with disabilities. it it also hurts military members living overseas. i myself voted by mail when i was serving our country in iraq. after all, i was a little busy flying combat missions, so i don't know if i would have had the chaens to request an -- chance to request an absentee ballot 15 days before the election if my unit had not assisted in that effort. not every unit may do that. so not having their ballots mailed to them would make it immeasurably harder for troops to vote wherever they may be serving. i can't understand why republicans want to make it harder for brave americans defending our democracy abroad to participate in it. but that's what they're doing. i can't understand how my republican colleagues can sit here today and ask paid staffers and pages to bring them water at exactly the temperature they like with or without ice, sparkling or not sparkling, as they make their voices heard on

the senate floor, and then say nothing, nothing to stop a law that makes it illegal to give water to americans waiting hours in line at polling stations as they seek to simply have their voices heard at the ballot box. listen, my five times great-grandfathers, likely inden churred servants without the right to vote, didn't fight in the revolutionary war and esh that -- earn that right to vote so people claiming to be the leaders of our generation could chip away at the fundamental idea that founded this nation, that everyone is equal, and my buddies and i and senator cotton didn't sign up to defend our democracy in war zones thousands of miles away only to watch it crumbble at the hands of powerful people more focused on their own self-interests than in the foundational component of this extraordinary experiment we call america. that everyone, regardless of social status, wealth, skin

color, sex, has a right to vote. page after page in our nation's history is marred by bigotry, tainted by intolerance, by injustice, but through every chapter, however dark the night, some brave americans have willed that there would be light. that march forward has always been to expand access to the polls, not to decrease it. for we expanded access for those who didn't own land, for black americans after the civil war, for women, for all americans. in world war ii black americans fought overseas for the same country that forced their families to sit at second lunch -- segregated lunch counters back home. then they came home and were forced to guess how many jelly beans were in a jar before they themselves could vote in a country that they had fought for. asian americans fought to end slavery in the civil war,

sacrificed to preserve this union, and then had their earned citizenship stripped away. decades later, their grandsons fought in europe, even as their loved ones were interred in camps on american soil. and we march forward, and we march on, and we expand the right to the ballot box. in the 1960's, white americans hopped on buses and risked their lives, freedom riding through the south, so those with darker skin could walk into the ballot box without fear of billy clubs. and americans from all backgrounds have packed their rucks, laced up their boots, and gone to war in places like iraq, lost their lives in places like afghanistan, to defend the most american belief that we all have a voice and we all have the right to use it, including at the polls. because voting to elect one's own government is the core of that right. i'm not asking anyone to do anything nearly as difficult as

putting on a uniform and going to war or crossing a bridge to be met with billy clubs. i'm not asking anybody to do anything that difficult today. i'm not asking my republican colleagues to risk their lives on a bus or a bridge in the heat of the american south or under the scorching sun of a desert in the middle east. all i'm asking for is the bare minimum. all i'm begging them to do is merely to not sit in silence in the face of grave injustice. to not let being partisan keep you from being a patriot. for the sake of all who have sacrificed for this nation, i at least refuse to remain silent. that's why i'm voting for these bills. that's why i'm trying to claw back some of the protections that republicans have spent the last year trying to erode on the back of the big lie, including expanded voter purges, increased barriers for voters with disabilities, and harsher i.d. requirement. that's why i'm asking my

colleagues, who claim to represent the party of lincoln, as the junior center from the land of lincoln, i ask you to act in a way that will further the cause of justice. that's why i'm working to restore the voting rights act, to expand early voting and vote by mail, to limit special interest money in politics, and to actually try to protect underserved communities and our servicemembers' rights to vote. because not only can our country do better, we have done better. back when we passed the voting rights act all those decades ago. not only can our chamber do more, we have done more, including the 16 republicans who are still in the senate today who have previously voted to reauthorization the voting rights act. and we owe more to those heroes who fought the fights before us, the trailblazers who marched those bridges, and those in powerpoint -- while those in power broke their bones, whose

skulls were cracked and blood was shed yet whose will never bent, whose determination never wavered, those heroes who never let what was hard deter them from doing what was right. we owe it to each of them, and to those whose rights are at risk today to pass this bill. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. daines: you might ask what that has to do with voting rights. it has a lot to do with voting rights act. you can't have the right to vote without first having the right to life. every year for nearly five decades, thousands of pro-life americans have faithfully gathered here in d.c. and across this country to mark this dark day by marching for life and being a voice for the voiceless.

this year's official march for life comes at a turning point in our nation's history. on december of last year the supreme court heard oral accurate on the landmark 15-week abortion case out of mississippi, dobbs v. jackson women's health organization. this is the first case in our generation that presents the supreme court of the united states the best opportunity to right its historic injustice and finally overturn roe v. wade. the roe decision resulted in the deaths of more than 63 innocent babies -- 63 million. in fact, as i stand here and speak today, 2,363 preborn children are being killed in this country. 2,363 are killed every single day. these precious lives were created by god and intended for this world, but were violently deprived of their lives because

they were deemed unwanted, unfit, or simply inconvenient. and because they're so small, without voices of their own, far too many for far too long have ignored their desperate cries. because of roe states have virtually been powerless to stop this tidal wave of blood shed. what's more, roe's extreme abortion regime has made the united states a global outlier on abortion. we're just one of seven nations, including china and north korea, that allow abortions on demand. just one of seven nations. past the point babies feel pain, all the way up until the moment of birth. it's barbaric. because of science and technology today, it's impossible to ignore the humanity of that little baby growing in the womb. thanks to incredible 4-d ultrasound technology, we can watch babies grow, we can hear their hearts beat, we can watch them yawn, even suck their thumbs. we've come a long way since

1973. it's time that our laws kept up with the science. overturning roe will not -- i repeat, will not -- ban abortion nationwide. i'm sad to say some of my colleagues are not being truthful on what it might mean if roe v. wade is overturned. it will not ban abortions nationwide. it will return the power to to pass pro-life laws to state and federal lawmakers. including to a recent maris poll, 83% of americans are poe posed to -- opposed to abortion after the first three months of pregnancy. that's a majority of american people. because of roe, their voices are silenced. it's time for the supreme court to allow state and federal lawmakers to rightfully protect their constituents and protect the most vulnerable a among us. it's time we, the leaders in the world of human rights, recognize what happens to be the theme of this year's march for life, which is "equality begins in the womb." the dobbs case before the

supreme court gives the court a chance to finally restore justice and equality of the most vulnerable among us in the spirit of this nation's long history of progress in civil rights. listen to oral august in the dobbs case i was struck by something justice kavanaugh said, i quote, if you think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in the court's history, there's a string of them where the cases overruled precedent. justice kavanaugh cited most notably brown v. board of education in 1954, which outlaid a -- outlawed a separate but equal plessy v. ferguson from 1856. it took years for the court to recognize racial segregation was wrong and overturn its grievous error in plessy. justice john marshall harland showed tremendous courage as the lone dissenter in the court's decision in plessy. now it's taken 49 years for the court to consider the obvious

truth that all life must be proy tekd. it's taken 49 years for the court to reconsider this wrongly decided case, roe v. wade. in the spirit of justice harland who dissented in plessy, i'd like to share a quote from another great dissented proved right in the course of history, justice briern white. -- byron white. with his 1973 dissent, joined by justice rehnquist in doe v. bolton wrote as follows, and i quote, with all due respect i dissent. i find nothing in the language or history of the constitution to support the court's judgment. the court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and with scarcely any reason or authority for its action invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. the upshot that the people in the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutional i had disentitled to weigh the relative importance that can be in existence in the development of a fetus, on the one hand,

against the spectrum of possible impacts on the mother on the other hand. as an exercise of power, the court perhaps has authority to do what it does today, but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant power that the constitution extends to this court. the court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life she carries. whether or not i might agree with that marshalling of values, i can in no event join the court's judgment because i find no constitutional warrant for imposing such a order of priorities on the people in the legislatures of the states. in sensitive areas such as this involving issues over which reasonable men may differ, i cannot accept the court's exercise of clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human lifer and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionality protected right to exterminate it.

the issue for the most part shall be left with the people and the political processes people have devised to govern their affairs, end quote. justice white was correct. i share that belief. the court's decision in roe was a travesty of constitutional law and human rights, one that should follow plessy v. ferguson to the ash heap of history. in the dobbs case, i pra i that we see the supreme court do precisely this, correct this history injustice, uphold the mississippi law. for the pro-life movement, overturning roe is not the end, just the beginning. states stand ready to protect life and provide support for pregnant moms facing crisis pregnancies. i pray this year's march for life marks the final anniversary of roe v. wade and heralds the dawn of a new day where every life is protected. i want to thank the thousands of americans across the country to will be -- who will be joining the march for life. and also the hunt of montanans who joined me last week in

helena's march for life. i stand with you and will continue to fight to protect all life. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my following remarks appear separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: last year, we saw stacy abrams and president biden mislead people about georgia's new law. "the washington post" fact-checker wrote, quote, biden wrongly says the new georgia law ends voting hours early. that was given four pinocchios by "the washington post." however, today, in this chamber, we've seen several senate democrats challenge montana's common commonsense election integrity laws championed by the legislatures, the secretary of state, and the governor, greg gianforte. i want to set the record straight. montana put in place some commonsense reforms that enjoy

the strong support of montanans, like strengthening voter i.d. laws and preventing paid ballot harvesting. there have been things said on this floor that were frankly not true. ballot harvesting is still okay in montana. you just can't pay people to do it. the fact that it was statement -- in fact there were statements made that somehow student i.d. are not allowed anymore to vote. somehow that's going to be the end of democracy. under current law -- first of all, most students have a valid driver's license in montana, but if you didn't, the requirement is this -- and i take it chapter and verse out of the secretary of state's site -- you can still use a student i.d. in the state of montana. you need a second dear i.d., a

ski pass, as long as both i.d. types are presented. most students have valid driver's license. if you don't, you can still use a student i.d. you just have to have a second dear identification type presented like a gym membership or even a transcript. that does not seem unreasonable and the vast majority of montanans believe that just makes sense. furthermore, we've seen questions -- in fact, senator schumer made some accusations about montana shortening the hours for elections. i found that a bit hilarious, frankly, because here's what we did in montana is all voter registration activities are allowed now up until the night before the election. it's up until the day of the election. you are allowed to register to vote. unlike new york that ends voter

registration 25 days before the election. i don't think that's going to be the end of democracy when montana has far easier -- far better laws to make it easier vote in montana than they do in new york. in fact, regarding new york, the voters last november rejected same-day voter registration and rejected universal absentee voting. states across this country have been working hard to ensure that we are making it more -- making it easier to vote but making it more difficult to cheat. i'm grateful for what has been happening in the state of montana. it's a no-brainer to most montanans that you need a valid i.d., a driver's license to get a hunting or fishing license, to rent a car, to get onto an airplane, not to mention the fact that many liberal-run cities now across our country, the democrats are now enforcing i.d. checks to get into a coffee

shop or sit down for dinner. so it's no wonder we're left a little won fused here how president biden, chuck schumer, the senate democrats with a tonight overrode the will of montanans, undermine our state voter i.d. laws when it comes to main taking something as foundational as our democracy and maintain ago the integrity in our elections. if there's one thing montanans are about it is common sense. the fearmongering, the misleading statements don't make a lot of sense and montanans know it. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i wanted going to speak but i got to speak because i want to clear up the record on one thing. the people of the state of montana voted for same-day registration. the people of the state of montana went to the ballot box and voted for same-day registration. the state legislature repealed

that. we should ask what the people of montana really want. they want same-day registration. a senator: mr. president, i want to start by thanking all of the senators who have come to the floor to make the case for democracy and for voting rights. mr. lujan:: the right to vote is the heartbeat of our democracy, it is a symbol of the progress that we have made in this chamber and the promise that we have made to the next generation of americans. this legislation will protect the right to vote for all, safeguard against election sabotage, and end partisan gerrymandering, limit the influence of dark money in politics so that billionaires and corporations cannot buy elections. protecting our democracy should not be partisan.

it should be a moral and civic imperative for every one of us. as a former united states senator from new mexico said, the late-dennis chavez who served in this chamber for 27 years until his passing in 1962, said we are all free -- either we are all free or we fail. democracy belongs to all of us. our democracy faces clear and present dangers posed by republican-led state legislatures across the country. some lawmakers want to curtail the right to vote, not for all americans but for the most vulnerable. and historically disenfranchised. and if we think it's bad now with what's happened in these state legislatures over the last

few months, it's about to get a lot worse. history will not look kindly on inaction at this critical moment, and we must show the american people that we will not flinch when faced with the choice to protect our democracy and let it crumble before our eyes. there is a pattern of rapid discrimination that is disenfranchising countless black and brown voters across this country. now, in 2005, jesus gonzalez became a naturalized citizen. on the same day he swore an oath to the united states, he sought to register to vote in arizona. he was rejected. so he tried again after he obtained a license, but again he was rejected.

it was then that mr. gonzalez, a school janitor, sued the state. his case made its way to the supreme court, who in 2013 ruled in his favor and struck down arizona's law. mr. gonzalez was one of 31,000 voters in arizona affected by such a discriminatory law. just this past september, the mexican american legal defense fund joined other civil rights organizations in suing texas over its discriminatory voting legislation known as s.b. 1. we have heard a lot about it today. among other things, sb-1 seeks to curb the assistance available to limited english-proficient voters, and this 2006 they successfully sued texas. in that case it lulac v. perry

you the supreme court found that texas violated the voting rights act by denying latinos the ability to elect a candidate of their choosing. 2017, maldep again sued in texas after the city of pasadena sought to weaken the latina vote by changing the way city-equity willed city council members. here are just some of the chapters of a long history of voter suppression. now, we also know that voter suppression of native americans is real and its intentional. until 2020, north dakota voter i.d. laws required a residential street address. now, that may sound like common sense to some folks, but for those of us those of that live in rural communities and for my brothers and sisters that live in native american communities, we all grew up with rural route boxes.

my address was route 1 box 102. not because i didn't want a street address named after my grandparents, like it is today. that was the address. now, because of that law in north dakota, many native americans like richard breakbuilt, who is a navy veteran, have been denied the right to vote because of an expired driver's license and a tribal i.d. that get this, did not have a current residential address. it had the post office box. that was his address. in 2020, the candidacy of joseph deadman, a member of the navajo nation, was challenged in arizona because he included post office boxes which are often the only form of an address for rural native american households. it's the only one they can obtain. on his petition to office. 2020, arizona's pima county closed an early center and spent

nearly $200,000 in legal fees rather than reinstate the voting center. south dakota provided a fully funded polling place and early voting and registration opportunity to the 12 non-native american residents in gann valley, but get this -- they refused to provide the same services to the 1,200-plus residents on crow creek tribal lands. in 2021, kimberly dylan, a citizen of rosebud sioux, she joined the oglala and rosebud sioux tribes in suing south dakota for requiring voters to register as state agencies and d.m.v.'s which were hours away from tribal lands. they were making it harder for people to even get registered to vote by saying drive three and

four hours away. many neighbors went to great lengths to submit their voter registrations to those state agencies but the agencies never sent them to the local election offices, even after they traversed and got that job done in making that journey. they just want to submit them to let them get registered to vote. as a result, her right to vote in the 2020 presidential election was taken away. kimberly asked, and i quote, how many other people face this violation of our basic freedom to vote? we cannot allow voter suppression to continue in south dakota or anywhere in native america. these are american citizens whose rights were taken away from them for partisan advantage. jesus and kimberly's voices were taken away from them, just like countless other americans who face the same discrimination.

19 states have passed 34 laws making it easier to sabotage election law and target voters of color, and not all of them had a supermajority or two-thirds vote. in 2016, representative david louis, a republican state lawmaker in north carolina, and member of the general assembly's redistricting committee, said -- and i quote -- i propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to ten republicans and three democrat representatives because i do not believe it is possible to draw a map with 11 republicans and two democrats. this is not new. this has been going on decade after decade. the only thing that's different now is in 2013 when the supreme court gutted the enforcement provisions of the voting rights act, republican-led legislatures

don't have to hide behind it any longer. now they just say they're going to draw for partisan advantage. they're going to change the rules to keep certain communities from voting, making it harder for people to get to that battle box. this is nothing new and shame on all of us for not acting when the supreme court told us this in 2013. that's on all of us. but we're here today. we're also seeing an uptick in violence as a result of the lies across the country, the big lie. the department of homeland security has seen an increase in violence as a result of these baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 election. we're losing honest election officials and poll workers because of threats against their lives. due to conspiracy theories and lies pushed by the former president. the freedom to vote, john r.

lewis act will protect the vote of working families across the country. and only one archaic parliamentary measure prohibits all this progress. the filibuster does not increase deliberation in this chamber. it does not incentivize compromise. so while some claim that amending the filibuster will further the country's division, i disagree. right now it's only aiding and abetting obstructionists and opponents of progress. when it comes to voting on civil rights legislation. while the filibuster is not mentioned a single time in the constitution -- mr. schumer: may the senator pause for an interruption. thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to concur with at:00 p.m. -- be at 8:00 p.m. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. i appreciate the courtesy of my colleague. he had no choice but to do it at 6:30.

mr. lujan:: so the importance of us being here today goes right in the face of us having this conversation and debate. i appreciate my republican colleagues have come to the floor to engage in some debate and some colloquy. i, like senator kaine, came to the senate a bit naive. i thought debate happened here all the time. i came here thinking that i could offer an amendment at any time, that i could offer a unanimous consent at any time. it's not the case. this is not the senate that our founders envisioned. if you feel moved to oppose a piece of legislation, if you're passionate about an issue, you should have the courage to document senate floor in front -- to come to the senate floor in front of your colleagues and the american people. you should not be allowed to phone it in from behind closed doors. this chamber has changed, just as the times have changed.

so it's the responsibility of every one of us to make sure that the senate works better not for us, but for the american people. in cloafg, in 18 -- in closing, in 1805 vice president aaron burr suggested that the senate remove from its rules the previous question motion which allowed the chamber's simple majority to end debate on a bill. he viewed the rule as completely unnecessary and urged the senate to clean up its rule book because after everyone spoke and debated, they'd vote. a year later the senate removed the previous question motion, leaving a loophole that allowed the minority to take advantage and use what we now know is the filibuster. unfortunately, byrd could not foresee the obstructionism of decades to come. proslavery senators co-opted the filibuster to protect the interests of white southern enslavers. men such as january calhoun eabd

the filibuster. 30 measures favored by the sitting president, simple majorities in the house and senate, half of which addressed civil rights, they all died thanks to the filibuster. the same procedural tool proved to be even more useful to southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching bills. not until 1964 did the senate successfully overcome a filibuster to pass important civil rights legislation and scwenlt -- subsequent voting rights legislation. history should act as a teacher to all of us. history will remind us who voted today on the side of the people. i'm proud that this effort includes my native american voting rights act which will ensure tribes and native americans and alaska natives and voters on tribal lands will have equal access to the electoral process, access to the ballot box is the cornerstone of our democratic system. and without equitable access to

it, we cannot stand on the world stage and claim that we're all leaders in the fight for liberty and justice for all. now my republican colleagues have proven time and again that they're not interested in acting on this issue. washington republicans have made the political calculation that they have a partisan advantage here. they are too comfortable shrugging their shoulders and sitting on the sidelines while states chip away at the right to vote. i know where i stand, mr. president. all we're asking for today is the opportunity to vote on this critical piece of legislation after everyone here has said their piece. i urge my colleagues to do the right thing today, to do right by our democracy, and to send the freedom to vote john r. lewis act to the president's desk. i thank you all, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. rosen: thank you. our democracy is extraordinary because it is built on the bedrock idea that through free and fair elections, the citizens who make up this great country, they have a voice, that each person's vote truly matters, that in america the people have the power. but at this moment our democracy is threatened. republican state legislatures and governors all over the country are writing laws designed to restrict the right to vote, make it harder for tens of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballot in silence -- and silence the

american people's voice in the process. make no mistake, this is an unprecedented coordinated attack to make voting harder for eligible citizens and make it easier to sabotage future elections. in my state of nevada, we bucked that trend when it comes to voting rights, r strengthened the right to vote providing easier access to the ballot box for voters while ensuring fair elections. these measures that governor steve sisolak signed into law include establishing a permanent vote-by-mail system, expanding the early voting period and making it more convenient to register and to vote. but while nevada has moved forward to protect and strengthen voting rights, we are not immune from the attempts to sabotage it. in nevada, the leading republican candidate for our

secretary of state stated that he would have refused -- i repeat, would have refused to certify president biden's victory in our state, even though the results were certified by a republican secretary of state and unanimously upheld by the nevada supreme court. that same candidate opened the door to certifying alternate, alternate electors in future presidential elections in nevada, contrary to the actual election results. and in nevada, the leading republican candidates for governor are promising to undo our progress and make it harder for nevadans to vote because they refuse to accept the results of the 2020 election. they're pushing the former president's false conspiracy theories that fueled the january

6 insurrection. attacks like these, they are a growing threat to democracy and exactly, exactly the reason we need to act urgently. if we fail to do so, if we fail to do so here and now, new state laws will result in hours-long lines at the polls. overturned election results and masses of disenfranchised voters. so let's talk about solutions. smart solutions, solutions that give every eligible voter equal access to the ballot box. the freedom to vote act combined with the john lewis voting right advancement act meets this moment. it meets the moment we are in with our democracy in crisis. it delivers real, meaningful action. first, this bill makes it easy for people to register to vote.

it does this by requiring states to allow eligible americans to register online and on election day, as well as update our automatic voter registration system. this bill would also require states to accurately maintain their voter registration lists and protect voters against unwarranted purges from the voter rolls. this way those who should be eligible to vote can do so without hassle or harassment. the freedom to vote act gives americans more choices on when and how they can legally vote through national standards for early in-person voting, expanded mail-in voting, and finally making election day a national holiday. because even if you're a hardworking american who's busy working long hours, looking

after your children, caring for a sick relative, you should still have access to the ballot box. this bill would ensure election security and prevent partisan sabotage by requiring post election audits and enhancing, enhancing protections for election records. the freedom to vote act would also take long needed steps to end political corruption in our elections. it would accomplish this by protecting u.s. elections from foreign interference, by prohibiting false information designed to dissuade eligible voters, by promoting online ad transparency, and by putting an end to that dark money in our elections. to borrow a few words from the

late congressman john lewis, my former colleague from the house, a legendary civil rights leader, an american hero for whom this bill is named, an inspiration to us all and to people all around the world, john lewis said, and i quote, the right to vote is the most powerful tool in a democracy. i'm going to repeat those words from john lewis. listen closely. the right to vote is the most powerful tool in a democracy. each person's vote is their voice. it's every citizen's opportunity to weigh in to what matters most to them, for their family, for their community, for their country, for the world. it matters. it is fundamental to our democracy, to the very definition of what it means to

be an american citizen. for each and every one of us to stand up, to stand tall, to get to the ballot box, be able to vote the way we choose and have the assurance that our vote is counted. it matters. each person matters. and so if the senate cannot move forward on this critically important legislation under the status quo, then it is time to reform the rules to restore the senate to pass this legislation legislation, because only then can we protect our democracy's future and secure the freedom to vote for every eligible american, for this generation, and for the generations to come. thank you. i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to oppose the democrats' federal election takeover. the president just gave one of his rare press conferences, only the second one he gave on american soil. the white house seems to think that the cure for joe biden's poll numbers is more communications from joe biden, and the press conference went on for one hour and 54 minutes. the white house doesn't have a communications problem. it has an agenda problem. the american people understand exactly what president biden and senator schumer and speaker pelosi are trying to sell. the american people aren't buying it. democrats don't need a message reset. they need a better agenda for the nation. but we're about to vote on tonight has nothing to do with the priorities of the american people. it has nothing to do with coronavirus, has nothing to do with 40-year high inflation numbers which are biting into the paychecks of the american people. it has nothing to do with the

crisis at the southern border where two million illegal immigrants have crossed the border this year. criminals among them, drug smugglers among them, gang members among them. it's nothing to do with what's driven the president's be approval numbers to an all-time low of 40%, which it is today in the gallup poll. democrats' number-one goal, they stated at the beginning of the congress, is to pass a federal takeover of elections. an election takeover bill was the first bill they introduced. democrats are ignoring what the american people are demanding so that they can do what their radical fringe is demanding. democrats want elections to be run by washington, d.c. instead of the 50 states. the constitution is very clear. it says the states run our elections. why do they want to take over our elections? well, democrats want to do things like banning voter i.d.

laws. 80% of americans believe people should have to show a photo i.d. in order to vote. senator schumer has already twice tried to cram an american takeover bill down the throats of the american public. this is the third time. so far he has failed. so why? why has this continued to fail? not simply because republicans oppose it. it's failed because the american people oppose it. the american people aren't looking for a federal government takeover of elections. a recent gallon lump poll asked people -- gallup poll asked people what they think is the most important issue facing our country. voting laws didn't crack the top 20. voting laws received less than 1% of the vote. it was an asterisk in the results. democrats' scare tactics on voting laws have utterly failed. now democrats are so desperate to change our voting laws to their advantage that they're going to try to break the

senate. that's what they're doing now. the senate is supposed to be, quote, the world's greatest deliberative body. some democrats want deliberations to end forever. democrats claim they'll change the election laws and then stop, onetime only. claim they'll only rig the game just once. we know that's not true. if they can't resist the temptation to rig the government once, they can't -- they will pack the supreme court, add new states to the union, amnesty for illegal immigrants, try to take away guaranteed rights for the second amendment, you name it. if they can do it sooner or later, they will there's a bill in the senate now to add four

new justices to the supreme court. 46 senates have signed on to a bill for statehood for the district of columbia. democrats have introduced a bill to declare puerto rico as a state. one change to the senate rules and america would have a permanent one-party rule. just months online democrats tried to pass amnesty for 6.5 illegal immigrants. that's greater than the population of 32 of our 50 states. amnesty of this magnitude would remake our electorate. democrats break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules, they'll pass amnesty as fast as they can. over the past year they have gone on record, they have sponsored the bills, yet they

know that they have failed to persuade the american public to support this agenda. they know they'll never have bipartisan support to pass the radical amnesty for illegal immigrants, never have amnesty to ban voter identification and the punishing regulations that continue to drive up the cost of energy, never persuade the american people to support their radical, extreme, dangerous and scary agenda. rather than change the agenda to comply with what the american people want, the democrats want to change the rules. so desperate for this radical agenda, they are willing to destroy the senate. democrats have a long list of partisan bills that they would like to pass. all of these bills have two things in common, they have nothing to do with improving the lives of the american people as the american people see it today

and they give more power to the democrat politicians in washington, d.c. let me remind my colleagues that there's a an election -- there's an election in november. in the last election cycle seven democrats ran for president saying they would change the rules of the senate. they lost. they lost key senate races in swing states including montana, maine and kentucky. the american people have spoken loud and clear. they don't want to see this democrat power grab. the american people want us to focus on their priorities. it's up to them to tell us what's important to them. what we're hearing is coronavirus, crime, securing the border, not a bigger power grab for politicians. the democrats in this body seem to have forgotten the people that they were elected to serve. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. the president pro tempore: who seeks recognition? the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. mr. president and colleagues, as today's debate begins to wind down, i want to rise to join those who have called for the passage of the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights act. years ago when the united states was in the early stages of a conflict in vietnam, i was fortunate to win a navy rotc scholarship to attend ohio state. during my freshman year there, as spring break approached, many

of us freshmen midshipman, said how would you like to have a paid trip to quantico, virginia, that's where marine officers trained after going to college. we raised our hands and said, count us in. on one day off, we had five days in quantico. one day off we took a train to union station, a couple of blocks from here and they found -- many midshipman found their way to watering holes in georgetown. i went to visit the capitol and somehow i found my way into the ray burn house office -- rayburn house office building. i walked up to a security officer and asked if there were any hearings i might try to sit in on. he said, yep. he directed me to a long line in

leading to the house judiciary committee room. after a long wait, i finally had a chance to find a seat and watch in person the debate over what would later become the voting rights of 1965. i was glued to that seat for hours. mesmerized by what i said and what i heard. later, back on the train to quantico that evening, my friends asked me what i found on capitol, and i told them i thought i may have found my future. and as it turned out, i did. that day and the days to come, those hearings inspired by the civil rights movement forced a spotlight on the discriminatory state laws that had nearly made it impossible for many black americans to vote 100 years after the civil war. my sister and i grew up in

danville, virginia. there we saw racial discrimination up close and personal. even as children, we new it was -- knew it was wrong and had to change. sitting in rayburn years later, i found the place where i thought just maybe -- just maybe i might be able to help do something to right that wrong. nearly 18 years later, since sit in that hearing room -- sitting in that hearing room, after i completed by service to the vietnam war, i found myself back on capitol in these halls serving alongside john lewis and the house of representatives -- in the house of representatives. specifically targeted black americans, we began to witness change. it came slowly at first and then more quickly, thanks to the tireless efforts of people like our friend john lewis, the voting rights act of 1965 gained

increasingly bipartisan support. by 2006, the vote to extend the voting rights was unanimous. imagine that, 98-0. think about it. 98-0. and today 16 of the republican colleagues who voted for it, among those 98, are still here, are still here. given that history, however, it's almost unbelievable to think that the right to vote is under attack once again in many parts of our country. today in states across america, state legislators and governors are seek being to enact voter -- to make it harder to vote, often specifically targeting black americans. in 2021 alone 19 states passed 34 laws restricting the right to vote. how? well, by allowing partisan observers to intimidate

independent poll workers in texas, by pulling drop boxes out of the hands of voters peanltdies on -- penalties on poll workers. in georgia it is okay to make lines longer and longer but you can't bring food or water for those waiting hours to vote. we know in many parts of america, black voters have to wait twice as long in line than white voters to cast their ballot. twice as long. and in some places up to six hours. that is not just morally wrong, it's an assault on as we are as a people. we have to ask, for god's sake, can't we do better than this? let me leave you with one idea that worked in 1965 and could work again in 2022.

every day people gather for worship and there is one common principle that bolster our connection to each other. the golden rule. the idea that we should love ow neighbors ourselves, the idea that we ought to treat people the way we want to be treated. most americans would be surprised to learn that that -- that admonition is repeated almost weekly in multiple bible studies and prayer breakfasts regularly held on capitol hill throughout the year. it is a shared belief across religious, ethnic and party lines that the person across from us is just as valuable as us and as deserving of love and dedication as we are. in 1965 the golden rule was a foundational principle. congress was guided by it.

every major religion embraces it. i don't care if your prot scant, catholic, jew, hindu, muslim, i don't care. here in this body, week in and week out, maybe, just maybe, it's about time for us to rely on it once again in this land of the free as we seek to connect our values and our faith to our actions. most of us will recall that both dr. king and the preamble of our kiewn called on us to -- constitution on us to make this a more perfect union and that all men and women are created equal. and while our country -- across our country today, we're seeing a growing wave of voter restrictions, i'm reminded of what martin luther king said years ago, only when it's dark enough can we see the stars. only when it's dark enough, can we see the stars.

sometimes it's only when we're tested as a nation that we show our true spirit. i pray this is one such time. none of us hope to never face these challenges in our democracy, to our democracy in the year 2022, perhaps we could take comfort in knowing that someone else has walked this path before us. all these years later, we feel that fierce urgency of now. that fierce urgency of now that dr. king spoke of five years before, providing us both with a moral blueprint and the encouragement to do something with it. as i close, let me say having said all that, let me reiterate that this is not a it time to wait, congress needs to regroup. when we leave this building this week, we need to act like the earlier congress did in 1965 when it passed the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights act in order to protect the right to vote and

uphold the sanctity of our electoral processes. the legislation before us today seeks to make clear what we as a nation aspire to be. it makes clear that no one who is eligible should be denied the sacred right to vote. let me close, colleagues by observing that in the end we can, quote dr. king until the cows come home. when americans' sacred right to vote it is our responsibility to uphold the oath of the constitution. i never knew dr. king, i knew john lewis, but i don't know if they were fans of mark twain. i am. i want to paraphrase the words of mark twain and -- when in doubt do what's right. you will amaze your friends and confound your enemies.

friends, the time has come to do just that. to do both of those things. that's why no barrier should stand in the way of our sacred obligation to protect this democracy. and with that, i yield the floor. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, the current voting rights proposals or so-called voting rights proposals that democrats are proposing, are not about increasing access to the ballot box. according to the compost, the 2020 -- "the washington post" they said that 94% of voters said that voting was easy. this is really a power grab that would circumvent our electoral process. these power grabs would force taxpayers to pay for political

campaigns, expand the practice of ballot harvesting, prohibit important voter i.d. laws, keep deceased people and those who moved out of the area on registration rolls and federalize election laws which would violate the u.s. constitution clear directive that states administer the elections. to name just a few, article 1, section section 4 of the united states constitution delegates election processes to the states. this is a yiewbon of 50 states -- a union of 50 states. states are the best equipped to implement and enforce election policies that protect the integrity of all future elections. and although many who have spoken today would have you believe the states across this nation are seeking to violate the rights of american citizens and restrict their access to voting, the laws being proposed and adopted by the states are doing just the opposite.

they are helping to expand voter access and improve security at the polls. there are a lot of myths and untruths running rampant because the democrat seem to want the public to think there is this widespread voter suppression in republican-led states, which there is not. a couple of myths and the facts -- myth, republican state legislatures are enacting laws that will roll back early voting. the fact is that the states are expanding early voting. georgia's bill, for example, which has been attacked, allows for and provides for mandates 17 days of early voting, with two additional optional sundays of early voting. the list goes on. arizona allows 26 days. iowa allows 20 days. texas, another state that has been attacked, allows 17 days. the fact is the states are expanding early voting.

myth -- states are implementing voter i.d. for vote by mail in order to disenfranchise voters. the facts -- as vote by mail is increasing in the states, and states are implementing some of the same safeguards, the same safeguards that are used for in-person voting to ensure a secure election, such as voter i.d., which the legislation before us seems to want to prohibit. recent polls show 80% of the people support being required to show i.d. in order to vote. including 62% of democrats. myth -- prohibiting ballot harvesting and requiring people to vote in their own correct precinct constitute discrimination, outlawed by the

voting rights act. fact -- in a recent supreme court case, the court rules 6-3 against this claim. arizona law mandates that voters must vote in their assigned precinct, and those who vote early by mail cannot have anyone other than a household member, a family member, a caregiver, a postal worker, or an elections official collect their ballot. in other words, supervised ballot collection. this law effectively bans the practice of ballot harvesting. the democrats seem to want to expand, even mandate, ballot harvesting in the legislation we're being asked to support tonight. myth -- states are improperly purging eligible voters from their voter rolls. fact -- states are taking reasonable measures to ensure their voter rolls are accurate, which makes elections more

efficient and fair. states are simply implementing a time-honored practice of cleaning up voter lists, removing voters who have died or who have moved or who have been declared incompetent by a court or convicted of a felony. a time-honored practice in many of the states across this nation. myth -- recent changes in georgia to prevent people from giving bottles of water is inhumane and targets minority communities. fact -- the law allows poll workers to set up self-serve water stations for voters to use. the statute prevents political organizations -- political organizations -- from giving people in line things like meals, water, or gifts. once again, this is a long time-honored practice in our states. this law of anti-electioneering

or anti-vote buying is standard practice in many states, including many of my colleagues' blue states, like new york, new jersey, and president biden's home state of delaware. so let's get on to the filibuster. the argument is since the republicans won't accept these wrong reforms, so-called reforms of our election laws, that we should eliminate the filibuster in the senate. that is the last thing that should be done in the senate. president biden himself has argued against eliminating the filibuster, and according to a recent report democrats used that filibuster over 300 times in 2020. in 2005, then senator joe biden gave a passionate floor speech defending the senate filibuster, saying that this is a key procedural tool and ending it would eviscerate the senate and do a disservice to the country and would upset the constitutional design.

in another floor speech, then senator biden further argued the reason republicans in congress were attempting to end the filibuster was because they controlled every level of government. he went on to point out that the reason to have the filibuster rule was so that when one party controls all levers of government one man or one woman can stand on the floor of the senate and resist the passions of the moment. again, in 2005, senator chuck schumer also said that eliminating the filibuster would be a doomsday for democracy. that would turn our country into a, in his words, banana republic. former senator robert byrd of west virginia wrote about preserving the filibuster. we've heard it many times today. he said we must never, ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence this nation has against the excesses of the executive branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of

the majority. he went on to say the senate has been the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this republic for more than two centuries, and he said i pray that senators will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political priority of the moment. as leader monell quoted on -- leader mcconnell quoted on the floor yesterday, the smallest majority we've seen in our politics is trying to change the rules for how people get elected in every state. you may recall republicans were asked to dlo this exact thing when we -- to do this exact thing when we controlled every liefer of government and we refused to make that change because of the importance of the filibuster to this institution. eliminating or weakening the legislative filibuster would destroy the intentional design of the senate by the world's most deliberative body. it would allow any small majority in the senate to strip the voice of millions of americans considered in the

minority. removing the filibuster -- the ability to filibuster legislation would reduce the senate from broad agreements and force further debate and would likely increase divisiveness rather than efficiency. i urge my colleagues to vote against this federal takeover of our state's constitutional right to manage their own elections, and i urge my colleagues to reject this unfounded assault on the senate filibuster. thank you, mr. president. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, this has been a interesting day of debate. it actually feels good to hear people really speak on an issue. as president pro tem i've sat in that chair where my distinguished friend from maine is sitting now. as presiding officer i sat there for hours today and listened to

the debates. i heard many i found extremely good, and then i heard some others. but i appreciated the fact that i had the opportunity as president pro tem to hear so many of the senators in both parties speak. you know, i spoke yesterday about protecting everyone's vote on a ballot, how important that is. i know that because in my own state of vermont, and when i first ran, it was a very republican state. i've been on the ballot between my times as state's attorney and senator between primaries and general elections, i've been on the ballot in vermont 24 times. i neff questioned -- i never questioned that the ballots would be counted accurately and honestly, even though in several of the elections 80% to 90% of

the people counting the ballots were the town clerks and they were republicans. the presiding officer: may we have order in the senate, please? take your conversation off the floor, thank you. mr. leahy: so after those 24 times, i think i have some idea how the senate works. and i can honestly say with seniority comes a bit of experience. this is my 48th year here in the united states u.s. senate. having been elected by those same vermonters i praise for the way they protect the sanctity of the ballot 48 times. still, the only democrat september to the united states senate by the voters of vermont. i've become the chairman of the appropriations committee, the former chairman and ranking member of the judiciary and agriculture committee, and then

honored three times to be elected as president pro temp tempore. so let me take a couple minutes with your indulgence, mr. president, to talk about what the senate was, what it has become, and what it can be again. i think my experience qualifies me to say that my conscience compels me to say that. we, each of us, stand on the shoulders of giants, the senators from across the political spectrum. from around this nation, they've forged a path for america. they met the moment of the time, not with timidity or fear, but with action, with i did siesiveness -- decisiveness. now, was the road taken an easy one? no. was the struggle short? no. but was it worth the sacrifice, the dedication, the commitment

and, yes, the compromise to meet it? of course. but before the senate deals with the issue at the heart of our very government, it's right to vote. one thing we can hold sacred, no matter what party we belong to, the right to vote. time and time again, the constitution has been amended to expand the right to vote, no the to restrict it, but to expand it. look at the 15th amendment, the 19th, the 24th, the 26th. these each gave greater access to the ballot box to more americans, they furthered the shared goal that ours be the most ex-cluesive and most democratic nation on earth. but today, we do have a scourge of laws, no matter what we sue on the floor -- see on the floor. the facts are we have a scourge of laws making their way through partisan legislatures across the country.

they roll back the tides of time, roll back the mote fundamental right -- the most fundamental right, all at a time when technology and pure common sense should tell us that voting should be a lot more accessible than it is. and coupled with a challenge from the supreme court, the congress affirmatively act. remember this, the supreme court said why didn't the congress step in there and act to restore the long bipartisan voting rights act? there's no more important time than now for us to meaningfully address this constitutional right, this foundational right. now, there are some honest questions asked here of ourselves and of each other -- do we really want to make it more difficult for americans to vote legally and safely? is that what democracy means to you? to me? do we really want to allow states to make it more difficult for blue-collar workers or the

poor or the disadvantaged to vote, when the great advances of time and technology are there where you can easily make it easier, easier to vote, not more difficult. are we really going to turn back the clock to the era where state and local jurisdictions can blatantly discriminate against certain voters? yes, people of color, minority populations, by simply rigging the systems of voting, counting or changing the map to erase the progress of generations, make meaningless the fights of lions like john lewis, dr. martin luther king jr. and so many others? is that really what we stand for in this century? were we elected by our constituents to flatly construct any action of this body simply because our party is not of the majority? or were we elected to tas

idly -- tacitly agree with the prescribed agenda? the senate, those who stand in it, owe more to our constituents and to this nation than blind party loyalty. we owe it to the nation to do what is right. we owe it to our conscience to do what's right. partisan disagreements, division, stalemates dot the pages of our young nation's history when you go back and read it. but it's the moments of bipartisanship that punctuate it. so i'd ask the question of our two leaders. mr. majority leader, we not have a debate, a real debate on these issues with amendments unbound by deadlines or time limits. but in answer to that, i also ask the minority leader, do we not have an obligation to americans, your constituents and mine, to at least talk about these issues, offer honest and meaningful proposals, then vote them up or

vote them down? are we not intended to be the greatest deliberative body in the world? it probably was when i came here, but these days we surely are not. and history will remember this moment, a moment when we stood for the foundational right of our democracy, the right to vote, or we stood against it. the conscience of the nation rests in the united states senate, or it should. today we, each of us was sworn to uphold the constitution as a member of this great body that we must examine our conscience. we must decide whether it will be the politics of exclusion or the justice of inclusion that will be the indelible mark of the 117th congress.

and we must decide if the senate envisioned by our founders can be restored, the giants, the lions of the senate or the members will rise above to meet these moments and have the courage to do what is right. if our job were easy, anyone could do it. but throughout history, fewer than 2,000 americans have had the honor, the privilege, the responsibility to hold the title of united states senator. i've been proud to serve with one out of every five of those senators. some i agreed with, some i disagreed with. but i can say this -- we, the 100 here today are caretakers of a legacy far greater than our own. we shoulder the responsibility of a nation, a nation founded

under the principle that governments are instituted among its people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. and i fear if we let this moment, this pivotal moment pass us by with no debate, no action, no advancement, we'll not only be derelict in our duty, but we'll betray the very oath we swore when we stood in front of the desk you're sitting in, mr. president, and we pledged to defend the constitution, to continue forming a more perfect union. we should pass the freedom to vote, the john r. lewis act, but we should at the very least have the courage to debate it. i feel such a privilege serving vermont. i feel such a privilege to have

been on the ballot 24 times in our state, because i can always trust that everybody who wanted to vote could. today we have the technology, we have the ability to have far more people vote. don't we owe it to this country? don't we owe it to our oath of office? to do that. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: another senator from vermont. mr. sanders: we're running out of senators from vermont. mr. president, let me begin by thanking a number of my senate

colleagues who have worked so hard on this issue. let me thank, among others, senator merkley, klobuchar, booker, warner, king, leahy, durbin, kaine and others for their efforts on this important issue. mr. president, i will be brief because there is not a whole lot that i can add to the excellent statement that some of the other senators have made, but let me just say this. for some, the issue we are debating today may seem complicated, to be understood only by lawyers, constitutional scholars, and those handful of people who actually understand the opaque rules of the u.s. senate. so i just want to say that if that is what you think, you're wrong. what we are debating today is not complicated. it is really quite simple, and here is what it's about.

joe biden won the 2020 presidential election, period. you may have liked that result or you may not have liked it, but he won. he won in an election that donald trump's own department of homeland security determined to be the most secure election in american history. after the election, trump and his supporters filed more than 60 lawsuits in state and federal courts, repeating their false claims and trying to reverse the election results. these lawsuits were rejected time and time again, including with judges that trump himself appointed. nonetheless, the former president continued to claim, and to this day continues to claim despite all of the evidence that the election was stolen and that he actually won

in a landslide. not only are his statements and actions delusional, they are worse. in repeating this big lie over and over again, he not only cast doubts about the 2020 election, but in fact in a disgraceful and unprecedented way for a president, he is undermining the very foundations of american democracy. shamefully, republican leaders all across this country, including republican members of the u.s. senate, either repeated trump's lies or tried to walk a very, very thin line around them. trump's one-man dominance over the republican party is now so strong that few republican

officials are prepared to state openly what they know in their hearts to be true. and that is that trump is a pathological liar and a threat to democracy in this country and our very way of life. in any case, the predictable result of all of this was that republican governors and legislatures all over this country saw trump's big lie and fearmongering as an opportunity, a golden opportunity to solidify their political positions. acting under the guise of voter integrity, despite the fact that our nation has very little voter fraud, thank god, they preceded to pass election laws in 19 states that make it harder for people to vote, with a special focus on people of

color, young people, poor people, and people with disabilities, people who might be inclined to vote against them. in many cases, they also created election districts through extreme gerrymandering that have no rationale other than to make certain that republicans retain control over state legislatures. in other cases they are cutting back on the authority of independent election officials and giving that power to partisan legislatures. today, in order to address thatn democracy, members of the senate will be casting two very important votes. the first will be the freedom to vote act. this bill goes a long way to end voter suppression and in fact make it easier, not harder,

for american citizens to vote. it establishes automatic voter registration and online voter registration. it celebrates democracy by making election day a national holiday so that people can vote at a time other than after work. it establishes uniform early voting and same-day hedge strayings. this bill ends partisan gerrymandering and roots out the undue influence of special interest money in buying elections. imagine that. imagine that. we would actually know the names of billionaires who put huge amounts of money into super pacs that buy election. what a terrible thing. we'd actually know who these people are. this bill would also provide increased protection in the voting process for voters with disabilities. the military oversees voters in underserved communities, and

much, much more. this is a very significant piece of legislation. why would anybody be opposed to it? why in a nation that has a history of denying the vote to african americans, denying the vote to native americans, denying the vote to women, denying the vote to low-income whites, why would any fair-minded person be in a position to make -- in opposition to make it easier for all citizens to vote? that's what i understood when i went to elementary school. you play by the rules, you do your best. sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. that's the process. but no one ever told me that what politics is about is working overtime to try to prevent people frling voting just because they might vote against you. our job should be to increase voter turnout, make it easier

for people to participate, which is what this legislation does. i want this country to have the highest voter turnout of any nation online earth, not one of the lowest. but let's be clear. there's enormously important -- this enormously important bill, a bill to protect the foundations of american democracy, will fail. it will fail because, according to senate rules, it will require 60 votes to pass, and in a 50-50 senate, not one republican will vote for it. it will like get 50 votes, with the vice president casting the tie-breaking vote, would be enough to pass this legislation under majority rule. it will not get 60 votes. all of which brings us to the second vote, which is really the most important vote of the

day. that vote will determine whether anything we discuss today, whether any of the speeches that we give, any of the points that we actually make will in fact become law. that is the vote to change senate rules and establish a talking filibuster, a process which gives the minority an enormous amount of time to object to legislation and voice their concerns. the minority, whether it is a democratic in order or a republican minority, would have days and days and days to slow the process down, to rally the american people around their ideas. but they would not have forever. at the end of the time

allotted, a majority vote would prevail, which in my view, is what a democratic society is all about. is changing the senate rules a radical idea? oh, my god, first time in history we're about to do it. never been done before. well, really, not quite. no. as every member of the senate knows, the rules get changed on a fairly regular basis. nothing radical about it. just a few months ago, in order to raise the debt ceiling and prevent our government from defaulting on its loans, the rules were changed. so that a 50-vote majority would prevail. we changed the rules appropriately, and we prevented a default and a massive

worldwide depression. just a few years ago my republican colleagues who were so adamantly against changing rules, well, my goodness, they changed the senate rules to allow 50 votes to confirm the president's nominees to the supreme court. my goodness, how shocking, and they got three conservative supreme court justices as a result. rules get changed around here all of the time. and maybe, just maybe, we might want to change the rules in order to save american democracy. now, let me conclude by saying this. i don't know if any of my other colleagues have made this point, but i will. i regard it as a very sad day for our country, and i mean this very sincerely, that not one

republican in this body is prepared to vote for this bill. now, i understand why that is the case. i am in politics, i got it. i know who the leader of their party is. but this i do not understand. i can understand republicans, but this i do not understand. i do not understand why two democrats who presumably understand the importance of the freedom to vote act, and as i understand it, will vote for the freedom to vote act are not prepared to change the rules so that that bill could actually become law. that i do not understand. if you think this bill makes sense and if you're worried about the future of american democracy and if you are prepared to vote for the bill, then why are you wasting everybody's time and not voting for the rule change that allows

us to pass the bill? you know, it's like inviting somebody to lunch and putting out a great spread and saying you can't eat. if you're going to vote for the bill, vote to change the rules. mr. president, change the rules to prevent a default on our national debt, we can change the rules to confirm supreme court justices, we can certainly change the rules to save american democracy. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. a senator: thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president,

abraham lincoln must be turning in his grave to hear the senators from the grand oal party, the party of appear litigation and emancipation an reconstruction. echoing the state's right -- seg immigrationist to -- segregationist to oppose the reauthorization of the voting rights act. the voting rights act of 1965. in 2021, just one republican senator had the courage and principle to vote to restore the voting rights act of 1965, the

senator from alaska, senator murkowski. just one, for decades the reauthorization of the voting rights act was bipartisan. today only one republican senator will stand up for this landmark achievement of the civil rights movement not senator cornyn, of texas, who previously said the voting rights act is simply the most important and most effective civil rights legislation ever passed, bar none. no longer his position. mr. ossoff: not my friend, the senator from maine, senator collins, who previously said this bill will ensure that the voting rights afforded to all americans are protected.

not senator burr, of north carolina, who previously said voting rights for all american citizens, regardless of race, are granted by the 15th amendment and enforced by the voting rights act. and not the minority leader who previously said, this is a good piece of legislation which has served an important purpose over many years and this landmark piece of legislation will continue to make a difference, not only in the south, but for all americans and for all of us whether we are african american or not. not the minority leader, the same minority leader who said this bill eliminated the barriers to voting so that all measures could participate in the basic opportunity each of us have, who celebrated, quote, we have renewed the voting rights periodically since that time, overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis year after year

because members of congress realize that this is a piece of legislation that has worked. no more. not in 2022. only one republican senator stood up to support the voting rights act of 1965. when congresswoman john lewis and hundreds of other marched across the edmund pettis bridge on that sunday, when john lewis had his skull fractured on that bridge for daring to have the vote for black americans, it was their courage and sacrifice that paved the way for passage of the voting rights act of 1965. as my colleague, my brother, senator reverend warnock has often observed when

congresswoman lewis passed, there were many in this chamber on both sides who rightly celebrated his towering achievements and his legacy. but i speak for the state of georgia when i say, do not invoke congresswoman lewis' name to signal your virtue while you work to erode his legacy and defy his will. i've heard a lot from our republican colleagues about the recently passed election law in the state of georgia. let's be very clear. there was no one in georgia on other side of the aisle who doubts or does not understand precisely what its purpose is.

forbidding voter registration for run-off elections, driving down the early vote period during decisive run-offs to drive up lines at majority black precincts, as -- black precincts, as john lewis used to say, he didn't give up blood that day so black georgians would have to wait eight times to vote than white voters. john lewis didn't give blood on the bridge that day so state legislatures would pass legislation surgically targeted to make it harder for some people to vote, all for partisan power. in the state of georgia where now partisan election officials can step in and throw out

locally elected election boards to change who can vote and where they can vote. this in the aftermath of a well-known incident when a former president of the united states threatened georgia's secretary of state with criminal prosecution if he didn't, quote, find 11,000 votes that were never cast for donald trump. the facts of the former president's efforts to seize reelection despite his defeat are well known. he and his lieutenants mounted an unprecedented campaign to retain power based on a torrent of lies that have grievously wounded public confidence in our elections. and it was only thanks too the integrity -- to the integrity of our laws and courts an principled election -- and principled election officials

and the will of congress, the will of this senate, mr. president, to ensure the peaceful transition of power in the face of a violent assault on the u.s. capitol that this conspiracy was defeated. so now this faction seeks to dismantle precisely those bulwarks which prevented their on -- onslaught from succeeding. the choice is ours, whether we will allow them in to do so. we, in the united states congress, madam president vice president, have the constitutional authority to make the laws with respect to the administration of federal elections. we in the united states senate have an obligation to defend the legacy of congresswoman john lewis, to stand up for the

sacred franchise, to secure equal access to the ballot for every single american voter so that this country can continue its journey toward full realization of our founding ideals. i yield the floor, madam vice president. mr. warnock: madam vice president. the vice president: the senator from georgia. mr. warnock: thank you, madam vice president. we have been summoned here by history. this is not just another day in the senate.

this is a moral moment in america. i recall the words of that great american patriot and -- martin luther king jr., who all of us just observed, dr. king said history has thrust something upon me from which i cannot turn away. we have been summoned here. all of us. we cannot turn away. and this is no time for politics as usual. the times cry out for moral leadership, for integrity, for empathy and for care for one another, for deep investment in the covenant that we have with one another as an american

people. e pluribus unum, what a grand doctrine, what a noble idea which our country has been driving to reach with fits and starts, with setbacks and comebacks since the day of its founding. this is one of those moments. we cannot turn away. we cannot hide from history, and i am truly honored to stand here with all of you, democrats, republicans, and independents in this moment and on this, my 365th day, as a member of the united states senate. the most conventional deliberative body on the planet striving, again, -- striving

again for greatness. i was elected from georgia on january 5. what an honor to represent the people of the state of georgia and what a great nation. a kid from the katon homes housing projects, the first college graduate in my family of 12. my folks were both preachers, they read the scripture, be fruitful and multiply. this kid who grew up in poverty now serving in the united states senate. only the 11th black senator in the whole history of our nation. and during that same time georgia also elected its first jewish senator, my brother john

ossoff. i believe somewhere dr. martin luther king and abraham joshua heshull are smiling because they marched together. the rab bye said when -- rabbi said when he marched with dr. king, he felt like his legs , praying. so what a moment. i won after a hard-fought election. the next morning, i was feeling pretty good. my mother, who grew up in waycross, georgia, picking cotton as a teenager, had joined with other georgians in record voter turnout and the 82-year-old hands that used to pick somebody else's cotton helped to pick her youngest son to be a u.s. senator. only in america is my story even possible. i was on several of the morning shows talking about what the people of georgia had achieved,

and i was feeling pretty good that morning. man, i was on "the view" talking to whoopi goldberg. but by lunchtime the news alerts on my phone began to buzz. something was happening in the capitol, and we all know the rest of that sad and tragic story. a violent assault on our nation's capitol, driven by the big lie. ugly words, signs and symbols of racism and anti-semitism, an effort to stop the legal certification of an election and, in spite of those who want to hide, sadly january 6 really did happen. and we must face up to it.

we cannot hide from history. january 6 happened, but here's the thing, january 5 also happened. georgia, a state in the old confederacy, sent a black man and a jewish man to the senate in one fell swoop. our nation has always had a complicated history, and i submit to you that here's where we are -- we're swinging from a moral dilemma. we are caught somewhere between january 5 and january 6. between our hopes and our fears. between bigotry and beloved community. and in each moment we the people have to decide which way are we going to go, and what are we willing to sacrifice in order to

get there. the question today is are we going to give in to a violent attack, whose aim is now being pursued through partisan voter suppression laws in state legislatures? sadly, georgia, the same georgia that sent me and my brother ossoff to the senate, not the people of georgia, partisan state politicians, have decided to punish their own citizens for having the audacity to show up. and it isn't just about the restrictions around water and food distribution. the more fundamental question is why did it last so long in the first place? and why is that the case in certain communities? i know that some americans listening to me right now don't know what we mean, because

that's not your experience. but it is the experience of so many of your fellow americans. we need empathy, compassion, care for one another. while local election officials working in lincoln county, georgia, closed all but one polling location for a county bigger than 250 square miles? why is the second most powerful legislator in the georgia nate senate working right now to pass legislation to eliminate all ballot drop boxes in georgia in the middle of a pandemic? why are state leaders in georgia right now working to take over the local elections board in fulton county, where ebenezer baptist church sits? there's a woman in cobb county named irish. she said she's tried repeatedly over the past ten years to vote, but could not because of long

lines and changing polling locations. people playing games. she said that she has often had to decide if she will work or vote. another woman, verana, from cobb county, says she waited in line for eight hours in the rain at her local library. eight hours to vote. i run into constituents all the time who tell me that they waited for hours to vote for me. i'm honored that they voted for me, but i'm sad that they should have to wait for eight hours. a student in atlanta named isabella says that she and many of her friends who could not vote in the november 2020 election because they did not

want to skip class to stand in line. what are state leaders in georgia, why are they behaving as if giving voters these awful choices is normal, or that voters like these george janes don't ex -- georgians don't exist? those are the facts of the laws that are being passed in georgia and across our nation. and so here's the question tonight -- america, are we january 5 or are we january 6? are we going to give in to the forces that seek to divide us by gerrymandering us, suppressing us, and subverting the voices of some of us in pursuit of power at any cost, or are we going to live up to that grand american covenant, e pluribus unum? out of many one.

i choose what dr. king called beloved community. i choose america. i choose a nation that embraces all of us. we've been sum summoned here. we cannot turn away. and in just a few moments, all 100 of us, blessed with a sacred trust, will let the american people know where we stand on the question of whether the senate will protect their voices, the voices of the very people who sent us here, or if we will simply surrender to the anti-democratic fervor and polarizing disunity spreading across our nation. in the meantime, let me say that i am glad that we are finally actually having a debate on the

senate floor. imagine that. the senate, -- what is that, the most important deliberative body -- is actually having a debate. it took us nearly a year to get to this point, and i want to thank my colleagues who have worked with me and others over the last many months to keep this critical issue on the senate's front burner. voting rights are preservative of all other rights. the democracy is the framework in which all other debates take place. we can strengthen our infrastructure and the infrastructure of our democracy at the same time. if we can change the rules to raise the debt ceiling, we can change the rules to raise and repair the ceiling of our democracy. this is our work. so we have crafted a strong

piece of compromise legislation that will address the rampant voter suppression and election subversion laws we're seeing passed in state after state after state, 19 so far and counting. the freedom to vote john r. lewis act will restore bedrock voting protections established by the voting rights act of 19 1965, protections that have been eroded by the supreme court and are born from an era where members of this body used to work together to solve the tough issues of our time. we'll also set a federal baseline for voting standards to ensure every eligible voter has access to the ballot, no matter where they live, and to protect elections from subversion by craven politicians.

voting rights should be bipartisan. used to be bipartisan. passed this body the last time 98-0, signed into law by george w. bush, a republican president. and i know that my colleagues and i have worked in good faith this past year, this entire year. we have worked hard to try and find some common ground with our republican friends on this issue i said to my colleagues, let us bring these measures to the floor to debate. let's raise them. let's deliberate. and i had hoped our friends on the other side would have allowed us to have a debate on voting legislation, but until today that's what they blocked three times in the senate. they didn't block the bills, they blocked our ability to even have a debate on the bills.

as a pastor i understand the power and the possibility of coming together with those with whom we disagree, do have a robust debate on the issues that are important to families and to our country. i share with many of you, i'm sure, a vision of the senate that collaborates and negotiates on the most important issues of our time. i believe in bipartisanship. but when it comes to something as fundamental as voting rights, i just have to ask bipartisanship at what cost? who is being asked to foot the bill for this bipartisanship and is liberty itself the cost? i submit that that's a cost too high, a bridge too far. i'm deeply saddened that our

republican colleagues chose not to join us in this effort. democrats would prefer not to act alone. but by all means, we have to act. even if we don't get it done tonight, we have to keep working at it until we get it done. dr. king's words are as true now as they were back then -- history has thrust something upon me from which i cannot turn away. he said, just delayed is -- justice delayed is justice denied. now, i know that i've been speaking a lot over the course of the last year about voting rights, and it is one of my -- one of my primary passions. but i'm thrilled to work for georgians to close the medicaid coverage gap in our state, to create new, good-paying jobs, and in growing and emerging industries, to strengthen broadband across our state and

more. i'm thrilled to fight for these priorities for georgia, because that's what georgians sent me here to do, but they sent me with their votes. how can we have productive conversations about the many issues affecting the american people, about lowering healthcare costs, about creating good-paying jobs, about fighting climate change, protecting reproductive healthcare if politicians in states get to cherry-pick their voters? and the people's voices are squeezed out of their democracy. how can we achieve real consensus on the issues that matter most if only some voters can be heard? taking action to pass voting rights legislation is not a policy argument. it is about the democracy itself voting rights is how we address the deepening divides in our country, by ensuring every eligible voter's voice is heard.

and we as elected representatives have an obligation to protect their voice. so when it comes to the question of procedure, and the filibuster , let me be clear -- i believe that voting rights are more important than a procedural rule, and if taking action requires a change in the rules, then it is time to change the rules. when the times changed, we have always changed the rules. 160 times. and as we consider the filibuster, the name of the senator from west virginia, robert byrd, inevitably comes up.

his is an important perspective. but we shouldn't quote him as if he is scripture. in fact, he didn't always get it right. he said his greatest regret was filibustering the 1964 civil rights bill. robert byrd learned from history. will we? madam president, as i continue on what may feel like a filibuster, some point to senate procedure while others recycle excuses we've heard before. but as the pastor of ebenezer baptist church, i also know all

of these arguments calling against the moral action we're called to take are considered distractions. consider this -- there are some things you can do in this chamber with just 51 votes. confirm a supreme court nominee nominee, 51. pass trillions of dollars in investments for our communities, 51. pass massive tax cuts mainly for the richest of the rich, 51. confirm cabinet nominees, 51. raise the debt ceiling, we found a way to do it the other week, 51. but it takes 60 votes to repair the ceiling of our democracy by passing voting rights legislation. i'm left to conclude that if the issue is important enough, the senate feels compelled to act. let me say that i believe that

the democracy is at least as important as the economy. recently many of our colleagues have argued that legislation to protect voting rights somehow offends our federal system of government and amounts, they say, to a federal takeover of elections. some of the same voices ironically who have extolled dre at the same time been working vigorously against the legislation we're debating today to protect the right to vote, and many of them have been channeling old states rights arguments. let the message go out, you cannot remember martin luther king jr. and dismember his legacy at the same time. you can argue whatever side you want, but you do not get to argue both sides. i will not sit quietly while

some make dr. king a victim of identity theft. you do not get to offer praises and plaudits in memory of dr. king and then marshal the same kinds of states rights arguments used against dr. king and against the civil rights movement. please know that as the pastor of dr. king's church, this argument evokes, i say really respectfully, it evokes some of the darkest moments in our country's longest long struggle for equality. when a supreme court ruled that school segregation was unconstitutional in brown vs. board of education after a century of jim-crow laws, arkansas governor orville faubus did not argue that he supported segregation at all costs. he instead claimed that obeying the brown decision amounted to a surrender of all our rights, he

said, as citizens to an all powerful federal autocracy. when u.s. senator strom thurmond launched the logs filibuster in the history of the united states against voting rights he didn't argue explicitly that black people didn't deserve to vote. he said it was, quote, unlawful and unconstitutional for congress to erect the elections of the states. and during the senate 60-day debate on the civil rights act of 1964, the closing argument of the bill's opponents led and articulated by georgia senator richard b. russell was that it would, quote, strike down and destroy many rights and powers which since the foundation of our government have properly belonged to several states. let's be very clear about this legislation, the states will continue to administer their elections. and of course states have certain rights. but do we genuinely believe that

states have a right to discriminate, to suppress, or to block access to ballot boxes for so many americans? although we have 50 unique states, we're also united as one republic. and what happens in one state can affect us all. when we elect our u.s. senators and our u.s. representatives and when we elect the president, we must represent all americans. we need every vote to count to maintain the integrity of our democracy. and so we must do this work. i support reforming the electoral count act. that said, reforming the electoral count act will do virtually nothing to address the sweeping voter suppression and election subversion efforts taking place in georgia and in states and localities

nationwide. it doesn't matter if your votes are properly counted if you cannot cast your vote in the first place. and so as i close, i want to appeal to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not just as a colleague, but as a pastor and as a man of faith, the american people have sent us here and history has summoned us to this moment. we cannot hide. whatever the outcome tonight, i still believe in us. i believe in the u.s. i believe in us. i believe that democracy is the

political enactment of a spiritual idea, that we are all children of god and therefore we all ought to have a voice in the direction of our country and our destiny within it. i believe that a vote is a kind of prayer for the world we desire, for ourselves and for our children, and that our prayers are stronger when we pray together. and so a young martin luther king jr. struggled all those years ago, and he said history has thrust something upon me from which i cannot turn away. those of us who are students of dr. king -- i know i have often wondered what would i have done if i were alive during the civil rights movement. i know we would all like to think that we too would have had just a small fraction, just a fraction of the courage that it took for john lewis to cross that edmund pettus bridge.

well, for those of us who are fortunate enough to serve in the united states senate in this moment, in this moral moment, we do not have to wonder. my god, he faced troopers on the other side crossing that bridge. we're talking about a procedural bridge. we don't have to wonder what we would have done. i submit that what we would have done back then, we are doing right now. history is watching us. our children are counting on us. and i hope that we will have the courage to do what is right for our communities and for our country, the courage to cross this bridge to do the hard work

in this defining moral moment in america for the sake of the communities that sent us here in the first place, for the sake of the planet, for the sake of health care, for the sake of jobs, for the sake of being able to argue for the things that we care about. the courage to fight for one another. i'm still praying that we will cross that bridge. but if not tonight, we will come back again and again and again. madam vice president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: madam president. the vice president: majority leader. mr. schumer: just for a minute, i want to first salute the amazing speeches by our two senators from georgia. georgia, which has been the cruise bell in our fight for

voting rights, for the attempts to curtail voting rights seem more pernicious, to both of you, your erudition, your eloquence, your passion were amazing. and i want to salute our republican colleagues who listened to the speeches and hope that those who weren't here will get a chance to review those speeches as well. now i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the pending cloture motion be waived. the vice president: is there an objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the following senators be permitted to complete their remarks prior to the scheduled vote -- l senator blunt, senator klobuchar, senator schumer. the vice president: is there objection? without objection. mr. blunt: madam vice president. the vice president: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i was on the floor today and i think i've heard

virtually every speech given. i was reminded again of really the broad-based talent of people in the senate. i spent some time a couple of years ago, over a course of about six months kind of watching individual senators and trying to figure out how they got here. and with only a couple of exceptions, i could figure it out. that unique ability to communicate or to explain things in a way that people understood them or appear to just know more than other people knew about things that people knew senators need to know about. and i was reminded again of the tragedy of how little we use that collected talent. there is absolutely no telling what we could do if we decide as 100 people how to figure out how to get to the united states senate how we work together and solve big problems. and i think we all know where we are today, but i do hope, as senator schumer mentioned, that

we listen to each other as people expressed different views. certainly the senate would be a better place if we spent more time on the floor listening to each other and talking to each other. now on this bill, i think we all know where we're headed. in my view, having watched election legislation for a long time, it seems to me this is just another version of an election bill introduced by democrats. there's not much new in this bill. both the rules committee, where i serve, and the senate already rejected this federal takeover election several times this year. many of my friends on the other side said, well, why wouldn't republicans just want to debate this bill. i don't think anybody said why wouldn't the republicans want to amend this bill, because there was no opportunity to do that. we've been on the bill now for

several days. got on the bill, fairly crafty way to get on the bill with a 51-vote vote. fine with me to be on the bill. but our friends on the other side decided there would be no amendments on this bill. and i think republicans from the very start sensed that this would be a bill where we'd get a yes or no vote on a bill that really would dramatically change how we pursue elections. while it has a new name, it's more than 700 pages, it's nearly identical to the freedom to vote act. it's substantially the same as the two versions that couldn't get 50 on that side of the s.1. very similar to senate bill h.r. 1, and very similar, frankly, to the election bills that i've been watching for 20 years. and there's always been a different reason to do about the

same democrat-sponsored bill, house and senate. after 2020, the reason was, well, the equipment is too faulty and we've got to have more federal control of what happens in the states. after 2016, the reason to have a massive election bill was there's just not enough security in state elections, and the federal government has to intervene in some major way. after 2020, even though the federal government didn't intervene in a major way, suddenly the elections were the most secure in the history of the world. both parties alleged that at one point. and now we need to have this bill because some states are passing legislation that in most cases looks at the real outreach that they appropriately did for the pandemic, and thinking in

2021 that the pandemic was over, thinking what do we want to keep of what we did in that outreach, and what do we want to decide we should only do during a pandemic. i haven't found very many places, if any, that could easily be explained, like postal regulations and other things where the states have made changes and rolled back their pandemic outreach, don't have more opportunities to vote now than they had in 2018, the last election before they should have done extraordinary things. actually one lesson we probably taught state legislatures here is don't try to do anything at an immediate moment, because if you try to undo it after that moment's past, you will get on what senator lankford described as the bad list. he did a good job of explaining

of states that aren't on the bad list, don't have opportunities to vote as states that are on the bad list. one of the things -- i was an election official for about 20 years, including the secretary of state for a good part of that. and i always that the diversity of the system was one of the strengths of the system. i thought, as president obama did in 2016 that the diversity of the system made it really hard for outsiders or insiders to figure out how to rig a national election. i still think that. this bill undermines really a lot of state voter laws that are pretty popular are voters, and we've seen that expressed even in recent elections like new york city, prohibiting voter identification for mail ballots would be one of the things that you wouldn't want to do, if you wanted to have mail-in ballots,

you would want to be sure where they came from and frankly, you would want to have an objective standard like a voter i.d. number or something that was uniquely yours, like how you sign your name when you're 18 as opposed to how i sign -- you sign your name when you're 68. that is one of the changes in the georgia law that should have helped more people than not. this bill retains senate bill's 1, mandate or ballot drop boxes, federalizing rules for redistricting. i think it chills free speech, requires felon voting -- now, why would anybody want to be against those things? there are reasons, frankly, to be against all of those things but states make that decision for themselves and there are some states where it may work

very well and others it might not. of the top sweeping election administration changes in this bill, the s.1 policies in this bill disrupts state effort to maintain accurate voter rolls. now, accurate voter rolls were seen as one of the great progressive moves forward, you would have some sense that people who voted on election day were people who were supposed to vote and also vote in that district. you know, if you just vote anywhere and your legislative district where you should have voted was decided by four or five votes, suddenly that's a bit of disservice to everybody else. it would send federal money to campaign coffers at the rate of $6 federal dollars for every dollar raised. it would add a second public

financing program that would give people $25 in federal funds to contribute to house candidates. this 6-1 match is only for house candidates. that may not be what the final bill would say if we passed this bill, but it's only for house candidates now, and, of course, this federal money would be eligible to be matched 6-1 other federal dollars. that's pretty good. you give somebody $25 federal dollars and it could be matched 4-1 other federal dollars. this would set up on every federal district match likely to be drawn by federal district courts. how many maps have we seen this time that were drawn by new improvements that the states made that didn't turn out better than the old maps and turned out being drawn by judges. the john lewis voting rights

act, a friend of mine, i served with him, i traveled with him, i laughed with him, i liked him a lot, i admired him a lot. the voting rights act was 12 pages when it was introduced in 1965. the john lewis voting rights act provisions here, which have a great name, but they are 120 pages. i vowed to extend the -- voted to extend the voting rights act and i would do it again and proud to do it named after john lewis, but the 735 pages and if we don't vote for it somehow we're opposed to the voting rights act or opposed to the heroism of john lewis. i don't think so. since te doesn't have the support to -- since it doesn't

have the support to pass under the current senate rules, the next thing we'll do is attempt to really gut the legislative filibuster force it through. my republican colleagues have spoken at length about the consequences of doing that, as has senator manchin and senator sinema just the other day. the justification rests on really a narrow basis that somehow the protection of the minority no longer matters. the danger of overturning 200 years of election administration by the state, i'm going to resist doing any of the quotes this late in the day that you've heard over and over again of our democrat friends who just a couple of years ago were saying -- less than a handful of years ago how critically important it was that those rules never be changed. if democrats eliminate the

60-vote rule for election legislation, there will soon be no filibuster left. today it would be the carve out for the election administration. two or three weeks ago it was a carve out for raising debt limit. the next carve out would be for whatever seems important that day. a carve out won't work. i don't think really anybody here believes that any longer. this would be the first step in just eliminating an important distinction that makes the senate a place where we have to think about what we do. it eliminates some of the chaos that occurs when -- when you have a party change. in the past two decades a single party is controlled -- has controlled both chambers of the congress and the presidency four times, alternating between democrats and republicans. the senate is what has kept the

country from wildly going in one direction and back in the other. we don't want to lose that. the disaster for our citizens, the disaster for our economy of not having that sense of having to think about this just a little bit before you head in another direction is what the senate is all about. i certainly hope my colleagues today will not pass this federal takeover of election laws and will also resist the temptation to change the rules of the senate, and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam vice president. the vice president: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i rise today after hearing from my friend, senator blunt. i remember on january 6, as all of you do that day, when you and

i and vice president pence and two women took that long walk and we did our jobs, and i will be forever grateful for what he did that night and what so many people in this chamber did. but for me it didn't end that night. because, sadly, what wasn't accomplished by the people that riestled through -- rifled through these desks and got up on that dais, wasn't accomplished by the -- everything, and it has continued on. the votes that we took that night were important, but the votes that the people of this country take in every election

are just as important. and that's why when you look at the freedom to vote, the john r. lewis act, you have to understand what it is grounded in and that is our belief in our democracy. i want to thank every single member of the democratic caucus that have worked so thard to agree on this bill. and i will say the voting rights group and the rules committee and i do differ from senator blunt on this. we spent a lot of time making changes to that bill over the year. we have made many changes in response to from secretaries of state and local election officials all across this country, and i also thank you and the president for your leadership. since this country's founding when brave patriots rose up and ultimately established a country in the name of we the people, america has been a shinning beacon for the world, a

touchstone for democracy. we traveled the world as senators, as senator shaheen and portman and i and several of our democratic and republican colleagues did just this weekend when we went to decry dictators and bullies who attempt to undermine democracies. we were proud to ware lapel pins with the ukrainian flag on one side and the united states flag on the other. we are proud of that democracy and that is based on the freedom to vote. over the years we made improvements to address wrongs that kept too many americans joining in on the rights which our nation was founded, the generation after generation that americans have believed truly in our country's founding promise that they fought for it, they died for it. we are here today against that backdrop of history at a time when our democracy is facing a

new wave of threats, a flood that has surged up since the 2020 elections when more americans cast a ballot than ever before as a pandemic raged. and it is up to us to turn back that tide and preserve the -- what rests at the bedrock of our government. i disagree with senator blunt about what has been going on. i look at the law that was passed in montana that senator tester described. that was set in place for 15 years for same-day registration in the state of montana, 15 years in the last election, 8,000 people took advantage of it on election day, either newly registering to vote or changing their address because they moved. it was just taken away from them with what one court described in north carolina, surgical precision. you look at what senator ossoff

and senator warnock said, 70,000 people registered during the last weeks of the elections, 70,000 people, that has been stripped away, passed into law that that cannot happen again. the founding fathers knew that our democracy would face obstacles. a lot of people have been quoting them. i'll quote this one, samuel adams. he said this, the liberties of our country are worth defending at all hazards and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. when you have over 9,000 threats against members of congress in just last year, double, triple what we've seen before, i don't see that walk we took, that really important walk, that that all ended that day. when you have local election officials across this country being threatened, the names of their kids and their homes put

out on the internet like the republican local election official in senator casey's home state of pennsylvania, his house, his kids, with the threat that said, tell the truth or your three kids will be fatally shot, it's on all of us to uphold and protect this democracy. the freedom to vote john lewis r. lewis act meets the challenges before us by establishing basic federal standards for our election, restoring and strengthening the voting rights act, countering the power of secret money in our politics and taking on new threats to our elections to ensure that every vote is properly counted. and, again, let me read from the constitution, from article 1, section 4, that clause empowers congress to make or alter rules for federal election at any time -- at any time.

as senator kaine noted, that's the only time at any time -- that any time is used in the constitution, at any time. the word filibuster isn't in this document. the word cloture isn't in this document. but it was anticipated that congress could and should be involved in federal elections when necessary. what brought us to the point today? we're here in the midst of a concerted effort to stop people from exercising the most fundamental right in our democracy, because, as reverend warnock has put so well, some people don't want some people to vote. we're here because the people of this country know what's going on. i'm talking about a veteran in georgia, who didn't have to stand in line to serve his country, but he had to -- i met him myself -- he had to stand in line, hours and hours and hours in the hot sun, just to cat cast a ballot. we're here because of those

voters in wisconsin who stood in the rain in homemade masks and garbage bags in the beginning of a pandemic just to exercise their rights to vote. we're here because of a voter in a wheelchair in texas who traveled three hours on four buses just to vote. a woman in montana who had open-heart surgery, uncertain about how to return her mail ballot. a former election official from a rural county was ousted by republicans in the georgia legislature after a decade of service. and a 9 -year-old woman who was purged from the -- a 92-year-old woman who was purndle from the rolls after voting in every election for decades since 1968. we're here because, after a record number of voters voted to make their voices heard, there are people sadly working in every state capitol to make sure it never happens again. and i note that for every one of these laws that have passed, in 19 different states, it has been

with a simple majority, state by state by state. a simple majority. and then, as was noted by several of my colleagues, after this chamber has established over 160 carveouts, 160 processes in law to allow for a final vote without 160-vote threshold, whether it's for the debt ceiling, whether it's for the bush tax cuts, whether it's for the trump tax cuts, whether it is for justice amy coney barrett, 51 votes. now we hear, at this very moment, that we must embrace this archaic rule that is not in the constitution and did not exist when the senate was founded. and we're not even talking about getting rid of this rule. we're simply talking about restoring the senate to what it once was so we can have debates and we can actually vote on bills when those debates have concluded and when the speeches

are exhausted. we're here because we took an oath to defend the constitution as we did that night on january 6. we're here because we know that the eyes of the world are on us, watching to see if america will stand up and take on the challenges of our time. to paraphrase dr. king, whose legacy has been honored many, many times today, while there may be finite disappointment in this country for so many people every day, we must never lose infinite hope. we're not losing it. that, my friends, is why we on the democratic side of the aisle are supporting this bill. with history's eyes on us and with so much at stake, we must and we will fight on. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: ma'am vice president. the vice president: majority

leader. mr. schumer: madam vice president, what kind of democracy shall endure here in the united states long after our times in this chamber come to a close? shall american democracy in the 21st century be called a true heir to our framers' vision, a name where the people choose their own leaders, forge their own destiny, and add to the great legacies of those who expanded the franchise before us? or shall we see american democracy backslide in our time, grow feeble in the jaws of its adversaries and ultimately succumb to the cancer of voter suppression? the answer, in a large sense, could depend on how we move forward this evening. as we have clearly laid out in over the past two days, the laws passed in legislatures throughout the country do nothing less than to discourage

and prevent certain kinds of americans, black and brown americans, young americans, elderly americans, low-income americans, from participating in the democratic process. my colleagues, my colleagues, we can begin to put a stop to these attacks tonight by voting to proceed to the final passage of the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act of these are good bills. these are effective bills. and they should be passed by this chamber as soon as possible. and if cloture is not invoked, we must change the rules of the senate so we can pass these bills into law. as we cast our votes, i urge every one of us, democrat and republican, not to discount our place in history. the story of american democracy is full of contradictions and

vaulting progress. at the time of our constitution's ratification, you had to be, in many states, a while, male, protestant landowner to vote. but ever since the early days of this grand republic americans launched mighty movements, fought a bloody civil war, and, yes, passed federal election laws to expand the franchise until there were no more boundaries. today's vote is the next step in that long march. are we going to rhett our -- let our democracy backslide in the 21st century? are we going to be dragged back into the abyss of voter suppression? i urge every one of my colleagues, left, right and middle, for the sake of our democracy, unite, take a stand today.

to every member of this body who treasures our precious experiment in self-rule, to every member horrified by the muck of voter suppression, and to everyone who believes this chamber is still capable of defending democracy in its hour of great need, i urge a yes vote. i yield the floor. the vice president: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: the cloture motion, we the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to 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 non-excess

property of the administration, signed by 17 senators. the vice president: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to 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 non-excess property of the administration shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 51. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president, madam vice president. i enter a motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote. the vice president: the motion is entered. a senator: madam president. the vice president: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: madam president, i ask if we can have order in the senate. madam president, madam vice president, as we head towards

the final hour of debate, i want to just bring us back about 20 feet to talk about the stakes that we are laboring under tonight. i want to talk a little bit about the big picture of why this matters. i know we changed the rules 160 times in the history of the senate, but i will submit that it is still an extraordinary endeavor to ask our colleagues to change the rules and trdz of- rules and traditions of this body. so here's what i want to say. it is really important to remember that democracy, this idea that every member of our country, every member of the community gets an equal say in the rules of the governance, it is unnatural. why do i know this? because i want you to think of every organization in your life that matters.

your workplace, it doesn't give equal votes to every employee as to the direction of the company. think about your favorite sports team. there's not a vote from all the players about the lineups or the strategy of the team. the sunday sermon at your church isn't chosen by an online poll of the congregation. i love my kids, but they don't get an equal say with me and my wife about the rules of our house. when you look out over the long stretch of human history, it's no wonder that 99.9% of humans have lived under governments that were monarchies or sultan ates or autocracies. since the beginning of time, human beings have preferred, have been naturally drawn to or maybe have been trapped in hierarchal systems where the strong and the powerful make the decisions for everyone else. the idea that humans, both the

weak and the powerful, the rich and the poor should decide together, each person having equal weight --. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. murphy: -- course of their nation, mr. president, this idea is revolutionary. there have been experiments over the course of world history, but no nation has sustained this idea longer than this one. in historical context, our democracy should be perceived as a tiny, fragile port in the middle of a raging storm, and none of us should be surprised that once in a while some americans drawn to the old system of control by the strong and powerful decide that it's time to give up and submit to the battering winds. that's the moment we're in today. just in the last few days former president donald trump, the leader of the republican party and their likely candidate for president in 2024, once again made clear his intent.

he said last week, quote, we have to be a lot sharper the next time when it comes to counting the votes. sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate. the leader of the republican party isn't even trying to hide his agenda any longer. state after state is changing the rules of who counts the votes so that only the allies of donald trump can decide which votes count and which votes don't. now, much of the focus today understandably have been on unconscionable rules that limit the ability of poor people or people of color to vote. it's heinous that black voters have to wait in lines two times longer than a white voter, but democracy may collapse when donald trump -- he broadcasts the next election the vote

counting will be more important than the quality of the candidates. why? because the plan is to install donald trump as president whether or not he actually wins the election just like he tried do after the 2020 election. can anybody really deny that this is the agenda? of course that's what he's doing because it's what he tried to do transparently, unapologetically in 2020, and that's what he's telling us he's going to do in 2024. at some point we just have to believe what we see and what we hear. and i appreciate senator thune coming to the floor earlier today and telling us that he believes joe biden won the election and that when he faced a close election, he submitted to the will of the voters. but senator thune is not the mainstream of the republican party today. in fact, those that believe joe

biden won the election in the republican party are the dead limbs of and otherwise perfectly healthy tree, the trunk of that tree is donald trump and marjorie taylor green and all those that believe that joe biden is the illegitimate president. that's what 70% of republicans believe today. if mainstream republicans in this body came to connecticut and held a rally, a dozen people would show up. marjorie taylor green came to my state three months ago and 3,000 republicans came, more than i have ever seen show up for pa republican because -- for a republican because that's the mainstream of the republican party. today we are voting on a proposal to change our rules so that we can protect our democracy and the rules that have stood for generations to ensure that both parties continue to have a role in counting the votes.

and while it feels astonishing that not a single republican is going to join us, not the trump cheerleaders nor the sometimes critics of the former president, maybe it shouldn't be that shocking. because that natural state that billions of humans have defaulted to over the millennia, the unelected rich and powerful being in charge of everything and setting the rules for everyone else, it might square perfectly with republicans' agenda. for the last decade the entire legislative agenda here when republicans have been in charge have been about giving more money to the rich and powerful and to cut profits for the drug companies because it empowers that agenda often the weak and the powerless. maybe republicans aren't

fighting to protect democracy like democrats are because they -- their aversion to a world where just the rich and powerful run the country, it just isn't as scary to that side of this body as it is to this side. i wish it weren't up to us. i wish it didn't have to come to this. i wish it was not only democrats that see the miracle of our fragile democracy because the idea that a worker making $12 an hour gets just as much say in the future of their country as the c.e.o. making $12 million a year, it is revolution errey, it is -- revolutionary, it is unnatural and it matters more than anything, even the traditions and the rules of the senate. i yield the floor.

the president pro tempore: who seeks recognition? mr. king: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i signed a letter a couple of years ago saying that i opposed the changing of the rules. i understand that it can and probably will boomerang that an elimination of the filibuster, what is today's annoying obstruction could be tomorrow's priceless shield. i get that. i understand that it can also be a spur to bipartisanship. we saw that in the cares act. the republican leader submitted a bill, it was voted down on a filibuster initially and then ensued a series of negotiations that improved the bill and made it a bipartisan bill that passed this body unanimously.

the problem is if it's being used as a spur to bipartisan discussions, that works. we saw it work with the cares act. but if it's used simply to stop something, in other words, if one side or the other just doesn't want to talk about the subject, what you're talking about is stone-cold obstruction. and that's where we are today. unfortunately part of this body just doesn't want to talk about the issue of voting rights. how do i know that? because we brought up a motion to proceed three times and voted down three times, a motion to proceed to have a discussion about this issue. the only reason we're have this debate today is that the majority leader found a rule, that frankly i never heard of, that enabled us to bring this bill to the floor. it wasn't because the other side said, oh, let's discuss voting rights. what we have now, mr. president, is not a filibuster.

it's a second cousin once removed of a filibuster. it doesn't require any effort. it doesn't require any speeches, it doesn't require to hold the floor. all it is is a dial-in no work filibuster. strom thurmond would have loved this filibuster. he wouldn't have had to stand here for 24 hours and i ventured to say if we had the rules that we have today we wouldn't have the voting rights act and the civil rights act because it was too easy to stop anything. that's the problem. we don't really have a filibuster. the real radical change in the filibuster rule was in 1975 when they wanted to go from two-thirds of those present and voting to 60 votes, but inadvertently we created the no-effort filibuster, and that's what we have now. i would submit that a talking filibuster, which is what we're going to be pro posting --

protesting in a few minutes would be the spur to bipartisanship because everybody would want to get it over with. the minority would want to get it over with, the majority would want to get it over with and get to the point where there is discussion -- the president pro tempore: if the senator would suspend. the senate be in order. there's a lot of conversations going. the senator is entitled to be heard. mr. king: i think there may be areas where we can find agreement, the real spur to bipartisanship would be to return to the old filibuster. this is it what we're going to be voting on today. by the way on bipartisanship, i came here to seek bipartisanship. i'm all about bipartisanship, but it strikes me as one of the deep ironies of this discussion that we are elevated by partisanship in this body to this exalted position while these laws are being passed entirely on a partisan basis.

i guess bipartisanship isn't an -- is an important issue in washington but in atlanta and austin, not so much. i don't get that. i think that's one of the real issues of the situation. so, angus, if you came here opposed nine years, why are you here now? it is not -- it's democracy itself. policy can change, if they don't like the policy we have, they can kick us out and vote others in. if they change the structure of the rights of people to vote, it's not self-correcting. the system itself is being compromised. that's what we have to talk about. most of the discussion today has been voter suppression, there's also what i call voter subversion, purging the officials of -- entercharge of elections -- in charge of

elections. this democracy i would argue was damn near saved by a guy in georgia. they purged him or they are going to. they already purnlgd him out of the -- purged him out of the system and they are going to try to purge him out of his jb. that's happening -- job. that's happening. we talk about the ability to dismiss voting boards because they don't like what they did, we're going to see more and more voting boards, voting commissioners, voting sertification -- certification officials gone. the other problem here, mr. president, that really worries about our democracy is that the former president eaf foforts to undermine confidence in our elections have already convinced two-thirds of one of our great political parties that

elections were illegitimate and rigged. two-thirds of one of our great political parties believes that. if these laws happening across the country fanned we give them a pass today, it's katy bar the door over the next six months. then you're going to disillusion and anger and loss of trust among two-thirds of the democratic party and independents and you're going to have widespread distrust of elections as the way to solve problems in the country and if you can't trust elections, what do you do? i would submit we saw it an jake. those people -- on january 6, they were told you can't trust the courts, you can't trust the media and so they took the law into their own hands.

and, sadly, if this continues, we will have a broad, widespread loss of trust in our electoral process and that's when democracy starts to fall apart. finally, my wife says i say finally too much, it gets people's hope up. finally there are some deeper constitutional issues here. the framers knew fractions. they said it takes two-thirds to pass a treaty. it takes two-thirds to impeach a president, it takes two-thirds to pass a constitutional amendment, it takes three-quarters of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. they knew fractions, they didn't apply any fractions when they talked about the passage of legislation. why not? because they knew it would be a disaster to have a supermajority requirement in one of the houses

of the national legislature. how do i know that? because madison and hamilton said it explicitly. federalist 22 by hamilton, federalist 58 by madison. madison says the fundamental principle of free government if you had a supermajority, it would be reversed, it would no longer be the majority that rules, it would be the minority. you can't have it both ways. and the filibuster was not part of the constitution, in fact, they expressly rejected the idea of a supermajority requirement. it flips democracy on its head. i think we're at a hinge of history, mr. president. i think we're at a hinge of history where our fragile experiment, and senator murphy is right, we're an anomaly in world history. the norm is pharaohs and kings

and dictators and now we call them presidents for life. and once people seize power -- and this isn't an academic discussion, this has happened in hungary and venezuela and turkey and russia, it's happened right in our personal experiences. it can happen here and it starts with undermining free and fair elections. in the winter of 1891, the house passed a protection act for black voters in the south. the bill was to deal with the egregious voter suppression that was then sweeping the south in the wake of the civil war. the bill came here and died due to a filibuster. that filibuster echoed in this

country for 75 years. it took 75 years to correct the mistake that this body made with that filibuster in the went winter of 1891. we're not talking about abolishing the filibuster. we're not talking about a carve-out. we're talking about allowing this body, requiring this body to debate, to argue, to make their arguments, as long as it takes, and then at the end, when the debate is exhausted, all of us have had the opportunity to speak twice, then we have a vote, and we pass legislation on the same basis that it's always been passed, by a majority. cloture has nothing to do with the passage of legislation. it's always been by a majority. mr. president, i pray that we don't rook back -- look back on

this day and realize the level of the mistake that they made in 1891. abraham lincoln's words ring today as they did when he came to this body in december of 1862. he said, fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves no personal significance or insignificance can spare one another of us the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. mr. president, i yield the

floor. the president pro tempore: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i'm glad that a number of my republican colleagues are in the chamber, because i'm going to speak very briefly just to reassure you. i am not so immodest that i believe i'm going to persuade you, but i do want to try to reassure you. we're going to take up a rules reform proposal that will not blow up the senate. we're going to take up a rules reform proposal that will not abolish the filibuster, that will not weaken the filibuster. we're going to take up a proposal that will show you, even if you're not persuaded, but i believe it will show you, that we've been listening to you, that we've been listening to all our colleagues as we try to come up with a rules reform proposal to let us address the voting rights issue.

i'm glad to see senator collins and senator coons here on the floor. you helped put together the 2017 letter that many of us signed, and it's very carefully worded in its two paragraphs. and what you got us to join together as bipartisan senators to express was our united determination to preserve the ability of members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the senate floor. extended debate when bills are on the senate floor. and that's what our rules reform proposal will do. the simplest way to understand it, and senator merkley's going to go into more detail, is it switches the current secret filibuster into a public filibuster and makes both parties have to work on the floor, the majority have to work

and the minority have to work on the floor to get the kind of extended public debate that we join together to seek in the letter in 2017. let's face it, we don't really do this. the current rules an obstacle to extended debate because you just vote down the motion and proceed, and you can't even get on a bill. then if you do get on a bill, the 60-vote cloture threshold is used with confidence by a filibustering minority that you don't even have to show up to deeb, because there's an awareness that you can't get 60 votes to terminate debate. so instead of trying to change the rules about terminating debate, which as my colleague senator manchin pointed out, to terminate debate has always required more than a simple majority, we're going to restore actually having debate, and when debate is finished the rules of this senate have always been when debate is finished, even

after a long time, passage is by simple majority. our proposal is to restore a talking filibuster that has been the history of this senate over the vast majority of our history, and to make a simple change to make it public rather than secret so that our colleagues and the american public can understand and then hold us accountable for our actions. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the senator from maine. collins thank you, mr. president. -- ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. first let me say i appreciate the sincerity of the senator from virginia, my friend, senator kaine, in his comments about the filibuster of i'm not going to repeat the speech that i gave last week on the vital safeguards that the filibuster provides to the minority party

in the united states senate and why it makes us the greatest deliberative body in the world. instead, mrs., since -- instead, mr. president, since i've already talked on that issue, i feel compelled to respond to comments that were made by senator ossoff, the senator from georgia, earlier this evening in which he singled out four republican senators -- senator mcconnell, senator cornyn, senator burr, and myself, and our position on the voting rights act of 1965. a seminal law that was so important in the civil rights movement, in guaranteeing the right to vote for all americans. well, mr. president, i was not

in the senate in 1965. i was 13. i'm not sure that the senator from georgia was even born in 19 65, but that is not really my point. my point is that of me, the senator from georgia, mr. ossoff , said senator collins previously said that this bill will ensure that voting rights afforded to all americans are protected, but not anymore. mr. president, i voted enthusiastically and did say that about the voting rights act reauthorization in 2006, and

surely my colleague is not confusing that bill, which was five pages long -- five pages -- with the bill that is before the senate tonight, which is 735 pages long. surely, he is not confusing those two bills. if he is, i would like to sit down and talk with him about the enormous differences between the two bills. but frankly, the number of pages says it all. i do support the reauthorization of the voting rights act of 1965, and i did so, as did every other senator, in 2006.

but to equate that to the legislation that is before us now is simply not worthy. and had i been on the floor at that time, i might well have thought of reminding the senator that we have a rule in the senate, rule 19, which prohibits impugning the integrity or the motives of other senators. not just one senator in this case, but four senators. so, mr. president, let there be no mistake about it. i do support the voting rights act of 1965. i supported the voting rights act of 2006, as did every one of

my colleagues who were mentioned by senator ossoff this evening. and i think it is sad that he implied otherwise about our support for such important civil rights legislation. i yield the floor. mr. ossoff: mr. president? the president pro tempore: who speaks? mr. ossoff: mr. president. the president pro tempore: oh, the senator from georgia, i'm sorry. mr. ossoff: thank you, mr. president. briefly, mr. president, responding to the comments from senator collins from maine, a senator for whom i have great respect and whose reputation for bipartisanship, for substance, for a thoughtful, statesperson-like and patriot approach precedes her. what i was referring to, senator collins, was the legislation

that the senate took up earlier this year, which in response to the supreme court's invitation to congress, after the shelby county v. holder decision, would have updated the preclearance formulas that govern sections 4 and sections 5 of the voting rights act of 1965, such that the department of justice could continue to carry out its vital work preclearing changes to voting procedures in states and jurisdictions that exhibit a history or pattern of voter suppression and that is an obligation that i believe this congress has. the supreme court, in fact, invited us to carry out that obligation, and the judiciary committee under senator durbin's leadership carefully crafted legislation that we believe responded to the supreme court's invitation to do just that. respectfully, senator collins, running the state of georgia,

where as i mentioned earlier we faced a wave of bills and now law which everybody in my state knows are intended deliberately to disproportionately impact serp communities, laws -- certain communities, laws that prior to the shelby county decision would have been subjected to department of justice preclearance, i believe more strongly than ever that preclearance is necessary. and what i was respectfully noting, senator collins, without any implications with respect to your motives or integrity, was what i believe to be a inconsistency, an inconsistency between voting consistently to reauthorize the voting rights act of 1965 and lauding it as a signature civil rights achievement, but then voting not even to allow debate in this body on the legislation that was created to respond to the

supreme court's invitation to uphold its preclearance provision. i yield. ms. collins: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, rhett me just -- let me just note that the federal department of justice, under section 2 of the voting rights act, has challenged the law of the state of georgia and the state of texas. so the idea that somehow the justice department no longer has authority to challenge laws with which it disagrees or regulations or practices is simply not accurate. section 2 of the voting rights act provides that authority. it is in effect, and the department of justice, right pli or wrongly, has -- rightly or wrongly, has invoked it.

mr. ossoff: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the senator from georgia. mr. ossoff: i know we have other business to attend to and an important vote. section 2 of the voting rights act is not the entirety of the voting rights act. section section 4 and section 5, which provide for the preclearance of changes to voting laws in jurisdictions with a history or pattern of voter suppression, are vital, precisely because the post facto litigation that d.o.j. must embark upon to challenge state policies once they've already been enacted can be far too time-consuming to allow a remedy to emerge in the courts. and this is precisely why section 4 and section 5 were enacted at the time, to give the department of justice the power it needs to preclear these changes in places with a history of segregation and voter suppression. and in my state, despite all of the protestations to the contrary, we are right now witnessing a significant wave of

voter suppression policies. the department of justice should have the authority to preclear those changes to law, to ensure we don't disproportionately impact minority communities. so text 2 of the voting rights act is important. but if section 4 and section 5 were vital when you voted to reauthorize them in 2006, why aren't they vital today? the president pro tempore: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i promise my colleagues this will be my last comment. this is entirely different from a debate on a 735-page bill. i would invite my colleague from georgia to review exactly what he said earlier this evening. thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the senator from oregon.

mr. merkley: i compliment my colleagues from maine and georgia for engaging in perhaps the most substantive conversation i've witnessed in 13 years in the senate. earlier this evening one of my colleagues from across the aisle said why are we going down this road. and there have been similar questions. why is this so important? why is this bill so important? and i'll answer simply this -- that dark money corrupts elections. if you and i donate more than $200 to a campaign, we're recorded. but if extraordinarily wealthy individuals donate hundreds of millions of dollars, they can do it with no attribution, corrupting the elections across this country. gerrymandering corrupts the system of equal representation. from the earliest debates in this chamber, it was recognized

that each of us has a stake in the integrity of the elections in other states so that the people of the united states experience equal representation. we do not have equal representation in the house today, and the gerrymandering going on now will increase that corruption. and third and most importantly, the power to vote is the most significant right guaranteeing each citizen a voice in the direction of our democracy. it is the soul of what it means to be a democratic republic. and that power to vote is also the most important check in our system of checks and balances. with rigged elections, leaders leaning towards autocracy can keep themselves in power.

but with fair elections undergirded by a free press, the people can vote out those autocratic leaders who ignore laws and undermine our institutions. it's the most important check in maintaining the integrity of our beloved republic. let's go back in time. the rules of the senate were forged in the confederation congress experience. our founders were engaged during the time they were writing our constitution, in participating in the confederation congress that required a vote of 9 out of 13, two-thirds plus a bit, in order to pass any law. and it prevented them from being able to pay the pensions of our

veterans. and it prevented them from raising money for shay's rebellion. our founders participated in that process, said this supermajority has paralyzed our ability to act. and with that in mind, they wrote our constitution so that legislation would be passed by simple majority. that at the end of the debate, when all perspectives were duly considered, the perspective favored by the larger number would be accepted rather than the perspective favored by the smaller number. and so our founders, leaving nothing to chance, warned us in their writings, never adopt a supermajority. they said, and i will quote james madison, that when the general good might require new

laws, the principle of free government would be reversed. it would no longer be the majority that would rule. it would be the power transferred to the minority. and he went on to say the result would be particular emergencies to extort unreasonable indulgences. hamilton said many similar things. if a pertinacious minority could control the opinion of the majority, the result will be tedious delays and continual negotiation and intrigue and contemptible compromises. he noted the supermajority's real operation is to embarrass the administration and destroy the energy of government, and anyone who has seen the energy drained out of this chamber by nothing happening day after day

after day, when we have important issues to face, can understand just how right the founders were. so in writing up the guidelines and the vision for the initial senate, our leaders came up with a senate code. and that senate code was hear all perspectives. in fact, guaranteeing in rule 4 of the original rules that every senator will have the right to speak twice to a question. in addition, they put into the rules a previous question, just in case they couldn't get the debate to wrap up so they could get to that all-important vote to determine where the greater number stood. and thomas jefferson put into the rule book the manual for the rules in 1801, no one is to speak imper tently or besides the question superfluosly or

tediously. hear the debate and take the option the greater number favored. that senate code endured in a powerful fashion for a very long time. in 1806, aaron burr was rewriting the rules and he said, you know, we've never needed to use the previous question rule in the book because we hear everyone, we hear those perspectives, we take a vote, and we go forward. so we don't need the previous question, and it was dropped from the rule book. and when i hear folks say the senate never had a simple majority to close debate, they had the senate code and they had a rule, and then they said we don't need the rule because we have the senate code. and that code continued to endure, which the full

understanding of the members of this chamber was they had no right to prevent the senate from getting to a final vote. that code was so powerful that in the mid1800's, when senators started to speak at length in order to make it very difficult to get to a final vote, the press called it piracy. you may wonder where did that term filibuster come from. that terms is a corruption of the turm free boort, -- term free booter, the term for piracy. the piracy was the senate breaking the code. that was the piracy. still it happened on rare occasion, and the code was stretched but not really broken through the 1800's except on civil rights. and what happened in our history on civil rights? well, you had john c. calhoun

leading the nullification movement that said states don't have to accept any given federal law. they can choose and pick which ones they want. and initially that nullification movement was in order to block laws that put tariffs on imported products, that strengthened the north and cost more funds to the south, increase the prices of goods. then it turned to the question of protecting slavery, and nullification continued and even went so far as to say states should have the right to succeed if they don't like those federal laws. and then we had a civil war over that question, and that was the end of nullification. but it was not the end of attack on civil rights. so what did we see after the civil war? we saw a group of states make it harder for individuals to

register to vote. we saw a group of states make it hard for black americans to get public accommodations. we saw a group of states make it easier to reenslave black americans under the black code, utilizing the slavery clause of the 13th amendment. and congress responded. the house responded. this senate responded and said, no, we are here to defend the constitution, that every person is created equal and every person's rights must be protected. that's what this chamber of the senate did. in 1875 the house passed the civil rights act on public accommodations, guaranteeing access to all public accommodations for all americans. the house voted 15 2-99, and it came to the senate and the senate voted 38-26, simple

majority. although there were senators here who desperately hated public accommodation bills because it would end discrimination in the south, they did not filibuster because the senate code said after all views are heard, you can hold a simple majority vote. the senate code held, but it didn't hold in 1891. in 1890 henry cabot lodge, down the hall in the house, introduced what became known as the lodge bill, and it said in order to protect the foundation of our nation, there can be federal supervision upon request to make sure registration is fair, to make sure the voting process is fair, and to make sure the counting process is fair. and the bill came here to the

senate. and a bipartisan group filibustered that bill, of southern democrats and western senators known as the silver senators. and they were anxious to get on to a bill about silver coinage. support the silver mining in the west. and that bill was eventually tabled. 1891, the senate code was broken on civil rights and continued to be broken through 1965. 1922, the anti-lynching act. it was filibustered. 1934, the anti-lynching act, filibustered. 1942, the antipoll tax bill, they put a price on being able to access the ballot box. it was filibustered. and on and on. with the exception of a one-week delay on a bill for arming

commercial ships in 1917, virtually every filibuster was to deny black americans the right to vote because in lieu of nullification, there had to be a strategy for certain senators to make sure that black americans didn't get their civil rights. that is the sorry chapter of that part of our american history. three generations, through 1965 paid the price of denied opportunities. the senate code on every other issue essentially survived until 1971 within our lifetimes. 1975, 71, we started to see the filibuster go to not just one or two filibusters a year, but to 12, a dozen. imagine that. and 1974 to 32. and that was just so outrageous because each one takes up a week, and so this senate said

that is unacceptable, so we must reform the rules. and it led to the march 1975 rule reform where they went from two-thirds of those voting to 60 members voting. well, the result is that law backfired. to quickly look at it, cloture on amendments, each one taking up a week. expanded from some six times an entire decade in the 19 is 60's to -- 1960's to 143 times in the 2010's, from motion to proceed to prevent debate from ever happening, so the filibuster to promote debate was used to kill the debate on the motion to proceed. it was used ten times in the 1960's, 175 times in the 2010's. and on nominations, it went from once in the 1960's to 545 times in the 2010's. and how did it happen that it

expanded in the 2010's? well, it happened because the republican majority, the republican minority decided that they were going to obstruct as many of president obama's nominations as possible. and the democrats did the same thing to president trump. each one of these takes up a week, an intervening day, an hour of debate for every other senator that wants to speak who didn't get to. when you have over 100 of these a year, it is impossible to have a senate that works. the senate has been broken. and perhaps the top champion of breaking the senate is the minority leader who has engaged in the tactic of delay and obstruction arguing he wanted to make sure his top priority was making sure president obama was

never reelected and stopping him from having an agenda and stopping him from putting people into office was the strategy. and democrats took much the same approach to president trump. so we have both done it, but the senate is blowing up now. you know, that original congress, the senate first term it said there were about four cabinet members to confirm plus ambassadors and some judges many four. we have over 1,000 positions now. it's completely out of sync. and every time there's a filibuster nomination, it's another week lost. so the senate is now paralyzed because here is the interesting prospect and the unfortunate reality of 60 votes, the interesting prospect is that a majority of less than 60 has to reach out to the minority to get

something done and that sounds like it's going to increase cooperation an negotiation, but the unfortunate -- and negotiation, but the unfortunate reality in our tribal partisan politics, is the minority looks at it and says if we can get -- get them to close debate, we can paralyze the majority. it is paralysis of partisanship of our current filibuster. today's debate, it's not about a filibuster versus no filibuster. it's about fixing a broken senate. it's about the difference, as my colleague from virginia has said, from the secret no-show filibuster to the public talking filibuster. before 1975, people who wanted to extend debate had to actually

debate. what a notion. they had to show up. and that is painful and difficult to maintain continuous debate and so there's an incentive to negotiate. but when there's a no show, no effort filibuster, where those who say they want to debate are off on vacation because 60 votes is required with or without them, there's no incentive to negotiate. so if you believe the senate should be a place that encourages negotiation, we need a public public filibuster, not a filibuster, not a secret, silent filibuster. if you believe that the public should be able to participate in our process, we need not a secret, silent filibuster, but a public, talking filibuster, we're here day after day, week after week, we're raising amendments and considering amendments and what is the result?

the citizens weigh in and say, finally they are debating it and now we can weigh in effectively in this moment. so this is about restoring, reinvigorating debate, restoring the public role, creating an incentive to negotiate, creating incentive for both sides to work to reach an accommodation. now, my republican friends have made much today to democrats signing a letter saying that they are determined to, quote, preserve the ability of members to engage in extended debate. interesting. preserve the ability of members to engage in extended debate. the ability to pre -- to preserve the ability to engage in the senate debate, means we need the talking filibuster, not the secret silence filibuster, which requires no debate at all. so to my republican colleagues who signed this letter, this is

your opportunity to do what you said, vote for the principle that the majority leader is going to be laying out forthwith. so, colleagues, if you believe in the founders' vision of had this senate of hearing everyone and hearing everyone well, but eventually getting to a final bill, if you believe in the senate code which stood up for so long, not even needing a rule to enforce it, except for civil rights, it held up through 1971, if you want more debate and you want people who want to debate to have to show up to debate, support the talking filibuster. if you believe there should be

an incentive for both the majority and minority to negotiate support the talking filibuster. if you believe the public should have the ability to see us debating issues, then support the talking filibuster. and my colleagues have said we must defend the minority leverage. amen to that. that is why in 2011 i put forward in this chamber the talking filibuster and said we needed to defend the minority's right to participate. today we have another opportunity to defend the minority's participation, to speak at length for at least twice on any given question on through a complex bill. but that, colleagues, depends upon ending the era of the secret, silent source of partisanship and paralysis that we currently have and replacing

it with the talking public filibuster. i enkiewcialg you all to stand -- i encourage you all to stand today for the senate to work and for the senate most importantly to defend the -- fundamental rights of every american to access the ballot box. a senator: mr. president. if you would yield for one second, sir. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: is it possible to enter into a talking filibuster without a rules change? could we start a talking filibuster without a rules change? mr. merkley: to my colleague from west virginia. the chal exthat we have -- the challenge that we have today is that in the course of senate debate, it is never possible to get to debate on the final question. and the proposal that the majority leader is putting forward is saying it is time to

get to that final debate. and on that final debate every senator can speak twice, i can tell you leadership on both sides probably is nervous about the idea of 100 senators speaking twice at length, but that is the single innovation of the talking filibuster is to say that there will be a period of debate in which we will consider final passage with all four of the mechanisms that currently exist. three that were created at the foundation. that is the break in debate and the two-speech rule and unanimous consent and the 60 votes that was created in 1957. mr. manchin: the way this rule reads, during which all amendments and points of order are not in order and any appeal shall be determined without

debate. that allows any amendments whatsoever. that's the -- what we're voting on right now. mr. merkley: excuse me. mr. manchin: that's what we're voting on right now. mr. merkley: what we're voting on now is to go to final passage with continuous debate and the majority leader's team has crafted this to ensure continuous debate. mr. manchin: no amendments. no amendments. mr. merkley: had we gotten to the bill -- mr. manchin: we never had amendments on the bill, no amendments, no motions, no points of order. to my colleague from west virginia, your question is, what are the characteristics that define continuous debate on final passage and it is defined as without interruptions that take us in other directions in the question of final passage of the bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the distinguished republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i think we can

all agree on one thing. it's been a long day. almost everybody's had something to say, and the reason for that is this is an important day in the history of the senate. it could be argued it's the most important day in the history of the senate as an institution. this very day that we are just wrapping up is in all likelihood the most important day in the history of the senate as an institution. this evening fewer than 60 senators voted to advance a piece of legislation so it didn't move forward. it's pretty common around here. it happens frequently. in fact, it happened less than a

week ago, as we know, when our democratic colleagues used the 60-vote threshold to block sanctions against putin's pipeline. in 2020, the democrats used the filibuster multiple times to delay the cares act, killed senator tim scott's police reform bill, blocked bipartisan protections for unborn children. senate minorities can apply the breaks to small majorities. senate minorities can apply the brakes to small majorities. this institution makes major changes earned major -- this

institution requires that major changes receive major buy-in. for decades, americans on all sides acknowledged this. believe it or not, 15 years ago self-of us here 15 years ago. there were 180 civil rights organizations -- 180 civil rights organizations weighed in this support of the filibuster because at that particular point the filibuster was being used to stop judges appointed by bush 43. so over 100 civil rights organizations wrote us a letter saying the filibuster's indispensable. it served their purpose at that

particular time. for decades, literally decades, senators on both sides agree that we've quoted each other back and forth here, eloquent filibuster defenses from colleagues across the aisle when it benefited them to make those speeches. but, colleagues, the leader's true colors are not revealed when long-term principles and short-term power line up together. that's easy when what you're trying to achieve lines up with the tactics. the measure of a leader is not what he or she chooses, it's what they choose when those two

paths diverge, go in a different direction. now, half of us on this side of the aisle just spent four years -- four years when we were in the majority and we had a president of our party asking us to do what they are trying to do tonight and we had a one-word answer. no. no. we're not going to fracture the institution to achieve some short-term advantage. and actually, astonishingly enough, grassley was here then, in 1994 the best republican off-year election arguably in american history, took the house for the first time in 40 years, got the majority back in the

senate, tom harkin, chuck grassley's colleague from iowa, a democrat, on day one of that session, through the regular order, offered a rules change to lower the threshold to 51. who would have benefited from that? this brand-new, enthusiastic majority just having swept the country would have been the principal beneficiaries of lowering the threshold to 51. not one single republican in the new majority voted to give themselves an advantage that would break the senate. not one. so we've been consistent on this

side of the aisle in support of this institution, as long as i've been here. they've faced the same decision now. they got a choice. they can break the institution to achieve what they want or defend the institution. and so they've pivoted, and that's why so many of them look so foolish. because they've been on the opposite side of this. not a long time ago, but quite recently. and so they tried to carve out a special category here, that somehow this issue is different from all the other issues and should be treated differently.

well, on the merits, as we've discussed ad nauseam here, this is something they've been trying to do for a long time. the rationale for it has changed periodically, depending upon what seemed to make sense. but doll it up any way you choose to, this is a plot to break the senate. a plot to break the senate. over the issue they've chosen, one half of one percent of american people sayelection law is their most pressing concern. one half of one percent of american people. actually, americans, as a number of you said during the course of this long day, believe voting

laws are actually too loose rather than too strict. and, as you've said over and over again, georgia's new law is arguably more progressive than new york or delaware. all of you have said that, all day long. and this? this is the basis upon which the president of the united states calls people like us racist? traitors? over this? over how many days of early voting you're going to have? really? this is the basis on which 40-plus senate democrats want to not only break their word, but break the senate.

now, the so-called talking filibuster proposal, smoke and mirrors. just smoke and mirrors. there's really only one question we're dealing with here, just one, not complicated -- will it take 60 votes to pass massive changes or a simple majority to ram them through? that's what's at stake here. nothing else. will slender majorities need to build coalitions across the aisle or not? will huge chunks of federal law reverse themselves whenever gavels change hands? we've talked about this all day long. that's what this is about. but colleagues, something even

more fundamentally is at stake tonight. everyone in this chamber knows that factional fires are burning hot all across our country. as i look around, i don't know if there's many of us have actually gathered in this chamber since january 6 of last year. we were all in here then. i stood up that day and i said self-government requires shared respect for basic ground rules. i said we couldn't keep drifting into two tribes and delegitimizing the few institutions we still share. yes, the divisions run deep, compromise is certainly challenging, but it would not serve a divided country if two

factions take turns ruling over one another with an iron fist. here is the solution for a divided country -- thoughtful compromise everywhere we can agree, and when we can't agree, it just doesn't happen. american people are closely divided. we're reflected here by the 50-50 senate for the longest time in american history. there's not a mandate to fundamentally transform america into something it's never been. not what the voters voted for. we have a narrow majority trying to jam through, one after another, proposals to fundamentally turn us into something we've never been. well, here's the good news, the

framers custom built, custom built the senate to stop this kind of thing. that's why this institution was constructed in the first place. we're sitting in the place designed to stop this kind of thing. and we have an opportunity to do it here tonight. this is the first time in history that a senate majority leader, who is supposed to safeguard this institution, has convinced, convinced nearly all of his party to attack the institution. that hadn't happened before. tonight, for the first time in history, almost an entire political party will write in

permanent ink they would shatter the soul of the senate for short-term power. shatter the soul of the senate for short-term power. but a brave bipartisan majority of this body is about to stop them. about to stop them. we'll stop the democratic leader from silencing the voices of millions upon millions of americans who have a right to be heard in this chamber, many of them represented by us who come from small states. they derisively look down on us as a fly overterritory, a place nobody -- fly-year territory --

flyover territory, a place nobody wants to stop. the senate was designed to represent those people. every state gets two senators. some states have only one house member, but two senators. we're here to protect middle america and the super majority threshold in the senate makes that even more possible, so they can't run roughshod over us. they can't run roughshod over us and the people we represent. when our country needs leaders to fight the fires of factionalism, almost half the senate over here wants to literally dump more gasoline right on top of it. when our institutions needed defending, a sitting president

and a majority leader have made smashing the senate an unofficial part of their party's platform. the president of the united states and the majority leader of the senate have made breaking the senate a central part of their plan for america. thanks to the courageous position of at least a few of their members, they will not succeed. this country will be shielded from their radicalism tonight. and make no mistake about it, this is radicalism. designed to fundamentally change

america in every conceivable way, to the disadvantage of virtually all the constituents represented by people on this side of the aisle, and theirs as well if they were willing to admit. it -- willing to admit it. so the senate will be saved tonight. the senate will be saved tonight america can breathe a sigh of relief. this radicalism will have been stopped, and it's a good day for america. i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the president pro tempore: majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, prp. quote -- thank you, mr. president. quote, the denial of the sacred right to vote is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition. a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition. mr. president, those were the words of dr. martin luther king jr. in his speech where he implored the federal government, and especially congress, to take action on a simple request -- quote, give us the ballot. today, the american people are saying the same thing, give us

the ballot. let us not sink into the abyss of voter suppression. give us the ballot. a few hours ago this chamber, with the eyes of the nation upon it and with the evidence of voter suppression laid bare before it, with very little refutation from the other side, they don't discuss the issues going on in the states, took a vote to move to final passage on the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act. it received 50 votes, and with the vice president we would have had a majority. unfortunately, under the current rules of the senate, the door is closed to moving forward on these laws. so much part of the core values of our country.

but make no mistake, on voting rights inaction is not an option. inaction is not an option. and now the senate must rise to the occasion. the only way to achieve our goal of passing voting rights, ending dark money, and ending partisan gerrymandering is by changing the rules, because our colleagues from the other side of the aisle don't want to join us in these noble endeavors. this evening, we have proposed a modest one-time change of senate rules to establish a talking filibuster for this voting rights legislation. it fundamentally says if you want to block something as sacred as voting rights, you must do it out in the open. you must debate it and show the american people where you stand.

you can't sit in your office and block everything. in short, every senator will be allowed to speak twice on final passage of voting rights legislation. they can speak as long as they want -- days if they can muster it. but all other dilatory tactics, dilatory amendments and points of order shall be deemed out of order and appeals determined without debate. after each member has had their say it will be time to vote, and only 50 votes will be required for passage. mr. president, this is a very simple, limited proposal, and it only applies to the voting right bills before us today. now look, there is no denying

that members of this body have divergent views about whether the filibuster in the 21st century is a good thing or a bad thing. some have argued that it actually helps bring us together , something i don't agree with and which i have not seen evidence, as the eloquent statement by the senator from oregon we have just seen. 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 protecting voting rights the most fundamental wellspring of this democracy, more important than a rule in this chamber? let me say that again. even if you think the filibuster is a good thing, isn't protecting voting rights and preventing their diminution more important, particularly when

this rule was not always in existence and was not envisioned by the founders? that is the key question we should each ask ourselves. to be clear, minority rights are a vital feature of this chamber, but the senate was never envisioned to allow an absolute minority party veto. never. in fact, the founders expressly rejected the inclusion of a supermajority requirement for the senate. hamilton called the idea poison. if there's anything undermining the spirit of the senate today, it's, frankly, the way things work right now. it's time for the senate to adapt, to meet the challenge of the modern age. robert byrd himself recognized this truth that senate rules must sometimes change, and our

proposal today is a limited, carefully tailored step we can take to make the rules of the senate achieve this body's original purpose. finally, there are some who fear the consequences of passing this bill with no support from the other party. i would certainly prefer republicans work with us on this issue, and voting rights has always been a bipartisan issue in the past. but we must be honest. we have made many earnest efforts to draft and debate bipartisan legislation that deals with voter suppression, dark money, partisan gerrymandering. but those efforts by many members of our caucus have come up with no takers. the old g.o.p. worked with democrats on voting rights for decades, but unfortunately that is not the case today.

in the words of the late senator wagner, whose seat i hold, delivered on this floor nearly 80 years ago, quote, unity in a democracy is not achieved by sidestepping and ignoring issues. that is false unity. that is only the illusion of unity. unity in a democracy is the unity which is achieved by facing issues, threshing out our dimpses and stand on the position of the majority. again, unity in a democracy is not achieved by sidestepping issues. fittingly, he spoke those words in the face of a filibuster on the anti-poll tax legislation. tonight let us sidestep voting rights no more. the question before the senate is how we will find a path

forward on protecting our freedoms in this turbulent 21st century. the only choice to move forward on these vital issues is to change the rules in the modest way we have proposed. my colleagues, my colleagues, history is watching us. let us choose in favor of our democracy. let us stand up and defend the precious right to vote. now, mr. president, i move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 5746, the freedom to vote john r. lewis act. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider.

mr. schumer: mr. president, i make a point of order that for this message from the house, with respect to h.r. 5746, the only debate in order during consideration of the message be on the question of adoption of the motion to concur in the amendment of the house. further, that no amendments, motions, or points of order be in order and that any appeals be determined without debate. the president pro tempore: follo wing the rules of the senate, the point of order is not sustained, as it is a compound motion that would require consent. mr. schumer: mr. president, i appeal the ruling of the chair. the president pro tempore: the question is of the ruling of the chair stand as a decision of the senate. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the president pro tempore: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is, and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the president pro tempore: on this vote -- on this vote the yeas are 52, the nays are 48 and the decision of the chair stands as the judgment of the senate. there will be order. the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, i withdraw the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote. the president pro tempore: the motion's withdrawn. mr. schumer: for the information of the senate, there will be no further voats tonight, -- roll call votes tonight, there will be a vote on holly thomas to be

u.s. circuit judge for the ninth circuit and, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the. roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. mr. mcconnell: the majority

leader. we're in a quorum call. mr. schumer: ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: before i close the senate and do that kind of paperwork, i want to make a few remarks about tonight's vote. so, map, while tonight's vote was disappointing, it will not deter senate democrats from continuing our fight against voter suppression, dark money, and partisan gerrymandering. with no support from senate republicans, many of whom deny the very existence of voter suppression, we faced an uphill battle. but because of this fight and the fact that each senator had to show where they stand, we are closer to achieving our goal of passing vital voter protection legislation. we take inspiration from dr. martin luther king jr. he kept fighting for voting rights through every obstacle,

and we will do the same. we will not quit. now that every senator has gone on record, the american people have seen who's on the side of protecting voting rights, and it will only strengthen our resolve as we work to ensure our democracy does not backslide. this vote is another step forward in the long march for universal voting rights. the democratic caucus pledges to keep working until voting rights are protected for every american. and now, madam president, waiting for the paperwork. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the house message to accompany h.r. 5746 no longer be the pending business. mr. mcconnell: the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the

appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that as if in executive session the nomination of awrn ar yune vin cammen to be -- received in the senate on january 4, 2022, be jointly referred to the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs and the committee on science, commerce and transportation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, ited adjourn until 11:00 a.m. thursday, january 20, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for the use later in the day, and the senate be in the period of morning business, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: for the information of senators, we expect a roll call vote on confirmation of the thomas nomination at 12:00 noon. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

follow the senate live we may return here on c-span2. ♪♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including spark life. >> the greatest town on earth as a place to call home at spark life, it is our home, to. we are all facing our greatest challenge. spark life around the clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it's easier to do yours. >> spark life support c-span as a public service along with other television providers giving up front rotors heat to democracy. >> the senate has been debating voting rights legislation all they would up republicans expressing oppio