as odd. why would they say that? well, visualize if you will the lines of voters and you will find, your memory is the same as mine, that largely they were minority voters who were standing in line for hours to vote, hours to vote. and so the georgia state legislature and others have said, if you give them water or food, you have violated the law. but them stand in line without any support. really? is that what it is come down to? they fear that if you give a cup of water to someone waiting in line to vote you are buying their vote? i just can't believe the thinking that leads us to that but we know behind it were a lot of situations where machinery and voting places were limited to minority populations. >> we take you live now to the u.s. senate which today's taking

votes on nominees to head the national telecommunications and information administration and the federal railroad administration. also this week it's possible the senate could consider changing filibuster rules regarding voting rights legislation. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the guest chaplain, rabbi moshe feller of st. paul, minnesota, director, upper midwest merkos from st. paul, minnesota. the chaplain: almighty god, masters of the -- master of the universe, the members of this august body, the united states senate, convene here today today

to fulfill one of the seven commandments which you issued to noah, and his family after the great flood: commandment that all societies be governed. the following seven laws. to worship you and you alone, never to -- not to commit murder, not to commit adultery or inzest, not to steal, lie, or cheat. not to be cruel to any living creature and every society be governed by just laws based on the recognition and acknowledgment of you, o god, as a sovereign ruler of all

humankind and all nations, grant almighty god, that the members of the senate constantly realize that by enacting just laws, they are doing your will. almighty god, i beseech you today to bless the senate and our entire nation in the merit of two spiritual giants of our time and of our country, rabbi, yosef yitzchak schneerson, and his successor, rebbe, rabbi men

achem, of saintly blessed memory. tomorrow, the tenth day of hebrew month of shevat, is the anniversary of the transition of their leadership, a day of reflection and action and one which would energize our godly. their holy mission continues through our acts of goodness and kindness, hastening the harmonious era of messianic redemption. amen. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america,

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. president pro tempore: morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume

consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination department of commerce, alan davidson, of maryland, to be assistant secretary of commerce and communications and information. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the -- president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call call be dispepsed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: something disturbing is happening in washington this week. a group of politicians are trying to set aside election results, overrule american voters and break, break our institutions to get a political outcome they want. i'm speaking, of course, about the senate democratic leader and the radical left. the senate democratic leader is trying to bully his own members into breaking their word, breaking the senate, and silencing the voices of millions of citizens so that one political party can take over our nation's elections from the top down. in january 2021, a mob tried to intimidate and change the

senate, and they failed. in january of 2021, the senate stayed true to itself and it stood strong. but in january of 2022, some of the senate's own members want to permanently damage this institution from within. they want to shatter its central feature. the democratic leader is using fake hysteria, fake hysteria about 2021 state laws to justify a power grab he began floating actually back in 2019, and an election takeover that was first drafted in 2019. president biden has spread so much misinformation about the basic facts of state voting laws that he was called out and debunked by, listen to this, "the washington post." a sitting president of the united states

who pledged to lower the temperature and unite america now invokes the brutal racial hatred of jim crow segregation to smear, to smear states whose new voting laws are more accessible than, for example, delaware. ten days of early voting and excuse only voting absentees in delaware is fine, but 17 days of early voting and no excuse absences in georgia is racist jim crow? senate democratic leader pretends it is a civil rights crisis that georgia has enshrined more, more early voting and more absentee balloting than his own state of new york has ever allowed. this is misinformation. it's a big lie designed to

reduce faith in our democracy, justify top-down election takeover, and justify smashing the senate itself. some years back, a veteran democratic senator explained, quote, the nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. it would transform the senate from the so-called cooling saucer of our founding fathers talked about to a purer majoritarian body. that was then senator joe biden. he continued, at its core the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. now, before president biden abrummettly -- abruptly reversed this position he held for decades, he was actually in very good company. senator robert byrd of west virginia, the legendary senate

institutionalist, was this crucial tradition's fiercest defender. the current democratic leader has true id to invoke senator -- true id to invoke senator byrd in his push to try to vandalize the senate. this is more misinformation. senator byrd went out of his way to rebut leader schumer's arguments years in advance. here's a direct qoart from senator byrd -- a direct quote from senator byrd, proponents of the so-called nuclear option inaccurately alemg that i blazed a procedural path toward an inappropriate change in senate rules. they're dead wrong, said senator byrd. dead wrong. they draw analogies where none exist and create cockeyed comparisons and fail to withstand the slightest intellectual scrutiny, end quote. that's how senator byrd felt

about it. before his death in 2010, senator byrd was completely consistent. quote, i oppose cloture by a simple majority because it would immediately destroy the uniqueness of this institution. minority rights would cease to exist in the u.s. senate, end quote. senator byrd shortly before his death. the democratic leader knew how to serve and protect the senate. that democratic leader knew how to serve and protect the senate. this democratic leader wants power so badly he'll misrepresent his own late predecessor if it helps him get it. senator byrd's successor, the current senior senator from west virginia, has eloquently restated the very same points. our colleague, senator manchin, published an op-ed explaining why, quote, there is no circumstance in which i will vote to eliminate or weaken the

filibuster. senator manchin. he pointed out that finding compromise across party differences and differing regional interests was never supposed to be easy, but it is the work we were elected to do. he noted that current rules guarantee that rural and small states and the americans who live in them always have a seat at the table. our colleague also pointed out that the 60-vote threshold keeps federal law durable and predictable. quote, if the filibuster is eliminated or budget reconciliation becomes the norm, a new and dangerous precedent will be set to pass sweeping partisan legislation every time there's a change in political control. our nation may never see stable governing again. this has been a key point for senators on both sides, going

back generations. in his farewell address before retirement, our former colleague, lamar alexander put it this way, he said, the senate rules exist to, quote, force broad agreements on controversial issues that become laws that most of us will vote for and that a diverse country will accept. in other words, major changes need major buy-in. otherwise, every policy would ping pong wildly whenever the gavels change hands. this is a point which our colleague, the senior senator from arizona, has explained powerfully. as senator sinema wrote just a few months ago, the 60-vote threshold compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings and radical reversals in federal policy. sometimes, the effect of the filibuster is to block bills

outright. republicans are using the tool to stop one-party takeovers. in 2020, republicans used it to kill senator tim scott's police reform bill. but as president biden argued decades ago, the filibuster is about more than what gets blocked, it shapes almost everything the senate actually does pass. it gives all kinds of citizens and all kinds of states a meaningful voice in nearly everything we do. by breaking the senate, this democratic leader wants to silence the voices of millions and millions of americans. he wants to throw whole regions of the country into a political power outage because those voters don't agree with his radicalism. we'll see which senators have the courage and the principle to put a stop to it.

finally, on a more practical level, i want to make something very, very clear. 50 republican senators, the largest possible minority, have been sent here to represent the many millions of americans whose leader -- whom leader schumer wants so badly to leave behind. so, if my colleague tries to break the senate to silence those millions of americans, we will make their voices heard in this chamber in ways that are more inconvenient for the majority and this white house than what anybody has seen in living memory. last year the senate passed major bipartisan legislation on infrastructure, on hate crimes, on government funding, on competing with china. last year, senators helped speed

through noncontroversial nominations. so what would a post-nuclear senate look like? i assure you, it would not be more efficient or more productive. i personally guarantee it. do my colleagues understand how many times per day the senate needs and gets unanimous consent for basic house housekeeping? do they understand how many things would require roll call votes, how often the minority could demand lengthy debate? our colleagues who are itching for a procedural nuclear winter have not even begun to contemplate how it would look. our colleagues who are itching to drain every drop of collegiality from this body have not even begun to consider how that would work.

if the democratic leader tries to shut millions of americans and entire states out of the business of governing, the operations of this body will change. oh, yes, that much is true. but not in ways that reward the rule breakers. not in ways that advantage this president, this majority, or their party. i guarantee it.

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. thune: mr. president, later today president biden will be speaking in georgia as part of democrats' effort to convince the american people that voting rights are under attack so they can justify their attempt to abolish the senate filibuster to pass their partisan election legislation. a noted democrat operative once famously said that you should never let a good crisis go to waste. he meant, of course, that a crisis could give you the opportunity to push things through that you might not be able to get done in the ordinary course of things. it's a lesson that democrats have learned well. last march, for example, democrats used the cover of the covid crisis to pass a so-called covid relief bill that had very little to do with covid relief and had a lot to do with

expanding the role of government and providing payoffs to democrat constituencies. but unfortunately for democrats, when it comes to their ewhrex legislation, there is -- election legislation, there is no crisis for democrats to exploit. and so democrats have spent the past year busily trying to manufacture one. i say the past year but democrats have actually been claiming there's a voting crisis for much longer. the source of the election bill that we will likely vote on this week is h.r. 1, election legislation that was first introduced by democrats back in 2019. back then democrats told us our election system was broken and that we needed to -- needed this bill to fix t. after all a republican had won the last presidential election and beat a favored democrat candidate. surely, surely that meant that our system was in trouble. but then the 2020 elections came

along and democrats won the presidency and a majority, albeit a narrow majority in both houses of congress. voter turnout was massive and a pew research center poll found that 94% of people found it easy to vote. 94%. so all of a sudden it was pretty difficult for democrats to claim that our system was broken. but they still wanted to pass their election legislation. so they came up with a new crisis. in 2021, a number of states passed updates to their voting laws partly because of the challenges and special circumstances that arose as a result of the pandemic. so democrats decided that these commonsense, mainstream updates represented an unprecedented attack on voting rights. and georgia which is one of the first to enact voting legislation has become the poster child for democrats'

campaign to convince americans that their voting rights are in danger. so what terrible voter suppression measures are states imposing? well, one provision of the georgia law that has come in for a lot of democrat outrage is its measure form bidding partisan political organizations from providing individuals with food or water within 150 feet of a polling place. yes. apparently preventing partisan political organizations from providing lunch to voters threatens the very stability of our entire democracy. now, nothing in georgia's law prevents outside groups from providing food and water to individuals outside the 150-foot radius. and georgia's law explicitly allows nonpartisan election workers as opposed to political groups to make water available to voters.

and of course i'm pretty sure any voter can bring his or her own food and water. but none of that has prevented democrats from suggesting that rules about food and water distribution at polling places represent a grave threat to voting rights. ironically state of new york has a similar provision in its election law prohibiting any refreshment or provision to a voter at a polling place except if the retail value of what is given is less than $1 and the person or entity providing it is not identified. yet i don't see the democrats traveling to new york to decry the threat to democracy posed by the new york legislature. mr. president, after georgia passed its voting law, president biden got up and attacked the law for supposedly ending voting

early to prevent working people from voting. he made that accusation repeatedly. the problem? there was exactly zero truth to his claim. in fact, as "the washington post" fact-checker column pointed out and i quote, experts say the net effect of the new early voting rules was to expand the opportunities to vote for more georgians, not to limit them. end quote. that from "the washington post" fact-checker. let me just repeat that, mr. president. experts say that the net effect of the new early voting rules was to expand the opportunities to vote for most georgians, not to limit them. the fact-checker gave the president four pinocchios, a rating the column reserves for a, quote, whoppers for the false

claim that the law was designed to keep working americans from voting. i'd also like to point out that not only is georgia's election reform law thoroughly mainstream, georgia's laws are actually more permissive in some respects than voting laws in some democrat states. georgia offers no excuse absentee voting. the democrat leader's home state, senator schumer's home state does not. in fact, voters in the democrat leader's home state actually just rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed no excuse absentee voting. i guess the democrat leader thinks that those voters are trying to destroy our democracy. georgia also has way more days of early voting than the democrat leader's home state.

so does arizona. another state that has come under fire from democrats for updating its election laws and yet red states, according to democrats, are the states attempting to suppress votes. it's also important to note that the georgia law was written to address concerns from republican and democrat voters, including concerns raised by stacy abrams, affiliated groups over the 2018 georgia gubernatorial election. mr. president, there's no question, no question we should make voting easy and accessible. but there are a lot of different ways to do that. and states can have different requirements and still all offer ample opportunities to vote. also i think my democrat friends

need a little perspective check. there are countries where individuals would consider it a privilege to be able to stand in line to vote in a free election, even if someone didn't provide them with food and water. of course no one wants voters to have to stand in long lines. and in fact, georgia's election law will make it less likely that they have to. democrats dramatic claims that a long line or a lack of a drop box or, say, nine as opposed to ten days of early voting somehow threaten the right to vote in this country are nothing short of absurd. i have faith that americans are capable of voting even without the democrat party providing them with a boxed lunch. mr. president, there's no election crisis in this country.

this last election, biggest turnout in american history in 120 years. you have to go back to the year 1900 to find a time when the election turnout in an american election was equal to or exceeded what we had in 2020. what there is is a partisan democrat election bill that democrats have wanted to pass since long before the georgia legislature reformed its election laws because they think it will give them an advantage in future elections. and you don't have to take my word for it. more than one democrat has openly admitted the democrats want to pass a federal election takeover because they think it will give their party an advantage in the next election. mr. president, if democrats were

really concerned about the security of our democracy and the integrity of our elections, if they really cared about affirming americans' faith in our electoral system, they would not be seeking to break the senate rules to pass a totally, totally partisan election bill on a totally partisan basis. a partisan federal election takeover is not going to do anything to strengthen americans' faith in our system. on the contrary. it will sow mistrust and division and heighten partisanship. the senate change in the rules to gain advantage in the next election, i would suggest that my democrat colleagues instead try coming up with an agenda that would appeal to a broad majority of americans, perhaps starting with a plan to address the inflation crisis the

democrats have helped create. that would be a far better use of their time than undermining faith in our electoral system with a partisan rules change and a partisan federal takeover of elections. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. let me know when ten minutes -- i get to ten minutes. thank you. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call, senator gramm

gram i ask unanimous consent -- mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you, mr. president. i speak today, two topics. number one, the substance of the bill which is, i guess, yet to be known regarding the voting rights which i consider to be a federal takeover of state elections and the constant threat of changing the rules of the senate to do away with the legislative filibuster as we know it. and i would say to my democratic colleagues, this has been going on for quite a while. the constant threat by senator schumer to change the rules to pass whatever legislation you all can come up with. all i can say is things were different when we were in charge. we had the house, the senate, and the white house.

president trump constantly urged senator mcconnell and all of us to the republican side to change the rules of the senate so he could pass his agenda unimpeded. that anything that came out of house under republican control could go to the senate with republican votes only. it was pretty clear to my democratic colleagues that was not a good outcome, i thought for the country, but i guess for them. we signed a letter on april 7, 2017, 61 significants, 28 -- signatures, 28 republicans, and it was sent to senator mcconnell and the minority leader was senator schumer at the time, urging both leaders that no matter what differences

we had regarding executive nominations and judges, we should preserve the minorities' rights under the so-called legislative filibuster. apparently it made perfect sense to my democratic colleagues that the senate not change to accommodate donald trump and his wishes. i was assuming that the statement of my democratic colleagues was about the institution, not just about the trump presidency and the times in which we lived in 2017. apparently i was wrong, except for a handful. and to senator sinema and manchin, you have led from the front, not from the rear. you've taken your fair share of criticism as you have opposed changing the senate rules to accommodate the voting rights bill and it's been -- the

argument goes that this is so fundamental to democracy voting that the senate has to give way in this instance. all i can say is that when our -- when many of us were in your shoes, we didn't make an exception for a piece of legislation that we thought was critical to the future of the country and it would be easy to find an exception here and there and everywhere to the point that the rule bends with the exception. and i appreciate your steadfast -- steadfastness in that regard. and apparently, as you read the news, a few more democrats are becoming publicly unnerved by the thought of changing the legislative filibuster, just a handful, and we're supposed to be in over the weekend, i think maybe even into monday, to have

the change -- rules change, but that may be in flux now because it appears that a handful of democrats are showing some distaste for changing the rules. i don't know why they are coming out now. i appreciate it. i don't think it would be very popular in certain states to change the rules of the senate that would pave the way for the most radical agenda in my lifetime. i know -- i don't know if that's got something to do with it or if there's a newfound religion here by a handful. to the rest, i won't forget this. i was one of the 28 republicans that signed the letter to the leaders of the senate asking that the institution maintain the legislative filibuster, and not because it benefited me personally, because i thought it

benefited the american people. the day you make the senate the house, we're going to have wild policy changes. when we're in charge, we'll go down one road, when democrats are in charge, they'll go down another road and there will be just an unnerving aspect of this in my view. and i think for well over a century the senate's prevented these wild changes and that means you don't get what you would like as conservatives. the same people applauding my resistance to changing the filibuster today were all over me wanting me to change the filibuster. i understand that. ideological people want their way and they don't particularly care how they get it. most americans have a more balanced approach about how the legislative process works. i think over time the requirement to get a handful of people from the other party to

pass legislation, particularly major legislation, has served the country well. there are things that we would do completely different than our democratic friends because we have different views. and some of these ideas just never make it to the senate. every now and then we'll come up with solutions to hard problems that are bipartisan because we have to as long as thing legislative filibuster is around. so the idea of changing the legislative filibuster would pave the way if democrats have all branches of government here to make d.c. and puerto rico a state. i think they would. it paves the way for increasing the number of justices on the supreme court because liberals donald like the current makeup. i think there would be a move to abolish the electoral college, which would be devastating to south carolina and all the people to this body, adding two

more states may serve your interest but it certainly deliewts the power you -- dilutes the power you have as an individual state. so the legislative filibuster is a stop sign to the most radical agenda i've seen since i've been up here. and it was a stop sign to the trump agenda. and you just fill in the blanks. this effort by senator schumer to abolish the legislative filibuster under the guise of a single exception is cynical and i think a sign of desperation. i like senator schumer. i've been to be able work with him, immigration and other hot-button issues, but the truth of the matter is this all started when president bush's judicial nominees were filibustered en masse that led to the gang of 14, spearheaded

by senator byrd, sort of one of the icons of the senate to be sure that filibusters would be done only in extraordinary circumstances. we broke the logjam and lost a couple of conservative judges and that held until it no longer held. in 2013, i got a call from senator schumer, that we will push for rules change when it comes to district court judges. i think it was in 2013. i think i remember the action that i had and they were able to do that and when president trump became president and had a couple of supreme court vaccinated to fill, they were all filibustered, starting with gorsuch, to the point we could change the rules until he could get some people on the court, that i think were highly qualified. the bottom line is when it comes to judges, the ship has sailed.

executive appointments, maybe that should have been changed. the effect on the judiciary i think will be democrattal over time. the most -- detrimental over time. the elements of each conference will have a large say about what kind of judges we put on the court and you will see a change over time from the right and the left because you no longer have to reach across the aisle to put a judge on the court. apply that to legislation, and again, it would be devastating to the country and to this body to not require some form of consensus when it comes to legislation and deny the majority the ability to require that consensus. as to voting rights itself, i think this is the most hyped, manufactured issue in a long time. this is a problem in search of a -- it's not a problem in search of a solution, it's a

manufactured problem. states, under our constitution, are supposed to run elections. in my state, i think we do a pretty good job. there's some efforts to change election laws throughout the country as more and more people vote by mail, i think it's -- you have the same voting rights in voting by mail as you do in person. it would be so easy to manipulate that system. the bottom line is this is an effort by the democratic leader to basically say that republicans at our heart are a bunch of racists when it comes to voting. that the reason they are having to do this is that states are changing laws to disenfranchise people of color and minorities. i find that like incredibly

offensive. i mean, just beyond offensive. in my state, which is 30% plus african americans, we have robust opportunities to vote. all these laws are being changed to implement voter integrity i think are necessary in the times in which we live. but the bill coming before the body, whatever it is, is a federalization of the election process. it's not about enfranchising the voter, it's about enfran chain migrationing the -- enfranchising the ability of the left to skew it to their favor and i think most of us over here see that way. in the south, particularly, you get used to being called a racist. it's never pleasant, but you get used to it and it is very unsaf ri. it went through that --

unsavely, i went through that in 2020, i hope i have convinced people that whatever flaws i have, being a racist is not one of them. to clothe this exercise here as some kind of moral imperative that if we don't do this bill, then people throughout the country will lose their right to vote because republicans, at the end of the day, don't want people of color to vote, is beyond offensive. and i hope it fails. and that we can get back to some sense of regular order around here. but i'll end with this. when the shoe was on the other foot, most of us didn't do this. your country needs you right now to speak up. if you support changing the legislative filibuster one time for the voting rights bill, you support the end of it because

there will be no end to the exceptions. and most of you over there have been hiding in the corner, letting other people take the arrows. it's time for you to speak up. i actually we have a vote because i want to know where people are, who i can count on and who i can't to understand what is transactional and what is about the party. time will tell. with that, i yield the floor to senator cornyn. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, considering the way our democratic friends talk about the state of voting rights in america, it's easy to see why some people have exercised -- expressed concerns because if you took them at face value, you might be very worried about the state of voting rights in our country. but there's more to the story than that which i hope to explain here in the next few minutes. for example, when it comes to the alarmism about voting rights, look no further than the democratic majority whip, senator durbin, from illinois, who said there is an insidious effort to suppress the rights of voters of color. senator schumer, the majority leader, the senator from new york, has said the right to vote is under attack in ways we have not seen in generations.

president biden, himself, has said there is a 21st century jim crow assault on the right to vote. if you were to take these at face value and accept them, obviously you would be very concerned about the state of voting rights. but there is more to the story, as i said. if you just listened to these statements, you'd think that the states -- the 50 states had just imposed literacy tests on voting. you would think the disgusting and subjective determinations of, quote, good moral character that existed before the civil rights movement had somehow sprung back to life. you might wonder if the supreme court of the united states had struck down the voting rights act itself. ofgly none -- obviously none of these things are true. there is no concerted effort to

prevent voters of color or any eligible voters from casting their ballot. and the voting rights, one of the most important pieces of legislation in our nation's history, is alive and well. i think the voting rights act has dub more to change our country for the better than any other piece of legislation that i can think of. so to be frank, the facts simply don't support our democratic colleagues' alarming rhetoric about the state of voting in america. this narrative of widespread voter suppression is nothing more than a scare tactic to achieve a political outcome. our colleagues across the aisle have introduced many different versions of their federal takeover of state elections bill, but the justification seems to always change. first they said it was a matter

of election security. then of voter confidence. and then, and now, a way to remove obstacles that prevented people from voting. today our colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this legislation is necessary because the states have passed new laws that restrict voting access. so, let's just take a look at what some of those laws entail. one of those laws in my state of texas, where the goal is pretty simple, which is to make voting easier and to make it harder to cheat, texas already offers two weeks of early voting in person, and the new law didn't make any changes in that. two weeks. you can show up and vote in person before election day. hardly a restriction on people's access to the ballot.

this law did, in a digs to make sure people -- in addition to make sure people had two weeks in person to vote early, extended voting hours in more than 60 texas counties and clarify that voters in line at the time the polls close would still be able to cast their ballot. doesn't sound like voter suppression to me. but the law also took some measures to reduce opportunities for fraud, for mischief. texas voting systems must now be tested before an election to ensure there are no technical difficulties. i'm sure all of us are familiar with the occasional problem with voting machines, technical difficulties that need to be fixed to make sure it counts, each legitimate vote. and we did make sure that voting rolls reflected only qualified

voters. in other words, voters who passed away were removed from the voting rolls. my state, like others, has clarified that the temporary pandemic-related measures were not intended to be permanent. we did take some extraordinary precautions in the midst of covid-19 to make sure people had access to the ballot. but these are hardly restoration of the status quo ante, before -- anti, before covid-19 is hardly voter suppression. i mention texas and its expansive right to cast your ballot in person, and to make sure that everybody in line when the polls close could still cast their ballot. another state that's come under fire is georgia. as a matter of fact, the attorney general of the united states has sued both texas and florida under the voting -- and georgia under the voting rights

act. and, of course, president biden is highlighting the georgia laws, because he's visiting today, doing what i've never seen a president do before, and that is villainize a state's new voting law, which to me is a bizarre thing for a sitting president to do, to travel to a state for the purpose of villanizing that state's laws. i doubt he will mention that georgia actually extended early voting to 17 days. that's not an example of voter suppression, of trying to restrict people's access to the ballot. as a matter of fact, that's much more generous than what president biden's home state of delaware has offered in terms of early access to the ballot. so these clearly are not examples of jim crow voter suppression. these are common sense measures designed to encourage people's

confidence in the integrity of the voting systems and to make sure that they're both accessible and secure. these efforts should not be ville nized -- villainized, they should be applauded, and they shouldn't be twisted beyond recognition, trying to manipulate the facts in order to achieve a political outcome. if these state voting laws, then, are not designed to restrict access to the ballot, you might wonder whether there was a pre-existing problem. so, let's have a look. did voters actually have a problem casting their ballot during the last election? well, following the 2020 election, the pew research center conducted a poll of the voting experience, and it found that the vast majority of

voters, 94%, 94% said that voting was easy. i don't think you can get 94% of the people to agree that the earth is round anymore, but here we have 94% of the voters who voted with ease in 2020. this is a stark contrast with the claimed assault on voting rights that we've heard so much about from our colleagues on the left. despite what the radical left might lead you to believe, there is no nationwide assault on voting rights. if there were, every person in this building would be lined up to defend the right to vote, not just democrats. mr. president, this is a manufactured crisis designed to achieve a political outcome.

there are plenty of safeguards already in place to prevent discriminatory voting laws from taking effect. the most important of which i've already said is the voting rights act. because of this legislation, the justice department has the authority to take action against any state, any political entity that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. this has been the case for a half a century, and no one, no one wants to weaken or eliminate those protections. unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the left have misrepresented the picture of voting rights in america to justify this partisan power grab. the legislation they've intro decembered -- introduced does more to enhance their own power than it does to address voting

rights. these bills aren't about supporting disenfranchised voters or fighting voter suppression, because as we know there is no nationwide assault on the right to vote. notwithstanding what some have claimed. this is simply about enhancing the political power of the democratic party. they want to seize states' constitutional authority to manage their own elections and use it for their own benefit. that's one of the most curious things about this debate that we're hearing from some of our democratic colleagues. they want to actually vote for a nationwide one size fits all standard to the detriment of their own states' voting laws. it's pretty strange to come here representing a state, let's say

i was in the shoes of the democrats, if i were to come here and say, well, my state's passed voting laws and i represent my state, but i want the federal government to take over the voting laws and to suppress and to supersede the voting laws in my state. that's what our democratic colleagues are asking for. president biden apparently, rather than changing the voting laws in his home state of delaware, wants the federal government to create a one size fits all answer to voting rights in america. again, something that's inconsistent with the constitution and makes no sense at all. well, to make matters even worse, some of our colleagues are even advocating blowing up the senate in order to achieve their goals, because they know they don't have 60 votes in

order to close off debate. now, the 60-vote requirement is the subject of a lot of controversy, but frankly it makes good common sense. in a country as big and diverse as america, do you really want to have a partisan majority of 51 writing the laws that affect 330 million people, only to have after the next election the next majority undo those or to change them in some other way? wouldn't you want a mechanism that forces us to do what we might consider to be a little unnatural, which is actually to build consensus and build bipartisanship, to make sure that the laws we pass are not only adequately debated and thought out but they could endure beyond the next election, because they enjoyed the support of bipartisan majorities? that's what the 60-vote cloture

requirement is really about. it is about making sure that purely partisan outcomes don't succeed and forcing us to do what i believe is in the best of interest of the american people which is force us to work together to achieve bipartisan con sen us. -- consensus. well, the election takeover bill may be the first one our democratic colleagues try to pass, if they eliminate or weaken the filibuster, but it won't be the last. this since going to be a one -and-done exercise. anybody says you can carve out voting laws and everything else will remain the same or just -- are just kidding themselves and the american people. if the democrats created a carve-out for election-related bills, there would be nothing, nothing stopping them from resurrecting early versions of the election takeover bill and

passing them on a completely partisan basis. previous versions of this bill would have turned the historically bipartisan federal election commission into a partisan body. they would have mandated ballot harvesting and seized states' constitutional authority to draw their own congressional districts. these are the types of radical measures we could see under what our colleagues call a modest carve-out. if our democrat colleagues eliminated the bipartisan 60-vote requirement, the floodgates of partisan legislation would surely open. last year, our colleagues tried to pass legislation that exploits the cause of pay fairness to send a wave of business to trial lawyers. they pushed for another bill that would impose crushing legal penalties on those who refuse to comply with woke social norms.

if the filibuster, the 60-vote bipartisan filibuster were eliminated, republicans would have no way of stopping these bills from becoming law. and that -- it doesn't stop there, the threat doesn't stop there. think of the most controversial bills that our democratic colleagues have proposed. they could add new states to the union, d.c. statehood, puerto rican statehood. they could pack the supreme court of the united states with liberal justices. they could pass laws that infringe on the second amendment to the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, or legalize abortion up until the time a baby is delivered in the third trimester. they could impose job-killing taxes and kick start the green new deal. so what's at stake here this week is far more than the fate

of one or two bills. our colleagues are proposing to put a thumb on the scale to benefit the democratic party. if the filibuster, the bipartisan 60-vote requirement, is eliminated, our colleagues on the other side of the isle will have unchecked power to write the laws affecting 330 million americans. we know they're already willing to manufacture a voting rights crisis to increase their own power, but if they're willing to do that what aren't they willing to do? i know i'm not alone, mr. president, saying i hope we never find out. mr. president, i yield the floor.

he the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: l my colleague from texas yield for a request, just a request? i would like to borrow his chart. would my colleague -- i would yield to you. i have the floor. mind if i borrow your chart? thank you. now, my colleague -- my good colleague from texas says 94% of voters said voting was easy in 2020. so why don't we keep it that way? isn't it true that all of the changes that we are arguing about are post-2020? isn't it an overwhelming likelihood if these changes are

allowed to go into effect will go way down? so yes, we agree. keep the 2020 laws. maybe we shame prove them. but right now what we're combating is a series of legislators, 19, 33 laws that will make this number surely go down because it makes voting less hard. we agree, 2020 worked out okay. i guess my friend is saying the big lie is false because donald trump said it was fraudulen fud, the election results. i would thank my colleague for his chart and will be i again. mr. cornyn: mr. president, would the senator yield for a question? mr. schumer: i sure would. mr. cornyn: can you give me an example of one of the laws passed in georgia or texas since the 2020 election which you believe is -- suppresses the right to vote? mr. schumer: there are a long list of them which i listed in my speeches. let me just give one or two. one, making early voting places

and dropoff voting places many fewer. number two, taking in the largest county, democratic county, african american county in georgia and taking away the bipartisan ability to collect those votes. three, in georgia making it a crime that if you're standing in line, you can't be fed and the lines, by the way, according to the reports i get, are much longer in african american communities than in white suburban communities making it much, much harder, much, -- making it a crime, rather to give people water or a sandwich. so i'm going to now give my remarks but i thank my colleague for the question and i'm going to take the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president, if i could ask one more question and clarify -- mr. schumer: last question, yes. mr. cornyn: is the senator suggesting that ballot harvesting is -- should be required in all 50 states, that is, the ability of a partisan or

participant in a political election to go around to nursing homes or to other vulnerable populations and collect ballots and turn them in? mr. schumer: if a person -- if the gentleman would yield. as long as there's no fraud, if a person in a nursing home can't get to the polling place and say they want to vote and someone collects their ballot, nothing wrong with that. in fact, that's good. that makes it easier for them to vote. all of these things that they bring up, there's been no evidence of fraud. none. donald trump has not produced any evidence of fraud. he lost by 7 million votes and yet he's saying he won the election. and we all know what's motivating our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. obeisance to donald trump. i would guess most of them know that the election is not stolen, that the big lie doesn't take effect. but trump has such power over the republican party, such power that they do what he wants and the legislatures and here in the senate. and i would remind my good friend from texas that his

fellow texans, george h. w. bush, george w. bush proudly supported extension of the voting rights act. proudly did that. it was bipartisan until donald trump came over and in my opinion poisoned the republican party on voting rights. we could use a little resistance to donald trump. we see it from a good number of republicans out in the country. we see it from a good number of republican commentators but we don't see it here in the senate and that's unfortunate. and i'm not going to yield for a further question. as i begin my remarks let me -- mr. cornyn: would the senator yield. mr. schumer: let me begin with the following figure. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you. mr. president, let me begin with the following figure. 55 million people. that's the estimated number of eligible voters that now live within states that have passed legislation restricting the right to vote and potentially undermine the electoral process. today president biden will

travel to one such state, georgia, home to one of the most egregious voter suppression in election subversion laws we've seen in a long time. i believe the president will give a strong speech and will urge that we in the senate change the rules so that we can prevent these awful and nasty laws from being implemented. in an address to the nation, he will use the bully pulpit of the presidency to make the case that the time has come for the senate to pass voting rights legislation and take whatever steps necessary to address this chamber's rules in order to accomplish that goal. the senate is going to act as soon as tomorrow. it is my intention to once again bring legislation to the floor to fight back against the threats to democracy and protect people's access to the ballot. once again i urge my republican colleagues to take up the flag of the traditional republican

party not only of lincoln but of reagan and h.w. bush and w. bush and vote yes to move forward so we can have a debate like the debate we just had. or discussion we just had. but if republicans continue to hijack the rules of the senate, to prevent roting rights from happening -- voting rights from happening, if they continue paralyzing this chamber to the point where we're helpless to fight back against the big lie, we must consider the necessary steps we can take so the senate can adapt and act. for the past few months senate democrats have been holding talks within our caucus to discern how we can best move forward to restore the function of the senate. and more importantly pass legislation to defend democracy and protect voting rights. last night i held another round of talks with a number of my colleagues about the path forward and we did so again this morning. over the past few days our

republican colleagues have escalated their attacks against our efforts to pass voting rights legislation. listen to this one. last night the republican leader worked to place a number of gotcha bills on to the legislative calendar as some sort of payback for pursuing legislation to protect the sacred right to vote. he was basically saying here are 18 bills that democrats don't like. let's go for 50 votes on those. well, i proposed to the republican leader in a unanimous consent request that it would be perfectly fine with us taking votes on his bills on a simple majority threshold if an exchange he agreed to do the same for the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights act. of course the republican leader immediately objected. immediately objected to having all of them done with 50 votes, the 18 bills he proposed and our two voting rights bills.

the republican leader made clear last night that the true worry on the other side isn't about the rules of the senate, rules they were perfectly happy to change to pursue their own objectives when they were in the majority. republicans in truth are afraid of the possibility that legislation to defend democracy, to fiept the power of -- fight the power of dark money and protect voting rights could move forward in this chamber. and as i mentioned to my colleague from texas, that's not all republicans. that's not republicans out in the country. a lot of them want to protect voting rights. but it's the republican party as now run by and it's fair to say run by donald trump who has promulgated the big lie that the election was stolen, that he really won even though he lost by seven million votes and even though he has no evidence, nor have the commentators in that effect. and now we here have at least republicans in the senate and the house and in lots of state

legislatures completely going along with this big lie. and the danger there is that jaundice is our democracy. if people of color, if young people, if ld older people -- if older people, people in urban areas feel their right to vote is being diminished compared to other people -- because they're not aiming this at everybody -- democracy begins to witter. we've -- wither. we've not seen an assault on voting rights since the days of the old south, since the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's. why would we want to regress. why would we want to regress? so we must fight back. now, i understand our republicans are going to continue their opposition through a flurry of speeches decrying any effort by democrats to undo these voter suppression laws and make it easier for americans to vote. and by the way, again i'd remind my colleagues that's been the

grand tradition of america. when the constitution was written, most states you had to be a white male protestant property owner to vote. no one says let's go back to those days. and in general america with our march to freedom and our march to equality embodied in our constitution and in the great minds of the founding fathers, the greatest group of geniuses ever assembled, have marched forward. there have been regressions but have marched forward. we democrats want to continue that march. we want to stop these types of laws. so the lead -- so the republican leader doesn't have much to say. so he's latched on to a talking point and he said the big lie is actually the warnings of voter suppression that come from democrats, even though there are so many laws that are obviously done to suppress votes. and a lot of these republican

legislators say it openly. i say to the republican leader his attempts to misdirect from the danger of donald trump's big lie and try to say it's democrats who are doing it is gaslighting, pure and simple. no evidence. no evidence. the leader did it again yesterday and today on the floor implying one more time that because the 2020 election was indeed successful, somehow voter suppression doesn't exist. now i answered my friend from texas when he held up that chart. are the republican leader cherry-picked examples to distract from the real and mistakeable changes that are taking place in the states. and i would ask the republican leader, the republican senator from texas, and every other republican if the 2020 election was a successful, as secure, as safe as he says it was, then why have republican state legislatures rushed to make it harder for people to vote in the aftermath of the 2020 election

and why can any republican cling to the view that the election was stolen, donald trump's big lie when john cornyn, my friend from texas is up there with a chart saying the 2020 election was successful and the republican leader said the same thing? doesn't that rebut donald trump? doesn't that rebut those who came to the capitol motivated by donald trump's propagation of the big lie? doesn't it rebut all the state legislatures who want to make it harder to vote if the 2020 election was successful? despite the republican leader's best efforts, i have yet to hear from my republican colleagues why it's okay for states like georgia to make it a crime to give food and water to people waiting in line at the polls when we hear that in minority areas and in urban areas, the lines are much longer than in earl rears? -- rural areas? i have yet to hear from republicans why states like texas and arizona have made it a felony, a felony for nonpartisan

election workers to send an unslis tidd mail ballot applications to voters. what's wrong with sending that? what's wrong with encouraging people to vote? the participation in elections is much higher in many western countries than in ours. and again texas didn't just prohibit nonpartisan election workers to send mail ballots out to voters. they made it a felony, a felony. these states have effectively made it a crime, a crime for election workers to proactively help people vote. where is the justification? where is the evidence of this massive fraud that donald trump talks about? no one gives any. and yet they predicate their policy moves here in the senate on that. and to date i've heard no explanation from the other side why states like texas, iowa and plan mon have reduced polling

locations and hours. in iowa early voting of any kind has been cut by nine days. how does that make the election more secure? why is that in the grand tradition of making it easier do americans to -- for americans to vote? and in georgia according to the atlantic constitution journal, the leading newspaper of atlanta, the number of absentee drop boxes in four large counties in atlanta, in the atlanta area will drop from 111 to 23, 111 to 23. one of the justifications is that these boxes are no longer helpful but this ignores the fact that over 300,000 voters used them in the last election, the last successful election, according to my friend from texas. republicans know that most of the people who use those drop boxes, of course, were democrats. they tend to use them more and that's why they cut them off. the examples go on and on, unfortunately, mr. president. this is not just the one-off or

one state or another. this is a massive campaign which if we do nothing will continue and get worse. states like texas, florida, kansas, iowa, new hampshire, and montana have passed laws to make it harder to register to vote. states l -- states like texas increase barriers for people with disabilities. again in georgia, one rural county, lincoln county, is trying to limit their polling places to just one in the whole county, just one place to vote for an entire county, causing people to potentially drive as many as 23 miles to cast a ballot. this wouldn't make voting easier. it turns it into a burden. the truth is, our republicans can't defend these laws. they're not going to mention them here today. let's hear some republicans defend these laws and point to evidence of the massive fraud that they say motivates them to do it.

it's bunk, bunk. the policies they have put forward have one purpose, one purpose only -- making it harder for younger, poorer, nonwhite and typically democratic voters to access the ballot. to give republicans a partisan advantage at the polls by making it harder for democratic voters to vote. when you lose in an election, you try to figure out why and try to win over the voters you lost. places in hungary where donald trump just endorsed orban who is whittling away at democracy. it is cynical, cynical for our republican colleagues to argue that just because these voter suppression laws don't spell out their intentions out in the open that there's nothing sinister at play. but these laws have real impact, potentially divisive. in arizona, mr. president, your state, the secretary of state has concluded that new laws

could purge as many as 200,000 voters from their early voting list, and as you know better than me, arizona has a long tradition of early and mail-in voting. i think it was set up by republicans, if i'm not wrong. in georgia over 1.3 million voters used absentee ballots in the last election, could not be affected by the restriction. senate democrats in iowa argue that if today's voter suppression laws had been in effect in 2020, over 6,500 absentee ballots would not have been counted in the last election. this isn't all that difficult to comprehend. when you make laws that raise barriers to voteing. we're approaching a decisive moment for the country. voting righted, defending democracy have long been bipartisan issues in this chamber. the voting rights act of 1964 is one of the crowning achievements, not only of the civil rights era but in the

history of this chamber. it's in no way a power grab to say the senate will pass laws that make it easier, simpler, and safer for american citizens to exercise their most fundamental right. that's been part of the grand tradition of this country, usually as i mentioned several times before bipartisan. i'll add, as we proceed, we cannot hang our hats on the false hopes of inadequate or sometimes comerical solutions. substituting the reform act for the john lewis voting rights act is insufficient, unacceptable. it doesn't affect the hots and senate. it is not immediately urgent because it affects 2024. but most importantly, score keeping matters little if the game is rigged and the game is in danger of being rigged if state republicans empower

themselves to arbitrate the results of future elections instead of it being arbitrated by what traditionally has happened in america, by nonpartisan election workers. so we need to work in this chamber to pass real solutions that go to the heart of the problem. we need to proceed with the john lewis voting rights act. we need to proceed with the freedom to vote act. all of us in this chamber must make a choice about how we'll do our part to preserve our democratic republic. we can't be satisfied in thinking that democracy will win out in the end if we're not willing to put it to work -- and put work in to defend it. so we need to pass these bills so our democracy can long endure after this present danger. to continue blocking these efforts is to offer an implicit endorsement of donald trump's big lie, which unfortunately is alive and well in 2022. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the scheduled recess. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: thank you. mr. president, last year ended with the best christmas present that this congress could ever give into the american people -- the democrats failing to pass president biden reckless tax-and-spending spree. sadly, the democrats' affair hasn't made them realize the relate at this time they're operating in -- a 50-50 senate where they have to work with both sides. they have now pivoted from a

reckless tax-and-spend spree that would break the piggy banks of americans to wanting to break the long-standing rules of the united states senate. they have set their sights on changing the very core of this institution by eliminating the legislative filibuster. so americans may not -- some americans may not even know what the filibuster is. the senate follows many rules and procedures to pass legislation, and the filibuster is an important tool that gives the minority party the ability to voice concerns and help shape any bill the majority party may bring up. the filibuster serves as a check against the majority party wishing to act without input from the minority. basically, with the filibuster, the majority has to work with the minority. that's the bottom line.

voting to end debate on a bill is commonly referred to as ending a filibuster. it simply means that the senate agrees that there's been enough debate, including amendments, and it is now time to take a vote. and as one of the senate rules, it requires 60 votes to end debate and move to passing the bill. even if you aren't familiar with complicated senate procedures, just know that the filibuster is important because it protects the deliberative nature of the senate. it ensures we function as an institution rooted in compromise, common ground, and a sense of unity. we represent all americans, not just a few. looking back on the history, you'll see it's been utilized as a standard senate practice. by republicans, democrats, and

independents alike. it is so important that in 2005, senator schumer, who you just heard speak, said, quote, the ideologues in the senate want to turn the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the dictatorship. he said that doing away with the filibuster would effectively create a dictatorship. more recently, in 2017 senator schumer doubled down on the need to keep the filibuster. in a letter to leader mcconnell, senator schumer argued for the protection of, quote, existing rules, practices, and traditions as they pertain to the right of members to engage in extended debate on legislation before the united states senate. to sum that up, he said no way

should we cancel the filibuster. that letter was signed by 33 democrats, many of whom are still serving in this senate as we speak. one of the signers that served at that time that signed this document is now the vice president of the united states. it is not just the vice president who has warned against ending the filibuster. in 2005 on this very floor, senator joe biden warned that if the ability to filibuster were abolished, done away with it, the senate would become the house of representatives. i recognize that both sides of the aisle have at some point diminished the filibuster on nomination votes. in 20 is 13 -- in 2013, then-senator harry reid lauder

it on nomination. in 2017, the republicans turned around and lowered the standard to 51 for supreme court nominees. based on that, the left may call our opposition now hip critical. -- hypocritical. but there is a gig difference between legislation and nominations. including policy in our budget and nominees. debating legislation should include input from all senators and be subject to compromise through the amendment process in order to be made better. a nominee's qualification are not subject to input or change. voting on a nominee is a take-it-or-leave-it vote. you can't change their background or qualifications with more debate or more

amendments. that's why they move the vote to 50. but the filibuster on legislation forces the majority to take into account the minority's position and to make the changes necessary to earn their support. so now that the democrats seem to be changing their tune on the legislative filibuster, it might be worth asking, what has caused the democrats to flip-flop, and why now? well, there's one notable reason. between 2017 and 2022, who has control of the white house and congress now? back in 2017, when the democrats were in the minority, they understood the value of the minority's vote. but now they are in the majority, and all bets are off. they want to race through their

party's big government socialist agenda with little or no debate or opposition as possible. senate democrats have embraced a radical win-at-all-costs game plan for passing their progressive agenda, and they intend and will break the senate if they do it. democrats say their war on the filibuster has to do with strengthening voting rights, and they want to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. if that were true, democrats wouldn't have any problem passing this on a bipartisan level. we all want to safeguard our elections so that all americans have confidence in the integrity of our country's election process. but if access to the ballot box were an issue, it might come as a surprise that the 2020 election saw the largest voter

turnout in over a century. democrats are simply operating under a false idea. the states should run our election system, not the federal government. what's more is they will tell you they're embarking on this crusade to save our democracy, but the problem is they want to do it by blowing up our democracy, blowing up this room, ending the filibuster means we would govern only by majority rule, stifling the voice of all minority and millions and millions of people that voted for the people that are in here in the minority. instead of saving it, one-party rule would be the end of our democracy as we know it. instead of including the minority's voice in legislation

that should serve all americans, we'd have radical swings back-and-forth every time the majority changed hands in this room. right now there are few democratic senators who are stood up for the filibuster. they understand the important role of the minority's voice. this is not the house of representatives. they understand the importance of making sure we listen to the voices of the millions of americans who voted for the minority party, whoever it is. they know what even small exemption or what they call a carve-out could lead to -- devastation to this room. so i ask the rest of my completion on the other side of the aisle -- so i ask the rest of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why not join us, save the filibuster? that's what makes us the voice of all men's. why not focus on what you can do to lead in the face of many crises actually facing the

american people. in a recent poll nearly 50% of americans disapproved of president biden's handle aing of covid. -- handle aing -- handling of covid. the disapproval ratings were higher when it came to the economy, taxes, prime governmental spending and immigration. it's clear that right now americans need more adults in this room and more leadership. and i can guarantee that the american people do not want leadership that resorts to changing the rules to get their way, to notch a win. the american people want leaders who actually address the problems they face like covid and inflation. we cannot allow the failed leadership of big government socialists to be a scapegoat for eliminating the filibuster and fundamentally changing our country for the worse.

mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate >> the u.s. senate now in recess so each party can hold its weekly meetings. the senate returns at 2:15 p.m. eastern when lawmakers will vote on confirmation of the nominee to head the national telecommunications and information administration. after that the senate will vote on whether to end debate on the nominee to head the federal railroad administration. also we could see debate on legislation dating with russian gas pipeline and efforts to change filibuster rules regarding voting rights legislation. when the senate returns this session, live coverage on c-span2. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government.

we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span is a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> and back now to capital for the last few moments of a news conference with republican senators discussing potentially changing senate rules to prevent filibusters of pending voting rights legislation. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible] should require to have you those kinds of conversations in