Floor Statements

I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 463.

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

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory

quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, November 4, be waived.

I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, yesterday, Democrats continued making great progress toward finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan.

The challenges American families and workers are facing today are enormous, and President Biden's agenda is the remedy to much of their hardships. It is just what the American people want and what they need, and it is exactly why we need to focus on getting the job done to finalize and pass this legislation and deliver help for the American people.

Last night, I held another round of talks going past midnight with a number of my colleagues as we approach final agreement--talks with the White House, the Speaker, my Senate colleagues and chairs, and Members of the House. We continue to make very good progress each day. Passing such transformative legislation is not easy, but the long hours we are putting into it will be well worth it for the American people.

Over the last 24 hours, the hard work has yielded important new development. Yesterday, I announced the Democrats had reached an agreement to include provisions in Build Back Better that will lower prescription drug prices for seniors and for American families. This is a big deal.

For years, skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs have plagued millions of seniors and American families to the point that Americans spend far more on prescription drugs per capita than other wealthy nations. It is one of the largest out-of-pocket medical expenses that families have and it has gotten worse over the last few years.

For too many Americans, all it takes is a sudden serious illness and you can find yourself spending hundreds, if not thousands, and several thousands of dollars per year just to afford things like insulin or vitally needed cancer treatments. It is profoundly unfair and wholly un-American.

Imagine the strain you can face if someone--you or a loved one--is ill and you can't afford the medicine. You see them, their condition getting worse and worse. I can't think of things that are worse than that, though I guess there may be a few.

Yesterday, we took a large step forward in helping alleviate that problem. For the first time ever, Medicare will be empowered to directly negotiate prices in Part B and Part D. This will directly reduce out-of-pocket drug spending for millions of patients every time they visit a pharmacy or a doctor.

Our agreement does other things as well. It will cap out-of-pocket spending at $2,000 per year, ending the dilemma I just spoke about, where a life-changing diagnosis could mean thousands upon thousands of dollars in new expenses that an individual can't afford.

This agreement will lower insulin prices so that Americans with diabetes don't pay more than $35 per month for their insulin. Let me repeat that because it is amazing how the cost of insulin used to be so reasonable, then skyrocketed over the last few years with very little reasonable, justifiable explanation. This agreement will lower insulin prices so that Americans with diabetes don't pay more than $35 per month for their insulin.

And it will reform the pharmaceutical industry to stop price gouging and make sure our country's drug pricing system benefits patients, not corporations.

It is not everything all of us wanted, but it is a major, major step in the right direction as we work to help the American people afford their better prescription drugs. We are going to keep working to make it even better, but this is a really good start and a major, major announcement.

I want to thank all my colleagues who had a hand in putting this agreement together: Senator Wyden, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murphy, Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Bennet, and Senator Kelly. I also want to sincerely thank Senator Sinema for working with us to reach this agreement.

We are going to build on this success as we continue making progress on the rest of Build Back Better. We are close. We are determined. We are confident that we will succeed in rewarding the trust that the American people have placed in us.

Now on voting rights. Shortly before his death, the great John Lewis offered the American people a parting message: When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we call the Beloved Community.

The words of the great late John Lewis.

Well, today, the Senate is being called to take action because, across our beloved democracy, something indeed is not right. Something malicious is afoot. A lie--a terrible lie--spread by the former President of the United States is eating away corrosively at the foundation of our democracy, of our democratic heritage, like a disease.

This lie has led to the greatest coordinated effort at the State level to suppress voting rights since the era of segregation. In States like Georgia and Texas, Iowa and Florida and Arizona and many others, partisans have rewritten the rules of our elections in broad daylight, potentially making it harder for tens of millions of young, minority, low-income, disabled, and generally Democratic-leaning voters from participating in elections.

Today, the Senate will have a chance to respond to these attacks by voting to simply begin consideration--simply begin consideration--of the John Lewis

Voting Rights Advancement Act. It is a commonsense proposal to reinstate the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act which were wrongfully struck down by a conservative Supreme Court and which have a long history of bipartisan support in the Senate.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Leahy, who spoke earlier today, and Chairman Durbin and all of my other Democratic colleagues who had a hand in drafting this proposal, and a special thanks to our colleague, the Senator from Alaska, who announced yesterday that she will vote in favor of opening debate on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I know it was not a decision she made lightly--she called me from Alaska and let me know--but my Democratic colleagues worked hard with her to compromise on a proposal that she could support while still maintaining the basic thrust of their legislation.

Now, just as Democrats in the Senate worked with Senator Murkowski on legislation to strengthen our democracy, we will work with other Republicans in good faith to improve this legislation, but they must come to the table first. I want to emphasize once again what today's vote is about. We are not asking any Republican to support specific legislation. Today is about whether or not we will vote to begin debate here in this Chamber.

Again, the preclearance provisions that are being updated in today's bill have long been supported by both sides of the aisle repeatedly. The Voting Rights Act, which originally instituted them, has been updated five times in the last half century, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and with votes from both sides. This has always been a bipartisan issue in the past; it should be no different today.

I commit to my Republican colleagues that we will have a full-fledged debate process here on the floor, where our colleagues can offer germane amendments and voice what concerns they may have.

Now, I hope more Members on the other side of the aisle will follow Senator Murkowski's example. Senate Republicans shouldn't be afraid of merely starting debate on an issue we have long debated and long supported in the past. Merely crossing arms and squelching any opportunity for progress is unacceptable. If Republicans have different ideas on how to achieve a stronger democracy, they owe it to the American people to come forward and debate their ideas. I hope they do the right thing and vote for cloture to move forward on this discussion later today.

I vote no.

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

Madam President, pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Committee on the Judiciary being tied on the question of reporting, I move to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of Jennifer Sung, of Oregon, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, for the information of the Senate, we expect to vote to discharge the nomination to occur following the votes that are scheduled to begin at 5:15 tonight. Therefore, Senators should expect three rollcall votes at 5:15 p.m. These votes will be on the confirmation of the Prieto and Nayak nominations and on the motion to discharge the Sung nomination.

John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

Madam President, in reference to what just occurred on the floor in terms of voting rights, this is a low, low point in the history of this body. A few moments ago, Senate Republicans, for the fourth time this year, were presented with a simple question: Will they vote in favor of starting debate--merely a debate--on protecting voting rights in this country?

In today's case, they would join Democrats in proceeding to the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would reinstate longstanding and widely embraced Federal protections on the right to vote.

With just one exception, Republicans once again obstructed the Senate from beginning its process. Given the chance to debate in what is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, Republicans walked away.

Today's obstruction was only the latest in a series of disturbing turns for the Republican Party. For over a half a century, the policies of the Voting Rights Act have commanded bipartisan support in this Chamber. It has been reauthorized five times, including by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. Many of my Republican colleagues in office today have worked in the past to improve and approve preclearance provisions similar to the ones contained in today's proposal.

It was good enough for Republicans back then; it should have been good enough for them today. But after today's vote, it is clear that the modern Republican Party has turned its back on protecting voting rights. The party of Lincoln is becoming the party of the Big Lie.

Democrats have laid out the facts for months: we are witnessing at the State level the greatest assault on voting rights since the era of segregation. Before our very eyes, the heirs of Jim Crow are weakening the foundations of our democracy.

And by blocking debate today, Senate Republicans are implicitly endorsing these partisan actions to suppress the vote and unravel our democracy.

We have said all year long that if there is anything worth the Senate's attention, it is protecting our democracy. We have tried for months to get Republicans to agree. We have lobbied Republicans privately. We have gone through regular order. We have attempted to debate them on the floor.

We have presented reasonable, commonsense proposals in June, August, October, and now in November. Each

time, I personally promised my Republican colleagues they would have ample opportunities to voice their concerns, offer germane amendments, and make changes to our proposal.

At no point did we ever ask them to vote for our legislation. We have simply been trying to get our Republican friends to start debating, just as the Senate was intended to do.

On the floor, off the floor, we held public hearings, group discussions with Senators and one-on-one meetings with the other side to try and win some support. Senators Manchin, Kaine, Tester, King, Durbin, Klobuchar, Leahy, and more have all met with Republicans to initiate a dialogue. And at every turn, we have been met with resistance.

The sole exception in 10 months has been our colleague, the Senator from Alaska, who voted in favor of advancing today's legislation. Today, I thank her for working with us in good faith on this bill.

But where is the rest of the party of Lincoln? Down to the last Member, the rest of the Republican conference has refused to engage, refused to debate, and even refused to acknowledge that our country faces a serious threat to democracy.

Madam President, the Senate is better than this. A simple look at our history shows we are better than this. The same institution that passed civil rights legislation, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the bills of Reconstruction should be more than capable of defending voting rights in the modern era.

But, as anyone who has been here more than a few years knows, the gears of the Senate have ossified over the years. The filibuster is used far more today than ever before--by some measures, 10 times as much compared to decades past. Some might wonder if any of the great accomplishments of the past would have a chance of passage today. Would the Social Security Act pass the modern Senate? What about the Medicare and Medicaid acts? What about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? We sure hope they would, but it is difficult to see with the way this Chamber works today.

As I said a few weeks ago, I believe the Senate needs to be restored to its rightful status as the world's greatest deliberative body. It has earned that title precisely because, yes, debate is the central feature of this body, but at the end of the day, so is governing, and so is taking action when needed once the debate has run its due course.

This is an old, old fight in this Chamber. Over 100 years ago, the great Senator of Massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge, said: ``To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile.'' Imbecile. ``To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile.'' We should heed those words today and explore whatever path we have to restore the Senate so it does what its Framers intended: debate, deliberate, compromise, and vote.

We can't be satisfied in this Chamber with thinking that democracy will always win out in the end if we aren't willing to put in the work to defend it. It will require constant vigilance to keep democracy alive in the 21st century.

Madam President, just because Republicans will not join us doesn't mean Democrats will stop fighting. This is too important. We will continue to fight for voting rights and find an alternative path forward, even if it means going at it alone, to defend the most fundamental liberty we have as citizens.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, before we adjourn this evening, in a few moments, I will move to confirm Mr. Tom Nides as the next Ambassador to Israel.

I am glad the Republican hold on Mr. Nides has been lifted, and we will have an Ambassador in Israel to help maintain and strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Mr. Nides, as I have known him for many years, is just the right fit. He is a hard-working man. He is a bright man. He has tremendous experience, and he cares very much about strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship. So this will be a good day for that relationship because we are going to confirm him very, very shortly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Calendar No. 452, Thomas R. Nides, of Minnesota, to be the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the State of Israel, and that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the

table, all without intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 428 and 443; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 439, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 19.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, November 4; 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 morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Santos nomination; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11 a.m. the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 352, Michael Lee Connor, of Colorado, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army, and the Senate vote on the confirmation of the nomination; that upon disposition of the Connor nomination, the cloture motion on the Santos nomination ripen, and that if cloture is invoked, the vote on the confirmation be at 1:45 p.m.; finally, that if any of the nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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