Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to speak about a really important victory in Virginia yesterday--a victory for the Monacan Indian Nation, and it is a victory that I have had a hand in over the course of many years. I want to describe it and celebrate it.

When the English came to Virginia first in 1607, there were thriving Virginia Native populations. The populations east--in eastern Virginia, east of Richmond--were part of a larger confederacy called the Powhatan Confederacy, and they spoke an Algonquian-based language. There were Tribes in the southern part of Virginia that spoke an Iroquois-based language, and Tribes in the western part of Virginia spoke a Sioux- based language. One of these Tribes was the Monacan Tribe.

John Smith, in 1607, 1608, and 1609, traveled all around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and did some very detailed mapmaking of the area, including a town that he called the chief Monacan town named Rassawek. Rassawek is on a point of land in what is now Fluvanna County, VA, where the Rivanna River and the James River combine.

Rassawek was the headquarters, or the chief administrative town, of the Monacan Tribal Nation. The story of the Virginia Tribes is one of triumph, but also one of tragedy. Many of the Tribes made peace treaties with the English in the 1670s. All of these Tribes were discriminated against, and some were driven far from their homes.

The Monacan Tribe was driven by the English settlers from Rassawek, further west into Amherst County, and then many of them were driven even further west into the middle west end and other places. But Rassawek maintained its sacred status to the Monacan Nation for many reasons, including the fact that so many of Monacan families were buried there and their remains are still there.

An aspect of the tragedy of the Virginia Tribes is that: When I was elected to be a Senator in 2012, none of the Virginia Tribes had ever been recognized, even though many still live intact in communities in Virginia. There were over 500 Tribes that had been federally recognized. The Virginia Tribes are part of exhibits at the Smithsonian Museum at the foot of Capitol Hill; and yet they had never been recognized. And they had never been recognized for three reasons.

One, they made peace treaties with the English rather than with the United States. Often, recognition begins with the treaty entered into with the United States. Second, often, recognition is determined by extensive submission of land records and other records. Many Virginia courthouses were burned during the Civil War, and so records establishing Tribal lands, for example, were destroyed.

But, finally, and most cruelly, Virginia had an official named Walter Plecker who served as the State's director of the Department of Vital Statistics from 1920 until the 1960s. And he was a eugenicist. He believed there was no such thing as Indians, that they were all color. And, systemically, he determined to take every record he could find of Tribal communities in Virginia and change the racial designation of those records--birth certificates, marriage licenses, death notices--of Indian members to ``color,'' even to the point of disinterring Indians who had been buried in cemeteries that were primarily cemeteries for Caucasians. This made it, again, very difficult for these Tribes. They refer to this as the ``paper genocide'' for them to assert their claim for Tribal recognition.

I started working with the Monacan and six other Tribes when I was mayor of Richmond on this issue because I became friends with a guy named Steve Adkins, who is the chief of one of these Tribes, the Chickahominy Tribe.

We worked over the course of many, many years--these Tribes coming to Congress and asking for Federal recognition. And when I came into office in January of 2013, this was very, very high on my to-do list, to finally right this historic wrong and correct an injustice and allow these Virginia Tribes--whose stories are so well known and still live in these communities--to finally be recognized.

Now, we have gotten seven Tribes recognized--one through the Bureau of Indian Affairs process, the Pamunkey Tribe, and six through an act of Congress. I thank the Presiding Officer because all of my colleagues joined together at the end of 2018 and, in a unanimous vote, finally did justice by the Virginia Tribes, including the Monacan Tribe.

Now onto Rassawek. The Monacans were driven further west and now have their, sort of, Tribal headquarters in a place called Bear Mountain in Amherst County. The chief of the Tribe is a man named Ken Branham. Ken is a good friend.

In 2014, a local authority, the James River Water Authority in Fluvanna County, decided that strategic location at the merger of two rivers would be a perfect place to build big water treatment intake and treatment facility. It

is a growing community. There are more water needs in the community. The facility was needed, but the site they chose for the construction of the facility was Rassawek.

The authority proceeded forward to purchase the land and then undertake engineering studies to build this water treatment facility. At the time, 2014, the Monacans had not yet been federally recognized. They could complain, and they could argue, but they didn't have the clout that Federal recognition would eventually give them. Yet many people rallied to the Monacans' cause and said, ``Look, we preserve other sites all the time.''

Virginia is first in the Nation in preserving, for example, Civil War battlefield sites, and we preserved the ancestral home of the Powhatan of Werowocomoco on the York River, which is soon to be a national park. Should we allow Rassawek to be essentially destroyed and the remains of Monacans buried there for generations to be disturbed?

Armed with Federal recognition, the Monacans attracted even more support. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, in 2020, named Rassawek as one of the most 11 endangered sites in the country. A huge grassroots effort developed because of the hard work of the Tribe that assembled thousands and thousands of supporting individuals--some very nearby Rassawek, but some very far away--to advocate that there has to be a better solution for this water treatment need in Fluvanna County than to disturb and destroy Rassawek.

Yesterday, the James River Water Authority, in a unanimous vote, decided to set aside their plan to do the water intake facility in Rassawek and to donate the land that they have purchased for that facility to the Monacan Tribe. The Monacan Nation, in gratitude, pledges to work together with the James River Water Authority to find a more acceptable site. A number of alternatives have already been identified.

This summer, I was canoeing on the James River. I canoed the entire James River from where it starts, the Allegheny Mountains, to Fort Monroe in Chesapeake Bay--350 miles. It took me 26 days that I spread over the spring, summer, and fall. One day in August, I was canoeing from a town called New Kent to Columbia, passing Rassawek, which was on river left as I went downstream.

So I reached out to Chief Branham, knowing that the fight about the future of Rassawek was underway. I said: Could you and Tribal leaders meet me? I will pull my canoe onshore when I pass by. Meet me and talk to me about the status of this fight and why it is so important to the Monacan Nation to win.

So coming down the river with a friend, my former State director who used to work on this Tribal recognition issue, John Knapp--I want to thank him, as well as other staffers, Evan and Nick and Tyee and Mary and other staffers in my office, who worked on this. John and I pulled our canoe over on the shore in this beautiful spot in rural Virginia where the two rivers come together. We beached the canoe on a sand point, climbed a bluff, and met Chief Branham and other members of Monacan leadership to see the beauty of the site and to share a meal but also to talk to them about the importance of Rassawek and why they really, really needed to win this battle. They don't have a plan to develop Rassawek. They are not going to build anything there. They just want it to be preserved in its natural beauty out of respect for Monacan people who have lived there for nearly 5,000 years. Yesterday, this unanimous vote by the local water authority--a vote of respect, a vote of acknowledgment--recognized that this is a sacred site.

We in Virginia, we love our history. We love our history, and we don't want to lose it. The history of the Monacan Nation, the history of all of our Tribes is worthy of battling. You don't win every battle. The Monacan Nation won a really important one yesterday, and it might not have happened. Ninety-nine of my colleagues joined with me to make sure that the Monacan Nation and the other Virginia Tribes were finally, after hundreds of years, given Federal recognition.

I just wanted to express my congratulations to the Monacan Nation and my appreciation to my colleagues for helping me do something good.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows Nathan Lee, Laura Mosqueda, Sean Philbin, and Montreal Tennessee be granted floor privileges for the duration of their fellowships in my office.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 37, which we are now considering and which we will vote on at 5:30.

This is a resolution that would use the CRA process to undo the CDC guidance requiring use of masks on transportation: planes, buses, trains, and some transportation hubs.

I think this is an issue that should be discussed, and, possibly, to use a medical metaphor, a scalpel should be used to make it just right. Unfortunately, the CRA process is a meat cleaver, and this is not the kind of thing we should be using a meat cleaver against.

If S.J. Res. 37 passes, it could lead us to be extremely vulnerable if there were a resurge in coronavirus cases, as we are seeing in other nations like Germany.

Let me explain. The CDC imposed a mandate to wear masks on transportation in February of 2021--again, planes, buses, trains, and train and bus stations, as well as airports.

We all know that the CDC has recently examined the caseload of COVID- 19 in the country and dropped their mask recommendations for most of the Nation. About 98 percent of the American population now live in communities where there is no mask recommendation, thank goodness--not even indoors. That is great.

But in some parts of the country, some parts of my Commonwealth, infection rates are still so high that the mask recommendation for wearing indoors is still one that the CDC strongly recommends.

The CDC mandate, with respect to masks on transportation, was set to expire on March 18, Friday. On Friday, March 18, it was set to expire. After the CDC dropped the recommendation about wearing masks indoors, the CDC decided to extend the mask requirement on transportation for 1 month, from March 18 to April 18.

Why did they do that when they were dropping the mask recommendation indoors for much of the country? Well, the reason was pretty obvious, and they explained it.

Here is the problem with transportation: You might board a bus, plane, or train in an area with low infection but pass through areas of high infection and end up in an area of high infection. So transportation is a little bit different than what should the rules be in an indoor venue in my hometown of Richmond or in communities in Connecticut, where the Presiding Officer lives.

So what the CDC said is, we are going to take an additional month, and we are going to analyze the science around closed spaces-- transportation venues--and we are going to look at this issue of traveling from one community to another, and then we will come up with a best recommendation and best guidance with respect to mask mandates in transportation. That sounds very reasonable to me, very reasonable to extend the mask requirement by 1 month.

I would argue to my colleague Senator Paul--this is his resolution-- we should be weighing in with the CDC and giving them best guidance-- and, obviously, they are considering what science is recommending; they are in dialogue with the transportation industry that has strong feelings about that--and then seeing what guidance the CDC comes up with in April before the April 18 deadline, to which they have extended.

That would be reasonable, but what this resolution does is not reasonable. It not only wipes out the mask requirement; it wipes it out forever. It states that the CDC no longer will have the authority to impose a mask requirement in transportation unless or until this body passes new legislation allowing them to do so.

That legislation in the Senate would require 60 votes. I would venture to argue that there is no way, in the politicization of COVID, that a piece of legislation giving the CDC the power to do mask mandates in transportation would get 60 votes in this Chamber.

So if S.J. Res. 37 passes, we will have taken away from our premier health authorization the ability to impose a mask mandate if it is necessary.

Now, I pray that it is not necessary. I am happy to see the reduction in COVID caseloads in Virginia and across much of the Nation. But there are parts of Virginia where the caseloads are still high and where masks are still recommended. And there are parts of every one of our States or Commonwealths where the infection rates are still high, and masks are still recommended.

So it is fine to wish that COVID is going away. I mean, Lord, do we all wish that it is going away, but we know that in some parts of the country it isn't. And we also know, if we are looking at the data internationally, that China is experiencing a significant upsurge; Germany is experiencing a significant upsurge.

So what if--what if--we face a new COVID variant that starts to wreak havoc on us, just as Delta did when we thought we were in a decline, just like Omicron did when we thought we were in a decline? What if there is a new variant that comes and starts to wreak havoc more broadly across the country? Wouldn't we want the CDC to have the power immediately, upon an upsurge of COVID nationally, to impose a mask requirement on transportation? If S.J. Res. 37 passes, they will not have the ability to do that.

And what might be the consequences of that? The consequences could be very severe in terms of people's health. We know that. We have experienced now close to a million deaths to COVID. But it also could have severe economic consequences.

Our transportation infrastructure--public transit and buses and trains and planes--is a critical backbone of the American economy, which is now starting to grow and add jobs, thank goodness. But if COVID hits again, and CDC does not have power to impose a mask mandate, many people who use transportation to get to work or to travel to places where they can do their work will no longer feel confident in their ability to do so. Many employees who work in the transportation sector will worry about being exposed to rising COVID case levels and may choose not to work.

So the consequences of another COVID surge in this country are not only health consequences, but they are critical potential consequences to our economy at a time, after 2 years, when, finally, we are seeing some significant GDP growth and job growth and wage and salary growth.

So I would urge my colleagues, don't use a meat cleaver, when this mask mandate is set to expire on April 18. It is barely more than a month away. Don't use the meat cleaver to bar the CDC from taking necessary public health action should there be a resurgence in COVID. Instead, let's work with the CDC and see what guidance they come up with for this April 18 deadline. That would be much better for our public health and much better for our economy.

So for those reasons, I would urge my colleagues strongly to stand with smart economic policy and wise public health policy and not eliminate the ability of the Nation's premier public health Agency from imposing a transportation mask requirement should public health demand it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, some studies have shown that upwards of 50 percent of people who have had COVID-19 will experience some form of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 infection PASC, 6 months after infection, including neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory, and mental health symptoms. To date, there have been over 78 million cases of COVID-19 in the United State and an untold number who were infected but did not have access to testing to confirm their diagnosis. PASC, commonly known as long COVID, is a growing public health crisis in this country. I myself have experienced these symptoms and know firsthand the importance of increasing our understanding of the causes and possible treatments for long COVID. Given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color, persons with disabilities, seniors, and first responders, we must ensure that there is equity in our work to address the needs of individuals with long COVID.

That is why Senators Markey, Duckworth, and I are introducing the Comprehensive Access to Resources and Education for Long COVID Act, or the CARE for Long COVID Act, legislation that would expand our knowledge of the symptoms of long COVID, barriers to care, and disparities in diagnosis and treatment. This bill would synthesize data on patients' experience with long COVID, compiling information crucial for further research and improved policy and treatment. Additionally, this bill would encourage research and recommendations around the health system's response to long COVID, with an emphasis on reducing disparities in communities that have experienced disproportionate harm during the pandemic. To ensure actionable research, this bill would require dissemination of findings to healthcare providers, patients, Federal Agencies, and other key stakeholders in a manner that is accessible.

This bill would also ensure that adults and children with long COVID have the resources they need to navigate workplaces and schools, building on efforts by the Biden administration to recognize long COVID as a disability. Specifically, this bill would facilitate interagency coordination to educate the public on the impact of long COVID and the rights associated with employment, disability status, and education for individuals with long COVID. To ensure that individuals with long COVID can access existing resources, this bill would fund grants for medical- legal partnerships and other collaborations between healthcare providers, community-based organizations, and legal services. Recipients would be able to use grant funds to support cooperative efforts, provide technical assistance, or hire staff in order to help individuals with long COVID access healthcare, social services, or legal services.

Robust response to the long COVID crisis will continue our efforts to address the equity and well-being of historically marginalized communities. We cannot afford to let the needs of individuals with long COVID go unmet any longer. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the CARE for Long COVID Act so that we can take necessary steps towards meeting the needs of diverse communities with long COVID.

Mr. President, some studies have shown that upwards of 50 percent of people who have had COVID-19 will experience some form of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 infection PASC, 6 months after infection, including neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory, and mental health symptoms. To date, there have been over 78 million cases of COVID-19 in the United State and an untold number who were infected but did not have access to testing to confirm their diagnosis. PASC, commonly known as long COVID, is a growing public health crisis in this country. I myself have experienced these symptoms and know firsthand the importance of increasing our understanding of the causes and possible treatments for long COVID. Given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color, persons with disabilities, seniors, and first responders, we must ensure that there is equity in our work to address the needs of individuals with long COVID.

That is why Senators Markey, Duckworth, and I are introducing the Comprehensive Access to Resources and Education for Long COVID Act, or the CARE for Long COVID Act, legislation that would expand our knowledge of the symptoms of long COVID, barriers to care, and disparities in diagnosis and treatment. This bill would synthesize data on patients' experience with long COVID, compiling information crucial for further research and improved policy and treatment. Additionally, this bill would encourage research and recommendations around the health system's response to long COVID, with an emphasis on reducing disparities in communities that have experienced disproportionate harm during the pandemic. To ensure actionable research, this bill would require dissemination of findings to healthcare providers, patients, Federal Agencies, and other key stakeholders in a manner that is accessible.

This bill would also ensure that adults and children with long COVID have the resources they need to navigate workplaces and schools, building on efforts by the Biden administration to recognize long COVID as a disability. Specifically, this bill would facilitate interagency coordination to educate the public on the impact of long COVID and the rights associated with employment, disability status, and education for individuals with long COVID. To ensure that individuals with long COVID can access existing resources, this bill would fund grants for medical- legal partnerships and other collaborations between healthcare providers, community-based organizations, and legal services. Recipients would be able to use grant funds to support cooperative efforts, provide technical assistance, or hire staff in order to help individuals with long COVID access healthcare, social services, or legal services.

Robust response to the long COVID crisis will continue our efforts to address the equity and well-being of historically marginalized communities. We cannot afford to let the needs of individuals with long COVID go unmet any longer. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the CARE for Long COVID Act so that we can take necessary steps towards meeting the needs of diverse communities with long COVID.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I, along with Senators Hagerty, Peters, and Portman, be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes each before the scheduled recess.

Madam President, I was not intending to speak. As the Presiding Officer knows, I was presiding, and she was kind to spell me.

Yet, as I was hearing colleagues talk on the floor about the state of our country, what I was hearing from my Republican colleagues were words like ``malaise,'' ``funk,'' ``disaster,'' and I was seeing visuals of a house on fire. So I was compelled to stand and just offer a few extemporaneous remarks.

I don't think America is a disaster. I don't think America is on fire. I don't think America is in a deep, unyielding malaise. I have heard colleagues talk about the situation in the world and use the ``appeasement'' word. I have heard language, both in committee hearings this morning and here on the floor, that I would characterize as a kind of a ``blame America first'' attitude. If something is going on--if a dictator like Vladimir Putin acts in a horrific way--it has got to be America's fault. It has got to be Joe Biden's fault. I don't think our instinct should be to blame America first when dictators in the world undertake despicable actions.

What I have noticed in these comments today in trashing our President and in trashing the country--sort of a cherry-picking of evidence--is that my colleagues have brought up some things that are really very legitimate concerns. Inflation is a very, very legitimate concern that has to be addressed. Yet I have listened to these speeches, and not one has talked about record job growth. Not one has talked about strong GDP growth. Not one has talked about dramatic increases in the wages and salaries of low- and moderate-income people.

Is that because my colleagues are unaware of those things?

No. They know these things. They are just choosing not to discuss them because what they want to do is to paint a picture of an American malaise, an American funk, an American disaster. That is not what this country is. Yet my colleagues are very willing to paint a false picture by omitting key evidence.

I listened to the speeches this morning, and not one mentioned that COVID deaths and hospitalizations are coming down dramatically and that the CDC now has said, in most of my Commonwealth and in most of the country, you needn't wear masks indoors. I would think they might have mentioned that because part of the reason for this recent progress is the vaccinations; it is the vaccines that were developed in the previous administration. They could have taken a little credit for it, but, no, they didn't mention it at all. COVID is coming down. There is strong economic growth, strong job growth, strong wage and salary growth.

Around the world, a NATO that the previous President trashed when he was cozying up to the dictator Vladimir Putin is demonstrating to the entire world that, when it is resolved to unify, the power of American- led alliances is a huge force for good in this world.

So I am just trying to grapple with the one-sided presentation of American disaster, American malaise, American funk. Here is the way I understand it.

The last 2 years have been brutal. The death toll due to COVID is now nearly 950,000. It will eclipse a million. I am 64 years old as of a couple of days ago. It has been the hardest 2 years in my life and for our country with the death, the illness, the economic devastation, the job loss. It has been brutal here, and it has been brutal all around the world, and it is not completely in the rearview mirror yet.

I suspect what you are going to hear President Biden say tonight-- this is my intuition; I don't have knowledge. He is going to acknowledge the incredible pain we have been living under in this country and around the world for the last 2 years--nearly unprecedented in a century. He is going to point out that there are still significant challenges and that there is still too high a percentage of Americans who haven't taken advantage of these vaccines.

Yes, inflation is a problem, and there are problems that we have to deal with, but when you look at strong job growth and strong wage growth and strong GDP growth and when you look at declining case numbers, I will tell you what I see. I see the beginnings of something that we often see in American life--an American comeback. We are comeback people. We are comeback people.

A friend of mine once said: Tough times don't last. Tough people do.

We are tough, tough people.

As I travel around Virginia--and I was traveling around Virginia last week--I don't fundamentally see funk or malaise or ``poor, poor, pitiful me'' or blaming America for the woes of the world or blaming Joe Biden for the reality of a tough situation we have been living through. I see people with their chins up and their heads held high, who will acknowledge that we have challenges and that we have got problems to solve but who believe that we are on our way to a better chapter after a very difficult last couple of years.

That is the can-do spirit I see around Virginia. That is the can-do spirit, I believe, that has always characterized Americans, not a ``we are on fire''; ``it is a malaise time''; ``it is a funk time.'' No. I see a can-do spirit and the beginnings of an American comeback underway after what has been the most painful 2 years during my 64 here on the planet.

I don't know, if I am right, whether that is good news or bad news for my colleagues who are here on the floor, painting the negative picture. I would think it would be good news. But if it were good news, why wouldn't I have heard some acknowledgment of job growth or wage growth or GDP growth? Why wouldn't I have heard acknowledgment about COVID cases coming down?

We do need to work together. The Presiding Officer inspired all of us with her work on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which, as I was traveling around Virginia last week--and I am sure most of us were doing this in our States--my mayors and my State officials and my local economic development officials were talking with excitement about what this will mean in terms of the rebuilding of American communities where we haven't invested in infrastructure for a very long time.

I don't think this is a moment when the leadership class of this country should be amplifying pessimism about

this country. I think it is a moment when the leadership class of this country should be amplifying an optimistic, can-do message that I think is in accord with the values of Virginians and the values of Americans. I suspect that that kind of a message--the acknowledgment of the difficult reality but the foundation being laid for the beginnings of an American comeback after 2 tough years--is the message that we are going to hear from President Biden tonight.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 6 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:

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Auto Reenroll Act of 2022, alongside Representative Kathy Manning, who has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Enacting this bill would improve financial security for Americans by strengthening their private retirement savings.

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans working in the private sector have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, but a quarter of those with access do not participate in those plans. This means less money saved for retirement. Often, it means leaving money on the table, in the form of employer-matching contributions. Encouraging more employees to participate in their workplace plans would increase their overall compensation and improve their financial security and retirement outlook.

The Auto Reenroll Act of 2022 would boost participation through a simple change to the automatic enrollment safe harbor. Automatic enrollment plans have been tremendously successful at encouraging workers to participate in employer-sponsored plans, but employees who opt out of participating at the beginning of their tenure will likely never reconsider that decision. This bill would build on the success of auto enrollment by having employers reenroll nonparticipants once every 3 years, providing them another opportunity to consider participation. This would encourage those employees to reassess their nonparticipation as their financial situation evolves.

I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation to bolster private retirement savings.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Auto Reenroll Act of 2022, alongside Representative Kathy Manning, who has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Enacting this bill would improve financial security for Americans by strengthening their private retirement savings.

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans working in the private sector have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, but a quarter of those with access do not participate in those plans. This means less money saved for retirement. Often, it means leaving money on the table, in the form of employer-matching contributions. Encouraging more employees to participate in their workplace plans would increase their overall compensation and improve their financial security and retirement outlook.

The Auto Reenroll Act of 2022 would boost participation through a simple change to the automatic enrollment safe harbor. Automatic enrollment plans have been tremendously successful at encouraging workers to participate in employer-sponsored plans, but employees who opt out of participating at the beginning of their tenure will likely never reconsider that decision. This bill would build on the success of auto enrollment by having employers reenroll nonparticipants once every 3 years, providing them another opportunity to consider participation. This would encourage those employees to reassess their nonparticipation as their financial situation evolves.

I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation to bolster private retirement savings.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to Senator Cruz's amendment, No. 4927.

Everyone in this body who attended school in the United States had to get vaccines to attend school--measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chickenpox. Everyone in this body who sent a child to school in the United States had to make sure that they got their children vaccinated.

Is that because of a big Federal mandate? No.

All 50 States--Utah, Texas, New York, Maine, Washington, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Virginia--embraced their own vaccine mandates--all 50. There are some variations. Iowa doesn't mandate a mumps vaccine, and Virginia mandates a human papillomavirus vaccine, but we leave it up to local school boards and State superintendents of instruction to decide if a vaccine is warranted.

This is unprecedented in this body, an effort by the Federal Government to force local school boards and State superintendents of instruction to not have a vaccine mandate at the cost of taking money away from the students and the teachers and the parents.

In Virginia, parents very strongly support vaccination of children. Why would we not listen to parents? Why would we not listen to the local school boards that are hearing from parents about this?

I urge my colleagues to reject a massive Federal overreach that would disempower school boards and States and take funding away from their children's education.

Please vote no on the Cruz amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time be yielded back before the Lee and Cruz amendment votes and that the Senate now vote in relation to the Lee amendment.

Mr. President, by supporting the development of a workforce trained in in-demand skills, we can accelerate the recovery of our economy. The Nation's continued progress and the socioeconomic mobility of our citizens are contingent on the education and skills of the American workforce and its ability to adjust to and fulfill the needs of the 21st century economy, especially in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and with growing infrastructure needs. Career and technical education--CTE--programs are vital to every student's education, providing them access to the important knowledge, skills, and credentials needed to obtain careers in rapidly growing, high- demand industries. Today, approximately 11 million students across the Nation are enrolled in CTE programs offered by thousands of career academies, comprehensive high schools, CTE high schools, community colleges, and CTE centers. Through applied learning, these students obtain workplace skills and technical training that mirror in-demand positions in the workforce.

In the next decade, millions of skilled workers will be needed to fill infrastructure positions in the United States, including jobs related to designing, building, and operating transportation, housing, telecommunication, and utilities facilities. As local governments are able to invest in projects previously put on hold because of the pandemic and with the recent passage of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, there will be even more demand for skilled workers. CTE programs intentionally match skills with workforce demands, lowering the probability of high school drop-out and increasing the likelihood of on-time graduation rates. One study showed that high school students who were CTE concentrators graduated from high school, enrolled in postsecondary education, and were employed full-time at higher rates than their nonconcentrator peers. CTE concentrators also had a higher median income 8 years after graduation. These CTE programs will help fill the estimated 30 million U.S. jobs available with an average annual income of $55,000 that do not require a bachelor's degree yet necessitate some level of postsecondary education.

In 2018, Congress affirmed the importance of CTE by passing the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, which supports CTE programs in secondary and postsecondary education. We also need to ensure we continue reskilling and upskilling workers by supporting workforce development programs.

Today, with my Senate CTE Caucus cochairs Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Young and more than two-thirds of my Senate colleagues, I am pleased to again introduce a bipartisan resolution to designate February as Career and Technical Education--CTE--Month. CTE Month encourages students, parents, counselors, educators, and school leaders to learn more about the diverse educational opportunities offered in their communities and recognize the valuable role of CTE in developing a well-educated and highly skilled workforce in the United States. By formally recognizing CTE Month through this resolution, we hope to bring greater awareness to improving access to high-quality career and technical education for millions of America's students and our Nation's ongoing economic competitiveness.

S. Res. 517

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am so glad to be with my colleagues on the floor on this most important day discussing a most important topic, and I want to say particularly that I am glad to follow my friend from Texas. The senior Senator from Texas is a friend. We have traveled together. We have legislated together. But friends can disagree, and on this topic we disagree strongly.

Life throws ironies at us. The Senator from Texas inhabits the seat that was held by Lyndon Baines Johnson--Lyndon Baines Johnson--the towering figure who helped usher through the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I inhabit a seat that for years was called the Byrd seat in the Senate, inhabited for 50 years by Harry Byrd, Sr., and Harry Byrd, Jr., who were known for their virulent efforts to deprive African Americans of civil rights, including frequent extended filibusters on this floor against voting rights.

LBJ is held in high regard today because of his passion for voting rights.

Harry Byrd--I was at the State capitol in Richmond on Saturday to see our new Governor inaugurated, and I walked by the spot on the capitol grounds where a Harry Byrd statue used to stand. It was removed 6 months ago. The Harry Byrd Middle School in Henrico County was renamed 5 years ago to the Quioccasin Middle School.

The Harry Byrd, Jr. School of Business at the Shenandoah University in Winchester, their hometown, had that name stripped off the building a few years ago.

And I stand to follow the Senator who holds LBJ's seat--the Senator from the Byrd seat--to today argue that the time has come for us to protect voting rights.

I am just happy to be on the floor talking about a bill. I mean, for gosh sake, we have been able to talk about voting rights in the morning hour. Mr. Leader, I have been here since January of 2013. This is the first time since then that we have been able to get a bill on the floor to talk about voting rights.

And I am going to admit something to you guys that will not surprise you because you know me: I am incredibly naive. At age 63, I am still incredibly naive.

I came to the Senate in 2013. One of the first things that happened was the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby v. Holder case. It happened when I had been here about 6 months.

And the Supreme Court said: But Congress can fix this. Preclearance is fine. You just shouldn't use a geographical requirement that dates back to 1965. Just come up with a new standard for which jurisdictions should have to preclear voting changes, and make it even-steven.

So we quickly did come up with something: You only have to get preclearance if you have had a history of voting rights problems in the last 10 years. If you don't, no preclearance. We will treat every ZIP Code--north, west, east, south, midwest--exactly the same.

We came up with it, and we went to Republicans. We went to Republicans knowing they were a great voting rights party--the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment. The women's vote happened in a Democratic administration but with Republican support. The 26th Amendment--so 18-year-olds can vote--happened in the Nixon administration.

But especially the Voting Rights Act, it wouldn't have happened without rock-solid Republican support. It was always reauthorized with Republican support.

So at this moment when the act is gutted, we go to Republicans and say: All you have to do is be consistent with the history of your party and help us fix the Voting Rights Act.

One. In the House, in the Senate, where is this 150-year history of supporting voting rights? Only one--only the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, would join in this effort.

I was so naive. I was so naive. But we are here today, and we have an opportunity. Why are we here? We know why we are here.

After preclearance was struck down, there began to be an escalating avalanche of laws to make it harder for

people to vote. Then we had a President who did a frontal assault on democracy itself: demeaning the democracy; attacking election officials; trying to dig up dirt on a Presidential opponent from a foreign country; refusing to concede; filing meritless lawsuits; bringing about threats against election officials; violence in the Capitol, against the Capitol, against these Members, against the staffers, against Capitol Police, against our democracy; repeated efforts in States around the country to roll back; violent threats against election officials that persist even to today.

That is why we are here. We are standing exactly in the same spot as that Senate stood in 1965: disenfranchisement efforts, coalesced by a galvanizing action of violence--the beating of John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. We have an avalanche of disenfranchisement galvanized by an act of violence--the attack on this democracy, the physical attack on January 6.

The time to act is now.

Let me respond quickly to some comments I have heard from colleagues this morning, particularly Senator Cornyn. You have heard again and again this theme that the bills we are attempting are a Federal takeover of elections. They use that--federalizing elections, a Federal takeover of elections.

So here comes the history quiz part of my speech. Both Senators Durbin and Klobuchar have referred to this and read it, and I am going to do it again: ``The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.''

How many times--how many times in the Constitution--can you read the phrase ``at any time''? The Constitution gives enormous powers to Congress in article I, enormous powers to the President in article II, powers to the judiciary in article III, powers to the States, powers to voters. It is sort of assumed, when those powers are given, that they can be exercised at any time.

But in one occasion--in one occasion only--the Framers decided: We had really better spell out ``at any time.'' The only use of that phrase in the Constitution is to put an exclamation point, essentially, after the notion that Congress must be able to act at any time to alter or make regulations with respect to the Federal vote.

Senator Cornyn said that 94 percent of people were happy after the November 2020 elections. Then why has the GOP decided to systematically weaken votes, take votes away, put obstacles in the path, kick out duly-sworn election officials, and put decisionmaking in other people's hands?

Senator Cornyn said that this was a partisan effort. Partisan? Partisan? One of the chapters of our bill is nonpartisan redistricting. That is partisan?

Another part of our bill is complete transparency in all campaign contributions. How is that partisan? Go poll any Republican, Democrat, Independent populous about what they think of transparency in campaign contributions. It is overwhelmingly popular. We have made some of these changes in Virginia. Thank goodness that this bill would allow it.

We just had a Governor's race. Turnout went up by 20 percent, and a Republican won. It wasn't my candidate. It was good for democracy.

This is not a partisan bill, even if the Republicans won't stand up for it.

Finally, the Republican leader and Senator Cornyn started off with a lengthy ``Well, why won't you work on other stuff, like stuff about COVID, stuff about the economy?'' My memory is pretty good. I think we were here in March dealing with a significant bill that was about vaccinations and COVID and support for small businesses and a whole series of things--hospitals, educational aid. How many Republicans voted for that bill, the American Rescue Plan--you know, the one that was COVID and the economy? None. Why don't we pay attention to some other stuff? Well, we have been, generally with little support.

I will close and say this: Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations--at any time. If not after the Supreme Court cuts the heart out of the Voting Rights Act, when? If not after an avalanche of State legislation carving back voting rights, when? If not after a violent attack, unprecedented in the history of this country, on the Capitol of the United States to disenfranchise 80 million people and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, when? If not after subsequent Big Lies leading to action in State legislatures all over this country, when?

We may act to protect Federal elections at any time. We are here for such a time, and the time to act is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I might respond.

Senator Cotton, what Angus said.

And I am so glad that Senator Lankford has stayed in the room because you have been saying we changed our position. You just really need to read the letter. And I do appreciate that you put it up because others were referring to the letter without doing that. The operative phrase is exactly what you read: ``We are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.''

We couldn't even debate this bill. You guys wouldn't let us. You kept using the 60-vote block on the motion to proceed so that we couldn't get on the bill.

In the 5 years since 2017, many of us have come to realize, this is what we want, but the current abuse of Senate rules is blocking us from having discussions about voting rights or about matters that you think are important.

This is still what we want. We want the ability to have extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor. That is what the motion will eventually be about when we vote on it later today, to move to a talking filibuster instead of a secret filibuster.

The way to look at the rule change that we are going to contemplate later is, if you really love the filibuster--and the word ``filibuster'' isn't in this letter at all, but if you really love the filibuster, do you demand that it stay secret or should it be carried out open, publicly, in view of the voters and your Senate colleagues? That is what the vote will be.

We have listened to those of you who have said don't abolish the filibuster, don't nuke the filibuster, don't blow up the filibuster, don't weaken the filibuster, and the only change we propose is that the filibuster be a public filibuster, not a secret one.

So you stood on the floor and asked if we would join you in that operative phrase, ``engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.'' The combination of the block on the motion to proceed, together with the paper pocket filibuster, where people do not have to show up to speak, much less to vote, we can restore the filibuster, frankly, to what it was during the vast majority of the Senate's history and require that people actually do it and be accountable to their colleagues and to the public. And that is what we propose to do.

Mr. President, I am glad that a number of my Republican colleagues are in the Chamber because I am going to speak very briefly just to reassure you that I am not so immodest that I believe I am going to persuade you, but I do want to try to reassure you.

We are going to take up a rules reform proposal that will not blow up the Senate. We are going to take up a rules reform proposal that will not abolish the filibuster, that will not weaken the filibuster. We are going to take up a proposal that will show you, even if you are not persuaded, that we have been listening to you, that we have been listening to all of our colleagues, as we try to come up with a rules reform proposal to let us address the voting rights issue.

I am glad to see Senator Collins and Senator Coons here on the floor. They helped put together the 2017 letter that many of us signed. It is very carefully worded, and it is two paragraphs. What they got us to join together as bipartisan Senators to express was our united determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor--extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor--and that is what our rules reform proposal will do.

The simplest way to understand it--and Senator Merkley is going to go into more detail--is that it switches the current secret filibuster into a public filibuster and makes both parties have to work on the floor. The majority has to work and the minority has to work on the floor to get the kind of extended public debate that we joined together to seek in the letter in 2017.

Let's face it. We don't really do this. The current rules are an obstacle to extended debate because you just vote down the motion to proceed, and you can't even get on a bill. Then, if you do get on a bill, the 60-vote cloture threshold is used, with confidence, by a filibustering minority. You don't even have to show up to debate because there is an awareness that you can't get 60 votes to terminate debate. So, instead of trying to change the rule about terminating debate--which, as my colleague Senator Manchin pointed out, to terminate debate has always required more than a simple majority--we are going to restore actually having debate, and when debate is finished, the rules of this Senate have always been, when debate is finished, even after a long time, passage is by a simple majority.

Our proposal is to restore a talking filibuster, which has been the history of this Senate over the vast majority of our history, and to make a simple change to make it public rather than secret so that our colleagues and the American public can understand and then hold us accountable for our actions.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, one of the things that I sometimes regret about this body--and especially after hearing such an eloquent presentation from my colleague from California--is that we don't do enough dialogue here; it is a lot of monologues. Often, some of the best speeches that I have heard in this Chamber have been delivered to nearly empty Chambers because we don't sit and listen to one another, answer questions, engage, find the greater wisdom.

I am excited that tomorrow will give us an opportunity to do that. I expect 50--hopefully, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100--Senators on the floor for a discussion about voting rights, which we have not been able to have since I joined the Senate in January of 2013. This is an enormously important topic. We have not had a floor debate on any voting rights bill since I came to the Senate in 2013.

In this spirit of dialogue, I wanted to basically come and talk about Senate rules to respond to a question or a challenge that Republicans were making on the floor last week. They pointed out that I, along with a number of Democrats, had signed a letter in 2017, arguing, in their view, that we should not change the filibuster on legislation. They cited that, and they said: How can you stand on the floor now and contemplate changes to the filibuster rule?

So what I wanted to do tonight is come to the floor and talk about 2017, talk about things that have happened since 2017, and, frankly, explain why I haven't really changed the position that I articulated in the letter, but I have changed my views about whether the filibuster accomplishes the objective or cuts against it.

Finally, what I want to do at the end of that, of answering their question about that letter, is to reassure them--to reassure them that what we will reach for tomorrow is not a blowing up of the filibuster.

I heard my colleague from Alaska today say we wanted to blow up the filibuster. No. Let me reassure all Republicans that that is not what they are going to be asked to vote on tomorrow. They are going to be asked to restore the filibuster to what it was during the vast majority of the history of this body.

Here is the operant quote from the letter of 2017 that I signed. It was in April of 2017, shortly after the Republicans had changed the Senate rules to ram through Neil Gorsuch after they had refused to even entertain the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a bipartisan letter. ``We are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor''--``extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.''

Well, what has happened since that letter was written in April of 2017?

First, those of us in the room know, as for extended debate on the Senate floor, are you kidding? It almost never happens. The filibuster rule that some of us hoped might facilitate that has become an obstacle to it. In fact, you can't even get a bill on the Senate floor because the filibuster requirement, which was initially something about final passage, has been now imported even into proceeding to legislation. So when a majority of Members of the greatest deliberative body in the world decide they want to talk about a topic, they can't. It is like the 21st century's version of the gag rule, which prohibited discussions in Congress on items related to slavery during the 1830s and 1840s. There has been a gag rule prohibiting discussions of the voting rights bill and other civil rights legislation and other important priorities because you can't even get on the bill, much less have extended debate about it.

When you do get on the bill, how many bills around here do we have extended debate on? Mostly, we are in a Chamber like this, with three people, and there is no real debate that is going on because the abuse of the filibuster leads a party to say: Well, gosh, if they can't get 60 votes for something, we don't even have to show up. The old public filibuster of ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' days has now turned to a secret, private filibuster where people can stay in their offices and never show their faces on the floor.

So that notion of naive Senators like me in 2017, wherein we are determined to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor, has been undermined by the filibuster by making it hard to get bills on the floor and then guaranteeing, when they are on the floor, that nobody needs to show up.

Other things have happened since 2017. I needn't go over them at length, but I will go over them.

I didn't imagine that we would have a President who would lead an assault on American democracy, who would lie and claim he won the popular vote in 2016 when he didn't, who would claim there was massive fraud in the Virginia election in 2016 when there wasn't, and who would go to a foreign country and try to dig up dirt on a political opponent he feared in 2020. I didn't imagine that those things would happen.

I didn't imagine that the President, having lost an election in November 2020, would encourage his followers to gather in DC to be wild. I didn't imagine that he would call the head of the Georgia elections and say: You have to find me thousands of votes so I can win. I didn't imagine those things.

I didn't imagine that there would be a violent attack here that would injure 150 police officers, that there would be an effort to disenfranchise 80 million Americans and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. I didn't imagine those things.

I didn't imagine that States would do what my colleague from California has suggested: Look at what happened in 2020, embrace the Trump Big Lie, and decide then, boy, we have really got to carve this back. We have got to carve this back dramatically and make it harder for particular groups of people who live in particular cities or counties, based on whom they vote for, to vote. I didn't imagine those things.

I will tell you something else I didn't imagine. I didn't imagine that we wouldn't get any help from the Republican Party in addressing these problems. The Republican Party throughout most of its history has been a great voting rights party. The 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment only passed with Republican votes to guarantee people equal access to the ballot. When the 19th Amendment was passed, guaranteeing women the right to vote, it was in a Democratic administration, the Wilson administration, but Republicans were solidly on board. When the 26th Amendment passed to give the franchise to 18-year-olds, it was in the Nixon administration, and Democrats and Republicans were on board.

The Republican Party, from its origins, right before Lincoln was President, was always on the march and, frankly, usually leading the march to expand people's ability to participate in voting. There is no example that is more dramatic than the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

There was a 60-day filibuster here on the Senate floor. At the end, it was broken. Republicans voted for the Voting Rights Act near unanimously. Democrats were strong but not as solid as the Republicans were. Then, over and over again in the years between 1965 and up through 2006, Republicans would vote unanimously or near unanimously to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. But something changed between 2006 and 2013. Something changed at about the time that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.

When the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Shelby case, gutted the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act but told Congress ``You can fix it'' and we went back to all of the Republicans who had supported the Voting Rights Act from 1965 to 2006 and said ``OK. The Supreme Court says here is what is wrong, and we can fix it,'' we have not been able to find any--any--Republican support save Lisa Murkowski of this Chamber, who is a cosponsor of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the restoration of preclearance.

When I signed the letter in 2017, I could not have imagined that we could not have found any Republican support on any voting rights issue.

I heard my colleague from Utah, Senator Romney, talk a second ago, and he said: Well, how come Democrats didn't do it? I started working with Republicans in July--months before we filed the Freedom to Vote Act. Could you do it this way? Could you do it that way? What about if we completely gave up the idea of any rule or filibuster reform. Would you then engage with us?

How about unlimited amendments? How about give us a counterproposal?

I have been in these discussions with Republican colleagues for months. Again, save Senator Murkowski on the John Lewis bill, there has been no help forthcoming to save our democracy, to save voting.

So, when colleagues ask, ``Well, you signed a letter in 2017, and that letter said that we should preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor. So why are you now contemplating rules changes?'' my answer to them is that I am contemplating rules changes to do exactly that. We don't have extended debate on the Senate floor. You can't get bills on the Senate floor. Our democracy is under attack, and voting is under attack. Contrary to the previous 150-year history of your party, you won't lift a finger to protect voting rights or protect the integrity of our elections, but because you won't doesn't mean we should not. In fact, if you won't, the burden is on our shoulders even more.

Here is something else, I will be honest, that I have come to understand more about the filibuster since 2017. Then I want to conclude by offering some words of reassurance to my Republican colleagues.

The fact that the filibuster is now used indiscriminately against everything does not cleanse it of the stench of its predominant use in our history to block civil rights legislation. I mean, now we use the filibuster to block what might be a nonconsequential appointment. We use it for everything. However, when the history of the filibuster is written in this Chamber, the pivotal, epic moments that will get remembered are Robert Byrd's 14-hour-and-13-minute speech to try to filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Strom Thurmond's massive filibuster against civil rights laws, and Senators from Virginia--Senators who held the seat that I now occupy--filibustering against civil rights laws.

You don't cleanse the stench from the filibuster by just suddenly using it for everything. You still have to acknowledge it has played a particular role in the Senate. Sadly, that role has usually been to the detriment of the kinds of people who couldn't see anybody who looked like them in the Senate.

I occupy a seat that was occupied for 50 years by Harry Byrd, Sr., and Harry Byrd, Jr. It is called the Byrd seat in the Senate because the Byrd machine ran Virginia politics, and they kind of owned it. Harry Byrd, Sr., was Governor in the 1920s and came to the Senate when Carter Glass died in 1933 and stayed until he died in 1966. His son, Harry Byrd, Jr., was then appointed to the Senate until 1983. For 50 years, the Byrds held the seat I now occupy.

I was at the inauguration of our new Governor in Richmond on Saturday, and I walked by an empty place on the Capitol Square where, just 6 months ago, there was a statue of Harry Byrd, Sr.--the Governor who was a great highway builder and infrastructure guy; the Governor who came up with the idea and worked with President Roosevelt to build the Shenandoah National Park; the Governor who then, as Senator, led this Byrd machine and was viewed as the dominant figure in Virginia political life during the 20th century, together with his son, Harry Byrd, Jr.--but the statue was taken down. The statue was taken down 7 months ago.

The middle school that was named for Harry Byrd, Sr., in Henrico County was renamed 5 years ago to Quioccasin Middle School. Why was that? Highway builder, park developer, dominant political figure, his statue was taken down because of what he did in the U.S. Senate; that he would write the southern manifesto to rally Senators against Brown v. Board; that he would encourage Virginia public school systems-- again, this is as a Senator, not as a Governor; he encouraged Virginia public school systems--to shut down rather than integrate; that he would engage in one filibuster after the next against civil rights legislation, including the Voting Rights Acts, and never apologized, never admit he was wrong, unlike Robert Byrd, who was a Klansman before he was in the U.S. Senate and who filibustered famously against civil rights legislation until he had an epiphany in 1968 when he voted for the Fair Housing Act and apologized for the rest of his life and became a civil rights champion. Harry Byrd, Sr., used the filibuster for, frankly, what it has been used for around here--to exclude people from the democracy. And the tributes to Harry Byrd and the statues and the school names are all coming down.

Even at the university in his own hometown, Shenandoah University in Winchester, which had named its business school after Harry Byrd, Jr., they wiped that name off, because the filibuster is not just like a Senate rule that can be used like anything else. It has been used for a particular purpose, and we can't be blind to that.

But let me just say this, as I conclude. I want to offer my colleagues a reassurance--those who have asked why we are contemplating rules changes, those who signed the letter with us, because it was a bipartisan letter. It was led by Senators Coons and Collins, and many Republicans signed it. ``We are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.'' For the first time in my Senate career, there is a voting rights bill on the Senate floor, and we will have a rules adjustment vote at the end of the day tomorrow, in all likelihood. And what will that vote be? Will the vote be to eliminate the filibuster? No. Will the vote be to abolish the filibuster? No. Will it be to weaken the filibuster? No.

Here is the vote that we will vote on tomorrow: Should we change the secret filibuster that allows Members to just sit in their office and not take the floor and not explain their opposition to their colleagues and not have to face the American public? Should we change that secret filibuster into a public filibuster, the way it was done during the vast majority of Senate history, where Senators who went to block action by a majority should at least have to do the work, should at least have to come to the floor and explain to their colleagues and the American public why the majority should not act?

For everyone on the Republican side who signed that letter saying we should have extended debate on the Senate floor and it should not be curtailed, we are giving you a chance to do exactly what you pledged to do. For every one in our own caucus who has expressed reticence about weakening or diminishing the filibuster, we are giving you exactly the thing that you said you wanted--an opportunity to have full debate that could go on for a very long time and not be curtailed. And the only thing we will require is that that debate actually happen in the view of the American public and your colleagues, a fundamental opportunity for all of us to do the right thing by Senate rules to accomplish the right thing for our democracy. I so welcome the chance to finally have this debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am so proud to be on the floor with my colleagues Senator Durbin, Senator Merkley, and Senator Klobuchar to work on this issue of such great importance.

I would like to now discuss the John Lewis Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, critical voting rights proposals that the Senate will soon take up and that the Senate needs to pass. We have tried to bring these bills to the floor in recent months. The minority party has blocked the effort to even consider the bills, with the sole exception of one Republican, the senior Senator from Alaska, who has been willing to vote to proceed to consideration of the John Lewis Act.

Some of the most epic moments in the history of this Chamber have come as we grappled with voting rights. After the Civil War, the debate surrounding the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were epic struggles about the Nation's new recommitment to the equality principle after the Civil War, and those struggles included dramatic discussions about voting connected to both the 14th and 15th Amendments. The struggle for women's suffrage, culminating in the 1919 passage of the 19th Amendment in the Senate, was also a pivotal moment for this body.

I believe the most dramatic voting rights struggle in the Chamber was the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Civil rights activist John Lewis and others marching for voting rights were savagely beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, in March of 1965. The building frustration of those denied votes in many States, together with that shocking instance of violence, coalesced into a final push to get a comprehensive voting rights bill approved. President Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress on March 15, just 8 days after the attack on John Lewis, and he threw his support behind the Voting Rights Act.

The Senate began floor consideration of the bill on April 22. After more than a month of vigorous debating, filibustering, fighting, and amending, the bill passed, and it passed in a dramatically bipartisan fashion. Democratic support was 47 to 16. Republican support was overwhelming--30 to 2. The House passed its own version in July. A conference report was passed and then accepted by both Houses in early August. President Johnson then signed the bill in a ceremony attended by Rosa Parks, John Lewis, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, and many other legislative and civil rights leaders.

The Voting Rights Act that was fought for so hard in this Chamber and passed in 1965 is viewed as the most important piece of civil rights legislation in the history of this country. It ushered in dramatic increases in voter turnout, more opportunity for racial minorities not only to vote but also to run for office.

Studies have drawn a direct connection between the act and concrete actions to provide more government services to communities that had long suffered from public disinvestment. It is obvious: When all citizens are protected in their right to vote, then government becomes more responsive to all citizens.

The 1965 act was strongly bipartisan, both in its passage and in the frequent reauthorization over the years, most recently in 2006. But since 2006--really beginning with the Obama Presidency--the Republican Party has essentially done a 180 in its long support of expanding the franchise. Hostile Supreme Court rulings in Shelby v. Mississippi and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee have put the burden back on Congress to fix the Voting Rights Act. But, in contrast to previous history where Republicans would join with us in those efforts, efforts to fix or improve the act have foundered because now the Republican Party is unwilling to support voting rights.

I talk about the 1965 act because it is notable to me for two reasons. First, it came at a time when many States, primarily in the South, including my own Commonwealth of Virginia, were undertaking massive efforts to disenfranchise African-American voters. And there was a culminating event--shocking violence against John Lewis and others as they tried to press for voting rights, and that violence galvanized the Nation and this body into action so we could protect voting and protect our democracy.

History repeats itself. Today, we are seeing a full-out attack on voting and our entire electoral system. Now it is not just limited to Southern States. Now it is not just directed solely at African-American voters. Now it is not just an attack led by bigoted State or local officials in one region. The attack emanated from the previous President, with years of attacks on the integrity of American elections--attacks that ratcheted up in the closing phase of the 2020 election.

President Trump, after losing that race, then went on a wild search for a way to hold on to power, making up lies about the election, spearheading meritless lawsuits in many States to challenge the result, directly asking election officials to ``find'' him enough votes to win key jurisdictions, and even trying to strong-arm his own Vice President into violating his constitutional oath so that he would deliver a victory to the losing candidate.

Just as in 1965, there came an unforgettable episode of violence directly related to the attacks on our system of elections. The Capitol itself was attacked on a particular day and hour for a particular purpose: to stop the certification of the electoral outcome. More than 100 police officers were injured that day as a result of this attack on our democracy. Five Virginia law enforcement officers lost their lives as a result of that day.

The violence wasn't just a riot; it was violence designed to disenfranchise the 80 million people who had voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. That singular event ranks among the largest disenfranchisement efforts in the history of this country.

History repeats itself, and the attacks on our democracy continue. In Republican State legislatures all across this country, as has been demonstrated by my colleague from Minnesota, efforts are underway to restrict voting, to make it harder for people to vote if they are more likely to vote for Democrats, to make it easier to challenge and intimidate voters with the hope that it will discourage their participation, to interfere with the counting of votes, and to interfere with the certification of elections by duly-sworn election officials. These are partisan efforts only occurring in States with Republican leadership, and they pose a grave threat to our democracy.

The violence of January 6 also continues in a tremendous spike in threats to those public servants who serve as election officials-- threats to their lives, threats to their families--all designed to intimidate those who won't bend to the will of the former President and those who have been dragged into his full-scale assault on our democracy.

So the Senate stands at the same moral crossroads where we stood in the spring of 1965. There is an assault on voting and elections, on the very system of democracy that distinguishes our Nation. The assault has led to shocking and cataclysmic violence specifically designed to disenfranchise millions of people, and the question for the Senate is, What should we do about it?

In the John Lewis Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, we find a solution for the moment, just as the Senate found in the Voting Rights Act a solution for its time.

The Lewis Act restores the preclearance process contained in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by coming up with a fair process for determining which jurisdictions must seek preclearance of voting changes. No longer is preclearance limited to certain geographies or States with long histories of discriminatory electoral practice; instead, every region and community is treated the same, subject to preclearance for a fixed period of years following any voting rights violation and able to avoid preclearance if there have been no such violations.

The Freedom to Vote Act sets minimal standards for access to the ballot in Federal elections, mandates transparency in campaign contributions, requires nonpartisan redistricting for congressional seats, and provides remedies to block partisan efforts to take power away from duly-sworn election officials. It is designed for the dangers of the moment and will both protect people's right to vote and give them confidence that their vote will be counted and an election result will be accurate and fair.

It is high time we take up these bills and pass them, and the floor debate should be vigorous, with an opportunity for colleagues to make their case and offer amendments. The Nation is watching us and needs to understand where every Member of the body stands on this critical issue.

I acknowledge one sad reality of this likely debate. Protecting voting rights is unlikely to attract Republican support as it did in 1965. I hope I am wrong. I would be very happy to apologize for being wrong, but I have had enough conversations with my Republican colleagues, and I watched their votes on the floor as we brought these matters up before. I think I understand what they will likely do. But even if we get no Republican support, we cannot shrink from the task. The stakes are too high and the moment is too meaningful to allow for any evasion. If we pass this bill, it will be good for Republicans and Democrats and Independents because it is good for democracy.

As I close, I will just bring up a recent example to show why expanding voting is not just good for one party. We just had a Governor's election in Virginia, November 2021. My preferred Democratic candidate lost, but the election, in a bigger way, was good for democracy because the turnout in the election went up by 25 percent over the turnout in the Governor's race 4 years before. More people participated, and that is a good thing.

Why did the turnout go up? The turnout went up because Democrats earned control of both houses of our State legislative chamber and made a set of changes--much like the changes in the Freedom to Vote Act--to make it easier for people to participate and give them confidence in the integrity of the ballot and certification of results. Guess what. When Democrats did that, turnout went up by 25 percent. And the winner wasn't a Democrat; the winner was a Republican.

Doing things like the Freedom to Vote Act isn't partisan, even though the vote in here will be partisan. It is good for all.

That increase in turnout by almost 25 percent almost set a record in Virginia. There was only one Governor's race where the turnout jump was even bigger, and it was when my father-in-law was elected Governor of Virginia in 1969. My father-in-law, Linwood Holton, had run as a Republican for Governor in 1965 and lost. He ran again in 1969 and won, and the turnout went up by 65 percent between his two races. That is the one that sets the record in Virginia. Why did turnout go up? Because the Voting Rights Act was passed and because the U.S. Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia in 1966 struck down poll taxes as a precondition of voting in State elections.

So fancy that. You make it easier for people to vote, you remove discriminatory obstacles in their way, and more people participate--not necessarily good for Democrats, not always good for Republicans, but always good for the health of a democracy. That is why we need to pass these bills.

I yield the floor.