the people she serves. She doesn't want them to go hungry. She doesn't want them to miss their appointments. She doesn't want them to be unable to fill their prescriptions, but she worries about what will happen if the government doesn't open up soon. A prolonged shutdown would be a major hardship for Janelle, but it could mean a health emergency, even life or death, for her clients.

Don, another constituent, is helping Coast Guard families in Massachusetts make ends meet. His organization, the Massachusetts Military Support Foundation, has distributed over 5,200 pounds of food since the start of the shutdown. He knows that if the shutdown continues, he will have to start draining his organization's budget, and that could mean he will not be able to help military families afford food supplies come September.

Janelle's and Don's stories are just two examples of how President Trump

is holding Massachusetts families hostage while he demands a border wall.

Let's be perfectly clear about what the President is doing. The shutdown is not about border security. It is not about protecting anyone. It doesn't make us any safer that President Trump has padlocked the doors at the Department of Homeland Security or that he is asking our Coast Guard, our FBI agents, our airport security, and even our Border Patrol agents to work without pay.

No, this shutdown is a manufactured crisis that the President is using to fan the flames of racism and bigotry--all so he can distract the American people from demanding a government that works for them.

This isn't a new playbook. It is one the Republicans and the President have been using for years. Over and over again, they try to pit White working people against Black and Brown people, gay people against straight people, young people against older people, people born in the United States against people who came here in search of a better life--pit them all against each other so they don't band together, so they don't demand real change.

Here is the deal: The American people are onto this twisted strategy. They know that this government works just great for the rich and the powerful but not for everyone else.

Across this country, people are insisting on a government that is not just open for business but a government that actually works for them--a government that expands healthcare coverage instead of ripping it away from grandparents and newborns, a government that tackles the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs instead of selling out to giant drug companies that put profits ahead of patients, a government that ends the stranglehold that money has on Washington instead of stacking the government with public officials who are more interested in lining their own pockets than serving the public. I could go on and on with this list.

I came to the U.S. Senate 6 years ago to fight for working families and to tackle these problems head-on, to end a rigged system that created two sets of rules--one that applies to the rich and the powerful and one for everybody else.

Republicans are trying to divide Americans in order to stop us from getting to work ending this rigged system, but we are onto their game. The President and Republicans must end this shutdown now so that hundreds of thousands of Federal workers can get their paychecks and get back to work. If they don't, hard-working people like Janelle, Don, and thousands more across Massachusetts will continue paying the price.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Madam President, 10 years ago, greedy financial institutes crashed our economy and crushed working families all across this country. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, millions lost their homes, and millions lost their life savings. That crisis was no accident, and it was no act of God. It was caused because Washington looked the other way while greedy Wall Street bankers scammed hard- working American families. It can happen again if we let it.

If we learned anything from the financial crisis that nearly drove our economy over a cliff, it is that American families desperately need a strong consumer watchdog. Before the crisis, financial institutions sold consumers predatory loans that were like grenades with their pins pulled out. When they exploded, they wiped out trillions of dollars of wealth and caused millions of people to lose their jobs, their savings, or their homes.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to level the playing field for consumers and make sure that Washington never again looks the other way while millions of families get squeezed.

On June 18, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate Kathleen Kraninger as Director of the CFPB. Ms. Kraninger is a political appointee at OMB who has spent more than a decade working on homeland security policy in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill. She has never--I repeat, never--worked on consumer protection issues either in public service or in the private sector. She has zero track record of standing up for consumers.

The White House championed Ms. Kraninger's experience as a manager when announcing her nomination. A White House official stated that Ms. Kraninger ``will bring . . . much-needed management experience [to the CFPB].'' A quick search on Google shows that is bogus.

Ms. Kraninger's tenure at OMB has been marred by systemic management failures. As an OMB official with primary responsibility over the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, Ms. Kraninger was one of the officials responsible for managing and implementing President Trump's zero-tolerance policy. The policy resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe in which thousands of children were ripped from the arms of their mamas and daddies and thrown into cages.

Ms. Kraninger bungled the response to the three catastrophic hurricanes of 2017. Under Ms. Kraninger's leadership, OMB's budget requests in the wake of Hurricanes Irma, Maria, and Harvey were too little, too late.

Ms. Kraninger oversaw a budget that, if enacted, would have exacerbated, rather than alleviated, the Nation's affordable housing crisis.

No, it isn't Ms. Kraninger's management experience that got her a giant promotion; it is her enthusiasm for Mick Mulvaney's anti-consumer agenda that earned her this reward from President Trump. How do I know that? I asked Ms. Kraninger if she disagreed with one single action that Mr. Mulvaney took during the year he controlled the CFPB. She said: ``I cannot identify any actions that Acting Director Mulvaney has taken with which I disagree.'' Not a single one. That means she agrees with Mick Mulvaney's decision to drop a lawsuit against payday lenders who were charging vulnerable buyers 900 percent interest. She agrees with Mick

Mulvaney's decision to gut CFPB's office that fights lending discrimination, which was designed to make sure communities of color aren't targeted with the most abusive loans, as they were before the financial crisis. She agrees with Mick Mulvaney's decision to stop checks that ensure that banks don't charge our military sky-high interest rates. She agrees with Mick Mulvaney's decision to censor reports to Congress and give student loan companies a free pass when they rip off students. She agrees with Mick Mulvaney's decision to load up the CFPB with more than a dozen political appointees to muzzle the CFPB's professional staff and keep them from doing their job. It is hard to imagine a stronger indication that Ms. Kraninger intends to continue Mr. Mulvaney's harmful trajectory of weakening CFPB to benefit big financial institutions at the expense of consumers.

Ms. Kraninger has absolutely no experience in consumer finance whatsoever, but she has been nominated to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because she is passionately committed to keeping it from leveling the playing field for working families. No thanks.

We have a lot of hard decisions to make in this body, but this one is a no-brainer. Hard-working American families deserve a fighter as the Director of the CFPB. When the CFPB fights for consumers, students can manage their loans. When the CFPB fights for consumers, servicemembers can serve their country without worrying that their families will be crushed by debt. When the CFPB fights for consumers, seniors can retire with dignity. When the CFPB fights for consumers, 29 million families get checks for over $12 billion from financial institutions that cheated them--and that happened in just 6 years.

Working families need a CFPB Director who is a fighter with a proven track record of making the consumer marketplace safe and aggressively pursuing companies that cheat their customers. Kathleen Kraninger is not that person. Let's do our job. Let's reject this nominee.

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