Kamala Harris

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 234, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 862, Toby Crouse, of Kansas, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 35, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 862, Toby Crouse, of Kansas, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 177, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 812, of David W. Dugan, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 178, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 813, Stephen P. McGlynn, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 179, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 812, of David W. Dugan, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 180, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 813, Stephen P. McGlynn, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 222, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 890, Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks are the latest in a long history of violence against Black people in America, but thanks to the advocacy, thanks to the courage of their mothers and fathers and relatives and all of the civil rights leaders, the lawyers, those who are marching in the streets--and smartphones--everyone can finally bear witness to the violence that has been happening in our country at the hands of police. Now, let's be clear. This behavior is not new. Mothers have been crying over their dead children's bodies for generations, yet no one would listen. No one would listen. Emmett Till's mother had the courage, as a leader, to say: The world will listen when they look at my baby's body in that casket. Yet here we are, these many decades and generations later, and still we have not seen meaningful change in America on this subject. It is time we act. It is time we act. And let us be clear: Sometimes some of the most courageous and important work that has happened in this U.S. Congress has happened not because there was leadership in the body but because the people demanded it and they would not relent until their government and elected leaders and representatives listened to and answered their call for steps toward what we call a more perfect Union. It has been many a time the case that it is because of the people marching in the streets that we had the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act--because the people would allow nothing less than that we, as a government, be true to our stated ideals. Yes, over the last 3\1/2\ years in our country, many of us have wondered whether the leaders of this country actually pay homage to and have any desire to institute and to get closer to those ideals. This is a moment for the U.S. Senate to say we, as a body, will do that; that what is clear right now in this moment and in this movement is that there is still work that can be done--not just should be done but can be done--to come closer to those words inscribed across the street in the U.S. Supreme Court, to effectuate ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' It is within our grasp to do this. It is not just an imperative; it is within our grasp. In America today, people from every State, all 50 States, and in every walk of life are demanding that we take the problem of police brutality seriously. We have this opportunity, and we should see it as such. Where before there may have been reluctance to go against the strength of the status quo, which is always reluctant, if not hostile, to change, the people in the streets of every race, every gender, every age, from every State, are not only giving us permission but demanding that their leaders finally make good on the American promise of ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' They are demanding this change; they are not just asking for it. So we can't answer the people's demand for accountability with watered-down politics and watered-down policies and obstructionist tactics to distract us from what we clearly know is necessary to meet the calls and the cries of this moment and this movement. I will say that we cannot answer their demands with this Republican attempt to obstruct real progress and real justice in our country. And for all of the pundits out there who want to entertain a conversation about whether Democrats actually want police reform, are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? We are responding to the cries in the street; we are taking them seriously; and we have proposed a prescription that actually responds to not just their demands but the specific cases and the bodies which have just most recently been buried, much less the generations of Black bodies which have been buried because of this issue. So don't anyone dare suggest we are standing in the way of progress. Let us all be clear about what is happening in the politics of this moment. The Republican bill has been thrown out to give lip service to an issue with nothing substantial in it that would actually save or would have saved any of those lives. Let's not be distracted from the task at hand. I intend to vote against a motion to proceed tomorrow. I also intend to vote for a motion to proceed with real reform. I am not against a motion to proceed. We should proceed. Let's proceed with action--not gestures--with action. Let's talk about the Republican bill. I am a former prosecutor. I have personally prosecuted everything from low-level offenses to homicides. I worked almost my entire career with police officers. What I can tell you is this--and I am certain of it--police officers will tell you how difficult their job becomes when their colleagues and other police officers break the rules and break the law. They will tell you that. They will tell you that it affects the culture of their working environment. It affects the morale of where they work every day. It affects the integrity of their work. What they know is bad cops are bad for good cops. What we all know is that it is in the best interest of community safety and harmony when the people trust their government, and it is a reciprocal relationship. In addition to what our bill proposes, the Justice in Policing Act is about accountability and consequence. It is also brought forward with a spirit of what we know is in the best interest of growing trust and the American people's trust in their government. As a former prosecutor, I will also say that in the criminal justice system, we also talk about and use this phrase ``accountability and consequence.'' We use it all the time, accountability and consequence. There must be accountability and consequence. Almost every time that phrase is invoked, it is directed at the person who was arrested and hardly ever is that phrase directed at the very system itself and the actors in that system. Where is the accountability and consequence when a system fails the people it is designed to protect? Where is the accountability and consequence when people who have been invested by the people with a gun and a badge--it is the power we give them--where is the accountability and consequence when they abuse that power, one must ask. Our bill is designed to address just that. I will tell you, there is not one component of the Republican bill that does the same. Let's talk about the history of where we are today--just recent history, meaning in the U.S. Senate on this subject. On Monday June 9, in response to protests in all 50 States of these United States, Senator Cory Booker and I, along with our CBC and House Judiciary colleagues and a majority of our Senate caucus, announced the Justice in Policing Act. Over 1 week later, the people are marching in the streets. Let's just remember this. People are marching in the streets every night, every day. Well, 1 week later, somebody got the memo, and then what did they do? They came up with what they call the JUSTICE Act as a way to essentially show that they have something but to basically obstruct what already had been put in place. They did it because they knew that the people were demanding something. What they put up, instead of meeting those demands, was a tactic to obstruct the progress of the Justice in Policing Act. Then they are playing a political game around here saying: ``Look, the Democrats won't vote for policing reform.'' No. We are actually fully prepared to vote for policing reform, which is why a week earlier than you figured it out, we figured it out and put it on paper and presented it to the Nation. Let's not play political games today and tomorrow. Let us understand that Senator McConnell, the majority leader, made it clear--you know, I say to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Booker, I wasn't here for those days when he saw a lot of that bipartisan work. I did see it with other COVID bills, and I am thankful that did happen, but what I see most recently on this issue is that Senator McConnell made it clear that he had no intention of passing bipartisan comprehensive legislation on policing reform. What we have seen is that instead of an ability for all of us in this Chamber to pass the Justice in Policing Act--which has already gained 227 cosponsors, enough to pass the House--instead, the Senate leader has scheduled this vote tomorrow, not to solve the problem of police brutality in America but to solve his political problem, to which he has taken no stand and that caucus has taken no meaningful stand on an issue that has people in our streets marching for the last 3 weeks, and those marching folks will go on. The proposal was carefully crafted that is being offered tomorrow for a vote. The Republican proposal was carefully crafted to deflect from real change by merely, as my colleague Senator Booker outlined and Senator Schumer outlined--by merely offering to study the problem without doing anything to solve it

Ms. HARRIS. Indeed. That is the beauty of the Judiciary Committee; our meetings are public meetings. I will conclude my remarks by saying that I do believe now is the time for Congress to pass legislation that will bring real change and real improvement. It is time that we meet this moment and meet the movement that we are seeing outside of these doors. We are seeing people of every race, gender, age, and religion marching together in unison as Americans. We are seeing people putting their bodies on the line in the face of more excessive force and tear gas to stand for equality for all people. The bill that is being offered for a vote tomorrow does not, in any way, meet the needs of this moment and the longstanding needs America has had for reform. I will, therefore, join Senators Schumer and Booker in not only sending a letter to Senator McConnell this morning demanding the Senate vote on the Justice in Policing Act, but I will say I fully intend to vote against a motion to proceed until and unless we are, as a body, prepared to offer meaningful reforms upon which we can debate. I will say also that one of the other problems with what is being offered by our colleagues across the aisle is it is not meeting the moment in terms of need for reform. It is simply, basically, they constructed a confessional, where there can be a confession of misdeeds after the fact, and that in no way meets the moment in terms of reforms that are necessary. In the immortal words of my great Uncle Sherman, God rest his soul, ``That dog don't hunt.''

Ms. HARRIS. Senator Cornyn, we are honored to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as does Senator Booker and Senator Durbin. We all serve on the Judiciary Committee. The two Senate officers serve with you on the Senate Judiciary Committee. As you know, because we have been present during our most recent hearings, we have asked that there would be a meaningful discussion of the Justice in Policing Act in that committee. None has occurred. If we are going to talk about process, let us look at all the tools that are available to well-intentioned, well-meaning legislators, if the goal is actually to solve and address the issue at hand. I have seen no evidence of that. I have seen no evidence. In fact, what I have seen in reading some of the newspapers--sometimes they get things wrong, but if they got it right, the Senate leader says that he has no interest in engaging in that kind of discussion or debate before putting the bill on the floor for a vote tomorrow.

Ms. HARRIS. Absolutely.

Ms. HARRIS. Absolutely not. I think it is important we not distract the American people from the task at hand. We cannot pull out a specific component of this bill and leave everything else in the garbage bin. That is the logical and actual and practical conclusion of where you are going with the suggestion that we would sacrifice issues like no-knock warrants, issues like a national standard for use of force, issues like the need for independent investigations of police misconduct, issues like pattern and practice investigations with subpoena power for the Department of Justice for the sake of one. It is like asking a mother to save one of her children and leave the others.

Ms. HARRIS. The same one Rand Paul obstructed a couple of weeks ago? Yes, I am aware of that.

Ms. HARRIS. When I am finished, I will. The Republican bill does not even provide a baseline for a discussion or amendment on police reform in that there are no mechanisms to hold law enforcement officers accountable in court for their misconduct. There is no transparency into police misconduct, which is necessary, of course, to enable communities to hold officers accountable. There is no requirement of data collection on all use-of-force incidents or on racial or religious profiling. There is no ban on harmful policing policies and practices, such as racial and religious profiling and no- knock warrants in drug cases. We are not banning all no-knock warrants in drug cases because Breonna Taylor would be alive today had that been the case. There is no reform to the issues of choke holds or carotid holds in the Republican bill that is being offered. There is no national standard for use of force. I am happy to entertain the question from the Senator from Texas. Then I will conclude my comments.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, the idea that we would not be taking the issue of lynching seriously is an insult, an insult to Senator Booker, to Senator Tim Scott, to me, and to all of the Senators, past and present, who have understood that this is part of the great stain of America's history. To suggest that anything short of pulverizing someone so much that the casket would otherwise be closed except for the heroism and courage of Emmett Till's mother, to suggest that lynching would only be a lynching if someone's heart were pulled out and produced and displayed to someone else is ridiculous--and on this day, the day of George Floyd's funeral and a day that should be a day of national mourning. In 2018, the Senate unanimously passed bipartisan antilynching legislation, which I proudly introduced with the only other Black Members of this body--Senator Cory Booker and Senator Tim Scott. It was a historic moment. It marked the first time in the history of our country that Federal antilynching legislation had been passed by the U.S. Senate. It passed again by unanimous consent in 2019. Senator Paul is now trying to weaken a bill that was already passed. There is no reason for this. Senator Paul's amendment would place a greater burden on victims of lynching than is currently required under Federal hate crimes laws. There is no reason for this. There is no reason other than its being cruel and deliberate obstruction on a day of mourning. On this very day, at this very hour, there is a memorial service to honor the life of George Floyd, who was murdered on a sidewalk by a police officer, with a knee on his neck. For 8 minutes 46 seconds, George Floyd pled for his life, called for his late mother, and said he could not breathe. The pain experienced not only by that man, that human being and his family and his children, but the pain of the people of America witnessing what we have witnessed since the founding of this country, which is that the Black lives have not been taken seriously as being fully human and deserving of dignity--and it should not require a maiming or torture in order for us to recognize a lynching when we see it and recognize it by Federal law and call it what it is, which is that it is a crime that should be punishable with accountability and consequence. So it is remarkable and it is painful to be standing here right now, especially when people of all races are marching in the streets of America, outraged by the hate and the violence and the murder that has been fueled by racism during the span of this country's life. America is raw right now. Her wound exposed. Raw from the fact that in the history of our country, Black people have been treated as less than human. I stood here with Senator Booker when we first proposed this lynching law, and we talked about the pain and the history of the pain of this issue in America. The fact is that the country is raw because America has never fully addressed the historic and systemic racism that has existed in our country. Our bill, in its current form, is an opportunity--it is an opportunity for this body to acknowledge the seriousness of this, to acknowledge that if someone places a noose over someone else's neck, why would it be required that in addition their heart would be pulled out or their body pulverized to the point beyond recognition? Our bill is an opportunity to right a wrong and an opportunity for a reckoning in Federal law. We cannot pretend that lynchings are a thing of the past. Ahmaud Arbery was a victim of a modern-day lynching. He was murdered on February 23, 2020, 3 months ago. Today, we learned that one of the men who killed Mr. Arbery used a racial slur after shooting him. He should be alive today, and his killers should be brought to justice. No longer should the crime of lynching go unpunished. No longer should victims and their families go without justice. In closing, Ida B. Wells once said: Our country's national crime is lynching. It is not the creature of an hour, the sudden outburst of uncontrolled fury, or the unspeakable brutality of an insane mob. It represents the cool, calculating deliberation of intelligent people who openly avow that there is an ``unwritten law'' that justifies them in putting human beings to death without complaint under oath, without trial by jury, without opportunity to make defense, and without right of appeal. Our country has waited too long for a reckoning on this issue of lynching, and I believe no Senator should stop the full weight of the law in its capacity to protect these human beings and human life. Senator Booker and I are working on a comprehensive bill to address this hurt and the tragedy at the heart of this national day of mourning, and I object to Senator Paul's efforts to weaken this legislation. I yield the floor.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent for vote No. 300 on the Nomination: Confirmation: Daniel Habib Jorjani, of Kentucky, to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. Had I been present, I would have voted no on the nomination. Mr. President, I was absent for vote No. 339 on the Amendment S. Amdt. 1209: Lee Amdt. No. 2109; To prohibit the expenditure of certain amounts from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition. Had I been present, I would have voted no on the amendment.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, when the Framers wrote the Constitution, they didn't think someone like me would serve as a U.S. Senator, but they did envision someone like Donald Trump being President of the United States, someone who thinks he is above the law and that rules don't apply to him. So they made sure our democracy had the tool of impeachment to stop that kind of abuse of power. The House managers have clearly laid out a compelling case and evidence of Donald Trump's misconduct. They have shown that the President of the United States of America withheld military aid and a coveted White House meeting for his political gain. He wanted a foreign country to announce--not actually conduct, announce--an investigation into his political rivals. Then he refused to comply with congressional investigations into his misconduct. Unfortunately, a majority of U.S. Senators, even those who concede that what Donald Trump did was wrong, are nonetheless going to refuse to hold him accountable. The Senate trial of Donald Trump has been a miscarriage of justice. Donald Trump is going to get away with abusing his position of power for personal gain, abusing his position of power to stop Congress from looking into his misconduct and falsely claim he has been exonerated. He is going to escape accountability because a majority of Senators have decided to let him. They voted repeatedly to block key evidence like witnesses and documents that could have shed light on the full truth. We must recognize that still in America there are two systems of justice--one for the powerful and another for everyone else. So let's speak the truth about what our two systems of justice actually mean in the real world. It means that in our country too many people walk into courthouses and face systemic bias. Too often they lack adequate legal representation, whether they are overworked, underpaid, or both. It means that a young man named Emmett Till was falsely accused and then murdered, but his murderer didn't have to spend a day in jail. It means that four young Black men have their lives taken and turned upside-down after being falsely accused of a crime in Groveland, FL. It means that, right now, too many people in America are sitting in jail without having yet been convicted of a crime but simply because they cannot afford bail. And it means that future Presidents of the United States will remember that the U.S. Senate failed to hold Donald Trump accountable, and they will be emboldened to abuse their power knowing there will be no consequence. Donald Trump knows all this better than anybody. He may not acknowledge that we have two systems of justice, but he knows the institutions in this country, be it the courts or the Senate, are set up to protect powerful people like him. He told us as much when, regarding the sexual assault of women, he said, ``When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.'' He said that article II of the U.S. Constitution gives him, as President, the right to do whatever he wants. Trump has shown us through his words and actions that he thinks he is above the law. And when the American people see the President acting as though he is above the law, it understandably leaves them feeling distrustful of our system of justice, distrustful of our democracy. When the U.S. Senate refuses to hold him accountable, it reinforces that loss of trust in our system. Now, I am under no illusion that this body is poised to hold this President accountable, but despite the conduct of the U.S. Senate in this impeachment trial, the American people must continue to strive toward the more perfect Union that our Constitution promises. It is going to take all of us--in every State, every town, everywhere--to continue fighting for the best of who we are as a country. We each have an important role to play in fighting for those words inscribed on the U.S. Supreme Court building: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Frederick Douglass, who I, like many, consider to be one of the Founders of our Nation, wrote that ``the whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle.'' The impeachment of Donald Trump has been one of those earnest struggles for liberty, and this fight, like so many before it, has been a fight against tyranny. This struggle has not been an easy one, and it has left too many people across our Nation feeling cynical. For too many people, this trial confirmed something they have always known, that the real power in this country lies not with them but with just a few people who advance their own interests at the expense of others' needs. For many, the injustice in this trial is yet another example of the way that our system of justice has worked or, more accurately, failed to work. But here is the thing. Frederick Douglass also told us that ``if there is no struggle, there is no progress.'' He went on to say: ``Power concedes nothing without a demand.'' And he said: ``It never did, and it never will.'' In order to wrestle power away from the few people at the very top who abuse their power, the American people are going to have to fight for the voice of the people and the power of the people. We must go into the darkness to shine a light, and we cannot be deterred and we cannot be overwhelmed and we cannot ever give up on our country. We cannot ever give up on the ideals that are the foundation for our system of democracy. We can never give up on the meaning of true justice. And it is part of our history, our past, clearly, our present, and our future that, in order to make these values real, in order to make the promise of our country real, we can never take it for granted. There will be moments in time, in history, where we experience incredible disappointment, but the greatest disappointment of all will be if we give up. We cannot ever give up fighting for who we know we are, and we must always see who we can be, unburdened by who we have been. That is the strength of our Nation. So, after the Senate votes today, Donald Trump will want the American people to feel cynical. He will want us not to care. He will want us to think that he is all powerful and we have no power, but we are not going to let him get away with that. We are not going to give him what he wants because the true power and potential of the United States of America resides not with the President but with the people--all the people. So, in our long struggle for justice, I will do my part by voting to convict this lawless President and remove him from office, and I urge my colleagues to join me on the right side of history. I yield the floor.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Thank you. I send a question to the desk on behalf of Senator Patty Murray and myself.

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, just across the street from where I stand today is the U.S. Supreme Court. That building has four words etched in marble above its entrance: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' The promise of those four words is that in our country, our system of justice must treat everyone equally regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or socioeconomic status, but too many people in our country grow up knowing and experiencing that in America we have two systems of justice--one in which certain people are held accountable and another in which powerful people like Donald Trump escape accountability altogether. This has been true from the first days of our Nation's history, when a group of men gathered in Philadelphia to debate lofty notions of justice and equality, yet produced a document that literally counted Black Americans as fractions of a person. In the Declaration of Independence, we were told that ``all men are created equal,'' but we know that in our Nation's founding at that time, the policy of our Nation was to rob indigenous people of their land and their livelihood and to exclude women from the right to vote. So to make true the promise of America and move us toward a more perfect Union, people have organized and fought and marched for justice. From the suffragettes to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., those fights have won us progress toward a more just and inclusive nation, but, clearly, there is still more work to be done to achieve equal justice under law. When the determination of whether you sit in jail before trial is too often based on the size of your bank account rather than the size of your crime, we have not yet achieved equal justice under law. There is more work to be done when young people selling drugs on the corner too often become felons for life, while white-collar criminals face no accountability. There is more work to be done when regarding the sexual assault of women, the current President has said: When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. There is work to be done when the American people know that the rules aren't equally enforced against powerful people. Unless we acknowledge these truths, too many Americans will remain distrustful of our institutions and cynical about our government and our leaders. This is the point, my colleagues: We now face a choice. Will we insist that we have one system of justice that applies equally to all or will we continue to have two systems of justice in which some are above the law? Later this week, the Senate will likely begin the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. This moment in our history will have consequences. The Senate is charged with deciding whether the President of the United States, with all his power and supposed wealth, will be held accountable for his actions and whether we will finally live up to the principle of ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' This is why I speak to you today, fully aware that I stand on the shoulders of those who come before me in our Nation's ongoing fight for equality. I speak because I was raised by people who spent most of their lives demanding justice in the face of racism, misogyny, bigotry, and inequality. I speak because I have dedicated my entire career to upholding the rule of law and bringing integrity to our system of justice. I speak to ensure that everyone in California and throughout our country can enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution. As a U.S. Senator, I speak fully prepared to uphold my solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, and to affirm that my first obligation is to serve the people of the United States-- all the people. I hope my colleagues can agree that our Nation's Founders had the foresight to create a system of checks and balances and anticipate the need to remove a President who might yield to foreign influence or use the Presidency for personal power and benefit. Our Founders feared that a day like this might come, and so they empowered the U.S. Congress with the tool of impeachment to hold a lawless President accountable. This week, after months of investigation, sworn testimony, public hearings and debate, the House of Representatives will likely send to the U.S. Senate two Articles of Impeachment. These articles charge President Trump with abusing his power for his personal and political gain and with obstructing Congress's effort to investigate his misconduct. In this trial, the U.S. Senate must not only consider the charges against the President but also conduct itself in a way that demonstrates to the American people that in our system of justice no one is above the law. Each Senator here must exhibit the kind of moral and ethical leadership that this President abandoned when he pressured a foreign nation to interfere in our elections. There is no question that President Trump's misconduct has left a vacuum of leadership in our country, and the American people are therefore rightly looking to the U.S. Senate to demonstrate that their leaders are worthy of the public's trust. The American people should expect their Senators to seek the truth, not cover up the facts. So let's honor our oath to defend the Constitution by doing the job the American people have entrusted to us. Let us ensure that this trial is a search for truth and that we follow the facts where they lead and come to a verdict based on all of the available evidence. Let us do our jobs and insist that we hear from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, and anyone with a firsthand knowledge of the President's misconduct. Let us demand that the White House turn over additional emails and documents that shed light on the President's motives for withholding military aid from Ukraine. And let us be clear that an order from this President to block evidence or witness testimony will itself be further evidence of his efforts to obstruct the U.S. Congress. The importance of this moment in our history cannot be overstated. What we do in this trial will show the world who we are as a country. Our actions will also send a message to further Presidents and future Presidents of the United States about the kind of conduct that is acceptable from the leader of our Nation. As the U.S. Senate, we must say that it is unacceptable for a President to shake down a vulnerable foreign nation for personal or political benefit. We must say with one voice that no President can disregard the legitimate oversight authority of the U.S. Congress, and we must say, as leaders of the United States of America, that in our system of justice, everyone--everyone--will be held accountable for their actions, including the President of the United States. My final point is that, years from now, people are going to judge. They are going to judge whether we rose to the solemn occasion that is the impeachment trial of the President of the United States, and we cannot be passive in this moment. I am mindful of Coretta Scott King's words: Freedom is never really won. You earn it and win it with each generation. It is incumbent on this generation to fight for a system of justice in which all are treated equally. In that ongoing fight, we, as the U.S. Senate, must agree that we cannot speak about the ideals of equality and justice and then act in ways that violate those very principles. It is our duty, both as Senators and as proud Americans, to protect the Constitution, to earn the people's trust, and to prove to the American people that it is still within the power of the U.S. Congress to hold the President accountable. History is watching. Our actions here will shape this body's legacy. I urge my colleagues to have the courage, the foresight, and the patriotism to act in the interest of our Nation and its people. I urge my colleagues to fight for one system of justice in the United States of America and to ensure that no one is above the law. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm the most basic of American principles--that ours is not the government of one man but a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 416 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 465, Anuraag Singhal, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 417 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 466, Karen Spencer Marston, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 418 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 480, Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota, to be United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 419 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 481, Jodi W. Dishman, of Oklahoma, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 420 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 490, John M. Gallagher, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 422 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 354, Mary Kay Vyskocil, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 423 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 383, Kea Whetzal Riggs, of New Mexico, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 424 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 234, Robert J. Colville, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 401, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 382, Matthew Walden McFarland, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall Vote No. 402, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 382, Matthew Walden McFarland, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall Vote No. 403, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 465, Anuraag Singhal, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall Vote No. 404, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 466, Karen Spencer Marston, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall Vote No. 405, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 480, Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota, to be United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall Vote No. 406, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 481, Jodi W. Dishman, of Oklahoma, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall Vote No. 407, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 490, John M. Gallagher, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall Vote No. 408, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 536, Bernard Maurice Jones II, of Oklahoma, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall Vote No. 409, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 354, Mary Kay Vyskocil, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall Vote No. 410, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 383, Kea Whetzal Riggs, of New Mexico, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico. Mr. President. I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes rollcall Vote No. 412, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 357, Stephanie Dawkins Davis, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 383 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 479, Richard Ernest Myers II, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 384, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 489, Sherri A. Lydon, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 386, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 533, Patrick J. Bumatay, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 375, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 479, Richard Ernest Myers II, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 376, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 489, Sherri A. Lydon, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 378, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 353, John L. Sinatra, Jr., of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of New York. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 379, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 478, Sarah E. Pitlyk, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 380, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 381, Douglas Russell Cole, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 381, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 459, R. Austin Huffaker, Jr., of Alabama, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 382, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 460, David B. Barlow, of Utah, to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 369 the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 347, Eric Ross Komitee to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York. Mr. President, I was absent but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 370 the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 353, John L. Sinatra, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of New York. Mr. President, I was absent but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 371 the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 478, Sarah E. Pitlyk to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Mr. President, I was absent but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 372 the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 381, Douglas Russell Cole to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. Mr. President, I was absent but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 373 the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 459, R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama. Mr. President, I was absent but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 374 the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 460, David B. Barlow to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, I was absent but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 368 the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 47, Eric Ross Komitee to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 360, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 488, Barbara Lagoa, of Florida, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 358, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 487, Robert J. Luck, of Florida, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. President, I was absent, but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 359, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 488, Barbara Lagoa, of Florida, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent but had I been present I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 357, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 487, Robert J. Luck, of Florida, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)