Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 495.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 654.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, January 20, be waived.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the fall of 1868, recently freed African-American men participated in Federal elections for the first time in American history. According to Ron Chernow's biography of Ulysses S. Grant, the impacts of expanding the vote were immediate and dramatic.

In a startling reversal for an area once dominated by

slavery, the elections spawned black sheriffs, school board

members, state legislators, and congressmen. That yesterday's

slave laborer was today's state legislator horrified many

white southerners who refused to accept this extraordinary

inversion of their bygone world.

Naturally, the opponents of voting rights had an answer. Chernow continues:

[T]o circumvent the fifteenth amendment, white politicians

in Georgia [and other states] devised new methods of

stripping blacks of voting rights, including poll taxes,

onerous registration requirements--

Let me repeat that quote.

[O]nerous registration requirements, and similar

restrictions copied in other states.

Many attempts were made by this very body to stop these sinister laws, but the result was ultimately a failure.

By 1877, ``the black community in the South steadily lost ground until a rigid apartheid separated the races completely, a terrible state of affairs that would not be fixed until the rise of the civil rights movement after World War II.''

Today, the U.S. Senate meets in a different century, facing new and different dangers but wrestling with the same fundamental question: How will the Members of this body protect and expand the most basic right of American citizens, the wellspring of our democracy, the thing that distinguished America from all of the countries in Europe when it was established in, first, 1776 and then 1789--the right to vote--the most important wellspring of our democracy, the most important feature of our democracy?

How will the Members of this body expand and protect the most basic right--the right to vote--from forces, right now in the 21st century, conspiring to take it away?

That is why, today, the U.S. Senate will debate legislation to protect our

democracy, and the eyes of history--the eyes of history--are upon us.

The question that is before us today is as old as the Republic itself. The story of democracy has been a long march toward universal suffrage, a holy struggle to take the vision of our Framers and make it real in the present.

The march, unfortunately, has often not been linear. At the time of our Constitution's ratification, you had to be, in many States, a White, male, Protestant, landowner to vote. How many in this Chamber would have been able to participate in those early elections?

Throughout our Nation's history, moments of significant progress have often been followed by reactionary backlash. Unfortunately, it seems-- led by one party, compelled by the most dishonest President in our history--we are in another of those dark periods.

That is why, for the first time--the first time--in this Congress, the Senate is debating and will vote on legislation to confront these threats: the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

For the information of all, debate on these bills will continue throughout the day. And as soon as 6:30, if not a little bit later, we will hold a cloture vote to conclude debate and proceed to final passage on these measures.

I want to thank my colleagues who spoke yesterday in favor of these bills. There were so many eloquent and strong speeches. At our caucus, I have rarely seen such passion about the need to vote and the need to change the rules to allow these vital bills--so fixed upon the wellspring of our democracy, voting--to pass.

If the Republicans block cloture on the legislation before us, I will put forward a proposal to change the Senate rules to allow for a talking filibuster on this legislation, as recommended by a number of our colleagues who have been working on this reform for a very long time.

Make no mistake, win, lose, or draw, Members of this Chamber were elected to debate and to vote, particularly on such an important issue as this. And win, lose, or draw, we are going to vote--we are going to vote--especially when the issue relates to the beating heart of our democracy, as voting rights does.

For months, Senate Republicans have resisted virtually every attempt at holding a bipartisan debate on voting rights legislation. Senate Democrats have certainly tried to bring them onto the table.

Senate Democrats have certainly been willing to compromise to get something done. My colleagues Senators Manchin and Kaine and Tester and King and Durbin and Klobuchar and Leahy--and many more--have all met with Republicans to initiate a dialogue, dating back to last August, if not earlier. At virtually every turn, we have been met with resistance.

And amazingly enough, my colleagues--none of them are here to hear it--our Republican colleagues don't even acknowledge that we have a crisis. Leader McConnell even claimed that ``States are not engaged in trying to suppress voters whatsoever.''

Let me read that quote again. This is from Leader McConnell's words:

States are not engaging in trying to suppress voters

whatsoever.

I would ask the Republican leader, if there is no effort to suppress the vote, why have 19 States passed 33 new laws making it harder for Americans to participate in our elections, in the aftermath of one of the safest elections in American recent history, where there is virtually no evidence of any material fraud--none.

If there is no effort to suppress the vote, why are States from Texas to Montana restricting the number and hours of polling places? Why have States like Florida and Texas made it harder to register--to register-- to vote? Is that not suppressing the vote?

Why are States like Iowa cutting down on the number of days you can vote early? Is that not suppressing the vote?

And if there is no effort to suppress the vote, why have States like Georgia made it a crime for volunteers to give food and water to voters standing in line at the polls?

Leader McConnell, once again:

States are not engaging in trying to suppress voters

whatsoever.

Just as Donald Trump has his Big Lie, Leader McConnell now has his:

States are not engaging in trying to suppress voters

whatsoever.

The same types of lies that have motivated--the same type of Big Lie that Donald Trump put forward has now motivated Leader McConnell and many other Republicans to embrace that Big Lie and spout others that come from the same poisonous tree.

And what is even more galling, knowing our history, that the laws that I spoke of a minute ago don't target everyone. This is not an effort aimed at everyone. They are aimed particularly at people of color, at poor people, at young people, at disabled people, at elderly people, at people who live in cities. Given the long history, particularly against African Americans, Black Americans, of suppressing the vote in every kind of way possible, this is particularly disgraceful, particularly abhorrent, particularly obnoxious.

We all know the game here today, exemplified by every seat being empty when we are having our first debate about voting rights, not because Republicans agreed to go along but because we were able to use a message from the House to go forward without their OK.

So we all know the game here. To date, I don't know if any of you have, but I have not heard a single serious defense of these laws from Senate Republicans. They don't come here to the floor to defend what is going on in the States. What we have heard is sophistry, distractions, and outright gaslighting.

For months, Senate Republicans have come up with excuses and subterfuges to avoid doing the right thing, just like others have come up with similar lame excuses and subterfuges in the past. But this is the 21st century. We are supposed to have gone beyond that, but unfortunately we have not. Facts are stubborn, and today's debate will help us arrive at the facts of voter suppression before we vote to take action. As we debate this issue so critical to the wellspring of our democracy, will we all confront a critical question: Shall Members of this Chamber do what is necessary to pass these bills and move them to the President's desk?

It is my hope that courage awakens within the heart of our Republican colleagues before the day is out. But if the Senate cannot protect the right to vote, protect the cornerstone of our democracy under the existing rules, then the Senate rules must be reformed.

Let me say this. We have diverse views about whether the filibuster today in 21st century America is a good thing or a bad thing. And there are some in our caucus who believe it helps bring--a few who believe it helps bring--us together. I don't see evidence of that at all, and I think the majority of my colleagues will agree with that. But even for those who feel that the filibuster is a good thing and helps bring us together, I would ask this question: Isn't the protection of voting rights, the most fundamental wellspring of this democracy, more important? Isn't protecting voting rights and preventing their diminution more important than a rule in the Senate, which has not always been in existence and was not envisioned by the Founders? That is the question we should ask ourselves.

Our proposal for a talking filibuster on these pieces of legislation would be the first step toward passing voting rights, restoring this body, and breaking the gridlock that we now face on this vital issue.

In this body, proponents of our democratic rights, again and again, have brought legislation to the floor only to be met by a filibuster. Opponents of fair, open elections filibustered anti-poll tax legislation in 1942, 1944, 1946. They filibustered the civil rights bill of 1960. They filibustered legislation on literacy tests in 1962-- all this before real substantive progress was made.

Our struggle today is not new, but we must nevertheless meet it with renewed conviction. Senate Democrats are under no illusion that we face an uphill fight, especially when virtually every Republican has remained staunchly against every attempt to pass voting rights legislation. Again, I would remind the American people and every one of my colleagues that this is a different Republican Party controlled

by Donald Trump. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush all supported renewal of the Voting Rights Act--every one of them--and it received large bipartisan majorities in the Senate.

It is a different Republican Party, not just on so many issues that we debate but on this issue, the wellspring of our democracy. So we know it is an uphill fight. But whenever this Chamber confronts a question this important, one so vital to our country, you don't slide it off the table and say, ``Never mind.'' You don't say, ``We are not going to deal with this issue head-on.''

The Senators' job is to vote and to vote on the most important issues facing us, and vote we will, and we are going to keep pushing. We are going to keep working. We are going to keep fighting long after today because the issue is so important to all of us.

I believe firmly in my bones, Mr. President, that if we follow Dr. King's advice to just ``keep moving,'' history shows that doing the right thing will eventually prevail. Justice will flow like the mighty waters, as the Prophet Amos has said.

But the work of justice does not stir into action on its own. It is up to us, Members of this body and Americans all across the country, to do our part to make justice come alive today and assure that our country does not backslide here in the 21st century.

So I urge my colleagues, for the sake of our beautiful, wonderful democracy, for the sake of what the Founding Fathers called this ``noble experiment,'' take a stand and do everything, everything, everything you can to protect voting rights today--today--in this Chamber.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Would my colleague yield just for a brief comment?

I just want to thank Senator Whitehouse. He has been a leader on this issue. It doesn't get enough attention. It is very much part of our bill, the Freedom to Vote Act. It is universally or virtually universally supported, and it is one of the great scourges of our politics.

If we don't move forward on these bills, we are not going to be able to do this because we will not get the kind of bipartisan cooperation we need on this horrible, horrible thing that I think all 50 of us agree should be changed.

So I want to thank him for his efforts--not just his speech today but his amazing efforts over the months and years.

Will my colleague stop for a brief interruption?

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to concur be at 8 p.m.

Thank you.

I appreciate the courtesy of my colleague. We had no choice but to do it at 6:30.

Madam President, just for a minute, I want to first salute the amazing speeches by our two Senators from Georgia--Georgia, which has been the crucible in our fight for voting rights, where the attempts to curtail voting rights seem most pernicious. To both of you, your erudition, your eloquence, your passion were amazing.

And I want to salute our Republican colleagues who listened to the speeches, and hope that those who weren't here will get a chance to review those speeches as well.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Madam President, now, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the pending cloture motion be waived.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to complete their remarks prior to the scheduled vote: Senator Blunt, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Schumer.

Madam Vice President, what kind of democracy shall endure here in the United States long after our times in this Chamber come to an end? Shall American democracy in the 21st century be called a true heir to our Framers' vision--a nation where the people choose their own leaders, forge their own destiny, and add to the great legacies of those who expanded the franchise before us or shall we see American democracy backslide in our time, grow feeble in the jaws of its adversaries, and ultimately succumb to the cancer of voter suppression?

The answer, in a large sense, could depend on how we move forward this evening. As we have clearly laid out in over the past 2 days, the laws passed in legislatures throughout the country do nothing less than to discourage and prevent certain kinds of Americans--Black and Brown Americans, young Americans, elderly Americans, low-income Americans-- from participating in the democratic process.

My colleagues, my colleagues, we can begin to put a stop to these attacks tonight by voting to proceed to the final passage of the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. These are good bills; these are effective bills; and they should be passed by this Chamber as soon as possible.

And if cloture is not invoked, we must change the rules of the Senate so we can pass these bills into law. As we cast our votes, I urge every one of us, Democrat and Republican, not to discount our place in history. The story of American democracy is full of contradictions and halting progress.

At the time of our Constitution's ratification, you had to be in many States a White, male, Protestant landowner to vote. But ever since the early days of this grand Republic, Americans launched mighty movements, fought a bloody civil war, and, yes, passed Federal election laws to expand the franchise until there were no more boundaries.

Today's vote is the next step in that long march. Are we going to let our democracy backslide in the 21st century? Are we going to be dragged back into the abyss of voter suppression?

I urge every one of my colleagues, left, right, and middle, for the sake of our democracy, unite, take a stand today.

To every Member of this body who treasures our precious experiment in self-rule, to every Member horrified by the muck of voter suppression, and to everyone who believes this Chamber is still capable of defending democracy in its hour of great need, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Madam Vice President, I enter a motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote.

Mr. President, ``a denial of this sacred right [to vote] is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition''--``a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition.''

Those were the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his speech where he implored the Federal Government--and especially Congress--to take action on a simple request: ``Give us the ballot.''

Today, the American people are saying the same thing: Give us the ballot. Let us not sink into the abyss of voter suppression. Give us the ballot.

A few hours ago, this Chamber, with the eyes of the Nation upon it and with the evidence of voter suppression laid bare before it, with very little refutation from the other side--they don't discuss the issues going on in the States--took a vote to move to final passage on the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. It received 50 votes, and with the Vice President, we would have had the majority. Unfortunately, under the current rules of the Senate, the door is closed to moving forward on these laws--so much part of the core values of our country.

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

In short, every Senator will be allowed to speak twice on final passage of voting rights legislation. They can speak as long as they want--days, if they can muster it--but all other dilatory tactics, any dilatory amendments, motions, and points of order, shall be deemed out of order, and any appeal shall be determined without debate. After each Member has had their say, it will be time to vote, and only 50 votes will be required for passage.

Mr. President, this is a very simple, limited proposal, and it only applies to the voting rights bill before us today.

Now, look, there is no denying that Members of this body have divergent views about whether the filibuster in the 21st century is a good thing or a bad thing. Some have argued that it actually helps bring us together--something I don't agree with and which I have not seen evidence of, as the eloquent statement by the Senator of Oregon has--we have just seen. But even for those who feel that the filibuster is a good thing and helps bring us together, I would ask this question: Isn't protecting voting rights, the most fundamental wellspring of this democracy, more important than a rule in this Chamber?

Let me say that again. Even if you think the filibuster is a good thing, isn't protecting voting rights and preventing their diminution more important, particularly when this rule was not always in existence and was not envisioned by the Founders? That is the key question we should each ask ourselves.

To be clear, minority rights are a vital feature of this Chamber, but the Senate was never envisioned to allow an absolute minority party veto--never. In fact, the Founders expressly rejected the inclusion of a supermajority requirement for the Senate. Hamilton called the idea ``poison.''

If there is anything undermining the spirit of the Senate today, it is, frankly, the way things work right now. It is time for the Senate to adapt, to meet the challenge of the modern age. Robert Byrd himself recognized this truth,

that Senate rules must sometimes change. And our proposal today is a limited, carefully tailored step we can take to make the rules of the Senate achieve this body's original purpose.

Finally, there are some who fear the consequences of passing this bill with no support from the other party. I would certainly prefer that Republicans work with us on this issue, and voting rights has always been a bipartisan issue in the past. But we must be honest. We have made many earnest efforts to draft and debate bipartisan legislation that deals with voter suppression, dark money, and partisan gerrymandering, but those efforts by many Members of our caucus have come up with no takers.

The old GOP worked with Democrats on voting rights for decades, but, unfortunately, that is not the case today. In the words of the late Senator Wagner, whose seat I hold, delivered on this floor nearly 80 years ago:

Unity in a democracy is not achieved by side-stepping and

ignoring issues. That is false unity. That is only the

illusion of unity.

Unity in a democracy is the unity which is achieved by

facing issues, by threshing out our differences, and by

standing upon the decision of the majority.

Again:

Unity in a democracy is not achieved by side-stepping . . .

issues.

Fittingly, he spoke those words in the face of a filibuster on the anti-poll tax legislation.

Tonight, let us sidestep voting rights no more.

The question before the Senate is, How will we find a path forward on protecting our freedoms in this turbulent 21st century? The only choice to move forward on these vital issues is to change the rules in the modest way we have proposed.

My colleagues--my colleagues--history is watching us. Let us choose in favor of our democracy. Let us stand up and defend the precious right to vote.

Motion to Proceed to Motion to Reconsider

Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that for this message from the House, with respect to H.R. 5746, the only debate in order during consideration of the message be on the question of adoption of the motion to concur in the amendment of the House; further, that no further amendments, motions, or points of order be in order and that any appeals be determined without debate.

Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote.

Now, for the information of the Senate, there will be no further rollcall votes tonight. Senators should expect a rollcall vote at noon tomorrow on the confirmation of Holly Thomas to be the U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, before I close the Senate and do that kind of paperwork, I want to just make a few remarks about tonight's vote.

So while tonight's vote was disappointing, it will not deter Senate Democrats from continuing our fight against voter suppression, dark money, and partisan gerrymandering.

With no support from Senate Republicans, many of whom deny the very existence of voter suppression, we faced an uphill battle, but because of this fight, and the fact that each Senator had to show where they stand, we are closer to achieving our goal of passing vital voter protection legislation.

We take inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He kept fighting for voting rights through every obstacle, and we will do the same. We will not quit.

Now that every Senator has gone on record, the American people have seen who is on the side of protecting voting rights, and it will only strengthen our resolve as we work to ensure that our democracy does not backslide.

This vote is another step forward in the long march for universal voting rights. The Democratic caucus pledges to keep working until voting rights are protected for every American.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 5746

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the House message to accompany H.R. 5746 no longer be the pending business.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, as if in executive session that the nomination of Arun Venkataraman, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service received in the Senate on January 4, 2022, be jointly referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m. on Thursday, January 20; that following the prayer and the 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 the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, for the information of Senators, we expect a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Thomas nomination at 12 noon.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President--of the Senate pro tempore, as well--Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senate has received a message from the House of Representatives to accompany H.R. 5746.

I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the House message to accompany H.R. 5746.

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746.

Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 4903

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746 with an amendment.

I ask that further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur with an amendment.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to the amendment, which is at the desk.

I ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I move to refer the House message to accompany H.R. 5746 to the Committee on Rules, with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment.

I ask that further reading be dispensed with.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have an amendment to the instructions, which is at the desk.

I ask that further reading be dispensed with.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have an amendment to the amendment, which is at the desk.

I ask that further reading be dispensed with.

I send a cloture motion to the motion to concur to the desk.

Mr. President, before I begin the substance of my remarks, I want to offer a few words in reaction to the terrible hostage situation this weekend in Texas.

Saturday's hostage crisis at Congregation Beth Israel was a horrifying reminder that the ancient poison of anti-Semitism continues to this day. I am relieved that all of the hostages made it out alive, and I commend the quick thinking of the first responders and of Rabbi Charlie Citron-Walker, who acted valiantly, and all those present for bringing this crisis to an end.

Moving forward, we must get to the bottom of what inspired the terrorist attack on Saturday but increase our vigilance against all forms of anti-Semitism and racially motivated violence.

Here in Congress, we must continue working to increase our investment in nonprofit security grants to groups that are targets of hate. We need to give our communities the tools they need to protect themselves so they can live without fear of being targeted for just who they are.

On this day, I stand in solidarity with the congregation of Beth Israel, the Jewish community of Greater Dallas-Ft. Worth, and with all Jewish Americans for whom Saturday's attack was a traumatic reminder of the hate we have yet to overcome.

Voting Rights

Mr. President, this is on defending democracy. The eyes of the Nation will be watching what happens this week in the U.S. Senate.

Just a few days removed from what would have been Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 93rd birthday, the Senate has begun debate on the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act--for the first time, the first time in this Congress.

Democrats have tried for months to hold a voting rights debate on the floor, but we have been blocked each time by Republicans. We brought commonsense proposals four times on the floor of the Senate and only once did one Senator--Lisa Murkowski, to her credit--agree to even begin debate on voting rights. On all three other votes, not a single Republican joined us. Every one of them voted to block even a debate on voting rights.

So, today, we are taking this step by using a message from the House. Now, it is just a step, but an important step moving forward, in that we will finally debate this one issue that is so central to the American people, to our history, and to our democracy.

As we debate these measures, the Senate will confront a critical question: Shall the Members of this Chamber do what is necessary to pass these bills and bring them closer to the President's desk?

Today, we have just taken the first steps that will put everyone-- everyone--on the record. Much has been said over the past few days about the prospects of passing voting rights legislation in this Chamber. Senate Democrats are under no illusion that we face difficult odds, especially when virtually every Senate Republican--every Senate Republican--is staunchly against legislation protecting the right to vote.

But I want to be clear. When this Chamber confronts a question this important--one so vital to our country, so vital to our ideals, so vital to the future of our democracy--you don't slide it off the table and say, ``Never mind.'' Win, lose, or draw, Members of this Chamber were elected to debate and to vote, especially on an issue as vital to the beating heart of our democracy as voting rights. The public is entitled to know where each Senator stands on an issue as sacrosanct as defending our democracy. The American people deserve to see their Senators go on record on whether they will support these bills or oppose them. Indeed, that may be the only way to make progress on this issue now, for the public to see where each of us in this Chamber stands. The public deserves to see it, and that is exactly, precisely, what the Senate is going to do this week.

Make no mistake about it. Using Dr. King as an inspiration, Democrats will continue to fight on this issue until we succeed, and I believe history will vindicate us.

Mr. President, the fight over voting rights is as old as the Republic itself. Recently--well, let me say, when the Republic was founded, in many States you had to be a White male Protestant property owner to vote. As is obvious by who is in this Chamber, we have made progress-- inexorable progress--in expanding that franchise.

History does not regard those restrictions that occurred early on as worthy, but we must continue the fight. We have not reached the place where every person can vote easily and openly and honestly. So we have to keep it up.

I have been reading the biography of Ulysses S. Grant by Ron Chernow. The No. 1 thing the southern segregationists wanted to take away from the newly freed slaves was the right to vote. Segregationists back then knew that if recently freed Black slaves didn't have the right to vote in the South, they would have no power at all: no power over laws, over resources, over the future of the country. And that was the No. 1 thing segregationists wanted to prevent: the right of the newly freed slaves to vote.

It is why, a century later, Dr. King made a direct appeal to Congress for acting on voting rights: ``Give us the

ballot,'' he said in 1957, ``and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.'' ``Give us the ballot'' and all other rights will follow. With the ballot, he argued, voters could end the worst of racial segregation. They could elect good men and good women to government. They could subdue the dangers of the mob and keep democracy alive. But the ballot had to come first. The ballot had to come first.

Dr. King might as well have been speaking to us, because across the United States, in 2022, ballot access is not being expanded; it is being repressed. And our democracy is not safe; it is under attack.

A year ago, a violent mob incited by the President and his Big Lie attacked this very building in order to reverse the results of a free and fair election. Last week, for the first time, the Department of Justice announced sedition charges against a number of the rioters who were here that day.

A year later, at least 19 States have passed 33 laws that make it harder for people to vote, using the Big Lie--the Big Lie, as false as it is--as a justification. Those States together are home to 55 million Americans, and new laws are certainly coming once the State legislatures return to session this year. And the kind of violence--the threats of violence--we saw on January 6 by that insurrectionist mob is now being threatened increasingly against countless election workers across the country.

Just this weekend, the Houston Chronicle reported that ``County officials in urban areas across the State [of Texas] say they've been forced to reject an unprecedented number of mail ballot applications [thanks to the new Republican voter suppression law.]

And this past Saturday, Donald Trump once again repeated the same conspiracy theories about the 2020 election that have paved the way for voter suppression at the State level.

So, unfortunately, the dangers that face our democracy are alive and well, and the laws that suppress the vote at the State level are being enacted on a partisan basis.

We have seen periods of regression, in terms of voting rights and equality and fairness to people of color. We have seen regression occur. And this seems to be a period of regression in what the legislatures are doing, and fight it we must.

So the Senate must act. We must step in and act. We must do everything to pass voting rights legislation, just as this Chamber has done in the past, just as the Constitution permits us to do. That is why we will vote this week on the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. And if Republicans choose to continue their filibuster of voting rights legislation, we must consider and vote on the rule changes that are appropriate and necessary to restore the Senate and make voting legislation possible.

As I have recounted already, these laws are urgently needed. We must not--we cannot--allow another period of that regression, which we have seen throughout American history.

Here is what some of the laws would do--our two laws would do:

They would set basic commonsense standards for all Americans for access to the ballot as well as restore preclearance provisions that were passed by this Chamber for decades on a bipartisan basis. They would establish clear and consistent standards for early voting across the country and make it easier for voters to access absentee ballots. They would protect election workers from unlawful intimidation. We are seeing so much of that now. It is disgraceful--disgraceful. They would end the toxic practice of partisan gerrymandering, and they would take new steps to fight the power of dark money corroding our elections. Senate Democrats repeatedly tried, over the last year, to bring Republicans to the table to debate these issues.

I will remind my colleagues that this is not the old Republican Party. I would remind the American people how dramatically the Republican Party has regressed. The Republican Party used to be one that supported voting rights. Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush worked to renew voting rights bills.

No, sadly, unfortunately, this is Donald Trump's Republican Party. And it is the one now trying to take away the vote from younger Black and Brown, elderly, minority, and low-income voters.

And yet every time we try to engage our Senate Republican colleagues, they resist it. So we have no choice. We are moving ahead on our own.

Once again, no one denies the path ahead is an uphill struggle. Republicans have been clear, they will entertain no bipartisan compromise on voting rights, but long odds are no excuse for this Chamber to avoid this important issue.

Again, Members of this Chamber were elected to debate and to vote. We are going to vote. We are all going to go on the record. And Republicans will have to choose which side they stand on--protecting democracy or offering their implicit endorsement of Donald Trump's Big Lie.

For months, Senate Republicans have come up with excuses and subterfuges to avoid doing what they know is the right thing, just like so many others have come up with similar lame excuses and subterfuges in the past. But as history shows, doing the right thing will eventually prevail. Justice will flow like mighty waters, as the Prophet Amos has said.

The direction of voting rights in America is enough to have shaken the faith of even the most optimistic champion of America--of democracy. Sometimes it seems like for each step forward, the country takes two steps back, but fights like this are not unusual in American history.

The story of our country has been a long, arduous march toward expanding the promise of freedom for all Americans. We find ourselves in such a struggle today.

Dr. King had simple, powerful advice for his followers during moments like this: Keep moving. Keep fighting. The road to justice is often painful and full of setback, but we must keep moving. We must keep moving, he said, against every obstacle and prodigious hilltop and mountain of opposition. Let nothing slow you down. And even after you cross the Red Sea only to find yourself in the desert, just keep moving forward through the wilderness. ``And if you will do that with dignity,'' he said, ``when the history books are written in the future, the historians will have to look back and say, `There lived a great people.'''

We will keep fighting in the same spirit to protect our democracy in this day and age. And if we do that, I have faith that one day the history books will likewise look back at this generation of Americans and conclude, ``There lived a great people,'' too.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, before I begin my remarks, I see my dear friend, the President, sitting there--the Senator from Nevada--and I am just thinking, last night, as we watched Harry Reid leave the Senate for the final time: Harry, we miss you, but we know you are still here to guide us. Thank you.

Madam President, on defending democracy--something Leader Reid would have been passionate about, if he were still with us here, and he is telling us that now--over the next few days, the U.S. Senate will face a critical and unavoidable question: Are its Members going to act to protect our democracy and protect voting rights or will its Members choose the path of obstruction, inaction, and side with the Big Lie overtaking our precious experiment in self-rule?

We had two professors come to us 2 days ago, the authors of ``How Democracies Die,'' and one of the main ways that democracies die is when one political party refuses to accept the results of an election that was run freely and fairly. That is what is happening here. They showed how important this is and how there is unfortunate historical precedent in doing what we did.

And earlier this week, President Biden made that clear. He made clear to the Nation--and to all of us who serve in the Senate--that the time to answer the question about whether allowing the Big Lie, so ruinous to a democracy, to overtake our precious experiment in self-rule will prevail.

As the Senate has done many times in its history, it must soon act again to safeguard democracy from the dangers of the present day: the power of dark money, voter suppression, and efforts to subvert the democratic process from the bottom up.

I commend President Biden for offering a strong speech, and I look forward to having him join Senate Democrats later today at our caucus meeting to discuss the path forward.

Yesterday, I shared with my Democratic colleagues our plan for what the next few days are going to look like in this Chamber and how I, as majority leader, will move to finally begin, at last, a floor debate on the voting rights legislation.

Later today, the House of Representatives will pass a message that will include the language of the two bills Republicans have filibustered for months--the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

As permitted under the existing rules, we will have the ability to proceed to the legislation and debate it on a simple majority basis-- something that has been denied to us four times in the last several months because Republicans didn't want to move forward. Then the Senate will finally hold a debate on the voting rights legislation for the first time in this Congress, and every Senator will be faced with a choice of whether or not to pass this legislation to protect our democracy.

There has been a lot of gas-lighting here on the floor lately from the other side about power grabs, about takeovers, but precious little in terms of substance. I have not heard them mention what Republican legislatures are

doing. That is not the thrust of their speech. They say: Oh, it is a power grab. Oh, it is a takeover.

Well, my friends, if there was ever a power grab, it is what is happening in the State legislatures right now, where Republican legislators are taking away people's sacred right to vote and aiming it particularly at certain groups--people of color, young people, people in urban areas, older people, disabled people.

So let me remind my colleagues what these bills actually do. The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act are balanced, effective, and commonsense bills that build on the work that this Chamber has done in the past to protect democracy, and it was often done with bipartisan votes. The transformation of the Republican Party in the era of Donald Trump is apparent and nasty, and, most importantly, really dangerous to our democracy.

These laws set basic standards for all American citizens to vote safely and vote securely, while protecting elections from attempts at subversion. What is wrong with that? How is that a power grab, to allow people to vote? It is the people who should have the power, not politicians and State legislative bodies to take it away.

The bill also fights against the power of Big Money that has cascaded into our system, and so much of it is now being used to try and intimidate legislators, Senators, and Congressmen from preserving this right to vote.

And the bill ends partisan gerrymandering. We have all seen situations--the legislature of Wisconsin, the State Assembly, where 53 percent of the people voted for Democratic legislators in 2020, but only about a third of the seats are Democratic due the severe nature of this gerrymandering.

And, so importantly, these bills restore the critical preclearance provisions that were once part of the Voting Rights Act that many of my Republican colleagues supported in the past, which a conservative majority on the Supreme Court shamefully gutted roughly a decade ago.

Democrats have tried for months--months--to convince our Republican colleagues to join us on a bipartisan basis to begin debate on these bills, to no avail. We presented these reasonable, commonsense proposals, as I said, many of which had been voted on by Republicans in the past. We presented them on the floor in June, August, October, and November. Each time I promised my Republican colleagues they would have the opportunity to voice their concerns and offer germane amendments. I wouldn't limit the germane amendments that they wished to offer.

We have lobbied Republicans privately and tried to engage them in both the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every step of the way--every step of the way--we have been met with near total resistance. To date, none of our efforts have produced any meaningful engagement from the other side of the aisle.

But Members of this Chamber were elected to debate and to vote, particularly on an issue as vital to the beating heart of our democracy as this.

I have said for months that just because Republicans have refused to work with us to protect voting rights does not mean Democrats would stop working to move forward on our own. The matter is simply too important. It is the wellspring of our democracy, the right by which all other rights are secured--voting.

I am reading the biography of Grant, by Chernow. The No. 1 thing the southern segregationists, who happened to be Democrats at the time, wanted to take away from the newly freed slaves was the right to vote. They knew that, if Black people didn't have the right to vote in the South, they would have no power--no power over our laws, no power of where resources go, no power to decide the directions of the country. And that was the No. 1 thing they wanted to prevent.

So it is so vital to keep people's right to vote, particularly when some of the laws--too many--are aimed at the people of color, reminding us that racism is the poison of America still.

So we will move forward. The path I have laid out sets up a process by which Senators can finally make clear to the American people where they stand on protecting our democracy. Republicans will have a chance to show where they stand on preserving the right of every eligible citizen to cast a ballot.

Republicans will have a chance to make clear where they stand on fighting efforts to empower partisan actors to subvert the election process and create more Big Lies in the future. Republicans will have a chance to make clear where they stand on fighting the power of dark money, which so many Americans oppose--Democrats and Republicans. And Republicans will have a chance to show where they stand on ending partisan gerrymandering.

Of course, to ultimately end debate and pass anything, we will also need 10 Republicans to join us, ultimately, on cloture. If they don't, we will be left with no choice but to consider changes to Senate rules so we can move forward. And changing Senate rules has been done many times before in this Chamber. This is not the first, second, or third time that this is happening.

All of us must make a choice about whether or not we will do our part to preserve our democratic Republic this day and age. We cannot be satisfied in thinking that democracy will win out in the end if we are not willing to put in the work, strength, and courage to defend it.

Last night, I read the op-ed published by President Obama that eloquently laid out what really is at stake here. I encourage my colleagues to read it if they haven't already. He reminded us that democracy is not a given. It is not self-executing. But it can indeed survive and thrive if we are prepared to follow in the footsteps of the great Americans who did their part to defend democracy before us, many of them giving their lives. We are now being called upon to do our part.

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Obama op-ed, which I will bring to the desk shortly.

Finally, as we continue this important conversation about the future of our democracy, I ask my Democratic colleagues to consider the following: If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote but not allow the United States to do the same?

Let me repeat that.

If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same?

In the coming days, we will confront this sobering question.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have a short announcement about the schedule.

Due to the circumstances regarding COVID and another potentially hazardous winter storm approaching the DC area this weekend, the Senate will adjourn tonight. However, we will be postponing recess so the Senate can vote on voting rights. We will return on Tuesday to take up the House-passed message containing voting rights legislation.

Make no mistake, the U.S. Senate will, for the first time this Congress, debate voting rights legislation beginning on Tuesday. Members of this Chamber were elected to debate and to vote, particularly on an issue as vital to the beating heart of our democracy as this one, and we will proceed.

If the Senate Republicans choose obstruction over protecting the sacred right to vote, as we expect them to, the Senate will consider and vote on changing the Senate rules, as has been done many times before, to allow for the passage of voting rights legislation.

I will close with this: If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we, in good conscience, allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and

pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same?

In the coming days, we will confront this sobering question, and every Member will go on record.

Finally, Members should expect that the next State work period would begin on the week of January 24.

Nord Stream 2

Mr. President, now on Nord Stream, a few minutes ago the Senate voted against passing legislation proposed by Senator Cruz to address Nord Stream 2.

Probably every single one of us in this Chamber agrees that the United States must be strong in confronting Putin and his destabilizing tactics in Eastern Europe and in Ukraine. But as my colleagues made clear this morning, Senator Cruz's bill, in our opinion, is the wrong answer at this time to deter President Putin's aggression. I commend my colleagues who came to the floor to make the case against today's misguided proposal: my friends Chairman Menendez, Senator Shaheen, who cochairs the Senate's NATO Observer Group, and Senator Murphy.

After today's vote, this issue is not behind us. The work is not done. President Putin remains a threat, and we must address this matter.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with Chairman Menendez and Chairman Brown to support Chairman Menendez's comprehensive sanctions, security, and humanitarian aid package.

I believe the Menendez bill is the answer and an important step in the right direction. But, of course, I am willing to consider reasonable additions and modifications.

From interfering in elections to conducting a plethora of cyber attacks that target us here in the homeland, to what is happening today on the border of Ukraine, President Putin has left no doubt of his desire to stir up instability. His action with respect to Ukraine calls for a robust and severe deterrent action.

I hope my Republican colleagues will come forward and work with the chair so we can truly confront Putin's dangerous aggression.