Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Senator Lummis from Wyoming.

I thank my friend, the Senator from Wyoming. Yes, this is my understanding. Section 2 of the bill states that a variety of reasonable views on the role of gender in marriage exists today, based on both decent and honorable religious and philosophical beliefs. The bill states that all views are due proper respect by the Federal Government.

Furthermore, section 2 of this bill states the Federal Government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our national policy regarding marriage. Section 2 of this bill was explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable to this bill.

Bob Jones University v. United States, decided in 1983 before Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, upheld the IRS's decision to rescind Bob Jones University's tax exemption on the basis of a ``firm and unyielding'' national policy against racial discrimination. Section 2 affirms that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. This finding preempts an analogy between the Court's analysis in the Bob Jones University case about race and beliefs about marriage and is a statement of policy respecting diverse views about the role of gender in marriage.

I would like to discuss another provision which is central to this bill: section 4, which grants ``full faith and credit'' under article IV, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to marriages performed in each of our States, strengthening federalism and making our constitutional structure work.

Section 4 of the bill states that no person ``acting under color of State law'' may deny full faith and credit to any ``public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between two individuals, on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.'' The phrase ``acting under the color of State law'' is also used in our civil rights statutes to refer to the actions of State and local government officers and employees with respect to rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Federal law.

Senator, is it your understanding this phrase is intended to incorporate the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the meaning of ``acting under color of State law''?

Yes, it is my understanding section 6(b) bars any civil claim or cause of action relating to a nonprofit religious organization's refusal under that section to solemnize or celebrate a marriage and that such a refusal cannot create a civil claim or cause of action.

The text of section 7 also makes no reference to ``compelling governmental interests.'' Section 7 provides nothing in this bill should be construed to deny or alter the benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible individual or legal entity in relation to tax- exempt status, tax treatment, contracts, loans, scholarships, licenses, and other agreements not arising from a marriage.

In conjunction with section 2 of this bill, which eliminates a successful analogy to the Bob Jones case, is it your understanding, Senator, that section 7 would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from using the Respect for Marriage Act to alter or remove the tax-exempt status of an entity for expressing beliefs in opposition or support of same-sex marriage?

Madam President, I rise today as our country takes an important step forward to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans. Together with broad bipartisan support, the Senate will provide certainty to millions of Americans in loving marriages and enshrine into law the basic protections afforded all Americans while respecting our country's critical principle of religious liberty.

This historic milestone builds off of years of incredible strides we have made advancing freedom and equality, including hard-fought victories I have been honored to help lead.

Nearly two decades ago in 2006, at a time when our country was just beginning to debate marriage, Arizona proposed a ballot proposition banning same-sex marriage in our State's constitution. This issue was personal to me and to many other Arizonans. Similar ballot provisions had passed in States across the country, red and blue States alike, and the stakes were high. The pundits didn't give Arizona much of a chance.

I knew that in order to buck the trend and win, we would need to run a different kind of campaign that expanded the conversation, cultivated a diverse group of unlikely partners, and moved past the tired, partisan talking points.

That is why I worked across the aisle and teamed up with my good friend Steve May, a Republican. Now, we faced some criticism at the time for how we chose to run our campaign. Some wanted us to run a partisan campaign, convinced that highlighting the divides in our community and focusing exclusively on the LGBTQ community would put us over the top.

But I knew we couldn't do it just by talking amongst people who already agreed with our position. The polling showed it. And, frankly, we felt that in order to do right by our friends, our neighbors, and our fellow members of the LGBTQ community in Arizona, we had to do more than run a campaign that made our core supporters feel good but ultimately didn't build the broad-based coalition of Arizonans needed to win.

That is why we expanded the conversation to include how the proposition would harm all unmarried couples across Arizona, not just those in the LGBTQ community but people in domestic partnerships, people in common-law marriages because here is the truth: When we reach beyond partisan talking points to find common ground, we expand what is possible in Arizona and in our country.

We had open and honest conversations about the hopes and dreams that unite us, instead of the superficial differences that divide us.

In Arizona, we value our independence. We are proud of our families and our communities, and we work hard to protect them. We have our differences, but we share a strong sense of service, hard work, and self-determination.

We believe that everyone has the right to define his or her own destiny and that no one should be treated differently under the law. By focusing on these shared values, we found success. We defeated that ballot proposition--the first State in the country to do so--and I learned lessons that have shaped my work for Arizonans ever since.

Since 2006, we have seen long-term progress that makes today's important debate in the U.S. Senate possible. This work is ongoing. But the work can't and shouldn't be attributed to any one politician, any political party, or any piece of legislation. This work happens because people choose to be their most authentic selves and live their lives freely.

Being gay is normal. Being yourself is normal. Showing up to life every day happy to be who you are is normal. And being authentic with your friends, your family, your colleagues, and your community, that is also normal. That normalcy is what helps us listen to each other, understand each other, and grow in our community together. It is what changes hearts and minds in Arizona and around the country, and it is what, little by little, piece by piece, delivers sustainable progress.

Whether at home in Arizona or here in the U.S. Senate, in order to deliver real results to the Americans we serve, we need to work together. Working together means listening with open hearts, bridging divides, shutting out the noise, and focusing on our shared goals.

I have seen time and time again how this approach helps us overcome tough challenges.

A little over 6 months ago, it was thanks to that same approach that I stood here on the Senate floor and delivered remarks on the passage of our Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a historic law we negotiated and passed with broad bipartisan support that makes our schools and communities safer and saves lives.

And before that, this same approach helped us pass our landmark legislation, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, into law, strengthening America through upgrades and repairs, creating good- paying jobs, and expanding economic opportunities across the country. Beyond these historic accomplishments, our approach of focusing on common goals and shared ideals has helped us pass a number of other lasting solutions, including long-awaited and necessary postal reform, support for Ukraine in its fight against Putin, and most recently, the passage into law of our bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, legislation that boosts America's global leadership, spurring job creation and addressing our supply chain challenges.

As we can all see, this approach has proved successful, and right now we need this approach more than ever. You know, this summer Arizonans and Americans across the country were confused, and some were scared, following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Women felt their health and well-being was endangered and our own abilities to make critical decisions about our futures were suddenly thrown into question. This fear trickled into other communities--including the LGBTQ community--as leaders with extreme ideologies mused about what other challenges could come next. But sadly, in response, we saw elected officials on both sides of the aisle exploit this fear and use it to fuel clicks, book cable news appearances, and drum up outrage to further their own partisan political agendas.

Outrage can help propel political stars, but it doesn't solve problems. It doesn't make life better for everyday people.

But amidst the noise, a few hard-working Senators from across our country and across the political spectrum understood there was a need to provide certainty to the American people, and we came to the table to get something done.

Senator Tammy Baldwin, our groundbreaking leader on this issue, partnered with my old friends Senators Susan Collins, Rob Portman, Thom Tillis, and myself, all of us no strangers to bipartisan success in a divided Senate. Together, we Senators all focused on the same goal, to help ensure married same-sex couples across the country are afforded the same protections as all other married American couples.

Along the way, we overcame obstacles; we made certain our language respected religious liberty; and we were careful to ensure that in shoring up some rights we did not infringe upon others.

We made our case to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We listened to those who disagreed with us. We didn't pick fights. We didn't call names. We

just kept moving forward. And I am proud to say that by refusing to demonize each other and by focusing on our shared goals, we will deliver real, lasting results for the LGBTQ community.

We will make our country stronger and safer for American families in a way that honors and respects our diverse viewpoints on marriage, on family, and society.

I thank the many faith communities that helped us expand this policy conversation and ensure that our amendment would include robust and commonsense religious liberty protections.

In particular, I thank the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that provided thoughtful suggestions and contributions. They summarized our holistic outcome when they wrote in their statement:

We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work

together to preserve the principles and practices of

religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ

individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships

and foster greater understanding.

Not every American agrees on marriage or lots of other issues, and that is OK. Honest disagreements don't make us any less decent or honorable, especially if we see that disagreement as an opportunity to learn and grow.

If more of us dedicate ourselves to better understanding one another and our lived experiences, if we strive to see an issue from another person's point of view, and if we all work to practice a bit more patience and grace, I know we can continue finding paths forward together.

It may not seem like it in today's partisan world, but there has always been more that unites us as Americans than divides us.

The bipartisan support we have garnered in the Senate today proves this issue isn't a matter of one party being right or the other party being wrong. This issue is bigger than angry tweets and bombastic fundraising emails. This is about ensuring American families, who share the ideals of all marriages--love, devotion, and sacrifice--can continue to count on the basic rights and responsibilities that come with their marriages. It is about protecting the beliefs that unite us as Americans: the right to define our own destinies, the understanding that no one should be different in the eyes of the law, the freedom to reach for every opportunity and fulfill our greatest potential.

The truth is, if we allow our basic values of honor and dignity to become just another political football, we all lose.

As I learned back in 2006 in Arizona, we have to work together. We have to find willing partners in both parties, and we must bridge our divides before they rip us apart for good.

Our work is not done. As a body, we must resolve to do the right thing to continue this mission and keep working together to deliver lasting results. Our country deserves it, the American people deserve it, and the stakes are too high to stop our progress now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted YES on rollcall vote No. 331 on the confirmation of Salvador Mendoza, Jr., to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

Madam President, I rise today at a time in which families in Arizona and across America are scared. For too long, they have seen unacceptable levels of violence in their communities, and it threatens their sense of safety and security.

The morning after the tragic, horrible activity at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX, we all felt that fear. We felt it when we spoke to our neighbors and our friends and checked on our loved ones to ensure they were OK.

For decades, parents have lived with the unnerving uncertainty of what might happen when they send their children to school or attend worship services, go to the grocery store, or even simply let their kids play outside.

For too long, political games in Washington on both sides of the aisle have stopped progress towards protecting our communities and keeping families safe and secure. Commonsense proposals have been tossed to the side by partisan lawmakers choosing politics instead of solutions.

Elected officials have made a habit of insulting one another for offering thoughts and prayers, for blaming violence on strictly mental illnesses or video games or particular kinds of weapons or any cause that didn't align with and confirm their own predetermined beliefs.

Casting blame and trading political barbs and attacks became the path of least resistance, but the communities across our country that have experienced senseless violence deserve better than Washington politics as usual. Our communities deserve a commitment by their leaders to do the hard work of putting aside politics, identifying problems that need solving, and working together towards common ground and common goals.

On May 24, as news spread of the shooting in Uvalde and the 21 beautiful lives cut short, my friend and colleague Chris Murphy came to the Senate floor, and he asked the Senate one simple question: What are we doing; why are we here, if not to solve a problem as existential as this?

I am grateful that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have answered Chris's question by resolving to do the hard work, build consensus, and find solutions.

Senator Murphy, a tireless advocate for families in Connecticut, reached out to my friend Senator John Cornyn of Texas, offering his condolences and assistance. Senator Cornyn was in Uvalde, comforting families who were experiencing the unthinkable, and Senator Murphy had, sadly, been in a similar place 10 years before at Sandy Hook.

That same day, I reached out to Senator Cornyn and Senator Thom Tillis, two friends I have worked with to craft lasting, bipartisan solutions managing the crisis at our border and helping veterans access the benefits they have earned. We all planned to get quickly together to identify realistic solutions.

Within 1 day, Senators Murphy, Cornyn, Tillis, and myself--all representing diverse States from across the country--sat down and started working together.

That same day, we met with a larger group of 12 bipartisan Senators, all of whom were eager to sit down, work together, and find a path forward.

Those meetings started a 4-week process, considering and working toward a host of solutions that would save lives, make communities safer, and protect Americans' constitutional rights.

As we wrote our bill, we viewed our conversations as collaborations, not negotiations. We refused to frame our work as giving something up to getting something in return, and we stayed laser-focused on our shared goal of reducing violence and saving lives across American communities.

We acknowledged that the root of violence plaguing our communities is complex. It can be partly attributed to criminals with dangerous weapons and attributed to a mental health crisis affecting young people in cities and towns across America.

We spent hours carefully considering policy provisions, ensuring that we got the language right and that every policy included in our bill could help save lives, help children learn and grow in healthy, supportive environments, and make our communities safer, more vibrant places.

It was hard work, and it was worth it. Together, we put aside our differences, focused on our shared values, and crafted a bill that expands resources in schools to help kids grow and learn, where they feel connected to their communities and where they know they can seek help if they need it.

We boosted mental health resources through more community behavioral health clinics and increased access to telehealth services, ensuring that kids and families have access to care no matter where they live.

Our mental health and school support proposals include evidence-based resources and programs that I saw help reduce violence when I was a young social worker serving in Sunnyslope and Shaw Butte Elementary Schools in Phoenix.

Our provisions to protect more survivors of domestic violence will reduce the impact of trauma in children's lives all across the country, ensuring that more kids and families grow up in safe homes, free from violence, and free from the fear of violence.

And acknowledging the fact that the overwhelming number of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, we cracked down on criminals who illegally sell or purchase guns and ensure that courts, consistent with clear due process rights, can keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who are dangerous to themselves and others.

I am the sister of a police officer, and I grew up in a family of gun owners. I know firsthand how fundamental the Second Amendment is to families across Arizona. Arizonans have a constitutional right to bear and keep arms, and that right will not be infringed upon.

Instead, our Bipartisan Safer Communities Act ensures that our background check system works effectively and includes those who have committed dangerous crimes as juveniles

or who have a history of domestic violence--protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans while reducing familial violence and occurrences of childhood trauma.

All of these tools together will give families in Arizona and across our country more peace of mind so they can trust that their communities are secure and their schools are safe.

And, critically, the broad, bipartisan support of well over 60 Senators from across the political spectrum, including both the Republican and Democratic Senate leaders, ensures that when our bill is signed into law, it will stand the test of time.

You know, over the past few years, we have been told, time and time again, that bipartisanship just isn't possible. And even after proving bipartisan success with our historic Infrastructure Investment and Jobs law last year, we continued to be asked by pundits and political purists to accept a new standard by which important policy can only come together on a party line.

But that just isn't true. What could be more important than keeping families and children safe and secure in their communities and in their schools?

The truth is, Americans are far more united than today's politics would have you believe. Ask our constituents in Arizona, Connecticut, Texas, North Carolina, and every State in between--ask them what they want to see in Washington, and they will tell you: an ability to work together, to solve problems, and help them build better lives for themselves and their families.

Our bipartisan group of Senators rejected the notion that legislating must be a zero-sum game, with winners on one tally sheet and losers on another.

Together, we provided an example for how Washington can and should work. We got out of our comfort zones; we built broad coalitions with unlikely allies; and we refused to demonize each other when things got tough.

And I sincerely thank Senator Chris Murphy for his passion, Senator John Cornyn for his leadership, and Senator Thom Tillis for his pragmatism.

Each of my friends and colleagues brought a unique perspective and expertise that allowed us, together, to craft the most holistic approach to community violence in nearly 30 years.

I also want to thank all of our staffs, especially my legislative director, Michael Brownlie, and my counsel, Chris Leuchten, for their tireless hours, including working straight through Father's Day to get this bill right.

You know, their efforts will save lives, help families across our country feel more secure, and make our schools safer.

I promised Arizonans that I would be an independent leader for our State and that I would ignore the chaos of Washington and instead just focus on getting things done. It won't surprise anyone who might be listening today when I tell you that Washington hasn't always liked my approach. But our bipartisan bill demonstrates the difference that elected leaders can make in the lives of our constituents when we choose to heal our divisions instead of feed those divisions.

Our historic legislation proves that bipartisan solutions are possible when we just stay focused on what we were sent to Washington to do--to solve problems, help Americans thrive, and ensure that our country remains a safe and secure place to call home.

And on this particular bill, my colleagues and I join together with a special sense of purpose to honor the lives that were tragically lost to senseless violence in Uvalde, in Buffalo, in Tucson, in Parkland, in Charleston, at Sandy Hook, and in communities all across our country.

Our plan will make American communities safer, and we will help return a sense of security to everyday American families.

I couldn't be more grateful for this moment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 990, 991, and 992; 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 table; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I have one request for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, June 14, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 388, H.R. 3967; further, that all time during adjournment, recess, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture; finally, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

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, following the remarks of Senator Portman.

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

Madam President, I strongly believe a woman's healthcare decisions should be between her, her doctor, and her family, which is why I voted to advance today's bill. If it advanced, I would have offered an amendment to remove editorial language that has no legislative effect and needlessly disparages everyday Americans based on their deeply and sincerely held beliefs. On issues so important and personal to many Americans, both parties should seek respectful understanding instead of ascribing motives or insulting those who hold different beliefs.

Mr. President, I rise at a challenging, divisive time for our Nation. For years, America's politics have spiraled steadily downward into increasingly bitter, tribal partisanship, and our democracy has been strained.

While that may sound abstract, it is a problem that hurts Americans in real, tangible ways. These deepening divisions hurt our ability to work together, to create new job opportunities, to protect the health and safety of our communities and country, and to ensure everyday families get ahead. Americans across the country know this. They see it every day, not only on social media and cable news but at their jobs and around their dinner tables. We are divided.

It is more likely today that we look at other Americans who have different views and see the other or even see them as enemies instead of as fellow country men and women who share our core values. It is more common today to demonize someone who thinks differently than us, rather than to seek to understand their views.

Our politics reflect and exacerbate these divisions, making it more and more difficult to find lasting, broadly supported solutions to safeguard our freedoms, keep our country safe, and expand opportunity for all our citizens.

So two questions face us as a nation: Where does this descending spiral of division lead, and how can we stop it?

Our country's divisions have now fueled efforts in several States that will make it more difficult for Americans to vote and undermine faith that all Americans should have in our elections and our democracy. These State laws have no place in a nation whose government is formed by free, fair, and open elections.

We must also acknowledge a painful fact:

The State laws we seek to address are symptoms of a larger, more deeply rooted problem facing our democracy--the divisions themselves, which have hardened in recent years and have combined with rampant disinformation to push too many Americans away from our basic constitutional values.

In the spring of 2017, after Trump took office, I wrote an opinion piece in the Arizona Republic highlighting my concerns about the strains on our constitutional boundaries and the shrinking respect for our founding constitutional principles. In the years that followed, my colleagues and I in this body were called upon to participate in two separate impeachment trials for crimes against our Constitution.

And on January 6, last year, I was standing in this very spot, speaking in this very Chamber, defending Arizona's fair and valid election against disinformation, when violent insurrectionists halted the Presidential certification.

Threats to American democracy are real.

I share the concerns of civil right advocates and others I have heard from in recent months about these State laws. I strongly support those efforts to contest these laws in court and to invest significant resources into these States to better organize and stop efforts to restrict access at the ballot box.

And I strongly support and will continue to vote for legislative responses to address these State laws--including the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that the Senate is currently considering.

I support these bills because they strengthen Americans' access to the ballot box, and they better ensure that Americans' votes are counted fairly. It is through elections that Americans make their voices heard, select their representatives, and guide the future of our country and our communities.

These bills help treat the symptoms of the disease, but they do not fully address the disease itself. And while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country.

The debate over the Senate's 60-vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges. There is no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation.

There is no need for me to restate its role: protecting our country from wild reversals in Federal policy. It is a view I have held during my years serving in both the U.S. House and the Senate, and it is the view I continue to hold. It is the belief that I have shared many times in public settings and in private settings.

Senators of both parties have offered ideas, including some that would earn my support to make this body more productive, more deliberative, more responsive to Americans' needs, and a place of genuine debate about our country's pressing issues.

And while this week's harried discussions about Senate rules are but a poor substitute for what I believe could have--and should have--been a thoughtful public debate at any time over the past year, such a discussion is still a worthy goal.

But a discussion of rules falls short of what is required. American politics are cyclical, and the granting of power in Washington, DC, is exchanged regularly by the voters from one party to another.

This shift of power back and forth means the Senate 60-vote threshold has proved maddening to Members of both political parties in recent years--viewed either as a weapon of obstruction or a safety net to save the country from radical policies, depending on whether you serve in the majority or the minority.

But what is the legislative filibuster other than a tool that requires new Federal policy to be broadly supported by Senators representing a broader cross section of Americans--a guardrail inevitably viewed as an obstacle by whoever holds the Senate majority but which, in reality, ensures that millions of Americans, represented by the minority party, have a voice in the process?

Demands to eliminate this threshold--from whichever party holds the fleeting majority--amount to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon, shouting that solution to their colleagues, and that makes the rift both wider and deeper.

Consider this: In recent years, nearly every party-line response to the problems we face in this body, every partisan action taken to protect a cherished value has led us to more division, not less.

The impact is clear for all to see: the steady escalation of tit for tat, in which each new majority weakens the guardrails of the Senate and excludes input from the other party, furthering resentment and anger amongst this body and our constituents at home.

Democrats' increased use of requiring cloture for traditional nominees under President George W. Bush led to similar tactics by Republicans under President Barack Obama. The 2013 decision by Senate Democrats to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for most judicial and Presidential nominations led directly to a response in 2017 by Senate Republicans who eliminated the threshold for Supreme Court nominees.

These shortsighted actions by both parties have led to our current American judiciary and Supreme Court which, as I stand here today, is considering questions regarding fundamental rights Americans have enjoyed for decades.

Eliminating the 60-vote threshold--on a party line with the thinnest of possible majorities--to pass these bills

that I support will not guarantee that we prevent demagogues from winning office.

Indeed, some who undermine the principles of democracy have already been elected. Rather, eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come.

It is clear that the two parties' strategies are not working--not for either side and especially not for the country.

I know it is comfortable for Members of each party, particularly those who spent their career in party politics, to think that their respective party alone can move the country forward. Party control becomes a goal in and of itself, instead of prioritizing a healthy, appropriate balance in which Americans' diverse views and shared values are represented.

But when one party needs only to negotiate with itself, policy will inextricably be pushed from the middle toward the extremes.

And I understand, there are some on both sides of the aisle that prefer that outcome, but I do not. And I know that Arizonans do not either. Our country's first President, George Washington, a leader whose wisdom I borrowed at the conclusion of the 2020 impeachment trial--he warned against political factions more than 200 years ago, saying that extreme partisanship could lead to the ``ruins of public liberty.''

``I was no party man myself,'' Washington wrote, ``and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.''

Today, we serve in an equally divided Senate, and today marks the longest time in history that the Senate has been equally divided. The House of Representatives is nearly equally divided as well.

Our mandate? It seems evident to me: work together and get stuff done for America.

And the past years have shown when a party in control pushes party- line changes exceeding their electoral mandate, the bitterness within our politics is exacerbated, tensions are raised within the country, and traditionally nonpartisan issues are transformed into partisan wedges.

We must address the disease itself--the disease of division--to protect our democracy. And it cannot be achieved by one party alone. It cannot be achieved solely by the Federal Government. The response requires something greater and, yes, more difficult, than what the Senate is discussing today.

We need robust, sustained strategies that put aside party labels and focus on our democracy because these challenges are bigger than party affiliation.

We must commit to a long-term approach as serious as the problems we seek to solve--one that prioritizes listening and understanding, one that embraces making progress on shared priorities and finding common ground on issues where we hold differing and diverse views.

This work requires all Americans everywhere. Efforts to fix these problems on a bare-majority party line will only succeed in exacerbating the root causes that gave way to these State laws in the first place, extending our dissent into a more fragmented America.

This work is our shared responsibility as Americans. I share the disappointment of many that we have not found more support on the other side of the aisle for legislative responses to State-level voting restrictions. I wish that were not the case, just as I wish there had been a more serious effort on the part of Democratic Party leaders to sit down with the other party and genuinely discuss how to reforge common ground on these issues.

My Republican colleagues have a duty to meet their shared responsibility to protect access to voting and the integrity of our electoral process.

We need a sustained, robust effort to defend American democracy, an effort on the part of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and all Americans in communities across this country. So we ask, What must we do to protect our democracy?

We should invest heavily in recruiting and supporting State and local candidates for office--in both parties--who represent the values enshrined in our Constitution.

We should ensure we have a judiciary that is less lopsided in its political leanings and that we can all depend on to uphold the Constitution.

We must confront and combat the rise of rampant disinformation and ensure that all Americans have the tools to see fact from fiction. This will be particularly difficult work since some in power have used disinformation to manipulate our differences and pull Americans apart, pressuring us to see our fellow Americans as enemies.

The dangers facing our democracy took years to metastasize, and they will take years of sustained, focused effort to effectively reverse. There are steps that we can take today to fix our politics and better set the stage for repairing our democracy.

Many of you know I began my career as a social worker. And in our social work training, our first necessary skill is the ability to listen to others--listening not to argue or rebut but listening to understand. I ran for the U.S. Senate rejecting partisanship, willing to work with anyone to help Arizonans build better and more secure lives.

And throughout my time serving Arizona, I have listened to Arizonans expressing diverse views on inflation, economic competitiveness, climate, and social priorities, and the role of the Federal government itself.

I find myself grateful, time and time again, to learn from Arizonans who share the same core values but differ in position on issues and policies. Their similarities and their differences are surely representative of the complexity of Americans nationwide.

So I find this question answers itself: Can two Americans of sharp intellect and good faith reach different conclusions to the same question? Yes. Yes, of course they can.

It is easy for elected officials to give speeches about what they believe. It is harder to listen and acknowledge that there are a whole lot of Americans with different ideas about what is important in our country and how to solve those problems.

And yet it is important to recognize that disagreements are OK. They are normal. And honest disagreements matched with a willingness to listen and learn can help us forge sturdy and enduring solutions.

You know, Congress was designed to bring together Americans of diverse views, representing different interests and, as a collective, to find compromise and common ground to serve our country as a whole.

We face serious challenges, and meeting them must start with a willingness to be honest, to listen to one another, to lower the political temperature, and to seek lasting solutions.

Some have given up on the goal of easing our divisions and uniting Americans; I have not.

I have worked hard to demonstrate in my public service the value of working with unlikely allies to get results, helping others see our common humanity and finding our common ground, and I remain stubbornly optimistic because this is America. We have overcome every challenge we have ever faced.

I am committed to doing my part to avoid toxic political rhetoric, to build bridges, to forge common ground, and to achieve lasting results for Arizona and this country. But we are in desperate need of more-- more people who are willing to listen, to seek understanding, to stitch together the fabric of our country that has been ripping around the edges; more people who are willing to put down the sticks sharpened for battle and instead pick up their neighbors to learn why they are angry or upset or left behind.

So I call on each of us as Americans: Let us be those people. We are but one country. We have but one democracy. We can only survive, we can only keep her, if we do so together.

Madam President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 1 on the motion to invoke cloture on Anne Witkowsky to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 2 on the confirmation of Anne Witkowsky to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 510 on the motion to invoke cloture on Jinsook Ohta to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 511 on the confirmation of Jinsook Ohta to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 512 on the motion to invoke cloture on David Urias to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 513 on the confirmation of David Urias to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 514 on the motion to invoke cloture on Maame Frimpong to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 515 on the confirmation of Maame Frimpong to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 516 on the motion to invoke cloture on Jane Beckering to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 517 on the confirmation of Jane Beckering to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Michigan.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 518 on the motion to invoke cloture on Shalina Kumar to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 519 on the confirmation of Shalina Kumar to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 520 on the motion to invoke cloture on Jennifer Thurston to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 521 on the confirmation of Jennifer Thurston to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 522 on the motion to invoke cloture on Katherine Menendez to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 523 on the confirmation of Katherine Menendez to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 524 on the motion to invoke cloture on Mary Dimke to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 525 on the confirmation of Mary Dimke to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 526 on the confirmation of Rahm Emanuel to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Japan.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 527 on the motion to invoke cloture on Gabriel Sanchez to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 528 on the motion to invoke cloture on Holly Thomas to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

Madam President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 492 on the Motion to Invoke Cloture on Lucy Koh, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 493 on the Motion to Invoke Cloture on Jennifer Sung, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall No. 478, on the Motion to Invoke Cloture on Executive Calendar No. 567, Jessica Rosenworcel, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission.