Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 505, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 504, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 500.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3527.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Tester- Moran substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2159.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1281.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 3 p.m. on Monday, February 7; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on confirmation of the Scott and Tunnage nominations, as provided under the previous order; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Monday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, there will be two rollcall votes on Monday at 5:30 p.m.

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

Madam President.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I certainly agree with the proposition that was advanced by my colleague to improve service at the Internal Revenue Service. The fact, however, is the effect of this proposal is to demean IRS workers and distract from the real challenges facing the IRS. And the real challenge can be embodied by the fact that, for years and years, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been squeezing and downsizing critical enforcement services at the IRS to the point where the wealthy cheats basically can get a free ride. They can get a free ride.

About the other day, in the context of talking about tax cheats and wealthy partnerships that aren't getting audited, I said the chance that they are going to be subject to real enforcement, when they are a wealthy tax cheat, is about the same likelihood of being hit by a meteor, and it is because of these policies that have been downsizing resources at the IRS to deal with these wealthy tax cheats for years.

Now, Commissioner Rettig, who is a Trump appointee--an appointee of former President Trump--recently said there are fewer auditors to deal with these wealthy tax cheats today than at any point since World War

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 6:30 p.m. tonight, the Senate vote on the cloture motions with respect to Executive Calendar Nos. 614, 644, 649, 627, 616, 473, and 474; that at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, February 3, the Senate vote on the cloture motions with respect to Executive Calendar Nos. 495, 496, 673, and 654; further, that if cloture is invoked on any of these nominations, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nominations at a time to be determined by the majority leader, or his designee, following consultation with the Republican leader.

Reserving the right to object.

I will offer another proposal shortly as an alternative to Senator Scott's unanimous consent request, and I am going to make a few brief points before I do that.

I want to make clear that on this side, nobody--nobody--takes a backseat to anyone else when it comes to standing up to the horrific abuses of the Chinese Government against its people as well as its economic cheating that has ripped off American jobs and our prosperity.

That is why I worked with our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, to close once and for all an immoral and unjustifiable loophole that allowed some products made with forced labor to enter into the United States.

That is why I have also worked with Senator Crapo on a bipartisan effort to build on that progress with respect to forced labor and crack down on the rest of China's playbook of abuses and rip-offs. We wrote a bipartisan amendment that deals with forced labor investigations, with intellectual property protection, and with counterfeiting. It helps level the playing field in the fight against China. It helps strengthen and speed up trade enforcement and increases transparency in trade agreements and trade law. These have been priorities of mine throughout my time in the U.S. Senate.

Obviously, I was very pleased when our bipartisan amendment with Senator Crapo was included in the China competition bill. Overall, the bill--and it was bipartisan--is all about creating jobs by building up supply chains within the United States, investing in sensible science, and battling some of the key cost drivers--cost drivers--in inflation.

Mr. President, colleagues, Senator Scott voted against that bipartisan bill. The bipartisan bill passed by a vote of 68 to 32, but my colleague from Florida voted no. So I just want--as people reflect on this debate--to note for the record who exactly was working to make progress in the fight against China's worst practices and who is making speeches about them.

Second, America needs as much manufacturing capacity as possible as soon as possible here for antigen tests to meet our needs. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. The Biden administration recently launched a free-to-order testing system--free-to-order testing system-- online. Sixty million households have ordered tests. That is nearly half the total number of households in the country, so there is big demand.

The President has committed to making a billion tests available through that particular program. That is on top of other programs sending millions of tests each week and month to nursing homes, rural health clinics, schools, and elsewhere. The administration is buying all the American-made COVID tests it can get its hands on, but it is not enough to meet demand.

Let's make no mistake--all steps are being taken to make these crucially needed tests available to Americans.

The Scott bill would create a shortage of COVID tests. So, in addition to voting against the bipartisan bill that really would have tackled the big issues dealing with China, my colleague has an effort to create a shortage of tests. That would be a mistake. It would prolong an Omicron wave and put lives in danger. That just isn't common sense.

The American people want the supply of COVID tests to be large enough that nobody has to camp out in a drugstore parking lot waiting for the next delivery. That doesn't mean they are in league with the Chinese Government's horrible genocide against the Uighur people, but that is essentially what this bill is saying.

After we have dealt with the Scott proposal, which doesn't do anything to help America's working families and our children, I am going to propose something that does and does it quickly.

The fact is, there are tens of millions of families across the country who need help paying for housing and childcare and the other basic necessities of life. That is what the Senate ought to be focused on. That is what we ought to be zeroing in on because that is going to make life better for families and for kids. So when this legislation is disposed of, I am going to propose that the Senate pass a 1-year extension of the expanded child tax credit, which expired on January 1. That is something, colleagues, which really helps families, and they are hurting right now. The Senate knows they are walking on an economic tightrope, balancing the food bill against the fuel bill, and the reality is, a lot of them had extra expenses due to the variant.

I have been trying to get colleagues on the other side of the aisle for well over a month to support the child tax credit. Our colleagues on this side of the aisle have been relentless in their support for it. Child tax credit payments cut child poverty nearly in half; food insecurity among families dropped by 25 percent--story after story from parents across the country talking about how the program helped them put food on the table, how it helped them buy their kids' school clothes and helped them avoid financial ruin when a parent was laid off.

The fact is, Social Security was a bond between the government and elders. What the child tax credit has been all about is creating a new bond to try to help families, vulnerable families and their kids--an economic lifeline to them.

What I am going to propose, I think, as we move to this debate-- because we will hear from our colleague from Florida--we have a choice. If you want to do something that does absolutely nothing but put Americans in a tougher spot in terms of getting the help they need to deal with COVID, that is what happens under the proposal by my colleague from Florida, or do you want to do something that will put cash into the pockets of parents so they can help their kids?

I can tell the Presiding Officer, I am sure he, as a new parent, hears this from his contemporaries: The child tax credit is going for luxuries.

I was just home. I had six townhall meetings--by the way, in mostly conservative areas--and families were using those child tax credits for buying shoes and food and essentials.

So that is what the choice here is going to be.

For the reasons that I describe now, I object to the unanimous consent request from our colleague from Florida.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives a message from the House of Representatives that the House has passed a bill that is identical to the text of the Wyden bill that is at the desk to extend and modify the special rules for the child tax credit and the advanced payments of the child tax credit for 1 year, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, just very briefly, I would like to note that this has been the second time in about 6 weeks when I have tried to get the urgently needed child tax credit extended for another year here on the floor of the U.S. Senate--the second time.

We are hearing all over this country about families who are really having trouble making ends meet right now and how valuable to them the child tax credit would be. And twice in the last 6 weeks, here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I have tried to get the child tax credit extended for 1 year. And I would just like to note that twice--twice-- in the last 6 weeks, Republicans have objected to the idea of extending the child tax credit for 1 year.

I don't think that is in the interest of American families and American kids. We will continue this debate.

And with that, I yield the floor.

Madam President and colleagues, I am going to talk for just

a few minutes about vote-by-mail. I think Senator Klobuchar will probably be joining me.

Madam President and colleagues, I am the first U.S. Senator to be elected completely by mail. The second U.S. Senator elected completely by mail was my friend, Republican Gordon Smith, a Senator well known to many here in this body.

The country looked up and its first experience, colleagues, with vote-by-mail was thoroughly bipartisan--one Democrat, one Republican, who, as it happened, after running against each other, got along very well and did a lot together.

As the country began to get its arms around vote-by-mail, it was bipartisan and the bipartisan efforts to build on it really took off. They took off all across the country until President Donald Trump got elected and began to spew all these lies about vote-by-mail. So then something that was completely bipartisan suddenly became very partisan. What I want to do is rebuild that bipartisanship. My colleagues seem to say that is what they want. And the fact is, vote-by-mail is the gold standard for casting an informed vote, particularly for working people, seniors, and others, who would like the time, the opportunity in their living rooms and their kitchens, to look at the ballot and consider the various alternatives.

And in that effort now to undo the damage done by Donald Trump to vote-by-mail and in the name of restoring bipartisanship, which is what it is all about--and I can just tell my colleagues, our late secretary of state, Dennis Richardson, used to say he was about the most conservative person who ever lived. He basically told Donald Trump to go fly a kite when it came to vote-by-mail. Dennis Richardson, our late secretary of state, a staunch conservative, said the reality is there hadn't been fraud; it worked very effectively. You are off base.

So in the hope of being able to restore that bipartisanship, I want to ask a question of the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee. Then, I will wrap up very quickly, and we can move on. But we have had an awful lot of revisionist history with respect to vote-by-mail.

Senator Klobuchar, I know the Rules Committee, under your leadership, has dug into the history. Utah--bright red Utah--votes by mail. Senator Klobuchar, take us through that history and then I will close.

Madam President, let me close very quickly.

The fact is, we can bring about the bipartisanship that many of my Republican colleagues have been talking about over the last 4\1/2\ hours. It is doable. It is possible to do it in a way that builds on a practical gold standard for informed voting used in Oregon, used in bright-red Utah, and it is what we had until 2020, when Donald Trump tried to preempt the progress we were making because, in every rally, he would talk about all this fraud, for example. Fraud, Madam President--the last analysis of fraud in Oregon is 0.00001 percent of all votes cast.

So we can get back to what the Republicans have been talking about over the last 4\1/2\ hours, but the way you are going to have to do it is they are going to have to go to Donald Trump and tell him: Look, we just don't agree with you on this.

And that is the kind of leadership that we need. We saw it in Oregon. We saw it in Utah. We have seen it now from sea to shining sea. That is what it is going to take.

I want my Republican colleagues to know that we will meet them more than half way, but they are going to have to start taking on Donald Trump's lies on these issues if we are going to have that bipartisanship that my colleagues have been talking about this morning.

Mr. President, I wish to honor a dedicated and creative organization serving communities throughout Oregon and the Nation, celebrating 20 years of allowing senior citizens to stay in their homes while providing access to affordable care and community. The Village Movement is founded on the principle of neighborliness and provides comfort, care, and affordability while maintaining dignity.

This wonderful movement started in 2002 with a group of community- dedicated friends who did not want to leave their community in retirement. Intent upon staying, the friends launched the Beacon Hill Village in Massachusetts to provide residents who were 50 and older practical support and confidence to stay in their homes and live their lives independently.

This idea soon caught on, with similar villages springing up all over the country, including in Oregon. There are now 14 villages throughout Oregon bringing services to senior citizens in the comfort of their own homes. The Movement supports what is often called ``aging in place'' by developing a nurturing network of volunteers and access to services and social opportunities that are both sustainable and community-based.

Every village is member-driven and self-governing, allowing them to respond to the needs of each community. The Movement has also expanded to include adults of all ages living with disabilities, preserving the humanity and dignity that is so important in every stage of life.

I have long viewed aging in place as a bedrock principle for improving quality of life for seniors and those with disabilities. Years ago, I started the Independence at Home Program, which helped primary care providers visit frail seniors in their homes. This helped them avoid unnecessary and potentially dangerous travel and remain in their homes longer than they would have otherwise.

I have also been proud to lead legislation as a part of the Build Back Better agenda that would put home care on a more even playing field with institutional care. These important efforts can build on one another, alongside organizations like the Village Movement, to create a rich tapestry of health and social supports for Americans as they age.

Without a doubt, the Village Movement has set a fine example of how communities can help support their neighbors. It is an honor to recognize the Village Movement for its service to the United States-- and Oregon in particular.

Mr. President, before he leaves, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts. We have worked often together on these democracy issues, and I look forward to doing that in the days ahead.

I also want to commend Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota because she has been our point person on the Rules Committee, which is central to this whole debate. I think we all understand what is at stake. That is what my colleagues have been outlining. And I think we have been very fortunate to have Senator Klobuchar at the helm. She and I have worked together on one of the issues I am going to talk about, vote by mail, but I just want people to understand how valuable she has been.

Mr. President and colleagues, a year ago today, not far from where we stand this afternoon, domestic terrorists tried to beat our democracy to the ground. They might have been successful were it not for the police officers who defended our democracy as they were viciously attacked and beaten. Before anything else is said, in my view, by an elected official, we need to salute these officers and all those who work day in and day out alongside them here in the Capitol. For their courage, we ought to be internally grateful.

The insurrection on January 6 was instigated by the former President, who wanted to undo the results of a democratic election. Let's also understand that, unfortunately, inciting the mob wasn't the end of it. Donald Trump didn't exactly walk quietly off into the sunset after the Biden inauguration. The effort to undermine our democracy, to end free and fair elections in America, goes on as we speak.

Support for the Big Lie is essentially unchanged from where it was a year ago. An awful lot of Republicans who said after January 6 that they were done with the former President have cozied back up to him just 12 months later. The only reason the mob is not here today is Donald Trump didn't summon them back.

Now, in my view, it is our job to ensure that another attack like this, or by any other means, never succeeds. We will have more to say about those issues in the days ahead.

In my view, protecting the vote has got to be step one in protecting democracy. A guiding principle for the Senate must be that while politics may guide a citizen's vote, it should never determine whether they are allowed to vote. To act otherwise would undermine the very foundations of a representative democracy, empowering voters with a system built on integrity and accountability, a system that promotes participation rather than discourages it, a system with a real history of bipartisanship.

I say to the Presiding Officer and colleagues, that is the kind we have in my home State of Oregon. Oregon believes so strongly in the right to vote that everybody gets a ballot sent straight to their home.

I am honored to say that I was the first U.S. Senator elected in an all vote-by-mail election. Back then, it was Oregon Republicans who were pushing to expand vote-by-mail. A Democratic Governor even vetoed a vote-by-mail bill in 1995. Right after my election, the Oregon Republicans flipped back, and vote-by-mail was suddenly, oh, so bad.

Everything flipped a few months later, when my friend, Gordon Smith, a Republican from eastern Oregon, became the second U.S. Senator to be elected by mail. At this point, Oregon voters said: We have just had it with everybody looking for some kind of partisan slant here. We just think vote-by-mail is a really terrific idea. They went out to vote on a ballot measure, and they chose to make Oregon's elections all vote- by-mail, passing it with 70 percent of the vote in 1998.

This, in my view, was the culmination of a process that started 40 years ago with some local elections in Linn County, a small county in the western part of our State. It grew and grew from there. Election officials learned that when you let people vote at home, participation goes up, and the costs go down.

One of the biggest defenders of Oregon's vote-at-home system was the late Dennis Richardson. He was our secretary of state. And by his characterization, he was about as conservative--a Republican as you could get.

But when the Trump era came along and people criticized our elections and said, ``Oh, there is all this fraud,'' spouting lies about it, the late Dennis Richardson stood up and said: I am a conservative Republican. They are wrong. They are wrong in what they are saying about Oregon.

He even wrote to Donald Trump in 2017: ``We are confident that voter fraud in last November's election did not occur in Oregon.''

Every election now, young Oregonians watch their parents voting around their kitchen table, and it is a real inspiration to the next generation to make sure they are committed voters. Voting at home gives you the opportunity to be more informed. If there is a particular measure, initiative, or a race that you haven't researched, you get time to look into the options.

When you are done, your ballot goes into a security envelope, you sign the outside, and off it goes. For me, that is when I head from our home in Southeast Portland to the Sellwood branch of the Multnomah County Public Library, drop my ballot in the collection box, and head home--no long lines, no glitchy touchscreen systems, just hassle-free voting.

A recent analysis in the Election Law Journal said that of all 50 States, voting is easiest in Oregon. And Senator Klobuchar, I have heard colleagues go back and forth to say who is No. 1 in participation and who is No. 1 in all of these aspects. And I think, like a number of other States, we are all kind of competing for the highest turnout rates. We get some of the highest in the country. We have been a leader in terms of increasing turnout among Black and Latino voters. Voter registration is automatic. It is as easy as a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

For myself--and Senator Klobuchar and I have talked about this so often over the years--I have been proposing legislation to have universal at-home voting since 2002. That is what my Vote at Home Act would do. It would give every American the right to vote the Oregon way, the vote that my neighbors and I can do. I will say here on the Senate floor that I guarantee that, if you do it the Oregon way, it will be a nationwide hit immediately.

Letting people vote at home is also the best defense against some of the really horrendous methods of suppressing the vote; for example, what we have seen over the last few years with State and local governments shutting polling places, particularly ones that serve Black and Latino voters--what unforgivable actions.

These days, in some areas, Republicans are making it illegal to give food and water to people standing in line to vote. It shouldn't be a test of physical stamina to be able to vote. Nobody should have to wonder if they will be able to vote if they step out of line to go to a bathroom. Nobody should have to sacrifice an entire day to participate in this incredible, incredible democratic system that is America.

That is why I proposed the People Over Long Lines Act, called the POLL Act. The bill says State governments have to guarantee that everybody who votes in person can do so within 30 minutes. Anybody who is forced to wait longer has a legal action they can bring. If they sue and win, it is 50 bucks for waiting longer than 30 minutes and 50 bucks more for every hour after that.

A free bit of advice to States: Get ready. Make sure people don't have to wait in lines. One of the best ways to make sure they don't have to wait in lines is to let them vote at home.

It is not just Oregon, by the way, that votes by mail. And I think, Senator Klobuchar, we heard some of our colleagues talk about their States and voting by mail. If you need another example, let's think about the U.S. Armed Forces. Most servicemembers and their families vote by mail in every election. All of the people who wear the uniform of the United States can vote by mail in every Federal election. It has been that way for decades.

So the bottom line is that we think it is time to get the Oregon system into every nook and cranny in America. We feel that way because it works. It raises voter participation, it lowers the cost of running elections, it helps voters be more informed, and it is safe and secure. And if you are resisting safe and efficient elections with higher voter turnout, then you are suppressing democracy in America.

My home State of Oregon shows the way to preserve America.

I am going to close my remarks, but I think we will have Senator Klobuchar speak for all of us here in a moment. But, in my closing, I want to touch just for a moment on my family that I am so proud of.

My German family fled their homeland, a place where they were deeply rooted in that nation's society, as my grandfather was a Member of Parliament and served on the Berlin city council.

My family was forced, as Jews, to flee the fascists who had taken over their democracy. They fled to America as the last remaining beacon of freedom. With that freedom, my dad chose to serve in our Army, which fought against German fascism, and my dad has been recognized for his unique contributions.

We were so thrilled, for example, to have the Senators from Maryland talk about the Ritchie Boys. My dad was one of the Ritchie Boys, a German kid who taught himself English so he could be out there fighting the Nazis. And I remember the good work of the Senators from Maryland and how thrilled our family was about that.

My dad was about the greatest patriot around. He felt he was so lucky to be an American, to be in our Army, to stand up for American values. And my final remark here today is about my dad. If my dad were alive today, he would tell us: Senators, make sure that the light in America's beacon of freedom never goes out.

With that, I yield the floor.