vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

for those that may not remember with both sides demo at the republicans were usually both in. it's hard to move people off of that. insurrection of january 6 that situation that's been going on since 1887 should've been corrected and have not been but no one ever felt we had what we had and everyone stepped into play. by january the 19th my democratic colleagues were so frustrated that they force the

boat on repealing the filibuster to allow that bill to pass with a simple majority among party lines. it appeared to many both inside and outside of washington, d.c. but the senate was fundamentally broken. senator collins and i have worked together for a long time and we never gave up, we were not convinced it was broken and you just have to work a little bit harder. they call us the most delivered body. to deliberate means to talk. to converse the deliberate body is no longer the deliberate body and we were not going to let that happen to us. we asked our colleagues and friends to come together to start trying to see if we could work together and find a pathway and common ground. guess what they did. i'm here to thank those who sit down senator rob portman, senator murphy, suddenly

entrance editor rodney. >> senator murkowski, senator warner, senator tillis, senator sinema, senator capp venture capital, senator kuntz, senator staff and senator graham, that was truly a team effort when you think about it. this is gone on for quite some time. what we bring to the discussion bipartisan support for some important commonsense reforms that would help restore american state in a democracy. >> after the last election, we were all any of the protections for local elected officials, they were facing unprecedented intimidation, and these are the people who volunteered and is

basically families pending on generations after generations of their security is to be able to perform an during the election times and establish best practice for the postal service to improve the mail and ballots may have been servicing the older people who are set in and situation we had the pandemic and my goodness, is only by the people could vote and so the authorize the election commission, to help the administration and the security of the federal elections and most important thing that we can do, is when that vote is counted accurately it has to be counted and reported accurately that is what we have to do and make sure that there's not even a shred were person might think, would that be a not a valid count had we had done everything that we possibly can to make sure that

and this is not everything that people on both sides of that one, and bipartisan committee, they wanted a lot more add some did not want to basically interfere with the states rights and so we were caught in between and we went back and forth in different things that we could we try to put it cardinals on to get it done. we think we came up with a good legislation and when you have every member all signed on diversity of the membership and we have almost 20, have been involved in equally between the democrats and republicans. and in agreement, this is a piece a bill that we should perform an honest proud to be an original sponsor of the freedom about act and voting rights and i still believe that we can and we must continue working to

protect every measure and a sacred right to vote and we also have an obligation to the market people to do the most we can right now, right now the most good that we can right now and the confusing antiquated language that we have in the books today, and it's a real count for democracy is exactly what we intend to do the increased threats and attacks across the country on the pole workers in the election volunteers, we can fix that as well, but even more important than the this contained, the fact we have the democrats and republicans, standing arm in arm proposing common sense election reforms they can begin resort america's faith in our democracy and that is our solemn commitment and our promise when benjamin franklin was asked whether the constitution of the magic had given us republic our monarchy he famously declined he

said it republic young man if you can give it a qualified his answer because he understood democracy is fragile and can be flossed if we are not careful and while today's introduction is an important step in this process, we do have much work yet to do. and i look forward to continuing our bipartisan effort to get this mill to that residence desk as quickly as possible and signed into law in her journey begins with that, i would like to yield to my different from the great state of maine, susan collins. >> mr. president, i am pleased to join my close friend and your colleagues, senator manchin, and introducing bipartisan legislation, to reform the archaic and ambiguous like sorrel count act of the 1887,

and the important law that governs how congress telling each state electoral votes for president and the vice president. and on january 6, of 2017, i was amused to learn that i had received it when electoral vote for vice president of the united states an offer which i obviously was not a candidate. but on january 6, 2021, i realized that my unearned vote from four years earlier, was really not funny at all. rather it was an indication of deep structural problems with our systems certifying and

counting the electoral votes for president and vice president. these unfortunate flaws are codified in the 1887 electoral count act. mr. president, and for the past six, the presidential elections, this process has been abused and with members of both parties, raising frivolous objection, to electoral votes inched but it took the violent breach of the capitol, on january 6, of 2021, to really shine a spotlight on the urgent need for reform. over the past several months, senator manchin and i have worked with a terrific bipartisan group of senators who

are united in our determination to prevent the flaws in this 1305 -year-old law, from being use that undermine presidential elections. i want to express my gratitude to my friend senator manchin, and to all the members for bipartisan groups for their hard work, there constructive work to craft this legislation, specifically, i want to think senators portman, sinema, ia, shaheen, murkowski, warner, murphy, capitol hill, cardin, young, kuhn, and others for their work over several months. i also want to think senators kobe chart, and blunt for their

advice and counsel throughout this process and senator lindsey gray him for his insight and for joining is a cosponsor in legislation that we are introducing the electoral counts reforms, and presidential transition improvement act, will help ensure electoral votes, told by congress, accurately reflects each state popular vote for president and vice president, and are mill includes a number of important reforms but i want to highlight just a few, first the constitutional role of the vice president and counting electoral votes, is strictly and solely ministerial, and the idea that

any vice president would have the power to unilaterally accept or reject or change or halt the electoral votes, is antithetical to the moment and constitution and basic democratic principles, and secondly, our bill raises the threshold to launch an objection to it are close to at least one fifth of the duly chosen in foreign members of the house of representatives had the united states senate and currently mr. president, only a single member in both houses, is required to object electoral or slave of elect doors, and third, our legislation will ensure the congress can identify a single

conclusive slave elect doors, by clearly identifying a single state official who is responsible for certifying the state electoral and requiring congress to defer to the slate of elect doors, submitted by states and pursuant to the judgments of the state or federal courts and providing agreed presidential candidates with an expedited judicial review the federal claims related to estate certificate of elect doors and let me be clear, that this does not create a new cause and instead, it will ensure prompt and efficient adjudication of dispute. and to help promote the orderly transfer of power, our bill also includes clear guidelines for

rent, eligible presidential candidates may receive federal resources to support their transition into office and i want to particularly thank, senators court, kuhn said others for their hard work on those provisions of and mr. president, are also introducing the second bill, the election security to enhancement and protection act to address other issues and pertaining to this administration of elections in and in the interest of time, let me just quickly note, the major provisions of this bill, it would reauthorize the election assistance commission for five years and required to conduct additional cybersecurity testing the voting systems, concept by senator warren and it would

improve the postal services handling election mail and enhance current penalties for violent pressing is election workers, and increase the maximum penalty for tampering voting system including certain electronic records, that was a work of several members including senators, romney, shaheen, and sinema among others. mr. president, we have before us, a historic opportunity, to modernize and strengthen our system of certifying and counting the electoral votes, for president and vice president it. january 6, reminded us that nothing is more essential to the survival of the democracy and

the orderly transfer of power. and there is nothing more essential to the orderly transfer of power than clear roles for this and i very much hope that congress will seize this opportunity to enact the sensible and the much needed reform before the end of this congress and thank you mr. president. >> mr. president, your friends i wanted to tell her that six month ago we worked on this for six months, we started in january and was working senators that started you talk importing senators and with all of your support mr. president also in supporting everybody saying something that had to be done but as delicate as this was, knowing the sum was thinking

were picking on one side or the other in supporting or defending one side or the other, it was only one thing that we were concerned about, how do we defend this country and constitution and this wonderful capitol that we have and so this can never happen again, january 6 is black-market the history of the united states of america and if you want to raise it you better do what we did for six months bringing people together to find a pathway forward. so that type of opportunity of some looking for an opportunity for government and country and governing ourselves to never ever encourage them for thinking that they could do something here the capitol and disrupt this and the thing that i was most proud of him but we in a secured room and senator collins remembers, and it went on what we did not know what the extent of what was going on pretty was unfairly visit though we were

down talking and all of a sudden, someone said most is conductor business down here remember that, and 280, everybody in that room said no no no, don't run us out of our body year welcome back later that night and finish our business and what we didn't senator collins let this come is make sure that with finishing our business and were just starting to protect his democracy in this form of democracy that we have is representative and the republic that are all responsible for, and i'm just so proud to be part of it and my dear friend, we worked many many years together we will continue to just want to thank you senator, for the hard work and sparse southward together i'm very proud of all of her staff that they were together for the betterment of our country and that when people think of the bipartisan is not capable of happening in washington, i will say watch, we've proved them wrong we've done so many things together we

continue to so again i say thank you and for just hanging in there six months to get here we have just begun. >> the sender for main. >> i to want to thank all of the members of our group that were so hard over many months and as the case when you delve an occult printed publication issue and it turns out, that there are far more nuances and complexities then you would think we first looked at the issue, but everyone continues to work for the common good to strengthen the procedures, and to update this archaic and ambiguous law that was written in the language of another era and we have accomplished out and i really hope her colleagues

will all join together and we can have an overwhelming vote and finally, i too want to thank our staff members for their extraordinary work they were literally 90 day to work through the many issues that help bring us together and so my thanks not only to the members but to their staff as well and i yelled the floor and thank you. >> come to the floor this evening, and talking about the subject, or nearly the three and half years have been a senator, and i will tell you why i think it is important, we have grown the federal government, to a level where all of the people that look to it, whether they're depended upon it, and try to work with it needed no honestly, where this all ends up if we do

not change the trajectory. i think the easiest way to understand how we have gotten to where we are now is to look to what we used to do in the past. the country was never founded upon the principles they borrow money to consume it. any household, any local or state governments, knows that you cannot be successful doing that, money should only be borrowed if going to invest it or get a tangible return on it that even maybe an intangible but when we look at investing in the education or something like that there is been no system that has ever worked that ends upth borrowing money from the future.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: as i announced earlier today, in a few moments i'll file cloture on a major piece of legislation that will help our country lower costs, increase american manufacturing, strengthen supply chains and preserve american competitiveness on into the 21st century. it is a very significant piece of legislation and it will ensure that america and the american economy remain number one on into the 21st century. specifically, our chips-plus package will now include incentives for domestic microchip production, including itc, support for our wireless

communications and billions dedicated to scientific research, which includes many of the provisions senator young young and i offered in the endless frontier act and partnership two years ago. by filing cloture, we're keeping this bill on track for final passage very soon s there has been strong bipartisan support already behind this legislation so i hope we can come to an agreement to get it done as quickly as we can, because it's so important for the future of the country. mr. president, what is the pending business? the presiding officer: the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 4346, an act making appropriations for legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2022, and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, the the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: 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. 4346, an act making appropriations for legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2022, and for other purposes, with amendment numbered 5135 signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination -- cal 96, car men caster to be an assistant secretary of interior, that the senate vote on the nomination, with no intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the

nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the interior, car men g. canter of puerto rico to be an assistant secretary. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined in consultation by the majority leader -- by the majority in consultation with the republican leader of the senate to proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination -- you calendar 902, that there be ten minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, that the -- upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote, with no intervening action or debate on the nomination, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order and that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar 434, senate res. 4369. the clerk: condemning the use of hunger as weapon -- a weapon of war and recognizing the effect of conflict on global food security and famine. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i further ask the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the resolution, as amended. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the resolution, as amended. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution, as amended, is agreed to.

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table be, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration, the senate now proceed to senate res. 686. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 686, designating july 23, 2022, as national day of the american cowboy. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate -- the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions be discharged from further consideration, senate now proceed to s. res. 694. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 94, expressing support for the designation of july 2022 as national sarcomaate wareness month. -- sarcoma awareness month. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the johnson amendment to the preamble at the desk be to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration, the senate now proceed to senate res. 706. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 706, remembering former prime minister of japan, shinzo abe. the presiding officer: without

objection the subcommittee is darthed and the senate will the proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act and ensure respect for state regulation of marriage and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next second time on the next

right now were waiting for a senator to come to the fore to speak. while we wait a senator from earlier today. >> look at the test in the homework, quizzes and the essays with the department of homeland security and give them a grade. based on their performance for the last year end a half, what with the grade b. dhs says they have six missions, they detailed out those missions. one of those missions reads secure u.s. borders and

approaches. they give this piece behind it to describe that. the department of homeland security secures the air, land, borders to prevent illegal activity while facilitating lawful travel and trade. what with the grade b on that? and is anyone going to hold them account for the grade? or is this body going to continue to just ignore what's happening on the southern border? it is the role, the task, the responsibility of the department of public security to help secure our nation. but this department is currently facilitating illegal immigration, not stopping illegal immigration. i wish i was wrong on that but i'm not. in fact esri says the last two weeks i met with dhs leadership who described to me the new

method that they laid out see you could apply for asylum, come to the united states income to any airport the united states and you would not have to come to the southern border you will just come in. but it would be the same process as was happening on the southern border where people from 150 countries just this year have crossed the border, been checked in by border patrol who know full well they're not legally present here. then they released into the country and given eight years until the hearing. eight years. instead of responding to slow down more than 2 million people who have illegally crossed in just the last year. this administration is working to say it is actually not enough people. they are increasing the access points to increase the number of people rather than decrease.

the administration was proud to be able to say and may and in june the numbers went down slightly from what they were in the previous months. the problem with that is, the previous month was a record and so was the month before that. if you look at just the june number that was slightly down from day. it is still the highest june ever recorded by the administration. being overwhelmed with the number of people coming and illegally across the border. the administration is currently releasing people and their sole focus seems to be on making illegal immigration more efficient rather than more enforced. what grade would you give dhs. more specific question,

mr. president, do you want to stop illegal immigration? because i don't think you do. and i think it's clear, the policies that you put in place are directly leading to this record and fox of illegal immigration from all over the world. i wish you could even say at least we vetted them but i know that's not true and so do you. not a single one of these people entering the country has a criminal background check from the country therefrom. when doing a quick fingerprint analysis to see if they've committed a crime here. but we have no idea that 150 countries plus that they are coming from because right now the goal is not to check the criminal history it is to get the big east in the country within eight hours. keep it moving, keep it moving. you don't want have a clogged up

at the border when the across the border keep moving them across the country. last weekend i spent the weekend again at our southern border. serving on homeland security committee, i spent a lot of time back and forth across the border to evaluate what's happening now. it changes from week to week. i was in the rio grande valley last weekend, spending time with cvp, border patrol, individuals from air marine operations, from department of homeland security, dps from texas, the national guard, all expressing incredible frustration. when i got there last thursday night late we were on a midnight patrol with border patrol. literally within minutes we ran into our first group of folks coming across the border, a group of teenagers. minutes later literally why that group is being processed another group is interdicted coming across the border not far away

this time six and 7-year-old children and a couple of families. while we watch them being processed they called us in the radio and set about 2 miles down the just picked up another group, this time it was a adults. including one pregnant lady and was deep into her eight month period coming across the border to make sure she delivered here in the united states. 150 plus countries just this year crossing the border because it is open. as i hear secretary dhs say that they secure the border. as i just came from the border i wonder when the president of the united states is actually going to go to the border to see what is actually happening on the border and the policies that are put on place. so far the president but as been

able to make it to saudi arabia but not to our own southern border to even look once at what's happening at our southern border. if he goes, someday i hope, i hope he meets with border patrol because the border patrol agents i talked to tell me about a time when the border was secure. they tell me about a time not long ago that we had enforceable borders and where the policy wasn't to release within hours in the enforcement priority was not to get them moving as fast as possible. it was to actually secure the border. you could meet with the landowners like i did last weekend you live in the area some have lived there for generations and they are absolutely furious. because though they have lived there in the family for generations, they have never, ever experience this. they tell me about when they were children they used to play in this area and now literally

they will not walk at their own door without a firearm some of my colleagues in the chamber voted yesterday to begin consideration of this chips package that we've talked about a lot because they believed it included legislation called safeguarding american innovation act or saia, the bipartisan senate-passed, with you white -- white house supported essential legislation to go protect taxpayer funded research from being taken, stolen by china and other adversaries and used against us. it's understandable people thought that because the saia security provisions were in the broader usica bill that passed the senate last year. as thecoauthors of usica know it was why i was the original cosponsor and at that time we needed republican cosponsors. it's understandable because this week all republican offices were sent items by the lead republicans of this bill which

included chips legislation, including saia. so republicans when they voted yesterday thought saia was part of it. even today democrats and republicans alike have come up to me and said they thought saia was in this bill. by the way, they want it in this bill. but it's not. it was stripped out of this usica. i filed an amendment to get it back into this package because it's so crucial to the goal of the overall effort which is of course to improve our country's competitiveness especially with regard to china. to do that we must not only invest in more american research and innovation, which i support, but we've got to protect that taxpayer funded research and intellectual property from being stolen by our adversaries and used against us. given the current realities without such protections i believe this chips-plus bill would significantly increase levels of federal funding for research may well become a giveaway to is beijing. p china made no secret to supplant the united states as a

global economic leader and been willing to use every tool at its disposal to be able to do that. as fbi director christopher way has wanders, and quote, the greatest long-term threat to our nation's intellectual property and vitality is the economic espionage threat from china, end quote. he characterized china as the largest threat to, quote, our ideas, innovation and economic security. noting that the fbi has opened 2,000 cases focused on china stealing our research with one case particular opened approximately every 12 hours. a number of us in a totally bipartisan process have been working on protecting research for the past four years. in 2019, an investigative reporter on the subcommittee on investigations of the committee of homeland security, which i chaired with senator carper as ranking member, documented after a year long investigation how china uses talent recruitment

programs to target the science and technology sectors. talent recruitment plans recruit high-quality overseas talent, primarily from the united states, including engineers, entrepreneurs, even finance experts. the plans provide monetary benefits and other incentives to lure experts into providing proprietary information or research to china, which is in violation of our laws and in conflict of interest laws. china exploits american research, intellectual property and open collaboration, often u.s. taxpayer funded for its own economic and military gain at our expense. the rise of china's military and economy over the past couple decades is in part fueled by american taxpayer paid research, where we have essentially leap-frogged us and commercialized it and used it against us. in one of many examples, a researcher in kansas hid his full-time employment with the

china research university to obtain federal grant frung from six -- funding from six different department of energy and national science foundation contracts. remember, the new funding in this bill primarily goes to the national science foundation. the department of health and human services inspector general released a report that found that two-thirds of the nih grant recipients, another place a lot of research is done, nih, failed to meet federal requirements regarding foreign financial interests, including instances of u.s. funded researchers failing to disclose ties to the chinese government. in fact, since our investigation and hearing, there have been at least 23 different researchers that have been arrested by federal authorities for research theft. in testimony before the permanent subcommittee on investigation, john brown, then assistant director of fbi's counterintelligence said, quote, the communist government of china has proven it will use any means necessary to advance its interests at the expense of others, including the united states and pursue its long-term

goal of being the world's super power by 2049. the chinese government knows that economic strength and scientific innovation are the keys tore global influence and military power. so beijing aims to acquire our experts to subplant the united states as a global super power, end quote. then commander, u.s. cyber command, general keith alexander described intellectual property theft and cyber espionage as, quote, the greatest transfer of wealth in history, end quote. the sentiment was underscored by former national security advisor, h.r. mcmaster, asked about china's growing and intertwined military and economic threat, in a march 2021 armed services committee hearing, he stressed the need for the towns defend itself, quote, it's -- for the united states to defend itself, quote, it's gut-wrenching to see how much is stolen from under our noses, and much of that research is funded by congress.

the financial dimension is worh a great deal of scrutiny. we are, in larming measure, under-- in large measure underwriting our own demise, end quote. that's why senator carper and i introduced the safeguarding american innovation act, insisting it be included in the homeland security and government affairs title of usica. again, it was and it passed. ity part of the research funding, the additional research funding to have these pro effectses -- protections around it. it would be necessary even without the funding, but another we're spending tens of billions of dollars of more taxpayer money and not providing this security. based on feedback from the law enforcement research community, the legislation goes directly to the root of the problem. it makes it punishable by law to knowingly fail to disclose foreign funding on federal grant applications. fbi wants that badly. it requires executive branch to streamline and coordinate grant making between the federal agencies so there's continuity, accountability, and coordination. it allows the state department

to deny visas to foreign researchers coming to the united states to exploit the openness of our research enterprise and requires research institutions and universities to do more, including telling the state department whether a foreign researcher will have access to export-controlled technologies. state department wants this badly. the career people at the state department helped us write these provisions. they need this authority. they don't have it now. so a vital component of any competitiveness bill must be this commonsense noncontroversial extensively negotiated bipartisan bill. it's a matter of our national security. i've described the extraordinary theft of taxpayer paid research under current funding levels. it's unthinkable we'd add tens of billions of more taxpayer dollars in the chips plus pack and and not protect that from china and otherred a have saries. i -- and other adversaries. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure it is part begin, as it has been in the past, we've all voted for

it, of the underlying package. i thank the president. i yield back my time.

mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, on july 4, we celebrated the founding of our nation, as we do every year. but when i woke up on this july 4, i had a strange thought, a thought i'd never had before, the question of what kind of country are we celebrating. i've always had immense pride in the founding vision of our nation, and that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of

equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and most importantly of government of, by, and for the people. our journey as a nation, over nearly 250 years, has been the difficult journey of moving towards full implementation of this vision. that's an inspiring journey, a journey i've been proud to witness, a journey i've been proud to be part of. but just days before this year's july fourth celebration, we saw the conclusion of the supreme court's latest judicial term, a term over which the court displayed a far different vision for america, one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless americans for decades

to come. for years now -- actually, for decades, we've watched a steady, relentless effort by right wing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform america and american society as we've known it. their big goal is corporations over people, and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. now, with this court's recent decisions we're left with an inescapable conclusion. the extremists have succeeded. the court is now operating as an unelected super legislature with a maga political agenda. their decisions this term read like planks out of the

republican party platform. here's what the maga court's vision is for our nation. it's a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing federal government the power to be in the medical exam room, making reproductive health decisions for american women, when the only people who should be in that exam room under an of and by the people republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite -- her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. this court's vision is a vision that embraces never ending gun violence, stripping congress and the states the ability to enact commonsense begun safety laws. it's a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students.

so much for freedom of religion and separation of church and state. ity a vision of a nation where -- it's a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and ca can't find juse if their miranda rights were violated. so much for the principle of equal justice under the law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors to the supreme court. in fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words, standing here on the steps of the senate. this court's vision is of a nation where the court strips os the federal government of the legally enacted power to limit carbon and methane pollution that are destroying our nation and planet. it's a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our

elections with gerrymandering, dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of americans from voting. this vision is a vision for government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. this vision, in which the supreme court becomes a super legislature for a maga agenda, infuriates me. it infuriates me because i believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. it infuriates me because i know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of americans, the pain of a woman forced by state government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or

become a parent. the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing pandemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in uvalde and highland park and countless other communities, with more than one mass shooting per day. the pain of citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many states over this past year. the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs. the pain of rural americans, ranchers and farmers, whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the court says the federal government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos.

and i'm infuriated because i know more supreme court decisions like these are coming from the six maga justices on the court. they want to cement their vision of america through super legislative powers, rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the constitution, which is their job. they've announced that next term they're going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent state legislature doctrine. it's considered extremist, which says only state legislatures have the power to make decisions about federal elections and how to appoint electors. state courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a state's constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could state governors veto such legislative

decisions. that's just the start. justice thomas himself said in his concurring opinion, based on the reasoning in dobbs, he wants the court to consider a whole host of other rights secured and protected by previous courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. it's exactly what the federalist society has been working toward for decades. before joining the court in 1972, lewis powell wrote about needing to fight back from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual

literary, the journals, the arts and sciences against progressive changes in society. outlying a plan for rebuilding the power of big birx he declared that with an activist-minded supreme court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. that's exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, senator mcconnell stole a supreme court seat from one president so another president could fill it. stole it in 2016 and he filled it in 2016 with maga justice neil gorsuch. it's why in 2018 leader mcconnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with maga justice brett kavanaugh. and it's why when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the

voters would vote, leader mcconnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a supreme court seat in 2016 and he rammed through the nomination of maga justice amy coney barrett. the republican party has one -- one popular vote for president -- has won one popular vote for president. they now see it to become a super-legislature for corporate power. in one of his columns, eugene robinson of "the washington post" described the supreme court justices as a junta, a term used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule

through edicts rather than legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. it's hard to argue with eugene robinson's characterization. in spite of what the vast majority of americans want, the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive health care and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections, the court's maga majority have chosen to rule by supreme court edict, to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of americans. and they're not just using the regular process for considering cases. over the past five years we've seen a monumental shift in the court's use of emergency orders; the so-called shadow docket, to

enact sweeping decisions on the american people. these cases don't get the full process we're tomorrow familiar with -- lengthy deliberations and opinion writings -- because it's argued that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if their request was not immediately granted. the shadow document decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. and in the past, they essentially involved death penalty cases, cases of literal life and death, of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant, because if someone is executed before their co-pays is heard, they -- before their case is heard, they do suffer irreparable harm, the standard. but then about five years ago we started to see a big shift in theman cases being taken -- in the emergency cases being taken up and the substance of them as well. we've seen the shadow document used to stop the federal government from implementing

vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million americans. we've seen it used to uphold a texas law banning abortion for after six weeks. we've seen it used when a lower court blocked alabama's congressional map because it violated the voting rights act by diluting the political power black voters. the court said you've got to draw draw a new map that was share. the supreme court stepped in with their shadow docket and said, no, alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of black americans. and this situation, the court didn't stop the infliction of harm. they inflicted the harm on black americans who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps in our

democracy for voting. that gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise black voters in this november's election because of the supreme court's use of the shadow docket. it's hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. the state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad, so blatant, that even justice roberts, the chief justice of the court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a trump administration clean water act regulation limiting water for streams and wetlands. this dissent stated that the majority's decision, and i quote, renders the court's emergency docket -- meaning the shadow docket -- not for emergencies at all. the docket becomes only another place for merit determinations, except made without briefing and argument.

when the supreme court's chief justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it's true. this maga court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country, they've abandoned one of the core principles of american jurisprudence -- going back to even before there was a united states of america -- and that is the court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. in their eagerness to cripple the federal government's ability to fight fossil fuel carbon pollution, the maga justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced, a regulation that had been withdrawn by president trump, a regulation which president biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the supreme court to decide this

case. this out-of-control maga supreme court super-legislature wanted to legislate and legislate they did, violating a core principle that the court does not address moot cases. moot cases are cases where there's nothing to dispute. and there's certainly -- and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead order as moot as it could be, because nobody can be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. why did the court take up this conveys? -- this case? well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning of each justice, but the effect is clear. by taking up this case, the court furthered the maga policy agenda. their ruling handcuffed the

federal government's ability to make further regulations are on fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. this is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these justices' confirmations. that situation of them breaking precedent to benefit the fossil fuel billionaires who had just funded their confirmation campaigns wreaks of corruption. when generations ahead of us look back at this moment, i have no doubt, especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the court did in a single year, they'll being back with a sense of profound disbelief,

disbelief, like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like dred scott, which dehumanized black americans and legitimized slave eff slavery, or presscy v. ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. the disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at dobbs, a decision this year in which the court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. they'll have disbelief that in kennedy v. bremerton, decided this year, the court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools. disbelief that in west virginia v. the epa, a decision this year, the court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation no longer in

books with the effect, perhaps the goal, of limiting future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution. disbelief in new york state rival and pistol association v. bruin -- decided this year, that the court rule that a state legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a weapon in public spaces. let me be clear -- this activist extremist maga court faces a legitimacy crisis and a legitimacy crisis for the court is a crisis for our democratic republic. and part of that i will legitimacy is using originalism to justify their politically inspired decisionsment beaver the doctrine of originalism is based son a reasonable argument, one that thank you and i would

say that makes sense, a goal of understanding what the founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our constitution more than two centuries ago. but if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify after the fact where the justices wanted to come out. they use it when it works. they abandon it when it doesn't. for example, the founders wrote the second amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles. but the so-called originalists on the court cast originalism aside declaring that the founders wrote that clause to ensure that non-militia members have is the right to bring weapons onto subways. that is bogus originalism in its

purist form. or consider this -- corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. yet the so-called originalists on the court insist that the founders' vision of the first amendment to protect freedom of speech gives corporations speech rights, even though the word corporation doesn't appear in the constitution, a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument that the founders have to have it be something written in the constitution and something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. and none of those is true, not a one of them is true in this case. the maga court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no founder would ever have argued. they didn't even know what the a corporation was because they didn't exist. -- in this form that we have now. and the maga court goes on to

claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood -- that is, the stockholders of the corporation -- have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. this is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. i have yet to see, yet to hear any plausible explanation to how the maga justices can be confident that the founders intended billionaire c.e.o.'s to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what's being said and to use that money as speech and spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm supreme court justices. the problem we face, colleagues,

isn't just a maga majority court enacting terrible policy. rather than defending the balls and strikes against the constitution. the problem is greater. if the highest court in the land loses its legitimacy, law itself loses its legitimacy. if the american people see the supreme court justice making clear the law has no evening other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. we have seen with deadly results on january 6 of 2021 the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. the court is essential in a

society based on the rule of law , and it's essential to have a court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. this maga majority and its desire and operation as a super legislature unelected lifetime appointments is a dire threat to our republic. here in congress, we must not only shine a light, a spotlight on the threat, we must stop the runaway maga court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the court as a panel defending our constitution. some will say there's no way to restore the court and that any strategy for restoring the court will simply compound the problems we're now facing. and i agree that there is no

simple way to restore the legitimacy of the court. back in 2017, when then-majority leader mcconnell was striving to receive the theft of the supreme court seat taken from president obama i took to the floor for 15 1/2 hours with one simple message. don't do it. don't do it. because if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the court, and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the court's legitimacy. but leader mcconnell, he doused the supreme court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. he did the damage. i stood here for 15 1/2 hours and said don't do it. you know, we take an oath of office to the constitution.

that involves defending the court, not delegitimizing the court, is not stealing supreme court seats. it was the first time in the history of the united states of america that this senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. but here we are, the damage is done. what do we do now? when an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you're worried about water damage. you have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. so i say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our republic. there are two things we must do. mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken senate to serve as a

legislature, because if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted court. the second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. but we have to step up. it's necessary to save our republic. so let's take each of these missions in turn. the first is to restore the senate. our goal, restore the senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight of the corruption of the maga majority court. there are three massive problems currently afflicting the

senate's body to serve as a legislative body. first, we serve so much of our time on nominations, so much time it keeps us from doing much legislating even though we have a massive complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better p. when george washington was assembling his first administration he had to appoint and the senate had to confirm four cabinet positions. secretary of war, secretary of the treasury, secretary of state, attorney general. four positions. today the senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. now in the past, both parties worked to exercise the senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of senate time required. most were done by unanimous

consent late at night when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. in the entire decade of the 1960's, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee. one -- an entire ten years. but last decade that number went to 545, and now it's like every nomination, virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. and you know what? the way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. so the rules which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection

are now used as partisan obstruction. democrats in the minority, they want to tie up the republicans, so they have little time to legislate. republicans are in the minority, they want to tie up the democrats so they have little time to legislate. they want each other to fail partly because they disagree and partly they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, voters might reward them at the ballot box. we have to massively streamline this nomination process. we have to 100 senators work together, not do what is best for us when we're in the majority and oppose it when we're in the minority or vice versa. we all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. the second big problem for the

senate is that the rules provide a complicated time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. it involves a motion to proceed, a requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed, and nominations up to 30 hours of additional debate all on the question of whether to debate. you have 100 capable people sit here by their constituents in their various states to solve problems for america, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. that could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bill so the public knows where we stand and there's public accountability. but instead we have partisan paralysis, a completely dysfunctional senate. that's what we have. we have to change the rules to

stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 senators. it's an easy solution. one hour spent debating whether to debate a bill and then a simple majority vote. either we go to the bill or we don't. easy solution. one hour makes much more sense than one week. the third big problem this senate chamber faces is a secret, silent filibuster. under a senate rule -- and the term filibuster is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. under the senate rule, 41 senators can operating as a bloc veto the opportunity for the senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the senate to consider an amendment and veto the ability after amendments have been considered to have a final vote on the bill. it's the triple veto.

three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing america. and both parties are tempted to use it when they are in the minority. we have to restore the ability to actually debate. it's exactly what the founders feared. when i lay out that 41 can block and veto these three steps of the process, it means to reverse it, that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. the founders warned us never allow the minority make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. don't do it. it's why james madison said that with a supermajority, when, and

i quote, 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. the power would be transferred to the minority. it's why alexander hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in tedious delays, continual negotiation and intrigue, contemptible compromises of the public good. he also warned that the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed, the principle of the supermajority, is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder. now, you may wonder if the founders had simply read about someone somewhere required a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought we better warn americans not to do this. no. they were writing from their

direct experience, because as they were drafting and debating our 1787 constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the confederation congress. under the articles of confederation that preceded our 1787 constitution, the congress had to have a supermajority on every provision, meaning the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. the result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. they failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the revolutionary war that created this nation. they failed to raise the funds to put down shays rebellion.

well, today we have not one stage of veto like they faced in the confederation congress. we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we're seeing the same impotence, same paralysis, same partisanship that it drives. the triple veto power of the minority is destroying the senate to address challenges facing america, and there are a lot of them. we've got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. right now, at this very moment around 40 million americans across the plains of mississippi valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat p while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 states and as of last week four times as much acreage burned this year as last year at

this moment. it's not just america of course. across the atlantic, europe is going through a record-breaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of those places have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in france and spain and italy and greece. congress should be immensed in considering bills to address -- immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis damaging communities across our country and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations, stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes and certainly through the power of multiyear droughts. but we're not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. we have a housing crisis. out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. colleagues have one idea after

another about how we should address it. but because we are paralyzed and our process and time are taken up with nominations, debating whether to debate, and we have the triple veto of the secret silent filibuster, they can't move forward, and we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. and americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. 80% of americans say do something about it, and i think the other 20% don't realize how much we're getting ripped off. americans know we should get the best price, because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they're absolutely right. and we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we're blocked by the triple veto of the secret,

silent filibuster. and now states are passing laws to block targeted groups of americans from voting. we can fix that by passing senate bill number 1, the for the people act, or its reincarnation, the freedom to vote act, but we can't, because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. let me be absolutely clear -- the single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control court with a maga agenda is to have a functioning senate. that is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our republic. if the court says there's no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents, instead of americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 rachel v. common cause

decision, well, a reformed, restored senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. at least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments, modified in different forms. or perhaps find some other solution, if we had a functioning legislative process. if the court says there's no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires that flood and drown out the voices of ordinary americans in campaigns, as they did in the 2010 citizens united decision, a reformed, restored senate could pass the disclose act to shine a light on every dollar and where it's coming from in american campaigns. if the court says that anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon should be able to, like in their decision of new york state rifle & pistol association v. bruen, a restored, functioning senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that

most americans support, like ending the background check loophole when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties, online, or at gun shows. or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets, that are often used in mass shootings. and when the court went to abnormally great lengths to decide last month's west virginia v. epa that the agency can't regulate carbon methane, a functioning senate could with create programs to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump. and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in russia, saudi arabia, and iran. but the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so.

the remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. the remedy is to reform it. the right reform is to adopt the public talking filibuster. the talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct. the senate code, adopted by the original senate. under that code, the senate listened to every senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it amendment. that was the senate code. the original rules provided that every senator had the right to speak twice to a question. it was rule number 4 in the original rules. it's in our rules today. but the spirit of that code, listening to each senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing, that part's gone.

now it's the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the founders said to us. they said don't do it, and we've done it in trip lickate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem solving. jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listen to every senator, should not be abused. in fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801, quote, no one is to speak imparty neptly or beside -- impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. it worked for the founders. they exercised some self-control. so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. they just simply listened to

everyone with mutual respect, then said okay, let's take a vote. you want to see that in action today? watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. there's no one filibustering, speaking forever. there's no one requiring a super majority to close debate in committee. they operate, we operate in committee much like the original senate, and it works pretty well. but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. so, the early senate had a rule for the previous question motion to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate, and when they rewrote the rule book, and aaron brewer was in charge of it in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it.

well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem solving. let's fix that. so let's have the talking filibuster. the talking filibuster says yes, you can speak on the issue. we'll listen to everyone. you can speak twice. but then we vote, and the majority wins. not a super majority required. the minority doesn't win over the majority. the majority wins. that was the senate. that's the design of our constitution that we have the responsibility to restore, because we took an oath to the constitution. so let's restore it. and that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem solving. the minority, be it the democratic or republican, that wants to slow things down for

leverage, they can, so they have significant leverage. but on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate, because they're not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate, and that's the heart of the talking filibuster, maintaining continuous debate. if there's a break in debate, you go to the vote. moon while, the -- meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise, because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. so the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem solving and in the end restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. in the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. that is the right way to legislate in a democracy.

as i noted before, fixing the senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the supreme court across the grounds. but we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the court itself. to restore a court that calls the balls and strikes on the constitution, defending its core principles and recognizes it's not there to legislate, not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. they're there to defend the constitution. well, reforming the court won't be easily done. but president biden did convene a commission to explore the option. that commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. this is part of it, the presidential commission on the supreme court of the united states, december of last year.

i encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. in this 300-page report the commission does review the history of how the court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time, because that's not established in the constitution. it's been as few as five and more than ten. in other words, not nine locked in like it is now. certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the court. many people have said that's something to look at, to balance what has happened with the court, with the stolen supreme court seat and a decision by several justices to be a legislature rather than a court. well, that's one idea. another is implementing term limits or mandatory retirement age, because when the

constitution was first written people weren't living the long lives they have today and they didn't stay in the court forever. in 1787, the founders wrote that justices would hold their seats during good behavior. i'm not sure that every justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they're chewing to ledges -- they're chewing to legislate, rather than rule on the constitution. there's no easy way to remove them from the court for miss behavior. but one -- plist behavior. but one -- misbehavior. but one possibility is for the court members to be out with term limits of some kind. that's one possibility. in much of our history, justices only served an average of 15 years on the court. the average is now 26, and getting longer. did you know america is the only constitution democracy that -- constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the court, that doesn't have either a term limit or mandatory

retirement age? this report, this commission has other ideas in it, rotating membership on the court, with judges selected from the circuit court. the original supreme court, they served as circuit court writers. they went out, made decisions across this countries. they didn't just sit in a room in the capitol. so there's some precedent for that idea. others point out that there's the power to restrict the court's jurisdiction. there's pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. the american public is open to examining them. earlier this week, the fox news poll reported that 66% of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for justices, and 71% support a mandatory retirement age. so the american people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the court. we have to be open to fixing it.

and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully, to ensure that the highest court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our constitution, and the vision in our constitution was not that it would be an unelected super legislature. colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our republic. the moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a court legislating from the bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all americans. we have to restore the ability of this senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the court directly. we can and we must act before

it's too late. we can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our republic. our oath to the constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. and when we do, then next july fourth, we can all join together to celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan senate into an actual legislative body. we can celebrate the restoration of american's rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the supreme court. we can have a renewed belief in confidence and integrity of all of our institutions and democratic form of governance. that would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next july fourth. thank you, mr. president.

mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 406, s. 3895. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 40, s. 4895, a bill to extend annual appropriations for the united states commission on international religious freedom through fiscal year 2024. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate committees by the -- completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, july 21. 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 their use later in the day and morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 4346. further, at 11:30 a.m., the senate execute the previous order with respect to the brigety nomination and the senate vote on confirmation of that nomination. finally, if any nominations are confirmed during thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: for the information of the senate, the first vote of the day tomorrow will be at 11:30 a.m. senators should expect additional votes. if there is no further business to come before the senate tonight, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until >> today the senate worked on several judicial nominations and confirmed gregory brian williams to be a u.s. district court judge for delaware they also worked on the nomination of natosha murrell to be on the eastern court judge for eastern new york. senators continue work on grants for computer chip manufacturing to help companies better compete with china. when the senate returns watch live coverage here on c-span2. >> c-span enter unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. broadband is empowerment that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big

and small. charter is connectedness. >> charter communications appoint c-span as a public service as well as these public providers give you a front row seat of democracy. senators joe manchin and susan collins introduced two bipartisan bills that they say will reform the electoral count act of 1887. the measures would make sure the vote tally by congress accurately reflect each states vote for president. it would also provide guidelines on when the president and vice president can receive federal resources for the transition into office. >> mr. president i rise today to acknowledge a month a bipartisan, hard work is going to two bills that we are filing today the electoral count, reforming presidential transition improvement act, i repeat the electoral