election is less than a year away would be persuasive. i could understand that. but the president in this matter was attempting to undermine that very election, and he gives every indication that he will continue to do so. he has expressed no understanding that he did anything wrong, let alone anything resembling remorse. impeachment is not a punishment. it's a prevention, and the only way, unfortunately, to keep an unrepentant president from repeating his wrongful actions, is removal. and this president has made it plain that he will listen to nothing else. article 1 charges a clear abuse of power in inviting foreign interference with the upcoming election, inviting foreign interference with the upcoming election. the president tasked his personal attorney to work with a foreign head of state to induce

an investigation or just the mere announcement of an investigation that could harm one of the president's top political rivals. and to compel the ukrainians to do so, you unilaterally withheld nearly $400 million appropriated by congress to help them fend off russia's naked and relentless aggression. the president's backers claim that this was done in an effort to root out corruption, so why not use official channels? why did he focus on no examples of corruption generally other than ones directly affecting his political fortunes? and why did he not make public the withholding of funds as the executive branch typically does when seeking to leverage federal moneys for policy goals? no matter how many times the president claims his phone call with president zelensky was not

perfect. it simply wasn't. he clearly solicited foreign interference in our elections. he disregarded a congressionally passed law. he imperiled the security of a key american partner. he undermind our own national security. and he was -- if he was simply pursuing our national interest rather than his own, why was his personal attorney, rudy giuliani, put in charge? why was rudy giuliani mentioned in that phone call? put bluntly, no matter the defense -- and as a majority of the members of this body apparently now recognize -- president trump placed his own political interests above the national interests he has sworn to protect. and as i mentioned, he has shown no sign that he'll stop doing so when the next occasion arises, as it surely will. the implications of acquitting the president on article 1 are

serious. this president will likely do it again, and future presidents will be unbound from any restraints on the use of the world's most powerful political office for their own personal political gain. we are moving dangerously close to an elected monarch, the very thing the framers feared most. article 2 to me is even more serious in its long-term implications. article 1 concerns an incident, an egregious misuse of power to be sure, but a specific set of actions in time. a scheme is probably the most appropriate description, which took place over the course of the past year. article 2, however, which concerns the president's wholesale obstruction of the impeachment process itself, goes to the heart of congress' congressionally -- constitutional did i derived power to investigate wrongdoing

by this or any future president. i do not arrive this conclusion lightly. i take seriously the white house counsel's argument that there is a legitimate separation of power issue here, that executive privilege is real, although i have to note it was never actually asserted in this case, but that executive privilege is real and that there must be limits on congress' ability to intrude upon the executive function. but in this case, despite counsel's questions about which authorizing resolution passed when or whether the house should have more vigorously pursued judicial recommend days, the record is clear and is summarized in the white house letter to the house in early october that the president and his administration, quote, cannot participate in the impeachment process. cannot participate. to me, it is this ongoing

blanket refusal to cooperate in any way -- no witnesses, no documents, no evidence of any kind -- that undermines the assertion that a categorical refusal with over witness intimidation thrown in, was based on any narrow, legitimate, constitutional privilege. no prior president has ever taken such a position, and the argument that this blanket obstruction should be tested in court is severely undercut by the administration's recent argument that the courts have no jurisdiction over such disputes and that the remedy for stonewalling congress is -- you guessed it -- impeachment. they argued that in the federal court in washington this week. interestingly, the first assertion of executive privilege was by george washington when the house sought background documents on the jay treaty. washington rested his refusal to

produce those documents on the idea that the house had no jurisdiction over matters of foreign policy, but interestingly washington in his message to congress did specify one instance where the house would have a legitimate claim on the documents released. what was the instance? you guessed it -- impeachment. if allowed to stand, this position that the president -- any president -- can use his or her position to totally obstruct the production of evidence on their own wrongdoing eviscerates the impeachment power entirely and it compromises the ongoing authority of congress to provide any meaningful oversight of the executive whatsoever. for these and other reasons, mr. president, i will vote guilty on both articles of impeachment.

final point -- madam president, the congress has been committing slow-motion institutional suicide for the past 70 years, abdicating its constitutional authorities and responsibilities one by one. the war power effectively in the hands of the president since 1942. authority over trade with other countries superseded by unilateral presidentially imposed tariffs on friends and foes alike. and even the power of the purse, which a supined congress ceded to the president last year, enabling him to rewrite our duly passed appropriations bill to substitute his priorities for ours. and now this. the structure of our constitution is based upon the bedrock principle that the

concentration of power is dangerous, that power divided and shared is the best long-term assurance of liberty. to the extent we compromise that principle, give up powers the framers bestowed upon us and acquiesce to the growth of an imperial presidency, we are failing. we are failing our oaths, we are failing our most fundamental responsibility, we are failing the american people. history may record this week as a turning point in the american experiment. the day that we stepped away from the framers' vision, enabled a new and unbounded presidency, and made ourselves observers rather than full participants in the shaping of our country's future. madam president, i sincerely

hope i am wrong in all of this, but i deeply fear that i am right. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the senate of january 24, 1901, the traditional reading of washington's farewell address take place on monday, february 24, following the prayer and pledge p. further, that senator baldwin be recognized to deliver the address. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate recess until 8:25 p.m. tonight and upon reconvening proceed as a body to the hall of the house of representatives for the joint session of congress, provided under the provisions of h. con. res. 86, that upon dissolution

of the joint session, the senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, february 5, finally, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess untiln a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, these past weeks, the senate has these past weeks, the senate has mr. president these past weeks the senate has grappled with the grave subject as we have ever considered a requester majority of the house to remove the president. the framers took impeachment extremely serly