sales have grown 92%, and since 2017 they have grown 300%. that's really awesome backdrop that ethanol is able to be prichard cheaper than gasoline and -- >> that the time of the gents expired, but you may provide an answer in writing. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> yes, sir. the gentleman from florida, mr. lawson, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to you and the ranking member, this is a great meeting where having today. also i would like to just give a shout out to congress -- >> you can continue watching this at our website c-span.org or on the c-span video out. right now we take you live to the u.s. capitol with the senate today is voting on confirmation of a nominee to head the federal railroad administration. also this week we could see

debate on legislation dealing with the russian gas pipeline and the possible change in summit rules that would prohibit voting rights legislation from being filibustered. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: eternal god, who causes the morning stars to sing, your presence fills us with joy. show our lawmakers the path that leads to life. as they strive to serve you faithfully,

guide their steps to the destination you choose. lord, remind them that you know their hearts and hear their requests for help. continue to be their refuge and strength, a very present help in troubled times. keep your people safe, and surround them with the shield of your favor. we pray in your strong name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty

and justice for all. president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of transportation, amitabha bose, of new jersey, to be administrator of the federal railroad administration. president pro tempore the senator from colorado.

president pro tempore: the senator suggests the absence of a quorum and the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

[silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence] .. >>.

[silence] [silence] >>. [silence]

>> republican leader. >> i asked that a wormhole be dispensed with.

shouting, lower the temperature, but yesterday he shouted that if you disagree with him, you're george wallace. george wallace. if you don't pass the laws he wants, you're bill connor. and if you oppose giving democrats untrembled one-party control of the country, well, you're jefferson davis. 12 months ago this president said disagreement must not lead to disunion. but yesterday he invoked the bloody disunion of the civil war, the civil war to demonize

americans who disagree with him. he compared -- listen to this -- a bipartisan majority of senators to literal traders. how profoundly, profoundly unpresidential. look, i've known, liked, and personally respected joe biden for many years. i did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday. american voters did not give president biden a mandate for very much. he got a tied senate, negative coattails in the house, the narrowest majorities in over a century. the president did not get a mandate to transform america or

reach a society. but he did arguably get a mandate to do just one central thing that he campaigned on. here's what that was. bridge a divided country, lower the temperature, dial down the perpetual air of crisis in our politics. that is the one central promise that joe biden made. it is the one job citizens actually hired him to do. it is the one project that would have actually been consistent, consistent with the congress, the voters -- with the congress the voters elected. but president biden has chosen to fail his own test. the president's rant, rant

yesterday was incoherent, incorrect, and beneath his office. he used the phrase jim crow 2.0 to demagogue a law that makes the franchise more accessible than in his own state of delaware. he blasted gentleman's -- georgia's procedures regarding local officials while pushing national legislation with almost identical language on that issue. the president implied things like wildly popular voting i.d. laws to be -- listen to this -- totalitarian, totallian -- totalitarian. ironically on the same day washington, d.c.'s democratic mayor told citizens to bring both a photo i.d. and a vaccine card any time they leave the house.

the president repeatedly invoked the january 6 riot while himself using irresponsible delegit ma tieing rhetoric that undermines our democracy. the sitting president of the united states compared american states to totalitarian states. he said our country will be an autocracy if he does not get his way. if he does not get his way. so the world saw our commander in chief proper pa gand -- proper began dies against his own country that would have made prodga blush. there was no consistent standard behind anything the president

said. he trampled through some of the most sensitive and sacred parts of our nation's past. he invoked times when activists bled and when soldiers died, all to demagogue voting laws that are more expansive than what democrats have on the books in his own home state. georgia has more days of early voting than delaware or new y york. georgia has no excuse absentee voting which delaware and new york do not have. if georgia or texas present jim crow emergencies, then so do a whole lot of democratic-run states. the senate democratic leader has gone on cable tv saying georgia is greatly restricting or eliminating early voting. that's a lie.

proveably false. georgia has more early voting than new york. the democratic leader has tried to fearmonger about one rural georgia county that condensed multiple voting locations into one, one rural georgia county. well, the county is overwhelmingly red. they were clearly not involved in trying to suppress democratic votes. 70% republican in that one county in 2020. so take a step back for a minute. president biden's story is that democracy is on death's door. but he spent nine months chasing a reckless taxing and spending spree before addressing it. must not be that much of an emergency. citizens are meant to believe a

return of jim crow is on the table. but this is only president biden's sixth priority after he was blocked from spending $5 trillion on windmills and welfare. democrats' own behavior refutes their false hysteria. 12 months ago the president said that politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path. that was just 12 months ago. but yesterday he poured a giant can of gasoline on the fire. 12 months ago the president said every disagreement doesn't have to be a cause for total war, but yesterday he said anyone who opposes smashing the senate, smashing the senate and letting democrats rewrite election law is a domestic enemy and --

listen to this -- a trader like jefferson davis. one week ago president biden gave a january 6 lecture about not stoking political violence. one week ago. yesterday with the world's largest mega phone, he invoked the literal civil war and said we're on the doorstep of autocracy. talk about domestic enemies. rhetoric unbecoming of a president of the united states. in less than a year restoring the soul of america has become this. agree with me or you're a bigot. agree with me or you're a bigot.

from lowering the temperature to invoking totalitarian states and the civil war. so this inflammatory rhetoric was not an attempt to persuade skeptical democrat or republican senators. this whole display, this whole display in fact you could not invent a better advertisement for the legislative filibuster than a president abandoning rational persuasion for pure demagoguery. you could not invent a better advertisement for the legislative filibuster than what we have just seen, a president abandoning rational persuasion

for pure, pure demagoguery. a president shouting that 52 senators and millions of americans are racist unless he gets whatever he wants is proving exactly why the framers built the senate to check his power. this whole display is the best possible argument for preserving, preserving the senate rules that extend deliberation, force bipartisan compromise, and let cooler heads prevail. nothing proves it better than this episode. it offers a perfect case study why senator biden was right about the filibuster and president biden is wrong. one respected scholar explained it this way.

the smallest majority we've ever seen in our politics is trying to change the rules for how people get elected in every single state. that's just about the best argument for the filibuster you could possibly imagine. so, mr. president, the citizens of the greatest country in the world deserve for their elected officials to treat them like grownups. adults of america deserve to hear from the adults in washington, d.c. sol i'll close with some basic truths. obviously our country is more divided than it should be, no doubt. in recent years i have vocally criticized people across the

political spectrum who have sought to legitimatize elections when they win and delegitimatize democracy when they're polling badly or when they lose. i criticized top democrats' hysteria after 2016 when their rhetoric had 66% of democrats across america fallsly convinced -- falsely convinced that russia had hacked our voting machines and changed the tallies. 66% of democrats thought that after 2016. i criticized speaker pelosi and house democrats who spent the runup to 2020 hyping conspiracy theories and that the election would be illegitimate if their side lost. in december 2020 and january of last year, our side of the aisle defended the constitutional

process despite political pressure and we had, of course, a literal mob. but now it is president biden and leader schumer and washington democrats who don't like their poll numbers, so they are reversing their tune yet again. the people who spent november 2020 through january 2021 preaching sermons about the strength and sanctity of our democracy are undertaking to delegitimize the next election in case they lose it. we have a sitting president -- a sitting president invoking the civil war, shouting about totalitarianism and about his domestic enemies. we have a senate democratic leader who now frequently calls american elections, quote, a

rigged game. look, this will not be repaired with more lies, more outrage, and more rule breaking. unfortunately, president biden has rejected the better angels of our nature. so it is the senate's responsibility to protect the country. this institution was constructed as a firewall against exactly -- exactly the kind of rage and false hysteria we saw on full display yesterday. it falls to the senate to put america on a better track. it falls to us. so this institution cannot give in to dishonorable tactics.

we cannot surrotundaer to this -- surrender to this recklessness. we have to stand up, stand strong, protect the senate, and defend the country. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to applaud the republican leader, the senator from connecticut, for -- the senator from kentucky, for saying what

needed to be said. if there is a unique role for the united states senate in our system of government, it is to be the place where debate and deliberation, common sense, and compromise prevail over demagoguery. and, unfortunately, what we heard from president biden yesterday was sheer demagoguery, and i agree it was not only unbecoming of the president of the united states, it was, frankly, embarrassing. many of us were embarrassed for him that he would resort to that sort of rhetoric, particularly when members of his own political party are not on board asking him to do what he wants to do, which is to break the rules of the united states senate. so until this debate began, many americans probably didn't think twice about something called the filibuster, and as we've all tried to explain why it is

important and what role the filibuster plays in our system of government, i think it's perhaps best described as a mechanism to force us to do what doesn't come naturally, and that is to build consensus, to work together in the best interest of the country and to pass laws that will endure, not those that will be reversed with the new majority with the next election. when you think about a country like ours, 330 million people, as diverse as it is, it just makes sense for us to have fulsome debates and deliberation because the risk of making mistakes of unintended consequences is great.

and there is no body in america that can fix mistakes made by the united states congress. so deliberation is an important function, and that's why forcing us to do what doesn't come naturally, which means to work together to build consensus to get 60 votes to cut off debate, is such a critical role. well, unfortunately, our colleagues have, according to the democratic leader, the majority leader, our democratic colleagues have chosen to leave tradition at the door in order it to grow their own political power. make no mistake, they face an uphill battle. two of our democratic colleagues have stated their outright opposition, and i imagine others who hold the same view who have not wanted to catch the slings and arrows that have made their

way toward the senator from arizona and the senator from west virginia, there aren't many other democratic senators -- there are many other democratic senators who hold the same idea in private. still the senate majority is looking to light the -- as this chamber considers such an extreme rule, i want to share wise words from one of our former colleagues. that would be former senator joe biden. the current president served in the senate for three and a half decades and held a deep reverence for the rules and traditions and the norms that govern this body. at least he did. back in 2005, the senate was weighing whether or not to

eliminate the 60-vote requirement for certain judicial nominees. at that time we had a republican majority and a democratic minority. the shoe was on the other foot. but then-senator biden was absolutely clear on the matter. he said eliminating the filibuster, the so-called nuclear option, is an example of the arrogance of power. the arrogance of power. now, that's not an ambiguous statement. that's not a qualified statement, that's not a contingent statement. that is a declarative statement about what eliminating the filibuster is, an arrogance of power. back in 2005, then-senator biden

believed changing the rules to benefit yourself or your political party is an example of that arrogance of power, and he called it a fundamental power grab by the majority party. but now president biden obviously holds the exact opposite view. in other words, he's done a spectacular flip-flop. now that his party is the one in power, he's not only okay with the idea of this arrogance of power, this power grab, he endorses it. he advocates for it. he's willing to use some of the strongest rhetoric i have ever heard come from a president of the united states to condemn it. to condemn the filibuster and endorse its destruction. in georgia yesterday, president biden made his new position on

the filibuster crystal clear. he said, let the majority prevail. the move he once called a fundamental power grab is now his new legislative strategy. and president biden isn't the only one to have done a complete flip-flop when it comes to the filibuster when it's opportunistic, when it's convenient, when it's expedient. senator durbin, the democratic majority whip, also used to have a deep respect for the traditions of the senate. he said if the filibuster were eliminated, it would be the end of the senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our founding fathers. but his respect for these traditions, these norms, these rules dissipated when it became a political inconvenience.

last year senator durbin, the senator from illinois, said the filibuster has become the death grip of democracy. i'm not sure if he's proud testify now, but senator schumer was also an advocate for the filibuster in the not so distant past. just a few years ago, again when the shoe was on the other foot, democrats were a minority, republicans were a majority, he said we should build a firewall around the filibuster to protect the senate from the winds of short-term electoral change. well, today, for sure, the winds have shifted. the senator who once supported the filibuster now finds himself as the majority leader trying to appease the most radical elements in his political base. where does he stand on the

filibuster today? well, he's whipping votes to eliminate it. democrats who once hailed the filibuster as a vital stabilizing force in our government now call it a weapon of mass destruction, a mockery of american democracy and even a jim crow relic. let's not forget just about a year and a half ago democrats used this jim crow relic to block an antilynching bill. that's right. i was here on the senate floor when the now vice president of the united states, kamala harris, cory booker, our colleague from new jersey, participated in filibuster to block to proceed to a police reform bill that contained their own antilynching bill in it. shocking to me. they didn't even want to begin

discussion of the bill. their own antilynching bill. well, now that democrats control all levers of government, they tossed their previous convictions in the trash. their agenda, securing the result that will result in a partisan -- permanent partisan advantage. that is their sole focus. our colleagues seem to have been blinded by the possibility of short-term victories and they are ignoring the longer-term repercussions, because in the senate what goes around comes around. let's say that democrats muster enough support to take a wrecking ball to the senate rules, they blow up the rules and pass this so-called election

bill with only 50 votes plus the tie-breaking vote of the vice president. they'd likely spend the rest of the year checking other items off of their radical wish list, this idea about a carve-out for one type of bill is just malarkey, to use the president's term. and they would clearly use this to craft new laws to curb second-amendment rights, expand access to abortion, and decimate important industries in the united states like the oil and gas industry. at the same time, the president is asking for vladimir putin and opec to pump more oil because the price of gasoline has gone through the roof. well, our colleagues like the sound of that, eliminating the filibuster, but they aren't prepared for what inevitably

would come next. the great genius of our system and our country is that power is not absolute, and ultimately all power lies in the hands of we the people. and we are all directly accountable to the people we represent. if voters reject democrats' power grab and hand republicans a senate majority, democrats would, go they were successful today or tomorrow, have zero impact on the legislative process. you could just ignore democrats and plow your way to a certain result. they would have no way of stopping legislation she absolutely abhor from becoming the law, and the states they represent, represented by dem senators -- by democratic senators, those senators would

be irrelevant. think about that. all of us work hard to get here. all of us are proud of the fact our voters elected us to represent them in this most august body known on the planet. but if you happen to be in the minority, under the current position taken by the president and the majority leader and our senate democratic friends, almost all of them, those senators elected in blue states would have zero impact. they might as well not even show up. if voters rejected the democrats' power grab and hand republicans the majority, they would have no say in the legislative process, if they're successful. a republican-controlled senate could pass new laws to protect the right to life, secure the

border, expand and enhance second amendment rights under the constitution, and much, much more. if that were to happen, would democrats stand by the rules change that they are debating and advocating for today? would they stand by their decision to silence the minority party and minority senators? would they agree with president biden's statement let the majority prevail? well, we don't have to wonder, because we've seen this movie before. our colleagues have already expressed regrets over the previous filibuster carve-out. contrary to the strong statement democrats made in 2005 advocating for the filibuster to be main taped, they started chipping away -- to be maintained, they started chipping away at it just eight years later. 2013, democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for judicial

nominees, and the move has haunted them for nearly a decade and resulted in the confirmation of three supreme court justices during president trump's term of office. back then, when they invoked the nuclear option, leader mcconnell said you will regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think. reflecting on that moment a few years ago, senator bennet, one of our colorado colleagues was clear, he said, senator mcconnell was right. under the previous administration, the republican-led senate confirmed more than 230 conservative judges, all thanks to the democrats' elimination of the filibuster when it comes to nominations.

the senior senator from colorado isn't the only one who's shown remorse after ending up on the losing side of that rules change. senator tester, our colleague from montana, said voting on that rules change was, quote, probably the biggest mistake he'd ever made, closed quote. senator sha shaheen, our colleague from new hampshire concluded it has not served us well. even senator schumer, the majority leader, has said i wish it hadn't happened. and as a reminder, this is only in reference to federal judges. these individuals hold tremendous power, no mistake about it. but now we're talking about rule changes that stipulate how laws are made, not how nominations are considered. this is the so-called legislative calendar. what happens in the wake of this change would impact every single

family across the country. when republicans inevitably at some point take the majority again, it would be a simple thing with 51 votes to dismantle all of the laws that our democratic colleagues have passed, if they were to eliminate the filibuster. then, of course, when democrats take control again the reverse would happen. you know, i think about the 60-vote requirement as forcing us to do something that doesn't come naturally, and that is to force us to work together, to build consensus. i think that's what the american people want us to do, to work together, and the filibuster, that 60-vote requirement to close off debate forces us to do just that. it eliminates the possibility that we can, with a mere majority of 51 votes, have our way, only to see it reversed

after the next election. that's not good for the country. that's not good for our constituents. that doesn't create the sort of predictable, enduring laws that the american people should be able to rely on. well, when it comes to eliminating the filibuster, senator biden's line about the arrogance of power is exactly that. at some point, the shoe will be on the other foot. it always happens. which is why no party, neither party, has been so short-sighted , until now, to try to eliminate the legislative filibuster. no party has ever been so power hungry and so short-sighted as to shatter the norms and traditions of this institution. mr. president, i'd like to close

with one more quote from then senator biden back in 2005. he said, what short-sightedness and at what price history will exact on those who support this radical move. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: last week the vice president of the united states told us that a riot that happened here in the u.s. capitol last year was the equivalent of the day in which japan attacked us at pearl harbor and the u.s. was pulled into a world war that took the lives of over 3% of the world's population. and yesterday, we were treated

to the president telling us that election laws that are being passed by various states across the country over the last year are basically the same, the equivalent of the segregation that existed in this country in the 1950's and 1960's and before. now look, if your daily routine is to wake up in the morning and turn on msnbc as you ride your peloton and you go on twitter as you're drinking your caramel macchiato and reading "the new york times" as you eat your arve cado toast, this -- avocado toast, this makes perfect sense to you. they believe this ridiculous narrative that every republican is a insurrectionist, probably a racist, wants to overthrow the us government and destroy democracy. the good news is that the overwhelming majority of americans happen to live back here on planet earth, and what we're -- they're worried about, to the extent they've paid

attention to the stuff over the last two weeks, is that everything costs more, you go to the grocery store, the shelves are empty. they have a small business and hire someone on monday who's -- who disappears on thursday, never comes back. they've got every day thousands of people illegally ending the united states across a open border. by the way, we have a surge of violent crime and lawlessness across the country. that's probably what they're worried about -- in fact, i know it is -- on a daily basis. to the extent they've paid attention to any of this, first of all, i think almost everyone would tell you what happened january 6 was a thing, should never have happened and should never happen again. but i don't care how many candlelight vigils and musical performances you have from the cast of "hamilton" you're not going to convince most normal and sane people our government last year was almost overthrown by afy wearing a viking hat and speedos. okay? i don't care how many speeches the president gives in which he

shouts out this hyperbole and melodrama, you're not going to convince people that having a state pass a law that says, for example, you have to produce an identification is the same as segregation. nevertheless, despite the fact that's what most people in this country are worried about is inflation, that's not what we're working on here. that's not what we'll spend this week on. that's not what the priority of this administration has been. that's not what the president is giving speeches about. you may care about inflation back home. they care about the fact, their crisis is that there are laws in this country, for example states in this country, that do not automatically force everyone to register to vote. they automatically register to vote. that's the crisis. they don't care that store shelves are empty. in fact, they deny the shelves are em. for them, the real problem is that states have laws that don't allow these roving gang of packettivists to -- activists to get people to dump ballots at

6:59 op election day on election officials. they don't seem concerned that americans will be fired or not allowed into a restaurant without papers, a vaccine card. the real problem is how dare you ask them to produce a voter i.d., photo i.d. to vote. that's the real problem. how can this be? how can there be such an enormous disconnect between what real people in the real world care about and are talking about on the daily basis? what we're going to spend time talking about here in the speeches over the last week, it isn't about the capitol riot. everyone agrees the capitol riot was terrible and shouldn't have happened. i think most everyone does. but some of the same people that downplayed it. over 700 riots, thousands of cases of looting that happened in america in the summer of 2020. most certainly isn't about election laws passed in the last year. they've been pushing the same bills with different titles and names, they've been pushing all of this were for the better part of a decade.

it certainly isn't about voting rights. it is easier than it has ever been in the history of the united states to register to vote and to vote. and the prove is that in 2020, we had the highest turnout in over 100 something years. this isn't about any of that. you're paying attention, let me tell you what this is about -- this is about power. this is about power. this is about changing the rules of the senate so they have the power to ram through, to ram through an election law. this is about ramming through an election law to make sure that they never lose power, to make it easier to win elections for them. and therefore, have power for perpetuity. i want to talk about defending democracy? let's talk about the americans, real people, who are afraid to donate to political campaigns, to put a bumper stick other on

their car, to tell people who they voted for. they're afried because they don't want to get canceled, get boycotted, get harassed. they're afraid. don't want to get smeared. want to talk about totalitarianism. talk about the fact that the attorney general of the united states said let's go after some parents complaining at school boards and treat them as domestic terrorists. you want to talk about segregation, let's talk about a system of education that is both separate and unequal, divided between the people who can afford to spend $50,000 or $360,000 a year to -- or $60,000 to send their kids to a fancy school with tutoring and advantages, and the thousands -- no, millions of american parents, who are hispanic, african american and others, who have no choice where their kids go to school. they have no voice. they send their kids to the school the government tells them. these people don't care about any of this. because it's about power. not just the power to change

election laws. we've seen it. it's about the power to tell you what you're allowed to say. it's about the power to tell you where you're allowed to go. about the power to tell you what you're allowed to do. it's about the power to intimidate, destroy, smear, to call a racist, bigot, hater -- anyone who dares get in your was i or disagree with you. it's about the power to do that. let me tell you something, i was raised by and have lived my entire life alongside people who lost their country, the country of their birth to power hungry people just like that. i warn you, do not stand by and allow it to happen to this one. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i wish it were the case that everyone agrees that what happened here on january 6 was an abomination.

but that is simply not true. that is simply not true. many of my republican colleagues will say the right things on the senate floor occasionally, will whisper the right things to us when the cameras aren't watching. but a recent poll, a nonpartisan monmouth university poll asked republican voters whether or not they thought january 6 was a legitimate protest. and guess what? half of republican voters in this country say that the invasion of this capitol that involved chance for the death of the vice president, a gallows outside the united states capitol, half of republicans believe that that was a legitimate protest. seven out of ten republicans today don't believe that joe biden is a legitimate president.

they say donald trump won the election despite he lost by seven million votes. and the reason for that is mostly the leader of the republican party donald trump has been legitimizing violence, urged those protests, and that insurrection attempt, cheered them at the end of the day on january 6, and also because we have seen mostly silence from mainstream republicans who know better but don't want to pick a fight with president trump. so, yes, we are worried about the future of our republic. we are worried about the future of our republic because a mainstream political party has gotten behind the idea that power matters more than elections, that violence is a legitimate means of protest. so this idea that everybody agrees that january 6 was an abomination just isn't true. it's not true. and that's in part why we are so worried. i want to talk about two

subjects today. and the first is this question of the rules of the senate because i've listened with great interest over the last few days as my republican colleagues have come down to the floor to extol the virtues of senate tradition, as they explain the dangers of changing the rules so that a majority vote in the senate can pass legislation. it doesn't sound like a radical idea that if the majority of senators want a piece of legislation to pass, it should pass. but this idea that the filibuster is part of the original design of our democracy or our senate or that the current use of the filibuster is consistent with senate tradition, it's just not true. our founding fathers, yeah, they built a system of government that was designed to make rapid change, even change supported by the majority of voters really, really hard to implement. right? they designed two different legislative chambers, a president with veto power, staggered terms for senators. but our founding fathers

considered a super majority requirement for legislation in the congress. and they rejected it as too great a limitation on the will of the people. now, admittedly at the time of our founding, there were other checks on the voters' will being quickly transformed into policy change. back then, for instance, only white men could vote. the citizenry at the time wasn't even trusted to directly elect the members of this body. but in the decades that followed, the american people demanded more democracy and they got it. why? because as our grand experiment of democracy continued, we saw proof of concept. the people could be trusted to govern themselves. they could choose leaders that were more able, more honest, more effective than any king or queen or emperor. so we extended the franchise universally. we decided to have the senate be directly elected and as america expanded, the new states out in

the west, they gobbled even more democracy. the west decided to elect not just legislators but judges and prosecutors, dog catchers and insurance commissioners. majorityian rule as america grew, it became addictive. and as our country grew, our citizens demanded more of it. now, in the context of the founders' intention and the long-term trend towards more democracy, this 60-vote requirement, the super majority requirement in the senate which doesn't exist in any other high income democracy, it stands out like a sore, rotting thumb. this antimajoritarian drain clog designed intentionally to stop the majority of americans from getting what they want from government. that's what it is. why should it not be up to the voters and not politicians to decide the laws of this nation? with a 60-vote threshold, that decision is robbed from voters.

given only one-third of the senate is up for election every two years, it's just impossible for voters on their own to move one party from, say, 46 or 48 members of this body to 60 members in one election. and we all know this but right now the american public is in no mood for the choices of elites to be continually substituted for their collective judgment. right now americans are in a pretty revolutionary mood. and you can understand why more americans today than at any time in recent history see themselves on the precipice of financial and spiritual ruin. so why on earth would our message amidst this growing pop las tempest be to tell voters that rules are required to protect them from their bad judgment, to take from them purposefully the ability to change policies whenever and however they wish?

senate republicans will say that even though the filibuster is antimajoritarian, right? it is. it says that even if the public installs a majority in the senate that wants policy a, the rules are going to be constructed in the senate to prevent it from happening. senate republicans say even though it's antimajoritarian, it's for good reason. because as i've heard many of my colleagues say, it promotes compromise. but i've been in the senate now for eight, nine years. once in a blue moon, like this summer, on the infrastructure bill, there is a big bipartisan achievement. but for anyone who believes that the rules of the senate right now incentivizes bipartisanship should just watch the senate for, like, a few days. today the 60-vote threshold just allows the minority to sit back and say no, no, no over and over

again. in large part because its usage has changed so much. it doesn't used to be that the filibuster, the 60-vote threshold was applied to everything. up until the 1970's, cloture votes were almost nonexistent in the senate. big things routinely passed with 50 votes. in -- think about this. in 1994, senator feinstein forced a vote here on one of the most controversial topics we could talk about, a ban on assault weapons. it received in 1994 fewer votes than did the manchin-toomey background checks bill 30 years later. but the assault weapons ban arguably way more controversial than the background checks bill passed and became law. well, the background checks bill didn't. why? because in 1994 many important votes, even the assault weapons ban, were allowed to proceed on a majority vote basis. that all changed.

mostly when democrats won the senate in 2007 and barack obama was elected president. but no matter who started this policy of applying the 60-vote threshold to everything, today both parties use it. democrats used it when we were in the minority. the practice of the filibuster doesn't jive with this clarion call of adhering to senate tradition because senate tradition is not to use the 60-vote threshold on everything. let's be honest. we're not going back to a world in which senators self-regulate the filibuster. and there is no sign that the claim the filibuster is an incentive for bipartisanship is going to suddenly come true. today millions of voters are wondering why they vote to change the people who get elected but then nothing actually changes. and we should have a better answer than just senate tradition. mr. president, i'd like the

following remarks to be reflected in the record as distinct from the prior speech. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you. mr. president, president biden's decision to remove our remaining troops from afghanistan was the right one. no question about it. president trump set the biden administration up for failure. trump's agreement with the taliban committed us to withdrawing all of our troops and had biden torn up that agreement he would have had to send tens of thousands of troops into afghanistan to push back the trump era taliban gains. the american public would not have supported another afghanistan troop surge and for good reason. the overnight collapse of the afghan army and government was frankly proof that 20 years of nation building had failed and another 20 years wasn't going to result in a different outcome. president biden made the right decision to leave of the american people by a large margin support that decision. but right now we need to be honest. the question of what to do now

as afghanistan crumbles into a nightmarish failed state is a moral knot, almost impossible to untangle, and as chair of the foreign relations subcommittee that oversees afghanistan policy, i've thought a lot about this question and i've come to a few conclusions that i want to share quickly with my colleagues. first, let's just take a minute to talk about what it's like to be living in afghanistan right now. it is a nightmare. once the u.s. military occupation and all of the foreign aid that came with it disappeared, the afghanistan economy collapsed predictably. today winter is setting in and more than half the population, 23 million people, don't have enough food to eat. by this summer 97% of afghans will be living below the poverty line trying to survive on less than $2 a day. with nine million people just one step away from famine, this humanitarian crisis could kill more afghans than the past 20

years of war. and herein lies the quandary of the on one side sounds like a clear and convincing argument. essentially the taliban has to own this. we warned the taliban that this collapse would occur if they took the nation by force. that's why we sat at the table with them and tried to explain that it was in their best interests and the best interests of the nation for the taliban to share power with the elected afghan government but the taliban did not listen. they took kabul and they should own the results to send billions to solve the humanitarian crisis they caused would be to bail the taliban out and incentivize other insurgent groups to make similar rash decisions. but on the other hand is an equally clear and convincing argument. we stood by the afghan people for two decades protecting them, working with them. we spent hundreds of billions of dollars helping to raise up the future of millions of afghan families, women and girls. and now those same afghans,

those same families, the ones that frankly have nothing to do with the taliban are dying, potentially by the tens of thousands. and we have the power to do something about it. how could we let the afghan people die needlessly if we have the power to stop it. and we possess this power because it is u.s. policy toward the taliban government that is contributory towards this crisis. this is not the approximate cause but it's trib toar. when kabul fell suddenly last august, the administration froze $7 billion of the former afghan government's assets that are held at the federal reserve. we don't want the taliban to control it. but that money isn't ours. it rightfully belongs to the afghan people. further are sanctions on the taliban completely justified because of the taliban's embrace of terrorism essentially handcuffs the afghan economy and therefore contributes to the country's economic dissent. we need to understand our policies are contributing to the human yafn -- humanitarian

crisis in afghanistan. what about the points that they should own this and we shouldn't stand by idly by, what if they aren't in 100% contrast. what if we could help the afghan people without empowering the taliban? wouldn't that be the best possible answer? the good news is the middle road is possible. i'm going to be honest it's not easy but it is possible. over the last 20 years the united states has spent billions in our taxpayer dollars to build schools and health clinics. the number of schools today for instance is five times higher in afghanistan than it was in 2001. that's because of american investment. we can and we should find ways to pay the salaries of those who work at these nonpolitical institutions through the u.n. and n.g.o.'s on the ground going around the taliban-led government to keep those essential services running and inject some much needed money into the economy. again, this isn't easy to do but it is worthwhile given the

stakes. we can also support the u.n. directly. yesterday the u.n. asked for a $4.5 billion call in humanitarian aid to stave off catastrophe in afghanistan. this is the largest single country appeal in history. that should tell you about the scale of the crisis that we're facing. it's larger than what we've seen in syria or yemen or ethiopia. i support the administration's decision to dedicate an additional $300 million in humanitarian aid to afghanistan. that money is going to help save lives. but congress should authorize more. make no mistake, madam president, the taliban and frankly 20 years of corrupt afghan governments, they do own this debacle, the choices they made have led to this day. but our hands aren't clean. our mismanaged occupation, it is part of the story. and right now as the afghan economy collapses and families face starvation, burying our heads in the sand is not a solution. we can find ways to save lives

without unreasonably empowering the taliban. i yield back. mr. cotton: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: right now we are on the precipice of a constitutional crisis. we're about to step into the abyss. i want to talk for a few minutes why we're on that precipice and why we're looking into that abyss. let me first ask a fundamental question. what is the crisis that calls for the undoing of two centuries of tradition? are senators merely doing their jobs as legislators, responding to a generalized public calling

for the abolition of the filibuster? clearly not. it is not the american people at large who are demanding detonation of the nuclear option. the nuclear option is being pushed largely by the radioactive rhetoric of a small band of radicals who hold in their hands the political fortunes of the president. constitutional scholars will tell us that the reason we have these rules in the senate -- unlimited debate, two-thirds to change the rules, idea that 60 have to close off debate -- is embodied in the spirit and rule of the constitution. that is what the constitution is all about. we all know it. it is the senate where the founding fathers established a repository of checks and

balances. it's not like the house of representatives where the majority leader or the speaker can snap his fingers and get what he wants on important issues -- what he wants. on important issues that the founding fathers wanted -- and they were correct in my judgment -- the majority should not always govern. the senate is not a majoritarian body. the bottom line is very simple. the ideologues in the senate want to turn the founding fathers -- what the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into a rubber stamp of dictatorship. they want to make this country into a about a nan that republic -- into a banana republic, where if you don't get your way, you change the rules. are we going to let them? it will be a doomsday for democracy if we do.

i, for one, hope and pray it will not come to this, but i assure my colleagues, at least speaking for this senator, i will do everything i can to prevent the nuclear option from being invoked, not for the sake of myself or my party but for the sake of this great republic and its traditions. those are powerful words, but they're not mine. every word of my speech today was originally spoken by our esteemed colleague, the senior senator from new york, chuck schumer. senator schumer spoke so eloquently in defense of the senate's rules and customs and

traditions and the fortunes of -- when the fortunes of his party looked a little different. my, how times have changed. now it's senator schumer's fingers that are hovering over the nuclear button ready to destroy the senate for partisan advantage. think about it. the narrowest majority in senate history wants to break the senate rules to control how voters in every state elect senators. could there be a better argument to preserve the senate's rules, customs, and traditions? so before it's too late, let us reflect on the wise and eloquent words of senator schumer, words that are as true today as they were when he spoke them, even if senator schumer is singing a

different tune today. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, the senate is designed to be a place where the members of the minority, the members of the minority party, and the millions of americans they represent are heard. in this senate, the minority couldn't be any bigger. if the minority was any bigger, we'd be a the majority. this is a 50-50 senate, and no

time to take away the protections that the senate for almost 200 years have afforded to the minority. the considerations given to the minority are important not only to the senators and the millions of people they represent, i think they're represent to how the country moves forward. i serve in the house. i like the house. i watch the house as closely as any senator does. and every time the house changes, the house passes a pretty -- a bunch of pretty dramatic legislation and comes to the senate, that dramatic legislation they passed in the house doesn't go anywhere in the senate. and when the house changes again -- and it has a number of times in the last 20 years -- when the house changes again, the other side comes in and passes legislation that reverses all of that and maybe even do a little dramatic legislation of their own. that also doesn't go anywhere

when it gets to the senate. if all laws were passed by a simple majority, there'd be the potential for the majority to rewrite the country's laws constantly no matter how small the shift in power was. it's always a mistake frankly to act like you have a mandate if you don't have one. it is a mistake for the country to change direction dramatically before the country has had time to think about that. the bureaucratic whiplash could be enormous. the economic impact could be enormous, of changing policies on regulations and taxes and poms and everything in a dramatic way, every time one side gets a small advantage over the other side. for the past year we've heard a constant refrain from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the legislative filibuster, the supermajority to move, to finalize a piece of

legislation must be reformed. at the present moment we're hearing it must be reformed for only maybe for elections, have a carve-out for elections. just a few weeks ago it must be reformed to have a carve-out for the debt ceiling. i'm sure if we did either of those things, in a few weeks we'd be talking about a third carve-out. and what are we doing it for? we're doing it for what i see is a federalization of the election process. when asked in a morning consult "politico" poll that was just released today -- so this is something the american people have just weighed in on today. when they were asked which of the three voting ideas where polls should be a top priority of the congress in the voting area, one was reforming congress' role in counting electoral votes. one was expanding voting access. one was expanding oversight of

the state changes in elections. they were all beaten by none of the above. none of the above got more votes in that poll than any of the top -- some of the top priorities the democrats are talking about. we hear that we have to extend the voting rights act. we even have titled the voting rights act after a person who i served with in the house, i traveled with, i had a close friendship with, john lewis. thatthat would be a good reasonr me to vote for the voting rights act. and certainly i voted to extend voting rights act before. i'd vote to extend the voting rights act today. and i'd be more happy to vote for it if it was the voting rights act & just happened to be name for john lewis. the voting rights act in 1965

was 12 pages. the extensions have all been about the same size. this bill has another 110 pages of additional legislative things that don't deal with the principles of the voting rights act at all. they deal with the federal government taking over the election process. we've seen our colleagues talk about this in one bill after another. i think their motives -- the motives are pretty transparent right now. it is another way to break the filibuster. but we hear that the laws that states are passing -- and by the way, the laws that the states have been -- the states have been passing election laws for the whole country, as it related to their state, for a little over 200 years now. the constitution was pretty specific in who would conduct elections in the country and who would set the rules and regulations in the country for those elections. but we hear that these laws are

very restrictive. these laws are laws that the legislature leaned forward, as they should have in my opinion, in a pandemic that in at least 100 years we've never conducted an election like the pandemic experience we were in. so they leaned forward, they allowed things that had never been allowed before -- more mail-in voting, voting from your car, voting from a parking lot, all sorts of things -- and then those same legislatures looked back at what had happened as a result of that and said, do we want to keep all of this, as if we were going to have a pandemic every year? or do we want to keep part of it? and in every case that i've looked at, the changes in election law make it easier to vote in 2021 than it was in the last election before the pandemic. i'd encourage all of my colleagues, such sudden experts

on utah and iowa and other election laws, to look at the 2018 election laws and see how they compare. what legislatures did is exactly what you'd hope they'd do. respond to a crisis, and when the crisis is over let's evaluate how much of that we want to keep as part of our permanent system and how much was only in crisis? what do these laws do? in utah, the state legislature determined that the chief election official of utah could get the names of deceased individuals and give them to county officials who would take their names off the rolls. that's listed as one of the things that makes it harder to vote. harder to vote for dead people. that's fine. i actually asked this question in a hearing of someone who -- one of the election monitoring people who said this was difficult. i said what about that? they said, the social security

is often wrong. well, if anybody is going to get something straightened out pretty quickly, it would be a living person who no longer is getting their social security check because the social security administration had them on the list of people who were deceased. what a foolish argument that was for that to be a repressive thing. in georgia, the state legislature adjusted their mail-in ballot deadline to ensure voters who requested a mail-in ballot got their ballots with enough time to cast them. they brought their date more in line with the advice of the u.s. postal service. the truth is that lots of states did this, states like georgia and florida now include specific provisions in state law that allow the use of drop boxes. in fact, they have to have at least one in every county. there were no drop boxes in georgia anywhere before the 2020 elections. now there have to be drop boxes

everywhere. and it has to be understood where those locations can be found. states like iowa and georgia implemented more early voting days than the so-called freedom to vote act would require. in fact, these states had more days of early voting than many states that have democrat-led legislatures luke new york and connecticut -- like new york and connecticut and the president's home state of delaware. they also forget that many -- they also forgot that many republican states have already implemented no-excuse absentee voting. so i was an election official for 20 years. i am absolutely confident that nobody takes the security of the elections and the confidence in the elections and the ability to register and vote in an easy way more seriously than people who are directly answerable to their neighbors if they're the local

official or to the people that vote for them if they're the state official. president obama said in 2016 that the diversity of this statewide system was one of the strengths of our system, the state-run system, and one of the reasons it would make it really hard for any outside entity, any foreign entity, any outside group to truly try to rig a national election. so i've got more to say. i'm going to submit the rest of my remarks for the record. i'm sure there will be more time to talk about this next week. ballot harvesting, 62% of people in one poll are opposed to ballot harvesting. ballot harvesting is when you ask somebody to give you their ballot and say i'll turn it in for you. maybe. who would now? -- who would know? if it never gets to the counting

place, it just got lost in the mail. one of the reasons it might have gotten lost in the mail is the ballot harvester knows in all almost certainty that the way you marked your ballot is not the way the ballot harvester would prefer to have the ballots marked. 70% of americans support voter maintenance that's eliminated in many ways by the law being proposed. one went so far as to tell states the kind of paper their ballots would be printed on. if you really want to make it easy to impact an election, be sure that somebody knows the exact paper that every entity in america prints their ballots on and gets some of that to use to try to subvert the election and make the election less secure. so we're going to hear a lot about this over the next couple of days.

i certainly would welcome the opportunity to have more time, and i'm sure i will have more time to talk about what is in these, what's in these bills, both the state bills and the federal bill, as opposed to what people are saying is in both bills. and i would yield the floor. mrs. blackburn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. the senator from missouri is exactly right. we're going to hear so much about this, and the reason is as the american people hear about this so-called election bill, what they're realizing, it is not something that's going to make their local election safer. it is something that is going to put that power into washington, d.c. now, what we are hearing from the majority leader and the democratic leadership is they've got to get rid of the filibuster in order to push forward this

election bill, adding states, packing courts. all of this laundry list of a socialist agenda that they are planning to execute. so what i want to do today for a couple of minutes is just walk us down memory lane as to what people have had to say, our democratic colleagues have had to say about the filibuster. now in may of 2005, then-senator joe biden came to the floor, and he vigorously jumped into the middle of a debate over the filibuster. he said that things would go very wrong if his colleagues decided to blow up the rules to get their way. what's interesting about senator biden's position is that it had almost nothing to do with his policy goals.

and here's his quote, and i quote, folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the expressed purpose of guaranteeing individual rights. and they also have a consequence and would undermine the protections of a minority point of view in the heat of majority excess, end quote. he understood at that point in time the importance of preserving the senate's institutional power and abiding by standards that not only welcome but require deliberation and compromise. well, what a dimps a -- what a difference a few years in a senate majority can make. today we're having the exact same debate, but the power my democratic colleagues won in the last election has changed their minds about breaking the senate

to get their way. the problem is the senate is not broken. it does not need their changes. but the rules no longer matter to the majority leader, even though he said as recently as 2017, and i quote, let us go no farther down this road. i hope the republican leader and i can in the coming months find a way to build a fire wall around the legislative filibuster, which is the most important distinction between the senate and the house. without the 60-vote threshold for legislation, the senate becomes a majoritarian institution like the house, much more subject to the whims of short-term electoral change. well, my, my, my, how about that. he understood the dangers of

legislative whiplash even when he was in the minority. so did my colleague, senator durbin, who said in 2018 he believed that ending the filibuster would, and i'm quoting him, be the end of the senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our founding fathers, end quote. well, i would ask the gentlemen from new york and illinois what happened here? what changed their minds so drastically? they've done a 180. i'd ask the same question of many of my democratic colleagues. in 2017, 32 senate democrats -- yes, that is correct, 32, many of whom are still serving in this chamber today -- signed on to a bipartisan letter in support of the filibuster. now they too have changed their minds. it makes you wonder why does

everybody -- what is everybody on the democratic aisle drinking these days? this is no way to run the world's greatest deliberative body, but it's a great way to destroy it. and between 2017 and today, 32 senate democrats have changed their mind about how to handle the filibuster. over the past year we've watched joe biden and the democrats attack more than one institution forming the foundation of this nation. the supreme court, the first amendment, the second amendment, limits on the power of the executive, and now the senate rules have all proved to be inconvenient to their agenda and ending up on the chopping block. that's where they're putting them. my democratic colleagues may be frustrated, but that is just too bad. the senate was not designed to

rubber stamp legislation that is so belligerently foolish it can't tempt a single republican vote. not one, no. the senate was designed to protect the american people and the institution itself from shortsighted leadership. my colleagues claim that all they're asking for is one teeny little carve-out, just one. but i would remind them that there's only so much carving you can do before you reduce the entire thing to dust. and based on their track record, we have no reason to trust that they'll stop carving and put down the knife rather than use it to hold the senate hostage the next time they can't scrunge up the votes to scratch

something off their to-do list. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: madam president, since the founding of our republic the senate has existed to encourage extended debate and protect the rights of the minority party. over the centuries as various political parties have risen and fallen from party, the senate's rules have been respected and followed. one of those rules is the legislative filibuster which protects the minority party's rights by requiring a 60-vote threshold to pass legislation in the senate. unfortunately, many of today's democrats in washington only care about one thing -- radically transforming this nation into a new socialist state. and they'll use any means necessary to keep their grip on the federal government. now we're seeing democratic leadership in the congress wield their majority to push one partisan bill after another without even attempting to get republican input or support.

instead of working together with the republican colleagues, thefer searching for ways to make it easier to jam through progressive socialist parties without any compromise. just look at the majority leader's most recent statements on the filibuster. last week the majority leader wrote a letter to all democrat senator explaining his plans to fundamentally and permanently alter the rules of the united states senate and change the legislative filibuster. his statements could not be more hypocritical or self-serving. the legislative filibuster, which has been in place for decades, has been repeatedly defended as a vital and necessary rule to protect minority party's rights, including by barack obama, joe biden, kamala harris, and even senator schumer. in 2017 senator schumer urged then-majority leader mcconnell to, quote, find a way to build a fire wall around the legislative filibuster, which is the most important distinction between the senate and the house. he went on to say, quote,

without the 60-vote threshold for legislation, the senate becomes the majoritarian institution like the house. much more subject to the whims of short-term electoral change, no senator would like to see that happen, so let's find a way to further protect the 60-vote rule for legislation. madam president, these are the direct quotes from the senator from new york. he called the filibuster the most important distinction between the senate and the house, and now he has turned his back on it. of course my colleague from new york isn't the only one caught in a bind here by previous statements and actions. let's remember that in 2018 the current senate majority whip, senator dick durbin, said doing away with the legislative filibuster would be, quote, would be the end of the senate as we originally, as it was originally devised and created going back to our founding fathers. he further admitted in, quote, we have to acknowledge our respect for the minority, and that is what the senate tries to do in its exoms and its

procedure -- composition and procedure. in 2013, p 2 senators signed a letter to keep it intact. most of these same senators are still in office today but only one has expressed any opposition to senator schumer's plans to destroy the filibuster now that he is in the majority. and just last congress most of the democrat caucus used the filibuster to block a police reform bill from my republican colleague, tim scott, and a bill that would protected newborn babies who survived attempted abortions. so my democratic colleagues think the filibuster is great when it works in their favor, but they can't stand it when it blocks the radical socialist agenda, an agenda we know the american people do not support. so why the change of mind? why are they willing to be so blatantly hypocritical and so obviously flip-flop? because they know if they pull this off and pass this radical, dangerous bill to federalize

election, it will all but secure their power into the future. that's what we're talking about here. democrats want to push this bill through this bill that will completely upend our current election system and they're willing to abandon their principles and flip-flop on the filibuster if it means permanently maintaining power. senator schumer admitted on msnbc, he said democrat senators are saying things like i'll lose my election or we'll lose the majority if they don't change the filibuster and pass the election takeover bill. democrats say this is about voting rights. it isn't. the right to vote is more readily accessible and easily exercised by eligible voters across our country than ever before. this is really about federalizing our elections and enacting policies that they think will give them an advantage in future elections. and all along the way they will revel in their hypocrisy and self-righteously pretend they are, quote, protecting

democracy. make no mistake, a change to the filibuster won't protect democracy. it will ruin it. madam president, democrats in this chamber can posture all they want, but the american people see them for what they really are -- self-serving, power hungry politicians. we all know that if the democrats' bill was good, if it included policies that had improve our nation's elections, it would pass. but there is nothing in the bill worth voting for. the democrats' bill is an assault on american elections. it will fuel voter fraud, waste taxpayer dollars on political campaigns and attack ads and make it nearly impossible to conduct fair elections that our citizens can trust. we need an end to this self-serving hypocrisy and we need members who will stand up for what's right. i'm urging my democratic colleagues to see past their party's own partisan short-term interests and ask them to consider the health and future of our democracy. that's what the american people deserve. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, just this week we saw the college football national championship game. a lot of tremendous athletes who engage in tremendous feats of skill and strength. but i have to say, there wasn't an athlete on the field that demonstrated the flexibility that we are seeing in the united states senate right now.

we are today seeing democrats in the senate, with the active encouragement of president joe biden, engaging on not one but two partisan power grabs and doing them both with a twist. let me explain. democrats are desperate to hold onto power. it's their number-one priority. it's more important than anything else. it's more important than jobs in our economy for democrats. it's more important getting kids about a being to school. nothing matters more to democrats than staying in power no matter what. how do we know that? welling, the very first bill introduced in the house of representatives, h.r. 1, which many of us call the corrupt politicians act. it is a bill designed to keep democrats in power forever. that was nancy pelosi's number-one priority.

the very first bill introduced in this chamber, s. 1, is likewise the corrupt politicians act, a bill designed to keep democrats in power forever. it is the number-one priority of elected democrats. when that failed to get sufficient votes to pass, democrats shifted to option 1-b. option 1-b has the same objective -- keep democrats in power forever, but it's through a little twist -- sleight of hand. now democrats want to slip every thing concerning voting to the unreviewable, in most instances, ash administer power of an -- arbitrary power of an

unelected official in the department of justice. my state of texas has 29 million people. those 29 million people have democratic rights. they have rights to elect legislators who reflect their views, their policies, their values. you know what senate democrats say? we don't care. we don't care what those 29 million people want. we, the democrats, with aens to stay in power -- want to stay in power. so let's take, he can, photo i.d. i have in my wallet my driver's license. most people do. voter i.d. is the policy that's supported by the overwhelming majority of americans. roughly 80% of americans support voter i.d. requiring a driver's license to vote. two-thirds of african american voters support voter i.d. it is overwhelmingly supported across the country. you know who doesn't support it? elected democrats. sadly, every single democrat in this chamber has been willing to

go on board with proposals to strike down voter i.d. laws. and here's what at democrats want to do. they want to say that even though the voters of texas want voter i.d., because we want elections with integrity, we want to know that if you come in and vote and say your name is john doe that you're not somebody else pretending to be that person. congressional democrats don't care. they want to have an unelected bureau with the ability to strike that down. likewise, ballot harvesting. ballot harvesting is one of the most corrupt practices in this country. it is the practice whereby paid political operatives go and collect the ballots of other people. you have someone come into a nursing home and go room to room. now, some of those residents may no longer be competent to make a choice. they may not be aware of their surround. but for an unscrupulous operative, that doesn't stop them. that operative can sit there and

say, sir, ma'am, you want to vote for so-and-so, don't you, can fill out the ballot for them. if there's some ostrem us are senior in a nursing home who says, gosh, i really want to vote for the other guy, i.t. very simple for the -- it's very simple for the unscrupulous operative to take that ballot and say, ah, this ballot is for the other guy, and magically, it ends up in the trash. they can throw away the ballots they disagree with. there is a reason the majority of states have made ballot harvesting illegal. it invites voter fraud. it within long ago when people on both sides of the aisle recognized this. the most significant bipartisan effort examining voter fraud, the study of a bipartisan commission called the carter carter-baker commission. baker is former republican secretary of state james baker. carter is former democratic president jimmy carter.

the carter-baker commission concluded that voter i.d. was an important step to stopping voter fraud. the carter-baker commission identified ballot harvesting as one of the most dangerous practices encouraging voter fraud. as i said, the carter in carter-baker commission was former democratic president jimmy carter. hardly a right-wing republican operative by any stretch of the imagination. it used to be when sanity was permissible in the democratic party that people would acknowledge the obvious. unfortunately, we're in hyper partisan times. and so today senate democrats want to be able to have laws on voter i.d., want to have laws

prohibiting ballot harvesting struck down by one unelected bureaucrat. who is that? currently it is a woman named kristen clarke, head of the civil rights division in the department of justice. she is one of the most radical partisan nominees ever to serve in the united states department of justice. she is one of the leading advocates in the country for abolishing the police. by the way, every single democrat in this chamber voted to confirm her despite the fact that she is one of the leading advocates in the country for abolishing the police. she has been a hard-core, left-wing, partisan advocate her entire life. she's entitled to have her views, to believe those views passionately. but here's what senate democrats want to do. they want to take this one person and say should can strike down the laws adopted by

legislators in texas. that's extraordinary. what could justify such a thing? well, we saw joe biden give an incredibly demagogic, racist speech, accusing half the country of being racist, of being bull conner. the democrats say this is just jim crow 2.0 and, you know, madam president, ironically, and i think inadvertently, the democrats are telling the truth. they don't mean to be, but they are. what was jim crow 1.0? jim crow 1.0 were laws that were written almost exclusively by elected democrats. you look at the authors of jim crow, they were democrats, as were the founders, the ku klux klan. and the purpose of jim crow laws was to do one thing -- stop the

voters from voting democrats out of office, because you look at the african americans who were freed from slavery, they were electing republicans. in many instances, they were electing black republicans. and the democrats didn't want that. how dare the voters select someone not from their party? and so jim crow was written to strip the right to vote from the voters who dared to vote against democrats. well, fast-forward to today. the corrupt politicians act is jim crow 2.0. it is once again written by democrats to strip the right to vote from the american people, to prevent them from voting democrats out of office. listen, a lot of democrats are really nervous right now. pretty much everyone in washington recognizes that in

november we're going to see a wave election. pretty much everyone in washington understands that in november, republicans are going to retake the house of representatives, probably by a big margin. and there's a very good possibility we'll retake the senate as well. democrats can't defend their policies. they can't defend the rampant inflation that is hammering seniors and working-class people across the country. they can't defend the chaos at the open borders. they can't defend the jobs being destroyed. they can't defend the lawless and abusive vaccine mandates, and they certainly can't defend their catastrophic surrender and failure in afghanistan. madam president, it's gotten so bad that when joe biden and kamala harris went down to the state of georgia, stacey abrams, the candidate, the democratic candidate running for governor in georgia -- and i would note, stacey abrams still maintains to

this day she won the last election. she insists the last election was stolen, and she is the sitting governor -- partnersly this is a reelect -- apparently this is a reelect campaign. stacey abrams refused to show up to be seen with joe biden and kamala harris, even while biden was giving this racially demagogic speech, which stacey abrams has made a career of doing. she did not show up for the speech. she said she had a scheduling conflict. you and i have both served for some time in the senate, madam president. we've both seen instances where the president of the united states was visiting our home states. i can tell thank you, as a senator, you make time to be there if you want to be there. it's clear ms. abrams did not want to be there, that she looked at joe biden and kamala harris and sees their poll numbers plummeting. she sees their policies failing. she wanted to be nowhere near that. what's the democrats' approach?

if they can't win on the merits, if they can't defend the policy failures, then let's go back to the jim crow policies to begin with. this is jim crow 2.0. strip away the power to make a choice. and throw out the decisions of 29 million texans. madam president, i tell you this -- democrats don't get to claim they're defending democracy when they are literally taking away rights of democratically elected legislatures. that's many things, but it ain't democracy. one unelected bureaucrat overruling 29 million texans is not democracy. it's a power grab. but i told you this was a power grab on top of a power grab with a twist. the second power grab is how are they going to try to pass the corrupt politicians act? they're going to do it by nuking

the filibuster. the rules of the senate, written in that book that sit on the dais in front of you, say that to proceed to legislation takes 60 votes in this senate. takes 60% of the senators. those are the senate rules. they're black and white, they're clear. you don't like the senate rules, there's a way to change that. you can amend the senate rules. takes 67 amendments to change the senate rules. a number of us have proposed amending the senate rules. i myself have repeatedly gone to democrats saying i'd be happy to work with democrats on proposals to amend the senate rules to allow senators on both sides to offer more amendments a. -- more amendments. the democrats have been been willing to do so. instead, what democrats intend to do, what they want to do, what president biden surging them to do is to break the senate rules, to change the senate rules. it's called nuking the filibuster.

if their plan is successful, senator schumer will stand up and seek a ruling from the chair as to whether it takes 60 votes or 50 votes to proceed to legislation. the chair will say, if the chair is following the rules, it takes 60 votes. and then senator schumer will move to reconsider the ruling of the chair and overrule the ruling of the chair and say even though the words on the page say 60 votes, from now on it's 50. it's another brazen power grab. now, madam president, there may be some folks at home who are a little cynical of the partisan times we find ourselves in, who are skeptical of claims perhaps made by both sides, but maybe you're a democrat at

home -- and i'm a republican, i'm a conservative republican -- you might be saying you know what? if it's cruz saying it, i'm a democrat, i don't believe it. i understand that. this is a very partisan time. there's a lot of disagreements. so if you're a democrat at home and you're inclined not to believe what i say, i'm going to suggest perhaps some people you can believe. i told you it was a double power grab with a twist. i want to point to you the words of president joe biden. if you're not inclined to believe a republican, maybe you'll believe joe biden. here's what joe biden said in 2019. this is not 1964. this is not 1954. 2019, a couple of years ago. quote, ending the filibuster is

a very dangerous move. if you're at home and you don't believe republicans, do you believe joe biden? was he lying when he said ending the filibuster is a very dangerous move, or was he telling the truth? because that's what joe biden said just a couple of years ago. now maybe you say, well, he was in a campaign, people say things. you can't hold him to fault for saying that. that's not fair. okay, all right, so now you don't believe me and you don't believe joe biden. but let's see if we can find someone else. how about someone who serves in this chamber right now? how about someone who is the senate majority leader right now? how about senator chuck schumer? you haven't actually watched this speech, i'd encourage you, pull out your phone and google it. you can find it real easily.

senator chuck schumer in 2015 gave a speech. i'm going to read to you verbatim what he said. he said they want, because they can't get their way, to change the rules midstream. what would be the effect of that? you change the rules midstream. you nuke the filibuster. what would be the effect of that? according to chuck schumer, the effect of that, to wash away 200 years of history. that's what schumer says is the effect. washing away 200 years of history, that sounds serious. anything else? they want to make this country into a banana republic, where if you don't get your way, you change the rules. wash away 200 years of history, make this country a banana republic, that's pretty serious stuff.

but at least that's the worst it gets, right? well, actually no. schumer continued, it will be doomsday for democracy if we do. madam president, there are reporters teeming the united states capitol. any reporter who wants to be something other than a partisan shield and mouthpiece for the democrats ought to ask every single democrat, senator so and so, do you agree with chuck schumer that ending the filibuster will turn our nation into a banana republic? do you agree, senator so and so, that ending the filibuster would be doomsday for democracy? and, by the way, if there are any reporters left who actually have journalistic ethics, you

shouldn't just ask joe manchin and krysten sinema. right now they are the lone democrats with the gumption to stand up for democracy. but you ought to ask all 50 of them, every single one of the democrats, do you agree with chuck schumer ending the filibuster is doomsday for democracy? and if not, why? is it just that your team is the one that can't get their way? now it's your side that wants to change the rules midstream. now it's your side that if you don't get your way, you change the rules. was joe biden lying in 2019? was senator schumer lying in 2005? i don't know. you ought to ask them. a double power grab with a twist jim crow 2.0, seizing federal

elections, striking down the laws adopted by democratic legislatures, putting an unelected radical leftist bureaucrat in charge of elections with more power, this one leftist bureaucrat, than all 29 million people in the state of texas. doing so by breaking the senate rules to change the senate rules , and the twist is with a dose of hypocrisy unusual even for this place. look, if a senator serves long enough, there will be times when they may vote a little bit this way or a little bit that way. there are lots of senators that have had tensions with prior positions. i cannot think of another time when a senator has voted for something that he has called doomsday for democracy. that's not just a little hypocritical. and, by the way, all the

democrats agreed with him. they were all standing shoulder to shoulder. in 2005, when senator schumer said this, he was either lying or telling the truth. if he was lying, i guess you should ask him why he was lying. if he was telling the truth, i guess you should ask 48 democrats who don't care, why they're willing to vote for doomsday for democracy. you want to understand the dangers of this double power grab with a twist, look no farther than the vicious, partisan, divisive, hateful speech president biden gave, insulting half this country, oddly enough blaming republicans for the sins of his own party, the democratic party, who wrote

jim crow and founded the kkk. all of us were sitting outside the capitol when president biden gave his inauguration speech, when he talked about unity, when he talked about healing. you want to see the vicious partisanship that ending the filibuster will produce? you saw it. a double power grab with a twist of hypocrisy. madam president, if there is a democrat in this chamber who gives a damn about democracy, let me urge you, don't vote for what your own leader has called doomsday for democracy. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, the senate is indeed a peculiar institution. despite what some might expect and despite how it might be portrayed from the outside, senators genuinely strive to be collegial, even when, especially when they hold strong political and policy disagreements. in fact, the senate rules have strict prohibitions on insulting the character of another member or a state. that's because debate is a fundamental part of the senate. it's part of our culture in this institution. that's how this institution

earned the moniker, as the world's greatest deliberative body. some in this body unfortunately want to change all that. they seek to trample over more than two centuries of precedent, procedure and politeness. they're attempting to break the rules that require a two-thirds supermajority, 67 votes to change the rules. they want to ignore that requirement and stiff arm this historic institution in a way that would obliterate the requirement of those in the majority, hear the voices of and work with those in the minority. that requirement, sometimes colloquially referred to as the filibuster, is one of the most powerful constraints or checks on human nature not only in the senate, but in the entirety of the united states government.

if the filibuster were removed, everything from regulatory structures to tax rates, the size of the supreme court, the makeup of the military, the criminal code, and much, much more could change drastically every few years. keeping track of the law when it's fluctuating requirements would be impossible with the most capable of lawyers, let alone the average american subject to all those laws. our business landscape would be obliterated under the ever-changing commands of the federal government. americans would be worse off in almost every sense i can think of. in countless ways, the american people would be harmed by this unfortunate decision. our system is dined specifically to control -- is designed specifically to control those whims and those passions, to make sure that their impact on the law doesn't cause the law to

become this ever-changing, ever-fluctuating creature that can't be anticipated. our constitution was designed to protect the rights, the voices, and the influence of those not in the majority, laws that significantly impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people should in fact be difficult to pass. in fact, the senate has applied these principles into almost every mechanism of the institution. most laws pass by unanimous consent or simple voice vote, but after hardy consideration and frequent amendments through a process known as the hotline. that would essentially cease to function if the minority had no significant influence. opportunities for amending these often smaller and somewhat less controversial bills would be foreclosed, crippling the careful consideration needed.

bills would have to be forced through often on party-line votes or over the objection, suspicion, or protest of the minority. but beyond building consensus and maintaining the function of the senate, the filibuster serves as the keel on a very large ship. it prevents the waves and passions of each new election from drastically changing the laws of the country. it's a stabilizeer of sorts, one that prevents our nation's course from being jerked around to oscillating extremes. i was asked recently if the senate is broken. i responded by saying that the only sense in which i think the senate is significantly broken, or at least undermined in the way it's supposed to operate, is in its neglect of substantive debate and opportunities for amendment for each individual

member. the filibuster protects the remaining debate amendment and consideration available to members of this body, whether those members are of the majority party are off the minority party. removing the filibuster, on the other hand, would irreparably render the senate beyond recognition. the partisan vitriol and disregard for opposing senators would eat away at this place, at our norms, our customs, and ultimately our republic. now at least until recently many senate democrats, most in fact, held these beliefs as well. in 2017, 27 of them, including now vice president harris, signed a letter urging the preservation of the filibuster. many of those members still serve today, and i encourage them to consider their past

advice. by the way, that was a letter that i signed along with nearly every member of the senate from the republican party. we signed on to that notwithstanding the fact that republicans held majorities in this senate and at the house, and a republican president was serving in the white house. we did so because even though some short-term gain could have been achieved by nuking the filibuster, we understand as we understand today that it would have irreparable harm on the senate and it would irreparably arm the american people to do away with it. senator schumer, the leader of this destructive current effort has himself in the past given grave, dire warnings about what

this tactic making this thing, the filibuster a thing of the past would mean. we have heard this in the past and one that sticks out in my mind in particular, he said attempts like that to nuke the filibuster are, quote, what we call abuse of power, close quote. he also said in that same quote that even if you have 51% of the vote, you still don't get your way 100% of the time. he's absolutely right. that describes the senate, it describes its rules. it describes so much about how our system of government works. it even describes a system of checks and balances built into our constitution, the vertical protectionism of federalism that says many of our laws, in fact most of them, were supposed to

be made at the state and local level and not at washington and the horizontal branch says that we will have one that enforces laws and one that interprets them. it gives a both chambers of congress the authority to set our own rules and even though the 50-vote cloture standard is not itself mandated by the constitution, the authority to add it, to adopt it as the senate has, is in the constitution and it ends, more importantly, are entirely consistent with this principle of checks and balances, with this notion that senator schumer eloquently referred to, the fact that you have 51% of the vote doesn't entitle you to get your way 100% of the time. even in this circumstance, where he doesn't have 51% of the vote

in this chamber. no, this is deadlocked 50-50, but he's also right, this is an abuse of power and breaking the rules to grab power is an abuse. this is so transparent that even senator schumer has told the media that his members are concerned about losing their elections and the majority if they can't use this tactic to federally take over our nation's electoral system. that's sad. it's tragic, and it's unacceptable. i'd warn them that the american people see through this ploy. they know what's happening and they know why. they were promised a return to cordial statesmanship, they were promised unity. this attempt mocks both of these promises. it mocks the united states senate. it mocks our system of checks

and balances, and most tragically, it mocks the american people. ms. ernst: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from iowa. ms. ernst: madam president, first, i would like to wish a happy and healthy new year to you and all of our staff and pages who make this senate run so efficiently every single day, and frequently late into the night. the world's most deliberative body has unpredictable hours which all too often means missing important events with family because we are here going back and forth on the pressing issues of the day. this is why we have a senate, after all, to give voice to the

various view poibts of -- viewpoints of americans from each state and then try to resolve those differences. it isn't always easy since, unlike the house of representatives, the senate's unique rules require us to work together, across party lines. i know what it's like to work with my democratic friends, and, in fact, i was named as one of the most bipartisan senators of either party in the past 25 years. that is what it takes to get things done here because the rules force us to reach consensus. the senate was created specifically to prevent a

mob-rule mentality. james madison, the father of the constitution, described the senate as the anchor of the federal government that would act as a, quote, necessary fence against fickleness and passion, end quote. and george washington famously said the senate was established to cool legislation passed by the house in the same way that a saucer cools hot tea. and, folks, we certainly have seen a lot of hot mess coming over from the house. it's very concerning that the saucer intended to cool heated passions is itself beginning to

boil over as a result of hot air from within. senate democrats are threatening to blow up the senate, to fundamentally change the united states senate, and to radically transform our country. it cannot be understated how detrimental this action would be to america. it would unravel two centuries of american representative democracy, it would silence millions of americans and destroy what comity remains within this body. i have to ask my colleagues which side of history do you want to be on?

do you want to be go down in the history books as the ones who turned the senate, the world's most deliberative body, into the house of representatives? the law of our land would dramatically sway back and forth, and the resulting political uncertainty would all be erase what little trust the people have in our governing institutions and lead to even greater political divisions. i don't think this is a future any of us want and certainly not the one that was promised by president biden when he pledged -- when he pledged to the american people not to

divide but to unify our country. when the threat of blowing up the senate arose during mr. biden's time in this institution, he spoke passionately against it. i don't often quote joe biden, but i would urge you all to listen to his full speech on the matter. in fact, madam president, i ask unanimous consent to include his speech in the congressional record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ernst: thank you, madam president. then-senator biden warned, quote, history will judge us harshly, in my view, if we eliminate over 200 years of

precedent and procedure in this body, and i might add, doing it by breaking a second rule of the senate, and that is changing the rules of the senate by a mere majority vote. senator biden concluded, quote, this nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. it is a fundamental power grab by the majority party. flash forward 17 years later. joe biden is still in washington, and he and his democratic counterparts are the ones that are exercising that arrogance of power.

now, as the president, biden just yesterday declared, quote, we have no option but to change the senate rules, including getting -- include getting rid of the filibuster, end quote. how and why we're at a point where nuking the senate could even be a possibility. plain and simple. the democratic leader who has participated in hundreds of filibusters over the past five years -- hundreds, folks, hundreds -- wants to have his way regardless of the long-standing rules of this institution, the viewpoints of other senators or even folks, get this, the wishes of the citizens of his own state. just last week the democratic

leader said, the filibuster was being used to, quote, embarrass the will of the majority, end quote. and, therefore, quote, the senate will debate and consider changes to the senate rules on or before january 17, end quote. folks, it's not the senate rules embarrassing the majority but rather their two-sided flip-flopping on the importance of the filibuster to this institution and to our democracy. not so long ago the democratic cleared said eliminating the filibuster would turn, quote, the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber-stamp of

dictatorship, end quote. it will be, quote, a doomsday for democracy, end quote. today he is the one with the finger on the nuclear button all because he can't get his way. this is the kind of power grab you would expect from tyrants and socialist nations who seem to be where the democrats are taking many of their cues from these days. tyranny is no way to run a democracy and destroying the united states senate for a power grab is certainly not the example we should be setting for the rest of the world. but the hypocrisy doesn't end there, folks. democrats are manufacturing

hysteria that republican-controlled states are placing what they consider unfair restrictions on voting as an excuse to blow up the senate and thereby clear a pathway for the rest of their radical liberal agenda. the irony here is that new york, home of the democratic leader, chuck schumer, and delaware, home of president biden, have some of the most restrictive absentee voting laws in the entire country. just this past november, the democratic leader's constituents -- his constituents overwhelmingly voted down a ballot initiative to allow absentee voting without

providing an excuse and another proposal to permit unregistered voters from registering and done voting on election day. they were voted down. his constituents. so in new york, the only way to qualify for an absentee ballot is to be out of the country or sick or have a physical disability. no other reasons are permitted. now the senior senator from new york is threatening to destroy the senate to override the wishes of the residents of his very own state who voted against the policies he is trying to impose on every other state. did you catch that, folks? he's overriding the will of the people in his own state.

does that sound like democracy to you? it's not senate republicans blocking the democrat leader's agenda. it's his own constituents. folks, the reality is this election takeover bill is just the beginning used as an excuse by the majority leader to then break the senate and strengthen his own grip on power. this party boss mentality may work in new york, but folks, the senate is not tameny hall. while senate democrats would have you believe republicans are somehow limiting the rights of americans to vote, they, in fact, are the ones plotting to silence millions of americans.

the same partisans on the other side of the aisle who boasted of, air quotes right here, folks, you see them, they boasted just about a year ago of resisting, just a year ago they were encouraging resisting, filibustering and blocking just about every proposal or nom nomney -- nominee put forth by the prior president. now they call this tool a threat to democracy. remember, less than two years ago following the very tragic death of george floyd, the senator from new york voted to

block consideration of a police reform bill put forward by my friend, senator tim scott of south carolina. that's just one of the many other examples of common sense bills the democrats blocked for purely partisan reasons. the real threat to democracy isn't the filibuster but those politicians who abuse the power with which they have been entrusted. the democratic leader has already put a choke hold on democracy right here in the senate, abusing his position to single-handedly block other senators from offering amendments to bills he chooses to bring to the floor. if the majority wants to demonstrate a commitment to

democracy, why not start right here in the senate? instead of threatening to have less deliberation, why not commit to more? let's bring up bills that have already had broad bipartisan support, and let's allow more votes on amendments. but rather than starting this new year with a resolution to take this approach and make the senate a true example of democracy in action, where every voice is heard and respected, the democratic leader penned each of us a bombastic letter written with the left's usual dramatic flair and theatrics, comparing the filibuster to a dead hand and promising to

permanently alter the senate, unless we bend to his wishes. the senior senator from new york should leave the theater for broadway where it belongs. and before casting a vote that could fundamentally change the senate forever, i would urge my democratic colleagues to take some advice about the intended behavior of the senate from our nation's greatest statesman, george washington. and cool it. thank you, map. -- thank you, madam president. i yield. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the

democratic whip. mr. durbin: i have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate, and that request has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: dual noted -- duly noted. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for up to 15 minutes. senator padilla and cantwell each for five minutes prior to the scheduled vote. madam president without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, there are several issues swirling around the senate at this moment. they relate to the voting rights of americans. they relate to the voting rights of senators. interesting they would be on parallel tracks as we debate them on the floor. it appears that the voting rights of americans is witnessing an historic shift. you see, my democratic party, and yours, in history has a spotty record when it comes to voting rights. in fact, southern states, then

in the thrawl of the democratic party, wrote a terrible record after the civil war. we released african americans from slavery. we guaranteed their right to vote. and then watched what happened. there was jubilation all over the country, i believe, for the most part, and there was jubilation in the southern states by african americans who had newfound freedoms they never dreamed of with the end of slavery. and they took them to heart. they did register to vote, and there were dramatic differences in many states, because in many states the slave population, the african american population, was much larger than any voting had ever reflected. and now they had the chance. and as they were elected to local offices and even congressional seats and even a

senatorrorrial seat, there was a backlash in the white population. this period of reconstruction after the civil war lapsed into a period of denial of the right to vote, and elaborate plans by whites, white democrats, i might add, in southern states to manufacture obstacles to the voting of african americans. poll taxes, for example, literacy tests, things that had little or nothing to do with citizenship, but were designed expressly to jeopardize the voting opportunities of those without advanced educations or the kind of clout necessary to overcome. and so the net result was the south went white again in terms of its political low pressure system. it was known as -- political leadership. it was known as jim crow. and the democratic party of that day was behind it. the opposition came from abraham

lincoln's party, the republican party. they were the ones forrableition of slavery. they were the ones who supported reconstruction. they were the ones, by and large, who sent the federal troops in to enforce equality in the south, but ultimately, sadly, as a result of a brokered presidential election, there was a concession made that gave to the south the democratic party controlled south, states' rights to determine voting standards. and that was a situation that applied in the united states from that period of time, in the mid 19th century, until the 19 60's, when this issue was debated anew, right here in washington, right here in this chamber. and those who opposed striking down the jim crow laws, those who opposed efforts to deny to african americans the right to

vote, asserted one abiding principle -- states' rights. the states should be allowed to make this decision. it didn't go very far. it took a lot of years of debate, i might add. i don't want to oversimplify it. but anyone who took the time to read this book, the constitution of the united states, understands its explicit. doesn't take long to read the section that are applying. listen to this and think in your mind whether there's any question who has the authority to determine the rules of federal elections. and i read article 1, section 4 -- the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. but congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.

15th amendment went further on the issue of race. the net result was the passage of some laws in the 19 60's, the voting rights act, the establishment of standard to open up opportunities to vote in the south for people of color. it took that long, from the late 19th century to the 1960's, before that issue was addressed effectively. but for the longest time it became a consensus issue. republicans were as supportive of this as democrats. in fact, proportionately they were more supportive. the republican party, the party of abraham lincoln, rejected the theory of states' rights and said there will be federal standards that are created and will be enforced on a bipartisan basis by presidents of both parties. it was amazing evolution in america, considering what we'd

been through -- a civil war and all that followed -- to have reached the point where we said that the federal government could review decisions made by states if they in any way discriminate on a racial basis or any other basis in terms of ethnic identity. that was so popular and so bipartisan that for years the renewal of that law was automatic. there were -- it was hardly a descenting vote. boy, have times changed. they've changed to the point where the democratic party is now supportive of the voting rights act and what it sought to achieve, and the party of abraham lincoln, the republican party, comes to the floor every day and argues states' rights. yes, we're back into that mode again, but the argument is coming from the republican side of the aisle. the tables have turned.

the democratic party of the south is a different party today, thank goodness, and a party that stands for the principle that people are entitled the right to vote. so we staged a national election in 2020, in light of the pandemic that was looming over this nation. we opened up opportunities to vote and two things happened. we had the most dramatic turnout of voters in the united states of america for the office of president. we'd never seen that kind of turnout of voters. and number two, when the agencies of government took a close look at the votes that were cast, they found no evidence, virtually none, of voter fraud or manipulation of the outcome of the election. it was obvious to all who were honest about it, including some republicans who said as much in the last few days did but one man i did sented. that -- dissented.

that was the former president of the united states, donald trump, the loser, the official loser in the 2020 election. he is still in total denial. his momentous ego cannot countenance the possibility of rejection by the american voters, and so he claims the big lie that somehow or another this vote was stolen from the poor little former president. though he can't come up with any evidence to prove any aspect of that and has failed miserably virtually every time he's gone to federal court to argue it. he still continues to make that argument. it was that argument that was the inspiration behind the insurrectionist mob that was here in the capitol building a little offense a year ago, trying to stop the electoral college vote count. they failed, as they should have. the constitution prevailed. the will of the american people prevailed. and so in legislatures across

the country, including the state of wisconsin, we see republican legislatures saying we are unhappy with the results in the 2020 election. we want to change the rules when it comes to voting in our state. and almost without exception, every change in he's republican legislatures results in a limited time to vote, a limited opportunity to vote, new obstacles to vote, on and on and on. i've yet to see anyone demonstrate an effort to the contrary, to expand the right to vote. and so based on article 1, section 4 of the united states constitution, we've written a bill, a bill that establishes basic standards of voting across america as this document envisioned, standards for voter

registration. standards for absentee ballots. standards for same-day registration. standards to making election day a national holiday. every one of these things that we have proposed in our pending legislation is an expansion of opportunities to vote for eligible voters. it gets down to the bottom line. when it comes to eligible voters, should we create obstacles of hardship or should we make it easier for them to vote? without endangering that irfamilies, without losing their job -- their families, without losing their jobs, without hardship. i think that is the basic mission of a democratic legislature, is it not? the greatest possible participation of the greatest number of voters. then let them decide on issue after issue. so that is the issue of voting rights in america that now comes to the floor of the united states senate on the question of the voting rights of senators.

it is interesting to me every morning that those in the chamber start the session by pledging allegiance to the flag. it is apparent from some of the arguments on the republican side that they want to start this meeting of the senate each day additionally with the pledge of aleague yans to the -- allegiance to the filibuster. now that's strange. because if you have any history in the united states senate, you know what the filibuster has become. it is not an occasional problem and challenge. it is now the standard. the filibuster, you see, requires 60 votes for passage of a measure in a body of 100 people. it's an extraordinary majority. it gives power to the minority which the senate, of course, was designed to do by giving two seats, two senate seats to every state, large and small. but it goes a step further. despite what you may have heard on the floor earlier, the use of

the filibuster -- i should say the abuse of the filibuster has led to the elimination, vir virtually, of debate and amendments on the floor. i've often said if you're suffering if insomnia and watch c-span and turn on the united states senate, you will see a perfect room and structure for a wedding reception because there's always plenty of wroom on the floor of the -- plenty of room on the floor of the senate. we should be leasing this out and using the money to reduce the national debt. the senators use it so infrequently. there was a time, madam president -- can you believe this now? -- ten years ago there was a time when 12 appropriation bills would come out of the committee and come to the floor and be subject to amendments. and we would take turns offering amendments to all 12 appropriation bills. that was the ordinary course of business. no longer the case. it hasn't been that way for ten years. and when it comes to the debate and amendments on all the other

items, the numbers tell the story. and i want to thank my friend jeff merkley who has done amazing research on the senate and its procedure. in the 109th congress, we considered 314 amendments. that declined to just 26 amendments under republican leadership in the last amendment. 26 amendments in a year? compared to 314? thank you to the filibuster. that's where we are today. thank you to the 60-vote requirement. that's where we are today. and thanks to my colleagues on the republican side who are trying to ignore those numbers, they are so graphic. on nominations, there were only three cloture motions in the history of the united states before 1975, three. after 1975 to now, 850 times

cloture has been filed on nominations. 852 weeks of senate time potentially obstructed. that's the senate today. that's the senate under a filibuster. and if this senate is going to join the house in establishing standards for equal voting rights across america, the filibuster is the obstacle. i know this story personally. i introduced the dream act 20 years ago, 20 years ago. and you say, senator, i thought you were a hotshot legislator. would are you waiting for? pass it. i sure wish i could. i brought it to the senate five times in that 20-year period, the dream act to help young people living in this country to have a chance, a pathway to citizenship. five different occasions it's been stopped by the filibuster. don't tell me the filibuster opens debate and opportunity. the filibuster has shut down debate on the dream act five times in the last 20 years. and that's just one isolated example that's personal to me.

that's what the filibuster is all about. it's stopping us from doing anything substantial on voting rights. it's stopping us from passing the dream act. it's stopping us from passing meaningful immigration reform. the filibuster is designed for people who want to say no. no to progress, no to government, no to the senate being engaged in the issues that affect the american people and families. i've seen colleagues come to the floor on the republican side with quotes from me defending the filibuster. that was when i was a hopeful person in the senate. my hope has been dashed by reality, by the reality of a senate that has shut down when it comes to national debate and shut down when it comes to national achievement. that to me has got to come to an end. i'm prepared to sit down with any republicans of goodwill, democrats included, and come up with some meaningful rules. do you know incidentally we're

sitting here with a calendar that's loaded with nominations? it's not the filibuster but it's something quite near to it where one or two republican senators have decided that they don't want to take the ordinary course for nominations. they want to droog them out -- they want to drag them out intermally. it's unfair to president biden. it's unfair to the american people. if you want to defeat a nomination, do your best but to stop the debate of the senate on these nominations to impose your will and to slow down the business of the senate i think is an unacceptable standard. and so for the voting rights of america to have a chance to be protected and for the voting rights of senators to finally be engaged on the floor in that process, we have to be ready to make a change. i'm ready. as i said, i'm ready to do it on a bipartisan basis. but for goodness sakes, this empty, silent chamber is no indication of what the founding fathers had in mind when they created this legislature.

we're supposed to be engaged in debate, not afraid of debate. we shouldn't be running off and hiding behind 60 votes. i'm open for change. i wish some republicans would join us. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from california. mr. padilla: madam president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in confirming justice gabriel sanchez to united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. justice sanchez has long been held in high esteem in california's legal circles. he brings thoughtfulness and empathy to every decision that he makes. he was born and raised in los angeles and was the proud son of

a single mother from mexico. she raised him while working tirelessly to make ends meet. with her unwavering support, justice sanchez went on to earn degrees from yale college, from cambridge university, and graduated from yale law school. he began his legal career as a law clerk to judge richard paez of the ninth circuit, the same court where he is now nominated to serve. now, justice sanchez then went into private practice as many young lawyers do, but he committed himself to engaging in the community deeply by providing probono legal services so much so that in the year 2010, he earned a social justice award from the aclu of southern california for his work representing farm workers in a lawsuit to enforce workplace safety protections to help

prevent deadly heat illnesses. justice sanchez went on to serve with distinction in california state government first as a deputy attorney general and then as a deputy legal affairs secretary to then-governor brown. there he proved himself to be a critical thinker, a creative problem solver, and a dedicated public servant. in recognition of his work and his service, his even-handed judgment and his great legal talent, governor brown appointed justice sanchez to the california court of appeals in 2018. justice sanchez has earned a reputation as an outstanding jurist committed to justice for all. i'm confident he'll bring the same dedication to the bench of the ninth circuit and i'm proud to support his confirmation today. thank you, madam president.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

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

vote:

vote:

vote: