Floor Statements

Madam President, in just a moment--in just a moment--I am going to ask that the Senate do something that we should have done months ago.

In just a moment, I am going to ask that this body confirm Deborah Lipstadt to serve as the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti- Semitism on behalf of the United States.

My great-grandparents, Israel and Annie, arrived in this country in 1911 and 1913, fleeing anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. Their story is like the story of so many Jewish immigrants and refugees who came to the United States because the free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And when I stood just there and was sworn into the U.S. Senate, I held in my breast pocket copies of the ships' manifests logging their arrivals at Ellis Island.

We had a confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in the Judiciary Committee last week, and I had a discussion with Judge Jackson about what that means, the free exercise of religion.

This country has drawn immigrants and refugees from around the world because it is a place where you are protected from persecution, no matter how you worship. That is what America stands for.

It is time for the Senate, at long last, to confirm this nominee to fight anti-Semitism around the world on behalf of the United States, standing up for those values.

It was U.S. forces who liberated Dachau and Buchenwald. And Annie and Israel, my great-grandparents, they got out of Europe. Many of my family did not, and they perished in the Holocaust.

This isn't ancient history. This is recent history. And, right now, as we speak, the scourge of anti-Semitism is rising again in this country and around the world.

If we mean the words ``never again,'' then, at long last, let's confirm Deborah Lipstadt to fight anti-Semitism on behalf of the United States.

Deborah Lipstadt comes from my home State of Georgia. She is the professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Emory University--a leading scholar of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.

It is time for the United States to stand up against anti-Semitism. It is time, finally, for the Senate to confirm this nominee.

So at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 845, Deborah E. Lipstadt, of Georgia, to be Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, with the rank of Ambassador (New Position); that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 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, today let the Senate recognize the 50th anniversary of the Latin American Association based in Atlanta, GA.

Founded and led by Angel Ortiz and Stratton Frank, what started as a small organization to serve Atlanta's then-emerging Latino population has become one of the largest service providers and advocates for Georgia's Latino and immigrant communities.

With a focus on civic engagement, economic empowerment, youth services, family stabilization, and immigration services, the association has made a big difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Georgians.

The Latin American Association has been instrumental helping immigrants who have newly arrived to the United States to assimilate, feel at home, and positively contribute to our great Nation. Because of their work, Georgia and the country are better off.

On behalf of the State of Georgia and the U.S. Senate, I express our heartfelt thanks to the Latin American Association.

Mr. President, today let the Senate recognize the 70th anniversary of the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, GA.

For 70 years, Marines Corps Logistics Base Albany has provided critical support to its tenants, including the Marine Corps Logistics Command and Marine Depot Maintenance Command/Production Plant Albany.

Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany and its outstanding personnel provide the U.S. Marine Corps with advanced logistical capabilities vital to U.S. national security.

Under the leadership of Col. Michael J. Fitzgerald, Mr. Leonard Housey, and Sgt. Maj. Auburne I. Edwards II, the base has been recognized for its leadership in energy security. Last year, the Secretary of the Navy awarded the Energy Excellence Award to Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany for its commitment to energy security planning, cybersecurity, and energy reduction.

On behalf of the State of Georgia and the U.S. Senate, I express our heartfelt gratitude to each servicemember and civilian marine who has served at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany.

Madam President; today, I voted that the Senate should proceed to consider H.R. 3755, the Womens Health Protection Act, which would codify in Federal law the privacy of women's reproductive healthcare established by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

I support the privacy of women's healthcare, codification of Roe v. Wade, and proceeding to consideration of this measure. Should the Senate proceed, however, nonbinding commentary in the bill's preamble as currently drafted wrongly and unfairly impugns the motives and integrity of fellow Americans who view this issue differently.

I represent a State with a broad diversity of views, and I respect that diversity. I respect the opinions of my constituents even when I do not share them, and I recognize that good people may arrive at different opinions in good faith.

So should the Senate proceed to consider this measure, as I will vote that it should, it must remove from the preamble to this bill divisive rhetoric that wrongly accuses Georgians who hold a different view than mine of having views rooted in misogyny. In a country so politically polarized and divided, we must recommit to tolerance and mutual respect.

Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave to hear the Senators from the Grand Old Party--the party of abolition and emancipation and reconstruction--echoing the State's rights rhetoric of Dixiecrat segregationists to oppose Federal voting rights legislation, to oppose even the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act--the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In 2021, just one Republican Senator had the courage and principle to vote to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965--the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski--just one.

For decades, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act was bipartisan. Today, only one Republican Senator will stand up for this landmark achievement of the civil rights movement--not Senator Cornyn of Texas, who previously said, ``the Voting Rights Act is simply the most important and most effective civil rights legislation ever passed, bar none''--no longer his position--not my friend the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who previously said, ``This bill will ensure that the voting rights afforded to all Americans are protected''; not Senator Burr of North Carolina, who previously said, ``Voting rights for all American citizens regardless of race [are] granted by the 15th Amendment and enforced by the Voting Rights Act''; and not the minority leader, who previously said, ``This is a good piece of legislation which has served an important purpose over many years. . . . And this landmark piece of legislation will continue to make a difference not only in the South but for all [Americans] and for all of us, whether we are African-Americans or not''; not the minority leader, the same minority leader, who said, ``This bill eliminated the barriers to voting so that all Americans could participate in the basic opportunity each of us have,'' who celebrated, ``We have . . . renewed the Voting Rights Act periodically since that time, overwhelmingly, and on a bipartisan basis, year after year . . . because members of Congress realize [that] this is a piece of legislation [that] has worked''--no more, not in 2022. Only one Republican Senator stood up to support the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

When Congressman John Lewis and Hosea Williams and Amelia Boynton and hundreds of others marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, when John Lewis had his skull fractured on that bridge for daring to demand the right to vote for Black Americans in the American South, it was the example of their courage and their sacrifice that paved the way for passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As my colleague, my brother, Senator Reverend Warnock has often observed, when Congressman Lewis passed, there were many in this Chamber on both sides who rightly celebrated his towering achievements and his legacy. But I speak for the State of Georgia when I say: Do not invoke Congressman Lewis' name to signal your virtue while you work to erode his legacy and defy his will.

I have heard a lot from our Republican colleagues about the recently passed election law in the State of Georgia. Let's be very clear. There is no one in Georgia on either side of the aisle who doubts or does not understand precisely what its purpose is.

Forbidding voter registration for run-off elections, driving down the early vote period during divisive runoffs to drive up lines at majority Black precincts.

As he used to say, John Lewis didn't give a little blood on that bridge that day so that Black Georgians would have to wait eight times longer to vote than White Georgians. John Lewis didn't give a little bit of blood on that bridge that day so that State legislatures across this country could pass legislation surgically targeted to make it harder for some people to vote, all for partisan power.

In the State of Georgia, where now partisan election officials can step in and throw out locally elected election boards to change who can vote and where they can vote--this, in the aftermath of a well-known incident when the former President of the United States threatened Georgia's secretary of state with criminal prosecution if he didn't ``find 11,000 votes'' that were never cast for Donald Trump.

The facts of the former President's efforts to seize reelection, despite his defeat, are well-known. He and his lieutenants mounted an unprecedented campaign to retain power based on a torrent of lies that have grievously wounded public confidence in our elections. And it was only thanks to the integrity of our laws and our courts and principled election officials and the will of Congress, the will of this Senate, to ensure the peaceful transition of power in the face of a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol that this conspiracy was defeated.

So now, this faction seeks to dismantle precisely those bulwarks which prevented their onslaught from succeeding. The choice is ours whether we will allow them to do so.

We in the U.S. Congress, Madam Vice President, have the constitutional authority to make the laws with respect to the administration of Federal elections.

We in the U.S. Senate have an obligation to defend the legacy of Congressman John Lewis, to stand up for the sacred franchise, to secure equal access to the ballot for every single American voter so that this country can continue its journey toward full realization of our founding ideals.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, briefly, in responding to the comments from Senator Collins from Maine--a Senator for whom I have great respect and whose reputation for bipartisanship, for substance, and for a thoughtful statespersonlike and patriotic approach to legislation precedes her--what I was referring to, Senator Collins, was the legislation that the Senate took up earlier this year, which, in response to the Supreme Court's invitation to Congress after the Shelby County v. Holder decision, would have updated the preclearance formulas that govern section 4 and section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 such that the Department of Justice could continue to carry out its vital work of preclearing changes to voting procedures in States and jurisdictions that exhibit a history or a pattern of voter suppression.

That is an obligation that I believe this Congress has. The Supreme Court, in fact, invited us to carry out that obligation, and the Committee on the Judiciary, under Senator Durbin's leadership, carefully crafted legislation that we believed responded to the Supreme Court's invitation to do just that.

Respectfully, Senator Collins, in representing the State of Georgia, where, as I mentioned earlier, we faced a wave of bills and now law, which everybody in my State knows are intended deliberately and to disproportionately impact certain communities--laws that prior to the Shelby County decision would have been subjected to Department of Justice preclearance--I believe more strongly than ever that preclearance is necessary.

What I was respectfully noting, Senator Collins, without any implications with respect to your motives or integrity, was what I believed to be an inconsistency, an inconsistency between voting consistently to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and lauding it as a signature civil rights achievement, but then voting not even to allow debate in this body on the legislation that was created to respond to the Supreme Court's invitation to uphold its preclearance provision.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know we have other business to attend to and an important debate on a procedure that is ongoing, but I want to note, with respect to my colleague from Maine, that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is not the entirety of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 4 and section 5, which provide for the preclearance of changes to voting laws in jurisdictions with a history or a pattern of voter suppression, are vital precisely because the post-facto litigation that the DOJ must embark upon to challenge State policies, once they have already been enacted, can be far too time-consuming to allow for a remedy to emerge in the courts. This is precisely why section 4 and section 5 were enacted at the time--to give the Department of Justice the power it needs to preclear these changes in places with a history of segregation and voter suppression. In my State, despite all of the protestations to the contrary, we are, right now, witnessing a significant wave of voter suppression policies.

The Department of Justice should have the authority to preclear those changes to law to ensure they don't disproportionately impact minority communities.

So section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is important, but if section 4 and section 5 were also vital when we voted to reauthorize them in 2006, why aren't they vital today?

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

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

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 10 a.m., Thursday, January 13; that following the prayer and pledge, 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 the consideration of S. 3436, as provided under the previous order; further, that the Senate recess from 12:45 p.m. until 2:15 p.m.; that at 2:15 p.m., there be 30 minutes for debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on passage of S. 3436, as provided under the previous order.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 505 and 506; 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 notwithstanding rule XXII, if applicable, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 491, Jonathan Kanter, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General; that there be 10 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form on the nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening action or debate, on the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order on the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

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 Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 1511.

The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1511) entitled

``An Act to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968 with respect to payments to certain public safety

officers who have become permanently and totally disabled as

a result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty,

and for other purposes.'', do pass with an amendment.

Motion to Concur

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.