rights bill named after the late congressman and civil rights activists john lewis. that procedural vote will suit required score of 60 senators to move forward.

confusion with clarity, and their error with truth. let love prevail over hate, justice triumph over greed, and harmony defeat discord. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in 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. mr. king: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: i ask to take us out of the quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of commerce. robert luis santos of texas to be director of the census. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, the senate today has the opportunity to live up to its best traditions. we can put our democracy over any political party. later today we'll take the first step that could put us on the path to having an open debate about the john lewis voting rights advancement act. i've championed and sponsored this bill to restore the landmark voting rights act of

1965. i've done this for years. today senators of both parties have the chance to show they're willing to do the job we were elected to do -- to debate and vote on legislation. and no legislation could be more foundational to our democracy than that which protects the right to vote. we hundred senators all have the right to vote. let us exercise that right and not avoid voting on the john lewis voting rights act. this is such a fundamental part of our democracy. let's set the example here where all 100 of us know we have the right to vote. let's make sure we vote and not avoid voting. i hope that we as a senate will honor the rich, bipartisan history around the voting rights act in the name of our hero john lewis, in the name of our democracy, in the name of a

foundational value that's the bedrock of our country. just yesterday we announced a bipartisan compromise in the hopes of building support for the john lewis voting rights advancement act. and i'm grateful to senators murkowski and durbin, manchin for their dedication to reaching this compromise. that bill, which we would seek to advance after proceeding to s. 4, will fully restore the voting rights act, which is needed after two devastating decisions by the supreme court. i've been clear that should the senate eventually proceed to this bill that i'd welcome amendments to further strengthen, solidify this frustration of the voting rights act, which after all has been bipartisan since the first enactionment -- enactment, usually passing the senate

unanimously, being signed into law by presidents reagan and bush and others. but we should at least have that debate. certainly senators should not avoid debating, and certainly senators should not hide behind some procedural role so that they don't have to vote one way or the other on the basic right of americans to vote. so that's why we're here -- to debate, vote on bills. there is simply no reason for any senator to look at their constituents and say that this topic, that of protecting of right to vote, is just too political or too controversial. not the voting rights act, not a voting rights bill that has a 56-year history of bipartisanship. no senator should act as though they are afraid to vote one way or the other on this. is that the message we want to

convey to american voters eager to know what the senate is doing to protect and strengthen our democracy? ours is the longest surviving democracy in history. the american people are watching. the world is watching what we do. americans expect us to vote yes or no not hide behind procedure. restoring and updating the voting rights act on a bipartisan basis is how we've always done it. the core provisions of the voting rights act have been reauthorized five times. every time it's been with overwhelming bipartisan support of republicans and democrats alike. presidents nixon, reagan, george w. bush all signed voting rights act reauthorizations into law. they touted the profound importance of this landmark law for our democracy.

in fact, i remember -- i was here -- the most recent voting rights act reauthorization was in 2006 and the vote -- 98-0. we still have senators still serving today, both republicans and democrats, who voted to support that legislation. the compromise bill i've crafted with senator murkowski follows the very same blueprint of these other bipartisan efforts to restore the voting rights act. i'm aware of the toxic partisanship of american politics today, but i hope that's not going to obscure what has for decades united us as americans and across party lines, and that is the belief that every one of us should have

the right to protect our vote, the very right that gives democracy our name. it's bigger than party or politics. it's a belief that a system of self-government, a government of, by, and for the people is one that's worth preserving for generations to come. it's the belief that government exists to serve the will of the people, not the other way around. so i hope that today we're going to rise above partisanship. let's do what's right for our democracy. let's not be afraid to vote. i hope we show americans the senate is still capable of being the conscience of the nation and a unifying force during a divided time. i still believe we can be the senate that acts together to maintain americans, our constituents' constitutional right to vote. when senators come to the floor

and cast their votes today, i hope they keep in mind the rich, bipartisan history of the voting rights act. i hope they decide to live up to that history. and i hope they're also mindful of how history will remember us. decades from now when history tells the story of today's current threats to democracy, let it also tell the story of senators who rose above the fray to protect the right that gives democracy its very name. let all senators vote so that all americans can vote. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. 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, mr. president, yesterday, democrats continued making great progress towards finalizing president biden's build back better plan. the challenges american families and workers are facing today are enormous. and president biden's agenda is the remedy to much of their hardships. it's just what the american people want and what they need. and it's exactly why we need to focus on getting the job done, to finalize and pass this legislation and deliver help for the american people. last night, i held another round of talks going past midnight with a number of my colleagues as we approach a final agreement. talks with the white house, the speaker, my senate colleagues and chairs, and members of the

house. we continue to make very good progress each day. passing such transformative legislation is not easy, but the long hours we are putting into it will be well worth it for the american people. over the last 24 hours, the hard work has yielded an important new development. yesterday, i announced that democrats had reached an agreement to include provisions in build back better that will lower prescription drug prices for seniors and for american families. this is a big deal. for years, skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs have plagued millions of seniors and american families, to the point that americans spend far more on prescription drugs per capita than other wealthy nations. it's one of the largest out-of-pocket medical expenses that families have. and it's gotten worse over the last few years. for too many americans, all it takes is a sudden serious

illness, and you can find yourself spending hundreds if not thousands and several thousands of dollars per year, just to afford things like insulin or vitally needed cancer treatments. it's profoundly unfair and wholly un-american. imagine the strain you can face. someone you or a loved one is ill and you can't afford the medicine, and you see them, their condition getting worse and worse. i can't think of things that are worse than that, even though i guess there may be a few. yesterday, we took a large step forward in helping alleviate that problem. for the first time ever, medicare will be empowered to directly negotiate prices in part b and part d. this will directly reduce out-of-pocket drug spending for millions of patients every time they visit a pharmacy or a doctor.

mr. schumer: our agreement does other things as well. it will cap out-of-pocket spending at $2,000 per year, ending the dilemma i just spoke about where a life-changing diagnosis could mean thousands upon thousands of dollars in new expenses that an individual can't afford. this agreement will lower insulin prices so that americans with diabetes don't pay more than $35 per month for their insulin. let me repeat that because it's amazing how the cost of insulin used to be so reasonable and has skyrocketed over the last few years, with very little reasonable, justifiable explanation. this agreement will lower insulin prices so that americans with diabetes don't pay more than $35 per month for their

insulin. and it will reform the pharmaceutical industry to stop price gouging and make sure our country's drug-pricing system benefits patients, not corporations. it's not everything all of us want, but it's a major, major step in the right direction as we work to help the american people afford better -- their better prescription drugs. we're going to keep working to make it even better, but this is a really good start and a major, major announcement. i want to thank all my colleagues who had a hand in putting this agreement together. senator wyden, senator klobuchar, senator murphy, senator cortez masto, senator bennet, and senator kelly. and i also want to sincerely thank senator sinema for working with us to reach this agreement. we are going to build on this success as we continue making progress on the rest of build back better. we are close, we are determined,

we are confident that we will succeed in rewarding the trust that the american people have placed in us. now on voting rights. shortly before his death, the great john lewis offered the american people a parting message. when you see something that is not right, he said, you must say something. you must do something. democracy is not a state. it is an act. and each generation must do its part to help build what we call the beloved community. the words of the great late john lewis. well, today the senate is being called to take action because across our beloved democracy, something indeed is not right. something malicious is afoot. a lie, a terrible lie, spread by the former president of the united states is eating away corrosively at the foundations of our democracy -- of our

democratic heritage like a disease. this lie has led to the greatest coordinated effort at the state level to suppress voting rights since the era of segregation. in states like georgia and texas, iowa and florida and arizona and many others. partisans have rewritten the rules of our elections in broad daylight, potentially making it harder for tens of millions of young, minority, low-income, disabled, and generally democratic-leaning voters from participating in elections. today the senate will have a chance to respond to these attacks by beginning to begin consideration of the john lewis advancement act. and which have a long history of bipartisan support in the senate.

i want to thank my colleagues, senator leahy, who spoke earlier today, and chairman durbin and all my other democratic colleagues who had a hand in drafting this proposal, and a special thanks to our colleague, the senator from alaska, who announced yesterday that she will vote in favor of opening debate on the john lewis voting rights advancement act. i know it was not a decision she made lightly. she called me from alaska and let me know of it. but my democratic colleagues worked hard with her to compromise on a proposal that she could support while still maintaining the basic thrust of their legislation. now just as democrats in the senate worked with senator murkowski on legislation to strengthen our democracy, we'll work with other republicans in good faith to improve this legislation, but they must come to the table first. i want to emphasize once again what today's vote is about. we are not asking any republican

to support specific legislation. today is about whether or not we will vote to begin debate here in this chamber. again, the preclearance provisions that are being updated in today's bill have long been supported by both sides of the aisle repeatedly. the voting rights act, which originally instituted them, has been updated five times in the last half century under both republican and democratic presidents and with votes from both sides. this has always been a bipartisan issue in the past. it should be no different today. and i commit to my republican colleagues that we will have a full-fledged debate process here on the floor where our colleagues can offer germane amendments and voice what concerns they may have. now i hope more members on the other side of the aisle follow in senator murkowski's example. senate republicans shouldn't be afraid of merely starting debate on an issue we've long debated and long supported in the past.

merely crossing arms and squelching any opportunity for progress is unacceptable. if republicans have different ideas on how to achieve a stronger democracy, they owe it to the american people to come forward and debate their ideas. i hope they do the right thing and vote for cloture to move forward on this discussion later today. and finally, on mr. syed, so, mr. president, for every executive branch nominee that grabs headlines, there are many, many more who escape the spotlight while still playing an essential role in our government, and almost always these nominees proceed through this chamber with bipartisan support. but today, as a handful of extreme republican senators are needlessly and callously stonewalling many of president biden's uncontroversial nominees, the case of dilawar

syed stands out as particularly, particularly egregious. he is an american success story. he came to this country from pakistan decades ago, became a successful entrepreneur, small business owner and coalition builder. his nomination is backed by more than 200 civic, government, higher education and business groups and leaders, including the u.s. chamber of commerce commerce, hardly a mouthpiece for the c biden administration. upon his confirmation, mr. syed would be the highest-ranking muslim in government, highest-ranking muslim for senate confirmation. but for reasons that confound common sense, a handful of republicans in the small business and entrepreneurship committee are not just blocking mr. syed's vote, they're refusing to meet in order to allow his nomination to proceed. they're just not evenly meeting, and that holds --

even meeting and that holds his nomination up. i haven't heard of that happening in a very long time. to date what is so confounding, is that these republicans who are holding mr. syed up have failed to of 0 a clear reason why they oppose him. each time they try to come up with an explanation whether cheap ad hominem attacks or ties to the culture wars their arguments fall flat and are easily refuted. why are these handful of republicans opposing this nomination? although republicans have boycotted his markup several times, they'll have a chance to give this man his vote tomorrow. chairman cardin has worked with republicans to try to get them to show up to tomorrow's markup. i commend chairman cardin's effort. today i ask, will any republicans have the decency to show up tomorrow to his markup and give mr. syed a vote? if they want to oppose him,

they're free to go on record and explain why. but boycotting his markup, resorting to cheech and offensive -- cheap attacks and needlessly doing that to a qualified public servant is a shameful, shameful course to take. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday we learned of the tragic passing of a much-loved member of the senate family. jean rounds was an impressive and active public servant who served the people of south dakota in many ways, including as their first lady, who served

a large and tight-knit family as mother and grandmother, and for our colleague, senator mike rounds, was quite simply the center of his world. the life of mike and jean that they built together with a partnership founded on faith, service, and love. by all accounts, jean's bravery, mike's devotion and the loving care of their family in the face of a terrible illness made their inspiring example shine even brighter. so the senate is united in our grief. we will continue to hold our friend mike and the entire rounds family close in our thoughts and prayers in the difficult days that lie ahead. now, mr. president, on a totally different matter, last

night was a difficult evening for democrats. the democratic party has wildly misread their mandate and let the radical left run the country. local democrats let teachers unions keep schools shut much longer than necessary and told parents they didn't get a say in what their kids are learning. washington democrats have supercharged inflation, re-created welfare without work requirements, and made america significantly less energy independent. president biden was only given a 50-50 senate and a tiny majority in the house, but he decided to let the radical left run the country. citizens wanted a return to normalcy but have gotten a never-ending series of government-created crises.

so look, the american people will not stand for this. that's what voters told democrats last night all across the country. the results from different parts of our country demonstrates that this was in large part a referendum on national issues. but it's not too late. democrats should listen to the voters and drop this reckless taxing-and-spending spree and stop trying to ram through a socialist transformation that the american people never asked for. the radical transformation that democrats are writing behind closed doors would compound every mistake their party has made. look at virtually any part of american families' lives, and democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would seize control of it and yank it

way to the left. the same democrats who don't want parents involved in schools want to take over day care and pre-k, crowd out faith-based and family providers, and put this vast new system under the control of culture warrior h.h.s. secretary who sued the little sisters of the poor. the same democrats who pretend to defend working families are dead set on a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit rich people in blue states. one of the biggest pieces of their signature bill is now a huge tax cut for rich people. the same democrats who say they support science and medicine want to slap arbitrary price controls on america's prescription drugs, reducing future innovation, and according to experts, literally costing americans their lives who would have lived if not for

this policy. the same democrats who pretend they care about social security and medicare want to stretch seniors' existing medicare program even thinner even though the trust fund is a few years away from going dry they would do this to save giveaways. the same democrats who talk about competing with china want to place taxes so high that our own industries would face a higher tax rate than businesses have to pay in communist china. the same democrats who are still trying to sneak forms of amnesty into this bill also want to make illegal immigrants eligible for new welfare. the same democrats who pretend they are forward thinking on energy issues want to hammer the u.s. economy with painful regulations while bigger emitters like china just keep on emitting. maximum pain for american families and no measurable gain

for emissions for the climate. the bill our colleagues are writing behind closed doors is terrible from top to bottom. more debt, more taxes, and more inflation. fewer options for american families. this reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help china. this radical social takeover is the last thing americans need and the last thing americans want. the voters of america just yesterday gave our colleagues a preview of that fact last night. it's not too late. they could still pull back from the brink while they can. on one final matter, practically every single week senate democrats make another attempt at grabbing new power

over america's elections. remember a giant partisan power grab over voting procedures in every county and state was democrats' ceremonial first priority of this whole congress. they revealed their mission from the very start. they are first proposal would have sent federal funds to political campaigns, overridden commonsense state rules like voter i.d., and even changed the federal elections commission itself from a neutral referee into a partisan body. it was so bad, so bad, that even "the new york times" called it a flawed bill that was, quote, designed to fail. that's, of course, exactly what happened here in the senate. but the democrats tipped their hand right from the start. they gave away the entire game. so every time that washington democrats make a few changes

around the margins and come back for more bites at the same apple, we know exactly what they're trying to do. many of the go-no-where bills that the democratic leader has used for political theater had congress essentially appointing itself -- itself, the board of elections, on steroids for every county and state in america. congress was going to micromanage elections to a degree with no precedent. this new version, today's episode, in this ongoing series is only slightly different. rather than congressional democrats trying to grab all the power for themselves, they're instead trying to pull off the power grab on behalf of the democratic attorney general. instead of washington democrats and the legislative branch seizing power over the elections

in uncountry, it will be the washington democrats and the executive branch doing the same thing. a slightly different twist on the same concept but for the same partisan reasons, with the same basic problems. in order to let attorney general garland dictate voting procedures, democrats want to overturn supreme court precedent our colleagues' flimsy arguments keep losing in court, so they're now trying to overturn the courts. when states crack down on the absurd practice of ballot harvesting, democrats ran to the courts, claiming discrimination, and lost. when liberals wanted to kill voter i.d. laws, which are popular with majorities of black americans and hispanic americans, by the way, they ran to the courts. what happened? they lost.

when the supreme court ruled in 12013 that one part -- in 2013 that one part, just one part, of the voting rights act needed updating, the radical left said the sky was falling and voter turnout would collapse. well, of course, the opposite happened. it turned out, in 2020, it was the highest since 1900. in one recent poll -- listen top this -- 94% of voters say voting is easy. 94% of voters say voting is easy. and, of course, it is. moreover, the voting rights act is still in effect. the courts haven't struck down that law. it's simply false to suggest otherwise. the supreme court simply ruled that there was no evidence, no evidence, supporting the

continuation of 40-year-old practices that were designed in the mid-1960's to address the specific challenges back then. there's nothing, nothing to suggest a sprawling federal takeover is necessary. nationalizing our elections is just a multi-decade democratic party goal in constant search of a justification. the rationales change constantly, but the end goal never does. americans don't need attorney general garland ruling over their states and their counties' elections anymore than they need congressional democrats doing it themselves. so, mr. president, the senate will reject in go-no-where bill today, like we rejected every other piece from the same

poisonous tree. this body has real business we should be tackling -- the defense authorization bill is months behind schedule. the majority has been derelict in allowing bipartisan progress on appropriations. these are things we need to be doing. every designed-to-fail political showboat comes at the expense of the things that we ought to be working on.

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. thune: mr. president, let me begin this morning by saying how sorry we were to hear the news about the loss of former first lady jean rounds the state of south dakota. mike and jean have been friends of ours for many, many years. i was involved in senator rounds' first campaign for office when he ran for state senate back in 1990. i have known jean since i worked in the administration of late-governor george michelson

along with her at the department of transportation and just can't tell you what a loss it is for state of south dakota. she was an individual who carried herself with incredible grace, always kind, had a humility about her that i think people just found infectious. she was very down to earth, never lost that as a first lady, conducted herself in a way that represented a great model for the state of south dakota, both in her character, her conduct, the style, the way in which she has served as first lady is something that i think made every south dakotan proud. so today, along with all south dakotans, kimberly and i mourn her loss. we lift up the rounds family in our prayers and hope and pray

that through this time they'll feel god's grace and comfort in new and profound ways. but just a tremendous loss. and i know for my colleague, mike rounds, who's been a great partner of mine -- we've been involved in politics together now in south dakota for over 30 years -- that he, too, is going to need our support and our prayers in the days ahead. this is a tough job under ordinary circumstances, but with the burden that he has been and will be carrying now into the future, it's going to be really important that we do everything we can to support him and stand with him. and today especially with him and his family. mr. president, there's a lot of interpretation about what happened in these off year elections last night. obviously the results in two traditionally democrat-leaning

states are causing people to speculate about what it all means, and i have listened to some of the analysis and there are lots of armchair quarterbacks that are doing the analysis about how we all should interpret these ultimate ares and certainly, keg on where you are -- depending on where you are, you probably come to different interpretations. but some of what i heard this morning from democrat analysts was that this is evidence that the democrat party needs to double down on the big reckless tax-and-spending spree bill because people who voted in new jersey last night didn't know what was in it. and when they find out all the things that are in it, they're going to love it. and they're going to want to support democrats. and i have to say, mr. president, i think that completely misses the point. i think what people are saying is they don't want to hand the

keys to their lives to washington, d.c.,, and this massive, reckless taxing-and-spending spree that's being contemplated here by senate democrats is historic in its sweep, its expansion, its growth of government, its cost, its price tag, and it's historic in terms of the amount of taxation that will be put on the backs of the american people in order to pay for it. and i think what happened last night was a repudiation. it was a repudiation of the nanny state and its belief that washington knows best and that we should give people in this country more -- get people in this country more dependent on washington, d.c. i think people are saying, we don't want to be more dependent on washington, d.c. we want washington, d.c., to let us live our lives and to focus on the things that are really important to us. and i think the issues that were

important yesterday had a lot to do with schools and kids and parents and whether or not they feel like they have control over their children's futures and what they learn in schools. i think it had to do with the economic future that people were looking out as they envision the future for them and for their kids and their grandkids, and they're looking at how stretched their incomes nadir -- incomes now are because of this growth in inflation. they're spending more on gasoline, they're spending more as we head into the winters months to heat their homes. they're spending more on food. they're spending more on housing. literally everything in their world that they spend money on is going up, meaning that their incomes are stretched thinner and thinner. so i believe, mr. president, that what people were saying last night is we don't want more washington government and less

freedom. we want less washington government and more freedom. and i think that resounded across the commonwealth of virginia and across new jersey, and i would suggest that the takeaway for democrats here in washington should be not we're going to double down, we're going to spend -- we're going to ram through in a partisan way this massive tax-and-spending bill. remember, let's pull back. let's see what's happening out in the economy. let's see how it's affecting the average american family and the average american small business and perhaps head in at that slightly different direction that doesn't involve taking more taxes out of our economy and increasing inflation by flooding the zone with more government spending and, therefore, creating higher and higher inflation and ultimately making

things more expensive for the american people, to where they look at their personal financial situation and realize how much just the cost of inflation is impacting their family budgets on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis. that, to me, should be the takeaway coming out of this because i certainly don't believe in any respect that it wasn't that the american people didn't know what is in this massive tax-and-spending bill. rather, it's that they do know. they are finding out what's in itment and -- they're finding out what is in it. you have to be pretty darn creative to figure out how to spend $3.5 trillion to $4 trillion and there is a ton of taxing that goes with it. and there was a study that came out yesterday from penn wharton that suggested that this massive

and reckless taxing-and-spending bill runs -- it says it is going to cost $3.9 trillion. the taxes that are proposed to be raised generate about $1.5 trillion in revenue. therefore, a $2.4 trillion addition to the federal debt, which is already, as we know, at the $30 trillion range and growing literally by the day. so, mr. president, i would simply suggest to my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle that the message coming out of these elections is not we want more government from the american people, we want more dependence upon washington, d.c., we want washington, d.c., to do more things for us, but rather, we want washington, d.c., to get out of the way, quit trying to run our lives, and create the conditions that are favorable to economic growth and job creation and higher

wages so we can take care of our families rather than having to depend upon washington, d.c., to do it. mr. president, i hope that this will be a resounding message that we need to defeat this massive tax-and-spending bill and allow the american people the freedom that they need to lead their lives and to have better opportunities for them, for their kids, and for their grandkids and better wages. mr. president, i understand we have a vote coming up here, so i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the harris nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury, benjamin harris of virginia to be an assistant secretary. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

senate democrats make another

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 78, the nays are 21. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the coleman nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, united states agency for international development, isobel coleman of

new york to be deputy administrator. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 59. the nays are 39. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, today is the one-year anniversary of an election that was judged the most secure in the history of america. let me say that again. the election that ended november

3, 2020, one year ago was judged the most secure in american history. that's not my opinion. that's the official conclusion under the trump administration of his department of homeland security which coordinates with the nation's top cybersecurity and voting infrastructure experts to protect our elections. they released that assessment ten days after last year's election. and they did it in the face of dangerous and unprecedented avalanche of attacks and tweets from the enraged president donald trump who claimed falsely that the election had been stolen from him. and those election security experts were not alone. president trump and his loyalists filed more than 50 lawsuits in state and federal courts repeating their false claims of voter fraud and stolen

votes, 50. every crack pot theory that rudy giuliani could glean or spawn on the internet was tested in court. how did they do? 50 lawsuits. no evidence to back their claims in the courts, only bizarre conspiracy theories and far-right internet gossip which they accepted as gospel. well, the lawsuits were all dismissed. some even by judges that president trump had nominated. it was not a great day for the theory of a stolen election in the courts of america. and what happened next? what happened was documented by the senate judiciary committee which i chair. we brought witnesses before us to really explore stage two of president trump's effort to overturn the last election. when he couldn't win in the courts, he decided to go to the

department of justice. william barr, his honored and loyal attorney general resigned after announcing he could find nothing wrong with the election and then president trump took it in his own hands with few of his allies, one of them jeffrey clark in the department of justice, they tried to pressure the acting attorney general jeffrey rosen to send a letter out to the attorneys general and other authorities, state authorities across the nation to tell them to suspend reporting the electoral college vote count. well, jeffrey rosen and others stood up to the president even when he threatened to dismiss him and replace him. in fact when that happened, a number of people in the department of justice, many of whom were appointees by president trump, said that they would resign en masse if that happened. so the trump approach to take

this to the department of justice to railroad their way through that failed. but the big lie continued. we all know about the death and destruction of the big lie in this capitol building, in this senate chamber on january 6. in this capitol building five people lost their lives and over a hundred law enforcement were attacked by the mob that descended on this building. the entire world looked on in disbelief to think that a president would send a mob up to overrun the capitol and to stop the electoral college vote count. the big lie is also corroding america's faith in our electoral system. a new poll released this week discorrode that -- disclosed that only one in three republican voters trust that the 2024 elections will be fair, only one in three. one year ago americans braved a

lethal pandemic to cast their ballots. many stood in line, some for hours. the 2020 general election saw the highest voter turnout in more than a century according to the brennan center. and as i said, it was our most secure election ever as judged by president trump's department of homeland security and his attorney general william barr. we ought to be proud of that. sadly, however, instead of telling people the truth and defending our elections, lawmakers in many states are using the big lie promulgated by former president trump as a pretext to undermine america's right to vote. we need to use examples here so you understand would we're saying -- understand what we're saying. remember the runoff election for two senatorial seats in the state of georgia in it was an important election. there were unprecedented numbers of voters participating in it. the law in georgia at the time said that people could register to vote between the official

election count on november 3 and the runoff election count in january. then the georgia legislature after two democrat senators were elected changed that and said no, you can't rental iser -- register to vote in that interim period of time and it reduced the amount of time people would have to cast absentee ballots. since the january 6 assault on the capitol, more than 425 bills have been introduced in 49 states to make it harder to vote and in some cases easier for some politicians to overturn elections if they don't like voters' choices. mr. president, this is exactly how democracies wither. if we undermine the most fundamental concept of democracy, the right to vote and the right for people in that electorate to choose its leaders, we are going to weaken this democracy that we were honored to inherit. three times this year on the floor of the united states

senate, republican senators have used the filibuster which historically has been the favorite tool of segregationists and i might add many of those segregationists were democrats, to prevent this senate from even debating voting rights. let me say that again. republicans have used the filibuster to prevent this senate from even debating both for the people act twice and the freedom to vote act. the other day i looked up the cloture vote on another of our nation's great laws, the civil rights act of 1964. on june 10, 1964, senators voted to end the longest filibuster in history and allowed the civil rights act to move forward. the vote tally is important. among republican senators, 27 voted for cloture to end the filibuster. six voted not to, to support the continuation of the filibuster. 27-6 on the republican side. the vote by democratic senators

as history judges it and i stand by that judgment, was less noble. 44 democrats voted to end the filibuster of the civil rights act. 23 voted to sustain it. so if the republicans voted with such a strong majority in favor of ending the filibuster, it was promulgated by democratic senators at the time against the civil rights act, what has happened since? what has become of this republican party, this party of abraham lincoln? in fact, what has become of the party of ronald reagan? you see, 40 years ago this week president reagan proudly signed a bill extending the full protection of the 1965 voting rights act for 25 years. this is what ronald reagan, republican president of the united states said. quote, for this nation to remain true to its principles, we cannot allow any americans' vote to be denied, diluted, or

defiled. the right to vote, he said, is the crown jewel of american liberties, and we will not see its luster diminish. what a statement. it's powerful and decisive as one might ask from a republican president when he extended the voting rights act of 1965. so i want to commend my friend and she is my friend, senator lisa murkowski, the senior senator from alaska, for remaining true to the values of abraham lincoln and ronald reagan, even in this hyper partisan age. later the senate will vote on whether to begin debate on the john lewis voting rights advancement act. it comes after months of good faith negotiation, including my office as well as senator manchin, senator murkowski, and others who support this legislation. it will restore the original intention and protections of the

1965 voting rights act before misguided rulings by the supreme court gutted that magnificent law and rendered many of its critical protections vulnerable. when a narrow conservative majority in the supreme court court struck down the voting rights provision eight years ago, it concluded congress could come up with a new enforcement term la of our times. well, we did. this is it. the john r. lewis voting rights act -- advancement actuary contains that new formula. it's fair. it's bipartisan. and we need it urgently to stop the nationwide assault on voting rights that is being justified by president trump's big lie. years ago one of the most memorable experiences in my pub libl life, early on a foggy morning, i stood on the edmund pettus bridge in selma, alabama, with any friend john lewis. the to of us looked across at that piece of territory just at

the bottom of the bridge where john lewis nearly died when he was beaten during that march. john lewis risked his life so poor people and black people in the deep south could vote. john lewis had more moral courage than anyone i have known. many of our republican friends say they revere him, too. well, today's the chance to show it. john lewis championed the voting rights advancement act in the months before he died. he knew it would protect the america he loved and the cause he nearly died for. the bill we will vote to begin debating later today is based on the same foundation as the voting rights act extension that passed the senate unanimously in 2006. unanimously it passed. but that was then and this is now. do you know who voted in 2006 for the protections that we seek to restore with the john lewis voting rights advancement act? senator lisa murkowski was one

of those who did, but also at that time in 2006, the senate republican leader, senator mitch mcconnell, the senate republican whip, senator john thune, they voted for it, too. it was a bipartisan unanimous undertaking. next week, americans will pause to honor the courage and sacrifice of our veterans. before we vote on whether to allow the senate to even begin debating voting rights, i urge my republican friends to remember words spoken by another president, lyndon johnson. he spoke in the capitol rotunda. he was surrounded by republican and democratic senators of the day and the reverend martin luther king and other heroes of the long struggle to secure voting rights. president johnson called the passage of the voting rights act, quote, a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any

battlefield. for all those, the thousands who have risked their lives to defend this country, they were defending not just a name, not just a piece of geography. they were defending our rights as americans, and they were prepared to die for it, whether on a foreign battlefield or on a bridge in selma, i urge my republican colleagues let this senate debate voting rights. vote yes for cloture. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. later today the senate will vote on the latest power grab by our friends across the aisle, a bill that's called the john lewis voting rights advancement act of

2021. the most important reason to vote against this legislation is it is clearly unconstitutional. i know it's unusual for members of the legislative branch to make statements like that, but we do take an oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the united states, and i think it is part of our responsibility to assess the constitutionality of legislation that's being proposed and to make a judgment on whether it is constitutional or not. one reason why i say that is because the supreme court has made very clear that it is within the authority of the states to conduct elections, and that those elections must be run subject to the voting rights act, but that's section 2 of the voting rights act which applies across the entire country.

one of the reasons we find ourselves in this position today is because in 2006, our democratic colleagues proposed an extension of the voting rights act that did not update the formula by which covered states were being determined. in other words, in 2006, they did not reflect the huge improvement and advances made in minority voting strength since 1965. i think you could say without fear of contradiction that the voting rights act was one of the most important and most successful pieces of legislation ever passed in this country. the good news is that it's worked exactly as congress had hoped. so our colleagues are really trying to pass an unconstitutional law which would require states to change their voting rules to ask permission of the biden justice department

before they do so. as chief justice roberts laid out in the shelby county case, that's a departure from the norm, to be sure, and can only be justified to remedy past discrimination. but if you look at the current numbers of minority voting strengths around the country, you see minorities voting in historically high numbers. and even in many instances, exceeding that of the majority. so this is really a piece of legislation that's being sold under false pretensions. based on the way our democratic colleagues talk about the state of voting rights in america, you would think the supreme court had struck down the voting rights act. the chairman of the judiciary committee who just spoke, the democratic whip, he described

the current law as an insidious effort to suppress the right of voters of color, close quote. the majority leader, senator schumer, recently said that the right to vote was under attack in ways that we have not seen in generations. and the speaker of the house has said voting rights are under relentless attack. but the facts do not align with this doom and gloom picture of voting in america. in 2020, roughly two-thirds of all eligible voters cast a ballot. in texas, 66% of registered voters cast a ballot. 11.3 million voters. compared to 2016, 17 million more people voted in 2020. this includes a higher turnout in black, white, hispanic, and asian american communities. when we passed -- when congress passed the voting rights act back in 1965, the goal, the

laudable goal, one in which we all share was to eliminate discriminatory practices, and there is no question that it ultimately has worked. in 2012, for the first time on record, turnout among black voters was higher than that of white voters, higher. and in 2020, both hispanic and asian voters turned out at the highest rate on record. so clearly, thankfully, we have come a long way since 1965. and despite what democrats would have you believe, the voting rights act is alive and well and continues to protect minority americans from discrimination. even though the facts don't align with the democrats' sky is falling depiction of voting rights in america, that hearnt stopped them from pushing this false narrative of widespread

voter suppression. as our colleagues have demonstrated over the past few years, they have one tried and true strategy. if you can't win the game, change the rules. they failed to stop conservative nominees from reaching the supreme court, so their solution is to pack the supreme court with additional justices. just add more liberal justices. they are uninterested in bipartisanship, so they proposed ending the legislative filibuster. we've heard that time and time again. the democratic whip just talked about the filibuster. and since they failed to secure a mandate in congress, they want to forever change the rules of america's elections to rig the game in their favor. we have seen a steady stream of bills designed by our democratic colleagues to achieve this end. this current bill i think is about the third iteration. first came the so-called for the

people act. who could be against for the people act? it was so unpopular among democrats that they had to go back to the drawing boards and rewrite it. when the updated version came to the senate floor for a vote, it went down with bipartisan opposition, so they came back from their drawing board once again giving their legislation a new and different name, the freedom to vote act. they stripped out some of the most egregious provisions but not nearly enough to change the fate of this partisan bill, and like its predecessor, it failed to pass the senate. but now our democratic colleagues, they really do have the answer, a bill that perverts the cause of voting rights to give the democratic party unprecedented control over america's elections. at the heart of this legislation

is the preclearance regime. in other words, the states would have to ask the federal government can we pass laws in our state, and it would be up to the biden justice department and merrick garland to say yes or no. now, back in 1965, the original voting rights act did have a preclearance requirement, but it's clear that, according to the supreme court, that was only justified based on a history of past discrimination. whichwhich has now been essentiy eradicated if you believe the numbers of minority voters who are casting their ballot now. so think about the children's game, mother may i. all the kids line up on one side of the room except one who stands on the other side and acts as the mother. before anyone can move forward, they have to ask mother may i.

sometimes the mother says yes, you may. sometimes she says no, you may not. sometimes she even orders the children to take a step backwards. that's essentially what democrats are proposing in this legislation, to make the biden justice department the mother and the states have to ask mother may i before we can even -- they can even fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. in 2013, the supreme court struck down the portion of the law that set the formula for when a state or local jurisdiction would have to seek preclearance, but to be clear -- and you can't tell this from the rhetoric on the left -- the court did not strike down the voting rights act in its entirety. just the formula that determined which states would be covered, because, as the supreme court said, that formula had to

reflect current conditions, and instead congress chose not to update the formula from 1965. that was section 4 of the voting rights act, which the supreme court of the united states held unconstitutional. chief justice roberts in his opinion speaking of the outdated formula in that legislation said history did not end in 1965. well, here's an example. the formula set in 1965 required states to receive preclearance if they had, quote, any test or device that restricts voting. that would include things like literacy tests or subjective determinations of good moral character which are thankfully nowhere to be found today. democrats have tried to market this bill as a response to the supreme court's decision, but the truth is this legislation goes far beyond updating that

outdated formula. it would make the formula so broad that virtually every state would have to ask of the biden justice department mother may i before making any changes in their election laws. so if a county or municipal utility district or the state itself wanted to do something as simple as clean up voter rolls and remove the names of dead people, they would have to ask the federal government and the biden justice department for permission to do so. well, this is recently the -- this is the same organization, the biden justice department that recently took aggressive actions to discourage parents from exercising their constitutional rights to speak out at local school board meetings. clearly, we don't need to vest states' authorities in the hands of these unanswerable bureaucrats who are willing to

abuse their power to discourage parents from exercising their constitutional rights. based on this broad formula, you would think there had been countless unenforced instances of voter discrimination. if democrats are willing to go this far to stop discrimination, it must be a widespread problem, right? wrong. the justice department, as i said, retains the right to enforce section 2 of the voting rights act which applies to the entire united states, and it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. during the entire eight years of the obama administration, the justice department only filed four, four enforcement cases under section 2. well, if you think that

discrimination against minority voters is rampant, don't you think you would see more than four enforcement actions by the obama administration over an eight-year period of time? the power grab doesn't stop there. this legislation also gives the department of justice veto power over state voter i.d. laws. now, we all know you have to show a photo i.d. to open a bank account, buy tobacco, alcohol, get married, board a plane, and do countless other things in our country. but our democratic colleagues have this thing about requiring voter i.d. to vote, to make sure you're actually qualified and authorized to cast a ballot. the american people overwhelmingly support voter i.d. laws. four in five people believe voters should be required to show a photo i.d. in order to

cast a ballot. but this legislation would override the will of 80% of americans and allow the justice department to veto those laws for basically any reason that they choose. in so many ways this legislation is a solution in search of a problem. it interferes -- and i would say it usurps the state's constitutional authority to manage their own elections and set their own congressional districts. you'd have to ask mother may i of the biden justice department to do any redistricting which is currently under way now in advance. and it makes it virtually impossible for the states to take actions to prevent fraud. essentially encouraging them to wait for large-scale voter fraud before they could take any action. and it arms the department of

justice with new powers that will surely be used against foes of the democratic party. we're still seeing the consequences of the justice department's blatant attack on concerned parents in our schools. why on earth would we hand a politically motivated department even more power to abuse, especially when that power could shape the result of our elections. from city councils and school boards all the way up to the president of the united states, the american people have a right and i would argue a duty to make their voices heard. a government of the people, by the people, for the people as abraham lincoln phrased it, is only possible if all americans are free to participate in public life. despite what the radical left might lead you to believe, there

is no nationwide assault on minority voting rights. if there were, every single person in this building would be lined up together, arms length, to fight against it. as i said before, the voting rights act of 1965 is one of the most important laws in modern american history. and it's actually worked. and it continues to protect all persons of color from any sort of discrimination when it comes to their right to cast their ballot. this bill isn't about supporting disenfranchised voters, though, or fighting voter suppression. this is a politically motivated power grab that would allow democrats to determine -- in washington to determine how elections in texas are run. the narrative of widespread voter suppression is nothing but

a scare tactic designed to support a political outcome. republicans have blocked every iteration of this partisan power grab so far and will stand together to oppose this one as well. at the next vote. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the

senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: last night the american people sent an unmistakable message to the democratic party -- we don't like your agenda. we don't want your agenda. and we won't vote for your agenda and for you. during this election, the democratic party was exposed for what it has become -- a party that holds police, parents, and patriotism in contempt. and now the democrats have paid the price. the democrats will continue to pay that price until they reject the repugnant radicalism that has infected their party. the democratic defeat last night was not in a single state or one county or some isolated municipality. it was not some isolated incident. it was not the result of just a single quirky issue or bad candidate. it was a nationwide disaster and

wipeout for the democratic party. after 12 years of uninterrupted statewide victories in the commonwealth of virginia, democrats appear to have lost not one, not two, but all three statewide races this year, along with control of the virginia house of delegates and the only reason they didn't lose the virginia state senate is because the state senate wasn't on the ballot last night. i will remind you that virginia is not a swing state, as you may have heard this morning, to excuse the democrats' terrible performance. joe biden won virginia by ten points. it's been 12 years since virginia voted for a republican. virginia is a democratic state. it has been for more than decade. yet now joe biden's accolades have been resoundingly defeated. it's remarkable how quickly the president's party has frittered away all of the good will in

virginia. now, i've also heard some democrats try to explain away the loss in virginia by saying terry mcauliffe was a bad candidate. and i certainly have no grief for terry mcauliffe. he was such a bad candidate, that he also was causing the democratic governor in new jersey to lose. joe biden won that state by the 16 points, and at this moment, the governor's race is too close to call. too close to call. so it's at least 16-point swing, even if the democratic governor squeaks it out. and oh, by the way, the democratic state senate president, one of the key powerbrokers in new jersey, appears to be on his path to losing to a republican truck driver who spent a grand total of $153 on his campaign. but someone who said i'm a dad and i'm a grandfather, and i think that we're taxed too much. and that we need better

representation. if anyone had told governor phil murphy and the democrats yesterday that this would be a close race, he would have been laughed out of the room. looking across state lines in new york, there was a similarly shocking outcome with republicans apparently sweeping every office in long island, every office in long island, driven in no small part by the insane pro-criminal polls of the new york democrats who want to eliminate cash bail and defund the police and go soft on criminals and let them out of jail early. speaking of that, let's turn to deep, deep blue minneapolis, minnesota. the b.l.m. riots kick asked off

last summer, where radicals have waged an unrelenting war on their city's police force in a referendum to replace the police department, 56% of voters revoted and voted to keep the -- revoted and voted to keep the -- revolted and volted to keep the police department just the way it is. if defund the police can't win in a city that's been run by democratic mayors for nearly a half-century, it's not going to win anywhere. now, if this was a bad night for democrats, it was an even worse night for the woke far-left progressives who dominate in the democratic party. in buffalo, new york, voters appear to have rejected this democratic radicalism. self-proclaimed merrell candidate india walton had actually beaten the incumbent democratic mayor earlier this

year for the nomination. but now india walton is losing to the current mayor in a write-in campaign, a write-in campaign. again, if your far-left policies can't even win when you are your party's nominee and in a city that has been ran entirely by democrats for a half-century, you better believe they are bad and unpopular policies that will cost you your next election. finally, as far away as san antonio, republicans have flipped a democratic bastion in a clear sign that republican inroads with hispanic voters last year were not a fluke. so what's responsible for this astounding red wave, unlike anything we have seen in years? well, if you listened to some in the immediate why this morning, the answer is the -- in the media this morning, the answer is the same as always. glenn youngkin is apparently a

smiling fleece jacket-wearing reincarnation of democratic demagogues. if you look at the actual results, this laughable attack is exposed for what it is -- dishonest propaganda. as part of this supposedly racist or white supremacist backlash election, more than half of hispanic voters appear to have pulled the lever for youngkin. not one but two plurality house districts flipped to the g.o.p. best of all for this supposedly racist election, virginia voters just elected the state's first black female lieutenant governor. that woman is winsome seers, a gun-toting immigrant marine veteran and a proud conservative republican. so much for the media spin.

now for the truth. according to exit polls, the top issues on voters' minds were the economy and education. both spell disaster for the democrats. for months americans have watched with alarm as democrats have shoveled trillions of dollars into liberal priorities while inflation has surged upwards. they've suffered skyrocketing costs at the grocery store and the gas pump. first the democrats said this is merely transitory inflation. then they laughed it off as a joke. then they said, sorry, you'll have to lower your expectations. it may take you a while to get your treadmill. then they demanded trillions dollars more in their so-called build back better initiative, which of course should be called build back broke, if you are a, woulding family. when glenn youngkin voted to eliminate virginia's onerous grocery tax and cut through the

aggressive gas tax, normal virginians listened and vote. american parents have also been ignored an mistreated by the schools that are supposed to be teaching their kids. remote learning was a disaster for america's children. some have fallen months behind in their development, and many more have suffered the consequences of social isolation. but if there's a silver lining in this tragedy, it's that parents were finally able to see the nonsense that their kids were being taught -- critical race theory, indoctrine nateed to see everyone, the color of their skin and to hate their skin. and parents were outraged. the democrats' response reminds me of the old line that that dog didn't bite you. he's not my dog.

they said it is not taught in virginia. they said it should be taught anyway because our schools and our institutions are so racist. then again they also said that there was no threat of having teenage boys in girls' bathrooms. we now know that loudoun county didn't just cover up one rape of a teenage girl by a boy dressed as a girl but then transferred that boy to another school where he committed a second assault. not surprisingly, parents in loudoun county didn't take too kindly to the woke democrats in charge of that school system. so when their arguments failed to persuade, the democrats a different tactic -- silencing parenting. terry mcauliffe boldly claimed that parents shouldn't tell schools what they should teach their kids. attorney general merrick garland even tried to sick the f.b.i. on parent whose showed up to

protest at school board meetings. so it is no wonder that parents voted for republicans when the alternative was nothing but contempt and spite for parents raising their children as they see fit. so, yes, the american people are disappointed, dissatisfied and frankly disgusted with the modern democratic party, which sneeringly claims that it knows best always and about everything. if it did, it would have seen this coming. so i'd simply caution my democratic colleagues, especially four future former one-term senators, if they don't change their ways, if they proceed with this reckless tax-and-spending bill, which includes over $1 trillion in wasteful spending and that is littered projects and schemes,

next year will be even worse. that chill you feel is the voters walking over your grave. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kaine: can i ask that it be suspended? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: mr. president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise today to offer a tribute to one of my best friends and my political hero, my father-in-law, linwood holton, who died last thursday at age 98. i wanted to come and talk with linwood and his influence on my life, and there is no more appropriate time to talk about him as we're about to cast a vote to proceed to the john

lewis voting rights act. abner linwood h holton jr. was born in 1923 in big stone gap, virginia, a few miles from the virginia-kentucky border. he was the son of a dad who helped run a small railroad, the interstate railroad that would bring coal out of the cold fields to connect with the larger rail line that ran north and south through the great valley of virginia. growing up at that time with three siblings, with parents who cared deeply about him, he saw the challenges of the depression, and my father-in-law was a very remarkable youngster because he had a deep empathy for other people that sometimes young folks don't always have. my father-in-law wrote an auto

biography called "opportunity time" and described a period in his life that was pivotal. he was young, eight, nine years old. he lived in a community that was predominantly white folks, few african americans in his town, connected to coal mines in appalachia. he saw a friend of his talking to an elderly african american man in an incredibly mean and disrespectful way, and it shocked him. and so he asked the man after his friend had gone, why did you let him talk to you that way? i can't believe that a youngster would talk to an adult that way. and the man basically just pointed to the color of his skin and said what choice do i have? that's just the way we get treated. when linwood wrote his autobiography, i can almost quote this directly from memory, he described that

instance and he said it caused me to feel such shame then, and i feel shame as i write these words today. sometimes young people watch how others treat people, and they just absorb, okay, i guess that's just the way you treat people. but linwood as a youngster immediately could grasp, no, that's not the way you treat people. i think he connected the discrimination against this african american man with a discrimination that he kind of felt being from appalachia. there were stereotypes about appalachians, hillbillies be or whatever else they might be called, and he resented that. he didn't like anybody looking down on him and he decided the answer to that was not for him to look down on others, but instead anybody else looking down on anybody else was doing wrong. i think this was partly out of lin's deep religious faith.

my father-in-law went on to go to washington-lee. pearl harbor happened. his parents said we know what you're going to try to do, drop out of college to go to world war ii. please don't do it. he promised his parents he would get to the end of the academic year and he did. they he joined the navy. i said to my father-in-law you were in big stone gap, never seen the ocean before. why would you join the navy and not the army? he said in the army you get a bunk and i hate sleeping on the ground. the presiding officer: he was in the submarine --. mr. kaine: he was in the submarine car, participated in japan, came back to virginia, met me mother-in-law who turned 96 four days ago, had two children including my wife ann. ann was the second of their four children, ten grandchildren. after practicing law in roanoke, he made a decision that he didn't like politics in

virginia, and he was going to try to do something really important, which was create a competitive two-party system. virginia was dominated by a political machine called the byrd machine from the 1920's until the 1960's. so there wasn't really two-party politics. the byrd machine was a machine in a particular way. sometimes if we think about machines, we might think about corruption and bribery. that was not what the machine did. the machine was corrupt in maybe an even more damaging way. it dramatically limited who could vote, who could participate, drove downturnout in elections through poll taxes and literacy tests and other things so few folks could participate in the democracy of virginia. there was a governor's race in 1945 in virginia and a gentleman named bill tuck from halifax county won that race and linwood

told me this a million times, i came back and bill tuck won the governor's race and the total turnout in the race was about 8% of virginia adults. 8%. poll taxes kept people away. literacy tests kept people away. the absence of a meaningful two-party system made some folks say why bother. linwood said i fought in the pacific for democracy and i come home to the commonwealth of virginia, and this is what i'm faced with. so he took it upon himself to build a republican party so that there could be a competitive two-party democracy in virginia that would give people a choice and that would break down barriers of all kinds to people being educated together, people working together, and people being able to vote and participate. my father-in-law is most known because he was the governor that integrated the public schools of

virginia after previous governors had kept them segregated, even 16 years after brown vs. board of education. the byrd machine insisted that governors fight against the federal government, fight against busing, fight against the notion that children could sit in a classroom next to somebody whose skin color was different, and in virginia, during my lifetime, a number of jurisdictions even shut their public schools down. for years, years at a time, in one instance for five years rather than let students go to schools together where they might sit with somebody of a different race. prince edward county, other counties shut schools down. warren county in northern virginia. norfolk. linwood wanted to break that up. that passion for racial equality from his early days led him to want to break that up because we're all equal, but also education is so important, why deprive anyone of an educational opportunity? and so he campaigned first twice

for the house of delegates in roanoke and lost both times. then he was the virginia candidate for governor, the republican candidate in 1965. he got 35% of the vote, which was unheard of for a republican. and then he ran again in 1969 and he won the governorship. on his fourth try for elected office. shortly after his election, a federal court in richmond ordered that schools be bussed to achieve the ending of segregation and have students be able to learn together, regardless of the color of their skin. linwood did what was unthinkable in 1970. instead of fighting against busing and fighting against integration, he not only said i'm going to support this, but i'm going to support it with my own school-aged children. my wife and her siblings lived in the governor's mansion. it wasn't in any particular school district. they could have gone to all-white schools in the suburbs. they could have gone to

all-white schools in the suburbs. instead the governor and his wife decided their kids will go to neighborhood schools, and those neighborhood schools were primarily african american schools. linwood escorted my sister-in-law into john f. kennedy high school, a predominantly african american high school in richmond in the fall of 1970. the picture of the governor and her walking into that predominantly block school is on the front page of the "new york times." there have been so many pictures of gfers in the south standing in schoolhouse doors blocking african american kids from coming into high schools and colleges, but there was only one picture, only one, only one of a southern governor escorting his daughter into a primarily black high school to send the message that we're all equal, that education is important in the era of defiance and fighting against the supreme court is over. linwood also brought african

americans into state employment in leadership roles in a very significant way that had not been done before. as people think about governor holton, they think of him as a pioneer that helped turn virginia away from defiance and segregation to try to realize the original promise of equality that another virginian, thomas jefferson, articulated in the declaration of independence. he did other things as well. he created the modern cabinet system in virginia. he unified the port of virginia, these ports in newport news, portsmouth and virginia that were competing against each other, he brought them together so they could compete with other ports around the world instead of each other. he cleaned up virginia's rivers. his true legacy and what people think about him is he was a champion of racial equality at a time when leaders were needed and it was hard. it was hard. linwood had spent now 20 years

building up a competitive two-party democracy in virginia, and he left office with a 77% approval rating when he was about 47 years old, but his party would have nothing to do with it. they were so upset with this founder of the virginia modern republican party, they were so upset with him for integrating public schools that when he ran for the united states senate just a few years later in 1978, they had been out of office three years in a four-way republican nominating convention, he finished third out of four because his pro-racial equality stand was so controversial. as you might imagine, that made my father-in-law a little bitter. you know, he had worked so hard to build up a two-party system and to champion racial equality that that was hard for him. i met my wife and started to date her shortly after he had unsuccessfully run for the

senate. i come from a completely nonpolitical family from kansas city. i knew nothing about politics, nothing about virginia. then i got to know this kind of scary, you know, potential father-in-law who was notable and has been a governor and he seemed kind of intimidating to me. but as i got to know his story, i could see how proud he was of his accomplishments and of his children, but how painful it was to have advanced in a -- in steps of courage toward something good and then be frozen out basically of politics thereafter. and yet through the miracle of longevity, people came around. they came around to appreciating him, beginning in about the 1990's, people started to say that linwood holton, now, that was a good governor. he lived long enough to see his reputation be restored, and people understanding his pivotal role in helping virginia move forward. the obit. >> iries and -- the obituaries

and tributes to governor holton when he passed away at noon peacefully, and my wife was there to tell her mother that her husband had passed, the tributes that have come in have been remarkable. the family has kind of laughed about the things they are saying about lin holton are 180 degrees different than the things they were saying about him in the 1970's. but living well is the best revenge. live by your values and stick by it. it will come back to you one day, and people will respect you for being a person of principle. and that's how it was with lin. i'm on the floor today -- i was intending to come today regardless of what the vote was because i kind of wanted to collect my thoughts about my father-in-law. there are so many things he stands for, the value of equality that losing isn't bad. he ran for office five times in his life. he only won once. his record is one and four. nobody ever says about linwood

holton he lost four elections. what they said is when he was governor at a tough time, he had courage and backbone and he did what was right. he was also a great voting rights governor. and here is where i want to conclude and then lead into the vote that we'll cast on the john lewis voting rights act. remember i told you how when linwood came back from world war ii and there was a governor's race and the turnout was just so pitifully low because of things like poll taxes that were designed not only to dissen franchise -- disenfranchise african american voters but poor white voters, too. if you didn't pay your poll tax, you would be presented with a big vote, if you couldn't pay it, you couldn't vote. that was what kept voting percentages so low in virginia. poll taxes were mcconnell used this way in the south, all over the south. many states had abandoned poll taxes by the 1940's and 1950's because they disenfranchised not only chance but so many poor

whites, but virginia still had a poll tax. that was one of the main reasons in turnout was so low in the election of 1945, and it became an object in the platform of the republican party that my father-in-law built to get rid of poll taxes. and they tried and they tried, but they were outmatched and the virginia legislature and the byrd machine wanted poll taxes. this body, congress, got rid of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting in federal elections in the 24th amendment to the constitution that was passed and then ratified by the states in 1960. but poll taxes were still used in state elections in virginia. get this. when lin ran for governor in 1965 and lost, the total votes cast were about 565,000 votes statewide. when he ran for governor in 1969 and won, with the support of business and labor and the civil rights organization, now the total vote was 965,000, in one

cycle between two governors' races, the turnout went up by 65% in one cycle. and they went up for one reason. in harper versus virginia in 1966, the united states supreme court struck down poll taxes for state elections. and so when you cleared that obstacle out of the way, participation dramatically improved, and even though a republican won, my father-in-law, it was great for democracy, small d democracy, because more participation is a positive thing. last night, we had a governor's race in virginia, and it didn't end up the way that i hoped that it would, but there was a good thing for democracy in that election. the turnout in last night's election in virginia was 25% higher than in the governor's race four years earlier. that is a huge, huge increase in voter participation. why was the turnout so much higher? it was higher because our

virginia legislature made a series of reforms to take virginia from one of the hardest states to vote in the country, couldn't vote easily, early, couldn't vote in person early, had to have an excuse to cast an absentee ballot. in 2019, our two democratic councils passed legislation to now make virginia one of the easiest states to vote in the country, and as a result, the turnout went up by 25% from the last governor's race to the race last night. and again, it wasn't the outcome that i wanted, but creating more opportunities for voting rights just wasn't to help the democratic party. it was actually to help small d democracy. and the same way that my father-in-law battled against poll taxes and when they were knocked down, there was more people willing to participate, the rorption we made in virginia have enabled both democrats and republicans and independents to participate more conveniently and thus driven up voting

turnout. i am a strong supporter of the john lewis voting rights act, restoring meaningful preclearance and requiring jurisdictions that have a pattern of voting rights violations to seek preclearance. one of the reasons i so strongly support it is i lived under the voting rights act as a mayor of richmond and i have lived under it as a governor of virginia, and it wasn't hard. when we were making changes, we would submit them to the justice department. they would have 90 days to review them. they would ask us questions. we would have dialogue. they would usually give us a green light. when they gave us the green light, we would have some assurance, we are not doing anything intentionally or even unwittingly that gets in people's way in terms of being able to vote. this bill would restore the preclearance requirement that the supreme court struck down in 2013 by requiring preclearance not of jurisdictions based on where they are, southern states, but instead say to any jurisdiction, north, south, east, west, midwest, if you had

a pattern of voting rights violations in the past 25 years, you must seek preclearance, but as soon as you're clean, with no voting rights violations for ten years, you don't have to seek preclearance unless you commit new voting rights violations. even steven, every part of the country is treated the same. the initial voting rights act was completely bipartisan. its reauthorization over years has been completely bipartisan. and i stand on the floor to ask my colleagues in the memory of my father-in-law, a republican who was my political hero, who was a pro-voting rights person, as the republican party has been during much of its life, i ask my colleagues to join together in support -- and support vigorous participation of voters in this democracy. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i come to the floor this afternoon to speak also about the john r. lewis voting rights advancement act. this is s. 4. listening to my friend from virginia here describe some of the history that he and his family have lived through. again, these are an important part of the discussions and the debate when we talk about -- about one of the very cornerstones of our identity as an extraordinary nation, the principles of democracy and freedom, and those are fair and open elections. the majority leader filed cloture on the motion to proceed

on monday evening, and to supply some very real reservations that i have, and it's fair to talk about those reservations, i will be among those who vote to begin debate on this measure when we have this vote in a few minutes here. and i will do so because i strongly support and i believe that congress should enact a bipartisan reauthorization of the voting rights act. we have done that. congress has done that five times since 1965. typically, typically by an overwhelming margin here in the senate. it's been about 15 years now since our last amendment to the voting rights act, and i think it's fair to say that 15 years

passage, it's probably timely and necessary to look updates, and in order to do that, i think, madam president, that what we have to do is we have got to step back from the partisanship, we have got to step back from the politicization that is driving this conversation. i think -- i think we should be able to agree to meaningful improvements that will help ensure that all our elections are free, they are fair, and they are accessible to all americans. now, those who follow this issue know that it's probably no great surprise that i'm involved in this discussion here today. i have been the lead republican cosponsor of a voting rights reauthorization now for the last six years. i've worked with my friend from vermont, senator leahy, as well

as senator durbin, senator manchin, and others to shape a framework that will allow us to make some progress on -- on some very real and legitimate issues. and at this point i feel that we have -- we've got a good foundation to help provide access to the ballot that is equal, again, for all americans and free from any form of discrimination. we should all be able to support legislation to assure just that much -- that much because nothing, as my friend from virginia has said, nothing is more fundamental than the right to vote. we've all heard that story of -- of benjamin franklin being asked at the end of the constitutional convention about the type of government that the framers had designed and his response, at

least according to some sources, that it's a republic if you can keep it. and i recognize -- i recognize that one of the surest ways to lose our republic is to allow the public trust in our elections to erode, and i fear that that's where we are. is that trust, that faith in our own elections is eroding. so i've engaged on voting rights legislation because i want us to continue to reduce those barriers to americans' ability to vote, whether it is geographic, whether it's logistical, we certainly know about that in alaska, whether it's partisan or some other form, i think we recognize. we've come a long way since the 1960's, but i think we need to acknowledge that we can continue

to build on that through reasonable and well-considered legislation. so the voting rights legislation that i support is not this sweeping overhaul that would take power away from the states in order to federalize the election process. it's a bill -- there was -- it's a bill earlier on the floor this year, and i voted against it. i didn't like that very detailed, prescriptive approach that i felt was -- was moving us towards a federalization. instead, the legislation that i support would provide greater transparency for federal elections so that voters are fully informed. they know about the changes in voting procedures. it would protect voters from discrimination in all of its

forms and continue to knock down the barriers that we know in many places still exist. it would provide protections for voters, for election workers in polling places to discourage the efforts to interfere, to intimidate or to physically harm them. it would provide for voting materials in relevant areas to be translated -- to be translated in our native languages. this is very important for us back home in alaska. it would require states that have historically been found to discriminate against minority voters to once again preclear their changes in their voting laws. and it would uphold the many -- the many good practices and procedures that we have in states like alaska rather than burdening with new mandates that

aren't designed for a place, again, like alaska where geographically, logistically, it might simply not work. that's the kind of legislation that i can support. but i need to be clear here. that's not the description of zest 4, -- s. 4, the bill that is being brought up for debate. i didn't support s. 4 as it was written and as it was introduced. what i can support -- what i can support in its place and as a starting point is the substitute amendment that the majority has agreed to lay down should the senate agree to begin debate, and that substitute amendment contains more than -- more than a dozen significant changes that my team and i have been working with others to negotiate. and so the question i think

needs to be asked, is that enough? and i say, no, it's not enough. even with those changes, i still have concerns, and i know that many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have concerns. substantive changes will be needed before this measure is ready to pass the senate. so if this procedural vote fails today, where i think we go next, we have to go back, we have to consider this legislation through regular order, through the committee process and in the meantime -- in the meantime, i mentioned just the politicalization, the partisanship that we have seen with these issues. i think let's stop -- stop the show votes. let's give ourselves the space to work cooperatively across the aisle to reach the level of consensus that i think is

important. it's important for this issue, it's important for this country. our goal, the goal here should be to avoid a partisan bill, not to take failing votes over and over for political gain. it really doesn't get us anywhere. it gets us on record. it allows you to weaponize, if you will, a critically important issue. it doesn't go anywhere. it doesn't serve anyone. it ultimately accomplishes nothing. our own real option here is to figure out how we're working together on this and our goal, madam president, should be to match what we did in 2006 when the last reauthorization of the voting rights act passed the senate 98-0. wouldn't that be a goal for us all? wouldn't that send the signal to people across this country, from alaska to maine, to have

faith -- to have faith in -- in our electoral process, in our elections. some may be wondering why, as a republican, i'm willing to put my name next to this legislation pretty publicly and acknowledging it's not where i want the bill to be right now. but i think if we can step back from the political exercise, i think we can do good. i think we need to do good. i believe that those of us who want to find common ground need to be part of the process. we need to be willing to get in, mix it up, work it out instead of sitting back on the sidelines and saying, i just don't like your product and i'm not going to offer anything else, i just don't like your product. so let's get in the arena.

given my role as vice chairman of the indian affairs committee, i believe that i have an obligation to help resolve some of the long-standing issues that face our native people in alaska and around the country. and, finally, i believe it is simply dangerous to let voting rights become a wholly partisan issue where our divisions just fester and -- and take root in an area that is so central to our system of government. so, madam president, the vote in front of us today is procedural in nature on whether to open debate. it's not on final passage or anything close to it. there are even things in the substitute text that i -- i frankly don't support and others that i have not been able to fully evaluate. but i also recognize -- i recognize the framework within the john lewis voting rights act is the most viable that we have

and it is the best starting point to legitimate so i will -- legislate, so i will vote to begin this debate in the hopes that this is a step forward, not -- not a step backward as we're seeking a bipartisan accord. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that senators hoeven, murray, mcconnell and i be able to complete our remarks before the scheduled vote. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: senator hoeven and i are here to speak about the assistant secretary for the army of works, but i did want to thank senator murkowski for her well-reasoned remarks and for her willingness to go forward with this debate. this is a debate about fundamental voting rights. we may not agree on everything, but she wants to have the debate

and that's all we're asking for. we're asking to move forward with this very important piece of legislation and if there's things people don't like, things they like, we can discuss it. this place has to start working. we need to restore the senate so we can debate the big issues of our time and i truly appreciate senator murkowski's willingness to do this today with her vote. madam president, i come to the floor briefly today to support michael connors' nomination to serve as assistant secretary of the army for civil works, and senator hoeven and i are here together because we both care very much about getting this position filled. all of us have major, major projects in our states that need to be built and he needs to get in this job. we were hopeleful and are -- hopeful and are hopeful that we will have a vote on this tomorrow. michael brings to this position unparalleled experience in water

management and i'm not just talking about his professional work, i'm talking about his upbringing. he grew up on the edge of the desert in new mexico and he was raised with a heightened understanding of the purpose of water practices. over the course of his career, he has spent nearly two decades at the department of interior. during that time he led efforts on water resource management. this will be vital as he takes on the new leadership role. we know about the army corps of civil works program, supporting our inland waterways and coastal ports to providing flood protection and risk management. senator hoeven and i are here together because we care a lot about flood protection. the red river doesn't divide us between north dakota and minnesota, the red river of the north exceeded flood stage 59

times between 2002 and 2019 and it has had seven of the top ten floods during the last 30 years. as we have seen more and more impacts from extreme weather impacts, water maintenance will be extremely important. to build up sustainable infrastructure that can manage all 50 states, we need leaders like michael connors, and time and again he has proven himself to be a dedicated leader, he is a former retired general and a general for civil and emergency operations said in an interview that michael connor has deep experience with the water issues, and he will bring that experience to the army. i am proud to support him and, again, we are very hopeful that we can have the vote tomorrow and i want to thank senator hoeven for the work he has done

in making sure that we can clear the way for the vote on his side of the aisle. senator hoeven. mr. hoeven: thank you, i would like to thank the esteemed senator from minnesota for getting michael connor's vote to the floor and hopefully tomorrow we will have that vote. the position of the assistant secretary for the army works is critical. every state has interactions with the u.s. army corps of engineers and the top civilian oversees it. the assistant secretary plays a vital role in setting policies for the corps and ensuring an incredible array of projects are mangd executed across the nation. for example in my state of d.n.a., we have -- north dakota, we have core projects, like the minot flood protection and we

had 11,000 people, 4,000 homes and buildings inundated and flood production is incredibly vital for them. we need the corps working for them to get it done. the red river valley of the north, as senator klobuchar said so accurately, we are working together for comprehensive flood protection in that region. a multibillion dollar, multistate project that uses the latest approach, public-private partnership, doing things in a way that hasn't been done before and can really help us cut into that backlog that the corps has on these flood projects. but it takes a lot of work and a lot of creativity to keep that moving forward so we need the assistant secretary of state in that to do that. as senator klobuchar said correctly, mr. connor is well

qualified for this position. he held a number two position at interior from 2014 to 2017. he also served as commissioner of the interior's bureau of reclamation from 2009 to 2014. he worked on capitol hill from 2001 to 2009 as counsel to the senate energy and natural resources committee. so he's got the background to do this. he's ready to go. let's have this vote on confirmation. and let's get -- put him to work for the great people of this great country. and with that i would defer again to the senator from minnesota for any concluding remarks she has. but again i want to thank her for working on this in a bipartisan way. ms. klobuchar: with that i'll turn it over to senator murray. thank you very much, senator hoeven. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president.

first of all i come to the floor to call for the confirmation of ms. nayak. our working families across the country have really struggled through the most unequal economic crisis in recent history. covid put a glaring spotlight on many of the promise workers were already facing before the pandemic and has worsened long-standing inequities making it harder for women, workers of colors and with disabilities and others. if we're going to baltd back stronger and fairer from this pandemic, then our federal agencies must be fully staffed with highly qualified people who will help us tackle the many challenges hurting workers, retirees and their families. and mr. nayak already has an impressive track record of doing just that. mr. fay yak served -- nayak served as a senior adviser to secretary walsh at the department and previously served in the solicitor's office as deputy assistant secretary for policy and deputy chief of

staff. in those roles he has worked on a broad portfolio on issues important to workers across the country, including workforce development, worker protection, countertrafficking, overtime pay, health and safety, retirement security and more. he has also worked twice at the national employment law project, including most recently as deputy c.e.o. as an advocate and policymaker -- the presiding officer: regular order, please. can you take your conversations off the floor. thank you. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. he has also worked ties at the national employment -- twice at the national employment law project including most recently as deputy c.e.o. as an advocate and policymaker, he has shown time and again his commitment to empowering workers, supporting families and advancing equity. i have no doubt if confirmed as assistant secretary of labor for policy, he will continue working in the best interests of workers and their families. and i urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting in support

of his nomination. madam president, i also rise today before this really crucial vote because i want to make it clear that democrats are not done on the issue of voting rights. first of all, i want to thank my colleague senator murkowski from alaska whose remarks we should all listen to because we do have some who are repeatedly preventing us from even debating voting rights legislation. most recently the freedom to vote act. i want everybody to know we're not done fighting to ensure that every person in this country has equal and fair access to the ballot. we're not done because the cause we are fighting for here today is a just one. and americans want to see us protect their right to vote. and the john lewis voting rights advancement act does exactly that. this bill will restore and strengthen the 1965 voting rights act which is one of the most important bills in our

nation's history. it was a bipartisan rejection of racist attempts by states to deny the ballot to people of color. and it came after years of dedicated work by activists and lawmakers, including the late honorable congressman lewis who were and are intent on ensuring our country follow through on our nation's most fundamental promise to its citizens. the promise that every united states citizen has an equal voice in our elections. for most of the decades following its passage, the provisions in the 1965 voting rights act have enjoyed bipartisan support. but in recent years the power and protections of this crucial law have been gutted. and far-right legislators in states across our country are now passing laws that make it harder for communities of color to vote, all based on baseless claims about voter fraud and rigged elections. it is shameful and it really is

antidemocratic and it should be bigger than partisan politics. we should be able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass a federal prohibition on laws that restrict the right to vote based on race. protecting each citizen's right to have a voice in our democracy should be as noncontroversial as naming post offices because the right to vote, the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy and attempts to weaken it weaken the foundation we all depend on. those are the stakes here, the foundation and future of our democracy. without equal access to the ballot, how will people tell us what they want to see on most challenging questions of our time? like climate or health care, education, or so much more. so even if many of my republican colleagues disagree with me about the provisions included in this bill, they should at least

allow us to move forward on a debate. if they have good faith ideas about how to protect every american's voice in our democracy, we are all ears. but we will -- we'll need more than one or two republicans in order to be able to have that debate on the floor and offer amendments. and if we can't get there, i think we need to be clear. as congressman lewis said, quote, nothing can stop the power of a committed and determined people to make a difference in our society. to the people of my home state of washington and to the country, my democratic colleagues and i are committed and determined to pass strong voting rights legislation. and we can't keep bringing these bills to the floor only for republicans to block even a debate. we need to use every legislative tool needed to get the john lewis voting rights advancement act to president biden's desk. whatever we've got to do to pass voting rights, if it means an exemption to the filibuster,

then i believe we should do it. this cannot wait. passing strong federal voting rights protections into law will be the most important work this congress does. we cannot let a senate procedure stop us from protecting the right to vote in the united states of america. let's make sure our democracy stays a democracy and let's pass the john lewis voting rights advancement act, whatever it takes. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: this has become an almost weekly routine. my friends on the other side trying to give washington unprecedented power over how americans cast their vote. we don't have time to do the ndaa or an appropriations process, but we always have time for a few more of these stunts. in many of these bills, congressional democrats propose to make themselves into a

national board of elections. today there's a small difference. they want instead to hand that power to attorney general merrick garland. a different branch of government, same bad idea. i just want to add one observation from last night. governors races and state legislative seats weren't the only things on the ballot last night. yesterday the deep blue state of new york, new york, the home of the senate majority leader, had two of america's signature proposals for weaker elections actually on the ballot as ballot measures. citizens got to vote directly on whether to open the door to two changes, two changes that the politicians wanted. same-day registration and no excuse absentee voting, on the

ballot in new york yesterday. and as of the latest tally a few minutes ago, both proposals were losing. they currently are both losing about 60/40. even in deep blue new york, citizens appear to be rejecting the democrats' demands for weaker elections. so i think there's only one question left. where will the mets and yankees end up now? surely major league baseball can't let them stay in new york after this. i urge a no vote. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the vice president: the senator from washington. without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. 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 motion to proceed to calendar number 143, s. 4, a bill to amend the voting rights act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the act and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the vice president: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 4, a bill to amend the voting rights act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the act and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: