Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the Nelson nomination.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, the desk behind me is empty at this moment, but whenever anything important is taking place on the floor, you will find seated there the dean of the U.S. Senate, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

This week, he surprised a number of us by announcing his retirement at the end of next year.

I have come to know Pat during my service in the Senate. He is a humanitarian. He is a gifted lawmaker and a

passionate defender of America's national ideals and, I might add, of international human rights. Loretta and I count Patrick and his wonderful wife Marcelle as really good friends.

I have been on the Senate Judiciary Committee, chairing it for a year. I have more insight into that job than I ever had before, and I have certainly realized that when Senator Leahy was the chair of that committee, he wrote an extraordinary record, which many of us only dream of emulating.

I thank him for his passionate, consistent, faithful support of the DREAM Act, which I introduced 20 years ago, and his efforts to help me get this enacted into law. I also appreciated when he gave me the opportunity to create a new subcommittee in Judiciary entitled the ``Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law,'' which I chaired. We did good things for America and the world.

Pat Leahy is known throughout the world, and I mean that literally, as a defender of human rights and human dignity. I have seen it so many times.

He and I decided to join forces a few years ago on behalf of a political prisoner. Her name is Leila de Lima. She is a human rights advocate and a senator in the Philippines. She is in jail.

Two years ago, Senator Leahy passed an amendment on her behalf in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. As a result, strongman Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines banned both Senator Leahy and myself from entering the Philippines because of our action. I can tell you that we take great pride in being singled out in that manner. Duterte knew, as we all know, that when Patrick Leahy sees injustice, he will use his power in office to put things right.

His service in the Senate has been a great benefit to our Nation, our world, and his beloved State of Vermont, and we will certainly miss him when he retires. I will just add, though, watch closely because he is going to run through the tape. He has a little over a year left in the Senate, and I am sure he will work for that entire period of time for the betterment of this Nation and his beautiful Vermont.

Madam President, over the weekend, I reflected on an event in my life that occurred 58 years ago.

On November 24, 1963, I had just transferred and was a sophomore at Georgetown University. It was a chilly, gray Sunday morning, and I had joined a huge crowd of thousands of people in Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House, to stand in mournful silence.

A few minutes after 1 o'clock that afternoon, the doors of the White House opened, and the flag-draped casket of President John F. Kennedy was carried out. The casket was placed on a caisson for a solemn procession to this U.S. Capitol. The route was lined with hundreds of thousands of mourners standing 10, 12 deep. Hardly anyone spoke. The only sounds were the clacking of horses' hooves, the sound of metal wheels on the pavement, and the muffled sounds and drums of the military escort.

More than 30 years later, I recounted that student experience to a colleague in the U.S. Senate. His name was Max Cleland from the State of Georgia, and he said to me: ``Durbin, I was standing in the same corner in Lafayette Square that you were standing in.'' He was there for the same reason I was: to witness history and to pay homage to our fallen President.

There we were, just a few feet away from one another in Lafayette Square, but our lives took a much different course immediately after that.

I went to law school, married, and started a family, and my wife and I were blessed with three kids.

Max Cleland enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1965 after graduating from college. Military service was a long tradition in his family. He spent 2 years in what he called a ``cushy'' job as an Army aide, and he hated it. He fought to be sent to Vietnam.

In April 1968, with less than a month left in his tour of duty, Army CPT Max Cleland found himself at the Battle of Khe Sanh, one of the longest and deadliest battles in the Vietnam war.

On April 8, 1968, he jumped off of a helicopter and saw a hand grenade on the ground. He thought it had fallen off his flak jacket. As he reached to pick it up, the grenade exploded, tearing off his right arm and both of his legs. He was 25 years old.

When he was recovering at Walter Reed, a friend took his doctor aside and asked him in confidence: What sort of life awaits this triple amputee? What would he be able to do?

The doctor said that if Max ever recovered enough just to put on his own shirt, that simple task would exhaust him for the rest of the day. Well, that doctor didn't understand his patient. He didn't know Max Cleland. He saw what that grenade blast had taken away from him, but he didn't see the deep reservoirs of faith, strength, and determination that remained in Max and grew stronger over time.

Before his injury, Max Cleland was the golden boy of his hometown of Lithonia, GA. He was his parents' only child. He stood 6 feet 2 inches, was a basketball and tennis player in high school, and was voted the ``most exceptional student'' during his senior year. He could have done anything with his life, but during that internship semester in Washington in 1963, Max Cleland decided he wanted to be a U.S. Senator. Nothing could kill that dream--not even the terrible explosion at Khe Sanh that took three of his limbs and nearly took his life.

After 8 months in VA hospitals and rehab centers, he went home to Georgia. In 1970, at the age of 28, he became the youngest person ever elected to the Georgia State Senate. In 1984, he became the youngest person to head up the U.S. Veterans' Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was under his watch that the VA first admitted the existence of something called post-traumatic stress disorder. Max knew the hell of post-traumatic stress well. He fought for treatment and compensation for our vets, and he struggled with visible and invisible wounds of war.

In 1982, Max Cleland was elected Georgia secretary of state, a position he held for 14 years. During that time, he gathered some of the biggest vote totals in Georgia history.

When Georgia Senator Sam Nunn decided to retire in 1996, Max knew it was his chance. He threw his hat in the ring and was elected U.S. Senator of Georgia.

We came to this Senate together in 1997. When Max came to the Senate, there was no ramp for wheelchair users in the Senate. He had to make his first speech from the back of the Chamber. He tucked a quote from the Book of Isaiah inside his breast pocket. It was simple: ``Do not be afraid.'' He joined the Armed Services Committee and expanded education benefits for all veterans through the GI bill.

He was just full of energy and good cheer. I remember that warm smile and his big belly laughs. His optimism was a choice, and it required a grueling regimen to maintain it. He took 3 hours every morning to prepare himself physically and mentally to face each day. I remember reading an article in the Washington Post about a regimen of strenuous physical exercise, which he designed for himself. He had taken a spare bedroom in his apartment and did his own workout routine--this triple amputee--each morning.

For years, Max felt a sort of shame about his injuries. He felt the wounds were his own fault. He always thought that he had dropped the hand grenade that nearly killed him. It took 30 years for the truth to come out.

Max was telling this story on national TV when a man called in afterwards and said: I need to talk to Senator Cleland. He said to him: ``Max, that's not how it happened at all. I know. I was there.'' He said another soldier had dropped the grenade, a ``newbie'' who hadn't taken the precautions that veteran soldiers know to take to prevent an accidental detonation.

The story turned out to be true, and after 30 years, Max could begin to forgive himself.

Max was serving in the Senate on 9/11. Months later, the Senate was debating how to merge several Agencies, offices, and Departments into the brandnew Department of Homeland Security. It was the biggest reorganization of the Federal Government since World War II, and it would create one of the largest Federal Agencies.

Some saw it as an opportunity to take on the unions. Max and I and many others thought otherwise. We

voted against an amendment that would have denied employees of the new Department the same collective bargaining rights as other Federal workers.

It was months later that Max stood for reelection. Near the end of that race, there was an infamous ad that showed images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and questioned Max's commitment to protect America.

How do you look at a man who has lost three limbs in war and struggled every day of his life to serve others and accuse him of not being willing to defend this country?

Max Cleland was one of six Vietnam veterans in the Senate at that time. All of his brothers in arms, including Republican Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel, were furious about that ad. They raised enough hell to have that ad pulled. Sadly, the damage was done. Max lost his race for reelection. He called that loss ``the second hand grenade'' in his life.

In his 2009 memoir aimed at his fellow wounded veterans, he wrote: ``My body, my soul, my spirit, and my belief in life itself was stolen from me by the disaster of the Vietnam War. I found solace in attempting to `turn my pain into somebody else's gain' by immersing myself in politics and public service.''

When his Senate years were over, he said: ``I went down physically, mentally, emotionally, down into the deepest, darkest hole in my life. I had several moments when I just didn't want to continue to live.''

The post-traumatic stress came roaring back into his life, and so 40 years after he first arrived there, Max returned to Walter Reed to try to mend not his body but his broken heart. It was connecting with other warriors that pulled him out of his despair.

I want to thank my Senate colleagues and especially my friend, former Majority Leader Harry Reid, for their commitment during that dark time. They helped him return to public service.

He was appointed to the 9/11 Commission and served for a short while before resigning to serve on the board of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In 2009, President Obama chose Max to serve as Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission.

Last week, Max Cleland died at his home in Atlanta. His big heart finally succumbed. He was 79 years old.

On the same day he died, another veteran fighting the invisible wounds of war shot and killed himself at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. Air Force TSgt Kenneth Omar Santiago was only 31.

In a note posted on social media before he died, he wrote: ``No one knows who is struggling and waging wars that the eye cannot see. What does chronic depression even look like?''

Max Cleland knew the answer to that question. If he had met Sergeant Santiago--or any of the 17 veterans who die by suicide every single day in America--he would have told them what he said to himself every day: ``Hold on. Seek help. Do not be afraid.''

Max Cleland was a soldier, a patriot, and a friend. We can pay no better tribute to him than to honor his service and sacrifice and help those who continue to live with those visible and invisible wounds of war.

Farewell, Max. I will miss you.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate will consider Jonathan Kanter's nomination to be Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.

Mr. Kanter is a distinguished antitrust lawyer with decades of experience in the public and private sectors. He received his undergraduate degree from the State University of New York at Albany and his law degree from Washington University School of Law.

After graduating, he worked as an attorney for the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition. He then went on to spend more than 20 years in private practice as an antitrust lawyer. During that time, Mr. Kanter has become a highly influential advocate for strong and meaningful antitrust enforcement, with a special focus on the digital economy.

And he has earned support from across the political spectrum. Nine former heads of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division-- representing every presidential administration going back to Gerald Ford--submitted a letter urging the Senate to quickly confirm Mr. Kanter.

These former leaders of the Antitrust Division wrote: ``Jonathan Kanter has the talent and the leadership skills to do the job well. . . . He knows the substance of antitrust. He appreciates its importance to the American consumer. . . . In short, we believe Mr. Kanter is right for this important position.''

The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee agree. Mr. Kanter was voted out of the committee by voice vote, a testament to his bipartisan support.

With his extensive experience as an antitrust lawyer, deep knowledge of the law, and masterful understanding of the challenges facing antitrust law enforcers, Mr. Kanter would be an outstanding addition to the Justice Department.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, my friend from North Carolina expressed his point of view. I would like to express mine.

Do you think that those who are making incomes in America in the highest levels should pay their fair share of taxes?

I do.

Do you think that those who get the tax break from the Trump tax plan of 4 years ago, which added $2 trillion to our deficit, should pay more in taxes?

I do.

Do you think we should help families who are struggling with the cost of living to defray those costs, for example, for daycare?

Well, I do; and I can tell you from my family experience, so do my kids.

What do you think about the possibility of starting kids in school, a possibility at 3 years of age or 4 years of age, if that is a parent's choice? Is that a good idea?

I think it is. And so do educators.

If kids get a flying start at education, they have a much more likely chance to succeed and to graduate and to progress to a point in life where they are making a living and more. That is part of it.

So do you support, as I do, cutting the rate of childhood poverty in the United States in half?

I think we ought to at least do that, maybe even more.

If your answer was yes to these questions, what I describe is the mechanism which we have taken into the reconciliation process. It is a long Senate word for a bill that we are going to consider in about 10 days to 2 weeks. What we are trying to do is to alleviate and reduce the costs that families face.

It is a legitimate question raised by the Senator from North Carolina: Well, who is going to pay for this?

It is paid for by people in the highest income categories. If you are making less than $400,000 a year, your taxes will not go up. That is what Biden said in the campaign, and that is the standard we have been governed by. For those who are not paying their fair share of taxes, they may have to.

And I am not nervous about putting more auditors in the IRS to look at how much taxes people pay because I know what the numbers are. Working families, particularly those who have withholding, are paying their fair share within a few percentage points; but at the highest income level, these folks are finding ways to avoid their taxes. So working families are paying their fair share and the wealthiest Americans--some of them--are not. So these new IRS auditors will make sure everybody pays their fair share.

How is that for a starting point?

You shouldn't be afraid of hiring more cops on the beat if you are not violating the law, and that, I think, is a reality that most of us realize in life.

In terms of other payments, corporations that have profited, declaring millions of dollars in booked gains and profits, don't you think they ought to pay something?

I sure do. There ought to be a minimum tax that these corporations pay if they are profitable beyond certain million-dollar ranges. That is reasonable to me. Average Americans are paying their fair share. Small businesses are paying their fair share, but some of these folks have found ways to avoid these taxes. I think we ought to look into that.

What is the goal here?

The goal here isn't socialism, however the Senator wishes to define it. The goal is to have the government give families--working families in particular--a helping hand by reducing the cost of daycare, by making more education available, by providing a childcare tax credit to some of these families, by providing home health services for their parents and grandparents who need a helping hand.

Now there is a very popular idea, because a lot of folks who are raising small children also have to worry about grandma and grandpa and how they are doing. Are they in place where they feel safe and secure and taken care of? Or if they can stay home, that is even better. That is what this bill does.

The reconciliation bill provides additional assistance for those people who want to live in the independence of their home to have home healthcare services. I can't think of a better income than if that is part of what they do, and it involves government getting into the picture. For some of my colleagues, that is reprehensible--that is just pure socialism.

But I might remind those who are following my remarks, when Social Security was created to give fiscal solvency to families once retired, it was branded as communism or socialism. Then came the idea of Medicare, health insurance for seniors in America in the 1960s.

Do you know what the American Medical Association called it?

Socialized medicine or socialism. Every time the government steps in to solve a problem which the economy can't solve by itself, the critics will always say it is socialism; it is too much government.

Well, we have got to take care that the amount of government we give to this country is adequate to meet the needs of these families who are struggling with the cost of living today. I believe these are steps in the right diction.

Climate Change

How does going zero to 60 in 3 seconds sound to you? How about traversing through terrains of unimaginable challenge? Or having an entire kitchen stowed away in your car wherever you go?

These are just a few of the innovations being pioneered by the minds of Rivian, the company that is leading the electric vehicle revolution in my home State of Illinois.

The company recently released the R1T, which ``Motor Trend'' has described as ``the most remarkable pickup we've ever driven.''

That truck won't be built in China and it won't be built in Europe. It will be built in the heart of Illinois, in a town aptly named Normal.

The story of Normal is a story of revival and opportunity. Six years ago, a local Mitsubishi plant shut down, leaving thousands of workers unemployed. Today, that once shuttered factory has sprung back to life, manufacturing the first mass-produced electric truck in America. And even better, lawmakers in Illinois are now positioning Normal to continue leading the industry.

Earlier this year, the State of Illinois provided more than $7 million to a

community college in Normal, IL, to launch a program training electric vehicle technicians. Graduates of that program will be fully prepared to land good-paying jobs at Rivian or one of the other countries that are suppliers in the electric vehicle industry.

Why is this good news not just for Illinois?

Each additional Rivian truck on the road will help confront the threat of climate change.

Transportation accounts for more than a fourth--let me repeat that-- more than a fourth of total greenhouse gas emissions. If every vehicle on the road were electric, we would probably be on our way to a green future. What is happening in Normal proves that investing in sustainable innovation drives sustainable economic growth for everyone, and it is a look into the future that Democrats envision under the Build Back Better agenda, a future in which every American can gain the skills they need to be competitive in the 21st century and American innovators have the incentives they need to pioneer new technology.

Climate Change Conference

Madam President, the story of Normal's revival will be in the front of my mind tomorrow as I depart for the United Nations' 26th Conference of Parties climate summit in Glasgow. This gathering is an opportunity for the United States and our allies to come together for the first time in years around a shared goal: taking bold steps to address the climate crisis.

One of those steps is the Build Back Better World Partnership, an initiative that will bring together the world's major democracies to support sustainable development in low- and middle-income countries. This partnership will help counter China's rising influence in the world by equipping developing nations with the resources they need to grow their economies without relying on fossil fuels.

On the note of China, Xi Jinping's absence from the COP conference in Scotland should be an alarm bell for the international community. China is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. They emit more than every other developed nation combined. And the country is headed in the wrong direction. Over the next decade, the Chinese Communist Party plans to build dozens of new coal plants throughout the country.

China's leaders insist they are committed to addressing climate change, but the commitments they have made are inadequate. Carbon neutrality by 2060 is too little, too late.

Fortunately, over the past 2 weeks, President Biden has shown the world that if you want a partner in saving the planet, follow America's lead; work together, across borders. Already, the strategy is working. Yesterday, a coalition of more than 40 countries, including the United Kingdom, Poland, and Vietnam, announced they will phase out coal power over the next two decades.

There is no doubt that the international commitments we agreed to in Glasgow are crucial to combating climate change, but the question I hope to ask our foreign allies is, What will you do the moment you return home?

Climate change isn't a faraway threat. The extreme weather events over the past year have shown it is already here. Over the summer, one storm alone, Hurricane Ida, caused $100 billion in damages--one storm, $100 billion--twice as much as Democrats have proposed to spend each year to reduce the harm of climate change. And these costs are only getting worse.

Last month, our Nation's intelligence community released a landmark national intelligence estimate on climate change. The report illustrated how a changing climate is one of the biggest threats to national security and economic stability. It warns that over the next two decades, climate change will increase global poverty and instability and could lead to conflicts and wars and dwindling supplies of food, water, and habitable land. Hundreds of millions of people are likely to be displaced by 2050.

Among the 11 nations at greatest risk of collapse from climate stress, by this estimate, 5 are in our own hemisphere, and 2 possess nuclear weapons in other places in the world.

These humanitarian crises could also give rise to anti-democratic populists. We have seen it in Hungary. We have seen these same politicians rising in France and Germany, peddling fear and xenophobia after an influx of refugees.

The NIE warns us that ``current policies and pledges are insufficient'' to meet the goals of the Paris climate conference. That is why the question for anyone in a position of power is: What are you doing about climate change today?

Well, between the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better package, Democrats are proposing roughly $900 billion toward the climate change threat. This would be the largest investment in climate action in history.

These proposals will accelerate our Nation's transition to a clean energy future, upgrade our power grid and the rest of our physical infrastructure, and establish America as a global leader. This could pave the way for every State to attract job creators like Rivian or Lion Electric in Joliet, IL, which announced an electric vehicle plant earlier this year.

I heard the previous speaker criticize the idea of a Climate Corps. It is modeled, really, after the Conservation Corps of the New Deal that goes back at least 80 years. I can't understand why we would criticize an effort to put young people to work so that they would have jobs that would improve the world we live in, the Nation we live in, and make a decent income in the process. For many of the kids, this will be their first chance to really understand what life should be like. Why wouldn't we want that? I don't know about North Carolina, but in Illinois, we can certainly use their good, hard work.

I got a call yesterday from the president of the Cook County board, Toni Preckwinkle, who said we have forest preserves all over Cook County--and they are a beauty to behold--but they need basic work. If the Climate Corps members can do it, we want to hire them locally and engage them in that process and give them a good life experience.

What could be wrong with that? That these kids, who might otherwise not have a chance at a job, get a decent job and get rewarded for their good work, with a paycheck when it is all over. For many of us, that was a formative experience we are never going to forget. There are a lot of kids who deserve it, and there is a lot to be done by this effort.

I want to say at this point, as I close--I see other Members on the floor--that we cannot wait when it comes to climate change. There are people who want us to be at the back of the pack, for America to come in second, when we are talking about changing the climate for the better in this Nation and around the world. I think American leadership is needed. It has always been an inspiration to many other countries and can be again today.

I thank the President for his leadership.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests 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:

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today is the 1-year anniversary of an election that was judged the most secure in the history of America. Let me say that again. The election that ended November 3, 2020, 1 year ago, was judged the most secure in American history. That is not my opinion; that is the official conclusion, under the Trump administration, of his Department of Homeland Security, which coordinates with the Nation's top cyber security and voting infrastructure experts to protect our elections. They released that assessment 10 days after last year's election, and they did it in the face of a dangerous and unprecedented avalanche of attacks and tweets from the enraged President Donald Trump, who claimed falsely that the election had been stolen from him.

Those election security experts were not alone. President Trump and his loyalists filed more than 50 lawsuits in State and Federal courts, repeating their false claims of voter fraud and stolen votes--50. Every crackpot theory that Rudy Giuliani could glean or spawn on the internet was tested in court. How did they do? Fifty lawsuits. No evidence to back their claims in the courts; only bizarre conspiracy theories and far-right internet gossip, which they accepted as gospel. Well, the lawsuits were all dismissed, some even by judges President Trump had nominated. It was not a great day for the theory of a stolen election in the courts of America.

What happened next? What happened was documented by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair. We brought witnesses before us to really explore stage 2 of President Trump's effort to overturn the last election.

When he couldn't win in the courts, he decided to go to the Department of Justice. William Barr, his honored, loyal Attorney General, resigned after announcing he could find nothing wrong with the election, and then President Trump took it in his own hands. With a few of his allies, one of them Jeffrey Clark in the Department of Justice, they tried to pressure the Acting Attorney General, Jeffrey Rosen, to send a letter out to the attorneys general and other State authorities across the Nation to tell them to suspend reporting the electoral college vote count.

Well, Jeffrey Rosen and others stood up to the President even when he threatened to dismiss him and replace him. In fact, when that happened, a number of people in the Department of Justice, many of whom were appointees by President Trump, said that they would resign en mass if that happened.

So the Trump approach to take this to the Department of Justice and to railroad his way through there failed, but the Big Lie continued. We all know about the death and destruction of the Big Lie in this Capitol Building, in this Senate Chamber, on January 6. In this Capitol Building, 5 people lost their lives, and over 100 law enforcement were attacked by the mob that descended on this building. The entire world looked on in disbelief to think that a President would send a mob up to overrun the Capitol and to stop the electoral college vote count.

The Big Lie is also corroding America's faith in our electoral system. A new poll released this week disclosed that only one in three Republican voters trusts that the 2024 elections will be fair--only one in three.

One year ago, Americans braved a lethal pandemic to cast their ballots. Many stood in line, some for hours. The 2020 general election saw the highest voter turnout in more than a century, according to the Brennan Center. And as I said, it was our most secure election ever, as judged by President Trump's Department of Homeland Security and his Attorney General, William Barr. We ought to be proud of that.

Sadly, however, instead of telling people the truth and defending our elections, lawmakers in many States are using the Big Lie, propagated by former President Trump, as a pretext to undermine America's right to vote. We need to use examples here so you understand what we are saying.

Remember the runoff election for two senatorial seats in the State of Georgia? It was an important election, and there were unprecedented numbers of voters participating in it. The law in Georgia at the time said that people could register to vote between the official election count on November 3 and the runoff election count in January. Then the Georgia Legislature, after two Democratic Senators were elected, changed that and said: No, you can't register to vote in that interim period of time. They reduced the amount of time that people would have to cast absentee ballots.

Since the January 6 assault on the Capitol, more than 425 bills have been introduced in 49 States to make it harder to vote and in some cases easier for some politicians to overturn elections if they don't like voters' choices.

This is exactly how democracies wither. If we undermine the most fundamental concept of democracy--the right to vote and the right for people in that electorate to choose its leaders--we are going to weaken this democracy that we were honored to inherit.

Three times this year on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Republican Senators have used the filibuster, which historically has been the favorite tool of segregationists--and I might add, many of those segregationists were Democrats--to prevent this Senate from even debating voting rights. Let me say that again. Republicans have used the filibuster to prevent the Senate from even debating both the For the People Act twice and the Freedom to Vote Act.

The other day, I looked up the cloture vote on another of our Nation's great laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On June 10, 1964, Senators voted to end the longest filibuster in history and allowed the Civil Rights Act to move forward. The vote tally is important. Among Republican Senators, 27 voted for cloture to end the filibuster, and 6 voted not to, to support the continuation of the filibuster--27 to 6 on the Republican side. The vote by Democratic Senators, as history judges it, and I stand by that judgment, was less noble. Forty-four Democrats voted to end the filibuster on the Civil Rights Act, and 23 voted to sustain it.

So if the Republicans voted with such a strong majority in favor of ending the filibuster that was propagated by Democratic Senators at the time against the Civil Rights Act, what has happened since? What has become of this Republican Party, this party of Abraham Lincoln? In fact, what has become of the party of Ronald Reagan?

You see, 40 years ago this week, President Reagan proudly signed a bill

extending the full protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act for 25 years. This is what Ronald Reagan, Republican President of the United States, said: ``For this nation to remain true to its principles, we cannot allow any American's vote to be denied, diluted, or defiled. The right to vote,'' he said, ``is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished.''

What a statement--as powerful and decisive as one might ask from a Republican President when he extended the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

So I want to commend my friend, and she is my friend, Senator Lisa Murkowski, the senior Senator from Alaska, for remaining true to the values of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan even in this hyperpartisan age.

Later today, the Senate will vote on whether to begin debate on the compromise version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The compromise is the result of months of good-faith negotiation involving Senator Leahy, the lead Democratic sponsor, my office, as well as Senator Manchin, Senator Murkowski, and others who support this legislation. It will restore the original intention and protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, before misguided rulings by the Supreme Court gutted that magnificent law and rendered many of its critical protections vulnerable.

When a narrow conservative majority in the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act enforcement provision 8 years ago, it concluded that Congress could come up with a new enforcement formula for our times. Well, we did. This is it. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act contains that new formula. It is fair, it is bipartisan, and we need it urgently to stop the nationwide assault on voting rights that is being justified by President Trump's Big Lie.

Years ago, in one of the most memorable experiences in my public life, early on a foggy Sunday morning, I stood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, with my friend John Lewis. The two of us looked across at that piece of territory just at the bottom of the bridge where John Lewis nearly died when he was beaten during that march.

John Lewis risked his life so poor people and Black people in the Deep South could vote.

John Lewis had more moral courage than anyone I have known.

Many of our Republican friends say they revere him too. Well, today is the chance to show it. John Lewis championed the Voting Rights Advancement Act in the months before he died. He knew it would protect the America he loved and the cause he nearly died for.

The bill we will vote to begin debating later today is based on the same foundation as the Voting Rights Act extension that passed the Senate unanimously in 2006. Unanimously, it passed. But that was then, and this is now.

Do you know who voted in 2006 for the protections that we seek to restore with the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act?

Senator Lisa Murkowski was one of those who did. But also at that time in 2006, the Senate Republican Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell; the Senate Republican Whip, Senator John Thune--they voted for it too. It was a bipartisan, unanimous undertaking.

Next week, Americans will pause to honor the courage and sacrifice of our veterans. Before we vote on whether to allow the Senate to even begin debating voting rights, I urge my Republican friends to remember the words spoken by another President, President Johnson.

He spoke in the Capitol Rotunda, surrounded by Republican and Democratic Senators of the day and the Reverend Martin Luther King and other heroes of the long struggle to secure voting rights. President Johnson called the passage of the Voting Rights Act ``a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield.''

For all those--the thousands--who have risked their lives to defend this country, they were defending not just a name, not just a piece of geography; they were defending our rights as Americans and they were prepared to die for it, whether on the foreign battlefield or on a bridge in Selma.

I urge my Republican colleagues to let the Senate debate voting rights. Vote ``yes'' for cloture.

I yield the floor.

The Senate will soon be voting on a highly qualified nominee to the Ninth Circuit, Jennifer Sung.

She is a distinguished jurist who will bring an underrepresented perspective to the bench. She is a graduate of Oberlin and Yale Law School. She clerked for Judge Betty Binns Fletcher on the Ninth Circuit. She received a prestigious Skadden Fellowship and worked on economic legal issues at the Brennan Center. She spent more than a decade representing American workers, often minorities from low-income and underserved communities, in labor disputes.

In 2017, Oregon Governor Kate Brown appointed her to serve on the Oregon Employment Relations Board, known as the ERB. It is a three- member, quasi-judicial agency charged with resolving labor disputes. As a member of that board, she sits on a three-member panel that reviews evidentiary records, independently evaluates the law, and works in a collaborative manner to reach consensus on opinions and issues. If that sounds like the same process she would follow in Federal court, it is. In her nearly 5 years on that board, she has presided over more than 200 matters, and only 3 of the 200 have ever been overturned.

She has exhibited the kinds of qualities we expect of a circuit court nominee. She has been criticized for one thing that she did in her life, and some of her critics won't forget it. She signed a letter that was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. She has testified under oath before our committee that some statements in that letter were, in fact, overheated. More importantly, she testified that she respects the authority of all members of the Supreme Court and recognizes the importance of faithfully following law and precedent.

The best evidence of how she will serve on the circuit is her impressive record in the State of Oregon. When you look at that record, you see that she has the support not only of many colleagues but also of employees, unions, and employers. Here is what they said: ``impressive intelligence, diligent preparation, respectful courtroom demeanor, and judicial impartiality.'' How about that for a checklist for a judgeship?

When I hear some of my colleagues express outrage over one letter she signed in her life, I wonder if they remember some of the nominees that they brought before us in the last 4 years. It appears there is a double standard.

Ms. Sung has the strong support of Senators Merkley and Wyden, and the American Bar Association rated her as ``well qualified.'' As the first Asian-American woman--she will be the first to hold the Oregon seat in the Ninth Circuit, bringing diversity to that bench. Her professional accomplishments and her commitment to fairness and impartiality are profound and impressive.

I support her, and I hope my colleagues will as well.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is necessarily absent.