kids are wanting to socialize as they are growing up -- >> we are going to break away from this event to take you live to the u.s. senate as we keep our over 40 year commitment of live coverage of the senate. they are gathering back in after the respective conferences. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from yais. ms. ernst: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. this is holly durban from shenandoah, iowa. holly was someone who loved animals and loved nature. she was a people person. the thing that she loved most in the world was her family. but tragically, holly took her last breath on the morning of july 18, 2009. brian davis murdered her in a

small farmhouse just south of shenandoah. holly is one of the hundreds of women murdered annually by a currents or former intimate partner. nearly three women a day. americans are being devastated by a wave of violent crime. night after night, folks turn on their local news and hear of yet another tragic story of murder, of rape, violent crimes of all natures that are arvaging their -- that are ravaging their community. in october, the u.s. recorded it's highest spike in whom homicides in modern history.

last year, the murder rate in this country rose by 30%. these murders are not being committed by law abiding citizens. they are being committed by extremely dangerous and violent crimes, like brian davis. the reality is victims like holly durban and violent criminals, like brian davis, have been locked in homes together for nearly two years during this pandemic. violent convicted criminals like brian davis, who murdered holly, his fiance, should not have access to firearms. law-abiding americans need the

ability to protect themselves from violent criminals like brian davis. iowans are common sense. we're pragmatic. we take our second amendment rights incredibly serious. we value the safety of our communities, and we think it's right to punish violent criminals when they break the law and are convicted. this isn't some crazy idea. under current federal law, which has been on the books for decades, and in state codes all across the country, there are violent crimes that result in consequences like the inability to possess a firearm. for example, someone convicted

of a felony forfeits many of their rights. felons can't be on a jury. they can't work for the federal government or serve in the military. felons, like murderers and drug kingpins, lose these rights when they commit and are convicted of their crimes. a fugitive from justice is not permitted to have a firearm. same for those who are in this country illegally. under current law, current law, individuals who have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violent crime are also on this list. as of today, if two individuals are married, the convicted abuser is held accountable, and

that makes sense. but if they are not married, the convicted violent abuser is not held accountable. mr. president, i believe we need to get tough on crime. and i believe law-abiding gun owners in this country agree with me. brian davis, a violent, convicted criminal, is not law abiding. i want to be crystal clear about a few things. one, what we are talking about here depends on a conviction. a conviction of domestic

violence. that's a guilty verdict, after a just trial, aned a jiewt cated cated -- an adjudicated fairly trial. due process is intact, fully present, and i will not be compromised on that. i can promise you. two, domestic violence does not mean emotional distress. domestic violence does not mean a verbal argument. domestic violence means a violent crime. three, not a single innocent or law-abideing gun owner will or should be impacted.

today, there are women trapped in relationships with violent criminals. our daughters and mothers, our friends and our neighbors. convicted violent criminals have proven themselves to be unfit to fully participate in our society. we can't choose to just protect women with a ring on their finger from violent abusers. we must hold violent criminals accountable. let's protect our daughters and punish the criminals. mr. president, speaking from personal experience, domestic

violence is a crime worth being tough on. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: thank you very much, mr. president. mrs. feinstein: i rise today to share my support of the ongoing efforts to reauthorize the violence against woman act. as you know from the prior speaker, the distinguished senator, negotiations to reauthorize the violence against women act on a bipartisan basis have been ongoing now for three years. since the beginning of this year, my office has been working closely with senator ernst, senator durbin's and senator

murkowski's offices to negotiate a bipartisan agreement to reauthorize this important and critical law. i am thrilled that we are now able to share that. we have reached a bipartisan framework which will strengthen, modernize, and reauthorize the violence against women act. we are committed to introducing this bill next month. this bipartisan agreement would reauthorize the violence against women act through 2026 and provide important updates to modernize the law that's been so critical to protecting and supporting survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. our bipartisan agreement would enhance and expand services for

survivors of domestic violence, including survivors in rural communities, lgbt survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life. our agreement would reauthorize and strengthen the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the justice department's stop grant program, closing the dating partner loophole on a prospective basis, and strengthening the ability of tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on tribal land. our agreement would also invest in prevention education efforts, it would expand access to emergency housing support for domestic violence supporters, and it would improve the

healthcare response to sexual violence across the country. these protections are urgently needed, and the time to act is now. i have been here for a while. i have never seen the coming together of the two sides of the aisle any stronger than it is now, to work together to solve this problem. so, i look forward to participating in the introduction of this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the violence against women act next month. i would, if i could, also like to speak briefly in support of holly thomas, who has been nominated to serve as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. judge thomas is an experienced appellate litigator and currently serves as a judge of the supreme court of los angeles

county. so, i ask unanimous consent that a full statement in support of her nomination be placed in the record, and i hope my colleagues will support her. i thank you, chair, and i yield the time. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i'm pleased to be on the floor today with my colleagues, both the senator from iowa, behind me, and the senator from california, because i want to thank them publicly for their leadership as they work to address these issues of domestic violence. they have been leaders in this arena for years, and i appreciate that. i am pleased to have worked with them on this framework that has

been discussed by both senators, and to acknowledge the work of senator durbin as part of this initiative as well. i think as both of them have spoken, it is recognized that this is a matter of urgency, this is a matter that all of us on a bipartisan basis, domestic violence unfortunately knows no political bounds, and our response to those who are truly among the most vulnerable of us, that response should also be bipartisan. so, i want to commend senator ernst, senator feinstein, senator durbin for their work in really coming to find common ground on this very important matter. it's been years of -- mrs. feinstein: permit me a moment to interrupt you.

one of my great joys, mr. chairman, is to work on a bipartisan basis, and the senate from alaska has been just wonderful. she is a ten in my book. you have listened to us on this side, our staffs have been able to work closely together. and i think thanks to you we have a workable bipartisan product. so i just want to say thank you. i wish the senate could be more like this all the time, but i think we made a great notch in the right track. so thank you very much. the presiding officer: thank you. again, --. ms. murkowski: thank you. it takes a lot of people and the years senator ernst has been working this initiative on this side of the aisle is something, again, we want to build on, and we need to build on it together. it has been years in the making. the last time we had a vawa reauthorization was vawa 2013.

and so we are high past time to be addressing this very significant matter. no compromise is perfect. i think everyone recognizes that. but what has been developed through this framework is a proposal that will really help to prevent violence, to support our survivors, to hold perpetrators to account. and the effort to be here where we are today on the floor speaking to this is one thing, but we all want to get to that next step, which is filing the legislation so we can get it moving through this process. and i look forward to doing that in the new year. i can tell you, as a senator from alaska, this is an extraordinarily pressing issue in my state. and as the vice chairman of the indian affairs committee, i can affirm that this is a very real

need across native lands. and it is the disproportionate victimization of native people that i want to focus my comments on today. by now i would hope that every senator understands the crisis of missing, murdered indigenous women and girls. we refer to this as mmiw. that's why we passed savanna's act and the not invisible act. and i want to acknowledge my colleague who has been working this issue with us for so long, senator cortez masto. i think we recognize that we made good progress there. but to fully address the root causes of this crisis, the high rates of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, the violent crime in native communities, we have an awful lot more to do. the rates of violence experienced by alaska natives are particularly horrific, and statistics should shock us all.

i repeat them a lot, and they still shock me. according to a report prepared by the indian law and order commission, alaska native women are overrepresented by nearly 250% among female domestic violence victims around our country. putting it into context here, a couple of years ago there was an investigation that was conducted by the anchorage daily news, determined that one in three native communities in rural alaska have no local law enforcement that is physically present, leaving native women and children at greater risk of violence. think about what that means for just a minute, to live in a community where there is no one to turn to, no law enforcement presence to turn to. maybe you're able to share your

story with a local health aide there, but that's about as far as you can go. and beyond that, you have many alaska tribes that lack the tools that they need to address violence in their communities. a couple of years ago the attorney general at the time, william barr, was invited to the state. he came up, and we said we need fo get you out to one of these remote villages. he saw firsthand, and he was so dramatically impacted, after his just multiple hours on the ground there, he declared a law enforcement emergency, a law enforcement emergency after hearing directly from those who had suffered due to lack of public safety. he said at the time that it was harder for him to imagine a more vulnerable population than the women and children that he saw in rural alaska. he took that back to d.c. with him and acted on it.

his declaration was based on the fact that alaska has the highest per capita crime rate in the country. of course we face a very unique geographic and jurisdictional landscape. then comes covid-19, and you've got a pandemic where you've got to be in your social bubbles. you have to be inside. you have to be where it's safe to be free from, away from the virus, but that safe place was not a safe place for far too many people. last summer rural alaska saw five domestic violence homicides in ten days. again, these are small, rural communities. five homicides in a matter of ten days. domestic violence. in the five weeks after the state of alaska declared a public health disaster due to the covid pandemic, calls to our domestic violence shelter increased by 52%. you cannot let this go

unaddressed. so we've got an opportunity here in this congress to build on our previous work with vawa 2013 where we've taken steps to resolve jurisdictional complexity when it imperils the safety of people. the jurisdiction issues should not deny justice. it should not. in the 2013 reauthorization of vawa, congress recognized the inherent authority of tribes to prosecute and punish certain domestic violence crimes committed by non-indians against indian people. at the time that was described as unprecedented, and some members of congress and the media as well pushed a narrative that tribal governments somehow were not going to be fair, they would not safeguard the rights of non-indian defendants. we knew that that was going to be far from the truth, and nearly eight years later,

despite all of the horror stories that were predicted, the record shows that non-indian defendants have experienced a tribal justice system that treats them fairly and in some ways with more attention than state or federal systems. so i think now what we need to focus on, folks, we need to focus on the real horror story, and that horror story is the acts of violence being perpetrated against native women and children. so i've set out to do that through the tribal title that will be included in this larger vawa reauthorization once it's introduce. chairman schatz and i worked on this together. we posted on the committee website last week. our title closes loopholes, builds upon the success of the 2013 reauthorization, and we include specific solutions to protect alaska native people. the tribal title will further restore and improve the

implementation of the special tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-indians who commit violate crimes in nay alternative committees. it will do so by charging defendants with chimes that are adjacent to domestic violence, such as the violence against children or assault on law enforcement. i think it's important to note that children were involved in 58% of all incidents of domestic violence in these vawa 2013 cases. this is according to a report by the federal government a couple of years ago, 2019. but by empowering tribal courts this way, we can help combat this major public safety issue. american indians and alaska natives are the victims of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence in numbers far out of proportion to the level these crimes are committed outside of native communities. this is a moral imperative.

it is a wrong that we must make right. and we also need to do it in a way that recognizes the unique situation that we have in the state of alaska. you're going to hear later a discussion about ancsa. two days from now is the 50th anniversary of the alaska native claims settlement act. anca created a new approach to tribal land tenure that is very, very different than the lower 48 reservation system. while alaska is home to almost 40% of the tribes in the country, we have only one indian reservation in the state. after the supreme court decision in the venaty case in which the court held that ancsa lands are not indian country, it became the state's duty, largely alone, to provide for public safety and justice for alaska natives. the tribal title that we have developed includes an alaska solution to a complex jurisdictional situation. it includes an alaska pilot

program which builds on previous legislation that i've introduced and will empower a limited number of alaskan tribes to exercise special criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in villages in alaska. similar to how the pilot rolled out for the lower 48 tribes, alaska tribes will have to meet certain criteria, including having a tribal justice system that can adequately and appropriately safeguard the rights of defendants. in addition to the provisions essential to bringing justice and safety to alaska native people, our critical legislation will ensure that vawa's tools and resources will better serve the needs of survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. i'm proud, mr. president, to have authored text that will address, help to address this ongoing epidemic that alaska faces with violence and has left long-lasting trauma for too many

of our women, our children, and our families. congressman young on the house side has introduced similar language to help in this, but we simply cannot allow survivors and the needs of the most vulnerable to go unmet. very quickly, i want to just outline a couple different provisions that are contained in this bipartisan framework that recognize some of the matters that we've been working on in alaska. there's a provision named in memory of an alaska, briana moore. bree's law is what we call it, but in 2014, cindy and butch moore experienced a tragedy that no parents should ever have to experience. they received a call that their 20-year-old daughter had been shot by her boyfriend in anchorage. and in the wake of that devastation, they turned their energy, they put their hearts, their passion into working around the state, and now at

the federal level, to ensure education is provided to teens to prevent future tragedies. so bree's law drives education initiatives to enable youth, parents, and advocates to recognize, prevent and mitigate teen dating violence. another provision addresses support services for victims. it's difficult. we know it's difficult to access the necessary medical forensic services in alaska. these allow for evidence collection and aid in a survivor's journey to justice. and while we have very troubling statistics on sexual assault and domestic violence, alaskans have also been on the front lines of innovation offering solutions. the alaska comprehensive training forensic academy which is a pilot program run through the university of alaska anchorage is making a difference in the lives of alaskans who experience interpersonal violence. built on the belief that all victims of violence deserve

evaluation and care from forensically trained health care providers, i've been able to secure some provisions in our vawa proposal that will allow other universities in states to model this successful program and expand access to trauma-informed care. mr. president, there is a, there's clearly a public safety crisis that we are dealing with in rural alaska and across indian country, but we've got an opportunity in this congress to work together across the aisle to find solutions to, to restore justice. and i look forward to building strong bipartisan support for vawa reauthorization that will make a positive difference in the safety of native communities and for victims of domestic violence and entire communities in alaska, and of course across the country. we must let our women, children, families who have been affected by devastating

violence know that you are heard and that we stand with you. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, i just want to join in the comments of senator murkowski and senator ernst and senator feinstein. i want to thank them for allowing me to join a pretty power-packed team working on violence against women act. senator feinstein is our lead sponsor on the democratic side. i'm happy to work with her all the time. i want to especially thank senator ernst on the republican side, who has been designated as the official negotiator on the reauthorization of vawa for the last three years. and as you've just heard, passionate supporter of our efforts, senator lisa murkowski of alaska, we worked closely together on other legislation, and this one is extremely important. this afternoon senator ernst, feinstein, murkowski and myself announced that we've reached a bipartisan agreement and we'll

be introducing an updated version of vawa next month when we return. we are coming together on supporting the simple premise that vawa will save lives. we need to ensure every survivor, whether they live in rural alaska or urban illinois, can reach out for a lifeline in a moment of crisis. we still have work to do. we still need cosponsor. we need to make sure this important legislation passes. it is a statistic that should shock us all today. nearly one in three women living today have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence. that came from surveying women across the globe. it proves this touches every community in the world, but our responsibility first is here at home and all of the 50 states to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect the

women who are vulnerable. i thank the group for allowing me to join them. we have work to do, but i'm looking forward to doing it. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak up to ten minutes prior to the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, the next vote is going to be a motion to discharge from the judiciary committee judge who will -- judge holly thomas for the ninth circuit. i'm going to vote no. i'm going to vote no because i have not actually had the opportunity to meet judge thomas. in a remarkable undermining of senatorial tradition, the biden administration white house is now saying that no senator is allowed to meet a circuit court judge prior to the confirmation vote of the judge.

mr. president, you might be tilting your head at me like that might seem crazy. well, it is crazy. every ninth circuit judge, a court of appeals that has enormous power over my state, every ninth circuit court judge, every one, i meet with to discuss issues. this is part of our advice and consent role, and, yet, this white house is now saying no senator can meet with a circuit court judge, even for an hour, prior to the vote despite the fact that they are getting ready to have life tenure. so, mr. president, this is in line with this administration and unfortunately some of my democratic colleagues who are just smashing institutional norms in this body that have significant bipartisan support. we saw the junior senator from massachusetts yesterday saying she wants to pack the supreme

court. i'm sure that's going to lead to a charge of other democrat senators. my colleagues are all very focused on getting rid of the filibuster despite the fact that more than half the democratic conference in april of 2017 wrote a letter to the majority and minority leader of the senate saying, don't get rid of the filibuster. now only joe manchin and kirsten sinema seem to be the only ones against it. i would like to get the letter of those who said don't do this. senators being able to meet with nominees to circuit courts is a new low. i raise this with senior biden administration white house officials just last week and they said they'd look into it. they seemed a little confused.

the white house counsel for the president finally called me back after i had tried to get a hold of her because i heard it was her idea. i asked her, why are you doing this? by the way, the trump administration didn't do this. by the contrary, they tried to get republican and democratic senators to meet with circuit court nominees to maybe get bipartisan votes. the white house counsel told me she is using this language, we're doing this to protect the judges. protect the judges. from what? senators doing their constitutional duty. what are they hiding? are they really that unimpressive that they have to have their own nominees being protected from us here in the senate? so, bottom line, mr. president, all of this patently absurd and i think many of my democratic

colleagues actually agree with me. i talked to a number of them, and i don't think this is a precedent that anyone who is a u.s. senator should want, whether you're a democrat or republican. remember, these judges are going to have enormous power over the people we represent and their going to have life tenure. it's not like voting for an assistant secretary two, three, four years in the job. life tenure. and they can't take an hour out of their time prior to the vote to meet with senators. so, mr. president, i ask these judges in a speech last week, give me a call. you don't have to wait for the white house. this is a test of your judicial independence. call me. i want to talk to you. we didn't hear from any judicial judges. the white house is still blocking it. what is really surprising is that the current president is the former chair of the senate

judiciary committee. i wonder if he actually knows what's going on with his senior staff, with his white house counsel where right now no member of the u.s. senate trying to do their advice and consent constitutional role can even -- can even meet with a circuit court judge. i'm pretty sure most of my colleagues don't agree with this. so what i'm hoping for, mr. president, is to get the white house to change its outlook on this, to follow the example of the trump administration. i know that might be a hard swallow. and have these judges meet with us. and when i meet with them, i talk about alaska legal issues. and if you're a judge who grew up in l.a., you're an l.a. judge, you don't know anything about alaska, but you will have an enormous impact on the people i represent. so, mr. president, i think u- going to see -- what you're going to see until we get some cooperation from the white house

is that i hope most of my colleagues, republican colleagues, whether they think these nominees are qualified or not, they are going to vote no. they are going to vote no. and the reason is a core principle. we should be able to do advice and consent. if there was a republican in the white house and some of my democratic colleagues said, can you help me get a meeting with a circuit court nominee, i would certainly do it. like i said, we didn't have to do it last time because that was the trump administration's standard operating procedure. so, mr. president, i hope we can get to agreement on this. i hope all senators can agree with this. and i'm hopeful that you're going to see, at least with my colleagues, there's going to be no yes votes on any of these nominees. and that's not good. these circuit court judges want a bipartisan confirmation. they are not going to get it until we're able to do our

constitutional duty, advice and consent, for judges, life tenure judges who have enormous power over the people we represent. and i'm hopeful that every member of this body can work with us, work with me, work with the white house, maybe even call the president and say, you know what, this is probably a standard, a principle that you guys want to get rid of. making sure u.s. senators cannot meet with judges who are going to have lifetime tenure is smashing a bipartisan institutional norm. it's not going to serve this body well at all. i yield the floor and i encourage my colleagues to all vote no in the upcoming vote to discharge this nominee until we can actually talk to her and see what kind of judge she would be, a very, very reasonable position. so i strongly urge a no vote from all of my colleagues.

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: judge holly thomas is a nominee for the u.s. court of appeals of the ninth circuit. she went through the senate judiciary committee. it is a bipartisan committee, 11-11. she was before the committee available for questions and available for written questions sent afterwards. if the senator from alaska or any other senator has a grievance with the white house procedure on how to handle its nominees, so be it. but is she going to be punished because that decision was made at the white house level? she went through the committee as we asked her to and made herself available. she has an extraordinary record, to disagree with her on the procedure of the nominees, i don't think it's fair. i think she deserves to be judged on the merits and on the merits she should be sitting on the ninth circuit. i submit my statement for the record. the presiding officer: the

senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i want to ask the chairman of the judiciary committee if he could actually work with us, i reached out to him and some other democratic senators, work with us on this very reasonable request. look, you have been here a long -- a lot longer than i have. every time this is -- there is a ninth circuit judge nominated, i meet them because it is so important to my state. alaska gets one ninth circuit judge, there are 29 judges on the court. i would ask respectfully the chairman of the judiciary committee to work with me because this is a precedent i don't any senator, democrat or republican, wants. literally you're going to have a white house say, you know what, you're not on the judiciary committee so your advice and consent role under article 2, section 2 is null and void because the white house counsel wants to, quote, protect the judges. protect them from what? so, mr. president, i want to work with my colleagues, all of them, particularly the chairman

of the judiciary committee, he's got a lot ofinfluence with the white house and the general counsel's office. i ask my colleagues to vote no until we start getting meetings and able to do our duty and this will benefit colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the long termed and strengthen this body, not weaken it which is happening now. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. dub durbin we should be -- mr. durbin: we should be respectful and try to work with one another. that includes the nominees sitting on the calendar who have been obstructed for weeks, if not months. if this is going to work, let's be sure that the road travels in both direction. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the motion to discharge.

the yeas and nays have been previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 467. the motion is agreed to. the nomination is discharged and will be placed on the calendar.

ms. klobuchar: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is rex nized. ms. klobuchar: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we are not. ms. klobuchar: i come to the floor to speak in support of legislation that is critical to

our democracy. the freedom to vote act. and this is a bill that was the product of work by many, many senators from across the country , with different views but all committed to one thing, our democracy. and i want to thank senator schumer for bringing the group together, as well as the other senators, senator manchin, whose name is on this bill, whose experience as secretary of state really was so helpful to us in forming this bill, and also realizing the differences between so many jurisdictions, including world jurisdictions, that have different staffing levels and different needs. senator merkley, an expert on election law. senator padilla, also a former secretary of state. senator king, bringing his independent spirit from the

state of maine. senator kaine, former civil rights lawyer. senator tester, who niece and understands all of this firsthand in the state of montana where, by the way, for decades they've had same-day registration, which when you look at the states, whether they're red or blue, states with same-day registration, like my state, tend to have some of the highest voter turnouts in the country. and sadly, they've disposed of that in the state of montana recently. and senator warnock from the great state of georgia, a host, along with senator ossoff of a rules committee field hearing we recently held in georgia, where we saw firsthand why so many leaders in the business community across the country and in georgia have voiced their concern about a bill that recently passed there that would literally say that you cannot vote on weekends during the runoff period, during the critical period of vote in georgia. that was a group that came

together, different views, different levels of experience, but all committed to one idea, that democracy will prevail. the freedom to vote is fundamental to all of our freedoms. that is why this bill is called the freedom to vote act. it ensures that people are part of the franchise, and that government is accountable to the people. but this fundamental right that is the very foundation of our system of government is under attack. since the 2020 election, we have seen a persistent and cord naped assault -- coordinated assault on the freedom to vote in states across the country. these attacks on our democracy demand a federal response. the constitution anticipated that perhaps we would need a federal response when, in the words of the constitution, as written by our founding fathers, that congress can make or alter the rules regarding federal elections. the need for action could not be more serious.

it has been almost a year since the violent mob of insurrectionists stormed into this chamber and desecrated our capitol. came into this very room, rifled through the desks, up there right on the dais where you now preside, madam president. they came here, but what they did was not just an attack on a building. it was an attack on our republic, an attack on our republic. i still can just picture it like it just happened, where senator blunt and i were the last two remaining senators in this chamber at 3:30 in the morning along with the incredible staff from the parliamentarian's office, with the pages, along with vice president pence, and the two young women with that mahogany box filled with the remaining electoral ballots, and we made our way eefer to -- over to the house of representatives where glass was smashed against the side, spray paints on statues and on

columns, and we finished our job. and two weeks later as we stood on that inaugural stage, democrats, republican leaders of both parties from this chamber, all the senators from this chamber, leaders nationally, republicans, democrats stood on that stage under that beautiful blue sky with little flakes of snow. it was like everything was in technocolor. as i said that day, this is the day where democracy brushes itself up, stands straight and moves forward one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. maybe i was naive. i thought this was the moment in the middle of this raging pandemic that we were going to move forward as a country, and we did. but lurking, lurking in the background was claims, false,

incredibly dangerous claims that somehow the election was invalid. and along with that, a coordinated effort across the country to introduce bills, over 425 of them now, to make it harder, not easier, for people to vote. and what has been the result of this democracy on fire? what happened here in the capitol? that canister of bear spray has been replaced by bill after bill after bill. those flagpoles that were used to poke and jab at our brave officers that are here to defend us, resulting in several of their deaths, that's been replaced by repeated efforts to lie about the results of the election. what has happened to our democracy? members in this chamber know well. this year alone capitol police have responded to nearly 9,000

threats against members of congress since the beginning of the year. 9,000 threats. that's nearly double the threats faced by members just three years ago. election officials across the country have also been targeted by an overwhelming increase in the number of threats. senator blunt and i held a rules committee hearing on this deeply disturbing trend this fall. we heard from the kentucky republican secretary of state who said if we do not act, states and localities will be unable to retain or recruit people to administer future elections. he talked about the need to make it very clear that elected -- that local elected officials who are administering, administering the election should be safe, that they should not be threatened. then we heard from others. republican philadelphia city commissioner al schmitt shared some of the horrifying threats

he and his family received after he stood up to lies about election fraud, including a message that said tell the truth or your three kids will be fatally shot, with the names of his seven-year-old son and his 11- and 14-year-old daughters, their address, photos of their house out on the internet. arizona secretary of state katie haas received a voice mail saying i am a hunter, and i think you should be hunted. this is just a few examples. this is happening across our country. this is why we have united on this side of the aisle behind the freedom to vote act. it takes these threats against these election officials head on by establishing a right to vote and have every vote counted. protects election officials from improper removal by partisan

actors. protects against sham audits like the one we saw in arizona and the ones being advanced in wisconsin, michigan, texas, and pennsylvania. and strengthens the protections for election workers by making it a federal crime to intimidate, threaten, or coerce election workers. it was during senator bob dole's funeral service in washington that president biden reminded us what senator dole had once said. you see, senator dole stood against the tide. he supported civil rights legislation when that was a really hard thing to do. he supported the martin luther king holiday. and the words he said at that time ring true today. he said this -- no first-class democracy can treat people like second-class citizens.

no first-class democracy can treat people like second-class citizens. his warning is exactly what's going on today. efforts to treat some americans as second-class citizens by making them stand hours and hours and hours to vote in lines. by telling them, oh, by the way, you're not going to be able to do like you did before, get water and food. certain people that might give it to you while you're standing in line, a story we heard in georgia. by telling them a story that would have been put in milwaukee. or like what we saw in the last election in harris county, a county that has about as much people as my entire state. we're only going to have one dropoff box there in that county.

taking away options for registering to vote, making it harder for people with disabilities or elderly voters to receive the assistance they need to make their voices heard. telling people, if you've got covid and you're in the hospital and you want to apply for a mail-in ballot because you obviously can't go in and vote, you need to get a notary public to sign the application, something south carolina had taken that requirement away and then they put it back in. over 400 bills introduced in nearly every state to limit the freedom to vote. over 30 already signed into law. that is why we must now establish national standards for voting, completely allowed for in the constitution, to make sure all voters can cast their ballots in the way that works best for them regardless of what zip code they live in. the need for federal action is urgent. redistricting is underway to draw congressional maps that will define our democracy for

the next decade. and you know how many of these maps do not come close to reflecting in a nonpartisan basis what goes on in the state. we know what's been happening in wisconsin. actual, actual ideas and actual proposals supported by p someone in this very chamber to take away the right of the bipartisan election board to count the ballots, and instead have them counted by the legislature. with 19 states having enacted laws this year to roll back the freedom to vote, we can't simply sit back and watch our democracy be threatened. as senator reverend raphael warnock has said, what is this all about. some people don't want some people to vote. whether our democracy is threatened with bear spray, crowbars and axes or long

lines, no-ballot dropoff boxes and secret money, it is still under siege and we must stand up and do what's right. we want trust in our government, trust regardless of where people are politically. my state has one of the highest voter turnouts in the country, if not the highest every single time, and we have elected a republican governor with those standards. we have elected democratic governors in tim walls and we have elected independent governors, jesse ventura. what's the difference? people are part of the franchise. they come up and say i didn't vote for you. i agreed with you on that, i like what you did on that. they're part of the franchise. as we've seen in states like georgia, florida, idaho, montana and texas, we are up against this coordinated attack. our democracy cannot wait. the infamous new law in j. that says you -- in georgia that says you can't vote on weekends

in the runoff or register to vote during the runoff and there are limitations for voting by mail or the new requirement, the one that was taken out for the pandemic because it was so confusing, then put back in with this law that you have to put a date on the outside of your inside envelope, what date do you think that would be? anybody casting a ballot would say the date that i'm voting. no, no, it's your birth date that they ask you to put on the outside of that envelope. in iowa, new law cut the days of early voting by nine days and will close the polls an hour early. this was after the state, in the words of its own republican secretary of state that shattered its voter turnout last year. why do that except you're trying to make it hard for certain people to vote. in the words of a court about a north carolina law years ago, discrimination was -- with surgical precision. a new law in montana that i noticed says you can no longer register to vote on election day, after that having been an

option in the state for 15 years. in texas, another new law eliminates drop boxes and puts new restrictions on vote by mail while also empowering partisan poll watchers. that's why we need the freedom to vote act, which builds on the framework put forward by our colleague and former west virginia secretary of state joe manchin in june. includes key reforms like ensuring voters have access like at least two weeks for early voting and voters can cast a mail-in ballot without an excuse. increasing transparency through the disclose act. i don't care if you're a democrat, republican, independent, what party you are in, you don't want to have money coming in elections, dark money that you can't even figure out where it's from, telling you stuff if you can't even figure out if it's true. this part of the bill would simply require super pacs and issue rad voca is i groups --

advocacy groups to disclose groups putting in $10,000 so at least you know to understand why they're doing it. it would prohibit partisan gerrymandering, so voters choose their elected officials, not the elected officials choosing who votes for them. we need to enact the bill now to give states time to implement these reforms. as i noted, the freedom to vote act has the support of all 50 senate democrats, and we have talked to our republican colleagues about this as well as the john lewis bill. why have we done that? for decades voting rights has been a bipartisan issue. in 2006, the voting rights act was reauthorized by a vote of 98-0. yes, 2006. it's not that long ago. 98-0. this bill already includes bipartisan proposals that included many of our republican

colleagues. i know the honest ads act is in this bill. that's a bill that i did first with john mccain, who we so dearly miss, and now with senator graham. the secure elections act, which is about backup paper ballots and making sure that we don't have foreign interference in our election. that's a bill that senator lankford and i introduced together with the support of senator burr and warner and senator graham. but in october, when we had a vote to open debate on the freedom to vote act, not a single one of our republican colleagues voted to even debate the bill. and i see senator murkowski is here who did vote to allow debate on the john lewis bill, which is very, very important to our country that she stood up and said i may not agree with everything in this bill, but we should allow for debate. let's be clear again, article 1, section 4, of the constitution of the united states of america empowers

congress to make or alter rules for federal elections at any time. i believe this provision was designed to help us in times like these, in times where we're seeing an assault on elections, where people are increasingly starting to distrust the results of elections. in the face of complete obstruction on something so fundamental as the freedom to vote, we must restore the senate with rule changes that will allow us to debate this bill. now, i just want to briefly address this, throughout senate history rules governing debate have changed multiple times. we just somehow found a way to vote on what was good, that was the debt ceiling vote. a little bit of a change to allow us to do that with a 51-vote margin. in fact, there are already 161 exceptions, exceptions to the

filibuster. even the number of votes needed to end debate has changed. in 1975, senator mondale led the successful and bipartisan effort that reduce the cloture threshold from 67 to 60 votes. there have been cries for standing debates, standing what's called the standing filibuster. why is that? because proliferate an empty chamber right know -- because instead of an empty chamber right now, there's no one else here. and yet we have so many serious things before us. we have a continuing raging pandemic. we have climate change that's causing weather events we never thought possible, including thunderstorms in the middle of the state of minnesota in the middle of december. never in history have we had a tornado warning in our state in the middle of december. we've had tragedies across the

midwest with storms and magnitudes we never thought possible. are we discussing that? no. are we discussing voting and what's happening in this country right now, except for me giving in long speech? no, we're not. so i think we know that this isn't the senate that's supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, that's supposed-to-a how us to have votes is on -- supposed to allow us to have votes orange serious issues, not to ram through things but to have discussions is on serious issues so we can make decisions. you think the rest of the world isn't watching what's going on here right now? simple attempts to do something about child care or preschool or reducing the prices of prescription drugs when we pay more in our country for prescription drugs than any other country in the world, and we're getting blocked from bringing those bills forward to have actual discussions on them

or we're trying to fit them in little boxes of how they fit some archaic senator rule. even senator byrd, a strong defender of senate institutions, said back in 1979, certain rules that were necessary must be changed to reflect changed circumstances. well, i think an all-out assault on our democracy, that's a changed circumstance where at least we should be debating the solution in this chamber. i think being unable to advance things that we know we have to tackle, not just immediate crises -- because we're pretty good with those, we're pretty good with when a financial crisis occurs, when a storm or floods or tornadoes or hurricanes, we're pretty good at getting rescue help out there. but not everything is an immediate crisis.

it's just a crisis about to happen. and our job, our duty when we take that oath, is to protect the constitution. that's what we want to debate right now on this floor instead of another empty chamber. and with the standing filibuster, the requiring of people to be here and debate and speak, it's not just an old movie then. it's real life, requiring people to actually be here and do their jobs. big surprise -- news bulletin. we're here debating real issues and legislation and voting on amendments and doing our jobs instead of just running back in here every four hours and making a vote and then going back out and making phone calls. protecting the freedom to vote has never been easy. throughout our country's 245-year history, we've had to course correct to ensure that our democracy for the people, by the people actually lived up to its ideals.

voting is how americans control their government and hold elected officials accountable. so for anyone watching this at home, you want to hold people accountable? it's by making sure they have the right to vote so they can exercise their right to vote and their views at the polls in a safe way across this nation. and you want to hold them accountable is by actually having votes on bills and actually debating the issues of our time, as the rest of the world watches what should be the beacon of democracy. it strengthens our hand with the rest of the world, makes us stronger when our democracy is working and not when we've a bunch of people in here with bear spray and bayonets going after our police officers. that's the vision i'm sorry to say much of the world saw less than a year ago. and that's not a lasting vision that we want of this chamber or this democracy. americans have fought and died

to protect our freedom to vote. they've done so on the battlefield and in marches during the civil rights movement and 56 years after the voting rights act was passed by this chamber and signed into law, we still continue this fight. but just as we know from those trying to keep their fellow americans from voting, those trying to undermine our very system of government in state after state across the country, they are not going to stop until we make clear that there's something larger than ourselves, as john mccain used to say. there's nothing more liberating than a cause larger than yourself. that cause, my friends in this chamber, is our very democracy. and that's why we won't stop. our nation was founded on the ideals of democracy, and we've seen for ourselves in this building how we can't afford to take it for granted. we have a lot of work to do rebuilding our country, and, no,

we should not go home tomorrow. no, we should not, not when this is at stake. we must stand up for the salvation of our democracy and each day that we delay, it gets harder and harder to undo what is being done. we owe it to our country and to the future generation of americans to take care of this country. we are the stewards, my friends, of this nation right now, and our democracy. so many people before us have found a way to do the right thing, and in the words of bob dole, a first-class democracy, the people deserve better than being treated like second-class citizens. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is

recognized. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. i've come to the floor this afternoon to speak son a matter that is very local to alaska, very important to alaska, but before i begin my comments, i want to acknowledge a few of the comments of my friend from minnesota. clearly we share some of the same passions about the protections of our democracy, and i would absolutely agree that key and most fundamental is that right to vote. and i have clearly expressed that we -- we, as lawmakers, need to be there to ensure that our elections are free, fair, and accessible to all, that barriers to voting need to be addressed. she had noted that i have joined with others to try to address some of what i believe some of those impediments to voting through a measure that has been

proposed to the john lewis voting rights act. it is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, in my view, but i do think that it is something that is worthy of the debate -- i was going to call it grand debate on the floors but as she appropriately pointed out, there's not a lot of grand debate that goes on. more often than not, it's individuals who are speaking to those who are taking the time out of their day to tune in to c-span. but these are important discussions for us toss have. but i also want -- but i also recognize, i also recognize that enduring legislation comes about not because one party is able to make that happen on their own. enduring legislation, whether it's a civil rights act or whether it was the voting rights act, the enduring legislation

that stays with us for generations and decades is that that is achieved when we have come together. we will never -- or it's very, very difficult to get entire consent of the body. but when we can achieve that bipartisan support and a recognition that this is good for both parties, good for all areas of america, this is when we do our best, when we come together to address these. and i hear the clear frustration that she has expressed, but i also recognize that how we do what we do is important. and if we peel away the last vestiges of protection for minority rights in the senate, the senate becomes a smaller version of the house, where you are able to effectively move things through just by the raw

numbers. and so these are hard, these are challenging, these are worthy of our further and additional efforts. but i -- i would remind us that as we are seeking to make these generational differences, as we are seeking to provide for these enduring protections for democracy, that how we get there is also -- is also -- a matter of importance to this body. so i mention, madam president, that i came to the floor to speak about significant -- a significant matter for alaska. it is a significant milestone for my state. just two days from now on december 18 we will mark the 50th anniversary of the alaska native claims settlement act being signed into law by

president nixon back in 1971. for those who are not familiar with alaska's history ancsa, as we call it, is one of the foundational laws for my state. it's settled aboriginal land claims. it settled hundreds of alaska corporations to own lands and to empower their alaska native shareholders. now you this structure is very unique. i think most of us think about a corporation and you think about an i.b.m. or a general electric. but an alaska native corporation and the shareholders that are part of them are very, very different than the corporate structure that most know. this approach that was arrived at with the alaska native claims

settlement act was new. it was a clear departure from the reservation model in the lower 48. it ushered in a new level of economic self-determination through private landownership. alaska native leaders took a look at the reservation system that was throughout other parts of america and most of them -- not all -- decided on another path saying, that's not the route that we will take. they wanted to manage their lands, manage their resources on their own terms and to have greater economic prosperity and independence. so in alaska, we have 229 tribes in the state, and as someone who comes from a state where you do have many tribes, i think it always gets people's attention when we say we've got about 40% of the tribes in the nation that are located in alaska.

ancsa established more than 200 village corporations along with regional and urban corporations. and under this settlement, congress transferred some 44 million acres of land in alaska to the private ownership of these newly created corporations. they also appropriated $962 million in compensation. so there was the transfer of ownership as well as the conveyance of dollars. so as shareholders, the alaska native people would then be able to decide for themselves how to use, how to protect, and how to guide development of their lands and the resources. as marlene johnson put it, ancsa meant that alaska natives, quote, were able to surround and put their arms around the land that belonged to their forefathers and will belong to

their grandkids. and she said, that's really important. it really is. today the economic success of ancsa is as self-evident as it is self-determined. ancsa has positively impacted not just alaska native people but alaska as a whole. a.n.c.'s have become key economic drivers, creating jobs and industry in alaska but also across the country and even around the globe. a.n.c.'s consistently rank as the top-ten alaska-owned businesses by gross revenue and many of the largest office buildings and employers in anchorage and fairbanks and juneau are home to a.n.c.'s. they also provide scholarships and cultural stewardship often through their nonprofit foundations.

because of ancsa, significant investments have been made in real estate, construction, tourism, workforce development, professional services, so much more. we've also seen the very clear benefit of resource development. we see this up in the nana region with the red dog mine. we're hoping that that can be replicated at prospects like donlan gold. revenue sharing, very, very unique within ancsa, but revenue sharing with village corporations and leadership in the area of cultural resource protection. we see that down in if the southeast region. these are just a few of the examples of where ancsa really got it right. so, as we look back at ancsa, we recognize that there were many, many people who helped to make it happen. not just president nixon, as i mentioned, the congressional del dation, of course -- delegation,

of course, but more importantly, the many strong alaska native lead hers, like amil notty, john borbridge, among many, many others. we're fortunate that some of the key ancsa advocate are still with us today. but sadly, many of the visionary leaders who were so instrumental in the negotiations have passed on, and there's far too many to mention here. butly share the story of one of them. don wright, this individual right here, was born in nanana back in 1929. he's shown here with ted stevens, over to the right. this is don's wife, carol, and this is the senator from vermont, senator stafford. but don was known for his charisma and his skill as a negotiator and a political leader. many alaska natives at the time

were just very, very personally invested in this effort, and he was one who really led in this. he personally contributed to the advocacy effort, both in time and money. don led that, along with others. but he and others spent nights sleeping on the streets here in washington, d.c., or in the halls of congress. they maxed out credit cards to pay for the long trips all the way from alaska to come here to d.c., to the capitol. don once paid the way for 20 alaskans to travel with him to lobby for the legislation. he was really all in. and he fought tirelessly to secure native land rights. he was president of the alaska federation of natives when ancsa actually became law. he was able to meet with president nixon in 1971 to encourage passage of the bill, and was truly a driving force

hyped the effort. he framed it well by saying that year the president and the congress must decide whether this last chapter is to be written indignity or -- in dignity or dishonor. i think thanks to don wright and many other native leaders it was written in dignity. i am really very, very humbled by all of the incredible people who helped shape ancsa, many of whom i am fortunate to know and to call my friends. it's a privilege to be able to honor and thanks them here on the senate floor for their fortitude, their determination, and their perseverance. and i remain unwavering in my commitment to help today's leaders, as we continue to improve ancsa and ensure that the federal government upholds its promise to alaska native people. now, we say around here all the time that there's no law that

we've written and passed that is perfect, and ancsa is certainly no exception. it is really a living document, if you will, still changing, still evolving. there are gaps. we recognize that. there are shortcomings. and we still have unfinished business, important issues that we have to to resolve. one of these is recent, unfortunately, and it does not involve amending ancsa, but instead it calls for flexibility for the unique corporations it created. so ar the -- after the covid pandemic struck our country, those of us in congress came together, seeking to pass the cares act to provide relief across the spectrum, and as part of that, as part of that, and i was really very pleased to be able to be part of that evident that was able to dedicate significant funding for tribes and tribal entities, it was $ 8 billion that was dedicated for tribes, tribal entities,

including a.n.c.'s. but the a.n.c.'s eligibility for that funding was quickly challenged, despite the very clear intention here in congress. the case ultimately went to the supreme court. it wasn't decided until june 25 of this year, when they ultimately prevailed. so as a result of that litigation, a.n.c.'s received their allocations under that cares funding, but they only recently received this. they got the litigation through, they received their allocation, but very late, but know we've got a new problem, because the new problem says that that cares act money needs to be spent by december 31. a matter of a couple weeks. that's just not right. that's not fair here. it's clearly not long enough to be able to responsibly utilize

these very important funds, and it's really not fair as a result of the litigation that they faced. and so, the cockial delegation, senator sullivan, congressman young and i are seeking to extend the deadline through the end of next year. we're saying fair is fair. a.n.c.'s should have the time that they need and that others had. and while the senate has agreed to pass a broader bill that includes this extension, it's stalled over on the house side and really has left us with no clear path forward, even at this very late hour. so that is something that i'm asking my colleagues and the administration for, for support in gaining this flexibility. another top priority for me is something that was left out of ancsa all those years ago. five communities in southeast alaska were missing from its text, and therefore unable to

create what we called urban corporations. today, this is a 50-year injustice for these five communities. alaska native communities of haynes, ketchikam, rangel, petersburg and tenickey. i've had the privilege to live in rangel and to be born in ketchikan. these are communities pretty close to my heart. the situation in terms of being left out was challenging enough. it's not made easier by their location in the tongass national forest. but i would remind the senate that they and their ancestors lived in this area. they took care of these lands long before the federal government came along and made a designation of a national forest. that nearly all of their region has since been taken and classified as a federal forest is no reason to refuse to acknowledge and work with us on this. so, i've recently reintroduced

legislation to allow those five southeast communities to receive their rightful land entitlements under ancsa. i would urge my colleagues, take a look at this, recognize that this is a matter of the federal government making good on its promise to thousands of alaska natives. i would ask that you join me and senator sullivan and congressman young as we work to advance this bill into law, as we again continue to address unfulfilled promises within airvetiona. a third matter is a provision in ancsa that quite honestly is outdated, no longer needed. congress, in trying to do the right thing, required village corporations to take a portion of the lands that they received under ancsa and give them to the state of alaska to hold in trust for future community needs. so, fast forward some 50 years.

many of these lands are simply being held in trusts now, even though they are not needed for municipal purposes, and quite likely will never be. it's just time to end that requirement. enable the village corporations to receive these lands back, if they so choose. we also have to remember, this is a land settlement, but it's not fully implemented. and keep in mind, it's been 50 years now, so still it's a land settlement that hasn't been implemented fully after 50 years. a total of 5.5 million acres are still under interim conveyance. another 1.5 million acres remain unconveyed from the original entitlement. so, we've got to provide the resources to the department of interior to complete this very important work. there's at least four more issues that we need to help resolve as well that i will mention. this first one here on this list

is really concerning to me, and it's actually really very devastating when you think about it. this is the matter of contaminated lands, contaminated lands that this is not only not going away, but getting worse. it really pains me to say, but significant lands in alaska, including formerly used defense sites, were contaminated. the federal government new they were contaminated, but they were still conveyed to the a.n.c.'s as contaminated lands. and the government's saying, okay, this is part of your land settlement, so we're going to give you these lands, but you can't use these lands, because they're contaminated. and there are horrible consequences that we're seeing to this. we've got clusters of illnesses, cancer. we just had a report that was presented to the alaska federation of natives convention just this past week. but this is causing real

suffering, true, true consequences, death in these communities. and it's no fault of the people who live there. and again, received these lands in settlement from the federal government. it is a federal responsibility for us to take care of this. we've got a plan. we have a plan in the sense that we have identified where these contaminated lands are, but what we need is the comprehensive plan in terms of the action. what we're actually going to do to clean up the land and make it right and make it right as soon as possible. another issue that we need to resolve is the issue of afterborns. the day that ancsa before law, december 18, 1971, that was kind of an arbitrary deadline for alaska native people to be included in its benefits. so if a native person was alive

on the date of enactment, december 18, 1971, they were included as an eligible shareholder in the ancsa corporation that aligned with their traditional tribal home leappedz. -- homelands. but if a native person, even from the same family, same area, same family, but they're born after december 18, 1971, they were not included, and they did not receive shares in any native corporation. what you had, it created two distinct classes of native people. you had original shareholders and nonshareholder descendants, they call them after borns, who were effective disenfranchised from the benefits congress intended for them. there was a past amendment to ancsa that dealt directly with this issue, but didn't sufficiently solve this problem. this was an effort that we tried

several years ago, a decade or so. congress has allowed ancsa corporations to open enrollment to descendants through an affirmative vote of their current shareholders. as a result, what we've seen is about five regional corporations have opened enrollment, and about five of the more than 200 village corporations have done the same. but unfortunately, so many of these small village corporations that want to open enrollment simply can't afford this process. it's a relatively complicated process. this a problem we're probably going to have to address legislatively, not by directing alaska natives on what to do, but by providing some support and resources so that they can make that choice at their discretion. one of the more significant promises made to alaska native people dealt with the issue of subsistence. in alaska, subsistence is

hunting, it's fishing, it's gathering, it is inextricably tried to native culture. it's food security for places where grocery stores simply don't exist, or if they do exist the food is so expensive that the average family can't afford it. this is, again, something where we need to find fair solutions for alaska native subsistence rights. and the last issue i will bring up today is, again, something too significant not to acknowledge. ancsa was meant to be a fair and just settlement, accomplished rapidly, with certainty and conformity with the real economic and social needs of native people, without litigation. congress wrote that into ancsa itself. and yet, in reality, ancsa

severed alaska tribes from the tribal land base. while many alaska native people are owners and native corporations that manage native traditional homelands. alaska tribal governments were not a consideration in the law. alaska tribes led to the creation of ancsa, were left without a viable resource stream to effectively govern. they too need tools and resources to create opportunities, and that's also an issue that we must consider going forward. but all of this, mr. president, all of this requires education and understanding. that's going to be key. and that has been, unfortunately, lacking, severely lacking, as we have seen repeatedly misguided attacks from members here in congress against ancsa and its

corporations. i will tell you, it's hard to express how frustrating that is, how infuriating these attacks truly are. but one additional benefit of the 50th anniversary is the opportunity that it provides us to help congress, to help the administration, to help really the american public understand, understand ancsa and the promises that were made within that settlement act. alaska pacific university and the wilson center's polar institute have held a series of events that are free for anyone who wants to learn and understand more about ancsa. the ted stevens foundation is developing a documentary on this. indian country today, first alaskans magazine, the "anchorage daily news," among others, have long published long form articles exploring

anchorage's history, its meaning, impact and future. i would encourage folks to take a look at that. i think it is also important to remember that while ancsa's passage ushered in a period of self-determination and self-governance for alaska native communities, it provided opportunities for these communities to really look to the future. in short, ancsa was designed to address the past by looking to the future. at the annual meeting of the alaska federation of natives which i mentioned just took place earlier this week, i reflected and recognized the generation of alaska native leaders who fought for passage of ancsa. it was their efforts that helped pave the way for the many alaska native youth who may be watching back home in alaska or across the country, maybe even around the world. i want them, i want them to know about the work that was

done to pass this historic law and how it is appreciated. and as i reflect here today on the passage of this important law, i'm hopeful about what ancsa will represent for our alaska native youth in the future. my colleague, senator sullivan, and i have introduced a resolution to ensure that the u.s. senate recognizes the 50th anniversary of ancsa. our resolution acknowledges the incredible accomplishments that alaska native people have made through their a.n.c.'s over these past 50 years. there are many successes to acknowledge and to celebrate, but in its text we also reflect on the work that is left ahead, the promises left unfilled, the promises the federal government has made to alaska native people that must be honored. so i thank senator sullivan for standing with me to submit this

important resolution which acknowledges the tenacity of the alaska native people and the success of a.n.c.'s over the past 50 years. and i know that the dean of the house, congressman young, joins with us in acknowledging this golden anniversary. so, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the text of our resolution on ancsa's 50th anniversary appear in the "congressional record" following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i would certainly encourage all those who have had an opportunity to hear my comments -- i know my colleague, senator sullivan, is going to speak later as well, but just take a bit of time to better understand this foundational law for alaska natives' self-determination. and with that, mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. lee: mr. president, i'm here on the senate floor now for the 21st time, specifically to oppose president biden's sweeping vaccine mandates. i've introduced over a dozen bills to one way or another limit, clarify, or counteract the mandates. every time i've come to ask the senate to pass what should, frankly, be uncontroversial matters, one of my colleagues or another from the other side of the aisle has come to object. this is unfortunate. it's unfortunate really for a number of reasons. these mandates, while currently being challenged in court in a number of jurisdictions, show the terrible power that even the threat of a vaccine mandate can wield. businesses across the country are suspending, punishing, and firing employees who haven't had

the covid shot. the threat of the mandate is making it harder for everyday american families just to put food on the table and to do so moreover in an increasingly difficult economic times. these are not our enemies. these are not people to be feared. these are not people to shun or loathe entirely as the mandate seems to suggest. no, no. these are our friends and our neighbors. these are mothers and fathers. these are people who, like far too many americans, are just struggling to get by. and i'm going to continue to fight for them to protect them, because they understand something that president biden has yet to accept, even though deep down i know he does know it, and that is this isn't

right. it's not right for him to do. it's not right constitutionally for about a dozen reasons, but it's also just not right morally. it's a morally unacceptable proposition to suggest that someone should get fired just because they don't conform to presidential medical orthodoxy. it's immoral to tell someone that their ability to put food on the table for their children depends on whether they get a shot, a shot that they may or may not want, a shot that may or may not conflict with their religious or sincerely held beliefs, that might be contra indicated by one or more conditions, resulting in their doctor advising them not to get the shot. this is not something that anyone should do. in fact, the american people agree, according to a recent axios poll, only 14%

americans, 14 out of every 100 americans agrees with the position of the president of the united states that if someone doesn't get the shot, that they should be fired. i imagine it's even fewer than that, and 14 out of 100 isn't very many to begin with. but i'm pretty sure it's even fewer than that, far fewer to say it's okay for one person within the federal government to decide to fire everyone who doesn't comply within the government and also to tell private employers that they'll receive crippling company-destroying fines that no company, not even the wealthiest out there, could live with if they don't fire every one of their employees or otherwise take adverse action against them, declining to take the shot. it's not okay.

in this effort, i have, to be sure, been supremely clear. i am not in any way against the covid-19 vaccinations. quite to the contrary, i have been vaccinated. i've encouraged people to seek out all of the relevant information and be vaccinated. i believe that the covid-19 vaccines are keeping i countless americans safe from the harm threatened by the covid-19 virus. this is different than that. as a matter of fact, there's an undercut that can't offset the fact that this mandate is pushing government control beyond the constitutional limits and into the private decisions of the american people. that's why i'm against all these mandates for all age groups. and that's why i've document

senate floor repeated -- why i've come to the senate floor repeatedly to help and to call on my colleagues and president biden himself to end this madness once and for all, to end it before it's too late, to end it before irreparable harm is inflicted on those who for whatever reason can't or are otherwise inclined not to comply with his directions. i've even offered a bill, one that should be unusually, uniquely uncontroversial. but even that one met objection. it was a simple reaffirmation of parental rights that our government has respected and honored and even protected from the beginning. my parental consent for

vaccination act would simply require that any covid-19 vaccine mandate issued by the federal government -- and to be clear, it shouldn't be issuing any at all. but any of them that it happens to issue must be a mandate that includes a requirement that informed parental consent be provided before the shot can be administered to a minor. this one is so far afield from the broader question of whether we should have these mandates at all, the slightly narrower question of whether the president of the united states should administer them. it really should not be controversial. allow me to put this issue in some context here. parental consent is required for all sorts of things. parental consent, as every

parent with school-age children knows, is required for field trips. parental consent is required for pretty much all extracurricular activities. for that matter, it's required for many in-class activities. parental consent is required before most schools can administer so much as a tylenol or a baby aspirin to a child. everyone knows that. none of that is happening without parental consent. and that is, to be sure, the right approach. it's as it should be, despite what some candidates have said in some recent political campaigns, parents should be informed and involved in their children's education, and certainly in their child's health decisions. in matters of medical treatment. parents, it's important to

remember, are simply better equipped to make these decisions. parents know their children, and they know their children's medical history. parents know their moral, their religious, and their health requirements that are in many cases unique to their family, certainly something that no government and no school can keep track of in the same way that a government or a school could. parents also love their children. that's important here. and parents, because they love their children, they have their best, their children's best interest at heart when they make decisions affecting them. government can't do any of those things. it certainly can't do any of those things anywhere close to as well as a parent could. and the reason for that, mr. president, is fairly simple. it's because government doesn't have arms with which to embrace

children. government doesn't have a heart with which to love children. government doesn't even have eyes to see or ears to hear, because government of course when reduced to its essence, when we really define it as what it is, it's simply force. it's legally authorized violent. thank heaven that god and the law have always assigned primary care of their children to parents and not to government. government is just the official actual or threatened use of force. we need government. it's also one of the many reasons why we've got to be careful with it.

just like other things that we rely on in so many ways. things like electricity, like moving water, like fire, they're all necessary to our day-to-day lives, and yet when left uncontrolled, they're dangerous and quickly become fatal. when we don't exercise de caution. this, of course, has been acknowledged, it's been written about widely for many, many centuries, even centuries before the founding of our republic, and it's been acknowledged since the very earliest days of our republic. george washington himself warned the people about this, warning that government is itself --

dangerous. it's why we have a constitution. if men were angels, we wouldn't need government. if we had access to angels to run our government, as james madison described in federalist 51, then we wouldn't have to worry about government abusing its power and we wouldn't need all these rules, but we're not angels. men and women are not angels and we don't have access to angels to run our government and so we have to have rules governing the use of government. and it's for our own safety. nowhere is this more important than with respect to our children. that's where we can really see laid bare the essential core facts of what government is, which is the actual or threatened use of coercive

force. now, i also thank heaven above that god didn't assign the anonymous masses on the internet to care for children. the pressure children receive through social media, through news publications, and common video sites lacks nuance in any specific understanding of al child's health condition or history or religious beliefs. there are even reports in prominent magazines of children being advised to commit fraud or cross statelines to be vaccinated specifically against their parents' advice, circumventing parental authority. there is a reason why the f.d.a. requires the fine print and the

sometimes very painfully exhaustive and descriptive side effect warnings on pharmaceutical advertisements and why those ads always encourage viewers to consult their doctors. but in the brave new world of big brother health care, students aren't encouraged to consult their parents, let alone their doctors. unfortunately, in some place, like here in our nation's capital, parents have lost the plot. in the district of columbia, minors can receive medical conditions without the school informing the parents. in other parts of the nation, this slippery sloat is leading to life-changing school-provided medical procedures without parental notice and without parental consent. now, as a parent, this thought

sends shivers down my spine. i know i'm not alone in that respect, far from it. most americans, regardless of what part of the country they come from, regardless of creed or political affiliation, socioeconomic status or any other single factor, if they are parents, they are going to feel the same way. they don't like the idea of someone else taking over the raising of their child, they don't like the idea of government taking control of medical decisions on behalf of their child. you see, that's supplanting their role. that's moving them out of the way. school-aged kids are also some of those least at risk of

contracting, spreading, and suffering long-term or serious effects from covid. the data has shown this all along. the vaccines, on the other hand, may pose a more serious risk to some young people than they do to the general population. various populations, including france and germany, has ceased recommending some covid vaccines to those under the age of 20 because of complications. again, i'm not against vaccines, but the thought of school or government forcing kids into vaccination without parental consent is troubling, it's chilling and it should not happen here, not in the united states of america. while the federal government has almost no legitimate role in influencing local education decisions, we can make sure that the federal government does not

endorse or, heaven forbid, mandate this dangerous approach to medical decisions for minors. that's not too much to ask. that's not something that should be controversial here in the united states senate. that's not something that is remotely controversial among the good people of this country. left and right, rich and poor, if their parents -- if they are parents, they are deeply disturbed by the thought of the cold, impersonal force that is government pushing them out of the way to make medical decisions for them and for their children. so, mr. president, let's provide assurance to parents and children. let's reaffirm our commitment to supporting parents in making decisions for their children.

let's protect kids and let's end these mandates. they're illegal, they're unconstitutional, and they're morally indefensible. thank you, mr. president. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes and senator menendez for up to five minutes before the scheduled roll call vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. today i introduced a resolution with senator murkowski celebrating the 50 anniversary of the alaska native settlement act, ansca, as we call it back home in alaska, which was an enormously cons consequential --

enormously consequential piece of legislation here, that passed the house, passed the united states senate and signed into law by president nixon on december 15, 1961. i know that senator muks was on the floor talking about ansca and why we have been talking about this important piece of legislation. i want to go back in time to explain because part of what senator murkowski and i do here is we're constantly talking about and educating our colleagues about this unique legislation, which happened here in the united states senate. if you go back in time, 1867, that is when the u.s. purchased alaska from russia. within the agreement there was acknowledgment of the alaska

native peoples and their lands but still almost 100 years after the purchase from russia, even following statehood for alaska, the claims settlement that the native people had to their own lands was still in limbo. it got a kick and a turbo charge when oil was discovered on alaska's north slope during worldwide shortage, which created new urgecy to develop -- urgency to develop alaska and to do so by settling the land claims. there were allies in the government that were helpful, but it was truly the alaska people and their determination to themselves and their future generations and their resiliency and brilliance which led to

ansca which became the most innovative land settlement certainly in u.s. history and, mr. president, it's no exaggeration to say, probably in the world. 44 million acres of land going to the native people of my state. it brought tremendous occasional, social, political, economic, cultural achievements for the alaska native people. it certainly wasn't perfect. but this body played a very important role. now, there were obstacles, challenges. in fact, when you look back on the history over 50 years ago, it was kind of a classic david and goliath story. let me go back in time and set the stage for what was happening in alaska. in 1954, the u.s. department of

the interior did a health survey on the native people of alaska. here is a quote from that survey. the indigenous people of native alaska are the victims of sickness, crippling conditions and premature death to a degree exceeded in very few parts of the world. health problems are nearly out of hand. if americans could see for themselves the large numbers of tuberculosis, the crippled, the blind, the malnourished, and the desperately ill among this small alaska native population, it would have a profound effect on them. and it did. even in these conditions, the alaska native people joined hands hearts and said, this is our land. we need rights to it. they did this by coming

together. in the mid-1960's, they formed the alaska native federation of natives, a.f.n. as we called it back home, an entity very important to our communities. of course the native people in our state look for potential allies. in the lower 48 they gave speeches, they formed newspapers, the tundra times which was highly read throughout the state, celebrated throughout the globe and had an enormous impact on bringing people together. mr. president, a few years ago, my team and i combed through some of the hearings that led to ansca. it was many years in development and there were field hearings that took place in alaska in 1968, 1969, three years before the passage of ansca. incredibly proud and determined first peoples from all over the

state, they traveled to anchorage, to fairbanks to give their testimony in field hearings to u.s. senators. some of them never even left their villages, some of them didn't even speak english. many were veterans, and i'm going to talk briefly about that. dozens and dozens of young men and women, old men and women, all of them testifying before u.s. senators, congressmen, telling their stories of how they lived off the land and the rights that they needed for thousands of years, mr. president, on the land. they told stories of strong and resilient people who have been able to thrive in some of the harsh conditions in the planet. but as i mentioned earlier, they also told stories of health

challenges. the first a.f.n. president, who is still a great leader in alaska, then only 36 years old, spoke with passion at these hearings and heartbreak about the conditions in rural alaska. he said to a group of senators in a hearing, the indigenous people of native alaska are the victim of sickness, crippling conditions and premature death to a degree exceeded in very few parts of the world. he told the committee then that life expectancy for the average native alaskan was 34 years old. this was in the late 1906's, the average life expectancy in the united states at that time was 69. 34 years old to 69 years old. many spoke of how much they sacrificed for their country. and, mr. president, this is an issue i never tire of talking

about, alaska natives serve at higher rates in the u.s. military than any other ethnic group in the country. so they are fighting for their country in world war ii and korea and vietnam and they are coming home and they are being denied fundamental rights themselves. here's what jerome trigg, a leader and marine from nome had to tell u.s. senators who were in alaska. his testimony was said to have brought tears to the eye of many. he looked at the u.s. senators and said this. we have showed our patriotism as proudly as any americans on earth. we have answered the call of duty with pride and serving in our military. in world war ii, we answered the call 100%. every man, old and young, in

every village volunteered with the alaska national guard. in vietnam which was raging at the time, he said, i have never heard of an alaskan native burning their draft card or our nation's flag. we love our land and we will sacrifice and fight to protect it. he concluded with this thought, which i love. sometimes i think the wrong people are running this hearing and taking our testimony, he said to the senators. it seems that may be we should be on the bench and you people should be giving us the testimony. love that. strong words from marine jerome trigg who had a very important point to make. so, mr. president, so many in our communities testified in front of congress. one happened to be a beautiful young alaskan native woman in her 30's from the village of

rampart named mary jane fate who not only worked on this but came to washington, d.c. to lobby u.s. senators to pass ancsa. i had the very great privilege of being the son-in-law of that great native woman who unfortunately passed away recently. that was my mother-in-law, margie jane fate -- mary jane fate who came to this body and made sure senators understood what was happening in alaska and got them to vote for ancsa 50 years ago. so here's what it did in a nutshell. as i mentioned, mr. president, the largest indigenous land settlement in the history of the country, 44 million acres of land, almost a billion dollars from the state and federal government to transfer land in fee simple, not the reservation system like you have in the lower 48 which is a huge innovation at the time. they own this land.

it's theirs. it's not held in trust by the united states like it is in the lower 48 on indian reservations. congress mandated the creation of for-profit alaska native corporations solely owned by alaska native shareholders. 12 of these regional corporations and 200 village a.n.c.'s were created by the congress. sometimes people talk about a.n.c.'s as if they're some foreign entity. they were actually created right here 50 years ago. what did all of this do? it provided economic opportunity. these were not typical entities, but they were more than just corporations. they were kind of a combination, social, cultural, economic. they passed on the values to the different shareholders. and one of the great things about ancsa, mr. president, was

that it required actually the sharing of revenue. some of these regional corporations did very well. others didn't. there were provisions early on that said if these corporations are doing great and these aren't, there's going to be some sharing. it was called the seven eye provision. these provisions have been critical to the survival of a.n.c.'s which regionally ampleghts n.c.'s at times were receiving more revenue than others. so that day, mr. president, 50 years ago, december 18, 1971, was really an important day for our state. how has it worked out? it's worked out well but of course we always have more work to do. over the last 50 years the alaska native people have managed their lands to foster sustainable businesses, created employment opportunities for all people. native and non-native in alaska, across the country, and across the globe.

they've become the heart and soul of our economy in alaska employing thousands of both alaska native and non-native people. and they have prospered with their own initiative, innovative approaches to fostering economic development through self-determination. and, mr. president, beyond the economic benefits, these a.n.c.'s, these groupings, these shareholders and these alaska native entities created right here on this floor provided benefits in terms of culture, language revitalization, scholarships, burials, funeral assistance, enormous focus on education. over 54,000 individual scholarships given to younger alaska native people. and importantly, this law passed

by this body gave the native people the opportunity to thrive, to continue to live on their land, practice their culture, create leaders throughout the state, and what was once one of the most impoverished places in the country are now in many areas strong, dynamic. health, education, housing, food security, sanitation have all improved immensely. we have a long way to go, mr. president. there's still a lot of misunderstanding. in alaska you have tribes, tribal members. you have a.n.c.'s, and shareholders. these are the native people. you have a crossover and sometimes there is a misunderstanding. for example, the american recovery act specifically excluded tens of thousands of alaska natives because they were

members of an organization that congress created. my own view that was outrageous. so that's why we need to keep educating our colleagues here. but overall, mr. president, this was a story of success, of resilience, of what can happen when you allow people to take charge of their own destiny. it is a story of self-determination and in many ways heroism, and it's a story for the ins. i'm -- for the ages. i'm honored to represent these people, wonderful people, many of whom the leaders are still alive, made this happen 50 years ago and their children and grandchildren. we have more work to do. but, mr. president, 50 years ago on december 18, 1971, was the start of a new, positive, innovative chapter in the history of alaska and that's why

senator murkowski and i wanted to celebrate this very important milestone this afternoon. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to two minutes on the next three nominations. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you very much. mr. president, fellow senators, i rise today to urge an affirmative vote on all three of the next appointments that are up. mr. risch: the first one is nicholas burns to be ambassador to china. and next is mr. you to louie -- toului who is up for business affairs and mr. hussain who is up for ambassador for international religious freedom. the foreign relations committee has looked at all three of these very closely. let me spend just a moment with

mr. burns. i've known mr. burns since his postings in europe many, many years ago. if you're looking for a bipartisan person to put in a position, this is your guy. when i knew him, he was working for an administration, a republican administration. he's done an outstanding job. has an outstanding reputation amongst the cadres of ambassadors. and i would urge that we confirm him and have him in place in china. this is a tough posting, as we all know at the current time. we've got a lot of issues that exist between us and china. and certainly ambassador burns is the one to carry our water there. the other two i can tell you that without hesitation both have been scrubbed by the committee and been asked the questions that are appropriate for both of these positions. we feel very comfortable in recommending to the body and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i know we're about to go to a vote. as my distinguished colleague just said, i don't know why these aren't all voice votes but i understand senator menendez is on his way here and wishes to speak. otherwise i would move that it be a voice vote. out of respect for him and his committee, i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the president pro tempore: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, while we're waiting because the senator wishes to speak, i appreciate those who worked very hard, including my friends on the floor, on the national defense act. yesterday that passed with pretty overwhelming majority. but as i've noted -- & i voted for it -- but as i note, that does not provide money; that provides an authorization. right now if we go on continuing resolutions, defense -- the department of defense will see a multibillion-dollar cut of

what's available for them as will nondefense matters. so i would urge senators to work with their leaders and get a -- get the appropriations bills done. they could all be done in an omnibus by the end of january, the 1st of february. i'd urge senators to do that. otherwise there's going to be a dramatic cut in defense and nondefense matters. i yield to the senior senator from new jersey. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state. nicholas burns of massachusetts to be ambassador to the people's republic of china. rami in my judgment toloui of

ohio to be an assistant secretary of state. rashad hussain of virginia to be ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. the presiding officer: there will now be ten minutes of debate divided in the usual form. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i rise to express my support for the nominations of ambassador nicholas burns to be ambassador to china, mr. ramin toloui to be an assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs, and mr. rashad hussain to be ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. these are a superb group of highly qualified nominees deserving of the positions for which they have been nominated and i'll speak briefly about them. ambassador burns is an outstanding public servant, one of the nation's best, and i am pleased to support his nomination as the next ambassador to china. he has a long and distinguished

record in public service, including as under secretary of state for political affairs under the bush administration and u.s. ambassador to nato. if there is a place that we need an ambassador, it's china. we spend so much time both in cheat, on the floor hearing about the -- both in committee, on the floor hearing about the challenges of china but we don't have a u.s. ambassador help us meet those challenges. it is no secret that the china of today is challenging the united states and destabilizing the international community in almost every dimension of power, political, diplomatic, and even cultural. that's why ambassador burns' skills will be crucial. i'm mrs. pleased to be supporting mr. ramin toloui's nomination to be the assistant secretary for economic and business affairs at the state department. his experience and skill set,

including as a former assistant of the treasury for international finance, where he represented the united states in forums like the g-7, g-20, will be effective to be an assistant secretary is especially one that will place such a critical role in our economic diplomats vis-a-vis china and as we must reinvigorate the instruments of our diplomacy at home. lastly, i'm also pleased to support mr. rashad hussain to be our ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. flute his impressive public service is he has demonstrated his strong commitment to protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, including as the u.s. special envoy for strategic counterterrorism communications where he led efforts to counter anti-semitism and protect christian minorities and muslim minority -- in muslim majority

countries. religious freedom is universal but for many people around the world, this right is out of reach and religious persecution is on the rise. that's why it's important that we confirm mr. hussain. while it's positive news that we're confirming these three nominees now and a few more i hope in the next few day, i am deeply concerned that we have more than 50 nominees that will remain pending on the senate floor, having passed the senate committee by strong bipartisan votes that are subject to delays and obstacles. we are less safe when our national security agencies are so short-staffed. we owe it to the american people to fix this problem so we can be represented abroad. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. risch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho.

all time is is yielded back. the question is on the burns nomination. mr. menendez: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: 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 75. the nays are 18. the nomination is confirmed. the presiding officer: the question now occurs on the toloui nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: