p.m. eastern time. the vote is expected to fail at which point majority leader schumer may begin the process of changing filibuster rules. take you live now to the senate floor on c-span2. will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, our king eternal, guide our lawmakers to obey your precepts, finding in sacred scriptures a lamp for their feet and a light for their journey. lord, watch over our senators as they seek to do your will. may they hide your words in their hearts, striving always to live

with integrity. give them the courage to stand for right and leave the consequences to you. break the power of so that legislators will leave a legacy that will prompt future generations to praise your name. lord, transform discord into symphonies of peace. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 5746 which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 5746, an act to amend title 51, united states

code, to extend the authority of the national aeronautics and space administration to enter into leases of nonaccess property of the administration. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator leader, senator schumer. mr. schumer: in the fall of 1868, recently freed african american men participated in federal elections for the first time in american history. according to ron chernow's buying on grea of ulysses s.

grant, the impacts of expanding the vote were immediate and dramatic. quote, in a starking reversal for an area once dominated by slavery, the election spawned black sheriffs, school board member, state legislators, and congressmen. that yet's slave laborer was today's state legislator horrified many white southerners who refused to accept this extraordinary inversion of their bygone world. naturally, the opponents of voting rights had an answer, quote, chernow continues, to circumvent the 15th amendment, wipe politicians in -- white politicians in georgia and other states, device new methods of stripping blacks of voting rights, including poll taxes, onerous registration requirements -- let me repeat that quote. onerous registration requirements and similar

restrictions copied in other states. many attempts were made by this very body to stop these sinister laws but the result was ultimately a failure. by 1877, quote, the black community in the south steadily lost ground until a rigid apartheid separated the racist completely, a terrible state of affairs that would not be fixed until the rise of the civil rights movement after world war ii. unquote. mr. president, today the united states senate meets in a different century facing new and different dangers but wrestling with the same fundamental

question. how will the members of this body protect and expand the most basic right of american citizens, the well spring of our democracy, the thing that distinguished america from all of the countries in europe when it was established in first 1776 and then 1789. the right to vote. the most important wellspring of our democracy, the most important feature of our democracy. how will the members of this body expand and protect the most basic right, the right to vote from forces right now in the 21st century conspiring to take it away. that is why today the united states senate will debate legislation to protect our democracy and the eyes of

history, the eyes of history are upon us. the question today that's before us today is as old as the republic itself. the story of democracy has been a long march toward universal suffrage, a wholly struggle to take the vision of our framers and make it real in the present. the march, unfortunately, has often not been linear. at the time of our constitution's ratification, you had to be in many states a white male protestant landowner to vote. how many in this chamber would have been able to participate in those early elections? throughout our nation's history, moments of significant progress

have often been followed by reactionary backlash. unfortunately, it seems led by one party, compelled by the most dishonest president in our history, we are in another of those dark periods. that is why for the first time, the first time in this congress the senate is debating and will vote on legislation to confront these threats, the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act. for the information of all, debate on these bills will continue throughout the day and as soon as 6:30, if not a little bit later, we will hold a cloture vote to conclude debate and proceed to final passage of these measures. i want to thank my colleagues who spoke yesterday in favor of

these bills. there were so many eloquent and strong speeches. i never at our caucus, i have rarely seen such passion about the need to vote and the need to change the rules to allow these vital bills so fixed upon the wellspring of our democracy, voting to pass. if the republicans block cloture on the legislation before us, i will put forward a proposal to change the senate rules to allow for a talking filibuster on this legislation as recommended by a number of our colleagues who have been working on this reform for a very long time. make no mistake, win, lose, or draw, members of this chamber were elected to debate and to vote, particularly on such an important issue as this.

and win, lose, or draw, we are going to vote. we are going to vote, especially when the issue relates to the beating heart of our democracy as voting rights does. for months senate republicans have resisted virtually every attempt at holding a bipartisan debate on voting rights legislation. senate democrats have certainly tried to bring them on to the table. senate democrats have certainly been willing to compromise to get something done. my colleagues, senators manchin and kaine and tester and king and durbin and klobuchar and leahy and many more have all met with republicans to initiate a dialogue dating back to last august, if not earlier. at virtually every turn we have been met with resistance.

amazingly enough, my colleagues, none of them are here to hear it, our republican colleagues don't even acknowledge that we have a crisis. leader mcconnell even claimed, quote, states are not engaged in trying to suppress voters whatsoever. let me read that quote again n. is from leader mcconnell's words. states are not engaging in trying to suppress voters whatsoever. i would ask the republican leader, if there's no effort to suppress the vote, why have 19 states passed 33 new laws making it harder for americans to participate in our elections? in the aftermath of one of the safest elections in american recent history where there's virtually no evidence of any material fraud, none?

if there's no effort to suppress the vote, why are states from texas to montana restricting the number and hours at polling places. why have states like florida and texas made it harder to reg register, to register to vote. is that not suppressing the vote? why are states like iowa cutting down on the number of days you can vote early? is that not suppressing the vote? and if there's no effort to suppress the vote, why have states like georgia made it a crime for volunteers to give food and water to voters standing in lines at the polls. leader mcconnell once again, quote, states are not engaging in trying to suppress voters whatsoever. just as donald trump has his big lie, leader mcconnell now has

his. states are not engaging in trying to suppress voters whatsoever. the same types of lies that have motivated, same type of big lie that donald trump put forward has now motivated leader mcconnell and many other republicans to embrace that big lie and spout others that come from the same poisonous tree. and what's even more galling, knowing our history that the laws i spoke of a minute ago don't target everyone. this is not an effort aimed at everyone. they aim particularly of people of color, at poor people, at young people, at disabled people, at elderly people, at people who live in cities. given the long history,

particularly against african americans, black americans, of suppressing the vote in every kind of way possible, this is particularly disgraceful, particularly abhorrent, particularly obnoxious. we all know the game here today. exemplified by every seat being empty when we are having our first debate by voting rights, not because republicans agreed to go along but because we were able to use a message from the house to go forward without their okay. so we all know the game here. to date i don't know if any of you have, but i have not heard a single serious defense of these laws from senate republicans. they don't come here to the floor to defend what's going on in the

states. what we have heard is sof imp stry, dis-- sofistry and outlight gaslighting. senate republicans have come up with subter subterfuges to avoid doing the right thing. like others have done in the past. but this is the 21st century. we're supposed to have gone beyond that, but unfortunately we have not. facts are stubborn, and today's debate will help us arrive at the fact of of voter suppression before we vote to take action. as we debates this issue, so critical to the well spring of our democracy, will we all confront a critical question -- shall members of the this chamber do what is necessary to pass these bills and move them to it the president's desk? it is my hope that courage

awakens within the heart of our republican colleagues before the day is out, but if the senate cannot protect the right to vote, protect the cornerstone of our democracy under the existing rules, then the senate rules must be reformed. and let me say this, we have a diverse views, we have diverse views about whether the filibuster today in 21st century america is a good thing or a bad thing, and there are some in our caucus who believe it helps bring -- a few, who believe it helps bring us together. i don't see that evidence, evidence of that at all, and i think the majority of my colleagues would agree with that. but even for those who feel that the filibuster is a good thing and helps bring us together, i would ask this question -- isn't

the protection of voting rights the most fundamentally wellspring of this democracy more important? isn't protecting voting rights and preventing their diminution more important than a rule in the senate? which has not always been in existence and was not envisioned by the founders? that is the question we should ask ourselves. our proposal for a talking filibuster on these pieces of legislation would be the first step towards passing voting rights, restoring in body, and breaking the gridlock that we now face on this vital issue. in this body proponents of our democratic rights, again and

again, have brought legislation to the floor, only to be met by a filibuster. opponents of fair, open elections filibustered anti-poll tax legislation in 1942, 1944, 1946. they filibustered the civil rights bill of 1960. they filibustered legislation on literacy tests in 1962. all this before real substantive progress was made. our struggle today is not new, but we must nevertheless meet it with renewed conviction. senate democrats are under no illusion that we face an uphill fight, especially when virtually every republican has remained staunchly against every attempt to pass voting rights legislation. and again, i would remind the american people and every one of my colleagues that this is a different republican party, controlled by donald trump. ronald reagan, george h.w. bush,

george w. bush all supported renewal of the voting rights act. every one of them. and it received large bipartisan majorities in the senate. it's a different republican party. not just on so many issues which we debate, but on this issue, the wellspring of our democracy. so, we know it's an uphill fight, but whenever this chamber confronts a question this important, one so vital to our country, you don't slide it off the table and say never mind. you don't say we're not going to deal with this issue head-on. that's' job is to -- a senator's job is to vote, and to vote on the most important issues facing us, and vote we will. and we are going to keep pushing.

we are going to keep working. we are going to keep fighting. long after today. because the issue is so important to all of us. i believe firmly in my bones, mr. president, that if we follow dr. king's advice to just keep moving, history shows that doing the right thing will eventually prevail. justice will flow like the mighty waters, as the prophet amos has said. but the work of justice does not stir into action on its own. it is up to us, members of this body, and americans all across the country, to do our part to make justice come alive today and assure that our country does not backslide here in the 21st century. so i urge my colleagues, for the sake of our beautiful, wonderful

democracy, for the sake of what the founding fathers called this noble experiment, take a stand and do everything, everything, everything you can to protect voting rights today, today in this chamber. thank you, mr. president.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the senate republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: the democratic party has had control of washington for exactly 364 days.

tomorrow will mark exactly one year since president biden was inaugurated on the west front and promised to unite our people, lower the temperature, and bring america together. but today the president and his party will try to use fear and panic to smash the senate, silence millions of americans, and seize control of our democracy. now, there's no shortage of real crises democrats might consider tackling. the worst inflation in 40 years, a seemingly endless pandemic, soaring whom homicides -- homicides, a border crisis, and russia flirting with war in

europe. but the administration and this senate majority are focused on none of that. instead, they've been consumed by a fake panic over election laws that seems to exist only in their own imaginations. so, let's put a few basic facts on the table. fewer than one half of one percent of american adults believe that election law is our country's most important problem. when polls asked people what new federal election laws they want, the most popular response is none of the above. actually, more americans believe currents voting laws are too lax than believe they are too restrictive. so let that sink in. you could have taken in hundreds of hours of left wing rhetoric

and media coverage over the past year and had no inkling of this basic fact. significantly more americans believe current voting laws are too loose and insecure than believe are too restrictive. professional liberals have spent three straight years talking down our democracy, except a short period after they liked an election result and questioning elections was, at least briefly, off limits. but the american people are not buying that. democrats have spent years stoking fear and panic over voting laws, and the american people simply do not buy it. but while washington democrats' fake panic has failed to persuade the country, it could still deal permanent damage. today, the senate will need to prevent this factional frenzy

from damaging our democracy, damaging the senate, and damaging our republic forever. first, our democracy -- professional liberals' fake hysteria over state voting laws is literally collapsing before our eyes. even normally friendly media outlets are asking democrats why a law like georgia's is supposed to be outrageous, when it is objectively more open than rules in blue states, like delaware and new york. president biden's false statement about one state law earned him, listen to this, four, four pinocchios in "the washington post." that's not easy to get. there's no factional standard by which any state in america is creating a civil rights crisis. not compared to their own

prepandemic baselines. not comparing across with other states. what's more, democrats' own paper trails refute the notion this is about new state laws from 2021. three years ago, in 2019, leader schumer was already giving interviews about supposed voter suppression. the same conspiracy theories were being pushed back then. the same ominous buzzwords were in vogue. and three years ago in 2019 democrats are already introduced their first version of the legislation they'll be pushing today. this party line push has never been about securing citizens' rights. it's about expanding politicians' power. that's why their bill tries to weaken voter i.d. laws that are popular with americans of all

races. it's why their bill is stuffed with strange policies that have zero relationship to ballot access, new powers for bureaucrats to police citizens' speech online, new schemes where the federal government would directly fund political campaigns. this is not some modest bill about ballot access. it's a sprawling takeover of our whole political system. it was never even intended to attract bipartisan support. this partisan frankenstein bill that house democrats slapped together was intended to do one thing, just one thing only -- give the senate democratic leader a pretext, a pretext to break the senate. later today, this chamber will host a sad spectacle that has not been seen before in living

memory. a sitting majority leader will attempt a direct assault on the core identity of the senate. our colleague from new york will try to kill the character of the institution he is supposed to protect and to serve. now, democratic leader once said that breaking the rules to kill the filibuster would turn the senate into a rubber stamp of dictatorship, make america a banana republic, and trigger a doomsday for democracy. ah, but several years ago, with no connection to this particular issue, he began talking about shredding minority protections if -- if -- he ever got power. and now he wants to press that doomsday button. the legislative filibuster is a

central senate tradition. it is the indispensable feature of our institution. it makes the senate serve its founding purpose, forging compromise, cooling passions, and ensuring that new laws earn broad support from a cross-section of our country. the senate is a not supposed to be a duplicate house of representatives with fewer members and fancier desks. this body is not supposed to amplify huge swings in federal law with every election. it exists to slow those swings and to bring stability. the legislative filibuster is the only reason the senate provides what james madison called a complicated check on improper acts of legislation. it embodies thomas jefferson's

principle that great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities. killing the legislative filibuster, any way it happened, would hugely damage the senate. but doing so by nuking the rules would destroy the senate. as i've explained at some length, this is true on the most practical level. the senate in nuclear winter would not be a hospitable place for either side. as then-senator obama explained a decade and a half ago, if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

please note that even in the democratic leader's manufactured case, even when he presumably wanted the most persuasive theater he key possibly muster, the senate will have only spent about a day and a half on this bill before he tries to ram it through. since when does the senate pass any significant bill in a day and a half, much less a gigantic elections overhaul? our colleague is not trying to conclude an unending discussion that he cannot stop. he's trying to short-circuit a debate that he cannot win. this is just the kind of shortsighted power grab this body was actually built to stop. the case that most of our democratic colleagues are making this week boils down to a claim that everything is somehow broken. the senate is broken because they can't get everything they

want. our democracy is broken because democrats sometimes lose elections. entire states are broken because the voters vote the wrong way and so their voices in this chamber should be totally silenced. millions of american voters should be denied any say whatsoever in this chamber. really? really? our democratic colleagues claiming our entire republic is broken, that is what their anger and pessimism boils down to? they say we're hopelessly divided, that governing institutions that have served us for centuries need to be smashed and steamrolled, that we are fated to keep escalating brute-force battles with no end in sight. this is exactly the kind of

toxic world view that this president pledged to disavow, but it is exactly what has consumed his party on his watch. you can literally hear it in their voices. in the last few days, our president and his top allies have been reduced to shouting angrily at reporters and at the american people. they are so certain they know best. how dare the rules, how dare the facts, the republicans, and millions of voters all obstruct their unique wisdom. well the good news, mr. president, is the fear is false. the rage is misplaced, and today factional fevers will not carry the day. the senate is not broken.

we've passed major bipartisan bills this year, and we've stopped partisan bills that lacked support, exactly -- exactly the mixture the framers imagined and senators on both sides praised -- praised -- until the last few months. our democracy is not broken either. citizens across america have ample opportunity to vote and say so to anybody who will listen to them. and our republic is not broken, even with all the crises that democrat policies have created. we remain fellow citizens who are blessed to live in the greatest country on earth. today it appears that a narrow, bipartisan group of senators will vote to save the senate,

with hope, with confidence, we will stand up and say that our institutions are worth protecting, that rules matter, that no american deserves to have his or her voice in this chamber silenced. ah, but a partisan minority will do the opposite. they will try to smash and grab as much short-term power as they can carry. for both groups of senators, this vote will echo for generations. before we part ways tonight, all a hundred of us will have marked our legacies in permanent ink. who will vote with hope and confidence in our people, and who will vote from anger, fear -- from anger, fear, and

paycheck panic? who will vote to protect checks and balances and who will try to purchase power at any price? who has the courage of to protect every single american's voice in this chamber, no matter their home state, no matter their politics? and who will vote to silence millions of citizens for the sin of voting for the wrong team? the american people deserve to know, and from this day forward, they will. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. -- the president pro tempore: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i had say to the republican leader while still on the floor, would

you entertain a question? i'm sorry that he did not state for a question because i would have asked the basic question raised by senator schumer -- does he really believe that there is no evidence of voter suppression in the actions of 19 states across our nation? i think the facts speak for themselves. for those who are witnessing this, this is a rare moment in the history of this chamber. in the recent history it's rare because we're here. half of the seats are occupied in the united states senate. that is a rare occurrence because it is rare that we come together to debate, to amend, or to even exercise the authority given to us as united states senators. it is also a rare moment in history because we again are being called on as others have before us to speak to the fundamentals of freedom and democracy and to go on record by

the end of this day when night falls as to where we stand in the sweep of history. mr. president, approximately 155 million americans voted in the 2020 election, the highest voter turnout percentage since the 1900 election. a record number voted early or cast mail-in ballots, options that were expanded in red and blue states in response to the deadly pandemic. that was before we had vaccines and covid was killing an average of 1,200 americans a day, and yet they voted. tens of millions of americans stood in line, some for hours, to cast their ballots. that's how important the american people thought it was to vote in 2020. people risked their lives to cast their ballots. it's hard to believe that fact could be measured against statements made by the republican leader just a few moments ago that people don't care about the right to vote. they care enough to risk their

lives, and they did in the 2020 election. despite the crush of voters and the confusion of the pandemic, the 2020 election was judged the most secure in american history. that's not my opinion, that's the official statement issued by the department of homeland security under the trump administration, an agency which coordinates the nation's top security and voting infrastructure expertise. they released their assessment ten days after the 2020 election, and they did so to counter a dangerous and unprecedented avalanche of misinformation, including from an enraged and defeated president claiming falsely the election had been stolen. these nonpartisan election security experts were not alone in rejecting donald trump's big lie. president trump and his loyalists filed more than 60 lawsuit in state and -- lawsuits in state and federal courts

repeating their false claims. they offered no evidence to back their claims, only bizarre conspiracy theories and far-right internet gossip. their lawsuits were overwhelmingly dismissed, some by judges who president trump himself had nominated. the former president exerted extraordinary pressure on the department of justice. we found that in the senate judiciary committee and through other sources. and he failed. when he couldn't bully the courts or justice department to do his bidding, he summoned his mob. we all know personally about the death and destruction the big lie brought to this building on january 6 a year ago. we lived through it. the capitol survived it. and the entire world recoiled at the sight of americans, get toed by the former president, attacking the heart of our democracy. the big lie is corroding

america's faith in our elections. in a recent poll two-thirds of republicans -- two-thirds of republicans surveyed -- agreed with the false claim that, quote, voter fraud helped joe biden win the 2020 election. two-thirds of republicans. that poll also found 64% of americans believing u.s. democracy is, quote, in crisis and at the risk of failing. senator mcconnell dismisses this conversation, but the american people know it's deadly serious. in another poll, one in three republicans said they trust that the 2024 elections will be fair regardless of who wins. only one in three republicans. donald trump would rather destroy american democracy than admit he lost the election. and sadly it seems that many republican lawmakers would rather repeat his lies than face his wrath. republican lawmakers in many states are using the big lie as a pretext to pass new laws aimed

at undermining both americans' right to vote and the integrity of the our elections. sadly, republicans in the senate are aiding and abetting this attack. three times last year the republicans used the filibuster, the weapon of choice in the jim crow era, to block this senate from even debating voting rights. mr. president, each morning we stand and pledge allegiance to that flag and what it represents. but i don't believe any senator stands to pledge allegiance to the filibuster. the filibuster is a rules creation in the senate which really has stopped many important pieces of legislation from being considered. it was really the major reason in the 1960's that the voting rights act and other civil rights legislation took so long. i know personally. five times i have brought to the floor the dream act to give young people in this country a chance for a path to citizenship, and five times on

the floor of the senate it's been stopped by that same filibuster. we've heard lofty rhetoric from the republican leader about what the filibuster means in the senate. it has been used perhaps in constructive ways, but it's certainly been used time and again for a destructive purpose. in the year since january 6, republican legislatures in nearly 20 states have enacted laws making it harder for americans to vote, and in some cases easier for partisan actors to potentially meddle and interfere with elections. in total, more than 440 bills with voting restrictions have been introduced in 49 states, and senator mcconnell can't see one example of voter suppression. let me give you some examples so you know what we're speaking of. we've heard this from senators warnock and ossoff about the state of georgia. a new law making it a crime to give a voter ate waiting in line to -- a voter waiting in line to

vote a snack or a drink of water. a crime to give a drink of water to someone waiting in line. and as senator booker reminded us yesterday, these long lines many times are populated by the minority populations. what a coincidence that they are the ones with too few voting machines or polling stations and have to wait hours sometimes to exercise their franchise. in texas as a result of s.b.1, local election officials are reporting that they're being forced to reject hundreds of absentee ballot requests for the state's upcoming march primary. in denton county, texas officials have had to reject over 40% of absentee ballot requests. in travis county, nearly a third of mail ballot applications have been rejected. making matters worse this new texas law ties officials hands by making it a felony, a felony for an election official in texas to send an unsolicited mail ballot application to a

voter. and in florida republican governor desantis last week proposed creating a police unit that would be empowered to arrest voters and others who allegedly violate the state's election laws. this is straight out of the jim crow playbook. in addition republican lawmakers in at least ten states have diminished secretaries of states authorities over elections or swifted aspects of the administration to partisan bodies, including state legislators themselves. election boards dominated by the republican party. a new law in arkansas now grants the state board of election commissioners made up of five republicans and one democrat police powers to investigate complaints about violation of the state's election laws despite no evidence, none of voter fraud in the state. it empowers the board to upend the state's traditional county-based election administration. a new law in arizona specifies

the democratic secretary of state katie hobbes can no longer represent the state in lawsuits defending the election code. that power now lies with the attorney general who happens to be republican. but only through january 2, 2023, when katie hobbs' term in office ends. even more chilling republican lawmakers in a number of states have introduced or passed new laws criminalizing aspects of election administration. in wisconsin the election administrators could face criminal penalties for correcting mistakes on a voter's mail-in ballot. voting rights experts fear that such laws would leave -- could leave nonpartisan election administrators and workers forever looking over their shoulder or cause them to quit or be replaced by those who are less experienced and more partisan. so why is this happening? as i mentioned earlier, the 2020 election had incredible turnout. according to the census bureau,

67% of all eligible americans reported voting and the majority clearly voted for president joe biden. so now republican lawmakers are using the big lie to pass partisan election laws in order to reduce voter turnout and control outcomes of the elections this year and in 2024. their target? democrat voters. and their goal? sow the seeds of doubt in our democracy and the credibility of future elections. republicans refuse to join us in protecting voting rights. why? because the agenda they are following was set by donald trump. and dissenters pay a price. if you don't endorse -- if you endorse, rather, the big lie, he'll endorse you. if you don't, he'll unleash his fury. these attacks on voting rights are shaking the pillars of our democracy. the credibility of our elections and the peaceful transfer of power. the vast majority of our

republican colleagues are all singing from the same hymnal. they say there's no wave -- no new wave of voter suppression and election nullification. they're wrong. they claim that our proposals to restore the voting rights act and set minimum federal standards for elections amount to an unprecedented takeover of state elections and a partisan power grab. they are wrong. each of us in our desks has this. this common document that guides us, i hope, in all of our actions on the senate floor. despite statements to the contrary, we know that this document is explicit in what we are setting out to do today. the elections clause of the constitution, article 1, section 4, gives congress the authority to make election laws. the 14th and 15th amendment give congress the responsibility to protect voting by appropriate legislation. the voting rights act was reauthorized and strengthened

five times always with a strong bipartisan majority. the last time it was reauthorized was 2006, seven years before shelby county. and that decision of the supreme court we know gutted the law's protection. the senate voted then unanimously, democrats and republicans, to reauthorize and strengthen the law. 16 current republican members of the senate voted yes. it wasn't a federal takeover of elections then. it isn't now. and they know it. i'm the person chosen by senate democrats to count votes. and based on their public statements, two democrats may not vote to change the rules to allow this congress to stop this power grab. these senators have given their reasons. there's something more important than an existing senate rule, a rule that has been changed 160 times in the history of this body. the integrity of our free elections, the right to have your vote counted and our oath

to uphold and defend the constitution i believe count for more. on january 6 after the insurrection was quelled, we returned to the senate to complete our constitutional duty certifying the election and declaring joe biden president. speaking to the few members of his party who still intended to challenge the electoral count on the feeble grounds that some of their constituents had doubts about the election, the junior senator from utah, senator romney said, and i quote, the best way you can show respect for the voters who are upset about this is to tell them the truth. and then something happened on the floor of the senate which rarely occurs. senators on both sides of the aisle rose to their feet and gave senator romney a standing ovation. do you remember it? i do. it's time to remember that courage. it's time to tell the voters the truth. stop repeating the big lie that's tearing this country apart. it's time for the senate to pass

the voting rights act and the freedom to vote act, to restore the power of the voting rights act is to restore the promise of america. i'd like to close by reminding us that earlier this week we marked martin luther king, jr., day. i saw many tweets from members of this chamber celebrating his legacy. one republican leader tweeted, and i quote, nearly 60 years since the march on washington. dr. martin luther king's message echoes as powerfully as it did that day. his legacy inspires us to celebrate and keep building upon the remarkable progress our great nation has made toward becoming a more perfect union. i certainly have good news for that republican leader who sent that tweet. he has an opportunity today to keep building on that remarkable progress. instead of building on dr. king's work, we have watched republicans and state legislatures across the country choose to tear down that remarkable progress and make it harder to vote. making it harder to even

acknowledge and teach the brutal history of the civil rights movement and the systemic inequities that still exist. so here are the questions for members in this chamber today. are we going to live up today, this day, wednesday to the values we claimed on monday, martin luther king day? are we going to be inspired to actually listen to the message of dr. king and why he risked his life to deliver it? are you going to keep building upon the legacy and progress he fought to achieve? for all of us on both sides of the aisle who quoted dr. king on monday, i implore you to listen to what he said in an interview in 1963 when asked about president kennedy's civil rights bill. he said, i think that tragedy is that we have a congress with a senate that has a minority of misguided senators who will use the filibuster to keep majority of people from even voting. they won't let the majority senators vote and certainly they

wouldn't want the majority of people to vote because they know they do not represent the majority of the american people. in fact, they represent in their own states a very small minority. let's listen to dr. king. let's stop using the filibuster to kill legislation to protect america's fundamental right to participate in our democracy. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, later today we expect the democrat leader to force a vote on undermining the filibuster in hopes of forcing through a federal election takeover to give his party an advantage in future elections. and make no mistake about it, that is what we are talking about. federalizing elections in this country. usurping, pree.ing, --

preempting state where's legislations have been administered and regulated since inception of this country. and the method, the method that you're talking about using to do it will literally undermine and blow up everything the senate was supposed to be. i'd even say that the filibuster is used to prevent or block things from happening and that may be true. you have done it. we have done it. use a 60-vote threshold last week to stop a bipartisan rush of sanction -- russia sanctions bill from passing in the united states senate. both sides have done it. but the filibuster is representative and symbolic of something much larger, and that is the very essence of what the senate is about. i want to read for you from "the federalist papers" because there's been a lot of quoting of the founding fathers over here today. this is what the author of

federalist 62 notes and i quote, a senate as a second branch of the legislative assembly distinct from and dividing power with the first must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. it doubles the surety to the people by requiring -- security of the people by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation iew perpty. second, the necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions. and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. go on, the author of federalist 62. a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. in the first place it forfeits

the respect and confidence of other nations and all the advantages connected with national character. the internal effects of amutable policy are still more calamitous. it poisons the blessing of liberty itself. it will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so volumeious that they nts be read or so incoherent, that they cannot be understood if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated or undergo such incessant changes that no ban who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow. law is defined to be a rule of action but how can that be a rule which is little known unless fixed. ladies and gentlemen, our founders created this institution to be separate and distinct from the house of representatives for a reason.

and what you're talking about doing today is turning the united states senate into a majoritarian body. no different. no different from the house of representatives except with longer terms and some people would argue bigger egos. that's what we're talking about doing. they won't need us. yeah, we have longer terms. they're staggered. but the essence of the senate is a check and balance on the passions of the other body. there is a reason why the founders created it. now, mr. president, i represent a red state, south dakota. i am not a racist. nor are the people whole i know -- people who i know in the state of south dakota. and our state legislature like most states' legislatures pretty much every year comes up with

ideas. some of them, a few of them, not most but a few get enacted interest law but a lot of them end up on the cutting room floor which is where most legislative ideas end up. and there are some crazy ones. i would argument we have some crazy ones coming out of here. there are some crazy bills that get introduced around here, most of which gladly never make it into law. but in south dakota our legislature meets every year like most legislatures, introduces a bunch of bills, acts on them, conducts hearings, moves them through the legislative process. some become enacted and signed into law. most don't. one of the bills that did get signed into law was a bill that created a photo i.d. to vote. it was passed in 2003. it's worked well in south dakota. people support it, not just in south dakota but across the country.

and after it passed in 2003, the 2004 election was the largest turnout in modern history. at least for the years we have that kind of information available. 78.6% of people voted in the 2004 election, after, after in 2003 the south dakota legislature passed a photo i.d. law. now, i think there are some ideas out there that are pretty bad, and i'm not one who is here to say that -- to dispute the 2020 election. of the 2020 election is over. it's been decided. it was the largest turnout since 1900, largest turnout in 120 years, which is why you all are arguing these states are going in and changing things to prevent high turnout. well, most of the states that i've seen, at least that i can tell, the legislation that i've

looked at, that has been passed and enacted, are things that i think in most cases people would say, well, yeah, that's probably in the purview of the state legislature. state of georgia, for example, in terms of days in which you can early vote, has actually more early voting, more early voting, more permissive early voting than the state of new york, or the state of delaware, the president's home state. no-excuse absentee voting. we have that in south dakota. we have a long period for absentee voting or early voting in south dakota, much longer than what we're talking about here. a red state. state legislature decided that, thought it made sense. but no-excuse absentee voting, something we do in south dakota, something that's allowed for in georgia, but not in the state of new york or the state of delaware. because the states decide it, as

it should be. how about standing in line, giving people things while they're standing in line to vote? state of south dakota has a law against that too. at this time called electioneering. it's called electioneering. now, there isn't anything that i understand in the georgia law that doesn't prevent an election worker from giving somebody a glass of water or something to eat. there isn't anything that says that 150 feet away, which is 50 yards, 50 yards away you can't feed people lunch. all it says is when somebody is standing in line, that political operatives shouldn't be election electioneering. going out and handing things out to induce people to vote a certain way. ladies and gentlemen, don't blow up the united states senate and everything that the founders

intended the senate to be about over an issue that for all intents and purpose, and you can say it's not, but it is federalizing our elections. it is taking power away from states to make the laws that govern their elections. and thank god in 2020 the states did things the right way. the states certified on time, in accordance with the law the 2020 election. and if we hadn't had that, if we had sucked all that power up here to washington, d.c. and centralized our elections, what do you think would have happened? i think there's a reason why we have a decentralized system, and i think it makes sense for a country as big as ours, particularly at a time we're worried about other countries hacking our elections. it's a lot harder to hack 50 states than it is one computer system here in washington, d.c.

but that's what we're talking about, and you can't sugarcoat it. you can disguise it. you can say it's jim crow 2.0 and all that. but it is federalizing elections in this country, and taking power directly away from the states. i lost my first senate election back in 2003. i was ahead -- back in 2002. i was ahead on wednesday morning. tuesday night came and went. on wednesday morning, i was sitting in my living room in sioux falls, south dakota, watching the television, and i watched my 3,300-vote lead become a 524-vote deficit like that. because one precinct came in from one of the reservation counties in south dakota, and they voted 94% -- 93% against me. and i lost that election. and i had all these people, all

these smart political minds around the country and south dakota saying you got to contest it. there are irregularities. you know there are irregularities. i thought about it, and we did a little bit of looking into it, but a day later i decided to say the election was over. i'd lost that first election. and you know what? that's what happens. sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. well, -- what you all are trying to do here is create a system, seems to me at least, where you give your side a permanent advantage, and i don't -- i mean, that's your prerogative. you want to do this, that's fine, in terms of having the issue and talking about it, but the one thing i just fundamentally disagree with is how you're proposing to do it,

to literally do away with everything the senate was designed and created to be, by our founders and has served a purpose very, very well, and you all did it last session of congress, you filibustered numerous coronavirus bills. you filibustered police reform. you filibustered pro-life legislation. and i can go down the list. like i said, you used the 60-vote threshold last week to keep a russia sanctions bill, a bipartisan russia sanctions bill, i might add, from passing in the senate. and you can go on and look at all the statements you've all made through the years, and i'm not going to repeat them because you've heard them over and over again. but i think it's important to remember one thing, and that is when you make statements like that they do have a shelf life. and some of that shelf life is pretty short, because it was just a few years ago. in some cases three, four years

ago. some cases, one year ago, two years ago. a lot of you have statements publicly, clearly out there, defending the filibuster, doing away with it would be doomsday for democracy. turn america into a banana republic. don't do it. i'm just saying don't do it. you got to be some of you over there who get this, and who've got to be -- i mean, we had the pressure to do this. you know that. 34 times our president in the last administration, 34 times tweeted publicly demanding that republicans get rid of the filibuster. and we resisted it, and i've had people in the media ask me, welr side is saying, too, well, the democrats, if we don't do it now, republicans will do it. no, we're not going to do it. not if you don't. if you do, sure. then it's all bets are off.

then the senate becomes the house of representatives, and policy changes every two years or every four years, depending who's in power, and there's no stability, no predictability, there's no moderation and no incentive for this body to work together across the aisle. that's change permanently. i hope that doesn't happen. because i don't think that's what we should be about. certainly not what we should be about. but that's where this is headed, if you move forward. if you change the rules, overthrow the rules to do this. mr. president, we are better than this. our country is better than this. our founders created a system that was designed to ride that moderation, to provide that continuity, to provide that stability, to provide that predictability in a way that

what is being talked about today would completely destroy and undermine not only the near term but permanently, because you can't do this once. you can't turn this off. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. once you do this, it's a new state of play in the united states senate. and that's a whole new world. not just for us, the people we represent, for our nation and for the world. i hope and pray that there are enough wise democrats on your side that will join with all of us to resist the pressure that you're feeling, like we did, when our president came to us and said you got to do this. we aren't going to do it, because we understand what it means and you should too. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i'm here on this monumentous day for our country. i would like to address some of the remarks from my friend and neighbor from the state of south dakota. i hope he'll stay for my remarks. what is the senate about? that's what senator thune was just addressing. what is the senate about? we come here to represent the people of our state, and we come here to make decisions and to vote. i don't think anyone in our states want us to come here and hug an archaic tradition and then simply stop votes, stop debates, hug that tradition tight, and then throw the voters under the desk and go home and raise money. basically, that's what this tradition has turned into.

i believe what our founding fathers wanted when it became clear that this country was forming, they wanted to have a senate that worked. and when you go back and look, there's no mention of a filibuster in the constitution. there's no mention of 60 votes. there's no mention of cloture. rules developed over time, and believe it or not, to my friend from south dakota, those rules change with the time. in the words of senator byrd, someone who believed in the traditions of this place, the rules change with the circumstances. and with in the words of our constitution, which the senator from south dakota failed to mention, the time, place, and manner of elections, well, this is what it says -- congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

that's what it says. it was very, very clear that in the beginning of this country it was anticipated that the congress would have a role in these elections. why? because they are federal elections. and now before us, before us is the freedom to vote, something that has been a long and hard-fought battle in our country's history. and today we continue that march towards justice in the senate, because we face a coordinated and relentless campaign to limit americans' constitutional right to vote. as president biden said last week, i was honored to be there with him and vice president harris in atlanta, as he said, this is the test of our time. there are moments in the life of our nation, like when a bomb blew up the 16th street baptist church in birmingham, four little girls murdered, like when john lewis and so many others

were bloodied as they crossed that bridge in selma. there are moments in time when things stand still. and make no mistake, our country is at one of those moments right now. it is no coincidence that after more americans voted than in the history of this country in the 2020 election that suddenly there was a slew, a flood of state election laws meant to suppress the votes of americans. it is not as the majority leader just described and the minority leader just described a fake panic. a fake panic. let's see what is fake about this. what is fake about these laws that passed in georgia, where suddenly when 70,000 people registered to vote during the runoff period, i would say to the minority leader if he was here, when 70,000 people registered to vote during the runoff period they changed that law. they reduced the time of the

runoff period. they make it so that no one can register during that time. montana, 8,000 people availed themselves of same-day registration in the last election, by either changing their address because they moved or registering for the first time. what do they do? that's it, that's not going to happen, even though it's been in place for 15 years, long before the pandemic. that's not fake. there's nothing about that that is fake. and when i think about the moment in time we're in now, i look back to that moment when senator blunt and i and vice president pence, the last ones remaining in this chamber, with two young women holding the mahogany box with the last of the electoral ballots through w, wyoming, 3:30 in the morning took that long walk to the house of representatives, that walk that has been -- had been so joyful just that morning. that glass broken on the sides of that walk? that was not fake.

the statues covered in spray paint? that was not fake. that was real. just as real as the fact that over 440 bills sent that fateful day have been introduced -- since that fateful day have been introduced to restrict voting. 30 of these bills have been signed into law in 19 states. what is happening in states like florida, georgia, and texas with their omnibus bills, that is very real. the voters, they know it's real. last summer when we took the rules committee on a field hearing joined by senator ossoff, who is a member of the committee, and senator reverend warnock, who has taken on this torch in his state and across the country, we met a veteran living in central georgia. he told us how he took his older neighbors to vote early, but they had to give up and go home after seeing the line wrapped

around the block. and when he later went back to vote, he had to wait himself three hours in the hot sun. that's not fake, i say to the minority leader. that is real. this guy, a veteran, he served in the air force during operation desert storm, and when i asked him if he had to wait in line when he signed up to serve, he said, no. but when he came home and he wanted to vote in an election in the united states of america, he had to wait in the hot sun hour after hour after hour. when the minority leader said that no american deserved to have their voice silenced, as he just said in this chamber, those long lines, one ballot box in the middle of harris county, texas texas, with over harris county, texas, with over five million people, what are those

laws about? silencing people. that's what it's about. when we were in atlanta, we also heard from helen butler, a former election official, who told us how she was ousted by republicans after a decade of serve, which the new law makes even easier to do by stripping power away from local officials and putting it in the hands of the state legislature. they are messing around, my friends, with the very counting of the votes, with proposals made in wisconsin, with proposals made in other states. one montana woman living on the blackfeet reservation had open-heart surgery a week before the 2020 election and relied on a tribal assistance provider to return her ballot. but under another new law, the assistance she received is now banned. these are real, and these are

real people. it is voters being made to stand in the rain in homemade masks and garbage bags at the beginning of the pandemic just to exercise their right to vote. it is veterans standing in hotlines in the sun in georgia. it's a voter in a wheelchair in texas being forced to travel three hours and take four buses round trip to reach a ballot dropoff box. it is a voter in arizona being told that she didn't receive her mail-in ballot for the state's primary because she had been marked as an inactive voter, even though she had just cast her ballot in the presidential primary. and it's five states -- indiana, louisiana, mississippi, tennessee, and texas -- still telling over 30 million, 30 million americans, registered voters, that they cannot request a mail-in ballot during a pandemic without an approved

excuse. that is why it is on us, with the support of the constitution, to take action. and as i noted at the beginning of my remarks, it is in fact anticipated in the constitution with that clause that empowers congress to make or alter rules for federal elections. what does the freedom to act -- what does the freedom to vote john r. louis act do? it sets basic federal standards to ensure that americans can participate in the franchise. it guarantees at least two weeks of early voting, like voters now have in two-thirds of states, including red states. it provides for same-day registration, like they had for 15 years in montana. it allows all voters to request a mail-in ballot without an excuse. and it ensures voters do not need to provide witness signatures or note arizations --

notariizations. if you want to cast a mail-in ballot or you're in the hospital, you have to have a witness sign off on that ballot. also makes sure voters have access to ballot boxes. it would include much needed protections against those seeking to undermine our elections. senator blunt and i held a bipartisan hearing this last year, and we found out that nearly one in three local election officials feel unsafe because of their job and nearly one in six have received threats of violence. the republican secretary of state said that if something doesn't happen, they are not going to have enough people to work at elections. now, he didn't agree with what we were going to do, but he did note that they no longer have

enough volunteers to work their polls. republican philadelphia city commissioner who did want to see legislation passed, al schmidt, he told about the threat. he is no longer in his job. he received, as a result of his work, simply counting the ballots, he told us -- i see the senator from pennsylvania here -- that his family's names, his kids' names have been put out on the internet, his address, a picture of his house, a message saying tell the truth or your three kids will be fatally shot. arizona secretary of state katie hobbes told us she received a message, i am a hunter and i think you should be hunted. these are not just one-point examples. over 9,000 members of congress have received threats, double, triple, this is according to the capitol police, in numbers that we have never seen before. so, no, i say to the minority leader, this is not fake.

this is not one bit fake. it calls for federal -- federal action. and, yes, i am disappointed that four times our colleagues have voted down allowing us to go forward with the freedom to vote act or the john lewis bill that are now combined into one, with the exception of senator murkowski, who did allow for the debate to continue on one of the bills, the john lewis bill. no one stood up and joined us in allowing for a debate on these bills. no one. so that is why we are here. and i say to senator thune, the reason we are looking to restore the rules of the senate is because there is no other way to move forward to guarantee americans the right to vote. in the past, this was bipartisan. 2006, voting rights act reauthorized under president george w. bush by a vote of 98-0.

98-0. but that is sadly not where we are today. when it comes to the rules of the senate, i am not going to belabor this. i see my friend, senator merkley of oregon, an historical expert on all of this. but i will say this -- there are 160 exceptions, 160 exceptions to the filibuster rule. things have been changed to benefit my colleague from the other side of the aisle. somehow it only takes 51 votes to put in place the trump tax cuts or the bush tax cuts. somehow it only took 51 votes to put amy kony barrett on the supreme court of the united states. somehow it only takes 51 votes to try to overturn a regulation or try to mess around with the affordable care act. but then when it comes to something shrike voting rights -- to something like voting

rights, then everyone on the other side of the aisle is hugging that filibuster tight, knowing that so many times in history, including most recently with the debt ceiling, changes have been made to allow a vote with less than 60 votes. the national gas policy act in 1977. in 1995 the endangered species act. in 1996, a change to the reconciliation process. 160 times. and as representative clyburn has pointed out so well, there have been times in our history when that most sacrosanct of rights has been defended, the right to vote on a bipartisan basis, like the 15th amendment. but we note that, as he said, that was a single-party vote that gave black people the right to vote, and that fact does not make the 15th amendment any less legitimate.

during the past week so many in this chamber celebrated the life of martin luther king jr. but let us not forget what he stood for. he did not stand for the filibuster. he did not like it. as reverend warnock has point reasonable doubt out so many times, he stood for -- as reverend warnock has pointed out so many times, he stood for action and fairness and freedom. last week i met with martin luther king iii and his wife who came to washington to pass this legislation. he told us that his daughter was born in 2008, the year that president obama was elected. they told me how the shelby decision was issued years later followed by georgia's voter law enacted just last year. how sad is it that if we do not act, their daughter, the granddaughter of martin luther king jr., will face more obstacles to voting than the

promise they were born with? this cannot be the democracy that our children inherit. dr. king once said, and i will paraphrase, the disappointment is finite. i don't know how today is going to end, but if it ends without this bill passing, we will be much less of a country moving forward. but i will keep this in mind what he said. disappointment is finite, but hope is infinite. the people of this country will not tolerate silencing, as the minority leader has said, silencing their voices, truly. i think by voting this down, by not allowing to us even debate this, to get to the conclusion of a vote, that is silencing the people of america, all in the name of an archaic senate rule

that isn't even in the constitution. that's just wrong. i yield the floor. mr. peters: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, just 14 months ago, our nation stood on the brink of a constitutional crisis. as the former president and his followers attempted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and overturn the results of a free and fair election. instead of accepting the will of the voters and upholding the foundations of our constitutional republic, president trump and his followers engaged in a campaign of blatant disinformation and political interference. they attempted to coerce state and local election officials to make false claims of widespread fraud and then use those claims to not certify election results.

and reject the will of the people. all to ensure that the former president could stay in power at any cost. my home state of michigan was at the very center of this battle in 2020 when our state board of canvassers met to certify the undeniable fact that joe biden and kamala harris had won the state of michigan and its 16 electoral votes, but we came dangerously close to the kind of antidemocratic and authoritarian behavior that the united states has long decried of other nations. it basically came down to one vote, just one vote from one republican member of the board of canvassers. one canvasser who dared to withstand the intense political

pressure for him to ignore the will of the people and not certify those election results, one canvasser who chose to ignore blatant lies and disinformation. his one vote was all that stood between a secure, free, and fair election and a constitutional crisis. this one republican board member knew his decision to follow the law would cost him the position on that board. he knew that his physical safety would be threatened, and it was. and yet he stood his ground. he fulfilled his constitutional duty and followed the will of the people of the state of michigan by certifying voting -- by voting to certify those results. so what was his reward for his courageous vote? well, republicans removed him from the board, sending a very clear message and a threat to all those who will follow him. despite failing to coerce enough

officials to ignore the law and falsify election results and despite losing one bogus challenge after another in the federal courts, we all know that the former president didn't stop his efforts there. no, instead he rallied his supporters and incited them to attack the united states capitol building, the very citadel of our democracy, to disrupt congress as we conducted the ceremonial certification of the results. but thanks to the brave actions of law enforcement officers, the national guard, and so, so many others, our democracy withstood these unprecedented attacks on our constitutional republic. this attack shook the very foundation of our democracy. it exposed cracks that shows it is more fragile than we ever thought was possible. despite all of this, i believe

that we need to celebrate the fact that 2020 presidential election was secure according to the demght of homeland -- the department of homeland security and the f.b.i. we should celebrate that we had record turnout, even in a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. and we should commend the election workers who made this incredible feat possible. instead too many people, including too many of my republican colleagues, have continued to sow doubt in the integrity of our election process, and these actions threaten the very bedrock of our democracy. instead of condemning falsehoods and violence, there is a concerted effort under way in michigan and all across our country to rewrite history, remove election officials, and rewrite state laws to limit voter participation.

one of the bills that was introduced in michigan legislature would lock up, would lock up absentee drop boxes before election day. one republican city clerk called this idea crazy and said it makes no sense whatsoever. i agree. another bill would restrict the ability of state election officials to send out absentee ballot applications to voters. in fact, michigan republicans filed 39 bills in the state legislature to restrict voting rights. nothing less than the very future of our democracy is at stake and we must act or risk losing what so many americans have fought for and have died for for nearly 250 years. the right to vote, the right to sell governance, the right of american people to choose and fire public officials is our

nation's fundamental freedom. we cannot protect that right and assure every american has equal access to the ballot box, and we can do it by simply passing two bills that are before us. the freedom to vote act will protect the rights of voters by facilitating registration, early voting, and vote by mail. it will set a standard to ensure that every citizen in every state has guaranteed rights. john lewis voting rights advancement act takes additional steps to address the practices that have historically been used to discriminate against voters simply based on their race. despite some of the republican arguments that i have already heard today, the constitution is very clear. we've heard that from article 1 of the constitution and many times congress has continued to strengthen the voting rights of individuals, the 15th amendment clearly states that the right of citizens cannot be abridged by a state and clearly

states, and i quote, congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. and that's just what congress has done in passing the voting rights act of 1965, the help american vote act, the national voter registration act. congress has done this in the past. we need to do it again. the american people overwhelmingly support these commonsense measures, and they deserve to know where they wand. -- where we stand. and for that reason after every senator has had a chance to speak, the debate must come to an end and we must have an up-or-down vote on these bills. mr. president, i believe history will not be kind to the colleagues of mine who stand in the way of democracy. and make no mistake about it. we are at a pivotal moment in

our nation's history. our democratic republic and our most treasured values are in danger. if we fail to act, we may lose them. mr. president, i proudly stand on the side of democracy, and i urge my colleagues to stand with me in passing the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, families in texas and across the country are being pummeled by the highest inflation in 40 years. for everything from gasoline to groceries to clothing to utility bills, basic expenses have

skyrocketed. groceries don't just cost more. they're also harder to find. empty shelves have become a sign of the times as supply chain problems, staffing shortages, and severe weather have created a perfect storm. on top of that families are trying to stay safe and healthy in the midst of a surge in covid-19 cases. there's an urgent need for testing and masks, both of which are increasingly hard to come by. so with so many urgent needs facing families in texas and elsewhere, what has the democratic leadership have teed up for the senate this week? a partisan bill to take over the nation's elections. democrats apparently want people to forget about the fact that they can't keep their refrigerators or pantries stocked or their kids are out of

school because of the pandemic and can't study in person or that it costs a small fortune to fill up europe gas tank -- fill up your gas tank. apparently they're trying to convince the american people that there is somehow a coordinated assault on the right to vote and their partisan legislation is the only sa savi. according to our colleagues the evidence of this attack can be found in a number of state laws passed this year. even though many of the reforms in those laws make voting easier than in a number of blue states. the georgia law, for example, extends the early voting period to 17 days, giving voters more time than what's offered in the president's home state of delaware. that until this year did not allow any in-person early vo voting. when that argument fails, though, our colleagues say the need for this legislation stems

from the attack on the capitol of january 6, even though their bill was written long before a mob descended on this building. in fact, the first version of the for the people act was introduced in 2019, more than three years ago. the so-called voting rights crisis is nothing more than manufactured hysteria to justify our colleagues' long-standing attempts to take over america's elections. and just to put the -- put a time frame around the concerns, this is what 94% of respondents to a pew poll, a nonpartisan poll said about the 2020 elections. 94% said it was easy or very easy to cast their ballot.

and yet the legislation that is going to be considered today has its origins in a 2019 bill called the for the people act, which obviously predates this poll from the pew corporation. well, i have no doubt that -- i have no doubt the senate will reject this legislation once again, but i never cease to be amazed at how far our colleagues are willing to go to enhance their own political power purely along partisan lines. as a matter of fact, they have done a complete about face. less than five years ago the majority leader said we should build a firewall around the legislative filibuster. he's now laid the groundwork and will call the vote to end it.

the democratic leader has tried to frame this radical move as a way to promote debate but make no mistake, our colleagues aren't trying to blow up the senate to force republicans to explain our opposition to the election takeover bill. in fact, we've done that endlessly. we don't need this drama in order to explain our position. i for one have spent hours on the senate floor explaining the dangers of this partisan legislation as have many of my other colleagues. the only conclusion i can reach is our democratic colleagues are trying to blow up the senate in order to clear a path for purely partisan legislation, to take a body that was actually created to promote bipartisan consensus building and make it possible with purely democrat votes to work their will in a body that represents some 330 million

americans. what a bad idea that would be to promote purely partisan legislation and diswade or take away the incentives that encourage us to do what doesn't come naturally and that is to work together. our colleagues apparently don't realize how shortsighted this move actually is. in the senate the door actually swings both ways. one day you're in the majority. the next day you're using every tool at your disposal to have a say in the process while representing your constituents. no matter how much frustration and heart ache the filibuster -- heartache the filibuster creates for the majority parties and the shoe is always capable of being on the other foot, those of us who have been here a while have

been in the majority and the minority and understand the frustration that a majority feels when they can't get what they want while complying with the senate rules and the consensus building requirement of the 60-vote cloture vote requirement. but if our colleagues succeed in blowing up the filibuster, there's no question that it will be easier for them to turn their progressive wish list into the law of the land. and you can't just carve-out -- carve out once piece of legislation. once we head down that slippery slope, the legislative filibuster is gone. taking over america's elections may be the first item on their agenda, but it won't be the last. they could pass the green new deal, 2.0, impose sweeping gun control laws, legalize abortion from the time of conception until the time of natural

delivery and force every individual in the country into a one-size-fits-all health care plan. they can expand the supreme court and pack it with partisan justices. they could even add new states, puerto rico, washington, d.c., and add to their majority in the senate while doing so. there would be no limit, no constraint, not even a speed bump on what our democratic colleagues could do if they created so-called carve-outs for every bill they dub must-pass legislation. the entirety of the radical left's wish list could become law without having to gain a single republican vote. of course there's one big caveat here. our democratic colleagues can only do that if they retain the majority. as our colleagues know, power is

fleeting and at some point the shoe will always be on the other foot. the sign on senator schumer's door may say majority leader today, but that won't last forever. in a year republicans could hold the majority in both the senate and the house. three years from today we could have a republican president-elect. i'd like to ask my colleagues what happens then? when republicans control the senate, the house and white house as democrats do now, how would our colleagues feel about the new rule book that they've created? will they stand by their decision to silence the minority and ignore the millions of the people, those senators -- of the people those senators represent? not a chance. mr. president, the filibuster is

eliminated, it doesn't just pave the way to our democratic colleagues' agenda. it clears the path for the majority's agenda, whichever party that may be. now, liberal activists may like the idea of nuking the filibuster today, but they'll soon find themselves ruing the day their party broke the senate. the next republican-controlled senate could make the 2017 tax cuts permanent, ensure that blue-state millionaires are required to pay their fair share of federal taxes. it could make sure that there would be investments in border security and immigration enforcement and craft reforms to reduce the immigration court backlog. we could withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities and prioritize the deportation of violent criminals. we could implement a 20-week ban

on abortions and ensure that any baby that survives an abortion receives lifesaving care. we could expand school choice to give students and parents who are options when it comes to a quality education. we could protect our constituents' second amendment rights and establish concealed-carry reciprocity throughout the nation. we could pass right-to-work laws, expand natural gas production, and make even more investments in our national security. in short, future -- a future republican-controlled senate would be able to accomplish a lot, all things to a precedent that our democratic colleagues seek to establish today. and while i would love to see many of these bills that i just mentioned become law, i oppose any effort to eliminate or weaken the legislative

filibuster, just as we did when we were in the majority working with a republican president during the preceding four years. there's no scenario in which a partisan -- in which partisan wins are more important than long-term stability for our laws and our public policy. it's not just the american people who would experience whiplash under this game of ping pong. imagine the chaos our economy would endure if laws were simply changed every couple of years because a new majority comes into place. without some degree of predictability, how could businesses -- small and large alike -- make investments that would pay off in the future and create more jobs and help grow our economy? this is why we need the filibuster for every piece of legislation that comes out of the senate. the much-derided 60-vote

threshold is there to ensure the stability of our country's laws and policies that are not affected by the transitory majorities that we find here in congress. i know the democratic leader and many of our colleagues are moved to action by their political base, and some may actually be worried about having a primary opponent unless they go to the mat trying to eliminate the filibuster. well, some of our colleagues have experienced unbelievable pressure, particularly the senator from west virginia and the senator from arizona, and last night, if the press reports are accurate, when asked whether the majority leader would support a contested primary run against senators manchin and senator sinema, he didn't respond. the senator from vermont,

senator sanders, did respond and said he would consider supporting a primary opponent to the senator from west virginia and the senator from arizona. i would make the point, it was the junior senator from vermont who made that point, not the presiding officer. so, in the democratic party, if you can't vote your conscience anymore, you either have to fall in line or your colleagues will make every effort to try to kick you out. well, i have some news for our friends across the aisle. if they think liberal activists are upset now, they haven't seen anything yet. because if the majority successfully blows up the rules of the senate, the radical left will have a full-on meltdown when republicans gain the majority, which could be as soon as next year. regardless of which party holds the majority, the senate rules should not be bent or broken to

achieve strictly partisan wins. democrats' attempt to blow up the senate is reckless and embarrassingly shortsighted. you wonder if anybody learned anything out of the debates and the nuclear option that was used strictly for judicial nominations, which resulted in three republican nominees being confirmed to the supreme court during the last president's term of office. later today all one hundred senators will go on the record. each member will vote on whether to silence 50 senators and the tens of millions of people that those of us in the majority represent. all of my republican colleagues support the filibuster, even when we have received a lot of pressure, like the senator from arizona and the senator from west virginia have had, from people in their own political party, including the president of the united states, because we

have stood in favor of that requirement because of the stabilizing force that it provides. and, again, forcing us to do something that doesn't necessarily come natural, and that is to work together and build bipartisan consensus. don't get me wrong. it's hard in this polarized country to work together and find common ground. but it's essential that we continue to do so where we can. our democratic colleagues used to agree. in fact, it's been less than five years since 27 of our current democratic colleagues signed a letter arguing that the filibuster should be preserved. we'll see if those colleagues and many others who have defended the filibuster end up saving to the radical left and their political base -- in their political base and vote to blow up the senate.

for the sake of the american people, the economy, and the long-term stability of the government, i hope this ends up being another failed vote. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia, senator kaine. mr. kaine: i am so glad to be on the floor discuss ago most important topic. i want to say particularly i'm glad to follow my friend from texas. the senior senator of texas is a friend. we have traveled together. we have legislated together. but friends can disagree, and on this topic, we disagree strongly. life throws ironies at us. the senator from texas inhabits the seat that was held by lyndon baines johnson. lyndon janes johnson, the towering figure who helped usher through the voting rights act of 1965. i inhabit a seat that for years

was called the byrd seat in the senate, inhabited for 50 years by harry byrd sr. and h.r.ory byrd, jr., who were known for their -- and harry byrd, jr., who were known for their frequent extended filibusters on this floor against voting rights. l.b.j. is held in high regard today because of his passion for voting rights. harry byrd -- i was at the state capitol in richmond on saturday to see our new governor inaugurated and i walked by the spot on the capitol grounds where a harry byrd statue used to stand. it was removed six months ago. the harry byrd middle school in henrico county was removed. the harry byrd, jr. school of business in winchester, their hometown, had that name stripped

off the building a few years ago. i stand to follow the senator who holds l.b.j.'s seat, the senator from the byrd seat to today argue that the time has come for us to protect voting rights. i'm just happy to be on the floor talking about a bill. i mean, for gosh's sake, we've been able to talk about voting rights in morning hour. i've been here since january 120-- january 2013. this is the first time we've been able to get a bill on the floor to talk about voting rights. i going to admit something that will not surprise you because you know me. i am incredibly naive. at age 63 i am still incredibly naive. i came to the senate in 2013. one of the first things had a happened was the supreme court of the united states struck down the preclearance provision of the voting rights act in the

shelby v. holder case. it happened when i'd been here about six months. and the supreme court said, but congress can fix this. preclearance is fine. you just shouldn't use it geographical requirement that dates back to 1965. just come up with a new standard for which jurisdictions should have to preclear voting changes and make it even steven. so we quickly did come up with something. you only have to get preclearance if you've had a history of voting rights problems in the last ten years. if not, no preclearance. we'll treat every district exactly the same. we came up with it and we went to republicans. and we went to republicans knowing they were a great voting rights party. the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment -- women's vote; happened in a democrat administration but with republican support, the 18th amendment, 18-year-olds can

vote. it wouldn't have happened without rock-solid republican support. it was always reauthorized with republican support. so at this moment when the act is gutted, we go to republicans and say, all you have to do is be consistent with the history of your party and help us fix the voting rights act. one in the house, in the senate. where's this 150-year history of supporting voting rights? only one, only the senior senator from alaska, senator murkowski, would join in this efforts. i was so naive. i was so naive. but we're here today and we have an opportunity. why are we here? we know why we're here. after preclearance was struck down, there began to be an escalating avalanche of laws to make it harder for people to vote. then we had a president who did

a frontal assault on democracy itself, demeaning the democracy, attacking election officials, trying to dig up dirt on a presidential opponent from a foreign country, refusing to concede, filing meritless lawsuits, bring about threats against election officialsment, -- election officials, violence in the capitol, against the members, against the staffers, against the capitol police, against our democracy, repeated efforts in states across the country to roll back, violent threats against election officials that persist even to today. that's why we're here. we are standing exactly in the same spot as that senate stood in 1965. disenfranchise efforts coalesced by a galvanizing action of violence -- the beating of john lewis on the edmund pettus

bridge in selma, alabama. we had an attack on this democracy, the physical attack on january 6. the time to act is now. let me respond to some comments i've heard from comments this morning, particularly senator cornyn. you've heard again and again this theme that the bills we are attempting is a federal takeover of elections. they use that, federalizing ex-elections. so -- federalizing of elections. so here comes the history part of my speech. both senators durbin and klobuchar have referred to this and read it. the times, place, and manner of holding elections sfor for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. how many times -- how many times

in the constitution can you read the phrase "at any time?" the constitution gives enormous powers to congress in article one. enormous powers to the president in article 2. powers to the judiciary in article 3. s to powers to states, powers to voters. it's sort of assumed when those powers are given they can be exercised at any time. but in one occasion, in one occasion only, the framers decided we really better spell outty" any time." the only use of that phrase in the constitution is to put an exclamation point essentially after the notion that congress must be able to act at any time to alter or make regulations with respect to federal vote. senator cornyn said that 94% of people were happy after the november 2020 elections.

then why has the g.o.p. decided to systematically weaken the vote, take votes away, put obstacles in the path, kick out duly sworn election officials, and put decision-making in other people's hands? senator cornyn said this was a partisan effort. partisan? partisan? one of the chapters of our bill is nonpartisan redistricting. that's partisan? another part of our bill is complete transparency in all campaign contributions. how is that partisan? go poll any republican-democrat -- republican, democrat, independent populous about what they link about transparent contributions, it's overwhelmingly popular. we've made some of these changes in virginia, thank goodness that this bill would allow. we just had a governor's race and turnout went up by 20% and a republican won.

it was good for democracy. this is not a partisan bill, even if the republicans won't stand up for it. finally, the republican leader and senator cornyn started off with a lengthy well, why won't you work on other stuff, like stuff about covid, stuff about the economy. my memory is pretty good. i think we were here in march dealing with a significant bill that was about vaccinations and covid and support for small businesses and a whole series of things, hospitals, education. how many republicans voted for that bill, the american rescue plan, you know, the one that was covid and -- none. yeah, why don't we pay attention to some other stuff? well, we have been generally with little support. i'll close and say this.

congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. at any time. if not after the supreme court cuts the heart out of the voting rights act, when? if not after an avalanche of state legislation carving back voting rights, when? if not after a violent attack unprecedented in the history of this country on the capitol of the united states to disenfranchise 80 million people and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, when? if not after subsequent big lies leading to action in state legislatures all over this country, when? we may act to protect federal elections at any time. we are here for such a time. and the time to act is now. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the senator from moandz. i'm sorry, the senator from montana didn't have the mike on. go ahead. mr. tester: thank you. i have two questions for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the president pro tempore: without objection. duly noted. mr. tester: mr. president, most of you know i have a real job besides being a united states senator. and that real job includes farming the land which includes spending starting in the spring 12 to 16 hours a day on the tractor. where you get an opportunity after you're going around and round and round to think about anything you want to think about. before i got in this job, i used to do math problems, okay.

since i've gotten in this job, i think about this job when i'm on the tractor. and i think about the united states senate and i think about how over the last 15 years this place has been incredibly dysfunctional and i've been here 15 years. i can't speak to what it was like before that. but it's never worked since i've been here. and the reason it's never worked because i had this idea in my head that being the in the united states senate would be a place we we could have debate. the greatest deliberative body, got to be able to have debate. i think i saw senator durbin once almost get into a debate here, maybe twice. but it just simply doesn't happen. and it doesn't happen because we're not forced to do it because you take the easy way out, all you have to do is put a hold on a bill and walk out. in fact, i think it was my

second year here that a senator put a hold on a bill and then went back to his home state. didn't even stick around. i don't think that's what the forefathers had in mind. i think what the forefathers had in mind is to stay here and have a discussion and have a debate. and when people agree, not be disagreeable but try to find common ground. that doesn't happen but rarely. and so you ask yourself what can be done about it. and i've had the opportunity over the last three months to work pretty extensively with my friend senator king and senator kaine and senator manchin and talk about ways we can move forward in a way that encourages people to come to the floor and debate. and i think there's a proposal to do exactly that.

this is a carve-out today but the truth is there's a proposal to protect minority rights and encourage people to come here and debate. we ought to be doing that. it isn't nuking the body. it's not destroying the united states senate. it means we get a chance to stand here in front of these cameras and challenge one another because we have to, because the rules force us to do that, not to go home to our home state. not to put a hold on a bill or a person and then not say a word why, not to be able to justify why you're doing that on the floor. so i see this in a little different light than has been described by someone across the aisle. i don't think this is blowing the senate up at all. if the forefathers looked at the senate today, they would sit there and shake their heads and

say what has gone wrong. and i think what's gone wrong is we've gotten lazy. it's the truth. truthfully the last place i want to be is on the floor of the united states senate trying to justify my position. i mean, that's a lot of work. it takes time. it takes effort. we ought to be forcing people to do that. that's part of this debate we're having here today. and we ought to realize that there's not a single member of this body on either side of the aisle that wants to blow this place up. they might describe it that way, but the truth is everybody knows that serves in this body that this body doesn't function as the united states senate. it doesn't function. we don't do what we need to do. we don't empower committees. we don't make sure our chairmen are doing what they need to do, and we don't debate on the united states senate floor anymore. and we haven't for 15 years and

probably a heck of a lot longer. i happen to sit in the seat of mike mansfield. i don't think he would look and say this doesn't work and we ought to change the rules because it doesn't work so well. i think he would say you know would? we need to make some changes. things have changed. we've got cameras we didn't have in 1976. we have folks that come on the floor and raise a lot of money on this floor by talking to those cameras instead of talking to one another about what's important here, about the policies that we need to take up. so that's the first thing. i don't think we should be afraid about adjusting the filibuster to make the united states senate work. i think it's the right thing to do. not blowing it up but making some adjustments to make it work. now, let's talk about voting rights for just a moment. i believe there's 19 states in the united states right now that on a pure partisan basis have

changed the way votes are -- either access to the polls or the way votes are counted when they're done. i can't imagine anybody in here when you look at that -- and it's all been done on a partisan basis by republican legislatures -- if you would look at that, you would say boy, this is moving our democracy forward. you know, when i got in the state senate in 1999, i worked with a very conservative republican on the state administrations committee to make voting easier. we worked together. we both had the same ideas in mind that we wanted to make voting easier in montana and we did it. now it's a different world out there, and i really don't know why. and let me give you an example. when i ran in 2018, there was a record number of votes cast in montana and i won. a democrat won. in 2020 there was even a larger

number of votes that were cast in 2020 and a republican won. this isn't about advantage for democrats or advantages for republicans. this is about making it so everybody can have their voices heard. something that's very basic to this country, by the way. we stand up here and talk on the floor about people have sacrificed for the riepts and free -- rights and freedoms for this country and one of them is the freedom to vote. lives have been sacrificed for it yet we want to limit certain groups of people from voting. in montana, for example, they've said that student i.d.'s, college student i.d.'s won't work as an i.d. to go to the polling place. are you kidding me? first of all, what kind of message are you sending to the young people that are going to be running this show and probably a heck of a lot better than we are in just a few years. you're saying your voice doesn't count. you want to talk about

disenfranchising? this is crazy. it doesn't make any sense. and i know it's really hard for me to think how do you justify -- how do you justify saying this is a good thing to have happen? voter registration, okay. now, we're in this job. we all do this every day. we think about it every day. so voter rental straition is probably no -- voter registration is probably no big deal to us, but to working people that have to pay the bills? have to take half a day off to work to register when you can't do it on election day? that's a big deal. and we all stand up here and we always say, you know, we're for working families. they're the heart beat of this country and they are. but the truth is what message are we sending to them when we say no, you know what? no more same-day voter rental vision which, by the way, in montana it was the vote of the people that the legislature a year ago right now repealed a vote of the people on same-day registration.

so what message are we sending those folks? my good friend raphael warnock, senator warnock, talks about standing in line for eight or ten hours to vote and first of all, i don't know that i have the will to stand in line personally for eight or ten hours to vote. i complain when they moved the polling place three miles from my house to 15 miles from my house. but to stand in line for eight to ten hours? i mean, that's a commitment to vote. and now we're going to make it tougher and we're making to make it so when there are good samaritans are out there handing out water or soda crackers, we're going to say no, that's illegal and punish them. you're breaking the law and punish them by god knows what? a fine, jail? what is it? this is crazy.

so don't -- we shouldn't be acting like the stuff that's going on in this country right now and has been going on mainly for the last year and my fellow senators have talked about why it's the case, we shouldn't act like it's no big deal. it's a huge deal. if we disenfranchise voters in this country, our democracy is on a slide away from democracy. as my friend agnews king said -- agnus king said many times, it's the exception, not the rule in history. they happen rarely and they happen because people understand the sacrifices it takes. we have sacrifices we need to make in this body. and part of it is we need to ensure everybody has equal access to the polls so that they can vote. it's fundamental to our democracy. that's why we're all sitting here today. if it wasn't fundamental to our democracy, you know what? i'd be doing something else.

i'd be in my office working on papers or something like that. who knows. but the truth is this is fundamental to our democracy. and we could try to, you know, move the conversation and say why aren't we talking about the economy? senator kaine said it very, very well. we've dealt with economic issues. we need to continue with economic issues. we've dealt with supply chain issues with the bipartisan infrastructure bill. we need to continue with supply chain issues as we move forward and we will. but i will tell you if we disenfranchise enough folks from the polls, we won't have a democracy to talk about anything because it's fundamental to our democracy. i would just encourage everybody to take a look at the bill that's presented today, the two bills, and look at it. don't talk about the one that was presented in 2018 or 2019. we can all do that. that distracts from what's really going on. look at the bill. and ask yourself is this really

a federal takeover of elections? it absolutely is not. it's about making it so people can go to the polls and make their voices heard and feel like they're making a difference in the country by voting for the candidates that they want or in some cases voting against the candidates they don't like. and as far as the filibuster goes, times change, things change, and one of the things that's changed in this body is we don't debate anymore. i'm for anything that will get people to the floor so we can debate the issues that are so important to the future of this country. with that, i yield the floor. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i've had an opportunity to listen closely to my friend, senator kaine, who asked the

important question about voting rights about when, when are we going to act? and that is a question -- that is something that each of us need to ask ourselves is when? but i think we also need to keep in mind the how we act, because i think how we act is important. because i think we recognize when we act unilaterally as a party on issues that are of great weight and great political debate in this country, that solutions to these difficult problems come best when we are able to be working together. and i know that we are very fractured in this body, and it has made it hard. but hard does not mean it is impossible. it's only impossible if we give

up and we say it can't be done. to my friend from montana -- and i appreciate the commonsense words of a man of the earth, a good farmer -- amen to what you said about this body and our dysfunctionality. we are not the same senate that i came to close to 20 years ago. i beat you about about five years, six years. we're not that same body. we are not operating in the manner with which i think we really were designed to be; that tempering body, that deliberative body. we're supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, and we don't demonstrate that on any single day out there. but i question whether or not changing the rules actually works to change the attitude,

because that's what i think we've got going on here. the rules have been in place for a long while. it's just how we have chosen to utilize them to our advantage and to the disadvantage of the other side. and that's unfortunate. and i don't know how -- it's much easier, i think, to change the rules than it is to change attitude. it is much easier to do things alone than to try build consensus. just ask any one of the ten of us that worked tirelessly last year to advance a bipartisan infrastructure bill. there were so many points along the way where any one of us or any half of the group could have said, we're done, this is just too hard, we're never going to make progress. but just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible.

the senator from montana urged us all to read this measure before us, the freedom to vote, the john r. lewis act now pending before the senate. it is -- it is a few new things that have been added in, but much of it is what we saw previously with the freedom to vote act. i voted against that motion for cloture when it came before us because i looked at that as being a bill that was overly prescriptive. in my view, it really did work towards nationalizing elections. i come from a state where things are just a little bit different there. you hear me talk about it all the time. part of it is dictated by the geography. part of it is dictated by an indigenous population where the language that is on the ballot

doesn't align with what they speak at home and how we address matters like that. what has happened with this measure in front of us is it has been combined with the john lewis voting rights advancement act, which i have worked on in good faith with good colleagues who i respect enormously. and i appreciate that we've been able to sit down -- in fairness, much of the good work goes to our respective staffs, who sat down and said, all right, can we do a little bit over here? what do we need to do over? we made enough progress that i was certainly willing to vote to advance debate here on the senate floor on that measure. i recognize that not everybody sees the value and the benefits

of preclearance. i recognize what the courts did in shelby. but i also heard, as senator kane said, the courts saying, all right, legislative branch, do something about it now. and so i've been willing to be part of that discussion, not only this congress but in previous congresses where i've joined with chairman leahy, to try to advance that conversation. we haven't been as successful as i would have liked. but i certainly think we made good progress with the john lewis voting rights bill. we had a substitute. as i look through this bill, it looks like much of that substitute has been incorporated, including the native american voting rights act, which he have -- which i've worked hard on, to try to make that as robust as we possibly can. and i've done all this because i do believe, i do believe that this senate should pass a reauthorization of the voting

rights act. but i also believe that it must be a bipartisan effort. it has been 16 years since we last addressed the voting rights act. we need to do more than just talk about it. we need to ensure that the ballot is equal for all americans and free from any discrimination. it's pretty simple for me in that regard. and that wherever you've got uncertainty, wherever you have ambiguity in the laws that govern our federal elections, we need to clarify these. we need to clarify these so there aren't these open questions or perhaps cynical interpretations that would go with them. and so how do you do it because this is all hard stuff. we acknowledge that. we acknowledge that. you really do have to do it coming together to try to hear

the objections. and as i look at the measure that we have before us, i'm not convinced that we're in yet. -- that we're there yet. i'm not convinced that we're there yet with the product that we have. i will absolutely agree that there are some good -- i think there are some important provisions in the matters that we have in front of us, but what we're faced with today -- or later today -- is going to be a take-it-or-leave-it vote and then an effort to change how we approach hard issues. before i get into my comments in that vein, i do want to look and highlight what i think are some of the positives that we have in place, because i think of a collaborative effort but because we think -- because i think we've got shares views on what

some of these might be. i think some of these could anchor us in a more broadly supported bill. the bill features public notice of changes to state voting rules for federal elections. i think we're all saying, yeah, this is important. this is common sense. changes to electoral district boundaries for elections at all levels. information about precincts and polling places for federal elections. these are things that i think there's consensus here. we've got stronger protections, necessary protections for voters during registration and voting, as well as protections for election workers, polling places, election infrastructure. the measure emphasizes the security of voting systems. i think we recognize again this is imperative. it has to be a priority. if we're going to maintain confidence in election results, we have to have this. important to me -- it extends

the bilingual election requirements of the voting rights act for five years. it also includes the native american voting rights act, again, that we worked on in the indian affairs committee to address, unfortunately, very long-standing obstacles to voting for american indians and alaska natives. so there's good stuff, if you will, good measures that are contained within the bill in front of us. but we also have some negatives. i think you heard my colleagues detail many of them. not only negatives within the text but in terms of this partisan effort that we have in front of us. we've got a measure that is 753 pages long. we can move through that. we are not going to say just because it's big doesn't mean that we can't do that. again -- but it has come over to

us ace -- through a shell vehicle. it's now directly on the legislative calendar. you've got, again, this combination of two bills plus a few add-ons. but unfortunately neither of these, even with my support on the john lewis voting rights act, neither one of these had sufficient support to pass cloture. and since then we haven't done anything -- i shouldn't say anything because there were a few additional provisions that were included; i don't want to dismiss that. but not much has been done to build support cooperatively in this body for the two combined measures other than to build pressure to not change the legislation, not to modify it, not to gain compromise but to change the rules to take it up.

this is a big bill, with you one of the things that we don't have contained in it that many of us have been talking about now for a period of time is we don't address the electoral count act, which i think most of us would playbook at this and say, this is something that he had -- which i think most of us would look at this and say, this is something that needs to be revised. we don't need a repeat of 2020 when by all accounts, our last president, having sought the -- having lost the election, sought to change the results. we need to address this. the bill before us has some gaps, but at the same time that it has gaps, it's also pretty prescriptive in many areas. some of the previous objections

that i have made to the freedom to vote act remain. i share with my colleagues -- i want, i want us to protect voting rights. i think we should all want to protect voting rights. but my concern, as we look at this measure, is that it's going to make any kind of a change, any kind of a change that states would make to their election laws for any reason, extremely difficult to do without being directly challenged in court. and maybe -- maybe that's the goal here. but what it does do, in my view, is deprive states of the flexibility to design and implement their own laws, as the constitution provides. and, again, i look to my state for some of those very specific

examples, where if i have a small, remote village with perhaps 100 voters, and i have a prescription in federal law that says a polling place must be open and available for a period of a week to ten days with two weekends, if if you're out in a village and you're living a subsistence lifestyle, saturday and sunday don't mean anything to you. it's when are the animals moving? when are the fish moving? let's not put limits on our states so that they can't -- they can't enhance opportunities for all voters. so federalization is not the right answer here, and again, whether we're talking voting rights or other issues, typically in my state, a

one-size-fits-all approach is not the right effort. so we've got to find an appropriate balance that doesn't result in the a takeover of states' ability to run their own elections and how we are able to achieve that balance is important. so as i talk about my views on the legislation that we have before us, i'm very, very well aware that the results of this effort to push voting rights was unfortunately determined before we began this debate. we're going to come to a vote on a motion to invoke cloture. we know what's going to happen. it's going to fail due to a lack of sufficient support, and then we're going to face some kind of a vote to change the senate's rules and weaken a legislative filibuster, which we also

understand will fail. i guess the point here is to get folks on record. and that will happen. but what have we accomplished? what have we accomplished for the people that we serve? instead of allowing us as a body to say, okay, what are we going to do to address this, we have brought cross-party relationships to yet another low, perhaps an unprecedented low. i was part of a very troubling conversation last evening, and it was shared that depending on which side you're on in this body, today on this issue, you're either a racist or a hypocrite. really?

really? is that where we are? i find that so, so hard and so troubling because when it becomes that deep and that divided where we cannot, we cannot have the debate that my friend from montana says we nee- but if we are so, so divided, this is not right. this is not good for the health of the body. but what has happened here is we have devolved into a debate over voting rights versus voting rules. you've got part of the country that thinks this bill is about protecting the right to vote. another part believes that this bill will do nothing but

undermine it. and so we're both sitting in a situation, i think, where both sides are now set to cast doubt on elections if they don't win. and that takes us to a very troubling place, mr. president. because when people doubt whether their vote matters, when they doubt whether that individual who is sitting in the white house was freely and fairly elected, they will doubt all decisions, they will doubt what we do here, and they will doubt their own democracy. and that is troubling for our nation. so i refuse to believe that this

is the best that we can do right now. as i said, this is hard, but hard is not impossible. i thinki think that we can, if e operating in good faith, as there are so many in this body who do that on a daily basis -- it doesn't get noted because, quite honestly, it is far more interesting to write about the fur that flies around here rather than us doing things together. but the effort to change our rules, to pass legislation on a party-line basis is not going to help us here. it's not going to help us here. i think that we need to do everything that we possibly can to avoid further polarizing voting rights and election

reforms. it may be too late, i don't know. it may be just too late, but i think we have to try. i think that we have to try. and i think that there is an effort to try to do just that. there's a good handful of people in this body on both sides of the aisle that have been talking this through, kind of following the model of what we did with the bipartisan infrastructure group. when we first started that effort, nobody believed that we would be successful with that. probably most listening to the debate that's going on now, will go on later all throughout the afternoon don't believe we can do anything. but let's prove them wrong. let's prove them wrong. let's sit down with those who have made that commitment. we've heard it here on the

floor. made that commitment to work through some of these issues, some of these areas of common ground that i think we can build a base from, and work to build a foundation that will be enduring for this country when it comes to election reform and voting rights. because, mr. president, i fear greatly that if we, if we are to advance measures that are solely, strictly party line -- and that's what eliminating the legislative filibuster will allow us to do -- we will take the easy way out. senator tester suggested that maybe we're getting a little

legislatively lazy around here. we will get even lazyer because we don't have to do the hard work of trying to find consensus election, elections and voting rights are so important. we understand that. let's commit to resolving the issues that divide us, that will not only help bring this congress closer together, but that just possibly, just hopefully -- and maybe i too am naive, senator kaine, but that just possibly can help heal this country, because that's what we need right now. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, we are here today to talk about our democracy, and here's what i know about how a democracy actually works. i come out here to the senate floor every day, just like every other member of this chamber, and i fight for what i believe in, and i use my voice to do that, and i use my vote to do that. that same is true for every citizen of this country. they use their vote to say what they want for the future of our democracy to look like. but right now states across the country are taking away that right. they're taking away their voice. we have to make sure that every vote is never taken away, that no voice is taken away, or we're going to lose the

democracy in the future. and here's what's happening right now. republican-led legislatures are making it hard to vote for certain groups of people, primarily black americans, native americans, young people, and people with disabilities, just because they might vote for a democrat. this is a national coordinated effort to keep republicans in power at every level of government by keeping americans away from the ballot box, by keeping americans from being able to use their voice and their vote. specifically, republican-led legislatures are passing legislation to make it harder for people to vote by mail, drastically eliminating the availability of secured drop boxes so people can safely drop off their ballot, and reducing

early voting hours or days. and it's all done to demoralize and discourage people, working people, from making their voices heard and to make the democratic process so much more cumbersome. that's a mom who is juggling child care and schooling during this pandemic who's going to look for options to get that ballot in, to get her voice in, to get her vote in, and she won't be able to find a way to do that with all of her responsibilities. maybe there's not a drop box near her, or maybe early voting hours have been cut short or maybe the new rules of voting by mail are just too complicated. because of those barriers that are being erected in republican legislatures, that mom will not get to advocate for her cidz -- kids or her community with her vote. too many republicans want it to work exactly like that. and those far-right politicians also want to pick their own voters, literally drawing lines

between communities to reinforce partisan divides. congressional democrats are working to do the opposite. instead of letting politicians draw maps to rig the outcomes in favor of one party or another, we just want to end partisan gerrymandering. because let's be clear, people should pick their representatives in the united states of america, not the other way around. and what we're seeing happening across the country is undemocratic, and in no uncertain terms it is a threat to this democracy. and if you don't believe me, look at what the former president said just this past weekend. donald trump, the leader of the republican party, continues, as we know, to spread the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him. he is working hard out in the open to convince every american that he can that our free, fair election in 2020 was illegitimate. but even more concerning is the

former president's explicit, stated determination to rig the outcomes of future elections. in a recent recorded message, donald trump said, and i quote, we have to be a lot shearp the next time -- sharper the next time when it comes to counting the vote. sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate. more important than the candidate? h what donald trump means in this case was clear. he wants his loyalists to oversee our elections to make sure the outcome is always in his favor. i mean, just sit with that. we're not talking about hypotheticals here. the leader of the republican party wants to toss democracy out the window and change the outcome of any election results he doesn't like. mr. president, history is sitting on our shoulders right now. the american people are looking to us for a way to move forward and protect the right to vote,

and this is it. and all that's standing in our way is senate procedure, senate procedure that a majority of us voted last month to change. now, i understand the reluctance around reforming the filibuster. i do. i understand we want this institution to work, to be bipartisan when it comes to tackling big challenges, but here's the deal -- i don't think that carving out a path to pass voting rights on a simple majority precludes that. in fact, i think it's past time that we reform the filibuster to make sure the world's greatest deliberative body actually deliberates the issues and challenges that are facing the american people. but today senate procedure keeps us from that kind of deliberation. senate rules, not unlike the partisan joirmding we're seeing in -- gerrymandering we're

seeing in states across the country pushes democrats further in their corners rather than towards collaboration making it easy to block legislative action and nearly impossible to start it. that means americans do not get to see where elected officials stand on issues as consequential as protecting the right to vote, to even have the debate we're having right now, we had to dig through senate rules and quite literally repurpose a bill that allows nasa to lease its property. otherwise we wouldn't even be standing here on the floor today to have this discussion about voting rights. that does not make sense. it should not be so difficult to make it so the public can see where each of us stands. and let's remember, these voter suppression laws are all being passed mainly on a partisan basis, with simple majorities. some have suggested that if we believe these laws are

unconstitutional, we should fight them in the courts. take our arguments all the way to the supreme court. but remember, there are three supreme court justices, all appointed by a simple majority of this senate without the filibuster republicans want to appoint judges without a filibuster standing in their way. they want republican state lawmakers to be able to surpass voter sue -- to pass voter suppression laws, but democrats can't vote with a simple majority. we're talking about making election day a federal holiday, making sure everyone can vote by mail, ending gerrymandering. these are simple reforms with tremendous significance for our

country's future as a democracy and the path to getting them is simple and straightforward too. what each of us has to do is decide our democracy comes before senate procedure and then cast our votes. i've made my decision, and here's what i believe. we cannot let the filibuster stop us from protecting every american's right to vote. if it's the filibuster or democracy, i'll choose democracy. if the senate rules or a senate that works for the american people, i'll choose a senate that works, and i urge my colleagues with all of my heart and for the sake of this democracy to do the same. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: thank you, mr. president.

i'm here today to address democratic structure and thereby destroy the greatest deliberative body. it would substantially harm our nation. abolishing the filibuster would end the senate's unique role in the senate, which has kept us on a steady course for a more perfect union. this unique role is to make is sure that federal legislation covering all 50 states requires careful debate and broad support, often reflecting compromise so that american policy is durable and lasting. that way, as the senior senator from arizona put it, in her courageous remarks last week, with we avoid, quote, wild reversal, every few years in the basis of fair majorities which would make our economy far less

stable. democrats know how integral the filibuster is to the government. democrats said it themselves. eliminating the filibuster would be, quote, the end of the senate. that's a direct quote from the senior senator from illinois in 2018. the democratic leader, before assuming his current position, said that eliminating the filibuster would, quote, be a doomsday for democracy. and president biden, when he was senator biden, said that to eliminate the filibuster would be, quote, the arrogance of power. apparently he's now suffering from such arrogance. until they took control of the senate last year, most democrats passionately advocated for preserving this critical senate rule because it enables our senate government to function and reflect the will of the people. in 2017 when there was a republican in the oval office and in the senate, 32 democrats,

including them senator harris, signed a letter supporting the filibuster. during the trump administration, democrats routinely used the filibuster to block republican legislation, including bills on police reform, border security, and late-term abortions, important bills that impacted life, sovereignty and community safety. certainly bills that republicans wanted to enact. when met with a filibuster, republicans didn't change the rules on a completely partisan basis. republicans didn't tear down this institution in order to score political points and republicans didn't use demagoguery to have a fake hysteria to do so. now that democrats are in majority, nearly every one of those democrats has reversed himself or herself with a few

exceptions. why? because this is about one thing -- power. if it's a bill they oppose, but essential to save democracy when it's a bill they support. it's about power. there doesn't seem to be a power grab that's too extreme for the modern left, whether it's abolishing the filibuster, packing the supreme court, or making the district of columbia a state. there's no tiengs that they aren't willing to destroy. this is shameful because democrat leaders' past statements show they know that destroying the senate would be disastrous for our nation. let's call this what it is. it's worse than a solution in search of a problem. it's a power grab in search for a crisis. in this case, they had to manufacture a crisis to justify the power grab. they've been trying to pass this bill for years.

democrat operatives first introduced a version of this bill on january 24, 2017, four days after president trump was elected to office. it was part of their scorch earth policy, clinging to the false claims of russian collusion. they have pushed this fantasy. they use whatever justification that is most convenient at the moment. in 2017, it was president trump and russia. in 2020, it was the pandemic, and now, it's the claim that returning to pre-pandemic voting crisis is the end of democracy. this election takeover would include taxpayer-funded campaigns and prob hibts state voter i.d. laws. what does nullifying voter i.d. laws and handed out tax-payer

funded campaign dollars have to do with voting rights? last night the senior senator from virginia said that republicans led the way on voting rights. so why not now? because it's not about protecting voting rights, it's about protecting politicians. this isn't the 14th amendment, it's washington democrats 14th attempt to take over elections in all 50 states. americans want laws that make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. such laws currently exist through youout the country. that's why we had record voting in 2020, including in my home state of tennessee. ask yourself, with more americans voting more than ever before, why is this democrats' top priority? why are they willing to destroy the senate to do it? what is the real reason of

ignoring real crisis cease, a -- crises, the collapse of afghanistan and increased authoritarian aggression around the world. real problems. democratic leaders have tuned out those concerns and taking no action to address them. think about it, our country has the highest inflation rate in 40 years and the senate banking committee has not held a single hearing examing this topic since it began in 2021. to avoid those issues they created a fake crisis to take over elections, a desperate attempt at self-preservation because americans are rejecting their agenda. that's the real reason democrats are pushing this. it is about protecting the power of politicians here in washington. elections should be determined by the voters, not by the

politicians. last week president biden traveled to georgia to demonize all americans who don't submit to this hyper partisan political agenda. he rantd that americans -- ranted that those who supported free, fair, locally run elections are somehow bigots. in support of the scheme, the leader said that others don't have filibuster rules, so why should the senate? federal legislation governs all 50 states as opposed to state legislation that affects one state. it requires broader support, more than the bayer majority in a 50-50 senate. this is the greatest nation on earth and the senate is its come pass. ensuring america's stability is the very purpose of the united states senate. sadly, this election power grab is just the start.

with the filibuster gone democrats would be free to enact mast amnesty, pack the supreme court, pack the senate, punish law enforcement officers and much, much more. it was my hope coming into this new year that the senate would focus on what we were elected to do. listen to the american people and address their concerns, yet, the recent rhetoric of democratic leader has disspelled, they -- the serious problems we face as a nation demand it. americans want us to do our jobs. abolishing the senate's rule that guarantee debate and compromise would be, quote, the end of the senate as the senior senator from illinois put it. it would do irreparable harm to the fabric of our government and the cohesion of our nation. i hope my colleagues can maintain their previous long-standing support for

preserving the senate's rule and prevent the move to steamroll half of the senators and the public they represent. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: thank you, mr. president, colleagues, with senator kaine as my witness, i, like many of you, had an opportunity to stand here yesterday to begin to speak on the issues before us, the need for this urgent and critical voting rights legislation and our opportunity to can act this week in the spirit of the holiday we celebrated on monday, martin luther king day. before i get into my substantive remarks, i feel compelled to respond to a couple of the items that senator hagerty made.

if he would like to stand and listen, that would be his choice. there are other pressing issues at hand, he said, things like the economy. last i checked, because of our actions last year, especially the investments in the american rescue plan, wages are up and unemployment is at record lows. democrats are taking action. we've been called out on what we've been doing to address the supply chain issues, we acted. the jobs act has been signed by the president and in los angeles, the percentage of containers waiting to be picked up is drastically down. democrats are taking action. covid, we are still dealing with this once in a century gloabl pandemic. imagine how much better of a better position we would be in,

how many lives we would have saved if the trump administration took responsible action much earlier in this pandemic. and imagine how many fewer deaths we would have to count if more people would get vaccinated. senator hagerty, like many republicans, says when it comes to voting in elections, we should be focusing on making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. who wouldn't agree with that? here's the truth. here's reality. we know what it takes to make it easier to vote. that's what we're calling for from the freedom to vote act. i will go through specifics. but they miss the point. the evidence is there. the data is out there. massive voter fraud doesn't exist. voter fraud is exceedingly rare in america. we have the harder to cheat part

down if only republican senators and legislatures and governors for that matter would embrace the proven reforms that make it easier for eligible americans to cast their ballot in our democracy. but the most egregious, i have to say, when senator hagerty suggested changes to election law should only be done after careful debate and broad support , i might have said the same things to governors and legislators in georgia, in texas, in arizona and elsewhere. i will go through some examples in the course of my presentation. colleagues, as i have had opportunity to share with many of you, you know that before i joined the senate last year, i served for six years as california's chief elections officer. i served as california's

secretary of state. the largest state in the nation with the largest and most diverse electorate in the nation and in that role i had a chance to oversee a side of election administration that most americans and most united states senators never really experienced. former state, secretaries of state serving in this body -- senator blunt, senator brown, senator manchin, myself the most recent. my experience, by the way, included overseeing the administration of the november 2020 presidential election in the most populous state in the nation. so i want to take a few minutes to explain exactly how the freedom to vote act will help all voters and respond to some more of the claims i've heard about this bill from our

republican colleagues. the purpose of the freedom to vote act is to give every eligible american more choices about how and when they cast their ballot. no matter where you live, no matter which state, no matter which zip code, no matter your political party preference, you deserve multiple, safe, secure, accessible options for registering to vote and for casting your ballot. isn't that what we all supposedly learned in high school government class, that our democracy works best when as many people participate? the will of the people, not the will of the few, not the will of the privileged few. the will of the people. but today voters in different states face different paths to the ballot box, some more

difficult than others, needlessly. and sometimes, what some may view as a small obstacle can add up to big deterrence to participation depending on where you live, depending on where you work, gengd -- defending on your disability and more. the freedom to vote act will help all americans by guaranteeing all americans the same baseline to the ballot. and note, this is by no means a federal takeover of elections. i appreciate that several of my colleagues have gone through the history of congress acting to protect the right to vote and to improve elections, but the bottom line is to make this point -- with the passage of the freedom to vote act, it is not congress that will be distributing ballots or the federal government that will be collecting ballots and counting ballots.

the election administration will still be local. what we're doing is setting a baseline for access to the ballot for all eligible americans. and, yes, it is appropriate for us to do so. as senator klobuchar, senator peters and others have referenced the constitution, referenced prior congressional action, and i will point out too, it's already been pointed out that in the constitution, the constitution of the united states, the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. that's what we're seeking to do. but i really want to up the ante. [speaking spanish] folks, and i need you to list -- up the ante folks, and i need you to listen to me. the voting rights act, the help america vote act, the national voter registration act, 1993

passed on a bipartisan basis. in it, you will read that it is the duty of the federal, state, and local governments to promote the exercise of the fundamental right to vote. i call your attention to two words -- the duty of government. not the option, not the if you want to, not the may. the duty of government to what? to promote the exercise of the fundamental right to vote. not just to sit back and make sure that elections are run fair and square. not just to, it's up to you, voters, if you want to register to vote. government has a duty to promote the exercise of the fundamental right to vote. so now the specifics of the freedom to vote act and how it

tries to live up to that duty of government to promote. as we all know, you can't vote unless you're registered to vote, and different states have different options for how to register to vote. once upon a time you had to present yourself in person at a county courthouse, right, and then imagine the innovation that it took, the getting out of the comfort zone once upon a time for folks around the country, and we had the audacity to suggest, wait a minute, you can register to vote by mail, or signing a voter registration card under penalty of perjury that your information is true and correct, attesting to your eligibility. some states have only the option of voting through that card or in person. other states have innovated and accepted things like online voter registration. imagine that. or automatic registration,

same-day registration. i'll talk to you in a minute about that. big picture -- why it's important. the numbers are out there, data's out there, who is it that tends to be eligible to vote m america but not registered to vote? disproportionately communities of color, disproportionately young people. but potential voters of color, young people and low-income are disproportionately not registered. so we can either act as was said, we had a duty to promote to increase those registration numbers or not, to live up to the duty, we need to. and if you don't, or make it harder to register to vote or stay registered to vote, who are you disproportionately affecting? so our republicans can deny their intent. we know the true effect of making it harder to register to

vote or to stay registered to vote. so again, different states have different options. in alaska you can register in person, by mail, online, automatic registration. in california, in person, by mail, automatic registration, online, election day, same-day registration. texas, mississippi, only in person or by mail. different states, different rules. everybody deserves the same opportunity. why the value of online voter registration? first of all, it's convenient, right? there's a whole lot that people have become accustomed to doing online. second, for the good government types and the folks who make prudent use of our precious taxpayer dollars, it lowers administrative costs. when you allow voters to register online, it's seamless, quick and easy. i've been to county election offices where you have clerical

staff sitting there with a stack of voter registration cards that they have to read and input by hand. not very efficient. online voter registration increases efficiency. and, by the way, accuracy. i don't have the best penmanship. can you imagine the clerical staff and county offices trying to make out, well how do you spell this name that can be spelled three, four, five different ways? online registration reduces those kinds of errors and cleans up the voting rules and is very cost efficient to implement and has been proven in state after state to be safe, secure, and effective. but should online registration be the only ongoings? no. we shouldn't take away the in-person or paper registration. some states have innovated in the automatic voter registration space where we take advantage of the opportunity, when statistics are interfacing with their -- when citizens are interfating with their

government, particularly the d.m.v. 90% of voters in america will either have a driver's license or state i.d. and what are we asked to provide when we conduct that transaction? mr. president, we're asked to provide our name, our address, our date of birth, a signature attesting to the accuracy of our information. all the same information that we're asked for when we're registering to vote. it's just common sense to utilize that same transaction for eligible citizens to seamlessly be registered to vote at the same time. going back to the national voter registration act which required voter registration opportunity for people when they go to their department of motor vehicles. that was sort of an opt-in model. thanks to technology today you have an opt-out model to not be registered to vote if you choose not to.

but the default is you're added to the voter rolls, similar to online registration. it's been proven safe, it's been proven secure, it's been proven effective. from an elections perspective, it's wonderful. it doesn't just capture previously eligible but unregistered voters now adding them to the voter rolls. if you're already registered to vote, when you renew your license or your i.d., guess what? you're asked is this your current address? now when most people move, they're quick to do the change of address through the post office because they don't want to miss out on their mail. you're updating your driver's license because it has to reflect your current address but a lot of people don't think let me call the county to why you want my registration. this is a seamless effective way of doing that. in california, similar to other states, for every new registered voter enrolled through automatic registration

you had at least two voters that updated or confirmed the accuracy of their registration. isn't that worth doing? isn't that in the interest of election integrity? it's not a partisan idea. states, not just california, states like alaska, represented by republicans, have automatic voter registration. the state of maine who has sent to this body a republican and an independent, has automatic voter registration. here's a true lover of democracy perspective on automatic registration. reverend warnock, i hope you can appreciate this. colleagues, think about it. if you are eligible to vote in america today but not registered , you do not receive the state's voter information guide if your state provides one because you're not on the list. if you're eligible to vote in

america today but not registered, your county doesn't send you your sample ballot to know when election day is where to go and what we're voting on. if you're eligible to vote in america today but not registered, chances are candidates and campaigns aren't knocking on your door or calling you during dinner oring flooding your mailbox trying to engage you in the democratic process. maybe the smart campaigns anded candidates are trying to reach out to more voters, but by and large that doesn't happen. so the sheer addition of adding eligible americans to the voter rolls creates that activity. imagine that. civic engagement. imagine that. participation in our democracy. but why stop there? same-day registration options. what if you miss a prior artificial deadline of registering to vote or updating

your registration and come election day you are still 18 years or older and a citizen of the united states. you deserve the opportunity to have your voice heard in this election. election administrators now how to do this. you can register to vote. whether your registration is automatically processed for jurisdictions that have the technology and history to do so or your registration is held and your ballot is held, you can still cast your ballot, have the county process your registration, and your voice is heard in that election. that's what democracy is supposed to be about. and again, not partisan. 20 states, including republican-leaning states, have already implemented same-day registration, including wyoming, idaho, and utah. california implemented, we technically call it conditional voter registration, but starting in 2017.

in 2020, nearly 270,000 california voters were same-day registrants. 270,000, that's like half a house district. of all in-person california voters in 2020, nearly 10% were same-day registrants. the others -- why such a big number? because so many people voted by mail, voted early, et cetera. and it's not partisan. of the same-day registrants, when registrations were processed, 36.2% were not affiliated with any political party. 32%, democrats. 25% republicans. it's not partisan. it's good for everybody. and as we know, registration is only half the battle. just because somebody may be registered doesn't guarantee that they're going to cast their

ballot. going back to the mbra, folks, government has a duty to promote the exercise of our fundamental right to vote. so we have a duty to implement, and these are proven reforms. on the registration side, what about the casting your ballot side? again, once upon a time you had to show up in person on election day only it between this hour and that hour at one designated location. and this modern economy with so many different types of work schedules, that's not exactly easy. i live in los angeles where we have this thing that we call traffic. so if you have a job no morning 9 to 5 and have to get the kids to and from school and then go to one designated location and stand in line to vote.

there's got to be a better way. and there is. there is voting on election day in person, voting require prior to election day or voting by mail. again, all proven secure, effective ways to cast your ballot. we have a mismatch. california has election and vote by mail and early voting, texas bayer limited vote by mail, connecticut, sorry, election day only, yes, even democratic states have room for improvement. and making the process easier. you shouldn't be hampered because of the demands on your time. family obligations, work obligations, in utah they were early proponents of voting by mail. and other states were in favor of early voting.

we should strive all voters in america the same baseline of access to the ballot. duty to promote. the freedom to vote act, that's exactly what we're trying to do and at this point, let me just reply to something that our colleague, senator cornyn referenced. i wish i could borrow the board he had next to him. you guys see that big 94% he had on the board? he was citing a pew research center report saying that 94% found it easy to vote. that's great. i'll tell you why. because in 2020, because of the threat of the pandemic even states that were resistant prior to affording voters more early voting options knew it was smart to do to reduce crowds and long

lines on election day. that's why states even reluctant prior to 2020 to expand by mail opportunities knew that it was smart to do so so people could vote safely and securely from home and it worked. it was the most secure election in our history with record turnout. so if that's the case, why go backwards? why go backwards? because that's what they are doing in the states that have introduced and passed what 33, 34, and counting laws making it harder to register to vote, harder to cast a ballot, contrary to the mbra. what are the options for early voting, as we mentioned? and we want to be specific. most states have some sort of in-person early voting opportunity. it is inconsistent.

some offer weekends, some don't, some offer before work hours or after work hours, every voter regardless of the demands on time deserve an equal opportunity to vote prior to election day in person if that is your choice. mail voting, again, a lot of states have some sort of mail voting, but we're specific to no excuse voting by mail. voting by maig is proven to be -- mail is proven to be secure, so why have a subset of them -- imagine how much better it can work once we're past the pandemic. mail voting was pioneered in western states, not blue or red. north dakota, south dakota, wyoming, idaho, alaska came along with utah doing all mail

elections in addition to oregon, michigan, washington, and california. let me tell you the beauty of vote by mail, especially when we cover postage. i don't have any stamps in my drawer, very little is done that way. when you get your ballot in the mail, give it back to the postal, your letter carrier and back to the county and it's counted. some people may wonder, though, and we've had this battle across the country and in this chamber about what's happening at the postal service these days? is it the -- is the mail quick or slow, what about the changes of procedures under the postmaster. well, california, colorado has it as well, other jurisdictions across the country, we have a

tool that allows voters to track their ballot through the mail. and, man, this is going to blow your mind. imagine signing up to receive either phone calls, e-mails or text messages on the stat us of your -- status of your ballot through the mail service. wow. mr. padilla, the county just mailed you your ballot. be on the lookout, it's going to come in the next few days. when i return it, confirmation that the postal service has taken possession of it, confirmation from the county when they received my ballot, confirmation when my ballot has been counted. it is a great tool for administrators, you can see what's going on, you can say, the macy's catalog can wait but we have to get the ballots out on time. but for a voter to have the peace of mind to know that my

vote was counted, great for transparency and great for the electoral process. that's what vote by mail provides. similar to voter registration, multiple, safe, secure options, same as it should be with voting. multiple, safe, and secure, proven options all to help us live up to the obligation, the duty to promote the exercise of our fundamental right to vote. that is the opportunity that we have before us today colleagues, either by proving the measure that has been sent over to us from the house that encompasses the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights act, and if we can't do it consistent with our current rules, then

let's amend the senate rules to allow us to do that to protect the right to vote for all americans because our right to vote is under attack. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cassidy: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i ask that john wright peacord, an intern, be granted floor privileges. the president pro tempore: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. cassidy: mr. president, i had the privilege to listen to my colleague from california's speech, and many of the things

spoken by my colleagues and the president with regards to the voting rights bill that is before us today. i want to start off with the president's comments because i think it frames the debate, if you will, in terms of how it's being framed to the american people. the president considered georgia jim crow, their new law jim crow, and it is a manipulative statement, it is a cynical statement. it tries to make people think that 2022 is the same as 1965, laced with incredible irony as our country has seen an african american president, an african american vice president, a lieutenant governor of virginia and kentucky who are african american, and to brag object my own state as long as things are seen through certain prisms, indiana had someone

who -- had someone who was from india and multiple, in fact, louisiana has had a white elected mayor of predominately african american new orleans and a black mayor of predominately white baton rouge. but, no, this statement makes is made to think that we're back in bull connor days. if this is like jim crow, then states like delaware must be jim crow 2.0. georgia has more permissive voting laws than delaware, more early voting days than delaware, no-excuse absentee voting, which the voters of new york rejected. georgia makes ballot drop boxes permanent which was not the case before the pandemic.

much has been made about restricting the number of drop boxes. i've been told that the one county pointed to is a ruby red republican county in which they drop down to one. if this is being done for partisan advantage, my gosh, they are not doing a very good job of partisan maneuvering. but i would argue that this bill is a wonderful example of partisan in a niewferg. what does it -- maneuvering. what does it do? it is a federal takeover of elections. the innovation that the previous speaker my colleague from california was speaking of now has to run the gamut of a federal official who says yeah or nay, it has -- who -- what self-ropting donor would give money online, but because of this law, they have a chance.

it bans voter i.d. laws. there is this myth that states are putting up ownerus laws that -- ownerus laws. courts reject these laws and do not ask that they use a state-issued i.d. to say so is manipulative in the worst way, courts decide the threshold and courts decide what is reasonable and is unreasonable and to suggest otherwise one more time is an attempt to manipulate people into thinking that 2022 is 1965 with all of the implications thereof and all the harm it does to our body politic. shame. it also allows unlimited ballot harvesting, which i think california might be the only state to have in place where you can go to a homeless sheltered and have people -- shelter and

have people sign up who might be addicted, mentally ill, brain damaged and have them sign for a certain candidate. you can imagine a well-paid activist because this bill allows activists to be paid. discard the ballots which are not for her candidate and keep only those for their own candidate. this bill requires that all 50 states have it. whereas north carolina, they actually booted a candidate because he used ballot harvesting. it prohibits states from cleaning up their voter rolls. now, somehow this is wrong. i come from louisiana, a state hit by hurricane katrina in 2005, and after 2005, it is a tragedy for my state, but we had tens of thousands of people who moved to other states. now at some point they

registered to vote in atlanta or houston or dallas and our secretary of state went back and said, you're on a voter roll in louisiana and you're on a voter roll in georgia. it appears that you're now paying taxes in georgia. we're going to drop you from our rolls. is thinking wrong with that? is anything wrong with pointing out that somebody is registered to vote in two different states? and it doesn't say you're paying taxes there so we're going to remove you from our rolls here. lastly i will say it puts democrats in charge of a neutral legislation enforcing voter laws. as soon as republicans take charge again, we're going to do the same thing back to the other side. we're going to attempt to manipulate voting laws to our advantage and it is not above either party to do that.

so i hate to use this word, but to sanctimoniously declare that partisanship is behind us and these laws will be put in place and forever after we're going to live harmoniously is to not understand washington, d.c., where every edge is sought and whenever it is sought it is exploited to keep your particular party in power. and i say this as a republican, i don't trust my party any more than i trust their party. i trust the states and the courts to oversee them. but this bill usurps that responsibility. now, you can say that maybe this power grab is merely in place to distract from real issues. and there is something to be said for that. we're debating this whether or not to require all 50 states to allow ballot harvesting when we have the highest rate of inflation than we've had in over 40 years and in which russians

are about to invade ukraine apparently, and in there is people pouring across our southern border and there's a looming humanitarian crisis in afghanistan and covid response kind of being caught up with, not being preemptively addressed, and we're discussing this. let me mention one more thing, mr. president, the filibuster. i was in an better view today about the surprise medical billing bill. my colleague from new hampshire i think was in the chamber earlier, helped put that together. multiple colleagues ended up coming together on that. took us two to three years to get it done. surprised medical billing. as of january 1 of this year if you get a surprise medical billing, there is a 1-800 number to call and you get help. why did it take us two years? we had to listen to stakeholders. we had to get legislation that worked for all.

we had to go to this republican, that democrat, this committee in the senate, that committee in the house working with a broad coalition, even maybe at the end it's slipping away but we managed to pull it back together, and we passed surprise medical billing and it was better because of that process. now that's in contrast to a bill in which a majority of democrats in the house and the senate with the president can force it through without any input from republicans. from the 50% of the united states that voted for the other side. let's guess whose advantage that bill is going to be for? didn't take much to imagine. and what mitt romney said on a sunday morning show, did the white house ever call you about this voting bill and mitt romney said never called me. that made it clear there was no effort to make this bipartisan. now, we're going to break this

200-year-old filibuster that requires us to come together to find common ground, that gives us bills that are stronger because of it because of a desire for partisan advantage. and knowing that once we break it and republicans take it back, we're going to use it the same way. this is wrong. this is wrong for our country. it is wrong for our institution. and i suppose that's why 16 of my democratic colleagues signed a letter last year when, by the way, republicans were in control, saying that we should preserve the filibuster. it was recently stated there's a disease of division infecting our country. that's true. and blowing up the filibuster removes one of the last things that makes us come together. and that is wrong and that will be tragic however, however it is

framed. with that, mr. president, i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. a senator: request a brief time to respond since my name was invoked by senator cassidy -- got to give republicans craft on the terminology, ballot harvesting. let me tell you specifically what he's saying. different states have different rules and histories. mr. padilla: in my talk i talked about vote by mail, right. in california we've seen the wisdom of every eligible voter automatically receiving a ballot in the mail with multiple options for how to return their ballot, including in person if that's their choice. through the postal service if that's their choice. through ballot drop boxes if that's their choice. if after all that, in person, early voting, election day, vote

by mail, postal service, drop boxes, if after all of that a voter decides for themselves that they need or would like assistance with returning their ballot, that's the voter's prerogative. imagine that. asking a family member, a neighbor, a friend can you do me a favor? can you make sure this gets to -- a mailbox or the polling place in time for my vote to be counted? and, yes, there's a requirement in california that if you are assisting a voter with returning their vote by mail ballot, you too have to sign that return envelope, the official return envelope and your relationship with the voter relative, friend, neighbor, et cetera. imagine that, empowering voters to decide for themselves how to return their ballot.

that's what it is. they'll call it ballot harvesting because once again, republicans are -- making it harder to register to vote, stay registered to vote and actually cast their ballots. mr. president, i just wanted to clarify what it is we're talking about here. i yield the floor. the president pro tempore: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, i appreciate the clarification from my colleague from california. mr. president, let me say what a privilege it is to have the opportunity to make this speech in front of you, mr. president, the fifth longest serving senator in the history of the united states senate, somebody who has been in the senate for 46 years. i was 11, mr. president, when you came to the united states senate, and i'm not a young man anymore. i'm 57 years old. but it is -- somebody said

you're young. only in the united states senate would that be true. but i know the presiding officer who is the chair of the important appropriations committee is retiring this year. and i was sitting here as i was getting ready to speak thinking that you have seen it all, mr. president. you have seen it all, unlike almost anybody else in this chamber you've actually seen a functioning united states senate. you've seen a senate where it was filled -- the floor was filled with people having a debate, where filibusters actually had to happen out in public, not in secret in senators' offices where people weren't spending 80% of their time in call rooms fund raising instead of being out here on the floor -- instead of being out here on the floor doing the american people's business.

senators will see actually passed important pieces of legislation that made a difference to the american people and made our country more competitive. made us stronger. and you're one of the last people here that saw a senate that worked like that. the republican leader has been here long enough to see a senate that worked like that, and you were here, i'm sure -- i know you were, mr. president, in 2006 when you were passing the voting rights act here with 98 votes. 98-0 the voting rights act passed in 1996. the republican leader of the senate then, the senior senator from kentucky, senator mcconnell, voted for that bill. it wasn't even close from his perspective. i have a number of quotes from him but one was the voting rights act has proved to be a success for america and has brought about greater justice for all.

amen, leader mcconnell. taking that principalled position in 2006 and it was part of an honorable position that the republican party has had in this country going back really to abraham lincoln and the votes that were taken here to put reconstruction in place and to fight the redeemers. and it was true in 1965 when they passed the voting rights act by 77-19 on this floor. lyndon johnson could not have done that without everett dirkson, the republican leader who was for it. as you know, mr. president, because you saw it -- you probably were there -- four republican presidents, nixon, ford, reagan, and george w. bush all signed versions of the voting rights act. they showed the country every

time they did it that there's nothing partisan about voting rights. as senator mcconnell said, our country will and must continue its progress toward a society in which every person of every background can realize the american dream. with the passage of the voting rights act, we are reaffirming that dream. he was right back then, mr. president, when he said that, but today he's leading the blockade. there are 16 republican senators here who voted for the voting rights act back then in 2006 and today they're all part of this blockade. what's changed? what's changed? one of the things that changed was the supreme court's decision in the shelby case that eviscerated the voting rights

act by getting rid of preclearance for states that historically discriminated against african american people among others. but you know what's interesting about that, mr. president, is that the supreme court said in that decision congress can fix this problem. we have a constitutional problem but congress can fix this problem. that's exactly the same thing they said, by the way, when they wrote that horrendous decision in citizens united. they said congress can fix this problem, but they may not have detected the paralysis that now exists not in leahy's senate when you got here, mr. president, but in mitch mcconnell's senate today in the modern day senate where people are willing to let a decision like shelby just lie,

not address it, where people are willing to accept a decision like citizens united that says we're going to let billionaires buy elections in this country instead of favoring people's right to vote. and we the congress won't do anything about it even when the supreme court tells us we can do something about it. i think it's worth quoting the notorious r.b.g. in her dissent in that case, in the shelby case when she said that throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discrime toar -- discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet. she was a hundred percent right. state after state after state started to adopt restrictive voting -- restrictive voting

statutes. last july the supreme court issued another opinion that makes it harder to challenge state laws that disproportionately hurt certain voters. by the way, none of this could have come at a worst time because we have a former president extra versing -- president traversing the united states of america perpetrating the big lie that he didn't lose the election, that the election was stolen from him, that joe biden is not the legitimate president of the united states. and there are politicians, i'm sad to say, elected leaders all over this nation that are -- including in this chamber that are parroting that big lie when they know that it's a lie. when they know that it's false, who are unwilling as mitt romney said to respect their own voters enough that they actually tell them the truth.

and in every state except one, senator leahy, it's your state, vermont. in every state except yours people are introducing legislation to take away the vote of other people. 500 such bills. arizona has adopted changes that would purge up to 150,000 voters from the rolls. montana has gotten rid of same-day voter registration to make it harder for students. texas is down to one drop box per county. in harris county, a county -- i'm sorry to say to my friend sheldon whit whitehouse -- thats actually larger than rhode island, that means they're -- there's a drop box for 2.5 million voters. i'm glad to use rhode island as a unit of measure. it's also smaller than a number

of colorado counties but it has its charles. it has rt -- it has its charms. it has water, which we don't have in the state of colorado. i'm here with my colleague from colorado, who when he was governor did a lot to make sure people had the right to vote in our state, in contrast to houston, where there's one drop box in my hometown of denver, where there are 500,000 registered voters? we have 40 drop boxes in denver. we're a lot smaller. we got 40 times the number of drop boxes that they have in houston. after georgia's republican secretary of state refused to buckle to president trump's demand to find somehow another 11,000 votes -- you remember the phone call? i'm not making it up. you heard it with your own ears. he called him up. he said find 11,000 votes. the guy said no, i'm not going to do that. and now, the legislature has

removed him from the state election board. so this isn't just about making it harder for people to vote. although, it is making it harder for people to vote. this is shoring up the soft spots that prevented donald trump from being able to assert credibly that somehow the election had been stolen from him. so, one year after january 6 happened, one year after this capitol was invaded, one year after there was a guy in horns standing up on the top of that gallery behind me, the majority leader who once came to this floor to proclaim the importance of the voting rights act is saying that this is all a fake panic. that's the language he used today. boy, given what we're seeing in this country, if we ever needed

him to summon the principle that he articulated or espoused in 2006, mr. president, when you were here, it's now. it's now. that's an important principle to defend. so, what is he -- he comes to the floor today and says i'm going to defend the senate. that's what i'm here to do. i'm here to defend the senate. let me say something that might offend you, mr. president, and i don't mean to offend you, and i apologize if it offends you, but no one in america knows what the cloture rule is. no one. no one in america -- my mom doesn't know what the cloture rule is, and she's a pretty close watcher of the senate. no one knows what the cloture rule is. no one in america knows, i would assert, what the filibuster is, but let me tell you what it is.

not what it says, what it is. it is a rule that was created to let 60 senators cut off debate so 51 senators could make a decision that has been warped into a rule that allows 41 senators to stop any debate and prevent the senate from ever having a vote. that is what the cloture rule is. that's not what it says, but that is what it is, which is why every time you turn your television set on at home you see a crawl at the bottom of your screen that says quorum call, and you can't find a united states senator anywhere because they're probably back in a phone booth making fundraising phone calls.

until this century there was virtually any filibuster used -- by the way, i should say how much i appreciate senator thune coming to the floor here today and saying that president trump lost the election. i appreciate it. i really do. and he's an honorable person. but it's important to know that one place the filibuster does not exist is in the united states constitution. and for most of the country's history we never had the filibuster. it was almost never used until the modern era. and when i got here in president obama's first term, the republican leader, mitch mcconnell, used the filibuster a record number of times. he filibustered everything in his attempt to first make barack obama a one-term president, then basically bring down his presidency. he came out to the floor the other day, he said, quote, sometimes the effect of the

filibuster is to block bills outright. sometimes? some -- sometimes? it happens all the time. this is why we never do anything. this is why we can't make decisions. this is why we can't even have debates. and the american people have no idea whom to blame. they don't know, because no one in america knows what the cloture rule is. and when they elect a majority and expect things to get done, they don't get done. senator mcconnell argues that the filibuster, quote, gives all kinds of citizens in all kinds of states a meaningful voice in nearly everything we do. and we've heard that over and over again today -- the voice that somehow we're shutting out. i haven't met anybody who thinks that their voice is meaningfully represented in the united states senate. instead of special interests or

the most powerful people. nobody. and it's because we can't have a debate on anything they care about. take background checks, 84% of voters, including 77% of republicans, support them. we can't even have a debate on the floor. let medicare negotiate drug prices on behalf of people, 77% of the american people support that. we can't even have a debate here. 74% of people support the dreamers, something senator durbin's been working on for a million years since you've been here, and we can't get a vote on that. the freedom to vote act. 70% of all voters, including 54% of republicans, support it. all of them have been blocked by senator mcconnell and his abuse of the senate rules. not some great, venerable tradition of the united states

senate, but his modern-day abuse, his caricature of the senate rules. and it has created a minority veto, something that the founders of this country would never, ever, in a million years have imagined that this place would be perverted into. they knew the trouble that would cause, because they had had the articles of confederation, which is what they were trying to replace at the constitutional convention. i'm coming to an end, so i apologize to my colleagues. but let me just say, none of this has stopped us from cutting taxes by $8 trillion, mostly for the wealthiest people in this country. and none of this has stopped us from putting lots of right wing judges on the court when donald trump was here, because you can do those things with 51 votes, and that's about the extent of senator mcconnell's

legislative agenda. so i'm not surprised that he prefers the status quo. but for the majority of americans who believe that the next generation actually demands something greater than that, from the senate and from all of us, from each of us? we need a senate that works. and mr. president, think about this, think about this -- it's easy to forget the clean water act in 1972 passed 74-0. by the way, i worked with the senator from louisiana on that surprise medical bill. i'm proud of that bill. but it's not the clean water act of 1972. the americans with disabilities act of 1990, 91-6. the children's health insurance plan, 85-15 in 1997. comprehensive immigration reform, we were part of that effort, 68 votes in the senate before it completely collapsed

into smither evens -- smithereens. and the reauthorization of the voting rights act. does anybody think, mr. president, do you think any of those bills would pass with a bipartisan majority like that today? not a single one. we wouldn't even get to the vote. we're still on a temporary budget. i don't need to tell you, the chairman of the appropriations committee. we haven't passed any of the 12 appropriations bills this year. we've taken three times as long to confirm president biden's nominees, 103 days compared to president reagan. this is no way to compete in the world, mr. president. this is no way to compete with the chinese government's totalitarian approach to humanity. i know we can compete, but we have to restore the senate, and the most basic part of our job is protecting the right to vote. that's why we're here. every american should be able to

vote like we do in colorado, thanks to my colleague from colorado, senator hickenlooper and what he did when he was governor. as dr. king said, the history of our nation is the history of a long and tireless effort to broaden the franchise of american citizens. that's what this bill is about. , to broaden the franchise of american citizens. if we look back at our history, this is only the latest example be of how the senate has impeded american progress, and it wouldn't be the first time that senate rules were changed in response to that. before the civil war, a time even before you were in the senate, mr. president, the senate sheltered the minority interest of slaveholders. on this floor. after the war, it enabled mon or

barons and isolationists to profit from the conflict and its aftermath. each time in our country's history, crises forced the senate to fundamentally change the way it worked, and each change has led to meaningful progress, including clearing the way for the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments, to emancipate and enfranchise former slaves, sweeping antitrust reforms, long-delayed legislation to protect civil rights. the bottom line is that the senate rules are not suspended in amber, especially when they're being abused the way they're being abused today. they can and they always have changed with the times. and finally, let me say this -- as we consider these reforms the

last thing we should do is make another house of representatives. that's not what i want to do. i want to have a senate where you got to come out here and debate, where you can't filibuster in secret in your office, but you have to be out here to persuade the american people of the righteousness of your cause, where the minority has the right to offer amendments, and where in the end 51 senators can actually make a decision so that we can move this country forward. and so that each one of us, whether we're in the majority today or sometime in the minority, can live under the rules that we've constructed to make the senate actually function for the american people. and that, mr. president, i think, is why most of us have been sent here, and it's what i hope we're going to accomplish today. and if we don't, we got to keep

fighting. the senator from louisiana mentioned that this isn't 1965. let me end by saying this -- the economic gap between white americans and black americans is as great today as it was in 1968. that is a brutal fact about the state of our economy, and it's why we need a senate that actually can respond to the needs of the american people. and with that, mr. president, i thank you for your patience and your indulgence. i apologize that you're going to consume part of the last year listening to a year's long speech, but with that i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the president pro tempore: senator grassley. mr. grassley: to hear the other side talk, by the other side i mean the democrats, they would

never dream of questioning our democratic process. so i want to take you back in history just a little ways to just before the 2020 election. let's mot forget -- let's not forget the outlandish conspiracy theory promoted by leading democrats in the runup to the 2020 election, that somehow the postal service might not deliver absentee ballots. postmaster general dejoy was slandered and slandered disgracefully based on no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing. the postmaster is hired by the board of governors of the postal service. he was neither appointed by president trump nor did he

answer to president trump. the fact that dejoy had supported president trump's election was just enough for the other side to concoct a highly implausible election tampering plot. now, after the election of president biden, we heard no more about the problems with the postal service maybe not delivering mail. the necessary business transformation to make sure that the ballots did arrive to be counted on time, that business transformation resumed after an election pause to allay irrational