Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Transportation Equity Act, which I introduced today.

As our Nation is making historic investments in our transportation infrastructure through the bipartisan intrastructure law, equity should be at the forefront of the Federal Government's plans to revitalize communities and ensure access, mobility, and opportunity for all.

One of President Biden's first actions in office was signing an Executive order on advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the Federal Government, which states, ``Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face.''

To accomplish this bold agenda, we need the interaction and involvement of diverse groups of stakeholders to ensure communities are heard and create effective policies.

Fortunately, we have a model for how we can bring such groups together to infuse equity into our transportation and infrastructure investments. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Transportation established the Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity to provide advice and recommendations on comprehensive, interdisciplinary issues related to transportation equity from a variety of stakeholders involved in transportation planning, design, research, policy, and advocacy.

That is why I am proud to introduce this bill with Senator Warnock to permanently reestablish the Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity within the U.S. Department of Transportation.

This bill would help recognize the role that transportation plays on related issues like public health, housing, accessibility, environmental justice, economic opportunity, and more.

I want to thank Senator Warnock for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this bill to help redress inequities in transportation infrastructure and empower communities to build back better.

Mr. President, I am here to speak on a nomination, but before I do, a point of personal privilege.

It was 1 year ago today that I had the honor of being sworn in as a Member of this Senate. As I hope my wife is watching at home on C-SPAN 2, I just want to thank her for her love and support throughout this first year. I couldn't have done it without her.

And I thank, of course, the Presiding Officer and all of our colleagues for the tremendous support and experience that this last year has been.

Mr. President, I was hoping to rise prior to the vote just a little while ago but was consumed with the agenda in the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning.

So in lieu of speaking prior to the confirmation vote, I rise to applaud the confirmation of Judge Holly Thomas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Thomas is a dedicated advocate for equality under the law and has made a career of fighting to ensure the civil rights of all Americans.

A proud native of San Diego, CA, and a graduate of Yale Law School, Judge Thomas spent 10 years working on civil rights litigation and appeals. That time included litigating at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, and in the New York Solicitor General's Office.

In each of these roles, Judge Thomas was a tireless advocate for equal justice. She proved to be a skillful appellate lawyer, an insightful thinker, and a valued colleague.

She returned to California in 2016 to serve as the chief liaison between the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Governor's Office. The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing is California's largest civil rights regulatory body, and in her role there Judge Thomas dedicated herself to protecting workers and families from unlawful discrimination, working closely with then- Governor Brown.

Recognizing her outstanding work and her tremendous talent, Governor Brown appointed her to the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2018. Now, this appointment was a full-circle moment for a person whose love of the law was nurtured by her supportive parents starting at a very young age. Judge Thomas's parents, when she was a young girl, would take her to watch court proceedings. Why? So that she could imagine what a career as a lawyer would look like.

Decades later, as a judge on the superior court, Judge Thomas actually requested to serve in the family law division because of her empathy for families going through a difficult process and experience in court.

Now, as the first person in her family to go to college after high school, Judge Thomas knows what it is like to navigate unfamiliar institutions. She is also the granddaughter of sharecroppers, and she is a passionate fighter for equal justice.

Since her appointment, Judge Thomas has proven her excellence as a jurist, as a neutral arbiter, and a compassionate voice for justice both in family court and on the California Court of Appeal, where she served in a pro tem capacity for 6 months.

Judge Thomas's compassion is matched by her legal acumen. Throughout her career, she has distinguished herself with thoughtful analysis, expert judgment, and unshakeable commitment to civil rights.

I know--and I am thrilled--that Judge Thomas will serve with distinction on the Ninth Circuit, and I congratulate her on this very well-deserved confirmation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, colleagues, with Senator Kaine as my witness, I, like many of you, had an opportunity to stand here yesterday to begin to speak on the issues before us--the need for this urgent and critical voting rights legislation and our opportunity to act this week in the spirit of the holiday we celebrated on Monday, Martin Luther King Day.

Before I get into my substantive remarks, I just feel compelled to respond to a couple of items that Senator Hagerty just mentioned. And if he is willing to stay and listen, that would be appreciated, but that is his choice.

You know, a couple of our Republican colleagues have made mention to: Well, we shouldn't focus on voting rights; there are other pressing issues at hand, things like the economy.

Well, last I checked, because of our actions last year, especially the investments in the American Rescue Plan, wages are up and unemployment is at record lows.

Democrats are taking action. We have been called out on what are we doing to address supply chain issues. We have acted. The infrastructure and jobs act has been signed by the President, and I can attest that in the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the percentage of containers waiting to be picked up is drastically down. Democrats are taking action.

COVID. Yeah, we are still dealing with this once-in-a-century global health pandemic. But imagine how much better a position we would be in, how many lives we would have saved, if the Trump administration took responsible action much earlier in this pandemic, and imagine how fewer cases and deaths we would have to count if more people would get vaccinated.

Senator Hagerty, like many Republicans, says: Well, when it comes to voting and elections, we should be focusing on making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. Who wouldn't agree with that?

But here is the truth. Here is reality. We know what it takes to make it easier to vote. That is what we are calling for in the Freedom to Vote Act, and I will go through some of the specifics here in a minute. But ``the harder to cheat'' misses the point. The evidence is there. The data is out there. Massive voter fraud doesn't exist. Voter fraud is exceedingly rare in America. So we got the ``harder to cheat'' part down, if only Republican Senators and legislatures and Governors, for that matter, would embrace the proven reforms that make it easier for eligible Americans to cast their ballot in our democracy.

But the most egregious, I just have to say, when Senator Hagerty suggests that changes to elections law should only be done after careful debate and broad support, I invite him to say the same things to Governors and legislators in Georgia, in Texas, in Arizona, and elsewhere, and I will go through some examples in the course of my presentation.

But, colleagues, as I have had an opportunity to share with many of you, you know that, before I joined the Senate last year, I served for 6 years as California's chief elections officer. I served as California secretary of state, the largest State in the Nation with the largest and most diverse electorate in the Nation. And in that role, I had a chance to oversee a side of election administration that most Americans and most U.S. Senators never really experience. Former State secretaries of state serving in this body: Senator Blunt, Senator Brown, Senator Manchin, and myself, the most recent. And my experience, by the way, included overseeing the administration of the November 2020 Presidential election in the most populous State in the Nation.

So I want to take a few minutes to explain exactly how the Freedom to Vote Act will help all voters and respond to some more of the claims I have heard about this bill from my Republican colleagues.

See, the purpose of the Freedom to Vote Act is to give every eligible

American more choices about how and when they cast their ballot. No matter where you live, no matter which State, no matter which ZIP Code, no matter your political party preference, you deserve multiple, safe, secure, accessible options for registering to vote and for casting your ballot.

Isn't that what we were all supposed to have learned in high school government class; that our democracy works best when as many people participate--the will of the people, not the will of the few, not the will of the privileged few, the will of the people.

But today voters in different States take different paths to the ballot box, some more difficult than others, needlessly. And sometimes what some of you may view as a small obstacle can add up to a big deterrent to participation, depending on where you live, depending on where you work, depending on your disability, and more. That is why the Freedom to Vote Act is so critical. It will help all Americans by guaranteeing the same baseline of access to the ballot to all eligible Americans.

And, no, this is by no means a Federal takeover of elections. I appreciate that several of my colleagues have gone through the history of Congress acting to protect the right to vote and to improve elections. So let me really bottom line it and make this point. With the passage of the Freedom to Vote Act, it is not Congress that will be distributing ballots or the Federal Government that will be collecting ballots and counting ballots. Election administration will still be local. What we are doing is setting a baseline for access to the ballot for all eligible Americans, and, yes, it is appropriate for us to do so, as Senator Klobuchar, Senator Peters and others have referenced the Constitution, referenced prior congressional action, and I will point it out too.

It has already been pointed out that in the Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, ``The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.''

That is what we are seeking to do.

But I really want to up the ante, folks, and I need you to listen to me because there are two important words. Senator Peters gave you the list, right? The Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act, the National Voter Registration Act, 1993, passed on a bipartisan basis. In it you will read that ``it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of [the fundamental right to vote].''

I call your attention to two words, ``the duty'' of government--not the option, not the if you wanna, not the may.

The duty of government, to what? To promote the exercise of the fundamental right to vote--not just to sit back and make sure that elections are run fair and square, not just to say: Hey, it is up to you voters if you want to register to vote. Government has a duty to promote the exercise of the fundamental right to vote.

So now to the specifics of the Freedom to Vote Act and how it tries to live up to that duty of government to promote. Well, as we all know, you can't vote unless you are registered to vote, and different States have different options for how to register to vote. Once upon a time, you had to present yourself in person at a county courthouse. Imagine the innovation that it took, the getting out of the comfort zone, once upon a time, for folks around the country that we had the audacity to suggest: Wait a minute. You can register to vote by mail or sign a voter registration card under penalty of perjury that your information is true and correct, attesting to your eligibility.

Now, some States have only the option of voting through that card or in person. Other States have innovated and accepted things like online voter registration--imagine that--or automatic registration, same-day registration.

Again, I want to talk to you in a minute about that. But let me give the big picture of why it is important. The numbers are out there. The data is out there. Who is it who tends to be eligible to vote in America but not registered to vote? Disproportionately, communities of color, disproportionately low-income communities, disproportionately young people--eligible voters--but voters of color, potential voters of color, young people, and low-income are disproportionately not registered.

So we can either act--as the NVRA says, we have a duty to promote--to increase those registration numbers or not. To live up to the duty, we need to, and if we don't or perhaps even if we make it harder to vote or stay registered to vote, who are you disproportionately affecting?

So Republicans can deny their intent. We know the true effect of making it harder to register to vote or to stay registered to vote.

So, again, different States have different options. In Alaska, you can register in person, by mail, online, automatic voter registration. In California--yes, I am proud--in person, by mail, automatic registration, online, election day same-day registration. In Texas, Mississippi, only in person or by mail.

Different States, different rules.

Everybody deserves the same opportunity. So why the value of online voter registration? Well, first of all, it is convenient, right? There is a whole lot that people have become accustomed to doing online. Second, for the ``good government'' types and the folks who want to make prudent use of precious taxpayer dollars, it lowers administrative costs. When you allow voters to register online, it is seamless; it is quick; and it is easy.

I have been to county election offices where you have clerical staff sitting there with a pile, a stack of voter registration cards that they have to read and input by hand--not very efficient. Online voter registration increases efficiency and, by the way, accuracy. I don't have the best penmanship. Can you imagine the clerical staff and county offices trying to make out, well, how do you spell this name that can be spelled three or four or five different ways. Online registration reduces those types of errors and cleans up the voting rolls and is very cost-efficient to implement and has been proven, in State after State, to be safe, secure, and effective.

But should online registration be the only option? No. And we shouldn't take away the in-person or paper registration. Some States have innovated automatic voter registration, where we take advantage of the opportunity when citizens are interfacing with their government-- particularly the DMV. Ninety percent of eligible voters in America will either have a driver's license or a State ID. And what are we asked to provide when we conduct that transaction? We are asked to provide our name, our address, our date of birth, a signature attesting to the accuracy of our information--all the same information that is asked for when we are registering to vote. So it is just common sense to utilize that same transaction for eligible citizens to seamlessly be registered to vote at the same time.

Going back to the National Voter Registration Act, which requires voter registration opportunity for people when they go to their Department of Motor Vehicles, that will serve as an opt-in model. Thanks to technology today, we can implement this opt-out model. You still have the option as a voter to not be registered to vote, if you choose not to, but the default is, if you are eligible, you are added to the voter rolls. And similar to online registration, it has been proven safe; it has been proven secure; it has been proven effective. From an elections perspective, it is wonderful. It doesn't just capture previously eligible but unregistered voters now adding them to the voter rolls. If you are already registered to vote, when you renew your license or your voter ID--guess what--you are asked: Is this your current address?

Now, when most people move, they are quick to do the change of address through the post office because they don't want to miss out on their mail. You are updating your driver's license or your ID because it has to reflect your current address. But a lot of people don't think of, ``Oh, let me call the county and update my voter registration.'' This is a seamless and effective way of doing that.

In California, our experience, similar to other States, for every new registered voter that was enrolled through automatic registration, you had at least two voters who updated or confirmed the accuracy of their registration. So, collectively, it leads to the most accurate voter rolls we have had in a long, long time.

Isn't that worth doing? Isn't that in the interest of election integrity?

And it is not a partisan idea. States, not just California, States like Alaska, represented by Republicans, have automatic voter registration. The State of Maine, which has sent to this body a Republican and an Independent, has automatic voter registration.

Now, here is a true lover of democracy's perspective on automatic registration. Reverend Warnock, I hope you can appreciate this.

Colleagues, think about it. If you are eligible to vote in America today but not registered, you do not receive the State's voter information guide if your State provides one because you are not on the list. If you are eligible to vote in America today but not registered, your county doesn't send you your sample ballot to know when election day is, where to go, and what we are voting on. If you are eligible to vote in America today but not registered, chances are candidates and campaigns aren't knocking on your door or calling you during dinner or flooding your mailbox trying to engage you in the democratic process. Maybe the smart campaigns and candidates are trying to reach out to more voters, but, by and large, that doesn't happen. So the sheer addition of adding eligible Americans to the voter rolls creates that activity.

Imagine that--civic engagement. Imagine that--participation in our democracy. But why stop there?

Same-day registration option. What if you missed a prior artificial deadline of registering to vote or updating your registration and come election day you are still 18 years or older and a citizen of the United States? You deserve the opportunity to have your voice heard in that election and election administrators know how to do this. You can register to vote, and whether your registration is automatically processed for jurisdictions that have the technology and the history to do so or your registration is held and your ballot is held, you can still cast your ballot, have the county process your registration, and your voice is heard in that election. That is what democracy is supposed to be about.

And, again, not partisan. Twenty States, including Republican-leaning States, have already implemented same-day registration, including Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah. California implemented--we technically call it conditional voter registration, but starting in 2017.

In 2020--just to give you a flavor for what it means. In 2020, nearly 270,000 California voters were same-day registered, 270,000. That is like half of a House district. Of all in-person California voters in 2020, nearly 10 percent were same-day registered.

The others--you know, why such a big number? Because so many people voted by mail, voted early, et cetera. And it is not partisan. Of the same-day registrants, when the registrations were processed, 36.2 percent were not affiliated with any political party. This is 32 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans. So it is not partisan. It is good for everybody.

As we know, registration is only half the battle. Just because somebody may be registered doesn't guarantee that they are going to cast their ballot.

In going back to the NVRA, folks, the government has a duty to promote the exercise of our fundamental right to vote. So we have a duty to implement this, and these are proven reforms on the registration side.

What about on the casting your ballot side?

Again, once upon a time, you had to show up in person on election day, only between this hour and that hour, at one designated location. In this modern economy, with so many different types of work schedules, that is not exactly easy. I live in Los Angeles, where we have this thing that we call traffic. So, if you have a job that is no longer 9 to 5--imagine--and you have to drop the kids off at school before you leave for work and have a full day and are dealing with traffic in getting back and have to get the kids from school and have to get dinner on the table, now I have got to go to one designated location and be in line by a certain hour to vote. There has got to be a better way, and there is.

Depending on the State where you live, you have options that include voting on election day in person; voting in person but early, prior to election day; or voting by mail--again, all proven, secure, effective ways to cast your ballot. But we have a mishmash across the country. California and Alaska, by the way, have election day, vote-by-mail, and early voting. In Texas, it is on election day only or early voting, but there is very limited vote-by-mail. In Mississippi, sorry--election day only. In Connecticut, sorry--election day only. Yes, even Democratic States have room for improvement in making the process easier.

We shouldn't be hampered because of the demands on our time--family obligations, work obligations. That is why States like Utah were early proponents of voting by mail. It is why States like Arizona were early proponents of early voting. So we should strive to provide all voters in America the same baseline of access to the ballot. Duty to promote-- before the Freedom to Vote Act, that is exactly what we were trying to do.

At this point, let me just reply to something our colleague Senator Cornyn referenced. I wish I could borrow, right now, the board that he had right next to him. Did you guys see that big ``94 percent'' that he had on the board? He was citing a Pew Research Center report that said 94 percent of voters in the November 2020 election found it easy to vote. That is great, and I will tell you why.

It is because, in 2020, because of the threat of the pandemic, even States that were resistant prior to affording voters more early voting options knew that it was smart to do so in order to reduce crowds and long lines on election day. That is why States that were even reluctant prior to 2020 to expand their vote-by-mail opportunities knew that it was smart to do so so that people could vote safely and securely from home, and it worked. It was the most secure election in our history, with record turnout.

So, if that is the case, why go backward? Why go backward? Because that is what they are doing in the States that have introduced and passed--what?--33, 34--and counting--laws that are making it harder to register to vote, harder to cast their ballots, which is contrary to the NVRA--duty to promote.

So what are the options for early voting?

As we mentioned, we want to be specific. See, most States already have some sort of in-person early voting opportunity, but it is inconsistent. Some offer weekends; some don't. Some offer evening opportunities to vote; some don't--or before work hours and after work hours. Every voter, regardless of the demands on your time, deserves equal opportunities to vote prior to election day, in person, if that is your choice.

Mail voting. Again, a lot of States have some sort of mail voting, but we are specific to no-excuse voting by mail. Voting by mail is secure. It has been proven to be secure. So why have only a limited subset of the electorate been able to benefit from that? We saw it work beautifully in November 2020. Imagine how much better it could work once we are past the pandemic. Mail voting was pioneered, actually, in a lot of Western States, not blue or red. North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska came along with Utah in doing all-mail elections in addition to Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and California.

Let me tell you the other beauty of vote-by-mail, especially when we cover postage. I don't have a roll of stamps in my kitchen drawer anymore, as very little is done that way, but when you are voting by mail, we can cover that postage delivery. You get your ballot in the mail; you give it back to your letter carrier; and it gets back to the county and is counted.

Some people may wonder, though--and we have had this battle across the country and in these Chambers over the course of the last year-- about what is happening at the Postal Service these days. Is mail quick? Is it slow? What about the pandemic? What about changes in processes and procedures under the postmaster?

Well, in California--Colorado has it, as well, and other jurisdictions across the country--we have a tool that allows voters to track their ballots through the mail. This is going to blow your mind. Imagine signing up to receive either phone calls, emails, or text messages on the status of your ballot through the mail service. Wow.

Mr. Padilla, the county just mailed you your ballot. Be on the lookout, right? It is going to come in the next few days.

When I return it, I receive confirmation that the Postal Service has taken possession of it, confirmation from the county when they have received my ballot, and confirmation when my ballot has been counted.

It is a great tool for administrators because you can identify bottlenecks in the delivery service, and you can go to a local branch and say: Hey, folks. Sorry. The Macy's catalog can wait another day. We have to get these ballots out on time because election day deadlines are looming.

Then, for a voter to have that peace of mind that my ballot arrived and my vote was counted and my voice was heard, it is great for transparency and great for public confidence in the electoral process. That is what vote-by-mail provides.

So, similar to voter registration, with multiple, safe, secure options, it should be the same with voting, with multiple, safe, and secure, proven options--all to help us live up to the obligation, the duty, to promote the exercise of our fundamental right to vote.

That is the opportunity that we have before us today, colleagues, either by approving the measure that has been sent over to us from the House, which encompasses both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, or if we can't do it consistent with our current rules, then let's amend the Senate rules to allow us to do that--to protect the right to vote for all Americans--because our right to vote is under attack.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I request a brief opportunity to respond since my name and my State were invoked by Senator Cassidy on this--you have got to give Republicans points for creativity on their terminology--some type of ballot harvesting. Let me tell you specifically what he is referencing because, again, different States have different rules and different histories.

In my speech, I talked about vote-by-mail. In California, we have seen the wisdom of every eligible voter automatically receiving a ballot in the mail with multiple options for how to return their ballot, including in person if that is their choice, through the Postal Service if that is their choice, through ballot drop boxes if that is their choice.

If, after all that--in-person early voting, election day, vote-by- mail, Postal Service, drop boxes--if, after all of that, a voter decides for themselves that they need or would like assistance with returning their ballot, that is the voter's prerogative.

Imagine that--asking a family member, a neighbor, or a friend: Can you do me a favor? Can you make sure this gets to a mailbox or the polling place in time for my vote to be counted?

Yes, there is a requirement in California that if you are somebody assisting a voter with returning their vote-by-mail ballot, you, too, have to sign that return envelope, the official return envelope, and your relationship with the voter--relative, friend, neighbor, et cetera.

Imagine that--empowering voters to decide for themselves how to return their ballot. That is what it is. They don't call it ballot harvesting because--once again, what are Republicans proving time and again they are interested in doing? Making it harder for eligible people to register to vote, stay registered to vote, and actually cast their ballot.

I just wanted to clarify what it is that we are talking about here.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, just yesterday, we, the Nation, celebrated the moral vision and exceptional courage of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Born and raised under the violent oppression of Jim Crow segregation, Dr.

King deeply felt the lasting wounds of slavery and segregation. Yet he believed in the promise of America's highest ideal: a system of democracy that we are all created equal; democracy that recognizes that we are all created equal.

In 1957, Dr. King told a crowd of civil rights leaders:

Our most urgent plea to the federal government is to

guarantee our voting rights.

He went on to say:

Give us the ballot and we will creatively join in the

freeing of the soul of America.

Time and again, from a bridge in Selma to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King and the civil rights movement collectively forced this country to confront the brutal injustice of White supremacy.

Dr. King kindled a movement of peaceful protests, of voter registration, and a legal revolution. His leadership helped secure the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965--a monument to freedom and a guardian of our multiracial democracy.

As important a step as that was, Dr. King also understood that the path of progress, the road to freedom, would not be linear, it would not be direct, and it would be threatened by setbacks. Recent years have illustrated just how right Dr. King was. The clock is turning back on voting rights, and far too many people both inside this Capitol and outside it are ignoring or denying the alarm bells.

To truly honor Dr. King, we must rededicate ourselves to the cause of freedom and equality. We cannot wait for a convenient season to act. We cannot wait for another Bloody Sunday. Look around. This is our moment. The threats to democracy today may look different than Bull Connor with the bullhorn, but they are no less real.

Now, when Republicans claim that this is all hyperbole or hysteria, as Senator Romney just referenced, consider this: In the year since our Nation's most secure election ever, with record voter turnout, Republican State legislatures have passed 34 laws, not expanding access to the ballot, restricting access to the ballot and also threatening election security.

Just look at Georgia--yes, Georgia--where Republicans passed an elections bill, SB 202, on a purely partisan basis this last spring. In the 2020 election, Georgians voted in record numbers. Many voted by mail or used early voting options to be able to cast their ballots safely and securely in the midst of this once-in-a-century global health pandemic. Guess what happened. Those ballots were processed, counted, audited, and the results certified.

So how did Georgia Republicans respond? They wrote SB 202 to cut the number of early voting drop boxes in Atlanta by more than 75 percent to make it harder--not easier but harder--for voters who mistakenly go to the wrong polling place to cast their ballots and have their votes in statewide contests counted; to stop new voters from being able to register to vote in a runoff election if there is one. Now, make no mistake, Republicans will deny the intention, but the effect is clear: These changes disproportionately disenfranchise the votes and the voices of people of color.

When voters end up standing in line for hours to cast their vote on election day, as voters of color disproportionately do, SB 202 prevents volunteers from offering them food or water.

Now, Senator Romney said that these provisions are in place to prevent the harassment of voters waiting to vote. Look at what other States have done. There is a clear distinction between somebody harassing a voter, interfering with the electoral process, versus offering a thirsty neighbor a drink. So outlaw harassment. I think it kind of is. The general public knows the distinction. So think about that--someone standing in line outdoors, with weather, for hours to do their patriotic duty, and Georgia Republicans make it a crime to give that person a bottle of water.

SB 202 isn't about election security or voter fraud. The data on that is clear. Voter fraud is exceedingly rare in Georgia and across the country. SB 202 is about erecting barriers for low-income voters, for voters of color, for younger voters to participate in our democracy.

As a member of the Senate Rules Committee, I traveled to Georgia last summer with my colleagues for a field hearing on voter suppression. Just last week, I was invited to join President Biden and Vice President Harris in Georgia as well. So when Minority Leader McConnell tries to tell you that no State in America is making it harder to vote, he is wrong. The people of this country deserve to hear the truth, and not just from Georgia but in Texas, where a new law empowers partisan poll watchers to threaten election officials with lawsuits; in Arizona, where a new law will unnecessarily cut tens of thousands of voters-- eligible voters--from the permanent early voting list.

Thirty-four new laws in this past year alone will raise obstacles for people who simply want to cast their ballot, and that is nothing to say of the hundreds more that have been proposed that will surely be reintroduced in future years and future sessions if we do not act.

The clock on Dr. King's victory is already turning back. The alarm bells of our democracy are ringing. They have been ringing since the year 2013, when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Yes, it may still be in place, but the preclearance requirement--the strongest protection within the Voting Rights Act that stood to prevent discriminatory election laws for nearly five decades--was undone by the Supreme Court in their decision in Shelby v. Holder. Yet the Senate has failed three times this last year to even debate a voting rights bill. We failed to debate because of the filibuster rule, which allows a minority of Senators to obstruct the voice of the American majority.

Republican Senators claim that our legislation, the Freedom to Vote Act, is partisan and divisive, but what goal could be more American than securing the fundamental right to vote for all eligible Americans?

If Republican Senators are sincere about opposing partisan changes to election laws, then they should join us in condemning partisan voter suppression in Georgia, in Texas, in Arizona, and across the country. Instead, Senate Republicans only complain about and obstruct our efforts here in the Senate to respond to these laws, and in doing so, they leave Democrats no choice. We must change the filibuster rule to protect voting rights for every American.

The Senate exists to serve American democracy, and the Senate rules exist to help the Senate serve American democracy. When those rules endanger our democracy, the answer is simple: We must change them.

It is not unprecedented. The Senate changed the filibuster in 1917 to protect our Nation from the threat of World War I. The Senate changed the filibuster in 1975 to try to restore the function of this body. In recent decades, the Senate has made more than 160 exceptions to the filibuster to do what is best for the Nation. Today, it is time for us to do so once again.

With all due respect to the history and the traditions of the Senate, our job is to protect the future of this country, beginning with our democracy. As Martin Luther King once told us, ``America is essentially a dream, a dream . . . yet unfulfilled.''

Today, it falls on each of us to take up Dr. King's lifelong struggle. This is our moment. This is our moment to debate. This is our moment to vote. We must work together to pass a voting rights law that secures the vote for every American regardless of race, religion, ability, or gender.

Sometimes progress requires that we change the rules, as we did last month when we changed the filibuster to protect our economy. Sometimes progress requires that one party act alone, as the courageous architects of the 15th Amendment did a century and a half ago.

Look around this Senate, and think how surprised the men who created the filibuster in the early 1800s would be to see a Senator Warnock, a Senator Baldwin, myself, and others serving in this Chamber today, but change that strengthens our democracy is change for the better.

Colleagues, we must rise to meet this general moment of challenge in the spirit of Dr. King and pass these voting rights bills.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in confirming Justice Gabriel Sanchez to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Justice Sanchez has long be held in high esteem in California's legal circles. He brings thoughtfulness and empathy to every decision that he makes.

He was born and raised in Los Angeles and was the proud son of a single mother from Mexico. She raised him while working tirelessly to make ends meet. With her unwavering support, Justice Sanchez went on to earn degrees from Yale College, from Cambridge University, and graduated from Yale Law School.

He began his legal career as a law clerk to Judge Richard Paez on the Ninth Circuit, the same court where he is now nominated to serve. Justice Sanchez then went into private practice, as many young lawyers do, but he committed himself to engaging in the community deeply by providing pro bono legal services, so much so that in the year 2010, he earned a social justice award from the ACLU of Southern California for his work representing farm workers in a lawsuit to enforce workplace safety protections to help prevent deadly heat illnesses.

Justice Sanchez went on to serve with distinction in California State government; first, as a deputy attorney general, and then as a deputy legal affairs secretary to then-Governor Brown. There, he proved himself to be a critical thinker, a creative problem-solver, and a dedicated public servant.

In recognition of his work and his service, his even-handed judgments, and his great legal talent, Governor Brown appointed Justice Sanchez to the California Court of Appeals in 2018.

Justice Sanchez has earned a reputation as an outstanding jurist committed to justice for all.

I am confident that he will bring the same dedication to the bench of the Ninth Circuit, and I am proud to support his confirmation today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as we are now in December and the year is winding down, I am reflecting on one of the first actions, one of the first decisions I made when I joined the Senate back in January, and that was a decision to establish a judicial evaluation commission with folks back in California, professionals who would help me find, vet, and recommend candidates to President Biden to serve on California's Federal courts.

Usually when the general public thinks about Federal courts, they tend to only think about the Supreme Court, but, as those who work in this body know, the vast majority of Federal cases--indeed, more than 99 percent of all Federal cases--are decided at the district court or circuit court level. So, as we go about our work to strengthen the justice system in America, I think it is important that we give proper attention and support to district and circuit courts.

Fast-forward to today and the items that we are working on literally as we speak. Nominees to every level of the Federal judiciary by the prior administration--let me put it mildly here. We are far from diverse, far from representative of our Nation, and as a result, the Federal courts and those who sit on the Federal bench do not reflect the diverse, vibrant America that it serves. And I am not just talking about gender. I am not just talking about race and ethnicity. For too long, the bench of our Federal courts has been dominated by corporate lawyers and former prosecutors.

Now, prosecutors and corporate lawyers do contribute valuable and important expertise to the Federal judiciary. That is why I have supported the nomination of some this year. But the judiciary also needs the knowledge and perspective of legal professionals who have taken different paths. I am talking about public defenders, who uphold our constitutional commitment that every person deserves fair representation and due process. I am talking about public interest lawyers, who defend fundamental rights and the rule of law. I am talking about consumer and voting rights lawyers, labor and immigration lawyers, and local government lawyers, who serve diverse clients and advocate for different interests and bring critical insights on how working-class Americans interact with the law.

We need all these perspectives in order to rebalance our Federal courts and hopefully in the process rebuild and reaffirm public confidence in the fairness of their rulings. Our country is stronger and fairer when every level of our government reflects the voices and the experiences of all Americans--not just the privileged, not just the powerful.

A Federal bench that includes more voices can better provide justice for all. That is why, over the course of the past year, I have worked with my commission that I established back in January--which, by the way, is 70 percent attorneys of color and a majority women, and I am proud to share that--along with Senator Feinstein and President Biden, to find, to nominate, and to support a new generation of qualified, outstanding, and professionally diverse Federal judges--a Federal bench that is diverse in every sense of the word.

As a result of these efforts and pending confirmation votes that I hope will soon occur, I am so proud that California's district court bench will soon include Maame Frimpong, a proud daughter and wife of immigrants from Ghana, who used her law degree to fight for consumers and strengthen global democracy.

It will soon include Judge Jennifer Thurston, who earned her law degree as a night student while raising a family and spent a decade serving in county government.

It will soon include Judge Jinsook Ohta, an immigrant from South Korea, who spent nearly 10 years of her career helping to prosecute unfair business practices and to protect consumers from fraud.

It will soon include Judge Linda Lopez, who spent more than 10 years as a public defender in San Diego.

It will soon include Judge Hernan Vera, the son of Argentine immigrants, who spent a decade fighting for the disadvantaged and leading the Nation's largest pro bono law firm.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals now includes Judge Lucy Koh, whom we recently confirmed, an expert litigator of intellectual property cases and the first Korean-American woman to serve on the Federal circuit court.

The Ninth Circuit will also soon include Justice Gabriel Sanchez, the proud son of a single mother from Mexico, who has earned wide recognition as a public servant and an appellate judge on California's court of appeal.

It will soon include Judge Holly Thomas, the granddaughter of sharecroppers, who has made a career of fighting for the civil rights of all Americans.

I celebrate each of these outstanding nominees, and I thank them for their service to this country. I urge their swift confirmation.

Now, of course, we will still have a long way to go and much more work to do, but these confirmations, colleagues, represent a big step in the right direction.

I am proud of the work we have done so far to diversify the Federal bench, and I am committed to keeping up the momentum that we have started in that critical mission in 2022.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Lucy Koh to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Koh is an outstanding legal thinker and a trailblazing public servant. Her commitment to equal justice for all has earned her support on both sides of the aisle. From her first judicial appointment by former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to her unanimous Senate confirmation to serve as a Federal district judge in California, to her strong bipartisan advancement recently from the Senate Judiciary Committee for this appointment, Judge Koh has a reputation for excellence that stretches far and wide.

She built this reputation over the course of a stellar legal career that started right here in this Senate, as a women's law and public policy fellow with the Senate Judiciary Committee. She then spent 7 years with the U.S. Department of Justice, earning numerous accolades for her work, including an FBI award for excellence in prosecuting major fraud.

From the Department of Justice, Judge Koh made her way to California--to Silicon Valley, specifically--where she made a name for herself as an expert litigator on intellectual property cases.

In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger, as I mentioned, appointed her to the California Superior Court. Just 2 years later, President Obama nominated Judge Koh to the Federal District Court bench, and she was confirmed unanimously by this Senate. And in the decade since, Judge Koh has gone on to distinguish herself as a jurist. She is well known, not only in her district but across the country as talented, thoughtful, smart, and fair.

This nomination is actually her second nomination to the Ninth Circuit. In 2016, she was nominated and advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee at that time on a bipartisan basis but, unfortunately, never received a floor vote in this Senate.

But now that we have this vote scheduled, I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting to confirm Judge Koh on a strong bipartisan vote once again. I know the people of California, the Ninth Circuit, and the country at large will benefit from her dedication, her integrity, and compassion as a circuit court judge.

In many ways, the story that Judge Koh brings to the bench is the epitome of the American Dream. The daughter of Korean immigrants who fled communism and dictatorship in search of a better life, Judge Koh was born in Washington, DC, and raised in Vicksburg, MI. And growing up, Judge Koh

studied at public schools and was no stranger to poverty and discrimination.

She spent weekends and summers working in her father's small business, and she was surrounded by the love and lessons of her immigrant family. Now, these experiences all helped to shape the unique and needed perspectives that she now brings as a Federal judge. If confirmed, Judge Koh will become the first Korean-American woman to serve on a Federal circuit court.

Now, as the first Latino to represent California here in this Senate, I know the importance of diversity at all levels of government, and that includes the judiciary. Our country is stronger and fairer when we are guided by the voices and experiences of all of our people. And we still have a lot of work to remake our justice system to better reflect the country that it serves.

Based on Judge Koh's record, her skill, intellect, and respect for the rule of law, her confirmation is a big step in helping us achieve that goal.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm her to the Ninth Circuit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Revitalizing Small and Local Businesses Act, which I introduced today.

Even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, historic underinvestment in certain communities left their small businesses and business districts more vulnerable to economic shocks and limited economic opportunities.

Main Street programs and business district organizations have played an important role in supporting businesses through the economic crisis and will continue to play a critical role in supporting a strong, inclusive recovery. While many communities need place-based supportive services tailored to their unique needs, Federal investments have not meaningfully supported these entities.

As we work to build back better, we have an opportunity to improve equitable access to economic development resources by leveraging the expertise of nonprofit partners with deep connections to small businesses and the organizations that serve them.

That is why I am proud to introduce this bill together with Senator Wicker to create a new $250 million Economic Development Administration grant program to support place-based supportive services to provide on- the-ground assistance in both urban and rural communities.

This bill would strategically and efficiently deploy funding to support the vital work of local programs to revitalize small businesses and business districts as these communities, particularly low-income, rural, and minority communities, seek to recover from the devastating economic effects of the pandemic.

It would support job retention and creation opportunities as well as deliver vital technical assistance to small businesses.

I thank Senator Wicker for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this bill to empower place- based entities to respond to economic recovery needs through locally tailored solutions.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Revitalizing Small and Local Businesses Act, which I introduced today.

Even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, historic underinvestment in certain communities left their small businesses and business districts more vulnerable to economic shocks and limited economic opportunities.

Main Street programs and business district organizations have played an important role in supporting businesses through the economic crisis and will continue to play a critical role in supporting a strong, inclusive recovery. While many communities need place-based supportive services tailored to their unique needs, Federal investments have not meaningfully supported these entities.

As we work to build back better, we have an opportunity to improve equitable access to economic development resources by leveraging the expertise of nonprofit partners with deep connections to small businesses and the organizations that serve them.

That is why I am proud to introduce this bill together with Senator Wicker to create a new $250 million Economic Development Administration grant program to support place-based supportive services to provide on- the-ground assistance in both urban and rural communities.

This bill would strategically and efficiently deploy funding to support the vital work of local programs to revitalize small businesses and business districts as these communities, particularly low-income, rural, and minority communities, seek to recover from the devastating economic effects of the pandemic.

It would support job retention and creation opportunities as well as deliver vital technical assistance to small businesses.

I thank Senator Wicker for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this bill to empower place- based entities to respond to economic recovery needs through locally tailored solutions.

Madam President.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, this bill is yet another attempt by our Republican colleagues to stoke fear about the migrations we are seeing at the southern border rather than work collaboratively with us to actually address the issue and their stated concerns.

For a decade now, we have seen increasing arrivals at the southern border, especially of vulnerable populations. I am talking about families and unaccompanied children, many who are fleeing horrific conditions in their home countries, such as gang violence, drug trafficking, corruption, a global health pandemic, or the devastating effects of climate change, if not a multitude of these dangers. It is unsafe for many of them to remain in their countries, and so they make the arduous journey to the United States to seek asylum and, heaven forbid, a better future.

Asylum seekers aren't just seeking a better life; they are simply trying to not die or to not be killed. Too many policymakers act like asylum seekers are simply choosing to come here, but, given the horrific conditions in their home countries, it is really no choice at all. So I am deeply disappointed to see Republicans in both the House and the Senate distorting these desperate young children and families at the border into some sort of threat to our Nation.

Responsibly addressing migration requires going beyond partisan finger-pointing. We must, instead, thoughtfully address the root causes of migration and reform our border to ensure an orderly, secure, and well-managed process that treats migrants fairly and humanely. I have been frustrated that, despite numerous--and I mean numerous--bipartisan meetings on immigration reform, our Republican colleagues seem more interested in scoring political points rather than in pursuing meaningful solutions. They simply refuse to truly engage.

This bill would create onerous, repetitive, and unnecessary reporting and investigative requirements for the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security and require the inspector general to report on these items every 60 days for the foreseeable future, not to mention that many of the requirements in the bill are frivolous, irrelevant, or duplicative. For example, the bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to report on the number of migrants resettled when the DHS isn't even the Agency that handles the resettlement of migrants. The DHS already has an Office of Immigration Statistics that does report on many of the same statistics that this bill would now require the inspector general to report on.

Finally, much of the rhetoric from my colleagues has centered around the

large increase on the number of encounters at the border. Let me emphasize the word ``encounters'' at the border. However, these numbers ignore the large rates of recidivism that we are seeing. The ongoing use of title 42 to block and expel asylum seekers at the southern border has led to an increase in the number of people crossing the border more than once. Under title 42, single adults are rapidly processed at the border and sent right back to Mexico without a deportation order. What this arrangement has, in essence, done is incentivize repeated attempted crossings. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the recidivism rate is somewhere between 28 and 38 percent. So this encounter statistic that is being called for is actually misleading.

I am more than willing to work with my colleague here to try to develop actual solutions to address migration at our border, but when I say ``solutions,'' I mean real solutions--solutions that recognize the fundamental humanity of the desperate children and families who simply want to live to see their next birthdays and solutions that stay true to the values of our Nation.

So, yes, I object.

Madam President, I rise to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of Bruce Corwin, a pillar of the sports and entertainment industries, a dedicated philanthropist, and a dear friend.

Born and raised in California, Bruce believed deeply in the power of people. As a college student at Wesleyan, he traveled to Baltimore to march alongside Martin Luther King, Jr., and he protested fraternity discrimination by starting a new, inclusive group. After graduating in 1962, he participated in the Coro Fellows Program for aspiring public servants, the start of a lifelong relationship with Coro through which Bruce supported generations of civic leaders.

Bruce made his career at Metropolitan Theaters, his family's business, which brought English- and Spanish-language movies to theaters across the Southwest. He was the third generation of his family to oversee the company, and he led it with passion for 40 years. Bruce extended his leadership into the community, where he was

known for organizing mentorship and tutoring programs at his alma mater, Los Angeles High School. He supported countless charitable causes and was a beloved leader in California's Jewish community.

I first met Bruce in 1994, when I was a Coro Fellow. Over the years, we bonded over talks of family, community, and leadership, as well as baseball, movies, and just a little politics. He always supported my public service aspirations. And he was an invaluable partner in fulfilling one of my passion projects, to open a state-of-the-art children's museum in the San Fernando Valley. After a 14-year journey, the Discovery Cube Los Angeles opened its doors in 2014.

Bruce was incredibly kind, wise, generous, and compassionate. Everyone who knew Bruce felt blessed by his infectious and infinite optimism and inspiration. On a personal note, I remain in incredible admiration of the love that he and his wife Toni shared. It reminds me so much of the love and commitment my own parents shared.

My wife Angela and I send our deepest condolences, love, and prayers to Toni Corwin and the entire Corwin family. We were blessed to share in so many great memories with the countless people around the country that Bruce touched and inspired throughout his life.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agua Caliente Land Exchange Fee to Trust Confirmation Act.

This legislation would place certain lands into trust for the Tribe in order to finally allow the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians to manage these lands that are of special, cultural value to their people .

Land that has traditionally been held by Agua Caliente has been divided into a checkerboard between the Tribe, Federal Government, and private landowners.

In 1999, the Bureau of Land Management and Agua Caliente entered into an agreement to acquire and exchange lands within what would become the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. In 2000, legislation was enacted to establish the monument and authorize the land exchange.

For 17 years, Agua Caliente worked with the Bureau of Land Management to finalize an agreement to exchange the lands that are addressed by this legislation, and in March 2019, the land exchange was finalized. However, since the original legislation didn't expressly address the status of land transferred to the Tribe, the lands covered in this bill were not placed in trust. My legislation would correct that and provide the fix to finally place the exchanged land into trust and made part of Agua Caliente's reservation.

This bill represents the final step to complete the original 1999 agreement between Agua Caliente and the Bureau of Land Management.

Importantly, enactment of this legislation would allow for improved land management and allow Agua Caliente to manage these lands that have a longstanding cultural and natural resource value to the Cahuilla people.

The land is in a remote wilderness area within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, and the Tribe will manage the land as conservation lands similar to how it is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

I thank Congressman Ruiz for his partnership on this effort and for his commitment to honoring the Federal Government's trust responsibility. I also thank the bipartisan Members of the House who have supported this legislation and Senator Feinstein for coleading this effort with me in the Senate.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Agua Caliente Land Exchange Fee to Trust Confirmation Act as quickly as possible.