That Bill Clinton's mistake was not saying, I am going to fight all subpoenas. That Bill Clinton's mistake was in not taking the position that under Article Two, he could do whatever he wanted. Does that really make any sense? You can be impeached for obstructing your own branch of government, but you cannot be impeached for obstructing a co-equal branch of government. That would make no sense to the framers. I have to think, over the centuries as they have watched us, they would be astonished that anyone would take that argument seriously, or could so misapprehend how this balance of power is supposed to work. I look forward to that art argument. Maybe when they make that argument they can explain to us why their position on abusive power is not even supported by their own attorney general. I hope they will answer why even their own attorney general does not agree with them. Not to mention, by the way, the constitutional law expert called by the Republicans in the House who also testified as to abuse of power, that it is impeachable. That you do not need a crime that is impeachable. Now, when you hear them make these arguments, cannot be impeached for abusing your power, this is what it really means. We cannot defend his conduct, and so we want to make it go all away without even having to think about that. You do not even need to think about what the President did, because the House charged it wrong. So, do not even consider what the President did. That is what that argument means. We cannot defend the indefensible, so we have to fall back on, even if he abused his office, even if he did all the things he is accused of, that is perfectly fine. There is nothing that can be done about it. Now, you will also hear, as part of the defense, and you heard this from Jay Sekulow, was I think the last thing he said, The whistleblower, and then he stepped back to the table. Now, I do not really know what that meant, but I suspect you will hear more of that. I would encourage you to read the whistleblower complaint again. When you read that complaint again, you will see just how remarkably accurate it is.


For all the times the President is out there saying that the complaint was all wrong, It was all wrong, you read it, now that you have heard the evidence, you read it and you will see how remarkably right the whistleblower got it. Now, when that complaint was filed, it was obviously before we had our depositions, and had our hearings. All of which obviated the need for the whistleblower. In the beginning we wanted the whistleblower to come and testify, because all we knew about was the complaint. Then, we were able to hear from firsthand witnesses about what happened, and then something else happened. the President and his allies began threatening the whistleblower, and the life of the whistleblower was at risk. What was the point in exposing that whistleblower to the risk of his, or her life when we had the evidence we needed? What was the point, except retribution. Retribution, and the President wants it still. You know why the President is mad at the whistleblower? Because, but for the whistleblower, he would not have been caught, and that is an unforgivable sin. He is the State and but for the whistleblower, the President would not have been caught. For that, he is a spy and he is guilty of treason. Now, what does he add to this? You will also hear the President's defense, They hate the President. They hate the President. You should not consider the presence misconduct because they hate the President. Now, what I have said, I leave you to your own judgments about the President. I only hate what he is done to this country. I grieve for what he is done to this country. When they make the argument to you that this is only happening because they hate the President, it is just another of the myriad forms of, please do not consider what the President did. Whether you like the President, or you dislike the President is immaterial. It is all about the constitution, and his misconduct. If it meets the standard of impeachable conduct as we approved, it does not matter what you like him. It does not matter what you dislike him. What matters is whether he is a danger to the country, because he will do it again. None of us can have confidence, based on his record, that he will not do it again because he is telling us every day that he will.

Adam Schiff Friday Concluding Statement Transcript: Trump Impeachment Trial


Now, you will hear the further defense that Biden is corrupt. This'll be another defense, because what they hope to achieve in the Senate trial is what they could not achieve through their scheme. If they could not get Ukraine to smear the Bidens, they want to use this trial to do it instead. Let us call Hunter Biden. Let us smear the Bidens. Let us succeed in the trial with what we could not do with this scheme. Now, I do not know whether Rudy Giuliani, who said he was going to present his report to some of the senators has presented his report. Maybe you will get to see what is in Rudy Giuliani's report. Maybe you will get to see some documents smearing the Bidens produced by who knows. Make no mistake about what that is about. It is about completing the object of the scheme through other means, through the means of this trial. You may hear the argument that what the President is doing when he is obstructing Congress is protecting the office for future presidents, because there is nothing more important to Donald Trump than protecting the office of the presidency for future presidents. I supposed, when he withheld military aid from Ukraine he was trying to protect future presidents. When he sought to coerce a foreign power to intervene in our election, he was doing it on behalf of future presidents, because future presidents might likewise wish to cheat in a further election. I do not think that argument goes very far, but I expect you will hear it. I expect you will hear it. You may hear an argument that the President was really concerned about corruption, and he was concerned about burden sharing. I will not spend much time on that because you have heard the evidence on that. There is no indication that this had anything to do with corruption in every, every bit of evidence that it had nothing to do with fighting corruption, or burden sharing. Indeed, nothing about the burden changed between the time he froze the aide and the time he released the aid. There was no new effort to get others to contribute more, and Europe contributes a great deal as it is. This is an after-the-fact rationalization. You probably saw the public reporting that there was an exhaustive effort after the fact to come up with a post-talk rationalization for this scheme. I would like to show you the product of that investigation, but I will need your help because it is among the documents they refuse to turn over.


They will show you just what an after- the-fact invention this argument is. Now, I expect you will hear the argument, Obama did it. Obama did it. Now, that may take several different forms, but the form of Obama did it that I am referring to is, Obama also withheld aid. Honestly, I think that argument is an insult to our intelligence because the argument is, Obama withheld aid from Egypt, and he made a condition with it. Obama withheld aid from Egypt after they had a revolution, and circumstances change. You know something? He did not hide it from Congress. In fact, Congress supported it. Yes, there are times when we withhold aid for a good policy reason. The American people know the difference between right and wrong. They can recognize the difference between aid that is withheld for a malicious purpose, and aid that is held in the best interest of our national security. But, you will hear the Obama did it argument. Now, I suspect the reason they will make the argument the call was perfect is because the President insists that they do. I do not think they really want to have to make that argument. You would not either, but they have a client to represent and so they will make the argument, the call was perfect. They will also make the argument, Ukraine thinks the call was perfect. What that really means is Ukraine wants a future, Ukraine knows it is still beholden to us for aid, Ukraine still has not gotten in through the door of the White House. Ukraine knows that if they acknowledge that they were shaken down by the President of the United States, the President United States will make them pay. When you hear them say, Ukraine felt no pressure and their proof is because the Ukraine president does not want to call the President the United States a bad name, you will know why. Because they need America. They need America. The framers did not expect you to leave your common sense at the door. Now, you will also hear the defense, the President said there was no quid pro quo. I guess that is the end of the story. This is a well-known principle of criminal law, that if the defendant says he did not do it, he could not have done it. If the defendant learns that he is been caught and he says he did not do it, he could not have done it. That does not hold up in any court in the land.


You also hear a variation of the argument, No harm, no foul. They got the money. They got the money, and they got the meeting even though they did not . They got the meeting on the sideline of the UN. It was kind of a drive by, but they got a meeting. A meeting on the sidelines is pretty much the same thing, right? of course it is not. Why do you think at that meeting at the United Nations, the President of Ukraine was still saying, Hey, when am I going to get to come to town? He certainly recognizes the difference, and we should too. What is more, there is every bit of harm, every bit of foul in withholding aid from an ally at war, and releasing it only when you are caught. Russia knows now about the wedge in our relations with Ukraine. The moment Russia found out about this, and I have to imagine, given how good their intel services are they did not have to wait for Politico to break the story any more than Ukraine did. The moment Ukraine learned, and Russia learned, there was harm because Ukraine knew they could not trust us, Russia knew they could take advantage of us. You get no pass when you get caught. I expect one of the defenses you will see is, they will play you certain testimony from the House where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ask questions like, Did the President ever say he was bribing Ukraine? Did you ever see him actually bribe Ukraine? Did you hear him say that he was going to bribe Ukraine? Did you personally see this yourself? If you did not see it, if he did not lay it out for you, then it could not have happened. Two plus two does not equal four. You are not allowed to consider anything except for a televised confession by the president, and even then, do not consider it. So, I imagine you will hear some of that testimony where witnesses are asked, they work for the defense department. Well, did the president ever tell you that he was conditioning the aid? Nevermind that these are people, do not necessarily even talk to the president, but I will expect you will see some of that. As I mentioned before, you will hear the defense, we claim privilege. You cannot impeach the president over the exercise of privilege. Nevermind the fact that they never claimed privilege. They never asserted privilege. You know why they never actually invoked privilege in the house?


Is because they know that if they did, they'd have to produce the documents and they'd have to show what they were redacting and they did not want to do even that. They knew the overwhelming majority of the documents and witness testimony, there was no even colorable claim of privilege. So, they did not want to even invoke it. But you will hear that you cannot be impeached for a claim of privilege they never made. So, what do all these defenses mean? What do they mean? What do they mean collectively when you add them all up? What they mean is under Article Two, the president can do whatever he wants. That is really it, stripped of all the detail and all the histrionics. What they want us to believe is the president can do whatever he wants under Article Two and there is nothing that you or the House can do about it. Robert Kennedy once said, Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle. I have to say, when I first read that, I was not sure I agreed. Moral courage is a rarer quality than courage in battle, that just does not seem right. I was not sure I really agreed and for a democrat not to agree with a Kennedy is kind of a heresy. I am sure some of my GOP colleagues feel the same way about the Kennedy's from Louisiana. After all, what could be more brave than courage in battle? What could be more rare than courage in battle? But then, I got to visit, as I know all of you have, our service members around the world and see just how blessed we are with an abundance of heroes by the millions who have joined the service of this country. Service members who every day demonstrate the most incredible bravery. I just have the greatest respect for them, for people like Jason Crow and John McCain and Daniel Inouye and so many others who've served in this body and the other or who've never served in office. He is part of the greatest generation, left high school early to join the service. He tried to enlist in the Marine Corp and he failed the physical. So, at the end of World War II, failed the physical. Bad eyesight and flat feet, which was apparently enough to fail the physical.


So, two weeks later he went to try to enlist in the ENTITY, thinking that maybe it is a different physical standard and even if it is not , maybe I will get a different examining physician. He recognized my father and he said, Were not you here two weeks ago? And he was in the ENTITY. Now the war was over and so he never left the United States. When he left the service, he went to the University of Alabama and about midway through he wanted to get on with his life and he left college and went out into the business world, something he always regretted, leaving college early. I think in many ways, he got a better education than I did. I think that I was lucky to get a good education, but I think those like Jason and others who served in the military and also went to school, got the best education, because I think there is certain things you can only learn by being in the military. Certainly, you cannot really learn, I think, about war without going to war and maybe there are things you just cannot learn about life without going to war. So, those of you that have served have the most complete education I think there is. Even so, is moral courage really more rare than that on the battlefield? Then I saw what Robert Kennedy meant by moral courage. Few, he said, are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues and the wrath of their society. Then I understood by that measure just how rare moral courage is. How many of us are willing to brave the disapproval of our fellows, the censure of our colleagues and the wrath of our society? Just as those who have served in uniform cannot fully understand, those who have not served in uniform cannot fully understand what military service means. So to there is a different kind of fraternity or sorority among those who have served in office. I always tell my constituents there are two kinds of jobs in congress and it is not Democrats and Republicans. It is those from a safe seat and those from an unsafe seat. I am sure the same is true of those from a safe state and an unsafe state. It is why I think there is a certain chemistry between members who represent those swing districts and states, because they can step into each others shoes.


One of the things that we in this fellowship of office holders understand that most people do not is that real political courage does not come from disagreeing with our opponents but from disagreeing with our friends and with our own party, because it means having to stare down accusations of disloyalty and betrayal. He is a Democrat name only or she is a Republican in name only. What I said last night, if it resonated with anyone in this chamber, did not require courage. My views, as heartfelt as they are, reflect the views of my constituents. But what happens when our heartfelt views of right and wrong are in conflict with the popular opinion of our constituents? What happens when our devotion to our oaths, to our values, to our love of country, depart from the momentary passion of a large number of people back home? Those are the times that try our souls. CBS news reported last night that a Trump confidante said that GOP senators were warned, Vote against your president, vote against the president and your head will be on a pike. Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike. I have to say, when I read that, and again, I do not know if that is true, but when I read that I was struck by the irony. But I was struck by the irony of the idea when we are talking about a president who would make himself a monarch, that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was opposed by a monarch. Just this week, America lost a hero, Thomas Railsback. He passed away on Monday, the day before this trial began. Some of you may have known or even served with congressman Thomas Railsback, he was a Republican from Illinois and a second ranking member on the house judiciary committee when that committee was conducting its impeachment inquiry into President Nixon. In July of 1974 as the inquiry was coming to a close Congressman Railsback began meeting with a bipartisan group of members of the house, three other Republicans and three Democrats. Here in the Senate, they might have called them the gang of seven. They gathered and they talked and they labored over language and ultimately helped develop a bipartisan support for the articles that led a group of Republican Senators, including Barry Goldwater and Howard Baker, to tell President Nixon that he must resign.


Some say that the Nixon impeachment might not have moved forward were it not for those four courageous Republicans led by Congressman Railsback and it pained the congressman because he credited Nixon with giving him his seat, with getting him elected. He did it because he said, Because seeing all the evidence, it was something we had to do because the evidence was there. One of his aids, Ray LaHood, eulogized him saying, He felt an obligation to the constitution to do what is right. Now soon, members of this body will face the most momentous of decisions. Not as I said at the outset, between guilt and innocence, but a far more foundational issue. Shall the House be able to present its case with witnesses and documents through the use of subpoenas as has been case in every impeachment trial in history? Now the president's lawyers have been their case outside of this chamber, threatening to stall these proceedings with the assertion of false claims of privilege. Having persuaded this body to postpone consideration of the witnesses and documents, they now appear to be preparing the ground to say it will be too late to consider them next week. Consider this, of the hundreds of documents that we have subpoenaed, there is no colorable claim and none has been asserted. To the degree that you can even make a claim, that claim has been waived. To the degree that even superficially a claim would attach, it does not conceal misconduct. What is more, to the degree that there were a dispute over whether a privilege applied, we have a perfectly good judge sitting behind me, empowered by the rules of this body to resolve those disputes. When the Chief Justice decides, where a narrow application of privilege ought to apply, you will still have the power to overrule him. How often do you get the chance to overrule a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? So, let us not be fooled by the argument that it will take too long or persuaded that the trial must be over before the State of the Union. It is a matter of high crimes and misdemeanors. The American people do not agree on much, but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth and certainly not because it took a backseat to expediency. In his pamphlet of 1777, The American Crisis, Thomas Payne wrote, Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Is it too much fatigue to call witnesses and have a fair trial?


Are the blessings of freedom so meager that we will not endure the fatigue of a real trial with witnesses and documents. President Lincoln in his closing message to congress in December 1862 said this, Fellow citizens we cannot escape history. We of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. I think he was the most interesting president in history. He may be the most interesting person in our history. This man who started out dirt poor, dirt poor like hundreds of thousands of other people at the time, he had nothing. No money, no education, he educated himself. Educate himself, but he had a brain in that head, a brilliance in that mind, that made him one of the most incredible, not just presidents, but people in history. I think he is the most interesting character in our history. I think a lot about history, as I know you do. Sometimes I think about how unforgiving history can be of our conduct. We can do a lifetimes work, draft the most wonderful legislation, help our constituents and yet we may be remembered for none of that, but for a single decision, we may be remembered, effecting the course of our country. I believe this may be one of those moments. A moment when our democracy was gravely threatened and not from without but from within. Russia too has a constitution. In Russia, they have trial by telephone. They have the same ostensible rights we do to a trial, they hear evidence and witnesses, but before the verdict is rendered, the judge picks up the telephone and calls the right person to find out how it is supposed to turn out. Is that what we have here, trial by telephone? Someone on the other end of the phone dictating what this trial should look like. The founders gave us more than words. They gave us inspiration. They may have receded into mythology but they inspire us still and more than us, they inspire the rest of the world. They inspire the rest of the world. From their prison cells in Turkey, journalists look to us. From their internment camps in China, they look to us. From their cells in Egypt, those who gathered in Tahrir Square for a better life, look to us.


White House complex-that is what they call these buildings. Makes you wonder, cannot anything in Washington ever be simple? Seeing all of you here today is a particular pleasure for me, because together you speak for some of the causes that are closest to my heart, some of the most important reasons our administration came to Washington in the first place. Some of you are law enforcement officers. Some are civilians who work for victims' rights. Some are fighting obscenity and the unspeakable evil of child pornography. Others are working to prevent drug abuse. In the past 4 or 5 months, I have heard a lot of talk-much of it, to put it most kindly, inaccurate-about our social agenda, particularly as it applies to the courts. Well, if anyone wants to know our true agenda, there is no need to go any farther than this room, because your agenda is our agenda. I do not need to tell anyone here the sad, often tragic story of years of judicial solicitation for every conceivable right of criminals and neglect for the victims of crime, of playing fast and loose with first amendment rights in a way that gave too many pornographers free rein, of fanciful constitutional arguments used to throw out long and hard police work, and of the price our nation has paid for all of this. One way, for example, that we have paid that price has been in the wider and wider availability of pornography. The sale of pornography was once said to be victimless. But common sense should have told us all along that pornography has many victims-among them, children. I read a statistic recently that, in a single day, one dial-a-porn company has received 800,000 calls. I am told that the great proportion of those calls are thought to have been made by children. Let me mention here-and I have recently sent Congress a bill that will make it easier for law enforcement officials to fight obscenity and child pornography. But incredible as it may seem, there are well-meaning people who will oppose it. The most extreme say that the first amendment protects child pornographers as they publish and distribute their products. However well-intended, that kind of extremism should not be allowed to prevail. It is not what the Constitution requires. I hope I can count on your support in getting this bill enacted into law. By the way, we could also use a boost with our criminal justice reform legislation.

Remarks to Administration Supporters on Child Pornography and the Supreme Court Nomination of Anthony M. Kennedy


I hope I can count on your support on something else as well, and it is the principal reason that we are here today. Judge Anthony M. Kennedy. Judge Kennedy has been on my short list from the very start. A graduate of Stanford University and the Harvard Law School, he has served 12 years on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. There he won the respect of his fellow jurists and the lawyers who practice before that court. He participated in over 1,400 decisions and wrote more than 400 opinions. He earned the reputation for being a balanced and fair judge and one who is tough on crime and concerned about the victims of crime. Victims' dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system represents a failure of the system to achieve its goals. The significant criminal law decisions of the Warren Court focused on the relation of the accused to the state, and the police as an instrument of the state. Little or no thought was given to the position of the victims. Well, that is a note of compassion and realism that is too often missing in our courts. Realism runs through all his work on the bench. He argued in one dissent, for example, for a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and saw his position ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court. That was in a drug case, by the way. And for realism about police work, the opinion he wrote in that case sets a high standard. You do not have to read many cases involving illegal drug traffic before it becomes clear exactly what was going on at the residences described by the officer's affidavit. Whatever the merits of the exclusionary rule, its rigidities become compounded unacceptably when courts presume innocent conduct when the only commonsense explanation for it is ongoing criminal activity. Another example of his realism-last year Judge Kennedy upheld a lower court when it imposed the maximum sentence allowed by law against a child pornographer. His opinion focused on the severe psychological harm victims of child pornography endure and the great likelihood that child pornographers will, when released, commit the same crimes again. We need more realism like that on the Nation's highest court. We need Judge Kennedy on our highest court. But let me add another thought here. The Constitution itself is tough on crime; it was intended to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. It provides a system for discovering the truth, releasing the innocent, and punishing the guilty, not for subjecting the police to an endless guessing game about the rules.


And thank you for your principled leadership-both in government, where we worked together so closely, and now at the New America Foundation. I want to commend you and your colleagues here for the many contributions you make to our national security discourse-including on the challenge that brings us together today. In response to Bashar al-Assad's barbaric use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, President Obama, after careful consideration, has decided that it is in the national security interest of the United States to conduct limited military strikes against the Syrian regime. President Obama has asked Congress for its support in this action, because in a democracy, our policies are stronger, more effective and more sustainable when they have the support of the American people and their elected leaders. Tomorrow evening, the President will address the nation and make his case for taking action. Today, I want to take this opportunity to explain why Syria's use of chemical weapons is a serious threat to our national security, and why it is in our national interest to undertake limited military action to deter future use. There is no denying what happened on August 21. 30 in the morning, while most of Damascus was still asleep, Assad's forces loaded warheads filled with deadly chemicals onto rockets and launched them into suburbs controlled or contested by opposition forces. They unleashed hellish chaos and terror on a massive scale. Innocent civilians were jolted awake, choking on poison. In the end, more than 1400 were dead-more than 400 of them children. In recent days, we have been shocked by the videos from Ghouta and other neighborhoods near Damascus. As a parent, I cannot look at those pictures-those little children laying on the ground, their eyes glassy, their bodies twitching-and not think of my own two kids. I can only imagine the agony of those parents in Damascus. Sarin targets the body's central nervous system, making every breath a struggle and causing foaming at the nose and mouth, intense nausea and uncontrollable convulsions. The death of any innocent, in Syria or around the world, is a tragedy, whether by bullet or landmine or poisonous gas. Gas plumes shift and spread without warning. The masses of people they can fell are immense. Chemical weapons, like other weapons of mass destruction, kill on a scope and scale that is entirely different from conventional weapons. There is no doubt about who is responsible for this attack.

Remarks by National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice at the New America Foundation


The Syrian regime possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world. Assad has been struggling to clear these very neighborhoods in Damascus and drive out the opposition, but his conventional arsenal was not working well enough or fast enough. Only the Syrian regime has the capacity to deliver chemical weapons on a scale to cause the devastation we saw in Damascus. The rockets were fired from territory controlled by the regime. The rockets landed in territory controlled or contested by the opposition. And the intelligence we have gathered reveals senior officials planning the attack and then, afterwards, plotting to cover up the evidence by destroying the area with shelling. Of course, this is not the first time that Assad has used chemical weapons in this conflict; we assess that he has used them on a small-scale multiple times since March. Whereas previous attacks each killed relatively few people, this one murdered well over a thousand in one fell swoop. Assad is lowering his threshold for use while increasing exponentially the lethality of his attacks. Assad's escalating use of chemical weapons threatens the national security of the United States. And the likelihood that, left unchecked, Assad will continue to use these weapons again and again takes the Syrian conflict to an entirely new level-by terrorizing civilians, creating even greater refugee flows, and raising the risk that deadly chemicals would spill across borders into neighboring Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. Obviously, the use of chemical weapons also directly threatens our closest ally in the region, Israel, where people once again have readied gas masks. Every time chemical weapons are moved, unloaded, and used on the battlefield, it raises the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists active in Syria, including Assad's ally Hezbollah and al Qaeda affiliates. That prospect puts Americans at risk of chemical attacks targeted at our soldiers and diplomats in the region and even potentially our citizens at home. Equally, every attack serves to unravel the long-established commitment of nations to renounce chemical weapons use. 189 countries, representing 98 percent of the world's population, are party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, acquisition, or use of these weapons. The United States Senate approved that convention by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority, binding America to the global consensus and affirming that we do not tolerate the use or possession of chemical weapons.


So, the Assad regime's attack is not only a direct affront to that norm but also a threat to global security, including the security of the United States. Failing to respond means more and more Syrians will die from Assad's poisonous stockpiles. Failing to respond makes our allies and partners in the region tempting targets of Assad's future attacks. Failing to respond increases the risk of violence and instability as citizens across the Middle East and North Africa continue to struggle for their universal rights. Failing to respond brings us closer to the day when terrorists might gain and use chemical weapons against Americans abroad and at home. Failing to respond damages the international principle reflected in two multilateral treaties and basic human decency that such weapons must never again be used anywhere in the world. Failing to respond to the use of chemical weapons risks opening the door to other weapons of mass destruction and emboldening the madmen who would use them. We cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction, or a nuclear North Korea, or an aspiring nuclear Iran to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our long-standing warnings. If we begin to erode the moral outrage of gassing children in their bed, we open ourselves up to even more fearsome consequences. Moreover, failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the United States is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure. Any President, Republican or Democrat, must have recourse to all elements of American power to design and implement our national security policy - whether diplomatic, economic, or military. Rejecting the limited military action that President Obama strongly supports would raise questions around the world as to whether the United States is truly prepared to employ the full range of its power to defend our national interests. America's ability to rally coalitions and lead internationally could be undermined. Other global hotspots might flare up if belligerents believe the United States cannot be counted on to enforce the most basic and widely accepted international norms. Most disturbingly, it would send a perverse message to those who seek to use the world's worst weapons - that you can use these weapons blatantly and get away with it. Now, I know that many Americans are horrified by the images from Damascus and are concerned about the devastating broader consequences. But, while they believe the world should act, they are not sure military action is the right tool at this time. Let me address this important argument.


The reason President Obama decided to pursue limited strikes is that we and others have already exhausted a host of other measures aimed at changing Assad's calculus and his willingness to use chemical weapons. So only after pursuing a wide range of non-military measures to prevent and halt chemical weapons use did President Obama conclude that a limited military strike is the right way to deter Assad from continuing to employ chemical weapons like any conventional weapon of war. The fact is, President Obama has consistently demonstrated his commitment to multilateral diplomacy. He would much prefer the backing of the United Nations Security Council to uphold the international ban against the use of chemical weapons, whether in the form of sanctions, accountability, or authorizing the use of force. Believe me, I know. I was there for all of those UN debates and negotiations on Syria. I lived it. Three times the Security Council took up resolutions to condemn lesser violence by the Syrian regime. Three times we negotiated for weeks over the most watered-down language imaginable. And three times, Russia and China doubled vetoed almost meaningless resolutions. Similarly, in the past two months, Russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the use of chemical weapons that did not even ascribe blame to any party. Russia opposed two mere press statements expressing concern about their use. A week after the August 21 gas attack, the United Kingdom presented a resolution that included a referral of war crimes in Syria to the International Criminal Court, but again the Russians opposed it, as they have every form of accountability in Syria. For all these reasons, the President has concluded that it is in our national security interest to conduct limited strikes against the Assad regime. I want to take this opportunity to address concerns now that even limited strikes could lead to even greater risk to the United States. these would be limited strikes to deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons and to degrade their ability to do so again. What do we mean by limited? This would not be the United States launching another war. Nor would it resemble Kosovo or Libya, which were sustained air campaigns. As the President has said, again repeatedly, this action would be deliberately limited in both time and scope. The United States has engaged in limited strikes multiple times before. Recall President Reagan conducted air strikes measured in hours against Libya in 1986. President Clinton conducted several days of cruise missile strikes against Iraq in 1998. Each has its own costs and benefits.


But these previous engagements are proof that the United States is fully capable of conducting limited, defined and proportional military actions without getting enmeshed in a drawn out conflict. What do we mean by deterring and degrading the regime's chemical weapons capabilities? Strikes could target a range of potential regime capacities to manage, deliver, or develop chemical weapons. Assad would discover that, henceforth, chemical weapons offer no battlefield advantage relative to their cost to use. And, if Assad is so brazen as to use chemical weapons again, he would know that we possess the ability to further degrade his capabilities. So, in short, this would not be an open-ended intervention in the Syrian civil war. These strikes would not aim to topple Assad or, by themselves, to effect regime change. Like many, I understand the public skepticism over using military force, particularly in this part of the world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left many Americans wary of further military action, however limited. But what the President is proposing is fundamentally different. Unlike Iraq, we are not betting on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. In Syria, we have the undeniable proof that chemical weapons have already been unleashed with horrific results. The entire world can see the bodies. True, there are always risks that accompany the use of military force. That is why we are taking a range of responsible measures to safeguard U.S. personnel and interests in the region, as well as those of our allies and partners. In this event, we do not assess that limited military strikes will unleash a spiral of unintended, escalatory reactions in the region. Assad and his allies would be more than foolish to take on the forces of the United States or our allies. They know that President Obama, throughout his presidency, has amply demonstrated he will not hesitate to defend our nation, our citizens, and our allies against direct threats to our security. The limited strikes that the President plans are necessary and appropriate, which is why they have garnered support on both sides of the political aisle. House and Senate leaders have declared their full support. Foreign policy experts from the left, right and center have strongly endorsed such action. President Obama has asked Congress for their support as the elected representatives of the American people, because he knows that investing the legislative branch in our policy choices helps ensure the maximum potency and sustainability of U.S. policy.


This decision reflects the President's profound respect for the power of our democracy and his belief that the American people care to defend our most basic values and live up to our leadership in the world. And he knows, like all Americans, that we are strongest in the world when we speak clearly and stand together. At the same time, the international community increasingly recognizes that this chemical weapons attack cannot be ignored. The Arab League foreign ministers have called for deterrent and necessary measures. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has said the regime's attack requires a decisive action. The NATO Council has met twice, and Secretary General Rasmussen has affirmed that the allies agree on the need for a firm international response to avoid chemical weapon attacks in the future. Last Friday, at the G-20 in St. Petersburg, there was unanimous agreement that chemical weapons had been used and that the international norm against their use must be upheld. We gained unequivocal public support for anticipated U.S. military action from partners in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States joined together in a strong statement declaring that the Assad regime is responsible for the attack and that those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable. In subsequent days, Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Croatia, Estonia, Denmark, Romania, and Qatar have signed on to that same statement, and we expect more countries to add their support. Over the weekend, European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton issued a statement on behalf of the European Union labeling the August 21 attack a blatant violation of international law, a war crime, and a crime against humanity and calling for a clear and strong response to ensure there is no impunity. Every day, more and more nations are coming to the same conclusion. With all the attention given to the prospect of limited military strikes against Syrian regime targets, I want to underscore that such action is by no means the sum total of our policy toward Syria. On the contrary, any such strikes would complement and reinforce our broader Syria strategy, which we continue to pursue with allies and partners. Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated, political transition in which Assad leaves power. The best way to achieve this is to keep the country and its institutions intact, but all parties have to be willing to negotiate.


So ours is a multifaceted strategy that puts pressure on the regime by isolating them and denying them resources; builds up the civilian and military opposition; and secures diplomatic agreement with other key countries on the principles for transition while assisting those who need immediate relief. Thanks to the generosity of the American people, we lead the humanitarian effort to save lives, having provided the Syrian people more than $1 billion worth of food, shelter, medical assistance, clean water, and relief supplies. In fact, some of the medical supplies used to treat the victims at Ghouta came from the United States. We continue to upgrade and increase our support for moderate, vetted elements of the Syrian opposition in coordination with our international partners. We are building the capacity of local councils and helping civilian leaders to deliver essential services to those in need. We are helping the opposition better serve the needs of the Syrian people. And, we are expanding our assistance to the Supreme Military Council to strengthen its cohesion and its ability to defend against a repressive regime that kills civilians with abandon. Limited strikes that degrade Assad's capacity to use chemical weapons, and thus to kill on a horrific scale with impunity, can also shake his confidence in the viability of his relentless pursuit of a military solution. But, ultimately, the only sustainable way to end the suffering in Syria is through a negotiated political solution, starting with the creation of a representative transitional authority that organizes elections and meets the needs of the Syrian people. A ceasefire and a political solution are also, as a practical matter, the only way to eliminate completely the Syrian chemical weapons threat. That is why we continue to increase pressure on the Assad regime to come to the table and negotiate. Notably, during our discussions in St. Petersburg, we sensed more urgency among key players to bring the parties to the negotiating table to jump-start a political transition. The United States shares that sense of urgency, and our intention is to renew our push for the UN-sponsored Geneva process following any limited strikes. Just as limited strikes would complement our broader Syria policy, so too would they reinforce our broader Middle East strategy. The United States will not take sides in sectarian struggles. We cannot and will not impose our will on the democratic development of other nations. But, as President Obama has made clear, we can - and we will - stand up for certain principles in this pivotal region.


We seek a Middle East where citizens can enjoy their universal rights; live in dignity, freedom and prosperity; choose their own leaders and determine their own future, free from fear, violence, and intimidation. that nations cannot unleash the world's most horrific weapons against innocent civilians, especially children. Rather, we seek a Middle East where violent extremism, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction do not threaten our allies, partners and Americans. We seek the stability of a region that is vital to the energy that helps fuel our global economy. Countering Syria's use of chemical weapons shows that the United States will act to prevent some of the worst weapons in human history from becoming the new norm. It will demonstrate that America means what we say. It will make clear to Assad and his allies-Hezbollah and Iran-that they should not test the resolve of the United States of America. This has implications for our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. we will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. With allies and partners, we continue to pursue a comprehensive strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including diplomacy, pressure, and increasing sanctions. And, as the President has said, all options remain on the table. For our efforts to succeed, however, the leaders in Tehran must know that the United States means what we say. If we do not respond when Iran's close ally, Syria, uses weapons of mass destruction, what message does that send to Iran? It risks suggesting that the international community cannot muster the will to act when necessary. It risks suggesting that serious threats to regional and global stability will be left to fester. It risks suggesting that egregious violations of international norms do not have consequences. Make no mistake, the decision our nation makes in the coming days is being watched in capitals around the world, especially in Tehran and Pyongyang. They are watching to see whether the United States will stand up for the world we are trying to build for our children and future generations. And, if we fail to act, they will be emboldened to push harder for the world that only they want-a future where more of the world's most dangerous weapons fall into the most dangerous hands. That is not the Middle East or the world that we seek. On the contrary, we seek a Middle East where Israelis and Palestinians live in two states, side by side, in peace and security.


Yet, Assad's indiscriminate use of chemical weapons increases the possibility that they could someday be used against Israel and Palestinians. This only heightens the sense of vulnerability many in Israel feel about the turmoil that engulfs their nation, and it might make it even harder for Israelis and Palestinians to take the risks for peace. The bottom line is that standing up to Syria's use of chemical weapons advances our broader goals in the Middle East. Conversely, by allowing Assad to act with impunity, everything else becomes even harder-from countering terrorism to defending human rights, from promoting peace to ensuring our energy security and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In closing, allow me to speak, not just as the President's national security advisor, but also as a parent, a mother. Time and again, we have seen what happens when the world fails to respond to horrific abuses on the scale we saw in Damascus. We have seen the even greater barbarism that can follow, whether in Srebrenica or Rwanda or Darfur. I have been to more than my share of war zones. And unlike those tragedies of earlier decades, we have the technology-on our computers and our smart phones-to see the full horrors unfold in real time. Children lined up in shrouds, their voices forever silenced. Devastated mothers and fathers kissing their children goodbye, some pulling the white sheet up tight around their beautiful faces, as if tucking them in for the last time. But where words may fail us, action must not. Every adult American, every Member of Congress, should watch those videos for themselves. Watch those videos, and imagine the months and years ahead where an emboldened Assad and those who follow his example carry out more attacks, forcing us to witness more and more such depravity. that this cannot stand. Not given the values and principles that we as Americans hold dear. As the one indispensable leader in the world, the United States of America can and must take action-carefully, responsibly, purposefully-to reduce the chances of such an outrage happening again.


Let me first single out President Ford and say how pleased we are to have him here. the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Since the first Presidential Medal, since those first recipients were chosen by President John Kennedy in 1963, some of the world's most notable individuals have been honored. In this administration alone, the medal is awarded to war heroes like General Doolittle, Jimmy Doolittle; General Schwarzkopf; diplomats and public servants like Jim Baker and Margaret Chase Smith and Douglas Dillon; world-famous entertainers such as Lucille Ball; and just last year, a world leader of enormous consequence, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. And each of these extraordinary individuals were pioneers in their own right, each a monument to individual achievement. I will never forget that November night 2 years ago when Lech Walesa accepted his medal right here in this room, saying that now one of the greatest dreams of his life had been fulfilled because this medal stood for the freedom of a nation and the freedom of mankind. Today we recognize 10 men and women who have enriched our Nation, whether as leaders of popular movements, as friends of the common man, or as intellectual giants. Their achievement and dedication are unparalleled in America. And their standards of excellence are just as towering as their commitment to the ideal of freedom. Author Bill Buckley is the celebrated founder of one of the largest journals of opinion in America, a preeminent intellectual in the American conservative movement and a distinguished author. Bill Buckley raised the level of political debate in this country, and our Nation is better for it. A true Renaissance man, we honor him today for a lifetime of achievement in American political and social thought. Leon has been a voice of reason throughout the latter half of this century. A vigorous proponent of equal rights for all, Reverend Sullivan founded OIC, Opportunities Industrialization Centers, one of the world's largest self-help and job training facilities. More recently, he has worked hard to develop closer ties between this country and Africa. equal rights under law. Conservationist Russell Train has devoted his life to the protection and conservation of our land and wildlife, serving both in private environmental groups and in the Federal Government. I have often referred to President Theodore Roosevelt's idea that we do not inherit the environment from our parents so much as borrow it from our children. For the legacy you are helping us leave to the children of America, sir, we thank you.

Remarks on Presenting the Presidential Medal of Freedom Awards


Baseball great Ted Williams whom I do not see sitting here -- oops, there he is over on the -- do not say anything -- is an American legend, a remarkable figure in American sports and a twice-tested war hero. At the height of his athletic career, he answered the call of patriotism, serving his country in both World War II and the Korean war -- a true champion in the eyes of many Americans. An author wrote of his retirement from baseball, And now Boston knows how England felt when it lost India. Former First Lady Betty Ford, she first inspired our Nation when, fighting her own battle against breast cancer, she drew national attention to the importance of early detection. Later, as president of the Betty Ford Center, she restored hope and dignity to those lost in the desperation of drug and alcohol dependency. Ford, your compassion and caring have shown millions the way to new lives of freedom. Former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill is a legendary figure in American politics, blessed with the common touch like few others. Over 50 years ago, Tip entered the rough-and-tumble of Massachusetts politics and soon became the Bay State's first Democratic speaker. Throughout 40 years as a Member of Congress and a decade as Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill built one of the most remarkable political careers of this century. Jerry, would you agree to that? He is known as the grand old man of Puerto Rico. Beloved by his people as a patron of the arts, a savvy businessman, and a public servant of the first order, Don Luis is a lifelong advocate of statehood for Puerto Rico. And sir, we honor you today as an extraordinary leader in the life of Puerto Rico. Historian and humanist Hanna Gray is a world-class educator, the first woman to serve as president of a major university, the University of Chicago. Throughout her career, Mrs. Gray has been widely regarded as an outstanding Renaissance scholar. An example for others in her profession, she continues to teach at least one class a semester. Gray, for your pursuit of the highest ideals in your profession and your commitment to excellence in American education, we salute you. Vernon Walters enlisted in the ENTITY as a private in 1941 before the outbreak of World War II. Nearly half a century later, he was our Ambassador to Germany during the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the years between, he served six Presidents as a statesman, an ambassador, and a trusted aide.


THIS IS a day of some personal sadness for me. I have in my hand the resignation of Luther Hodges who is departing his post as Secretary of Commerce. Secretary Hodges is a distinguished American who has served his State and his Nation and has in his entire lifetime given to the American people the best that is in him always for the benefit of his beloved country. His stewardship of the Commerce Department was both progressive and prudent. I have accepted Secretary Hodges' resignation with deep regret because he is not only a good and wise American but he is. But the American system that produced Luther Hodges has within its gifts the capacity to produce a man to take his place. I have elected to ask the Senate to give their advice and consent to my nomination of John T. Connor of New Jersey to be Secretary of Commerce. I truly believe that John Connor is an authentic example of what the American educational and free enterprise system can create. Until yesterday he was the president of Merck & Company, one of the Nation's leading pharmaceutical firms. He was on the board of directors of General Motors and General Foods, and other leading boards. He is a leader on the Committee for Economic Development and the Business Advisory Council. He is not unacquainted with the ways of Washington. In 1942 he was the General Counsel for the Office of Scientific Research and Development, at that time headed by the distinguished American, Vannevar Bush. In 1945 he became counsel to the new Office of Naval Research, and later special assistant to the late, respected James Forrestal. In between times he served as a rugged Marine and reached the rank of captain. He graduated from Syracuse University in 1936 magna cum laude, and from Harvard Law School in 1939. I might add that he was not backward in his studies. He was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. John Connor is the kind of man I am proud to have serve in the Cabinet. He will never discard a principle nor despair of doing what is right and ought to be done. I think the credentials that he bears in his heart and in his mind are the kind of credentials that will make his Nation proud and will cause great achievements to be his legacy in the country that he has served so well and in the Nation that he loves. I now present to you Mr. Connor. I have asked the new Secretary of Commerce to meet and work with the Secretary of Labor and the voice of American labor in this country, Mr. George Meany.

Remarks at a Televised Ceremony Marking the Change in Leadership at the Department of Commerce.


I am really glad to be here tonight with all of you, because the issues that the National Women's Law Center focuses on are deeply personal to me. Fatima told us a little bit of this story, but I really wanted to tell you why the work of the NWLC matters so much to me. I grew up in a family in Oklahoma, and we were one of those paycheck-to-paycheck families, the kind just barely hanging on to our place in the middle class. When I was growing up, the path was very different for boys and for girls in America. Little girls could do almost anything they wanted, so long as what they wanted to do was be mommies, nurses or teachers - and nothing else. I still remember, it was in second grade, when Mrs. Lee told me that I could be a teacher, and, God bless her, I said that is what I was going to do, and it changed my life. Now, all three of my older brothers - I have three much older brothers - I came along many years later. My mother always referred to me as the surprise. I was about thirty before it hit me what that meant. That is a whole different story, but all three of my older brothers went off to the military - they did not graduate from college - that was their chance to build a future, their ticket to the middle class. But if I wanted to teach, I needed a college diploma, and it is a long and complicated story, including getting married at 19 and dropping out of school - man, was I smart at 19! But here is the key on that story. I grew up back when America was building more chances - not just first chances, but second chances. And for me, that second chance was a commuter college that cost $50 a semester. I understood what it meant to get a second chance-and you better believe, once I got it, I hung on for dear life. I can still remember the first day of school as a special needs teacher. There were cheerful pictures that I'd hung on the wall. The children were all ready for a new adventure. I loved that job. I truly loved that job. But by the end of the school year, I was pretty obviously pregnant. The principal did what I think a lot of principals did back then - he wished me good luck, and he did not ask me back for the next school year, and hired someone else for the job.

Senator Warren Delivers Keynote Address at NWLC's 45th Anniversary Gala


I stayed home, and I tried desperately to be a good wife and mother, but I really wanted to do something more. So, I came up with a plan to go back to school, and this time I found a law school that was nearby. I cannot describe to you how crazy the idea was of my going to law school. My mother said many, many times, very loudly, that she thought I was jeopardizing my marriage. My brothers - all three of them - just thought I was plain nuts. My then husband smiled indulgently, making it clear that he knew that I could not possibly pull this off. But I bowed my head, I pushed on. But I was determined, and so I took all the needed exams, I filled out the application; I budgeted and figured out how I could pay the $450 tuition. child care. My daughter Amelia was about to turn two, and if I wanted to go to law school, I needed child care. And I know it sounds like I was not very smart, but I had not really realized exactly how hard that was gonna be. You know, I visited all kinds of places. They cost a fortune or they smelled funny or the kids looked miserable. This went on for weeks, and it is getting to be the end of the summer, and I am starting to sweat. We were bearing down on the start of school, and I knew that if I could not get childcare worked out, my idea of going back to school was over before it started. Finally, finally, less than one week before classes were starting, I found a place that seemed nice. they only took children who were dependably potty trained. Man, I filled out that application, I said Sure. We are so on this. And I left there knowing I had five days to turn my not-quite-two-year-old into a ready-to-go, dependably potty-trained partner. And I just want to say that I am here today courtesy of three bags of M&Ms and a cooperative two-year-old who loved chocolate. I have got to say, going to law school and trying to raise a toddler was not always easy, but actually, it was a really special time. We both had backpacks, and she allowed me to believe that a life that combined the inside and the outside - family and not family - could actually work.


Now, we made it through three years of law school and by the time I graduated from law school, I was hugely pregnant with Baby Number Two. By now, I was actually starting to think about career choices after law school, but law firms at this point were barely crossing the line to hire women, and hugely pregnant women were not on the recruitment list. Everyone smiled, no one said a word, and no one invited me back for a second interview. Eventually, I got a job teaching at a law school, and when I got that job, I was beyond excited. I was back in the classroom. This time the kids were taller, and I did not decorate the classroom with pictures of animals, but I still loved it. I loved every single minute of it. But what was going on in my life outside the classroom was not going so well. I had been teaching for just a few weeks when the babysitter quit, and from then on, I was just on the treadmill. We cycled through one child care arrangement after another and every transition sent me into a near-panic. Every time, it represented a failure. One night after I'd put both the kids to bed, my 78-year-old Aunt Bee called long-distance from Oklahoma to just see how I was doing. And in the middle of a sentence, I just started to cry. I was failing my kids, I was failing my family, I was failing my teaching. I was doing laundry at 11 o'clock at night and class preps after midnight, and I felt like I was always behind. I told Aunt Bee I was going to quit my job. It is like it just fell out of my mouth. Aunt Bee's waiting on the other end, long-distance, she waits for me to quit crying, waits for me to blow my nose and get a drink of water. Then she very matter-of-factly said, I cannot get there tomorrow, but I can come on Thursday. And she arrived with seven suitcases and a Pekingese named Buddy - and stayed for 16 years. I am a United States Senator today in part because my Aunt Bee rescued me on that Thursday in 1979. Without child care, I was a goner. And I know how lucky I was, because so many working moms do not have an Aunt Bee with a dog named Buddy who can fly in and help out.


Now lots of things have changed since the days when I headed off to school, and a lot of things have changed since I started out as an assistant professor in law. A lot more opportunities, and we celebrate those opportunities. But we also know that there are still plenty of obstacles facing working women, especially women with young children. And the challenge of finding reliable, affordable child care is a huge boulder firmly wedged between women and a million opportunities. Tens of millions of families, ordinary, hard-working families, simply do not have enough money to make it to the end of the month. I am not talking about enough money for fancy vacations or a new pair of sneakers. I am talking about families do not have enough money for housing and food and transportation. They do not have enough money to cover health care and education. And on top of all that, they do not have enough money for the child care they need so they can go to work and try to make some more money. Over the past generation, from 1970 to 2015, wages have effectively remained flat, while the costs of all kinds of basic expenses have gone up. Housing costs have risen by 50 percent, health insurance expenses have doubled, college degree costs more than tripled, and those are all huge increases. In nearly half of all states in America, child care costs are higher than the cost of in-state public college tuition. That is a giant boulder that rolls across right in front of working women and families all across this country. And for single parents and for parents working near the bottom of the income scale, the cost of child care often stretches families' paychecks past the breaking point. Today, about two-thirds of mothers of small children have jobs. That is millions of mamas scrambling to make sure that someone is taking care of the baby while they head off to work. High child care costs limit career opportunities for those women, especially for single moms. They put economic pressures on families by making it tougher to save money for retirement or for a home. And they force families to make difficult compromises on the quality of the care that they can afford. There is a lot of research showing that high-quality early education helps kids succeed in school and helps them do better in life. It can be a powerful tool to close the achievement gap. But skyrocketing costs often mean that families have to settle for lower-quality care. For some parents, that tradeoff is really grim.


Unlicensed care - a home where several children are parked in front of a television set all day. A relative who really is not up to the task of keeping up with a two-year-old. Families do the best they can under difficult circumstances. Or a place that is not 40 minutes from home. 00 in the morning or open late if you get caught in traffic or an emergency comes up, you know your kid is somewhere safe. About half of all Americans today live in a child care desert. And this disproportionately affects families of color and low-income families who have the most to gain if mom can get a decent job. The fact is that even as expectations and opportunities for women in the workforce have shifted in so many ways for the better, child care in America remains an enormous roadblock. Compared to the rest of the developed world, the United States significantly underinvests in child care programs. Preschool enrollment in America is much lower, and the average teacher to child ratio much higher. It is time for America to step up on this. Last month I joined with several of my Democratic colleagues in Congress to support the Child Care for Working Families Act, this has been led by Senator Patty Murray from Washington and Congressman Bobby Scott from Virginia. This legislation would create a partnership between states and the federal government to ensure that no low-income or middle-class family pays too much of their income on child care, regardless of the number of children that they have. It is a step toward making child care and early education more affordable for working families who need it most, and I just want to shout out how much we appreciate the NWLC's support of this legislation. They are the ones giving it momentum and Congress should pass it now. Can we all just be clear on that? You know me, I never come with just one ask. Half of all low-wage workers have little or no say over when they work, and an estimated 20 to 30 percent are in jobs where they can be called in to work extra hours at literally the last minute. Just think of how much of a challenge it is to plan for anything, like doctor's visits, or going back to school, a second job - or, yes, child care -without even knowing when you will be working next week. So, I have introduced the Schedules That Work Act in the Senate, to put some basic fairness into scheduling.


Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro - the best - has introduced the legislation in the House. This is a bill that will help working families, and especially lower-wage and minimum wage workers. And again, NWLC has been right there alongside me and alongside Rosa on this bill from the very beginning, and I am very grateful for that. We are going to do this. So that is two, but I have got to have three. America has agreed that every five-year-old should have access to a neighborhood school that will provide a safe place and be there five days a week and will teach that child to read, and write, and add numbers, and take turns and not to hit their neighbors. We have got plenty of work to do to make sure that our public schools are providing real opportunities for all our children, but that is the basic goal. We have all agreed on the target. I believe that same kind of opportunity should be available to four-year-olds and three-year olds and two-year-olds and all our children - and all their families. It is a big goal, but no one builds a future without investment. Whether you and I have small children or not, we have an interest in the future of this country - and that means we have an interest, and a responsibility - to invest in America's children. We do not climb up on someone else's backs. So, this is how I see it. Until we decide, until all of us decide - men and women, married and single, black and white, old and young - that we are willing to invest more in all our children, then we cannot build a country in which women have equal opportunity to build a future. That is how I see it. I wanted to be here tonight because I believe in change, and I believe that the energy to make these changes will come from people like you, people who fight for equality every day. And most importantly, the energy will come from the many people all across this country who have joined this fight and made it part of their lives. The day after President Trump's inauguration - you all remember that day, right? Now I remember the day of the inauguration, but I remember the day after. I went to Boston Common for the Women's March. Did anybody in here go to the Women's March? So I have got to tell you, in Boston, we know how to do a Women's March.


I have just returned from an interview with President Johnson, in which he talked for an hour on the process of reconstruction of rebel States. His manner was as cordial, and his conversation as free, as in 1863, when I met him daily in Nashville. His countenance is healthy-even more so than when I first knew him. I remarked that the people of the North were anxious that the process of reconstruction should be thorough, and they wished to support him in the arduous work; but their ideas were confused by the conflicting reports constantly circulated, and especially by the present position of the democratic party. It is industriously circulated in the democratic clubs that he was going over to them. Major, have you never known a man who for many years had differed from your views because you were in advance of him, claim them as his own when he came up to your standpoint? So have I, and went on: The democratic party finds its old position untenable, and is coming to ours. If it has come up to our position I am glad of it. You and I need no preparation for this conversation; we can talk freely on this subject, for the thoughts are familiar to us; we can be perfectly frank with each other. He then commenced with saying that the States are in the Union, which is whole and indivisible. Individuals tried to carry them out but did not succeed, as a man may try to cut his throat and be prevented by the bystanders, and you cannot say he cut his throat because he tried to do it. Individuals may commit treason and be punished, and a large number of individuals may constitute a rebellion and be punished as traitors. Some States tried to get out of the Union and we opposed it, honestly, because we believed it to be wrong; and we have succeeded in putting down the rebellion. The power of those persons who made the attempt has been crushed, and now we want to reconstruct the State governments, and have the power to do it. The State institutions are prostrated, laid out on the ground, and they must be taken up and adapted to the progress of events; this cannot be done in a moment. We are making very rapid progress- so rapid I sometimes cannot realize it; it appears like a dream. We must not be in too much of a hurry.

Interview with George L. Stearns on the Restoration of the Southern States and the Status of the Negro


It is better to let them reconstruct themselves than to force them to it; for if they go wrong, the power is in our hands and we can check them at any stage, to the end, and oblige them to correct their errors. We must be patient with them. I did not expect to keep out all who were excluded from the amnesty, or even a large number of them; but I intended they should sue for pardon, and so realize the enormity of the crime they had committed. You could not have broached the subject of equal suffrage, at the North, seven years ago; and we must remember that the changes at the South have been more rapid, and that they have been obliged to accept more unpalatable truth than the North has. We must give them time to digest a part; for we cannot expect such large affairs will be comprehended and digested at once. We must give them time to understand their new position. I have nothing to conceal in these matters, and have no desire or willingness to take indirect courses to obtain what we want. Our Government is a grand and lofty structure; in searching for its foundation we find it rests on the broad basis of popular rights. I am opposed to giving the States too much power, and also to a great consolidation of power in the central government If I interfered with the vote in the rebel States, to dictate that the negro shall vote, I might do the same thing for my own purposes in Pennsylvania. Our only safety lies in allowing each State to control the right of voting by its own laws, and we have the power to control the rebel States if they go wrong. If they rebel we have the army, and can control them by it, and, if necessary, by legislation also. If the general government controls the right to vote in the States, it may establish such rules as will restrict the vote to a small number of persons, and thus create a central despotism. My position here is different from what it would be if I was in Tennessee. There I should try to introduce negro suffrage gradually; first, those who had served in the army; those who could read and write, and perhaps a property qualification for others, say $200 or $250. It will not do to let the negroes have universal suffrage now, it would breed a war of races.


Before I say a few words about the meeting we just had, I'd like to mention some good news that came out today about our economy. Now, for the first time in 18 months, our manufacturing sector has expanded, and the statistics used to measure manufacturing output is the highest it is been in over 2 years. This means greater production of transportation equipment like cars and electronic equipment like computers and appliances, and it means these companies are starting to invest more and produce more, and it is a sign that we are on the path to economic recovery. And there is no doubt that we have a long way to go, and I and the other members of this administration will not let up until those Americans who are looking for jobs can find them. But this is another important sign that we are heading in the right direction and that the steps we have taken to bring our economy back from the brink are working. Now, we just had a good meeting about our ongoing efforts to prepare this country for the H1N1 flu virus this fall. And I want to thank John Brennan; our CDC Director, Tom Frieden; and Secretaries Sebelius, Napolitano, Duncan, and Locke for all the good work that they have been doing to get us ready today. As I said when we saw the first cases of this virus back in the spring, I do not want anybody to be alarmed, but I do want everybody to be prepared. We know that we usually get a second, larger wave of these flu viruses in the fall, and so response plans have been put in place across all levels of government. Our plans and decisions are based on the best scientific information available, and as the situation changes, we will continue to update the public. And we are also making steady progress on developing a safe and effective H1N1 flu vaccine, and we expect a flu shot program will begin soon. For all that we do in the Federal Government, however, every American has a role to play in responding to this virus. We need State and local governments on the frontlines to make antiviral medications and vaccines available and be ready to take whatever steps are necessary to support the health care system. We need hospitals and health care providers to continue preparing for an increased patient load and to take steps to protect health care workers. We need families and businesses to ensure that they have plans in place if a family member, a child, or a coworker contracts the flu and needs to stay home.

Remarks on H1N1 Influenza Preparedness and Response


The neighbors and friends from across Pennsylvania, it is great to be back in the Keystone State with workers for Trump. I am so grateful y'all came out on a beautiful day, the first day of September as we start the road to victory on November 3. It really is great to be here with so many friends who've supported this president and our administration from day one. Would you join me in thanking someone who has been a fighter for this administration? He has stood strong for an agenda that made America great again in our first three years and seen this state and nation through trying time, It is also great to be here with two future members of Congress who I know are going to stand with this president and our agenda for four more years. Pennsylvania needs to send them to Washington, D.C. It really is great to be with all of you. You can take a seat if you got one, because I am here for one reason and one reason only, and that is that Pennsylvania and America need four more years of President Donald Trump in the White House. It is on, Pennsylvania. It is on and I am so excited to be back with all of you. We had a busy week last week. Did you check some of that out? I mean come Thursday night, President Trump laid out an inspiring vision, an inspiring vision for our second term, a vision of more jobs, better wages, more support for our heroes and that night the president said that voters have never faced a clearer choice. This election, as he said, will decide whether we allow a socialist agenda to demolish our cherished destiny or whether we save the American dream. Standing here in Pennsylvania, I know we are going to vote for America, we are going to vote for four more years for President Donald Trump in the White House. You know I know we are not too far from our opponent's boyhood home, but it is Trump country now. I am here because I stand with President Donald Trump. When this president stands up for faith and family and the American flag, I stand with President Donald Trump. When this president stands up to the radical left and their socialist agenda, I stand with President Donald Trump and when this president stands up for American workers and jobs, jobs, jobs, we stand with President Donald Trump. Four years ago a movement was born and judging from this crowd and everybody I saw on the way here, it looks like that movement's doing just fine in Pennsylvania.

Mike Pence 'Workers for Trump' Event Speech Transcript September 1


It was a movement of everyday Americans from every walk of life. Here in Pennsylvania, you believed we could be strong again. You said yes to President Donald Trump in 2016 and I know that Pennsylvania's going to say yes to four more years of President Donald Trump in 2020. Four years ago we inherited a military hollowed out by devastating budget cuts, an economy struggling to break out of the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Terrorism was on the rise around the world and we witnessed a steady assault on our most cherished values, the freedom of religion and the right to life, and in four short years, we rebuilt our military. We restored the arsenal of democracy and we are once again giving our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and space force the resources and support they need to defend this nation. We revived our economy. We cut taxes across the board, rolled back federal red tape, unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. We stood for all of our God-given liberties, like the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the unalienable right to life. This president stood for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and we always will. We appointed conservatives, more than 200 conservatives at every level including two great Supreme Court justices and every single day, this president and this administration have stood with the men and women of law enforcement all across America. Today, the president is visiting Wisconsin to show support for the people of Kenosha who've been through a lot in the last week. He went there to show support for law enforcement for the National Guard, and President Donald Trump is in Kenosha today to make it clear that we stand for law and order in every city and every town for every American. I saw Joe Biden was in Pennsylvania yesterday. Did you see it? After months of staying silent on riots and looting and violence in the streets of our cities, Joe Biden finally came out of his basement and he actually said we have to stand against violence in every form it takes. Right after that, he criticized law enforcement and he never mentioned any of the anarchists or left wing mobs that have been sewing violence in the streets of our major cities. Joe Biden said yesterday he does not think he looks like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters. But men and women of Pennsylvania, you should know, yesterday Joe Biden never condemned ANTIFA. He never called on Democrat mayors to get their cities under control.


He never called out his campaign staff or his running mate for raising money to bail out violent criminals. Joe Biden never even offered a plan to end the violence. For months all he is talked about is peaceful protesters as the American people have watched businesses and communities in our major cities burn. The truth is Joe Biden would double down on the policies that have led to violence in America's cities. I think you all know you will not be safe in Joe Biden's America. Now President Trump and I will always support the right of Americans to peaceful protest but rioting and looting is not peaceful protest. Burning businesses is not free speech and those who do so will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Too many heroes have died defending our freedom to see Americans strike each other down in our streets. We will have law and order on the streets of this country for every American of every race and creed and color so help us God. And I think the people of Pennsylvania know despite what the many leaders in the democratic party have to say, many voices in the media and those on the radical level, we do not have to choose between supporting law enforcement and standing with our African American neighbors to improve the quality of their lives, their education, their jobs, and safety. From the first day of this administration we have done both and we will keep supporting law enforcement and keep supporting our African American and minority communities across this land for four more years. Joe Biden says America is systemically racist and that law enforcement has an implicit bias against minorities. And when asked whether he'd support cutting funding to law enforcement Joe Biden replied, Yes, absolutely. But under President Donald Trump I will make you a promise, we will always stand with those who serve on the thin blue line of law enforcement. We are not going to defund the police not now, not ever. So, under President Trump's leadership we have stood for a stronger and safer America. We stood up for all of our liberties, we have revived our economy. And in those first three years businesses large and small created more than seven million good paying jobs including 500,000 manufacturing jobs. I have a lot in common. I always used to say back when I was governor of the hoosier state that we did two things well, we make things and we grow things but the last administration lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs.


The last president with his vice president Joe Biden actually said in the summer of 2016 he was asked about manufacturing jobs he says, I do not know what you are going to do to bring them back. He said, What magic wand do you have? Well, the people of Pennsylvania knew we did not need a magic wand we just needed President Donald Trump in the white house, 500,000 manufacturing jobs created in the first three years. In three short years with your support we created the greatest economy in the world. And then the Corona virus struck from China but before the first case of Corona virus spread person to person within the United States our president took the unprecedented action of suspending all travel from China. And I promise you that action saved untold American lives and it bought us invaluable time to stand up the greatest national mobilization since World War II. At the president's direction we marshaled the full resources of the federal government and the American economy. We partnered with private industry to reinvent testing. We produced billions of supplies distributed to our great doctors and nurses and hospital workers around the country. And as we speak we are developing a growing number of treatments that are saving lives across America. And even though Joe Biden said that, No miracle is coming, I have got news for you. We are on track to have the world's first safe and effective Corona virus vaccine by the end of the year. America is the land of miracles. Our hearts go out to all the families that have lost loved ones during the course of this pandemic including the more than 7,000 families here in the keystone state. Know that you have always been in our hearts and you will remain in our prayers. But thanks to the courage and compassion of the American people, the extraordinary work of our healthcare workers, we are slowing the spread, we are protecting the vulnerable, we are saving lives and we are opening up America again. In the days ahead I promise you we are going to continue to put the health of America first. As we work to bring this economy all the way back we all have a role to play but we all have a choice to make. Because of the strong foundation that President Trump and the congressmen and our allies in Washington DC helped us to pour it is amazing to think we have already seen nine million Americans go back to work in the last three months alone including more than 500,000 jobs right here in Pennsylvania.


And just this morning we saw the manufacturing, the backbone of the American economy actually expanded at the highest rate since November of 2018. Men and women of Pennsylvania, because of the strong foundation on which we are standing the great American comeback is happening. But you need to ask yourself and ask your neighbors to come November 3rd. As our economy is beginning to stand back up, as we are putting millions of Americans back to work, you need to ask yourself who do you trust to rebuild this economy. A career politician who presided over the slowest recovery since the great depression or a proven leader who created the greatest economy in the world. The choice is clear to bring America all the way back we need four more years of President Donald Trump in the white house. So, we have been going through a time of testing. As I said just the other night we are soon coming to a time for choosing and on safety and security jobs and values the choice could not be more clear. I mean think about it, in the middle of a global pandemic Joe Biden wants to raise taxes by four trillion dollars. President Trump, well we cut taxes across the board for working families, businesses large and small and we are going to cut taxes again in the next four years. Joe Biden wants to bury our economy under an avalanche of red tape like his own version of the green new deal. President Trump he actually signed more laws cutting federal red tape than any president in American history and we are going to keep chopping for four more years. Joe Biden, he wants to go back to economic surrender with China. He actually said he would repeal all the tariffs that the president put into place that have been leveling the playing field for American workers. President Trump, he stood up to China. He put American jobs and American workers first and we are going to stand strong until we level the playing field once and for all. Also on trade Joe Biden voted for NAFTA, we all know what that did to this economy. But thanks to President Donald Trump NAFTA is yesterday and the USMCA is here to stay. It is a win for American jobs. The experts tell us the USMCA could create up to 600,000 new jobs including 50,000 manufacturing jobs, it is incredible. And where President Donald Trump ended the war on coal, unleashed American energy and we are now a net exporter of energy for the first time in 70 years.


Joe Biden and the radical left want to crush American energy, crush American energy jobs, and raise the cost of electricity for every household and business in Pennsylvania. But yesterday Joe Biden actually went to Pittsburgh and after months of campaigning on a plan to abolish fossil fuels he said, I am not He said, I am not banning fracking. In fact, he said it twice. And then he said President Trump was lying about his record. So let me set the record straight. When Joe Biden was asked last July and I quote, Would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking in a Biden administration? Joe Biden said, quote, No, we would walk it out. Here in Pennsylvania where ending fracking would literally cost a half a million jobs by some estimates, you deserve to know, that when Joe Biden was asked whether he'd be willing to quote, Sacrifice thousands or hundreds of thousands of blue collar jobs for the sake of a radical environmental agenda, Joe Biden said, quote, The answer's yes. And this time last year he told a supporter and I quote, I guarantee, I guarantee we are going to end fossil fuels. Joe, that includes fracking. I mean, what Joe does not know is America's future depends on energy independence. So let me tell all the great workers gathered here at Workers for Trump, whatever you may hear over every day that remains between now and election day, Joe Biden and the radical left are going to try to ban fracking and abolish fossil fuels, but we are not going to let it happen. I guarantee, I guarantee with four more years of President Donald Trump in the White House, we will have more fracking, more American energy, and energy independence for generations to come. So it is been about prosperity and security, but it is also about recognizing that we have a president that knows that if you do not have a border, you do not have a nation. And Joe Biden is for open borders, sanctuary cities, free lawyers and healthcare for illegal immigrants. President Donald Trump has stood by the men and women of customs and border protection. We have made historic investments in border security, and we have already built more than 300 miles of that border wall on the Southern border of the United States. And with four more years, we are going to build it all. And finally, beyond security and safety and prosperity, it is also about values in this election.


For years, Joe Biden took the position that while he supported abortion rights, he did not support using taxpayer funds to pay for abortion. But now Joe Biden supports using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion all the way up to the moment of birth. I could not be more proud to be vice president to a president who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life. President Donald Trump is the most pro-life president in American history. And it is not just been about life, it is been about liberty, and this president has stood strong for the freedom of religion of every American of every faith, and we always will. President Donald Trump in our first year, ended the assault on the Little Sisters of the Poor and the supreme court of the United States made it permanent. Joe Biden, he actually said that he would work to reimpose the Obamacare mandates on those wonderful nuns, but we are not going to let it happen. You know, the choice in this election has never been clear. When you look at that agenda, it is clear, Joe Biden would be nothing more than a Trojan horse for an agenda of the radical left. A couple of weeks back, Joe Biden said that democracy was on the ballot, but I think you all know that our economy is on the ballot, law and order are on the ballot, but there are also things much more fundamental and foundational to our country that are on the ballot as well. I think in this election, it is not so much whether America will be more conservative or more liberal, whether it will be more republican or more democrat, more red or blue. I think the choice in this election is whether America remains America. Whether we are going to chart a course grounded in our highest ideals of freedom and free markets, the unalienable right to life and liberty, or whether we are going to change course as a nation and fundamentally transform our country and our economy into something entirely different. President Donald Trump has set our nation on a path of freedom and opportunity, and Joe Biden would set America on a path of socialism and decline. Men and women, I came to Pennsylvania today because we stand at a crossroads. Joe Biden and the Democratic Party have been overtaken by the radical left. Many of you may have described and identified yourself as democrats in the past. The truth is Democratic Party today is about higher taxes, socialized medicine, open borders, abortion on demand and cutting funding to law enforcement.


It would take our nation on a path of socialism and decline. And so I say to all my fellow republicans, all our independents, and every great democrat gathered here, we need to decide right here and right now that Joe Biden is never going to be president of the United States. We are going to reelect president Donald Trump for four more years. Because for all we have done in those first three years, for all we have done through the trying days of 2020, that is just what President Donald Trump calls a good start. And with four more years, I promise you, four more years means more jobs. Four more years means more support for our troops, and it is going to take at least four more years to drain that swamp. He is a man who says what he means, and means what he says. Now I can tell you firsthand, he is never stopped fighting to keep the promises that he made to the people of Pennsylvania, now it is our turn to fight for him. So I need you to bring it. And when you get out there, have faith. Have faith that even in these divided times that every time the American people have been presented a choice between a future of more freedom or a future of less freedom, the American people choose freedom every time. Tell them I was over at the construction company, I ran into Mike. He talked for like a half hour, just like giving a summary. He said, he talked for like a half hour, just like giving a summary of everything we got done under this president, everything we have been able to do for the American people. I'd also encourage you to have that other kind of faith. It seems as you turn on the television these days, it seems like there is more that divides this country than any time in my lifetime but I will always believe, and I believe it more having traveled across this country as your vice president, that there is always be more that unites the American people than could ever divide us and chief among those things is faith. So I want to say to you, if you are inclined to bow the head and bend the knee from time to time, I encourage you to do that too. And on this one, I am not asking for support for a candidate or a cause or a party.