nominee fraternal counsel to the national intelligence director. activate plan for 5:30 p.m. eastern, a new infrastructure plan is circulating from a bipartisan group of senators trying to get support for the halfling dollar plan. live now to the senate floor where we may reaction to that deal. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, today open the minds of our lawmakers that they may welcome new insights and knowledge you wish to give them. remind them of your admonition

that they should love you with all their minds. lord, give them the wisdom to refuse to cling so tightly to the past that they limit what you can do for them in the future. give them the courage to change their minds when that is needed. lord, may they be tolerant to the thoughts of others and open to the truth wherever they may find it. we pray in your loving name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

all. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, i understand there's a bill, there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the leader is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: s. 2118, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to provide tax incentives for increased investment and clean energy, and for other purposes. mr. schumer: madam president, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i'd object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: now,

madam president, on today's and tomorrow's and this week's business, the senate will soon vote on two more nominees to join president biden's administration -- christopher fonzone to serve as general counsel for the office of director of national intelligence and kiran arjandas ahuja to be the director of office of personnel management. those votes will happen tonight and tomorrow. discussion on a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a budget reconciliation bill both moving forward will continue throughout the week. but tomorrow, tomorrow the senate will also take a crucial vote on whether to start debate on major voting rights legislation. i want to say that again. tomorrow the senate will take a vote on whether to start debate on legislation to protect americans' voting rights. it's not a vote on any particular policy.

it's not a vote on this bill or that bill. it's a vote on whether the senate should simply debate the issue about voting rights, the crucial issue of voting rights in this country. now by all rights, we shouldn't have to debate the voting righto debate voting rights on the floor of the united states senate. these rights should be sacrosanct. but the event of the last few months compel us to have this did this now. why is there such urgency? because of what's been happening in republican legislature after legislature in the last several months. voting rights, the most fundamental right of a democracy, the right that men and women have died for in wartime and in peacetime, the right by which all other rights are secured are under assault. under assault from one end of the country to the other.

in the wake of the 2020 elections, donald trump told a lie, a big lie that the election was stolen from him by voter fraud. there was no evidence for this. his own administration concluded that the 2020 election was one of the safest in history. his lawyers were laughed out of courts, many by republican judges, some by judges he appointed, trump appointed. but he kept saying it anyway. he lied over and over and over again. donald trump lied over and over and over again. poisoning our democracy, lighting a fire between republican state legislatures who immediately launched the most sweeping voter suppression effort in at least 80 years. just a note, how despicable a man is donald trump. he lost an election legitimately. he can't face that, that it was

his failure, and he creates a lie, a big lie. and wins so many people over to that lie with the help of news media and other news commentators who are lying as well, and they know it. again, donald trump with his despicable lies has lit a fire beneath republican state legislatures, and they have launched the most sweeping voter suppression efforts in at least, in at least 80 years. more than 250 bills in 43 states were introduced just between the months of january and february that would restrict the right to vote. do you want to know how many were introduced during a similar period of time last year, the year before donald trump was telling a big lie? 35. 35 in 2020, more than 250 in 2021. today, in june there have been

nearly 400 bills introduced. the only thing thatting -- thing that changed between 2020 and 2021 was donald trump's big lie about massive fraud. and now in states like georgia and iowa and florida and montana, these proposals are becoming law under the vicious guise of election integrity. the words election integrity aren't a guise. there's nothing vicious about them. the way republican legislatures are using those words is vicious and a guise, a falsity, a fakeness. i want my republican colleagues, maybe we can awaken their conscience, maybe on something as sacred as voting rights, i want my republican colleagues to listen to some of the policies that have been proposed by republican state

legislatures and tell me how they're about election integrity, how they're about suppressing fraud. reducing polling hours in polling places, how is that about election integrity? how does that reduce voter fraud? mandating that every precinct no matter how large or small have the same number of ballot drop boxes, a county of a million, or a doint -- county of a thousand, the same number. how does that reduce fraud? what does that have to do with election integrity. no after-hours voting, 24-hour voting. no after-hours voting, no 24-hour voting, no drive-through voting, what does that have to do with election fraud? it certainly has to do with reducing people's rights to vote and ability to vote, but nothing, nothing to do with election fraud. my republican colleagues, how does making it a crime to give food or water to voters waiting in long lines at the polls deter

voter fraud? which really we have found no evidence exists to begin with. very little evidence. and by the way, in so many states, if you're african american, if you're inner city, if you're poor, if you're brown, you have to wait a lot longer than if you're white and in the suburbs. don't give them water. don't allow them to have a drink as they're waiting in the hot sun on lines to vote. yeah, what does that have to do with voter fraud? it has to do with cruelty, it has to do with nastiness, and it has to do with suppressing the vote. allowing a judge to overturn an election, allowing a partisan state election board to replace a duly elected county elections board member if they are underperforming. what does that have to do with

fraud? what does that have to do with fraud? removing student i.d.'s from the list of valid forms of identification. that's election integrity? bunk. we know what you're doing. you don't want students to vote. yeah, don't have students vote. turn them off to the whole process and make america even morale yenated. delaying the hours of sunday voting until the evening, which coincidentally or not so coincidentally by these republican legislatures makes it harder for black churchgoers to participate in voter drives after sunday services. how despicable. does that sound like jim crow, my republican colleagues? it sure does to a lot of us. i challenge my republican colleagues, i challenge you, republican senators, come to the floor, defend these policies.

tell us how they secure the vote. tell us how they prevent nearly nonexistent voter fraud. how does removing student i.d.'s as a valid form of identification secure our elections? do you have any evidence that 40-year-olds are showing up at the polls with fake students i.d.'s? come on, show us. how is criminalizing giving water or food to voters in a line of fraud pre-- in line a fraud prevention measure. got any evidence of that? what arguments do republicans have for restrictions on sunday voting? that's what texas senators -- texas republicans want to do. do any of my colleagues actually have evidence that voter fraud is especially prevalent on the lord's day? please. we know what you're up to. america knows what you're up to.

and not to debate this. or you play to debate it, to not have any good arguments. let's dispense with this nonsense. there is no real principle behind these policies. they are not about election integrity, they are not about voter fraud. these policies have one purpose and one purpose only -- making it harder for younger, poorer, non-white and typically democratic voters to have -- to access the ballot. to give republicans a partisan advantage at the policies by making it harder for democratic-leaning voters to vote. you lose an election, you're not supposed to stop people from voting even if they didn't vote for you. that's not democracy, my republican friends. you lose an election, you're supposed to try harder to win over the voters you lost. republicans across the country

are trying to stop the other side from voting. that tears, rips apart the very fabric of our democracy. disenfranchising millions of americans is bad enough, but there's actually another sinister component of these voter suppression laws. in states like arizona, kansas, arkansas, georgia, republican legislatures are trying to give more power to themselves and other partisan bodies to undermine, override and neuter bipartisan election boards and county election officials. it has always been bipartisan. they didn't like the result. they lost fair and square. get rid of the election board officials when there is no evidence they did anything wrong the cumulative effect will make it easier for followers of trump's big lie for partisan

republicans to rig the rules and try to overturn election results. i read it article in "the new york times" this weekend. you could weep from reading it. they reported that at least 10 members of county election boards in georgia have been removed or are about to be removed in the wake of the new law passed by the g.o.p. legislature. these are the folks who are in charge of selecting ballot drop box locations. they pointed out an african american woman who had made sure that a poor area had a drop box every year. allow people to vote. they want to kick her off the board. no one knows why. but we do know why. there is no real legitimate reason why. according to the "times," who are they kicking off? at least five are people of color, most are democrats, and they're all most likely to be elected by republicans.

please, my colleagues, read this article. read this article, how republican states are expanding their power over elections, by nitkora saniti and reed j.epstein. read this article. can you read this article and still believe what republican legislatures are doing is on the level? can you read this article and believe that they are not trying to jaundice and bias voting in what has traditionally been a process that's free and open and fair? in many places, in most places. read it, just read it. it makes you want to weep what they're doing. this nice lady who just wanted to help her people vote in a fair, honest way gets kicked off

the board -- or is getting kicked off the board. i ask unanimous consent this full article be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: my republican friends are fond of saying they just want to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat in an election. but when you look at what they're actually doing, it's spectacularly obvious that republicans are making it harder to vote and easier to steal an election. the big lie that started with donald trump is infecting them, infecting them. lies don't matter, and they don't matter when it comes to the sacred process of elections. free, open, fair elections where everyone has an opportunity to vote. did my colleagues forget? do you remember what donald trump did? was he interested in a free, open, and fair election? donald trump tried to pressure local officials to overturn a

democratic election in america. it was a stress test on our democracy like -- unlike any in recent history, but our institutions held. so now what do republicans want to do? change the results. change the election officials. again, trump tried to pressure local officials to overturn democratic elections, in a huge stress test on our democracy. our institutions held. local officials certified election results. the courts rejected spurious claims abroad. vice president pence, no less, opened the proper envelopes. the house and senate came together to count the results of the electoral college in the immediate aftermath of an armed insurrection. and now, now because they couldn't win the election and our institutions are democratic -- small d, small d,

democratic institutions held, they want to change who's running the elections to be partisan and biased. republican state legislatures are actively removing many of the barriers that prevented donald trump from subverting our elections. shame, shame, shame. i lay all this information at the feet of my republican colleagues, a sweeping effort to disenfranchise voters mostly black and brown students, working poor, and an attack on what held our democracy together in the face of donald trump's assault. many wondered would trump-appointed judges tell trump lawyers that they are full of bunk and it wasn't fraud. they did. it was a glorious moment for our democracy. and the republican majority here in the senate wants to undo it and doesn't even want to debate

it. you can argue what should be done to protect voting rights and safeguard our democracy, but don't you think we should be able to debate the issue? the vote tomorrow is on -- to my people watching, it's called the motion to proceed. how we get bills on the floor of the senate. it needs 60 votes to be able to be debated. will our republicans let us debate? that's the only question on the table for the united states senate tomorrow. and we're about to find out how my republican colleagues will answer that question. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings -- not in a quorum call. the presiding officer: we are not. mr. mcconnell: later this week, president biden will meet with the leaders of afghanistan's civilian democratic government. it doesn't take a leak to know what will be on the agenda. president gahani will arrive in washington as a grave situation in their country rapidly deteriorates. the strategic and moral

consequences of president biden's decision to abandon afghanistan are already coming painfully into focus. without air cover and with reduced support from u.s.-led coalition, our afghan partners are struggling to hold back the taliban onslaught. in the two months since the president's announcement, extremist militants have taken control of at least 30 of afghanistan's administrative districts. reports from the ground indicate that their heavy-handed medieval rule is creating new nightmares, especially for afghan women and girls. just last week more than 20 of the elite u.s.-trained special forces who represent the country's best hope of resistance were literally slaughtered in a taliban raid.

so, madam president, it's getting harder and harder to believe that over the horizon support will be enough to help afghan partners sustain the fight against these terrorist threats. it's already clear it would intensify challenges to our own national security. this spring the intelligence community warned that the taliban was likely to make gains on the battlefield. as the director of c.i.a. put it, quote, ability to collect and act on threats will diminish. now senior defense officials are portraying a follow-on threats, like the resurgence of al qaeda, as not a matter of if, but when. last week the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs acknowledged that al qaeda still seeks to directly threaten the united states and that it could have the necessary capabilities to do so in two years.

or even less in the case of a taliban victory in kabul. they want to know how we plan to support their defensive campaign without the air support that literally saved soldiers lives. they want to know how we plan to contribute to urgent counterterrorism missions without a robust system for collecting intelligence on the ground. and if president biden is unwilling to reverse course, they want to know who will help protect their fellow citizens forced to flee by the taliban's conquest. the state department is not prepared to efficiently process visa claims from the many afghans who worked closely with our personnel, let alone the massive flow of refugees already on the move. where are the friends of america to turn? where will they turn? it's time for president biden to acknowledge the consequences of

his decision, that a refugee crisis in afghanistan will mean senseless suffering, that the collapse of the afghan state will mean a security and economic crisis across the region, a crisis america and its partners will simply be unable to ignore. that the fallout of our retreat will draw resources away from russia and china and that every bit of it would have been avoidable, totally avoidable. now, madam president, on another matter, as i noted before, senate democrats enter june with an agenda that was designed to fail. the democratic leader planned votes on a host of the left's most radical priorities. none of it was ever intended to clear the senate's appropriately high bar for advancing legislation. instead the failure of their partisan agenda was to show

somehow -- somehow that the senate itself was failing. for months our colleagues built anticipation for the failure. they even started previewing the latest argument they made when it happened apparently the same senate rule a democratic minority had used with abandon was now somehow a racist relic to be abandoned by a democratic majority. in the end, one particular radical proposal took priority, s. 1 is the same bad bill since the house introduced its version back in 2019 with the same nakedly partisan motives. but ever since democrats got the election outcome they wanted last fall, we watched our colleagues actually update the rationale for their latest partisan power grab. states must be stopped from exercising control over their own election laws. so, madam president, the arguments here have one big thing in common with the ones

our colleagues have deployed against the filibuster, debunked claims of racism. remember, the last presidential election saw the highest voter turnout in decades. even amidst a once in a century pandemic. and african american -- an african american turnout was twice as high in mississippi as it was in massachusetts. but when georgia passed targeted updates to its election laws based on lessons learned, democrats billed it as a reducks of jim crowe. even left-leaning fact checks debunked the claims. by then the train of disinformation had left the station, pretty soon any state that dared to deviate from unique pandemic-era procedures faced summary judgment in the court of liberal outrage.

it has the -- the facts tell a different story. the bill that led texas democrats to exercise the rights of a legislative minority last month requires more counties to adhere to new minimum hours for early voting. the oklahoma voting that expanded early voting for elections was passed by a republican legislature and signed by a republican governor. in my state of kentucky, the expansion of both online registration and early voting this spring passed on a bipartisan basis and a democratic governor signed it. democrats will continue to insist that s. 1 is a response to these state laws, but we know it actually predates them and we're starting to see that our colleagues' latest rationale for s. 1 can be flexible when needed. prominent democrats have railed against voter i.d. requirements for years, but now that voter i.d. is among the sticking

points keeping the democratic caucus from uniting behind s. 1, some democrats have started indicating, well, they've had a change of heart. i would commend them for coming around to commonsense positions on that issue that 80% of americans already support but one supposed compromise among some democrats bears more than a passing resemblance to the partisan power grab their party has touted for years. it even introduces its own disastrous new ie abilities like a -- liabilities like a proposal to automate redistricting that is certainly constitutionally dubious. at the end of the day, madam president, which concocted crisis democrats choose as justification for their top legislative priority actually doesn't make much difference. they made it abundantly clear that the real driving force

behind s. 1 is the desire to rig the rules of american elections permanently, permanently in democrats' favor. that's why the senate will give this disastrous proposal no quarter. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, office of the director of national intelligence, christopher charles fonzone of pennsylvania to be general counsel. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, it was october of 2002. i remember the day when in the senate we decided to vote on a question as to whether or not we

would authorize president bush to use military force in afghanistan. we considered the issue of iraq before. 23 of us had voted against giving the authority to president bush. when it came to afghanistan, the argument was different. the argument was that those responsible for 9/11 for killing 3,000 innocent americans were hiding out in afghanistan. and if we didn't ferret the amount of their hiding place and hold them accountable, what nation would we be? i bought that argument. essentially everyone agreed except barbra lee of california. but we voted to use military force in afghanistan under extraordinary circumstances in 2002. now i listened to the republican leader come to the floor and

accuse president biden of abandoning afghanistan, retreating from afghanistan, and he leaves out some salient facts. the negotiation with the taliban which was initiated by president trump was a negotiation to determine who would be in power, what areas they would hold, and when the united states would leave. it was president trump who initiated that negotiation, not president biden. president biden when he took office followed through with it. i applauded him for doing so. i realized -- i think everyone does -- the situation in afghanistan is perilous, but i think we ought to acknowledge the obvious. after the longest war in the history of the united states, after losing over a thousand american lives and tens of thousands wounded, after spending trillions of dollars, we were not winning in afghanistan. we didn't have a winning hand or a winning strategy.

the taliban was still a viable political force and the afghan security forces many times were overwhelmed by that taliban force. i wander why the republican leader from kentucky doesn't do the obvious. he has the authority under the rules of the senate to introduce a measure calling, authorizing the use of military force in afghanistan. if he believes we should stay or send more troops there, that is his right. he can offer that on the floor of the senate. instead of lamenting what has happened there, he has the authority if he thinks we've abandoned the afghan people and should go back into that country, why doesn't he offer that? an authorization of use of military force? i think we know the answer. there's little or no support on his side of the aisle nor on this side of the aisle to make the longest war in american history even longer.

yes, we should be a viable force to try to make concern the afghan people have a fighting chance but after almost 20 years at it, i think we have shown that our strategy was not the winning strategy. madam president, on a different subject, as our nation's -- nations continue to emerge from covid-19 restrictions, vaccinated americans are able to gather safely this past weekend for two happy event, father's day and the first june -- juneteenth federal holiday. these celebrations came at the end of a week that brought welcome news to america. after years, 11 years of fighting the affordable care act, the supreme court finally said to the republicans enough. millions of americans have health insurance at a time when they desperately need it in the midst of a pandemic and your theories on constitution and law are not adequate to end the

affordable care act. thank goodness for that ruling, 7-2 ruling. the administration of course was heartened by that and by the knowledge that we are fast approaching the point where 70% of the adults in america are going to be vaccinated. remember when president biden took office six months ago? yes, we had the vaccines but we hadn't produced them in quantity and we didn't have a plan for vaccinating america. thank goodness. now the united states is leading the world in the effort to vaccinate its population. i thank president biden for that and the resources that we provided to him. we still have a challenge. we still have a threat. the delta variant is much more easily spread than the covid strain that shut down the nation last year. it has now been identified in 41 states. for those holding back and not

seeking a vaccination, they are in greater danger than they were a year ago if the infection comes near them. i hope my republican colleagues will join the democrats in urging americans to be vaccinated as quickly as possible. on a different topic, madam president, last week marked 50-year anniversary of president nixon's declaration of a war on drugs. today america imprisons a greater share of its population than any nation on earth. drugs are cheaper and more easily available than ever and substance abuse is destroying more american families than ever. the greatest harm has fallen on our most vulnerable citizens, particularly low-income americans and communities of color. during the first four decades of the nixon war on drug, america's federal prison population grew by 700%. and the cost of operating federal prisons exploded by

1,100%. today nearly half the people in federal prison are locked up due to drug-related charges. we are learning the hard way we can't jail our way out of a public health crisis. in recent years the senate has come together on a significant bipartisan basis to correct some of the gravest mistakes on the war on drugs. i'm grateful to my friend, the ranking republican member on the judiciary committee, senator chuck grassley, for his leadership in this effort. we have been a partnership, bipartisan partnership that ended up sending the first step act, a reform movement, to president bush to sign into law. pardon me, president trump to sign into law. tomorrow the senate judiciary committee will hold a hearing on another crucial piece of reform. eliminating the disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine earl federal sentencing

-- federal sentencing laws. congress established this disparity at the -- in the 1980's based on fear and mistaken illusions to science. we reduced the disparity with the fair sentencing act but we didn't eliminate it. today a person arrested for 28 grams of crack will receive the same sentence as a person with 500 grams of cocaine powder, even though it's exactly the same drug. this lingering disparity made racial inequities in our criminal justice system even worse, undermined faith in the integrity of our justice system, and worst of all, failed to even curb drug addiction in america. talk about three strikes. we should eliminate the disparity once and for all and there will be a hearing tomorrow. on another matter, madam president, tomorrow our democracy will face one of its greatest tests in the senate.

on january 7 at the close of -- close to 4:00 in the morning, this senate voted to confirm the electoral victory of joe biden to be the next president of the united states. but we all know what happened before that vote. an angry, self-pitying man who would not accept defeat we now know schemed for weeks about how to overturn the election and to continue his presidency. when donald trump's efforts failed and democracy prevailed, he begged a mob to come to washington and deliver him from reality. you've seen the videos and films. the president standing with the white house in the background, railing to this crowd about an election that was stolen, urging them to come to capitol hill and make a difference. he demanded that they come and stop the steal. and then he turned that mob on

the capitol of the united states. those who were here that day will never forget it. the outrageous insurrection that followed was the worst attack on this building and the most prolonged siege of the capitol since the british attacked our capitol in the war of 1812. five people died, more than 140 police officers were injured. it could have been worse. senator lindsey graham, republican of south carolina was right when he said the day after the attack, that mob could have killed us all. the assault on the capitol left our nation shaken and the world in disbelief that it could happen in america. but it was not what one group of -- pardon me -- but it was not what one group of washington power peddlers worried the most. these washington insiders scheduled a private conference call just a few day, two days after this attack on the capitol. they were scrambling to come up

with a plan to kill a democracy reform bill. the call was organized by the koch brothers. among the participants was senator mcconnell. it found its way to the investigative reporter of "new yorker" magazine who wrote about it. according to miss mayor's reporting, the reason the special interests were frightened was because they couldn't find a way to beat s. 1. the koch brothers group poll tested and none of it worked. it wasn't just the democrats who liked the reforms in that bill. it turned out the republicans liked them too. according to a koch representative who hosted the meeting, quote, there's a large, very large chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these types of reforms. surprise, surprise. what's a poor political insider to do when you can't manufacture a reason to vote against a bill? there's only one way to stop it.

and what they referred it was under-the-dome strategies to stop this electoral reform bill. you know what that is? that's the filibuster. the kilibuster. that senate procedure which requires 60 votes. they knew they couldn't win a majority but they knew that it was tough to come up with 60 votes in favor. and that's what i'm afraid we're going to see tomorrow. i hope not. last night i watched with many americans as the movie "selma" was televised. it reminded us of what happened in the 1960's when people like my personal friend and the hero to many of us john lewis marched across that bridge in selma, alabama, trying to speak out for what? voting rights for african americans. he was beaten and bloodied and almost died in the process, but

they mustered the strength to come back again and to resume the march. and they prevailed. in passing a voting rights act that gave a fighting chance for african americans and other people to be able to vote in the future of america. this still is a challenge to us today. why i don't know. we've seen in the recent past six or seven republicans publicly break with donald trump and some of his more outrageous positions and yet they have been strangely silent on that side of the aisle when it comes to what is happening in states across the nation where we have measures taking place that will limit the right of people to vote. what's wrong with this picture? is democracy not at its strongest point when more people are participating? and yet republican legislatures write bill after bill to limit those who -- to vote in the

future. i want to say a word about my colleague senator joe manchin. i want to thank him for his determined efforts to find a compromise on the bill that's coming before us. senator manchin spoke to everyone in sight, republicans, democrats, independents, liberals, conservatives, and he listened. the compromise he proposed is not inclusive of everything i'd like to see in the bill, but the reality is that it would be an improvement. it would help address the dangerous all-out address on voting rights that's taking place in all of these states that i mentioned. it would help put jim crow back in the grave, where he belongs, and it zev's the support of the senate. my last word before i close. i had the honor of serving with senator robert byrd. he used to sit back here. i can remember standing in front of his desk as a united states senator and he told me in his

illustrious senate career the things he was embarrassed by the most. he talked about deregulation of airlines, which took the planes out of his state of west virginia. he talked about a nominee for the eisenhower cabinet who was rejected because he was jewish. he told me he was wrong in the way he voted on those measures. but he said, mr. durbin, more than anything i was wrong on civil rights. madam president, this past saturday was not only juneteenth. it was the 57's anniversary of the senate's passage of the six rights act of 1964. it had been filibustered for two months before it passed. opposition to the bill wasn't divided along party lines. but i'll be honest. my party, the democratic party, particularly southern members of the party, were leading the fight against t one of the most conservative democrats stood on

the floor with an 800-page speech filled with all kinds of reasoning about why civil rights was unnecessary and an infringement on states' rights, an echo of the speech we just heard on the senate floor. that senator's name was robert c. byrd. he spoke on this floor for 14 hours and 13 minutes. when he finished, the majority leader called roll and 71 senators voted to end the filibuster, four more than was needed. ten days later on juneteenth, 1964, the senate pass the civil rights act. on july 2, it passed the house and was signed by president johnson. robert c. byrd would go on to serve for another 46 years in the senate, become majority leader twice, and the longest serving senator in history. he later called his filibuster of the civil rights act, quote, the worst mistake of my life. a decision which he told me personally he deeply regretted.

he would change. he would begin to champion civil rights. when president george w. bush signed the law extending voting rights in 2006 it was robert c. byrd by his side in the oval office, along with ted kennedy and john lewis. when robert byrd died in 2010, john lewis mourned him and called him an ally and true statesman. yet despite all the years that had passed and all the good a. accomplished, many articles of his death stated that he once stood against civil rights. if the last year has taught us anything, life is fragile. so i implore my colleagues who may be wrestling with how to vote tomorrow, this is a vote for history. this is democracy on trial. think about how you want to be remembered by their children's children. if democracy is worth fighting for, even worth dying nor, surely a democracy reform bill

is worthy of debate in the senate. allow the senate to do its job and debate the for the people act. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: i come to the floor today to join my colleague, senator collins from maine, who will be here shortly

who is also the -- my cochair of the diabetes caucus, to reintroduce the improving medicare beneficiary access to innovative diabetes technologies act. this is legislation that would help establish a task force to provide recommendations to help guide's medicare's decisions on coverage and payment for new technologies to improve the lives of people with diabetes. now, i have had the opportunity to see the challenges that families with members who have type 1 diabetes face. my granddaughter, my oldest granddaughter, has type 1, and i know the challenges that her family faces navigating a complex web of insurance coverage rules for technologies. anytime a new technology comes out that would benefit her, to get the insurance companies to adopt those technologies is a huge challenge, and it requires

hours of phone time with the insurance company trying to persuade them that they should provide the coverage. well, we know that these insurance companies often base their coverage and reimbursement rules on medicare, and that's why it's so important for the medicare program to keep pace with the development of new diabetes technologies and devices. i appreciate the opportunity to work with senator collins on a regular basis in the diabetes caucus, and in 2017 we were successful in pressing medicare to cover continuous glucose monitors -- something that seems liberia an obvious choice given the -- something that seems like an obvious choice given the difference it can make for people who have diabetes in ensuring that their blood sugar stays stable. we also worked to enshould you are that medicare provides flexibility. and in the years to come, we

need medicare to make progress toward covering the artificial pancreas, a landmark development that will be the most significant change for people with diabetes since insulin was discovered. but to do this, we shouldn't have to resign ourselves to this piecemeal approach to medicare coverage that requires continuous from congress. we'd an independent body like the one identified in our legislation to help provide recommendations to medicare, so that its coverage of new technologies can adapt more quickly as innovation advances. that's why i'm proud to be here on the floor and proud to join senator collins if reintroducing this bill. i hope that my colleagues will take a look at it, decide that it merits passage and work with us to get that done. so my colleague has arrived on the floor, senator collins.

i was just saying that i was very proud to joining you in reintroducing this legislation and hopefully this session we will be able to get it done. so thank you for your leadership, and i look forward to hearing your comments and to working to get this passed. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. first let me thank my colleague from new hampshire, senator shaheen, for her extraordinary commitment and leadership as my fellow cochair of the senate diabetes caucus. we are introducing a bill to improve access to innovative diabetes technologies for our seniors and other medicare beneficiaries. our bill would create a special task force at the department of health and human services to

examine and resolve barriers that seniors face in accessing the latest diabetes management technologies. new diabetes technologies, such as the artificial pancreas and implantable continuous glucose monitoring systems, allow those who are living with diabetes to better manage their glycemic levels, assess needed therapy on a timely basis, and adhere better to treatment regimes. these technological advances make diabetes easier to manage and, therefore, improve the health of people with diabetes. the market arrival of cutting can-edge diabetes technologies -- of cutting-edge diabetes technologies is something we all

celebrate. however, oftentimes we're finding that patients do not realize the full benefits because many of our nation's seniors find the new technologies to be difficult or impossible for them to afford. i have heard from numerous seniors who when transitioning from employer-provided insurance to medicare were shocked to learn that the technologies that they'd relied upon for years to manage their diabetes are no longer covered because they now have lost their employer-provided insurance, which did cover these technologies, and instead are being covered by medicare. for example, one mainer unfortunately had to face the reality that medicare's coverage denial of a particular sensor

that he needed for his insulin pump meant paying up to $8,000 out of pocket each year if he wants to continue with his current treatment. he wrote, because i am now 65, i am denied care that was available when i was 64. he continued, this approach not only puts me at risk but quite likely is not cost effective. while the sensors are expensive, the cost of ambulance calls and hospitalizations is certainly more. madam president, i could not say it better. it makes no sense for this individual, who has aged into the medicare system, to lose coverage that he had and relied

upon and used successfully to control his diabetes. to better support the adoption of these technologies, our bill would require h.h.s. to create a special task force on the one hand coverage and payment -- task force on coverage and payment for innovative diabetes technologies that would bring all stakeholders from patients to device manufacturers to government officials and health care professionals who are making coverage decisions to the table. the task force would identify and plan for changes in medicare coverage and payment policies to ensure that medicare beneficiaries have access to the latest treatments, to the innovation that are currently available as well as those that are in the pipeline. the task force would also be

tasked with developing strategies for supporting adoption of these technologies. this effort builds on our past advocacy to improve the day-to-day life of individuals with diabetes. in january 2017, in response to the bipartisan effort that senator shaheen and i led, c.m.s. first approved the use of continuous glucose monitors. we also successfully urged c.m.s. last year to support the use of smartphone apps in conjunction with continuous glucose monitors. these are proven lifesaving devices that are relied upon by people with diabetes to provide them with realtime measurements of their glucose levels.

this information is key to preventing costly, sometimes deadly diabetes complications. madam president, while i am pleased that our advocacy has helped spur these policy changes, i remain frustrated that too often medicare lags behind commercial insurance. greater adoption of these new diabetes techniques can help address the explosive growth in the financial and human toll of diabetes. diabetes accounts for an extraordinary one in three dollars in medicare spending. it is paramount that we encourage h.h.s. to adopt a more cost-effective and compassionate approach to treating this

chronic disease that affects more than 30 million americans. the improving medicare beneficiary access to innovative diabetes technologies act encourages a proactive approach to diabetes coverage and payment. i encourage my colleagues to support our efforts. thank you, madam president. and again, my thanks to my partner, senator shaheen, for her leadership in this area. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cornyn: madam president, last week congress notched another bipartisan win for the american people. a bill i reintroduced earlier this year along with senator markey from massachusetts was signed into law finally establishing juneteenth as a national holiday. this bill was unanimously supported in the senate and got an overwhelming vote in the house of representatives, and i was honored to be with president biden at the white house when he is signed it into law late last week. and it was even more special to celebrate with my fellow texans over the weekend. on saturday i was honored to spend the very first juneteenth national independence day in galveston where major general gordon granger and his troops declared that all slaves were forever free. this happened two and a half years after the emancipation proclamation was signed and just

a couple of months after hostilities between the north and the south had ended. but communication being what it is across a huge country, particularly at that time, it took two and a half years for the message to get to the former slaves in galveston, texas, where juneteenth has been celebrated for many, many years. in my state alone we celebrated juneteenth for 40 years as a state holiday. i could not have been more happy to take a piece of history with me, a copy of the bipartisan bill that helped preserve the legacy of juneteenth for generations to come. madam president, this is just one item in a significant list of bipartisan accomplishments we've made in an equally divided senate, which as we all know, is no small thing. legislation to confront the growing threats of china, to

ensure more businesses can grab on to the lifeline of the paycheck protection program, one of the most significant economic assistance -- items of economic assistance that we were able to provide during the covid-19 virus. we provided states with additional resources to upgrade their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, and we passed legislation to combat hate crimes against asian americans. so the truth is notwithstanding what may look like in the news or on cable tv or on social media, every day our colleagues here in the senate continue to work across the aisle to find consensus and craft legislation with bipartisan support where we can. i tell people that legislation is hard to pass by design. and our current rules require us to do the hard work of actually

building consensus on a bipartisan basis before we can pass legislation, particularly in the senate. we continue to do, or work in other important areas like infrastructure, which has been the subject of so much attention and debate, to do police reform, to deal with the high price of prescription drugs. republicans and democrats continue to work together to address some of our most urgent problems. but this week unfortunately the majority leader, the senator from new york, has decided to take another tack. he's chosen to spend the senate's time on partisan legislation that simply has no chance of becoming law. that's his choice. he gets to set the agenda, and our only role is to show up, debate the bill, and cast our ballot. our democratic colleagues have given the markey treatment, the

bill known as s.1, meaning the first, most important bill in their agenda. but rather than a bipartisan bill that will be good for the entire country, not just one political party or the other, the majority leader has chosen to tee up this massive federal election takeover bill. this legislation first popped in 2019 when the newly elected democrat majority in the house went on a messaging bill spree. a messaging bill is one that you really know will never become law, but it sends a message. and over the last two years they've tried out a range of different marketing strategies. that's really all it is. it's not about passing legislation. it's about sending a message, trying to gain partisan political advantage. but they tried a range of marketing strategies to convince

the american people that this overhaul to our election system is necessary. at one point it was a matter of election security. then voter confidence. then a way that removed obstacles that prevented people of color from voting. well, i've got some news for them. in 2020, we saw record election turnout. two-thirds of all eligible voters cast a ballot. that was the highest turnout in 120 years. and it wasn't confined to any single racial or ethnic group. it was across the board. we saw african american voter participation at virtually at an all-time high. the same with hispanics and every other ethnic and racial group. notwithstanding the facts that people are turning out to vote in historic numbers, they had

to come up with a new sales pitch. they had to attack the efforts in the states to pass their own election laws which handle the time and manner in which state elections are run. and to me, the consistent theme was making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. to me, that's the simple message i think we ought to be sending when it comes to our election laws. so that's what our colleagues latched on to. but over the last few months they've twisted and turned and manipulated the facts beyond any recognition. they've tried to frame new state voting laws as the impetus or the reason justifying this massive federal takeover unconstitutionally, in my view, takeover of state voting laws. they painted an a large picture of the assault on voter access.

but if you actually take time to look at these so-called restrictions in voting, you'll find they're more generous than the current law in many democratic-controlled states. there's no better example than the georgia law which came under national security ni -- scrutiny that -- that came scrutiny. here are the facts, madam president. in georgia, the law that people claimed was racist and designed to prevent people of color from casting their ballot during the early voting season before end-day, on election day voting, the new georgia law provides 17 days for in-person early voting. how about massachusetts, currently represented by two democratic senators?

well, massachusetts provides 11 days. delaware, represented by two democrats, the state, home state of our president, it provides 10 days of early voting. new jersey, also represented by two democratic senators, provides nine days, almost half of what georgia has provided for in its new election laws. but what you heard across the news media, cable tv, social media, the like, was that somehow, some way georgia had conspired to restrict the rights of african american and other minority voters from casting their ballot. but the facts prove otherwise. but this is the type of hypocrisy that we're seeing in this debate. as i said, new jersey recently passed a law, just recently passed a law that expanded

in-person voting to nine days. did anyone claim that this was somehow a jim crow relic or a racist act or violating the rights of african american and other minority voters? of course not. was new jersey treated the same as georgia was in the popular media where it was suggested that somehow this was a racist effort to restrict minority access to voting? of course not. but the new jersey governor took it a step further. he actually criticized georgia for what he called restricting the right of georgians to vote. but his own state provides half the opportunity that the new georgia law does to cast your ballot. obviously this was a bunch of political talk and an attempt to try to intimidate congress and the american people into this federal takeover of state election laws.

we've heard similar attack lines from a number of our democratic colleagues who have falsely tried to brand this law as a form of voter suppression, even though it's more generous than current laws in a number of blue states. well, here's some more facts. we've heard a lot of talk about mail-in ballots. the georgia law sets a deadline of 11 days before the election to request a mail-in ballot. but in the state of the majority leader, senator schumer, new york, voters only receive a week. so you receive, you've got 7 days prior to election to request a mail-in ballot in new york, 11 days in georgia, and for some reason our democratic colleagues focus on georgia and claim this is some sort of

conspiracy to diminish and restrict minority voting, which is clearly false. in new york, you also have to have a reason for voting absentee. but in georgia, no excuse need to be given. you can do so as a matter of right, even if you're going to be in town, even if you're otherwise able to vote. if you find it more convenient to cast your ballot by mail in georgia, you can do so. but not in new york. if any state tries to enact policies that suppress the votes of minority voters, there is a law in place currently, section 2 of the voting rights act, that gives the u.s. government the right to sue that state or jurisdiction and make sure that minority voters have equal access to the ballot. smskt, the voting -- as a matter of fact, the voting rights act has been one of the most successful laws ever passed by a federal congress, and the

historic turnout i referred to a few moments ago, i think is the best evidence of that. minority voters across the country are voting in historically high numbers, which, to me, is the best evidence that the voting rights act is doing exactly what we hoped it would do when we passed it and when we reauthorized it just a few short years ago. so if this isn't a solution to efforts to restrict minority voting, what exactly is this bill that we will be voting on tomorrow, s. 1? well, the truth is it's a partisan solution to a problem that doesn't exist. this law, if passed, s. 1, which we will vote on tomorrow, prevents the states from requiring identification from voters to vote. in other words, you don't have to show a driver's license or

some other means of identification in order to cast your ballot. but in the jimmy carter, james baker iii commission -- i think it was 2005 -- that bipartisan commission recommended voter i.d. as one of the important ways to maintain the integrity of the ballots so that the voting officials know you are who you say you are and indeed you can check your name against the voter rolls to make sure that you're legally authorized to cast a ballot. but senator schumer's effort to pass s. 1, which we will vote on tomorrow, prevents the states from having for voter identification, even when virtually every state provides that identification card free. if you don't drive, they'll provide you a free card, and you can use alternative means of identification, but not if senator schumer's s. 1 bill were

to pass. this s. 1 would also tie the states' hands when it comes to maintaining accurate voter rolls, so if people have moved out of the state or if voters have passed away, this law would tie the hands of the states to make sure that those names were removed from the voters' rolls which would make it more likely that fraudulent efforts to cast those ballots on behalf of voters who either didn't exist or moved out of state is possible, but s. 1 would tie the hands of the states to periodically purge dead voters from the voter rolls. this would also encourage something called ballot harvesting. now, some states provide for ballot harvesting, but many, thankfully, do not. but ballot harvesting simply makes it possible for a partisan in a political campaign to go around and collect ballots -- maybe at nursing homes, maybe at shopping malls, maybe at other

places, and then they deliver those ballots to the voting clerk at the designated place and time. but you can imagine if the chain of custody of those ballots is not traced and tracked and monitored, just think of the opportunities that could provide for fraud. this bill also would alter the makeup of the bipartisan federal election commission to give the democratic party an advantage. right now, there are equal numbers of republicans and democrats on the federal election commission. that's the way it should be. but this bill, s. 1, would give the democrats a partisan advantage. a big mistake. and here is maybe the biggest insult to the taxpayers. so whether or not you sporadic political candidate or the platform that candidate runs on, you can be forced to contribute

your tax dollars to that political candidate to help them run and win the election. this is government funding, really taxpayer funding of political campaigns. and i believe it's a two to six ratio if i'm not mistaken. for every $2 that the candidate raises, they get $6 in taxpayer funding to run their campaign. and that's your hard-earned money that you have made -- that you have paid in taxes that's being used to promote ideas and candidates that you don't support. well, i could go on and on. the list of absurdities is a long one. but our friend, the senior senator from california, summed it up pretty well earlier this month. she said if democracy were in jeopardy, i would want to protect it, but i don't see it being in jeopardy right now, close quote. so, mr. president, there is no voter suppression crisis,

certainly not a systemic one, and if there is a problem with suppressing minority votes, there is authority available under the voting rights act for the attorney general appointed by joe biden and confirmed by the senate to be able to go after them. there's no widespread effort to stop voters from casting a ballot, and there is no desire to hand states constitutional authorities over to the federal government. our democratic colleagues are struggling to accept this reality. they spent the last several days working behind the scenes to negotiate a compromise among themselves. well, there was never a question of whether or not this would be a bipartisan bill because of the overreach that i have just talked about. the question was whether or not the bipartisan opposition seen in the house will continue in the senate. but even if democrats were to accept all of the changes proposed by senator manchin, the

senator from west virginia, and endorsed by stacey abrams, the rotten core of this bill remains the same. this is a politically motivated federal takeover of our elections, and it will not stand. the constitution doesn't give the democratic party or the republican party to govern how states run their elections. that's reserved to the states by the constitution of the united states of america. i will firmly oppose any effort to hand texas' constitutional rights to regulate and conduct its elections to the federal government. the one-size-fits-all federal mandate won't improve public confidence in our elections. it will be seen for the -- for what it is in a transparent way, a partisan political takeover, a coup d'etat, really, of the way that our elections are run. elections should be run by the

folks who are elected and who are accountable to the states. in my state, texas. and certainly not partisan political actors with an agenda here in washington, d.c. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the measure. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to -- i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 172. the presiding officer: the question is on the measure. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, deborah l. boardman of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of maryland. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 172, deborah l. boardman of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of maryland, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 128. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion.

all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, candace jackson-akiwumi of illinois to be united states circuit judge for the seventh circuit. mr. schumer -- the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on executive calendar number 128, candace jackson-akiwumi, of illinois, to be united states circuit judge. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, january 21, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: madam president, before i begin, i first want to take a moment and remember those who lost their lives in a horrific car accident in butler county, alabama, this past weekend. ten people lost their lives. nine of those were between nine months and 17 years old. a majority of those killed were in a girls ranch bus. the organization is something i have been involved with for 20 years. it handles young kids who have been abused, young kids that have no parents. they started this ranch at most any age and everything's paid for all the way through graduation of college.

these kids were on a field trip coming from baldwin county, alabama, this past weekend. involved in this horrific crash, there's no words that can bring comfort to these families or these children, but my family and my staff and the people of alabama are praying for peace for all these affected during this unimaginable time. madam president, as i and others have noted, democrats call their flagship voting bill for the people act. but a better and more fitting title is the answer in pelosi power grab act. my republican colleagues have done a good job of highlighting the many flaws of this legislation in the past couple of weeks, including doing away with commonsense fraud protection like voter i.d., forcing mandatory same-day

registration on every state, allowing paid political operatives to harvest voter ballots and directing taxpayer dollars to the campaigns of progressive politicians. sadly there's plenty more. but let me also note that this recent, quote, compromise is anything but a compromise among democrats should have been their starting offer to republicans, not their final offer. the most recent versions still run afoul of the constitution, by trampling on the first amendment rights of free speech and taking away redistricting from the states and while i.d. is still required to vote, the bill expands what kind of i.d. is needed for that requirement, such as a utility bill. the last time i looked there was not a photo on our utility bill.

the most secure form of identification is a government-issued photo i.d. states shouldn't be forced to water that down. america's -- americans want faith and trust in the integrity of their election process. this bill does not provide solutions to strengthen these processes and once americans learn what's in this bill, they will agree. the pelosi power grab yanks power from the states. the pelosi power grab let's politicians stuff their pockets with taxpayer dollars. and guess what, folks, a the lightly different version of a federal takeover of election is still a federal takeover of elections. that's exactly what this new version of s. 1 is.

it's hard to even call this version of s. 1 a compromise when the democrats only compromise with members of their own party. this was in the a bipartisan negotiation to get an end product that both sides of the aisle could support. the last time i checked, we still have a 50-50 senate. there has been no negotiation with our side. but regardless of its form, this bill does not solve the problems currently facing our election system. it makes the problems worse. you know in sports one team changing the rules by themselves is called cheating. it is seen for what is a power grab, it is stacking the rules to win the game instead of doing the hard work necessary to get the job done. folks may be scratching their

head as to why one political party thinks they can completely change the rules of elections all by themselves. but if you've been paying attention to what the progressives have been up to recently, it won't come as a big surprise. changing our country as we know it is the end game. that's why they want to pass this pelosi power grab so those who disagree with them have a harder time winning at the ballot box. but it's not just elections. remember when they tried to hoodwink us with defund the police last year, remember when they tried to walk that back, but they had made their position very clear. and now we're seeing the same thing with education as critical race theory is pushed on school districts across the country.

simply put critical race theory reinforces divisions on strict racial lines. it doesn't teach kids moral values like treating everyone with respect regardless of race, it's just the opposite. critical race theory teaches kids to hate one another. that's one thing schools should absolutely -- absolutely not be teaching, but, again, for democrats it's about changing the way we view our country. what we should be focusing on is actually improving education all over this country. the american people need to realize how far we've fallen behind. as the columnist mark stein wrote, education is the biggest structural defect in our society.

we have almost entirely corrupt and abusive education establishment. here's where that education establishment has got us. we're 37th in the world in math, 13th in reading, 18th in science. in 2019, only 35% of our fourth graders -- 35% of our fourth graders were able to read at the fourth grade reading level. 35%. embarrassing. that was lower than two years before and it was before the teachers unions kept kids out of school all of this past year. you can imagine how it is today. it is unacceptable. it should be unacceptable to every member of this body. we've got china outpacing us in every industry and at every

level of our economy, but democrats are too busy painting the united states as the world's villain. how can we expect our young people to defend the united states abroad if they don't learn about the things that make america the greatest country in the history of the world. we, as elected representatives of americans across the country, should be doing everything -- and i mean everything -- we can to create opportunity and to protect the freedoms that make this country great. it seems like folks across the aisle aren't interested in that. they have a completely different vision of and for our country. one that most americans don't agree with at all. i bet if you asked folks back home if they want a bigger

government and less state and local power, they'd say no way. i bet if you asked them if a federal power grab sounds like a good idea, they would say no. i bet if you asked them if they want their kids to learn to be more divided by race, they would also say no. they would tell you that they want their freedoms protected. they would tell you they want the federal government out of the way. they want an education for children that provides opportunity because education is the key to freedom and success. education can unlock every student's god-given potential. but critical race theory swallows that key. the pelosi power grab just fills the lot with cement.

ladies and gentlemen, for this for the people act is one party's attempt to rewrite the rules -- rewrite the rules of the game in hope that they'll get a permanent advantage plain and simple. it's really shame. we're spending so much time on bills that the american people don't want, bills that don't have bipartisan support. so i urge my colleagues to come together and find solutions that will unite us as americans, not divide us further as a country. thank you, madam president. mr. tuberville: i suggest a quorum call.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. a senator: thank you, madam president. i'm here today to address democrats' deceptively labeled for the people act, which should more accurately be labeled the for the politicians act. this legislation represents a breathtaking unprecedented power grab. in a 50-50 senate this is an attempt by those who are in power by the slimmest possible margin to take over and rewrite the election and campaign rules for all 50 states in one fell swoop. this would ensure that candidates from that same party win elections.

in fact, while only the supporters of the bill are democrats, there is opposition to the legislation. mr. hagerty: this would set election rules for their states in accordance with the wishes of their citizens. and this partisan legislation would wash away integrity measures, making it easier to cheat. each ballot vote cast dilutes the strength of each ballot vote cast. this rests on the voter's faith and the integrity of our election. if we allow that to be compromised, we're allowing our american system to be eroded. democrats don't want to talk about the details of the legislation. they don't want you to peek under the hood. they want to jam it through and disparage and name call anyone who opposes it. so let's take a look at exactly

what's in this legislation. under this legislation, the a federal -- a federal politician running for election could take millions of taxpayer money for his or her own campaign. the legislation says that states must then allow that politician to pay political operatives to visit nursing homes, dormitories, other residences to collect thousands of ballots and then choose which ones to be dropped into unmanned drop boxes. maybe in the middle of the night. this bill would make it illegal to states to verify the identity of voters at the polings. under this bill -- polls, under this bill, ballots arriving even a week after election day would still be counted. it would require states to adopt universal mail-in voting practices. states would be forced to allow murderers, rapists, and child molesters to vote, even if state citizens have adopted laws to prevent it. it would require states to allow unregistered voters to cast ballots by simply showing up on election day and signing a form

without an i.d. and with no vetting allowed. the bill would silence political speech by religious and nonprofit organizations while politicians can use taxpayer dollars for attack ads which many americans would find distasteful. the bill provides if the bill disputes -- anyone disputes this, they can lodge the complaints with the federal election commission, a body that has been bipartisan since its creation but wait. in addition to changing the rules to benefit one team, the legislation also buys off the empire by transforming the f.e.c. into a partisan, democrat-controlled body, a body that can hound the opposing party candidates to the ends of the earth. this bill transforms the judge into the prosecutor. i wish that was all the legislation did. it also snatches the responsibility for drawing congressional districts for the elected representatives of all 50 states who have done their

job for the last 230 years and it sets up a byzantine process that would ultimately handed over to an academic consultant hired by a liberal judge right here in washington. let me repeat that a consultant hired by a judge in washington, d.c. will be drawing every congressional district in the country. using government power to seize control of elections to limit speech, to pack tribunals to make sure the ruling party stays in power, that sounds like a headline you'd hear in venezuela, russia, iran and even china. not the united states of america. not too long ago both parties would have considered this partisan power grab beyond the pail but far-left operatives want permanent power and democrats eager to keep the power to themselves are afraid to tell them no. democrats are now characterizing this legislation as an emergency response to recent legislation in a few states.

this legislation isn't just a solution in search of a problem. it's a power grab that for years has been in search of a crisis, any crisis, manufactured or otherwise, that can be used to justify it. democrat operatives introduced a previous bill on january 24, 2017, four days after president trump took office. the purported crisis then was the american people's election of donald trump, which the democrats found unacceptable. they continued this effort by introducing yet another version of the for the politicians act in 2019 which that time passed the house without a single republican vote. like the bill the senate will consider this week, this bill was a democrat operatives electioneering fantasy federalizing limited mail voting, prohibiting voter i.d. requirements, and allowing unregistered voters to show up and vote on election day. wisely the senate in 2019 never

took it up. then as the pandemic took root in the spring of 2020, democrats in search of yet a new crisis to justify this bill included it in a pandemic relief bill that the house passed, again without a single republican vote. once again the senate dismissed it and wisely focused on providing partisan pandemic relief rather than using the pandemic as a justification to federalize elections. with the pandemic now in the rearview mirror, this legislation is being pitched as necessary to preserve voting rights, using cartoonish, overheated and falls characterizations of a few sensible measured voting integrity laws that have recently been enacted by states. why? because democrats have to invent a new crisis every six months or so to conceal this quest to install themselves permanently into power. don't let them fool you. this isn't about some state election law. the house passed virtually the

same bill last year. most of the components of this bill have been floating around democratic national committee backrooms for years. this isn't about voting rights. this legislation protects voting rights like banning security guards at banks would protect bank depositors. now why are the democrats so desperate to pass this bill? a recent report from "politico" explains it. "politico" says what's at stake is potentially the future democratic majorities. many in the party privately worry that frontline democrats could lose their seats if congress doesn't pass this bill. so to keep power, democrats have determined they have to take over state elections. this is about holding on to power and nothing else. there doesn't seem to be a power grab that's too extreme for the modern left, whether it's this bill, legislation to pack the supreme court, suddenly changing their position and pushing to scrap fundamental senate rules

in order to change short-term political gains, or adding washington, d.c. as a state. it's all about one thing, fulfilling a fantasy of permanent democrat power. under this legislation american elections would no longer be about earning the support of voters by communicating a powerful vision. rather american elections would be all about creating the largest machine identifying favorable voters and mass gathering their ballots door to door as efficiently as possible. the winning campaign would be the one with the largest army of ballot harvesters to drive voters, registered or unregistered, with or without i.d. to fill out and hand over a ballot that will be dropped on their behalf in unmanned ballot boxes. americans want commonsense laws that make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. such laws currently exist throughout the country. that's why we had record

breaking voter participation in 2020 including in my state of tennessee. this legislation is as unnecessary as it is misguided and dangerous. it's a politician protection measure that would do irreparable damage to the fabric of this country and it should be soundly rejected by this body. mad cham chair -- madam chair, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, this saturday was juneteenth, the first official juneteenth

recognized by the federal government as a national hol holiday. the official end of slavery in america. i commemorated and celebrated juneteenth with my colleague senator van hollen at a meeting of the ncaa -- of the naacp in maryland and reflected on the progress that we made since the end of slavery and the challenges that still remain. it's been a long path towards justice and equality in this country, and i think we all recognize the wisdom of dr. martin luther king, jr. with his famous quote that the moral arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. i think we all believe that but in recent actions taken by state governments to restrict voting rights, we've seen some very disturbing trends that would

take issue with dr. king's statement that the moral universe is bending towards justice. it seems like it's taken a detour. voting rights is a fundamental issue of importance to a democratic country. madam president, after elections are over and we win, we celebrate. we celebrate the fact that we've gotten the support of the majority of the voters and that was what democracy is all about. if we don't win, i think many of us have been involved in campaigns where our candidates have not been successful. we go to work to try to attract more voters in the next election so we can celebrate a victory. that's what participation in a free society is all about. that's what democracies are about. in repressive, autocratic are jeems, -- regimes, they'll never

accept the will of the people so they look at ways in which they can undermine the voter record w,what the voters want to dorks the voters' -- to do, the voters' will. in the 2020 elections we should all celebrate the record number of people who cast their bal ballots. it was a record. most ever in casting their votes for the presidency of the united states. there was repeated reviews done by both democrats and republicans. at the national level and the state level, at the local level. and it verified the simple fact that there was no widespread corruption, that the will of the people prevailed and joe biden, kamala harris were elected president and vice president of the united states. but that did not stop former president trump in promoting the big lie. as a result of that, several

states have now taken action to make it harder for people to cast their votes. the brennan center has pointed out that we've seen the worst assault on voting rights since jim crow. 14 states have enacted 22 new laws to make it more difficult, more difficult for people to vote. this is unprecedented in modern times. so what are those laws -- so what have those laws done? made it more difficult for voters to vote by mail recognizing that for many voters, they prefer to vote by mail. we have states that have a hundred percent voting by mail. there's been no indication of fraud in voting by mail. states have shortened the time for requesting mail-in ballots for voting making it more difficult for individuals to be

able to vote by mail, requiring certain requirements to vote by mail, making it more difficult to deliver their mail ballots, limiting the availability of mail ballot drop boxes. all of that had been included. why? because it makes it more difficult for people who are likely to vote for my opponent to vote. that's what the state legislatures are doing. stricter signature requirements, making in-person voting more difficult, and purging voter rolls simply because a person did not vote. again making it more difficult for people to vote. and it goes on and on and on on the types of legislation that has already passed or is currently being considered by many state legislatures around the country, making it more difficult to register to vote,

making it more difficult to vote, targeting potential voters more likely to vote for their opponents, targeting minorities, young voters, and older minority voters. let me just give one example. using georgia as a specific example, the recently enacted changes will disproportionately hurt black voters. the georgia state lawism poses voter identification requirements on absentee ballots makes it hard to request an absentee ballot, and makes it a crime for groups to provide food and water to voters waiting in line. georgia is basically restricting mail voting in response to a shift in their racial demographics of the voters who use it. on the other hand, georgia wants to keep mail voting available for older white male voters. voter suppression is always unacceptable and the razor thin political margins in georgia may mean that the suppression efforts like these will change

political outcomes rather than imposing barriers to casting the sacred right to vote, georgia should be looking at ways to improve voter access. as "the new york times" pointed out, the georgia law comes with the heels of a major jowp set for -- upset for republicans in the traditionally red state after voters picked joe biden in the presidential election and elected democrats to both the state's u.s. senate seats. the paper noted that the new georgia law will in particular curtail ballot access for voters in booming urban and suburban counties, home to many demo democrats. president biden was right to call this legislation the jim crow in the 21st century. there are many other examples. georgia is not unique. the efforts we're seeing to suppress voter participation at elections.

look, it's fair game to try to persuade voters to vote for your candidate. it's not fair game to suppress the right to vote. so what is the vote this week all about? the vote that we're going to have on bringing forward the opportunity to debate voter suppression legislation to protect the right to vote. it's simply a motion to proceed with a debate on the senate floor. let me repeat that. we're not voting on s. 1, the passage of it. we're not voting on any specific proposal. i know my friend from west virginia has offered a proposal. we're not voting on that. we're voting on the right for the senate to take up this critically important issue. or whether it should be filibustered so we can't bring up a voter issue to protect the

integrity of the right to vote. now, i support s. is. i am a cosponsor of s. 1, for the people. i'm proud to support the provisions of that bill. to me, it is carefully drafted legislation to deal with the modern threats to voter participation. and i am extremely proud that my colleague from maryland, congressman john sarbanes, is the principal sponsor of h.r. 1. it already passed the house. it provides a basic federal floor on protection of the right to vote, on voter registration, on voter-by-mail, no-excuse balloting, two weeks of early voting, including weekends, no notary requirement for absentee ballots, dropoff boxes. it's a simple voter protection against -- this is simple voter protection against the actions being taken by state legislatures that are aimed at

certain demographic groups. a federal floor. it ends political gerrymandering. i don't know how any of my colleagues can defend the way that legislative and congressional lines are drawn today. i came from the state legislature. i'm a former speaker of the house. i was responsible for one of the redistricting plans in maryland when i was speaker of the house. it's just a horrible partisan political process that we use today to draw congressional lines. i've been accused by my congressional colleagues in the house from maryland that i ran for the senate to avoid having to deal with congressional redistricting. there may be some truth to that. but i can tell you this -- it is time to end the political gerrymandering. congressional districts should represent the communities'

interests, not an individual congressman's interest. s. 1 takes a major step forward in ending political congressional redistricting by gerrymandering. it provides a commitment by congress to advance preclearance formula that was in the voting rights act of 1965 that now is nonoperative because of the shelf by county decision. it puts us on the path to once again have that important tool available in order to deal with the freedom and right to vote. it promotes voter security, s. 1, by eliminating the paper ballot -- by requiring the ballot, i should say. i think we should all be able to agree that we want to verify votes. the only way you can is if there is a paper trail. and it provides thor that paper trail.

it puts an end to the dominance of big money in the political system. it does that in a couple ways. one -- disclosure. how can anyone be against the disclosure of who's putting money into our political system? and, secondly you a providing a way in which we can get rid of the dependence upon large special interest dollars. it includes, s. 1, two provisions that i offered. one -- dependive process act that deals with false and deceptive advertising aimed at minority communities to confuse and mislead their votes. and it includes the democracy restoration act that i authored that deals with laws passed after the end of slavery in an effort to prevent african americans from voting. for, you see, there are states that passed laws back then that

are still on the books that disqualify for a lifetime a person convicted of a felony. the definition of felony is pretty general in many states, so we have states where one out of five african americans have been disqualified from voting because of their conviction of a felony, even though they are fully part of our society today. they don't have the right to vote. we need to remove that disqualification on voting. my friend, our former colleague, john lewis, the two of us were elected to the united states house of representatives on the same day, in an editorial published after his death, our former colleague john lewis recalled an important lesson taught by dr. martin luther king, jr. and i quote our former colleague. he said, each of us has a moral

obligation to stand up, speak up, and speak out. when you see something that is not right, you must say something. you must do something. democracy is not a state. it is an act. and each generation must do its part. well, madam president, we cannot take action if we don't start, and we can't start unless my colleagues allow us to proceed to this issue on the floor of the united states senate. there's a reason why there are so many groups behind us taking action. i have a facebook live that i do every two weeks with my constituents. jenna morgan who represents over

180 groups from labor to racial justice groups, faith groups, women's rights groups, environmental, good governance groups, all telling us that we need to move forward to protect our democracy, that the senate needs to act on this issue. one of my guests, virginia k. solomon from the league of women voters -- now, the league of women voters, you can say a lot of things about them, but you can't accuse them of being partisan. because they're none. it is one of our premier nonpartisan institutions in america. they have a proud history. they're telling us to take this bill up and act for the sake of he can prosecuting our democracy. -- for the sake of protecting our democracy. vote on amendments and concerns whether they're offered by 0 republican senator or -- by a republican senator or democrat senator. that's what the motion to

proceed allows us to do, to take up these issues so we can vote on them. but if you vote to filibuster the motion to proceed, we can't even bring the issue up on the senate floor for action. madam president, i urge my colleagues not to filibuster the right of the united states senate to start the debate on he can prosecuting voter -- on protecting voter integrity, where each member will have an opportunity to debate the issue and collectively we can come together. as many of my colleagues have offered suggestions about how we can improve s. 1, how we can make it a broader consensus. but we can't do that unless we have the right to proceed to a debate. i urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion on the motion to proceed so the senate can take up this most critically important issue to the preservation of our democracy and the integrity of the right

to vote. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ten tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to complete my remarks prior to the roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. if the constitution is the foundation of our republic, then the concept of one person, one vote is the cornerstone. it's also a promise that every single eligible voter in america takes with them into that voting booth on election day. it gives them confidence that their vote matters. it helps them to keep the faith in our electoral system and in their local government. we can talk about the vote on a grand scale here in washington, but that's where it really matters -- back home, at your

local polling place, in your home county, and in the precincts with the people who do the work of stands up elections, running elections, and certifying their own elections. madam president, it is of the people, by the people, for the people that this process is carried out in each and every one of our counties. and, you know what, madam president? that is how it is supposed to be. article 1, section 4, of our constitution clearly states -- here it is -- the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. well, how about that?

the constitution delegates that authority to the state legislatures. and that is why our state, secretaries of state work with our counties to make certain that the process is put in place. you know, i have had the opportunity to serve on my county's local election commission prior to my being in elective office. one person, one vote. that is the number-one rule that guided the decisions they made. when we recruited poll workers, it's the number-one concern that drives people to go sign up. when we trained the volunteers that are staffing polling places, it's the number-one rule to teach. every person gets one vote.

all legally cast votes are counted. that's the way it is supposed to work. one person, one vote. here in the senate, i'm concerned that my democratic colleagues have forgotten about this rule. why else would they once again pledge to move a piece of legislation that would throw one person, one vote out the window? many of my republican colleagues have taken to callingss had 1 or s. 1. politicians protection act or the for the politicians act. and i will have to agree, that is a fairly apt description. now, there are a lot of problems with this bill, but i want to focus on a few key provisions that will gut one person, one vote and destroy confidence in our elections.

if this bill passes, say goodbye to meaningful voter i.d. laws. now, my democratic colleagues kept the idea of these requirements intact, but to please their radical base, they added a loophole that would force every single jurisdiction to accept affidavits in lieu of identification. that is right -- an affidavit. they may as well have banned voter i.d.'s because that loophole makes requirements that voters prove they are who they say they are absolutely meaningless. they can just sign a statement saying, i am who i say i am, without having to show proof. the bill also requires states to allow paid campaign operatives

to engage in ballot harvesting schemes. that is right. this allows your paid campaign operatives to engage in ballot harvesting schemes. now, these ballot harvesting schemes have been proven time and again to increase the risk of fraud so much so that many states own their -- on their own moved forward and banned ballot harvesting schemes. why did they ban this? because it leads to fraud in elections. inexplicably, my colleagues also want to throw ballot drop boxes into the mix. they've pitched them as a convenience, but that convenience will be nearly impossible to monitor and to protect 24 hours a day, which means that it will be nearly

impossible to monitor and protect the ballots that are inside those boxes, and these boxes then become a fairly convenient way to stuff the ballot box. but perhaps the most dangerous, counter productive and outright infuriating provision my democratic colleagues have r included in this mess of a big is a restriction against voter roll maintenance. anyone with a bit of common sense knows how inaccurate or duplicative entries in a data set can add up. that leaves these data sets in a state of disrepair and that is how fraud and mistakes occur. it's just one more provision in a bill raising red flags for local officials in every single state in this country. and this red flag in particular

is prompting people to ask me if my democratic colleagues involved in drafting this bill have ever actually volunteered at a local polling place, which that really tells you a lot about how shortsighted this legislation is. madam president, this bill really doesn't have anything to do with voting rights. this is a politically motivated federal takeover of elections that would give us the exact opposite of what's laid out in the constitution. the founders, the founders granted the states power over their own elections for a reason. the federal government is beyond incompetent to get this job done. if you like the service you get from the i.r.s. or the e.p.a. or osha, that's what you could expect the next time your

community has an election. if we allow this bill to pass, the promise of one-person,one-vote will crumble. the promise of counting eligible ballots and not counting ineligible ballots would go by the wayside. and what do you get in exchange? the promise of chaos, confusion, and a lack of confidence in the integrity of the vote. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be placed separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: the team has come for team blackburn to say goodbye to our fearless leader chief of staff chuck flint. chuck joined my team in the house as a member of the legislative staff. he was eager to prove himself capable and well versed on our

legislative issues, and i will tell you that he succeeded. in the seven years since he first walked through my office door, he has grown into one of the finest office and chief of staffs that i have seep on the hill, and one of the finest political strategists here on capitol hill, one of the my most trusted advisors, and i will add the most enthusiastic softball player on team whiskey business. the most enthusiastic i think we've ever fielded. i wish chuck, jessica and little everett all the happiness in the world as they embark on their next beautiful adventure together. we will miss him tremendously, but no matter how far they travel, they will always have a home with team blackburn and in service to the volunteer state. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions n accordance rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 149; christopher charles fonzone of pennsylvania to be general counsel of the office of the director of national intelligence, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of christopher charles fonzone of pennsylvania to be general counsel of the office of the director of national intelligence, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 35. the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president. as if in legislative session, i

ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined with the majority leader, in consultation the minority leader, the senate armed services committee be discharged from s. 1520, that there be two hours for debate equally divided in usual form and upon use or yielding back of the time the senate vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: reserving the right to object. i object for the rosen i previously stated. i want to thank her for the courtesy of presenting the unanimous consent immediately. i appreciate that very much. i'm the first chairman to endorse the type of changes the senator from new york has proposed as they are under the ucmj. the base mark of the defense bill next month subject to

amendment. i anticipate numerous amendments being offered by members on both sides of the aisle. further, as i've already committed, the committee will consider these proposals to include a vote on them in committee if that is what any senator desires. that is in fact the tradition of the committee if a senator wants a vote, we will vote. according to committee records, there has not been a vote on this proposal in the committee since 2013, eight years ago and it has not been introduced in committee as an amendment. i look forward to the debate when we markup the 2022 defense bill. with that, i would reiterate my objection and again thank the senator for her willingness to introduce the unanimous consent initially. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. gillibrand: so it is very kind that the chairman notes that the last time we got a vote in committee was 2013.

we've been asking for a vote on this for the last eight years and asking for the last five years to get a floor vote and denied. this bill has been routinely and roundly filibustered and opposed by the chairman and ranking member for the entire eight years i've been working on this bill. and this bicameral bill that has 66 senate cosponsors should not be relegated to a committee that will communicate with the d.o.d. behind-the-scenes. that is what they do. that is what they have been doing. this is not a bill related to a technical aspect of war fighting that would benefit from the expertise found within the d.o.d. it is a check on the commander's power that has been allowed a culture to flourish where two and three victims do not feel comfortable coming forward to report their assault and 6 4-r%, -- 64%, a number that is stubbornly unchanged experience retaliation when they do come

forward. a majority of the members already cosponsor this bill. so it's unclear what expertise the committee will add. it will only create an opportunity for the d.o.d. to water down this much-needed reform. as a military law expert brennan fisel wrote today on "the hill," quote, an institution with the power to kill people and topple governments should not resist our elected senator's clear will cheering as a procedural loophole allows a small minority from allowing popular forums from being implemented. this is the fourth time i have risen to ask for unanimous consent for a very simple reason. the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act deserves a vote. the people in the military deserve a military justice system worthy of their sacrifice. we don't have time to delay. every day that we delay a vote on this, more service members

are being sexual little assaulted and raped. i started this request for unanimous consent 28 days ago, since then an estimated 1,568 service members have been raped or sexually sawld. more -- assaulted. more will have been victims of other serious crimes and most will feel that there is no point in even reporting the crime because they have no faith in the current military justice system. that system asks comm commandert lawyers to decide whether cases should go forward. the lack of faith is understandable. less than one in ten sexual assault cases are considered for command action that are actually sent to trial. and just a small fraction of those end in conviction. and in the eight years that we've been fighting for this reform, further fault lines in the military justice system have been made evident, including deeply troubling racial

disparities. it's a disappointment that the chairman is not hear to hear this information for himself. but in 2017, a report found black service members were as much as 2.61 times more likely to have disciplinary action taken against them as their white counterparts. and in 2019 the g.a.o. found black and hispanic service members were more likely than white service members to be subjected to criminal investigation and to face general and special court martials. those statistics show a clear and pressing need to address what appears to be inherent bias in the current command-controlled system. to provide our service members with real justice, you must move all serious crimes out of the chain of command. this bill will do that by making a simple but critical change to the way the military justice system handles serious crime.

it streamlines how cases move forward instead of commanders who have zero formal legal training making the decision to prefer or refer cases to trial decisions. this bill gives those legal decisions to highly-trained, impartial professional military justice lawyers. and it allows the commander to continue to work hand in hand with judge advocates, to implement good order and discipline in their unit. the bill really comes down to have one thing. is there enough evidence to move this case forward. we should not put that responsibility on commanders who often know both the accused and the accuser and do not have legalized training to be able to make these decisions properly. when it comes to serious crimes that can lead to long, more than a year sentences, that decision should be made by a legal expert. that's the change the bill would

make. it's tailored. it's simple. it's an elegant solution to meet a very real problem. commanders still have lots of power. they have the ability to a act punishment which allows them to set the tone for their troops. they will still have the ability to put people on restrictive -- on restriction and in confinement. they still have the issue -- the ability to issue protective orders. these are the basic tools that commanders rely on to implement good order and discipline, not general court martial. if a serious crime is not preferred and then referred by the jag convening authority, it goes right back to the commander who can choose to do several things. can he do nothing. he can carry out nonjudicial punishment or administration -- administrative separation or do

a separate court-martial. however, this change despite its simplicity and despite being a very small change will create a seismic shift in how the military justice system is perceived by both service members who have been subjected to sexual assault and by black and brown service members who have been subjected to bias. we need a professionalized military justice system so that everyone from survivors to defendants' rights can have more trust in the current process. a process that is based on evidence and legal facts and that cases will be decided impartially. that's the system our service members deserve and is the system that we create by the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act. we've tried every small ball effort you can imagine.

mr. president, you've been on that committee for years. you've watched us pass every type of reform that the d.o.d. is okay with. this is the one they have fought tooth and nail to prevent implementation. and even today our chairman wants to narrow it down, reduce it to a very small size. one crime, one crime only. well, let's just look at the facts. the vanessa geion case was a murder case. under the chairman's own analysis, he would not have allowed that case to go forward through the review of a special trained military prosecutor. in fact, her case may never have seen the light of day. that's a problem. so we need to treat all serious crimes the same. we've compromised on this bill. we've carved out all the serious crimes that are military in nature, going awol, not following a direct command,

anything that the commander would have a special purview over. but we draw a bright line at the rest of those serious crimes and that's a good solution. it's what our allies have already done. u.k., israel, canada, germany, netherland, australia. and they saw no diminution in command and control. we need to build the military justice system that is worthy of the sacrifices that the men and women of our armed services make every day. i would now like to yield the floor to the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, senator gillibrand. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i think we just heard the senator from new york speak very strongly about the need for this legislation. she said 12 times she's come to the senate floor to ask for a u.c. on this bill.

so we all ought to know not only on this bill but a lot of things the senator from new york is involved in, she's not going to give up. and eight years on this bill proves that. her persistence. we need to get this done. and i would think that a bill that has 66 cosponsors and the demonstrated need for it is such that the people opposing this would be embarrassed, particularly with the 66 cosponsors. so i thank senator gillibrand for her persistence. i've been glad to be with her on this subject. i haven't worked on it as hard as she has, but i believe in everything she has said. and this bill should pass. in the last 15 years there's been virtually no progress in reducing the level of sexual assault in the military.

far too many service men and women have experienced sexual assault, and we don't even know the full extent of the problem because people are afraid to report these because of retribution that happens as a result of the report. of those who do report, 64% experience retaliation. but this goes beyond sexual assault. this legislation professionalizes the military justice system and would improve trust and transparency in the ability of the military to handle all serious crimes. the policy of moving the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command has been recommended by military justice experts. this bill has been considered by the armed services committee for eight years in a row. and that's why time has come now to make sure that this bill does

not get buried once again in that committee or as she suggested, very narrowly narrowed. the committee has had more than enough time to review the legislation and propose alternatives. we've even heard from the department of defense that they can solve this problem, and yet it keeps getting worse. this bill with so many cosponsors deserves the support and shouldn't have to wait any longer to get passed. it's time for the legislation to finally move forward and i urge my colleagues to join the -- join in this effort to get this done the easiest way possible and that would be by u.c. i yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. a senator: i ask to be recognized for ten minutes. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. i have been listening today and a few other days about senator gillibrand's efforts to bring up what i think is a major reform of the military justice system to the point where you won't recognize it as it is today. i hope you understand what you're being asked to do here. so senator reed who's the chairman of the committee has been objecting. before i got here, i was a military lawyer and active duty in the reserves for about 33 years. i was a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge. and what i would like to challenge the body to do is find me cases where the judge advocate has recommended prosecution in a sexual assault case in the last eight years and

the commander refused to go forward. i was in the military for 33 years. i can only remember one time where that was even an issue. and previous efforts to reform the system works like the following. if the jag recommends the prosecution in a sexual assault case as defined in the last piece of legislation and they refuse to go forward, it's taken to the commander's commander. so what problem we're -- what problem are we trying to solve here? what we're doing in this bill is relieving the chain of command when it comes to military justice. if the commander no longer is concerned about sexual assaults in the barracks, we've made a huge mistake. the heart and soul of military justice system is to provide a fair trial to the accused, take care of victims, but give the

comafnedzer the tools -- commander the tools they need for good order and discipline. so the idea of taking the commander out of the chain of command when it comes to terrible things like sexual assault, i think it's a bad idea because it's the commander's job to make sure that unit works well. and having a bunch of professional prosecutors make the decision without the commander being involved is basically relieving the commander of what's best for that unit overall. sexual assault is a problem in the military. it's a problem in the civilian world. it's a problem all over the place. but the military justice system is designed to bring about good order and discipline. and i can only say that the day the commander is taken out of the responsibility for what happens in that unit is a bad day for good order and discipline. and i think a bad day for that

unit. again the legal advice given to commanders in cases like we're talking about is almost universally followed. there's probably been more occasions where the commander will take an iffy case to court just to make a point, cases that would never probably get off first base in the civilian world. but the people pushing this bill always talk about results in court-martials. i think the worst thing the united states senate could do is create an impression that a not guilty verdict is unacceptable in the military. sometimes a not guilty verdict is the right answer to the situation presented to the court. so i'm beginning to doubt whether or not you can get a fair trial in the military if you're accused of one of these crimes. when politicians attack results in the system, we're sending a

pretty clear signal if you're a court-martial panel member, that we're going to be dreading your homework here in the senate because there seems to be a bias that the only outcome must be a guilty verdict. the truth of the matter is, a lot of women go to their grave having been assaulted and never report the event to anybody. and we need to make it easier for victims to come forward. but on occasion people are accused of things they didn't do. it's been involved -- i've been involved in many of these cases, and on occasion you'll find out that the accusation doesn't hold water, not sufficient to be anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. and sometimes people say things that are flat not true. so what i worry about, mr. president, is that in our effort to reform the system, to

create -- to solve a problem that really doesn't exist, commanders ignoring the j.a.g.s and not prosecuting people because they like them or they have favorite six, that's not a problem. if you have to talk about reforming the military justice system, fine. let's not stand near in the united states senate and say commanders in the military routinely turn down legal advice to prosecute. they don't. that's just not true. in the military, in a general court-martial, you need three-fourths to commit. if we're going to go down this track of talking about what an acceptable outcome should be, then i'm going to start introducing legislation to change the requirement of the verdict to be unanimous. i was a prosecutor for four and a half years and a defense attorney for two. i understand sort of the military courtroom environment and the panel members, the

members of the jury, are commissioned officers or you can request noncommissioned officers -- the accused has that right up to a certain percentage of the panel. and these pannals are constructed not like a civilian court. they're constructed to make sure the jury usually comes from an officer corps and people with the responsibility for that base are picked to serve on these juries to make sure that the base is being well-run, people receive justice who have been violated and those accused of a crime have a fair trial. the worst thing can happen is when a commander seems to have favorites and people he likes get away with almost anything and the people the commander doesn't like -- well, they look for reasons to come down hard on them. so when i was a young j.a.g., i

would go back to young commanders and first sergeants. the worst thing you can do is to play favorites. call them as you see them. you need to show up in the middle of the night as a commander and first sergeant in the barracks when they least think you're going to come. just let people know you're watching them because most enlisted people are 18 to 22 years old, the first time away from home. so we made some strides that i think are good. we provide victims of sexual assault in the military with their own individual counsel. most people don't get that the in the civilian world. we're trying to train prosecutors how to handle these case. i like that. but if we're going to start creating a presumption here contrary to being innocent that there's only one right answer, then we need to start training a bunch of defense attorneys and have the specialty there. because the worst thing that can happen in a military unit is for somebody to be assaulted, be

treated poorly and nothing happens, and second to that is for somebody to be accused of something that is seen as not legitimate. and that's why you have trials. that's why you have defense attorneys. that's why you have judges. that's why you have prosecutors. but the thing unique about the military is it's not a jury of your peers. the jury is made up of the officer corps on that base who has responsibilities usually to run the base. and you can request it as an enlisted member that a part of the panel be enlisted, but they're going to be the most senior ranks on the base. they're not going to be e-3's and e-'s. they're going to e-8's and e-9's, the senior enlisted corps

responsible for good discipline and morale on the base. that's what's unique about the military justice system. i found as a defense attorney that people look long and hard at the government's case. i'll talk later on about some cases i had where people are accused of using drugs by urinalysis, and the system was fatally flawed. and over time the military justice system got that right. so i just want senator reed to know that slowing this train down and getting the members of this body to understand what we're talking about, i will support him more. i should be down here talking more like everybody else. we're busy. so i promise to come down more to give my side of what we should be talking about in terms of reform and why what's before us is not reform. it is a radical change to the military justice system, based on what i think a premise that

doesn't exist. the one thing i want you to know, i don't believe there are a handful of cases in the army, the air force, the marine corps, the navy a year where the commander refuses to go forward after the j.a.g.'s have recommended a court-martial and sexual assault cases. that's what we're all supposed to be worried about, that the system is biased against victims. what can we do to make it easier to report these situations? what can we do to convince people that the command is not going to turn on you if you are a he a victim? these are -- if you are a he a victim? these are all legitimate thins. but to fire the entire chain of command based on a premise that i think doesn't stand water -- hold water would be bad and would, over time, undercut the military's ability to maintain

good order and discipline and to be the effective fighting force. so, senator reed, as the chairman of the committee, i will try to do more to help him. i respect senator gillibrand a lot. she is very passionate about this. but all i can say is that passion and justice has to be measured. and we have to be making decisions based on facts, not just an outcome that we would like. and when we start talking about cases where somebody was acquitted, as if that was the wrong result, that scarce the hell out of -- that scares the hell out of me. with that, i will yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. sullivan: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i'm here on the senate floor this afternoon to call on president biden to withdraw his nomination to lead the bureau of land management, tracy stone manning. he should withdraw her for the reasons i'm going to talk about here on the senate floor. but let me stipulate while i have often spoken about what i consider far-left extremist environmentalists who are taking over many elements of the biden administration, often in the context of why i voted against hire confirmation, i have not yet called on, haven't in my entire senate career a nomination to be withdrawn before they even have gone through their senate

confirmation hearing before a senate committee, but i'm doing it this afternoon. the reason i have never done this before, mr. president, is that's because we have not yet confronted someone with tracy stone-manning's past, which involves being a member, part of an extreme group that performed violent acts as part of their platform for getting attention in america. violence, a group engaging in overt ecoterrorism. by the way, mr. president, this is becoming a bipartisan issue, a serious bipartisan issue, as i am going to talk about in a little bit more detail. the director of b.l.m. from the

obama-biden administration just yesterday made a statement saying if these allegations are true -- which they are -- then he firmly believes that her nomination should be withdrawn by the president. that's mr. bob abby. so this is a serious issue, and it's a bipartisan issue. before i talk about tracy stone-manning's involvement with ecoterrorism, let me start by saying that b.l.m. is an incredibly important and very powerful federal agency, particularly as it relates to my state, the great state of alaska. the alaska b.l.m. manages more surface and sub surface acres in my state than any other state in the country by far.

in fact, i haven't done the math, but i believe that they manage more acreage in alaska than they do the rest of the lower 48 combined. that's how important b.l.m. is in my state. let me give you some of the numbers. this includes over 70 million surface acres of land and 220 million sub surface acres. that's the land equivalent to about one-fifth of the entire lower 48 states. most states can't even comprehend that size. one-fifth of the lower 48 of the united states of america is the amount of land b.l.m. manages just in the great state of alaska. so it's a huge amount of land, and of course by definition, it's a huge amount of power,

that this federal agency has over my state and the people i am honored to represent. and, mr. president, it is imperative, imperative that the director of this agency, the bureau of land management, with so much power and so much control over my state and its future and economic opportunity for working alaskan families, that the manager of b.l.m. for the country be trustworthy, be honest, to be fair-minded, to be beyond reproach, and certainly not to have been involved in an organization that perpetuated violence against its fellow americans. and from what we know about tracy stone-manning, she is none of these things, trustworthy,

honest, and fair-minded. that this administration is full of people with the far-left agenda certainly isn't surprising. we all know that the national democratic party is much further to the left than they were even four years ago with the obama- biden administration. but, mr. president, what is shocking, beyond surprising, is that the president of the united states would put forward someone for this incredibly important position, b.l.m., who is not only far left but from a member of a group that was an ecoterrorist organization. a group that was undertaking violence against their fellow americans so they can make a point on environmental issues in america. this is not an exaggeration.

tracy stone-manning was a member of earth first, a radical far-left group that has engaged repeatedly in what is defined as ecoterrorism. but, mr. president, she wasn't just a member of earth first. she herself is complicit in putting metal spikes, big, thick ones, in trees that were meant to either threaten to hurt or grateful injure those americans who are harvesting trees, who are cutting down trees, legally, who are putting trees in sawmills, legally. this was a common technique, tree spiking. deployed by such ecoterrorists in the late 1980's and early 1990's. earth first called such tactics,

quote, monkey wrenching. that's kind of cute. dangerous. could kill people. monkey-wrenching. logging crews and the americans who are legally harvesting timber in our country might have called such tactics terrifying and certainly called such tactics very, very dangerous. so let me briefly talk about the group that tracy stone-manning was a member of. earth first began in 1980 by disaffected environmentalists who thought the movement wasn't radical enough. they thought the movement wasn't getting enough attention, so they founded a new group that wanted to get more attention, sometimes by perpetuateing violence. among its proposed founding principles, quote, all human

decisions should consider earth first. mankind second. i'm quoting now. mankind second. okay. i'm not sure many u.s. senators would agree with that. and, quote, the only true test of morality is whether an action, individual, social, or political, benefits the earth, unquote. these are founding principles of this organization. given these principles, it's no mystery that the group's slogan is this -- quote, no compromise in defense of mother earth. mr. president, in their view, no compromise meant destroying property, putting steel spikes in trees that could kill someone trying to harvest a tree, and earth first celebrated and encouraged such actions. the group even put out a manual.

yes, a manual detailing tree spiking and instructions on how to do other sabotage activities -- cut down power lines, flatten tires, burn machinery, of those who are trying to harvest trees legally. we harvest trees legally in alaska. we have loggers who do that. who are from hardworking families. david foreman, the founder of earth first, talked about all of these activities, and he said this is where the ecoterror can have fun. that's a quote. from the founder of earth first. fun. that's what he called this. fun. tell that to those violently hurt by some of earth first's tactics. this is how an article in "the washington post" from this time

described such an incident of tree spiking, that severely, violently hurt one of our fellow americans. and now i'm going to quote from this article, mr. president. quote, george alexander, a third-generation mill worker, was just starting his shift at the louisiana pacific lumber mill in closerdale, california, when the log that would alter his life rolled down his conveyor belt toward a high-speed saw he was working on. by the way, madam president, i've seen these saws in alaska. in mills in alaska. they are huge. this isn't just some kind of tiny saw. they are gigantic. and they spin at incredibly fast speeds, with huge teeth. they're dangerous.

even when you're operating without tree spikes in the trees. let me continue. here's the continuation of this article from "the washington post." it was may, 1987. george alexander was 23 years old. his job was to split logs. he was nearly three feet away when the log he was working on hit his saw and the saw, this giant saw, exploded. one half of the blade stuck in the log. the other half hit alexander in the head. again, these are giant saws. tearing through his safety helmet, tearing through his face shield. his face was slashed from eye to chin. his teeth were smashed and his jaw was cut in half.

that's what earth first did to this young american doing his job with a tree spike in it. i'm continuing with "the washington post" article. george alexander had never even heard of a sabotage tactic called tree spiking until he himself had become a victim of ecoterrorism. "washington post" word, not my word. ecoterrorism. someone who objected to tree cutting had embedded a huge steel spike in that log that violently jammed the saw and changed george alexander's life. tree spiking. that's "the washington post." these were the kind of tactics that tracy stone-manning, the biden administration's choice to

lead b.l.m. for america, once conspired in. does that disturb you, america? every u.s. senator on the floor here in this body should be very, very disturbed. and, mr. president -- now i'm talking to the president of the united states. think about this, sir. i say respectfully, come on, man. this is the most qualified american citizen you can find to be the b.l.m. director? she was part of a group not just a radical extreme environmental group but a radical extreme violent environmental group. president biden, this should be a red line that we all agree to.

no nominees who conducted violence against their fellow americans. so what did she do specifically? the biden administration's director of b.l.m., nominated director of b.l.m., here's what she did. in 1989 she did a friend, a fellow earth first colleague, comrade maybe is a better word, she did a friend, a fellow comrade a favor. she wrote word for word a profane, anonymous letter from this member of earth first about the 500 pounds of tree spikes that earth first had hammered

into trees in idaho by earth first. pretty dangerous. pretty violent. she rewrote the letter on a rented typewriter because she later told a reporter, quote, her fingerprints were all over it. so she knew she was obviously involved in criminal activity. so she didn't just hand write it. she didn't want her fingerprints on it. she typed it. she then sent the letter to the f.b.i. she kept quiet for what she did for years. that was in 1989 until she came forward in 1993 and received immunity for her part in this tree spiking in idaho. 500 pounds of spikes. this is a serious operation.

deadly. could be deadly. she received immunity for her part in this tree spiking when prosecutors went after the other members of earth first. and she testified about it. here's something that should be very simple for all of us. no matter how young, no matter how naive, the director of the bureau of land management for the united states of america should not -- and i repeat -- should not have ever been involved in ecoterrorism. that is simply unacceptable and the president of the united states should get that and certainly every u.s. senator should get that. working with people who are so radical on environmental issues that they thought it was okay to

perpetuate violence against their fellow american citizens. come on, man, president biden, you cannot be serious. it's not only me who thinks that this is an outrage. i want to compliment my senate colleague, senator barrasso, who has been doing a great job -- fortunately our press has been asleep at the switch -- senator barrasso has been doing a great job of highlighting these very issues. but as i said earlier, this is now becoming a bipartisan issue. it's not just me and senator barrasso who have been raiding this issue -- raising this issue. just yesterday bob abbey who led

the b.l.m. from 2009 through 2012 under president obama and vice president biden said the following. quote, if the reports regarding ms. stone-manning's involvement with spiking trees are true, then i firmly believe she should immediately withdraw her name from further consideration for the b.l.m. director job. unquote. let me read that again. the b.l.m. director from the obama-biden administration just yesterday said the following. if reports are true regarding ms. stone-manning's involvement with spiking trees are true, then i firmly believe she should immediately withdraw her name

from further consideration for the b.l.m. director job, unquote. well guess what? the reports about her involvement with tree spiking by the ecoterrorist organization earth first, meant to harm her fellow americans, are true. they're true. madam president, there are other issues that also call into question ms. stone-manning's character remember. i'm not going to get into these. i'll let others focus on them. low-interest loans, other things. that's in some ways, in my view, a distraction. her involvement with an organization that was focused on ecoterrorism certainly disqualifies her.

and the president of the united states should know this. now, i didn't agree with bob abbey on much when he was head of the b.l.m. under the obama-biden administration, but i certainly agree with him about tracy stone-manning. and i believe the president of the united states should withdraw her name from further consideration. and if the president doesn't do that because he gets pressure from the extreme left, then i certainly hope, i certainly hope that my colleagues here in the united states senate, democrats and republicans, will resoundingly vote to reject this nomination when it comes to the senate floor. yes, we have differences on issues of resource development,

energy for america, certainly issues of job in resource development. in my great state, the great state of alaska, we have differences. there's no doubt about it. but here's the thing. we all know, and i think every one of us, all 100 senators, know and would say publicly that these differences should be resolved peacefully in debates here on the senate floor, at the ballot box arguing these issues forcefully, yes, but not vio violently, not with violence. so if this nominee comes to this floor, it shouldn't even be a close vote. it should be 100-0 rejecting her. and to my democratic colleagues, i hope you join me, like mr. bob

abbey in saying mr. president, guess what? you screwed up here. withdraw her. but if he won't do that, i hope every u.s. senator votes against this. we cannot condone, endorse, or vote somebody who has been part of an ecoterrorist, radical extreme, violent organization. and my colleagues, america will be watching. if you vote for her, you've got to go home and explain that vote to your fellow americans. as i mentioned, it's one thing for this administration to put forward far-left extreme environmental nominees. it is quite another to put forward a far-left extreme, violent environmental nominee.

and that's what she is. so the president of the united states, respectfully, sir, you need to withdraw this nomination. and to my colleagues on the senate floor here, respectfully to all of you, if the president doesn't take this commonsense action, we need to decisively reject this nominee when it comes to the floor of the united states senate. i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it

adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, june 22, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, upon conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the fonzone nomination postcloture, that postcloture debate time expire at 1 is:45. further, that the senate recess following the cloture vote on the ahuja nomination. if cloture is invoked on the ahuja nomination, all postcloture time expires at 2:30 p.m. further, following the disposition of the ahuja nomination, the senate proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2093, with time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided between the the two leaders or their designees,

that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to s. 29 -- 2093 ripen at 9:30 and if any nominations are confirmed, the motion to motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. following the remarks of senator whitehouse. the presiding officer: without the presiding officer: without

today the senate voted to move forward the confirmation ve

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i want to speak briefly this evening about s. 1, the senate version of h.r. 1, the democracy reform bill that we are going to be considering moving to proceed to this week. i hope we will be able to show a unified democratic caucus moving to proceed. it's often described as the voting rights bill. it's described that way with good justification. there are some very, very important protections that are built into it to protect the voting rights of americans which are under i would say a unique and historic threat now since the perhaps 1950's and 1960's when the voting rights act was passed and some of the levers that were pulled to keep certain people from voting had to be

stopped, and the vote and the ballot became available much more broadly and led to a much more just society. but that is not the only part of s. 1. in fact, in my view, it's not even the central part of s. 1. in my view, the central part of s. 1 is getting big, unlimited, anonymous money out of politics. now, the two relate because the big anonymous money schemers that are up to no good in politics are focusing on, guess what, voter suppression. and in fact, the same individual, the same person who was running the dark money scheme to control and capture the supreme court and the circuit courts has, after being somewhat blown up by a

"washington post" expose about the $250 million he was running in dark money through this court capture scheme jumped from the court capture scheme, and where did he land? on something rather ironically called the honest elections project, which immediately went to work to file lawsuits and harass election officials and try to make sure that voter suppression took place. if you think that's a coincidence, the honest elections project is actually a rebrand of an entity that was called the judicial education project. basically just a name change through corporate high jinks. and that judicial education project is the corporate sibling of something called the judicial crisis network. guess what the judicial crisis network did. for this same guy, before he jumped to voter suppression when he was still doing court capture, judicial crisis network took the big, fat checks that

anonymous donors wrote to pay for the tv campaigns, the dark money tv campaigns for against garland and for gorsuch in the first appointment, for cavs through all of -- for kavanaugh through all of his troubles in the second appointment and for judge barrett on the each of his election in the third appointment. so you see the same person and the same organizational connection between the court capture dark money scheme and the voter suppression dark money scheme. it's actually happening in kind of plain light of day except that we don't pay enough attention to the links. so this dark money business, getting the big dark money out of politics is a big, big deal, and i wanted to share how big a deal it is to americans. dark money corruption polls at the top of all the issues in the

last poll i saw. it's the number one issue. if you ask people if somebody says that they have dedicated themselves to fighting corruption, is that going to make you more likely to vote for them or more likely to vote for their opponent, all right? among all voters, it's 89-1 more likely to vote for the candidate dedicated to fighting corruption versus whoever this one is who said nah, not such a big deal to me. among independent voters who the two parties always fight for in elections, 82-2. 82% of independent voters would be more likely to vote for somebody who they see as dedicated to fighting corruption and only two would be more likely to vote for their opponent. so this is a strong public signal that we are sick of it, and you see it over and over again. this is one poll. you can go through poll after poll after poll. you see people want the dark money out of politics. they think we are controlled by

big special interests. they think too much stuff gets done behind the scenes. and by the way, we just got a little window into the private conversations about this that take place between the koch brothers political apparatus and our minority leader, mitch mcconnell's political apparatus, and jane meyer wrote about this recently "in the new yorker," and the koch political apparatus and the mitch mcconnell political apparatus were being briefed on this bill, on s. 1, on these provisions. what they were told by the pollster is, you know what? we're in big trouble. because our conservative voters hate this damn dark money stuff just as badly as those liberals do. and we have tried all these different ways to reframe this, to make it look bad, so they might be more against it.

none of it worked. none of it worked. people want their government cleaned up. they are sick to death of big special interest money, and they are particularly sick to death of big special interest money that hides behind fake front groups so that it's not exxonmobil or marathon petroleum that comes to rhode island and says sheldon whitehouse is a bum, you should vote against him. it's a phony group with a name like rhode islanders for peace and puppies and prosperity, and all there are is a mail drop. somebody's behind them, and the voters know in rhode island there is no rhode islanders for peace and puppies and prosperity. they know they are being had. and they are sick of seeing the ads. and it's not fair to them as citizens to not know what's going on in the american governmental process going on right in front of them. and it matters to them. it really matters to them. it's the single most important issue for 55% of all voters.

and among the independent voters we are trying to attract to our separate parties, 58% of independent voters, this question of big money corruption and government not listening to them, the single most important issue. the single most important issue. now, make it top three, expand the question. what are the top three most important issues that you care about. 89% of all voters have this in their top three. 88% of independent voters have this in their top three. so let's say you have got a real concern about health care or let's say you have got a real concern about voting rights or let's say you have got a real concern about the economy. never mind. this is still there in that top three for pretty much nine out of every ten americans.

and what's the level of concern? very concerned. very concerned that 86% of all voters and 92% of independent voters about this issue of corruption and money in politics. how concerned are you? 86% of all voters said very. 92% of independent voters said very. and if you say okay, let's again expand the aperture a little. very concerned or somewhat concerned. are you very concerned or somewhat concerned about this dark money corruption special interest pressure in government, 98% of all voters, 100% of independent voters. i don't know about you all. i've looked at a lot of polling in my life. seeing a 100% number, that is rare. every single independent voter

poll is very or somewhat concerned about corruption in our democracy. so i can't wait to get on to s. 1. and if our republican friends want to filibuster it and stop us from moving forward, i can't wait to see them explain to their voters back home why they made the choice to come here and against 89-1 for all voters and 82-2 for independent voters take that brave stand for dark money and more money and more special interest pressure in our politics. good luck with that. i hope at some point we bring that fight to the floor and we spend weeks on it so that as we go into next year, every single american has seen this play out. they have seen that this issue -- that they are very concerned about, that for more

than half of them as the single most important issue that there is a party here in the senate that is determined to protect the schemers, the special interests behind the dark money corruption. good luck taking that to the voters in november. so to those who are listening and who are thinking, you know, i don't think -- see how we get around a filibuster here. i love s. 1. this is a really important bill. we have got to get there. we hope that the democrats can unite on this, but even then it's only 50-1 or 51-1 if the vice president is allowed to vote. that's not 60, so there is a filibuster. my answer is give it effort and give it time. if -- once americans, everywhere from a tea partier to a bernie bro gets wind of which party in

here is the party of special interest and dark money, who wants to protect that. as i said, the single most important issue. people going to the voting booth may tend to remember the single most important issue, the issue that they are very concerned about. 86% of all voters. so i hope we find a good way forward. i think it's important for our democracy that the rottenness of all this come to an end. i don't want to see more of these academic studies that show that congress listens to big special interests proveably, statisticically, and congress doesn't listen to regular voters, proveably, statistically because of this kind of duck money pressure. we have got to get beyond that. we have a country out there to put back on its feet, not only economically but we need to hold our own heads high about having an honest government that is an example to the rest of the world. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until stands adjourned until martha senate votes on whether to move forward with the voting right bill, 60 votes are needed to advance legislation. later that week we expect the senate to take up the president nominee to have the office of personnel management. >> c-span, unfiltered view of government. funded by fees television companies and more including communication. ♪♪

♪♪ >> tonight on the communicators, antitrust competition policy and digital technology markets. >> off the charts in terms of where we've been for the last 40 years in terms of competition monopoly. in the last year we've had five antitrust lawsuit against google and facebook. we have all kinds of actions against amazon. we have people talking about new philosophies competition policy this is all radically new and this conversation can turn up to

be truly transformative for the united states. >> the communicators with antitrust analyst jennifer and terry tonight 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> c-span landmark cases exploring the stories and constitutional drama behind significant supreme court decisions. sunday 9:45 p.m. eastern watch gideon, clarence earl gideon tried for petty crimes denied in a appointed lawyer. the sixth amendment accused must be provided a lawyer if they can't afford one or the opportunity to defend themselves. watch landmark cases sunday night 9:45 p.m. eastern on c-span, all mine@c-span.org relisten about c-span radio at. >> joining us this morning