Floor Statements

Mr. President, I supported Christopher Wray's nomination in the Judiciary Committee to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I did so because I believe he is qualified and--critically--I believe he will stand up for the independence of the FBI. Such independence has never been more at risk. We need a new FBI Director now because the President fired the last one, Director James Comey. The President's reason for doing so was disturbing: to take pressure off of the FBI's investigation into-Russian interference in our democracy and connections between the Kremlin and the President's campaign and administration. This came after the President first sought Director Comey's loyalty, then pressured him to terminate the ongoing investigation into Michael Flynn, and then misled the Nation as to the reason for Director Comey's firing.

Time and again, this White House has shown it does not respect boundaries between politics and law enforcement or understand that an official's loyalty is to the Constitution, not the President. The President routinely attacks the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, special counsel, Acting FBI Director, former FBI Director, and countless others. Each attack seems more outrageous than the last. Attorney General Sessions was required by Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. It was not discretionary. The President launched a weeklong Twitter tirade against him anyway, stating he would have never hired the Attorney General had he known he would recuse himself. In other words, the President would not have hired our Nation's top law enforcement official had the President known he would actually follow the law.

Make no mistake, whether he asks for it or not, the President will demand loyalty from Mr. Wray. He has shown there are consequences for those who dare to maintain independence and follow the rules. Through Twitter attacks and firing top officials, the President is attempting to intimidate and improperly influence the behavior of our Nation's top law enforcement officials.

This is not normal. We should not treat it as such, nor should these officials be solely responsible for protecting the independence of our law enforcement institutions. All of us, Republican and Democrat, must stand up to a President who seems to only stand for himself and whose relentless attacks on the rule of law harm the entire Nation.

The next FBI Director will face many tests of integrity. He will be forced to make decisions, as Director Comey was, that will test his commitment to the rule of law. I believed Mr. Wray when he testified in response to my question that he would sooner resign than follow an unlawful or unethical order from the White House. While he served as the head of the Justice Department's criminal division in 2004, the White House attempted to authorize a warrantless surveillance program over the Attorney General's objections. Mr. Wray offered to resign in solidarity with then-FBI Director Robert Mueller and then-Deputy Attorney General Comey. He takes his integrity and the integrity of our Nation's law enforcement agencies seriously.

I expect Mr. Wray will tenaciously guard the independence of the FBI, and I will vote to confirm his nomination today.

Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Vice President cast a tie- breaking vote to move to debate on a healthcare reconciliation bill, the contents of which even now remain a mystery to most of us.

This vote to proceed without a transparent path forward underscores a process that has, from the beginning, been politics and policymaking at their worst. You would think that, after 7 years of campaigning to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the majority would have a plan in place to do just that. Instead, a dozen or so male, Republican lawmakers met behind closed doors, shielded from public view, to negotiate a grand plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act and make devastating cuts to the Medicaid Program--no hearings, no debate, no process. This is not the path taken when we considered, debated, and approved the Affordable Care Act. This is not the way the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should conduct such far-reaching and impactful business. This is not the Senate that I know and respect.

In spite of multiple drafts and a go-it-alone, hyperpartisan philosophy, the majority leader was still unable to garner enough support within his own Caucus to pass a sweeping healthcare bill. I joined with many Democrats to offer motions to get the Senate back to regular order and have the appropriate committees study the effects of these policies on Medicaid beneficiaries and those with disabilities, on women and children, on seniors and the most vulnerable, but Republicans voted down those efforts and plowed ahead. During this debate, the Senate has also considered multiple amendments to rewrite the Affordable Care Act. Each of these amendments would have caused tens of millions of Americans to lose insurance and would have made it harder for those with preexisting conditions to obtain coverage. When those amendments failed, the Republican leadership attempted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act. That did not work either.

The collapse of these ideas should have resulted in a renewed spirit of bipartisanship, where we could work together to stabilize and improve the health insurance markets. Instead, the Republican majority is so intent on voting on anything, that we are considering voting to repeal two or three policies from the Affordable Care Act solely in order to get something through the Senate and into conference with the House. This is nothing more than legislative malpractice. We are presumably considering a bill that will devastate our health insurance markets, and the best reason the Republicans can come up with for supporting final passage is ``because we said we would.''

The notion that this majority would reduce themselves--and the Senate--to finding the lowest common denominator in order to move ahead with a policy of this magnitude is not only absurd, it is dangerous. While all the versions of the Republican plans we have seen differ slightly, they all have the same, basic structure. Let's call these plans what they are: a massive tax cut for the wealthy on the backs of pregnant women, children, and the disabled who depend upon Medicaid for their health coverage. It is a tax plan in the guise of a health plan. We are considering massive entitlement reform bills that the Republican majority is trying to sell as fixes to the Affordable Care Act, but we know that these bills would fix nothing and would instead create tremendous new challenges.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, each of the various Republican proposals would cause at least 22 million people to lose their health insurance. For instance, the CBO projected that the Senate Republican's first proposal would result in marketplace enrollees paying on average 74 percent more towards their premiums for a plan in 2020 than under current law. Another proposal offered by the majority would result in higher deductibles, rising from $3,600 under current law to $6,000. Under this one proposal, Americans would be expected to pay more money for less care. And as if the Medicaid cuts in the House bill were not deep enough--which caused the President to call the bill ``mean''--another Senate Republican proposal would double down and even deepen Medicaid cuts beginning in 2025. The Senate's proposals have certainly not been less ``mean'' than the House bill. If anything, the Senate's bills are meaner.

In Vermont, the effects of any of these bills would be disastrous. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Vermont has made exceptional progress to cut the rate of uninsured Vermonters by half. The number of uninsured Vermonters is now less than 4 percent. Because of the Medicaid Program and the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as Dr. Dynasaur in Vermont, 99 percent of children have health insurance in our State. TrumpCare, in any version, places Vermont's progress at risk.

Vermont has also worked on new and innovative ways of delivering healthcare, which has brought down costs and increased coordination of care. One of the most significant ways Vermont has done this is through existing flexibility in Medicaid. It is through the Medicaid Program that Vermont has offered comprehensive treatment and counseling services for those suffering with opioid addition. In Vermont, 68 percent of those receiving medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction are Medicaid recipients. If hundreds of billions of dollars are cut from the Medicaid Program, States will be forced to limit coverage, jeopardizing Vermont's ability to overcome this crisis. Provisions that cap Medicaid spending do not create ``flexibility'' in Medicaid. This policy would instead force States to ration care.

This spring, I met a Vermont mother who has two young daughters. Both of her daughters suffer from cystic fibrosis. Luckily, they have the disease mutation that allows them to benefit from new drug therapies, but it is because of Medicaid that they have the resources necessary to afford the $20,000 per month that it costs to provide medication for each of her children. How can we tell this mother that her daughters might no longer be able to take this medication because of fiscal constraints in Medicaid? How can we tell future children who should have access to Medicaid that it was more important to give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut?

I heard from another woman in Norwich who shared this story with me: ``Five years ago, both on the same day, my husband and I were diagnosed with cancer. The fact that we are both alive today is entirely thanks to President Obama. My treatment alone involved two hospital admissions, four months of chemotherapy, and fourteen surgeries. I still take drugs every day. There is no way we could have afforded any of this without Obamacare. Before the ACA, our health insurance costs-- both premiums and deductibles--were sky high. My husband and I used to avoid going to the doctor, reserving that luxury for our three children. Without Obamacare, it's entirely possible that we wouldn't have had the check-ups that led to our diagnoses.''

These TrumpCare proposals are not healthcare bills. A true healthcare bill would not kick millions of Americans off health insurance. A true healthcare bill would not allow insurance companies to charge people more for less coverage. A true healthcare bill would not move us backwards to a time when healthcare was unaffordable.

Instead, we should be working on proposals that improve our existing system. Where there are deficiencies, let's fix them. Where we can find common ground, let's act. One of the first things we should do is stabilize the insurance market by making cost-sharing payments permanent. We should also be working to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, which is why I have introduced a bill, along with Senator Grassley, that would help reduce drug costs by helping generic alternatives come to market faster. The American people expect us to work on real solutions. We should not be voting on a cobbled together plan where the primary goal seems to be to get to 50 votes, rather than actually improving our health insurance system. Importantly, no Member should vote on a proposal unveiled at the eleventh hour, with no debate--a proposal that will impact such a large component of our economy and tens of millions of Americans.

Was the Affordable Care Act absolutely perfect when it was passed? No, and we acknowledged the need for continual improvement as the ACA would be implemented. Unlike other important social programs that have been created over the years--such as Social Security and Medicare-- Republicans have not allowed us the opportunity to improve, strengthen, and perfect it over time. Those programs were also not perfect, but instead of playing partisan games, Republicans and Democrats came together to get something done, time and time again. We did not vote to repeal the Social Security Act. No, we came together and we discussed what needed to be done to better help the American people, not unravel their safety net.

I hope that we can end this dangerous exercise and move forward in a responsible way. Let us act on the best interests of our constituents and not resort to cynical, bumper-sticker politicking. At its best, the Senate has been able to act as the conscience of the Nation. I hope now is such a time and that the Senate will rise to the occasion to defeat this harmful bill.

Mr. President, Vermont is a place of natural, exquisite beauty. From the expansive, rolling Green Mountains, to the crystal shores of Lake Champlain, Vermont is home to some of the most iconic geographic scenery our country has to offer. I am so proud to call Vermont my home.

Vermont is also continually ranked as having the most artists per capita than any other State. Our many artists--writers, photographers, painters, sculptors, potters, and more--help capture the iconic beauty that has long made Vermont a destination for visitors from across the country and around the world. One such artist, Sabra Field, is among the most gifted and extraordinary of them.

Sabra first came to Vermont in 1953 to attend Middlebury College. An Oklahoma native, she has since been lauded as a ``Vermont Living Treasure.'' Perhaps most well-known for her vivid landscapes, Ms. Field's impressive and iconic paintings are now of signature familiarity across our State and beyond. Any Vermonter who sees a painting of purple mountain majesties against a starry, blue night sky knows they are looking at one of her paintings. In 1991, Sabra was commissioned by the U.S. Postal Service to create a postage stamp of a red barn, blue sky, and green hills, a stamp which sold more than 60 million copies. She has also designed images for IBM, the Rockefeller Center, and UNICEF.

Yet what most suspect only to be Ms. Field's effort to capture Vermont's impressive geography may be surprised to discover that the meaning behind her artwork spans much further. In a new exhibit of Sabra's six-decade long career, showcased by the Middlebury College Museum of Art, her artistry takes on a deeper meaning, as told by the artist herself.

The Middlebury exhibit showcases some of Ms. Field's most iconic pieces, with each painting accompanied by a description of the memory or inspiration behind it. For instance, in a caption situated under an illustration of a family of hippopotamuses, Sabra writes of her first child who was hit by a car just short of his 10th birthday and died tragically 2 days later. In a 2011 panorama painted of Hawaii, she captions the story of the passing of her late husband, Spencer, who passed away on his favorite island of Kauai from complications related to cancer. The exhibit also depicts her work beyond that of a pastoralist, with self-portraits and paintings inspired by her personal exploration of spirituality, mythology, the cosmos, world history, and life after death.

These images and others reveal the often somber trials of Ms. Field's life. They also expose the ways in which her artistry has helped her heal and grow over time. Ms. Field is hoping this new exhibit will help avoid her being known as purely a pastoralist, as she feels her art is both an expression of beauty and a representation of the obstacles and rebounds of her life.

Marcelle and I would like to congratulate Sabra on her new exhibit at Middlebury College and on her career of record accomplishments. Her treasured paintings have long been a gift to Vermont and the world, and we know her work's timeless beauty will tell stories for generations to come. Our home proudly displays many of her works of art. We are so proud to call Sabra our dear friend.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article ``Sabra Field Show Reveals Personal Peaks and Valleys,'' published in the Vermont Digger on July 16, 2017, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on July 13, Global Witness, a widely respected international nongovernmental organization that reports on corruption and other criminality involving the exploitation of natural resources, released a report entitled, ``Defenders of the Earth--Global Killings of Land and Environmental Defenders in 2016.''

According to the report, 2016 was the worst year yet for environmental and land rights defenders. At least 200 were killed in what has become a global crisis, pitting local communities, particularly impoverished indigenous groups, against multinational mining, logging, agribusiness, hydroelectric, and hydrocarbon companies that are often supported with foreign financing.

The report says the number of such killings is increasing, up from 185 in 2015 and spreading to new countries--24 in 2016 compared to 16 in 2015. However, because many of these attacks occur in remote areas, the actual number is likely much higher. The number of killings is also only part of the appalling story. Death threats, arbitrary arrests, sexual assaults and other forms of abuse, and misuse of the legal process are among the tactics used to try to intimidate environmental activists.

Often, when faced with peaceful resistance to the construction of dams that displace people from their homes and to logging and mining operations that destroy the forest and pollute the water, the response of the companies, backed up by local security forces, is to accuse the protestors of being ``against development,'' try to divide them with bribes and promises that are later broken, and eventually to silence them with force. The companies get rich and move on, local officials collect payoffs, the electricity or minerals are exported to cities or other countries, and the people whose land was destroyed or water contaminated are immeasurably worse off.

As one activist, who has for years spoken out against Latin America's largest open pit mine, told Global Witness, ``[t]hey threaten you so you will shut up. I can't shut up. I can't stay silent faced with all that is happening to my people. We are fighting for our lands, for our water, for our lives.''

The reports states, ``[t]he battle to protect the planet is rapidly intensifying and the cost can be counted in human lives. More people in more countries are being left with no option but to take a stand against the theft of their land or the trashing of their environment. Too often they are brutally silenced by political and business elites, while the investors that bankroll them do nothing. . . Almost 40 percent of those murdered were indigenous, as land they've inhabited for generations is stolen by companies, landowners or government officials. Projects are typically imposed on communities without their free, prior and informed consent, backed up by force: police and soldiers are suspected perpetrators in at least 43 murders. Protest is often the only option left to communities exercising their right to have a say about the use of their land and natural resources, putting them on a collision course with those seeking profit at any cost.''

The report notes the criminalization of these courageous activists, including in the United States. ``They are often painted as criminals, facing trumped-up criminal charges and aggressive civil cases brought by governments and companies seeking to silence them.''

It is the responsibility of governments to defend the lives and rights of their citizens. Instead, too many governments are violating their own laws and aiding and abetting in these attacks and assassinations--either by the conduct of their security forces or by their failure to conduct credible investigations of these crimes and to bring those responsible to justice.

Honduran activist Berta Caceres is but one example. Instead of protecting her, the government and the company treated her like a criminal. She was killed for having the courage to defend the rights and territory of the Lenca people. In Honduras alone--a country the size of Kentucky with just 8 million people--more than 100 environmental defenders have reportedly suffered similar fates since 2009, for which no one has been convicted and punished.

I hope this report will spur governments, companies, foreign banks, and international financial institutions to take far stronger action to respect the territorial rights of affected people, to defend freedom of speech and association, to protect the environment, and to uphold the rule of law.

Mr. President, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC has as its newest treasure, the National Museum of African American History and Culture. It is the work of many and would not be there without its founding director, Dr. Lonnie G. Bunch III.

I know as a member of the Smithsonian board of regents that Dr. Bunch is the single most important person bringing about this magnificent museum and one which will speak to the history of African Americans in this country more than anything else.

We all know that history has seen an enormous amount of pain caused by violence and deaths resulting from racism in America. When you come into that moving museum, as I have many times, the last thing you would expect is someone who would leave the ultimate symbol of racism, a noose, hanging in it. I know the dismay felt by people of all races when it was found, but probably what has helped the healing the most is the op-ed of June 23, 2017, in the New York Times, written by my friend, Lonnie Bunch.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the op-ed, so that all can see it and so that it will be part of the history of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, last night in the Kennedy Caucus Room, the U.S. Capitol Historical Society honored the Senate Appropriations Committee with a celebration of its 150th anniversary. Past and present committee members and staff gathered to reflect on the history of the committee, and Senate Historian Betty Koed gave a wonderful keynote address.

Established on March 6, 1867, the committee's powers are rooted in article 1, section 9, of our Constitution which states, ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' The Founders recognized the power of the purse as one of the most important tools Congress has to ensure our system of checks and balances and to conduct oversight of the executive and judicial branch--but it is much more than that. The Appropriations Committee is where we translate the priorities of a nation into the realities of the people.

Our country is not a business, where we allocate resources only according to the bottom line. We do not invest in order to make a profit or a one-for-one dollar in return. We invest in those areas where it is uniquely right for government to take the lead. We invest in the areas that make a difference in the everyday lives of Americans and that help build the foundations of our country and our economy-- infrastructure, national security, our environment, education, science and research, healthcare.

I want to thank the U.S. Capitol Historical Society for organizing this anniversary celebration, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the remarks given by Senate Historian Betty Koed be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize Ireland's Ambassador

to the United States, Anne Anderson, on the occasion of her retirement. Since 2013, Anne has served as Ireland's 17th Ambassador to the United States, the first woman to serve in this role. She has done much to further the close relationship long shared between the United States and Ireland. My great-grandparents were Irish immigrants, settling in Vermont, where I was born and raised. I have long been aware of the contributions Irish immigrants make to our Nation.

Ambassador Anderson first represented her Ireland's interests in the United States in 1983, when she became the Embassy of Ireland's economic attache and then press attache. After moving back to Ireland in 1987, she served as counsellor in the Anglo-Irish division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and then became Assistant Secretary General in Corporate Services. In this role, Ambassador Anderson greatly influenced the fight for equal treatment of women in the workplace and worked to pass fair employment legislation in the North of Ireland.

Ambassador Anderson assumed the role of diplomat again in 1995, when she became Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations in Geneva. During her time in Geneva, she acted as chair of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights and vice president of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. She then moved to Brussels to serve as the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the European Union in 2001.

After some time as Ambassador to France, she returned to the United States once more to become the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations in New York until 2013, when she was named the Ambassador of Ireland to the United States. Her focus in her time as ambassador has been in advocating on behalf of immigration issues and undocumented Irish immigrants in the United States, pursuing her passion for inclusivity and equality in human rights and women's rights, and fostering the cultural art connections between the two nations.

The foundations of our relationship with Ireland are built upon and solidified by the great work of diplomats and public servants such as Ambassador Anderson, who seek to facilitate international relationships that rise above any national differences. While she may be retiring from her diplomatic roles, my friend Anne will forever be a diplomat in the truest sense of the word. Marcelle and I congratulate her on her retirement and thank her for her years of service and friendship and her dedicated efforts to strengthen the U.S. relationship with Ireland.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his comments. I ascribe to them.

Mr. President, four years ago, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. That 5 to 4 decision crippled the Federal government's ability to protect minority, elderly, and disadvantaged voters across the country. The impact of this disastrous ruling has been even worse than imagined.

Before the ink even dried on the Court's opinion, Republican officials in several States rushed to enact laws making it harder for minorities to vote. Prior to Shelby County, the Federal government had the ability to prevent racial discriminatory voting changes from taking effect before those changes occur. Proposed laws and new voting procedures would first have been reviewed by the Federal courts or the Department of Justice to ensure that voting rights would not be harmed if the changes went into effect. But without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County, discriminatory laws quickly passed Republican legislatures in several States.

Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion in Shelby County noted several

times that the protections of the Voting Rights Act are no longer appropriate because our ``Country has changed.'' It is true that our Nation has changed--we have made progress. But there is no question that the scourge of racial discrimination still exists. There are still those within our society intent on suppressing the right to vote and keeping minorities from exercising their constitutional right to participate in our democracy. Since the Shelby County ruling--and now emboldened by the Trump Administration--these forces are more concerning than they have been in decades.

Unfortunately, what has transpired in the aftermath of the Shelby County decision makes the need for the full protections of the Voting Rights Act unmistakably clear. Voter suppression efforts have found renewed life in numerous jurisdictions across the country. Thankfully, in some cases the courts have been able to provide a backstop. Based on strong evidence that hundreds of thousands of minority voters have been disproportionately prevented or discouraged from voting by Republican- enacted voting restrictions, Federal courts have blocked or rolled back many of these laws. Importantly, Federal courts have repeatedly found that these States enacted laws with the intention to discriminate.

Just last month, the Supreme Court left in place the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocked North Carolina's harsh voting restrictions, including a strict photo identification law. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the Republican legislature had passed the law with the intent to racially discriminate against African Americans, and found that ``the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.''

In April of this year, Federal district court ruled for a second time that Texas's photo ID law was enacted with the intent to racially discriminate and had a racially discriminatory effect on Hispanic and Black voters. This ruling came after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the Texas law should be struck down because of its discriminatory effect on minority voters. But just weeks ago, the Republican-led Texas legislature and Governor enacted a new law in an attempt to escape the court's rulings.

Federal courts in Kansas and North Dakota have also acted as a bulwark against attempts by Republican officials to disenfranchise minority voters. In Kansas; courts have issued rulings rejecting repeated attempts by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach from making voter registration more difficult. In North Dakota, a Federal district court held that the State's strict photo ID law disproportionately burdened Native Americans and blocked its implementation in the 2016 election.

These decisions are only the tip of the iceberg of what has transpired since Shelby County. While our courts are acting to guard against attempts to block minorities from accessing the ballot box, each of these cases requires years of litigation, money, and resources. And these are just the voting changes Republicans are enacting at the State level. Many of the efforts at the local level have gone unnoticed but have equally devastating effects on the voting rights of minorities.

The original Voting Rights Act would have prevented many of these discriminatory laws. But the Supreme Court's decision has taken this country back to an era before the Civil Rights movement--a bad time in our history where some states openly discriminated against minority voters. We are constantly reminded how costly the fight for voting and civil rights has been in this country. Just yesterday, we marked the 53rd anniversary of three civil rights activists who were killed in Mississippi for registering minorities to vote. James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman gave their lives in 1964 when they were murdered while fighting in Mississippi for racial equality and free access to the ballot box. Their example, and the example of generations of civil rights activists who gave their sweat, blood, and sometimes their lives must inspire us and drive us to do more. It is now imperative for us to do everything in our power to correct the Shelby County decision and reinstate the full protections of the Voting Rights Act for the next generation.

The legislation I am introducing today would restore and update the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 not only modernizes the Voting Rights Act in response to Shelby County, it also modernizes the law to provide tools to combat current forms of voter discrimination. This bill responds to calls from community leaders and grassroots activists working in communities whose voting rights have been threatened or suppressed. It responds to voting rights experts and civil rights leader who have called for strong legislation to counter the voter intimidation and patently discriminatory efforts that were unleashed after the Shelby County ruling.

I am proud to introduce this bill with forty-six original cosponsors, nearly every single member of the Democratic caucus. I am also proud to be joined by Senator Durbin, who worked with me to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006. In addition, the House of Representatives is today introducing a companion bill led by Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Congresswoman Judy Chu, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham, my friend Congressman John Lewis, and over 175 members of the House Democratic caucus.

We are all joining together to introduce this bill today because we will not let systematic and persistent efforts to suppress Americans' right to vote go unchecked. We will not stand idly by while this country reverts to a bygone era where it was acceptable to disenfranchise our own citizens because they were Black, Hispanic, or disadvantaged. These unconstitutional and discriminatory efforts deserve a strong response.

Protecting Americans' constitutional right to vote is not a partisan exercise. The original enactment and every reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act has always been bipartisan. When we last reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, I worked closely with the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees--former Senator Arlen Specter and Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. And past reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act have been signed into law by Republican presidents.

But now, the Republican majority--in both the House and the Senate-- refuses to protect the right to vote, restore the Voting Rights Act, or address other critical civil rights issues. Since the Shelby County decision, Republicans at every level of our government have acted to make it harder to vote. This has become the legacy of today's Republican Party. They should think seriously about reversing course, rather than trying to reverse the gains we have made in history. One significant step would be to join with us to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the historic and critically-needed protections of this landmark civil rights law.

Mr. President, four years ago, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. That 5 to 4 decision crippled the Federal government's ability to protect minority, elderly, and disadvantaged voters across the country. The impact of this disastrous ruling has been even worse than imagined.

Before the ink even dried on the Court's opinion, Republican officials in several States rushed to enact laws making it harder for minorities to vote. Prior to Shelby County, the Federal government had the ability to prevent racial discriminatory voting changes from taking effect before those changes occur. Proposed laws and new voting procedures would first have been reviewed by the Federal courts or the Department of Justice to ensure that voting rights would not be harmed if the changes went into effect. But without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County, discriminatory laws quickly passed Republican legislatures in several States.

Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion in Shelby County noted several

times that the protections of the Voting Rights Act are no longer appropriate because our ``Country has changed.'' It is true that our Nation has changed--we have made progress. But there is no question that the scourge of racial discrimination still exists. There are still those within our society intent on suppressing the right to vote and keeping minorities from exercising their constitutional right to participate in our democracy. Since the Shelby County ruling--and now emboldened by the Trump Administration--these forces are more concerning than they have been in decades.

Unfortunately, what has transpired in the aftermath of the Shelby County decision makes the need for the full protections of the Voting Rights Act unmistakably clear. Voter suppression efforts have found renewed life in numerous jurisdictions across the country. Thankfully, in some cases the courts have been able to provide a backstop. Based on strong evidence that hundreds of thousands of minority voters have been disproportionately prevented or discouraged from voting by Republican- enacted voting restrictions, Federal courts have blocked or rolled back many of these laws. Importantly, Federal courts have repeatedly found that these States enacted laws with the intention to discriminate.

Just last month, the Supreme Court left in place the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocked North Carolina's harsh voting restrictions, including a strict photo identification law. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the Republican legislature had passed the law with the intent to racially discriminate against African Americans, and found that ``the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.''

In April of this year, Federal district court ruled for a second time that Texas's photo ID law was enacted with the intent to racially discriminate and had a racially discriminatory effect on Hispanic and Black voters. This ruling came after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the Texas law should be struck down because of its discriminatory effect on minority voters. But just weeks ago, the Republican-led Texas legislature and Governor enacted a new law in an attempt to escape the court's rulings.

Federal courts in Kansas and North Dakota have also acted as a bulwark against attempts by Republican officials to disenfranchise minority voters. In Kansas; courts have issued rulings rejecting repeated attempts by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach from making voter registration more difficult. In North Dakota, a Federal district court held that the State's strict photo ID law disproportionately burdened Native Americans and blocked its implementation in the 2016 election.

These decisions are only the tip of the iceberg of what has transpired since Shelby County. While our courts are acting to guard against attempts to block minorities from accessing the ballot box, each of these cases requires years of litigation, money, and resources. And these are just the voting changes Republicans are enacting at the State level. Many of the efforts at the local level have gone unnoticed but have equally devastating effects on the voting rights of minorities.

The original Voting Rights Act would have prevented many of these discriminatory laws. But the Supreme Court's decision has taken this country back to an era before the Civil Rights movement--a bad time in our history where some states openly discriminated against minority voters. We are constantly reminded how costly the fight for voting and civil rights has been in this country. Just yesterday, we marked the 53rd anniversary of three civil rights activists who were killed in Mississippi for registering minorities to vote. James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman gave their lives in 1964 when they were murdered while fighting in Mississippi for racial equality and free access to the ballot box. Their example, and the example of generations of civil rights activists who gave their sweat, blood, and sometimes their lives must inspire us and drive us to do more. It is now imperative for us to do everything in our power to correct the Shelby County decision and reinstate the full protections of the Voting Rights Act for the next generation.

The legislation I am introducing today would restore and update the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 not only modernizes the Voting Rights Act in response to Shelby County, it also modernizes the law to provide tools to combat current forms of voter discrimination. This bill responds to calls from community leaders and grassroots activists working in communities whose voting rights have been threatened or suppressed. It responds to voting rights experts and civil rights leader who have called for strong legislation to counter the voter intimidation and patently discriminatory efforts that were unleashed after the Shelby County ruling.

I am proud to introduce this bill with forty-six original cosponsors, nearly every single member of the Democratic caucus. I am also proud to be joined by Senator Durbin, who worked with me to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006. In addition, the House of Representatives is today introducing a companion bill led by Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Congresswoman Judy Chu, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham, my friend Congressman John Lewis, and over 175 members of the House Democratic caucus.

We are all joining together to introduce this bill today because we will not let systematic and persistent efforts to suppress Americans' right to vote go unchecked. We will not stand idly by while this country reverts to a bygone era where it was acceptable to disenfranchise our own citizens because they were Black, Hispanic, or disadvantaged. These unconstitutional and discriminatory efforts deserve a strong response.

Protecting Americans' constitutional right to vote is not a partisan exercise. The original enactment and every reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act has always been bipartisan. When we last reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, I worked closely with the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees--former Senator Arlen Specter and Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. And past reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act have been signed into law by Republican presidents.

But now, the Republican majority--in both the House and the Senate-- refuses to protect the right to vote, restore the Voting Rights Act, or address other critical civil rights issues. Since the Shelby County decision, Republicans at every level of our government have acted to make it harder to vote. This has become the legacy of today's Republican Party. They should think seriously about reversing course, rather than trying to reverse the gains we have made in history. One significant step would be to join with us to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the historic and critically-needed protections of this landmark civil rights law.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I have hiked in his State before, and it is a wonderful place. Their mountains are a tad higher than ours, but both my wife and I love hiking in the mountains, and I have enjoyed his State.

Mr. President, in Vermont, we believe in forging resilient communities through strong local governments and in fostering well- informed leaders to understand and respond to the many complex issues facing us today. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns, VLCT, embodies these principles and more, and I am delighted to contribute in honoring the league and its members on its 50th anniversary.

Established in 1967, the VLCT was created to help improve local governance. Local officials needed a way to help towns best serve their constituents and to connect members of their communities with their local governments. In response, a handful of municipalities formed the organization that provided these services. Beginning with VLCT's first executive director and continuing through today, this organization has consistently worked to represent the values of all Vermonters. For the first time in 1995, every city and town in Vermont had joined as members of VLCT, demonstrating how valuable this institution is for all of our communities regardless of their size.

For many years, I too have worked alongside VLCT to improve the lives of Vermonters. Whether through their efforts supporting the State's recovery from Tropical Storm Irene or improving the water quality of Vermont's rivers and streams, their dedication to Vermont's way of life and quality of life makes us all better. They provide direction and advice and support our municipalities in their timely and important but often underfunded responsibilities.

As a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, VLCT will always be there to support us, to support Vermont communities. Our great State is made better by the involvement of organizations like the VLCT, and I wish them continued success over the next 50 years in bettering the lives of all Vermonters.

Mr. President, one thing we learn at a young age is the very basic principle that, when you give your word, you keep it. On June I, on the international stage, President Trump signaled to the rest of the world that America cannot be relied upon to meet this very basic tenet. On one warm afternoon in Washington, President Trump withdrew the United States from one of the most sweeping global environmental accords in generations. Abandoning our obligations to the Paris climate accords doesn't make America great. It doesn't reflect America's traditional role as innovator, leader, and standard bearer in our shared commitment to protecting the environment.

The chief U.S. negotiator of those accords, Todd Stern, is a former member of my staff. No one among the ranks of our government was closer to these negotiations, which led to a deal that was a win for American workers and businesses and a first step toward ensuring the survival of our planet. His words, published by the Washington Post on June 1, should be required reading for every American, including the President.

By reneging on our pledge to honor these accords, which were forged through U.S. leadership, President Trump is ceding American leadership in emerging clean energy technologies and worsening one of the genuine existential threats to the world. The President's decision was a serious setback in our fight to save our planet. But as Mr. Stem writes, ``This is not the end of the line. This is a call to arms.''

Governors and mayors and State and local officials are heeding this call, rejecting the President's decision, and pledging to move forward with aggressive efforts to curb climate change. President Trump may think this is the end of America's involvement in the Paris climate accord. But, like Todd Stern, I believe a majority of Americans will reject this move. I, too, hope they will double down on our shared commitment to protecting our environment and our world for generations to come.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Stern's column, ``Trump just betrayed the world. Now the world will fight back,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the right to vote is among the most sacred rights guaranteed by our Constitution. It forms the foundation for our democracy and inspires countless people across the world still striving for a meaningful opportunity to engage in the political process and shape their futures.

My friend John Lewis has often said that ``the right to vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy.'' I could not agree more with him. America is a stronger and greater country when more Americans participate in our democracy. We are better when our citizens hold their elected representatives accountable and voice their opinions on the critical issues facing our Nation. We can take a historic step to foster even greater participation in our democracy simply by modernizing the way Americans register to vote.

Today, I am proud to introduce the Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2017. This bill would require States to automatically register citizens who are eligible to vote when they interact with State and Federal agencies. Americans would have the option of declining automatic registration, but this bill would provide for a registration process that is easier for our citizens and one that is more efficient and accurate.

The bill I introduce today streamlines the voter registration process by providing for online registration and greater portability of registration when an individual moves to a different location in the same State. Under this bill, no one can be unfairly penalized for inadvertent registration, and punishment is limited to cases of intentional registration fraud or illegal voting. This bill also includes important privacy protections and makes clear that the information used to automatically register individuals will remain secure. These are commonsense reforms that would not only help Americans vote but also help maintain accurate and up-to-date voter registration rolls.

Last year, Vermont became one of the States leading the country on improving our citizens' access to the ballot by becoming one of just eight States to approve automatic voter registration. I want to commend Vermont secretary of state Jim Condos for his outstanding work on this issue and for the people of Vermont.

State election officials estimate that tens of thousands of Vermonters will now be registered to vote because of this new law. Implementing these types of reforms nationwide will make America stronger and increase participation of a broader electorate. A recent study by the Center for American Progress on Oregon's automatic voter registration law that went into effect in January 2016 found that more than 272,000 people were added to voter rolls, and 98,000 of them were new voters in the November 2016 Presidential election. That is a remarkable success story, and hopefully other State legislatures will take notice. The Brennan Center for Justice, which has been a leading voice protecting Americans' right to vote, concluded in a 2015 report that a comprehensive, nationwide automatic voter registration plan has the potential to increase voter registration by 50 million eligible voters. This would not only save money and increase accuracy, but it would also reduce the potential for fraud and protect the integrity of our elections.

I would like to thank the Brennan Center for Justice for its work on this issue and for working with me on this bill. I would also like to thank Senators Durbin and Klobuchar for joining me as original cosponsors. Congressman Brady of Pennsylvania, the ranking member on the House Committee on House Administration, has been a leader on this issue and has introduced a House companion bill.

All members of Congress should support this legislation. We should all

strive to make sure that our constituents have access to the ballot box and are able to have their voices heard. This is of course just one reform we must make to ensure that our citizens' voting rights are protected. In the coming weeks, I intend to reintroduce legislation to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. It has now been almost 4 years since the Supreme Court's devastating decision in Shelby County v. Holder, and we have seen the effect of that disastrous ruling as States have attempted to enact discriminatory voter ID laws and other measures intended to prevent minority voters from going to the polls. That is disgraceful, and we must do better. Congress must act to ensure that millions of Americans are not disenfranchised.

The right to vote should not be a partisan issue. It is a right that forms the basis of our democracy, and it is incumbent on all Americans, Democratic and Republican, to ensure that no American's right to vote is infringed. Modernizing our voter registration system is one significant step forward.

Mr. President, the right to vote is among the most sacred rights guaranteed by our Constitution. It forms the foundation for our democracy and inspires countless people across the world still striving for a meaningful opportunity to engage in the political process and shape their futures.

My friend John Lewis has often said that ``the right to vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy.'' I could not agree more with him. America is a stronger and greater country when more Americans participate in our democracy. We are better when our citizens hold their elected representatives accountable and voice their opinions on the critical issues facing our Nation. We can take a historic step to foster even greater participation in our democracy simply by modernizing the way Americans register to vote.

Today, I am proud to introduce the Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2017. This bill would require States to automatically register citizens who are eligible to vote when they interact with State and Federal agencies. Americans would have the option of declining automatic registration, but this bill would provide for a registration process that is easier for our citizens and one that is more efficient and accurate.

The bill I introduce today streamlines the voter registration process by providing for online registration and greater portability of registration when an individual moves to a different location in the same State. Under this bill, no one can be unfairly penalized for inadvertent registration, and punishment is limited to cases of intentional registration fraud or illegal voting. This bill also includes important privacy protections and makes clear that the information used to automatically register individuals will remain secure. These are commonsense reforms that would not only help Americans vote but also help maintain accurate and up-to-date voter registration rolls.

Last year, Vermont became one of the States leading the country on improving our citizens' access to the ballot by becoming one of just eight States to approve automatic voter registration. I want to commend Vermont secretary of state Jim Condos for his outstanding work on this issue and for the people of Vermont.

State election officials estimate that tens of thousands of Vermonters will now be registered to vote because of this new law. Implementing these types of reforms nationwide will make America stronger and increase participation of a broader electorate. A recent study by the Center for American Progress on Oregon's automatic voter registration law that went into effect in January 2016 found that more than 272,000 people were added to voter rolls, and 98,000 of them were new voters in the November 2016 Presidential election. That is a remarkable success story, and hopefully other State legislatures will take notice. The Brennan Center for Justice, which has been a leading voice protecting Americans' right to vote, concluded in a 2015 report that a comprehensive, nationwide automatic voter registration plan has the potential to increase voter registration by 50 million eligible voters. This would not only save money and increase accuracy, but it would also reduce the potential for fraud and protect the integrity of our elections.

I would like to thank the Brennan Center for Justice for its work on this issue and for working with me on this bill. I would also like to thank Senators Durbin and Klobuchar for joining me as original cosponsors. Congressman Brady of Pennsylvania, the ranking member on the House Committee on House Administration, has been a leader on this issue and has introduced a House companion bill.

All members of Congress should support this legislation. We should all

strive to make sure that our constituents have access to the ballot box and are able to have their voices heard. This is of course just one reform we must make to ensure that our citizens' voting rights are protected. In the coming weeks, I intend to reintroduce legislation to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. It has now been almost 4 years since the Supreme Court's devastating decision in Shelby County v. Holder, and we have seen the effect of that disastrous ruling as States have attempted to enact discriminatory voter ID laws and other measures intended to prevent minority voters from going to the polls. That is disgraceful, and we must do better. Congress must act to ensure that millions of Americans are not disenfranchised.

The right to vote should not be a partisan issue. It is a right that forms the basis of our democracy, and it is incumbent on all Americans, Democratic and Republican, to ensure that no American's right to vote is infringed. Modernizing our voter registration system is one significant step forward.