Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, at 5 p.m. today all postcloture time on the Ruiz nomination expire; and that following the confirmation vote, the Senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the Puttagunta, Lopez, and Staples nominations in the order listed, without intervening action of debate; further, that if cloture is invoked on any of the nominations, the confirmation votes be at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. DURBIN. I want to notify all Senators that they should expect four rollcall votes beginning at 5 p.m.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico, (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have 8 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. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this week, the Senate will consider three judicial nominees for the Northern District of Ohio. Before I speak on the nominees themselves, I would like to commend Senators Brown and Portman for working across the aisle to develop a bipartisan selection process. All three of these nominees were recommended to the White House through a judicial commission that Senators Brown and Portman established. As Senator Portman noted at our hearing on these nominees, the members of the bipartisan screening commission committed significant time and effort to ensure that they recommended well-qualified candidates for the bench. As a result of that process, we will soon vote on three distinguished nominees. The first nominee to the Northern District of Ohio is Bridget Brennan. For almost 15 years, Ms. Brennan has served as a prosecutor, rising through the ranks of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio. Last year, as a testament to her skills and leadership, she was named Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. Ms. Brennan has a wide breadth of experience, having led her office's Civil Rights and Criminal Divisions. She has received a ``Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, has the strong support of Senators Brown and Portman, and received a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Brennan has demonstrated a commitment to justice, integrity, and the rule of law, all of which will serve her well as a district court judge. We also will be considering Charles Fleming, another highly qualified nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Mr. Fleming is an experienced litigator who has demonstrated a decades-long commitment to ensuring equal justice under the law. He has earned degrees from Kent State University and Case Western Reserve University Law School. After graduating, he spent a year working in private practice before dedicating his career to public service. For more than three decades, Mr. Fleming has worked as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Northern District of Ohio. During this time, he has tried 17 cases to verdict and has gained a truly remarkable breadth of courtroom experience. As I noted, Mr. Fleming has the strong support of Senators Brown and Portman. He received a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee. He also has received a ``Well Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. He is clearly committed to maintaining a fair, respectful temperament in his courtroom and will decide cases based on the law, the facts, and precedent--not on his preferred outcome. He will make an excellent addition to the District Court. Finally, we have David Ruiz. For more than 5 years, Judge Ruiz has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Ohio. In this role, he has presided over more than 80 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. Prior to assuming the bench, Judge Ruiz served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for several years. And before that, he spent 10 years as a litigator in private practice. Judge Ruiz received his undergraduate degree from The Ohio State University and his law degree from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. And he received a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. As I mentioned at the outset, Judge Ruiz has the strong, bipartisan support of Senators Brown and Portman. He also received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee--with Ranking Member Grassley, Senator Graham, and Senator Tillis joining with Democratic members to support his nomination. Senator Portman stated that Judge Ruiz's ``experience, temperament, and high ethical standards have served him well as a federal magistrate judge'' and ``make him well-qualified to continue serving the Northern District of Ohio as a federal judge.'' Once confirmed, he will be the first person of Hispanic origin to serve as an article III Federal judge in Ohio's history. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting all three of these outstanding nominees.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in keeping with the remarks of the Republican Senate leader, I would like to start with recognition of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's contribution to America. On July 12, 1994, a court of appeals judge named Stephen Breyer appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was the first day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. As he began speaking, Judge Breyer laid out his view of the law and its role in maintaining the fabric of American life. He said: ``I believe the law must work for people.'' He argued that our Nation's vast web of ``Constitution, statues, rules, regulations, practices and procedures . . . has a single basic purpose.'' That purpose, he said, ``is to help the many different individuals who make up America, from so many different backgrounds and circumstances, with so many different needs and hopes, live together productively, harmoniously, and in freedom.'' In his nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer has lived by those words. He has helped ensure that the law is a force for good, a force for unity, and a force for freedom and equality. So, for me, I have truly mixed feelings as I stand here today and look back on the incredible legacy of Justice Breyer, who announced last week that he would retire at the end of this term. And what a legacy he leaves. Born in San Francisco, Stephen Breyer attended Stanford University and Harvard Law, and just 3 years after graduating from Harvard, he returned to the school as a professor, a role in which he inspired a generation of jurists, public servants. He held a few other occupations as well. He served our country as a corporal in the U.S. Army and in the Army Reserve. He was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, a member of the Watergate special prosecutor's office, and chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I am honored to chair. From there, he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where he served for nearly 14 years before his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. And I might add, for the record, his vote on confirmation to the Court was 89 to 7. It was a remarkable showing of strength and support for a man whose politics were clear, as he served with Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee as his lead counsel for many years. Justice Breyer's record when he came to the Supreme Court was nothing short of awe-inspiring. From voting rights to women's reproductive freedom, from criminal justice to consumer protection, from campaign finance to immigration, Justice Breyer's voice has been powerful, pragmatic, thoughtful, and enduring, whether in the majority or in dissent. Consider, for instance, Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in the 1995 case, United States v. Lopez. In that case, the Court's conservative majority overturned the Gun-Free School Zones Act, finding that the statute exceeded Congress's power under the commerce clause, a clear departure from existing, standing precedent. In his dissent, Justice Breyer melded sound constitutional interpretation with his signature pragmatism. Citing the facts and the law, he methodically explained how the widespread problems caused by gun violence in and around schools clearly affected and threatened commerce. He concluded: ``Holding that the particular statute before us falls within the commerce power would not expand the scope of the Clause. Rather, it would simply apply preexisting law to changing economic circumstances. It would recognize that, in today's economic world, gun- related violence near the classroom makes a significant difference in our economic as well as our social well-being.'' That was one of the many opinions that captured Breyer's vision of the law as a force for productivity, for harmony, and for the well- being of the American people. Fast forward 20 years. The case was Glossip v. Gross. In that case, they challenged a form of lethal injection as violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court's conservative majority rejected the challenge. But once again, Justice Stephen Breyer responded with conscience and clarity. With his keen analysis and pragmatic reasoning, he explained the constitutional infirmities of the death penalty. He wrote: ``Nearly 40 years ago, this Court upheld the death penalty under statutes that, in the Court's view, contained safeguards sufficient to ensure that the penalty would be applied reliably and not arbitrarily. The circumstances and the evidence of the death penalty's application have changed radically since then. Given those changes, I believe it's now time to reopen the question.'' Let me say, parenthetically, it is interesting for me to note how many Supreme Court Justices, late in their term, facing retirement or nearing it, reflected on the death penalty. Justice Blackmun was another. And it says to me that these cases that they decided, once with an eye towards consistency, weighed on their consciences, and they came to conclude that the death penalty truly needed to be questioned under our constitutional values. Justice Breyer, in that case, recognized that in our system of justice, punishment must not only be firm but fair. During his 28 years on the Court, Stephen Breyer has been a stalwart defender of Americans' constitutional rights. As I mentioned, years before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer sat on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, located in Boston. Today, on the banks of Boston Harbor, stands a building that reflects his lifetime of service: the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse. Let me add, I knew Joe Moakley. He was my colleague and friend in the House. Then-Judge Breyer helped design that courthouse, and he still has an office there. The building features a curved glass wall, stretching across tens of thousands of feet, so passersby can peer into the courthouse during the day. It is designed to provide a clear view into the administration of justice. Engraved on the wall in the building are the names of the workers who had a hand in building it. Alongside the names of bricklayers and carpenters, etched in equal standing, is Stephen Breyer. Those two principles reflected in the building--transparency and equality--have, in many ways, defined Stephen Breyer's legal philosophy and his contribution to America. He understands that our system of justice is stronger when the American people understand how the law works and when the law works for them. Now, we must carry that tradition forward. Soon, President Biden will announce his selection for Justice Breyer's successor to the Supreme Court--big shoes to fill. But I have no doubt that President Biden will select a jurist who parallels Justice Breyer in intellect, ability, and dedication to public service. With his retirement, we have an opportunity to confirm another outstanding Justice, one who will indeed champion the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear, one who will also remain faithful to the rule of law and who will approach her work on the Court with the same thoughtful dedication displayed by Justice Breyer. We don't yet know who the nominee will be, but here is what we do know: No matter the nominee, we will undertake a process in the Senate Judiciary Committee that is both fair and timely. This process will afford Senators an opportunity to review the nominee's record and question the nominee thoroughly, while at the same time ensuring the nominee is treated respectfully and receives a prompt confirmation vote. We owe that not just to this nominee but to the American people. Let me close by turning to Justice Breyer's opening statement before the Judiciary Committee--July 12, 1994. America was watching when Justice Breyer said: ``You are now considering my appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. That Court works within a grand tradition that has made meaningful, in practice, the guarantees of fairness and of freedom that the Constitution provides.'' He said, ``I promise you, and I promise the American people, that if I am confirmed to be a member of the Supreme Court, I will try to be worthy of that great tradition.'' There is no doubt in my mind or in the mind of any objective analyst, Stephen Breyer has proven himself worthy of that great tradition. Whoever his successor may be, I am confident she will do the same. I want to personally thank Justice Breyer, as a Member of the Senate but as an American citizen first, for his thoughtfulness, his spirit of collegiality and consensus building, and for always working to advance the Constitution's guarantees of fairness and freedom.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letters in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would say to the Republican leader while he is still on the floor, would you entertain a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry that he did not stay for a question because I would have asked the basic question phrased by Senator Schumer: Does he really believe that there is no evidence of voter suppression in the actions of 19 States across our Nation? I think the facts speak for themselves. For those who are witnessing this, this is a rare moment in the history of this Chamber. In the recent history, it is rare because we are here; half of the seats are occupied in the U.S. Senate. That is a rare occurrence because it is rare that we come together to debate, to amend, or to even exercise the authority given to us as U.S. Senators. It is also a rare moment in history because we again are being called on, as others have before us, to speak to the fundamentals of freedom and democracy and to go on record by the end of this day, when night falls, as to where we stand in the sweep of history. Approximately 155 million Americans voted in the 2020 election-- highest voter-turnout percentage since the 1900 election. A record number voted early or cast mail-in ballots--options that were expanded in red and blue States in response to a deadly pandemic. That was before we had vaccines, and COVID was killing an average of 1,200 Americans a day. Yet they voted. Tens of millions of Americans stood in line, some for hours, to cast their ballots. That is how important the American people thought it was to vote in 2020. People risked their lives to cast their ballots. It is hard to believe that fact could be measured against statements made by the Republican leader just a few moments ago that people don't care about the right to vote. They care enough to risk their lives, and they did in the 2020 election. Despite the crush of voters and the confusion of the pandemic, the 2020 election was judged ``the most secure in American history.'' That is not my opinion; that is the official statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under the Trump administration, an Agency which coordinates the Nation's top cybersecurity and voting infrastructure security. They released their assessment 10 days after the 2020 election, and they did so to counter a dangerous and unprecedented avalanche of misinformation--including from an enraged and defeated President--claiming falsely the election had been stolen. These nonpartisan election security experts were not alone in rejecting Donald Trump's Big Lie. President Trump and his loyalists filed more than 60 lawsuits in State and Federal courts, repeating their false claims of voter fraud and stolen votes. They offered no evidence to back their claims--only bizarre conspiracy theories and far-right internet gossip. Their lawsuits were overwhelmingly dismissed, some by judges whom President Trump himself had nominated. The former President exerted extraordinary pressure on the Department of Justice--we found that in the Senate Judiciary Committee and through other sources--and he failed. When he couldn't bully the courts or the Justice Department to do his bidding, he summoned his mob. We all know personally about the death and destruction the Big Lie brought to this building on January 6, a year ago. We lived through it. The Capitol survived it. The entire world recoiled at the sight of Americans, goaded by the former President, attacking the heart of our democracy. The Big Lie is corroding Americans' faith in our elections. In a recent poll, two-thirds of Republicans--two-thirds of Republicans-- surveyed agreed with the false claim that ``voter fraud helped Joe Biden win the 2020 election''--two-thirds of Republicans. That poll also found that 64 percent of Americans believe that U.S. democracy is ``in crisis and at risk of failing.'' Senator McConnell dismisses this conversation, but the American people know it is deadly serious. In another poll, only one in three Republicans said that they trust that the 2024 elections will be fair regardless of who wins--only one in three Republicans. Donald Trump would rather destroy American democracy than admit he lost the election, and sadly, it seems that many Republican lawmakers would rather repeat his lies than face his wrath. Republican lawmakers of many States are using the Big Lie as a pretext to pass new laws aimed at undermining both Americans' right to vote and the integrity of our elections. Sadly, Republicans in the Senate are aiding and abetting this attack. Three times last year, the Republicans used the filibuster--the weapon of choice in the Jim Crow era--to block this Senate from even debating voting rights. Each morning, we stand and pledge allegiance to that flag and what it represents, but I don't believe any Senator stands to pledge allegiance to the filibuster. The filibuster is a rules creation in the Senate which really has stopped many important pieces of legislation from being considered. It was really the major reason in the 1960s that the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights legislation took so long. I know personally five times I have brought to the floor the Dream Act to give young people in this country a chance for a path to citizenship, and five times on the floor of the Senate, it has been stopped by that same filibuster. We have heard lofty rhetoric from the Republican leader about what the filibuster means in the Senate. It has been used perhaps in constructive ways, but it has certainly been used time and again for a destructive purpose. In the year since January 6, Republican legislatures in nearly 20 States have enacted laws making it harder for Americans to vote and, in some cases, easier for partisan actors to potentially meddle and interfere with elections. In total, more than 440 bills with voting restrictions have been introduced in 49 States, and Senator McConnell can't see one example of voter suppression. Let me give you some examples so you know what we are speaking of. We have heard this from Senators Warnock and Ossoff about the State of Georgia, a new law making it a crime to give a voter waiting in line to vote a snack or a drink of water--a crime to give a drink of water to someone waiting in line. As Senator Booker reminded us yesterday, these long lines many times are populated by members of minority populations. What a coincidence that they are the ones with too few voting machines or polling places and have to wait many times for hours to exercise their franchise. In Texas, as a result of a new law known as S.B. 1, local election officials all over the State are reporting they are being forced to reject hundreds of absentee ballot requests for the State's upcoming March primary. In Denton County, Texas officials have had to reject over 40 percent of absentee ballot requests. In Travis County, nearly a third of mail ballot applications have been rejected. Making matters worse, this new law makes it a felony in Texas for an election official in Texas to send an unsolicited mail ballot application to a voter. In Florida, Republican Governor DeSantis last week proposed creating a police unit that would be empowered to arrest voters and others who allegedly violate the State's election laws. This is straight out of the Jim Crow playbook. In addition, Republican lawmakers in at least 10 States have diminished secretaries of states' authorities over elections or shifted aspects of the administration to partisan bodies, including State legislators themselves or election boards dominated by the Republican Party. A new law in Arkansas now grants the State Board of Election Commissioners--made of up five Republicans and one Democrat--police powers to investigate complaints about violation of the State's election laws despite no evidence--none--of widespread voter fraud in the State. It empowers the board to upend the State's traditional county-based election administration. A new law in Arizona specifies that Democratic secretary of state, Katie Hobbs, can no longer represent the State in lawsuits defending the election code. That power now lies with the attorney general, who happens to be Republican--but only through January 2, 2023, when Katie Hobbs' term in office ends. Even more chilling, Republican lawmakers in a number of States have introduced or passed new laws criminalizing aspects of election administration. In Wisconsin, the election administrators could face criminal penalties for correcting mistakes on a voter's mail-in ballot. Voting rights experts fear that such laws could leave nonpartisan election administrators and workers forever looking over their shoulders or cause them to quit or be replaced by those who are less experienced and more partisan. So why is this happening? As I mentioned earlier, the 2020 election had incredible turnout. According to the Census Bureau, 67 percent of all eligible Americans reported voting, and the majority clearly voted for President Joe Biden. So now Republican lawmakers are using the Big Lie to pass partisan election laws in order to reduce voter turnout and control outcomes of the elections this year and in 2024. Their target? Democratic voters. And their goal? Sow the seeds of doubt in our democracy and the credibility of future elections. Republicans refuse to join us in protecting voting rights. Why? Because the agenda they are following was set by Donald Trump, and dissenters pay a price. If you don't endorse--if you endorse, rather, the Big Lie, he will endorse you; if you don't, he will unleash his fury. These attacks on voting rights are shaking the pillars of our democracy, the credibility of our elections, and the peaceful transfer of power. The vast majority of our Republican colleagues are all singing from the same hymnal. They say there is no new wave of voter suppression and election nullification laws. They are wrong. They claim that our proposals to restore the Voting Rights Act and set minimum Federal standards for elections amount to an ``unprecedented takeover of State elections and a partisan power grab.'' They are wrong. Each of us in our desks has this common document that guides us, I hope, in all of our actions on the Senate floor. Despite statements to the contrary, we know that this document is explicit in what we are setting out to do today. The elections clause of the Constitution, article I, section 4, gives Congress the authority to make election laws. The 14th and 15th Amendments give Congress the responsibility to protect voting ``by appropriate legislation.'' The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized and strengthened five times, always with a strong, bipartisan majority. The last time it was reauthorized was 2006, 7 years before Shelby County. That decision of the Supreme Court, we know, gutted the law's protections. The Senate voted unanimously, Democrats and Republicans, to reauthorize and strengthen the law. Sixteen current Republican Members of the Senate voted yes. It wasn't a Federal takeover of elections then, it isn't now, and they know it. I am the person chosen by Senate Democrats to count votes, and based on their public statements, two Democrats may not vote to change the rules to allow this Congress to stop this power grab by Republican State lawmakers. These Senators have given their reasons. But there is something more important than an existing Senate rule--a rule that has been changed 160 times in the history of this body. The integrity of our free elections, the right to have your vote counted, and our oath to uphold and defend the Constitution I believe count for more. On January 6, after the insurrection was quelled, we returned to the Senate to complete our constitutional duty of certifying the election and declaring Joe Biden President. Speaking to the few Members of his party who still intended to challenge the electoral count on the feeble grounds that some of their constituents had doubts about the election, the junior Senator from Utah, Senator Romney, said: ``The best way you can show respect for the voters who are upset about this is to tell them the truth.'' Then something happened on the floor of the Senate which rarely occurs: Senators on both sides of the aisle rose to their feet and gave Senator Romney a standing ovation. Do you remember it? I do. It is time to remember that courage. It is time to tell the voters the truth. Stop repeating the Big Lie that is tearing this country apart. It is time for the Senate to pass the Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. To restore the power of the Voting Rights Act is to restore the promise of America. I would like to close by reminding us that, earlier this week, we marked Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. I saw many tweets from Members of this Chamber celebrating his legacy. One Republican leader tweeted: ``Nearly 60 years since the March on Washington, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s message echoes as powerfully as it did that day. His legacy inspires us to celebrate and keep building upon the remarkable progress our great nation has made toward becoming a more perfect union.'' Well, I certainly have good news for that Republican leader who sent that tweet. He has an opportunity today to keep building on that remarkable progress. Instead of building on Dr. King's work, we have watched Republicans and State legislatures across the country choose to tear down that remarkable progress and make it harder to vote and make it harder to even acknowledge and teach the brutal history of the civil rights movement and the systemic inequities that still exist. So here are the questions for Members in this Chamber today: Are we going to live up today--this day, Wednesday--to the values we claimed on Monday, Martin Luther King Day? Are we going to be inspired to actually listen to the message of Dr. King and why he risked his life to deliver it? Are you going to keep building upon the legacy and progress that he fought to achieve? For all of us on both sides of the aisle who quoted Dr. King on Monday, I implore you to listen to what he said in an interview in 1963 when asked about President Kennedy's civil rights bill. He said: ``I think the tragedy is that we have a Congress with a Senate that has a minority of misguided senators who will use the filibuster to keep a majority of people from even voting. They won't let the majority of senators vote. And certainly they wouldn't want the majority of people to vote, because they know they do not represent the majority of the American people. In fact, they represent, in their own states, a very small minority.'' Let's listen to Dr. King. Let's stop using the filibuster to kill legislation to protect Americans' fundamental right to participate in our democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Two million.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this past weekend--and yesterday, in particular--we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is likely, if you attended any event in that celebration, that you heard at least part of his ``I Have a Dream'' speech. Many of us in the Chamber happily quoted it because of our respect for him and the eloquence of his language in that moment. We like to remember the hopeful second half of that speech, as well, because Dr. King imagined a future in which Black children and White children play together, and all people are judged, as he so famously said, ``not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.'' However, many of us forget--or worse, ignore--the first half of that speech, in which Dr. King noted the painful irony that 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation--the ``promissory note'' of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was for most Black Americans simply ``a bad check which has come back marked `insufficient funds.' '' Many Democratic Senators and Republican Senators helped to change that shameful fact. It was here on the floor of this Chamber, in 1965, that the U.S. Senate voted 77 to 19 to pass the Voting Rights Act, outlawing State practices that denied millions of Americans, particularly Black Americans, the right to vote. It is worth noting that it was a strong bipartisan vote and that, percentagewise, a greater percentage of the Republican Caucus voted in support of it, compared to Democrats. The White Democrats from the South were notorious at that time for opposing it and opposing the civil rights movement. Well, over the next nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized five times, and that bipartisanship continued during the entire period. Each new version of the Voting Rights Act renewed the promise and the protections of that law, and each reauthorization was signed into law by a Republican President. Sadly, in more recent years, things have changed in an awful way. We have witnessed a sustained effort to chip away the protections guaranteed to every American under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I grew up in East St. Louis, IL, and a trip to St. Louis was a big deal. I can remember my mother, who was an immigrant to this country, had only an eighth grade education, though she had self-taught herself into a much higher level of learning, but I can remember my mother always pointing out the St. Louis courthouse to me. If you are familiar with the terrain, the arch wasn't there when I was growing up. But where that arch is today, just behind it, is this famous St. Louis courthouse. We would be driving over the Eads Bridge, and she would say to me: Now, do you see that St. Louis courthouse up there? That big white building, do you see it? And do you see all those steps that you can see from here? Yes. They used to sell slaves on those steps. I found it incredible that my mom would say that. She was not a historian or, as I had mentioned, formally educated, but she knew that, and she knew that was the significance of that building. It was also the courthouse where the Dred Scott decision was argued. I say that because the Dred Scott decision, that infamous decision handed down in 1857, may have been the tipping point when it came to our Civil War. A decision by that court, now viewed as nothing short of outrageous, basically ruled that enslaved people, regardless of where they lived in the United States, could never be treated as American citizens and had no right to sue in the Federal courts of America. Despite State decisions to have free States and enslaved States, despite the Missouri Compromise, the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision basically came down clearly on the side of enslavement and said, for example, that the Missouri court doctrine of ``once free, always free'' did not help Harriet and Dred Scott, who lived in free States part of their lives. That decision by the Supreme Court was a seminal decision in the history of our country. It is often noted the role that it played and the events that transpired afterward. I think of that decision when I think of what has happened in recent years in the Supreme Court. Nine years ago, in 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder. That Supreme Court decision essentially nullified a key provision of the Voting Rights Act: section 5. Prior to the Court's ruling in Shelby County, section 5 required localities disenfranchising people based on race through poll taxes or literacy tests to seek Federal approval to any changes in their voting rules. That requirement is known as preclearance, and it could have--I believe it would have--prevented many of the restrictive voting laws in Georgia and Texas. The Supreme Court weakened another key section of the Voting Rights Act with its decision in Brnovich v. DNC. With these distorted rulings--distorted rulings--in fact, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote, ``In the last decade, this Court has treated no statute worse than the Voting Rights Act of 1965.'' The Presiding Officer knows what has happened across the United States in 19 different States. I think, because of decisions like Shelby and Brnovich, these States have been emboldened. They don't believe that they are going to be held accountable for decisions they are making that restrict the right to vote the way they would have been before those decisions. And those who come to the defense of those States and their practices come to the floor of the Senate and, predictably, argue States' rights, States' rights. I heard over the weekend on some of the talk shows--I don't know if there is a copy of it here. Oh, there is. I was hoping there would be a copy of the Constitution in this desk, and there is. But article I, section 4 of our Constitution is explicit, for those who question whether or not it is the exclusive province of the States to establish standards for elections. I am going to read it. Section 4. ``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, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.'' Of course, then the amendments following the Civil War--during and following the Civil War--went even further in terms of voting and the issue of race. It is very clear to me--and you only have to read those simple words, straightforward and direct in the Constitution, to realize that establishing standards for elections is not exclusively within the province of the State. In fact, just the opposite is true. When it comes to Federal elections for Representatives and Senators, authority is given to us--to us--this Senate and the House of Representatives. And, of course, through the signature of the President, the law is created that can establish standards and regulations. Yet Members on the other side, Members on the side of President Lincoln's political party, the Republican Party, now come to us at this moment in history and argue nullification and States' rights. What a cruel twist of fate that Mr. Lincoln's party, which took such pride in the progress that was made after the deadly Civil War in establishing civil rights, is now defending the activities of 19 different States that restrict voting rights. Today, our democracy needs the Voting Rights Act of 1965 restored to its full power and potential. In the past year alone, Republican legislatures in nearly 20 States have enacted laws making it harder for Americans to vote. In total, more than 440 bills with voting restrictions have been introduced in 49 States, and more are on the way as the 2022 State legislative sessions get underway. These efforts represent the most coordinated assault on voting rights since the Voting Rights Act was first passed under President Lyndon Johnson. The most troubling of these bills, the ones that I just find incredible, grant partisan actors the power to potentially meddle and interfere in election administration. Now, where could they possibly have come up with that idea; that if you lose an election, you would contact the election authorities and ask them to change the results for your favor? Where could they have come up with that idea or notion, that outrageous idea? Perhaps in the recording that we have of the conversation between Georgia election officials and President Donald Trump after he lost the election in 2020. That is exactly what he set out to do. And now, they are setting up a scenario for that same strategy and tactic to be followed in other States if you are disappointed with the outcome of an election. Arkansas and Kansas have already passed laws that--according to experts from the States United Democracy Center, Protect Democracy, and Law Forward--could be used to shift the power to influence election outcomes to partisan political actors. In those States, they have increased the possibility that the voters won't have the last word. And legislatures in other States have introduced troubling bills with similar implications. For instance, in the State of Arizona, State legislators introduced three separate bills that, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, ``would have directly empowered partisan officials to reject or overturn election results.'' It is an incredible outcome. More traditional attacks on the right to vote include efforts in Michigan, for example, where a group of Republican lawmakers are attempting to bypass the State's Governor as well as the State's voters to enact a measure restricting voting rights. And, of course, in Texas, the State enacted a bill known as S.B. 1, which the Brennan Center called ``one of the harshest restrictive voting bills in the country.'' One of the most troubling provisions of the law will make it harder for voters living with disabilities to receive the accommodations and assistance they need to exercise their right to vote. The Members of this Senate have a constitutional obligation to respond to these State voting laws, and that means ensuring that the constitutional right to vote is protected by Federal law and fully enforceable. It also means establishing nationwide standards that ensure every eligible voter can participate in our democracy. These remedies and protections must be available in every State, red and blue, from New York to Arizona. Allow me to make one other point, Mr. President. I have heard my Republican colleagues make the argument: Well, take a look at the States across the blue belt of America, States like Delaware and New York; they don't go as far as the law that is being suggested by you Democrats--for example, same-day registration, for those who want to show up and establish their voter registration on the day of the election. This bill is going to require it. The State of New York doesn't have it. The State of Delaware doesn't have it. Well, my message to them is: Good. Let them get it. It is a good, positive way to expand the opportunity to vote. Many States have done it for years without problems. Those who are lagging, whether they are red or blue, should come into the 21st century. It should be our mission--our singular mission, before anything else--to make sure that every eligible American has the right to vote; that we eliminate the burdens and obstacles, the tricks and traps that have been set up in all these States that make it so difficult. And we ought to be singularly embarrassed as a nation as we look at the film and all the videos and all the programs on election day that show African Americans standing in line, hour after weary hour, to exercise the right to vote while many White voters just scoot through in other localities in the same States. There is something fundamentally wrong here, and it is not just an accident. Last year, I joined with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce the updated John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This legislation would restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history. And truthfully, this should, once again, be a bipartisan, unifying endeavor. It hasn't been that long ago that Republicans and Democrats stood together and agreed that this was the right thing to do--to make sure that there was no discrimination against American voters. The last time we did this was 16 years ago, in 2006, and on a nearly unanimous basis. One of the Republicans who voted in support of it was the senior Senator from Kentucky, now the Republican leader, who said at that time, when he voted for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, ``[T]his is a piece of legislation which has worked.'' Well, let's make sure it can keep working. I hope my colleagues will come together, in a bipartisan fashion, and join us in supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act as well as the Freedom to Vote Act. Join us in defending American democracy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier today, the Republican Senate leader came to the floor and noted the fact that when the American people were asked about the issues of the moment, they didn't mention their right to vote. I think most Americans would be surprised that we are even debating that issue at this moment in American history. We know the right to vote has been contentious, divisive, deadly when it comes to the policies of this Nation and particularly the policies of individual States. It was one of the critical reasons, in addition to the hideous institution of slavery, that we went to war among ourselves and 600,000-plus Americans gave their lives. It really was at the heart of what happened after that when the North prevailed, the Union was saved, and the President of the United States, a man from Illinois, not only created an Emancipation Proclamation but set the stage for constitutional amendments which guaranteed that right to vote. So I imagine some people would be excused if they didn't list it as the highest priority. They probably assume it is really not an issue for debate, but it is. You see, in this last Presidential election, we had two or three historic things occur. First, the turnout of American voters was unprecedented. That is a good thing. In a democracy, it is to be applauded, and each year, we should try to improve on that outcome. The second thing, though, we would have to put in the liability column, and that is a petulant former President who refused to even acknowledge that he lost the election and instead claims that he was abused and that it was stolen from him. That fanciful lie is now making its way across America back and forth as former President Trump peddles it in every quarter. Unfortunately, some people are listening. Some 30 percent of American people agree with the former President that the election was stolen from him. He couldn't win that argument in any courtroom. He couldn't even convince his handpicked Attorney General to back him up. So he resorted to sending a mob of his followers on January 6, 2021, to storm this Capitol. For the first time since 1812, we were invaded by people who did not subscribe to the basic tenets of our Constitution. It was a grim day. I will never forget it. Those who were here, I am sure, say the same. But it set the stage for a campaign that has followed for more than a year. This morning, we read in the paper that some eight Republican attorneys general are going to close ranks in a Trump-inspired alliance to change election laws across America to his liking. Shame on them, and shame on anyone who thinks that is what America is all about. We should encourage more and more of those legally eligible to vote. We should make it an easy exercise and not a hardship and burden. But the States--almost 20 of them now--are in the process of changing the laws in their States on voting and, with each change in the law, making it more difficult. Oh, it doesn't sound too reprehensible on its face, until you add it all together: the notion that people would have less time to apply for absentee ballots; the fact that they would have to come up with a good reason; that their applications for those ballots would have to contain certain information, which is new and sometimes challenging to individuals; limiting the periods of time that people can vote; limiting the opportunity to register to vote in special elections, as in the State of Georgia. Each one of those is an additive factor to reducing the likelihood that people will turn up and vote-- even this notion in Georgia that you can't provide food and drink to voters waiting in line. Well, in my hometown of Springfield, IL, we vote in the Park District. There is seldom a wait of more than 5 minutes. That is about the average across America, but we know there are exceptions. We have seen people waiting in line much longer. In fact, one State found that African Americans waited in line an average of 50 minutes--not 5; 50 minutes. The idea of perhaps giving someone a drink of water under those circumstances is now against the law in Georgia. It is hard to imagine. That is just one of the things they wanted to add to the burdens of voting in America. So when we come to the floor and discuss voting, and the Republican leader tells us people don't care--I bet they will when they come to realize what is happening. It is interesting that he notes that what they do care about--they care about the coronavirus. I do too. I didn't have to check the voting records to know what I am about to say is true. That Senator from Kentucky and every other Senator on that side of the aisle voted against Joe Biden's American Rescue Plan. In the beginning of his administration, he had a bold, policy-driven piece of legislation called the American Rescue Plan, which set out to do something that had to be done. Yes, we had found the vaccines, but in order to produce them and to administer them, we needed a program that cost money. Joe Biden stepped up and said: This is what we are going to do. We are going to get this jab, this shot, available to Americans across the board, and we are going to spend the money to do it. It does no good to have a formula that can save your life, and yet you can't access it or pay for it. So he put it in the American Rescue Plan. It just made common sense, didn't it? With so many people dying and sick, that we have an ambitious, unprecedented, historic administration of that vaccine across America? It was an easy vote for me and for every Democrat and obviously easy on the other side for Republicans because not a single one, including the Republican leader from Kentucky, would support President Biden in that effort. There was money in there as well to keep businesses open so that they could hire back their people, go back in business. I don't know about the Presiding Officer's State. I am sure New Jersey is similar to Illinois. But I have talked to a lot of restauranteurs who walked up to me and said: Senator, we never met before, but if you hadn't voted to give me a chance to reopen this business, I wouldn't be here today. That is the reality of the bill that the Republicans all, every single one, voted against. So it is no surprise that they come to the floor critical of Joe Biden and his Presidency and saying he just doesn't understand the real issues. Well, the coronavirus is a real issue. The President's response was a real response. Sadly, the unanimous opposition to the President by the Republican side of the aisle was also a real response. I can remember, coming out of college and hearing about the Voting Rights Act being debated right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and as I have said before on the floor--and I won't belabor it--I have taken the time over the years to understand what led up to it-- Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the great migration, and all that followed from that. And my friend--and she is my friend--Carol Anderson, a professor at Emory University in Atlanta, GA, has written a book called ``One Person, No Vote.'' She flattered me and asked me to write the forward to the book, which I gladly did, and then read it and thought: What an incredible story it tells us about America and the battle to win the vote. I remember--as I mentioned, I was young and fresh out of college and law school--when Dr. Martin Luther King came to the city of Chicago. I remember it well because I was in the midst of working as a young man on a political campaign. And it made all the headlines when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., decided to walk through Marquette Park. That particular parade--that protest--drew violence from people dressed in Nazi uniforms, throwing rocks at him, and jeering at those who supported his effort. I remember that because, nowadays, when you talk about Dr. Martin Luther King's day of observance, which is coming up next week, people have a tendency to think of that in gentle and positive terms--and it should be. But let's not forget the price he paid--ultimately, his life--to deliver that message to a divided America. And so when we talk about why he did it and what it meant to us, one of the guiding factors was the right to vote and his belief that, from Reconstruction forward to his day, we were still finding ways to deny the right to vote to African Americans and others in this country. It was that fundamental an issue--an issue he was willing to give his life for. For some of us, Martin Luther King Day will be a day of reflection, a chance to envision in America what it truly means to be ``free at last.'' But it is also a day of action. Let's hope we have some action here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Each day we open the session in the Senate by pledging allegiance to the flag. That is a good thing. I do it out of respect and gladly so. But we don't stand here and pledge allegiance to the filibuster. The filibuster is a Senate rule, not that long in its history, that is an interpretation of what the Senate is about. It has changed over the years over and over again. It is not sacred. It is not constitutional dictum. It is, in fact, the best efforts of politicians in this Chamber, in their day, to write a rule that establishes a minimum vote. What does it mean to us? Well, it means a lot. In a Senate that is divided 50-50--50 Republicans and 50 Democrats--it means that there are measures which require 60 votes. It used to be a rare occurrence in this body that someone would invoke a filibuster, and yet now it has become virtually commonplace. If you just look at the last 5 or 10 years, you can see a change in the Senate, a dramatic orchestrated change in the Senate. What was uncommon, requiring 60 votes for a measure, has now become the standard, and, of course, what that means is very few things come to the floor of the Senate. When the Republicans were in control, just a few years ago, during the course of an entire calendar year, on the Senate floor we voted for 26 amendments--26. In the normal history of the Senate, hundreds of amendments are voted in the course of a year. But because of the filibuster and the design of many to slow down and stop the business of the Senate, in 1 year we voted for 26 amendments--26. And that is what happens when you shut down debate. That is what happens when you shut down opportunity for amendments. And that is what happens when you pledge allegiance to the filibuster. We have to be honest about this. There should be an exception written in for the filibuster when it comes to voting rights. Something as fundamental as our constitutional authority to vote should be given the day for argument on the floor of the Senate and should be subject to a majority vote, up or down. That is not too much to ask. I would rather pledge allegiance to the flag and to the voting authority in America that it represents than to the filibuster, a rule which has been misused as much as it has been properly used in its history. There are many enduring victories we can attribute to Dr. King and the civil rights movement. But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are certainly high on the list. These laws put a stake in the heart of Jim Crow, expanding voting rights to generations of Black Americans. Prior to the passage of these laws, State legislators throughout the Deep South had disenfranchised voters of color through a whirlwind of discriminatory legislation. These laws didn't explicitly ban Black Americans from voting. The 15th Amendment, ratified during Reconstruction, prevented them from doing that. But soon enough, these lawmakers discovered new ways to discriminate against voters of color. And in decades after Reconstruction, they erected barriers to the ballot box, like poll taxes, property ownership requirements, literacy tests. When it comes to Jim Crow laws, it is easy to get caught up in abstractions and generic descriptions. You hear the phrase ``literacy test,'' that was used even into the 1960s in America, and you think: Well, that just means I have to read at grade-school level, right? Wrong. A poll test from a Louisiana parish had questions on it which I struggle to answer even today. And they were designed to make sure that voters wouldn't be able to answer. ``Draw a line around a number or letter of this sentence.'' What the heck does that mean? And on and on. I share this example to demonstrate what voter suppression looked like in the days of Dr. King. In the words of historian Carol Anderson, whom I mentioned earlier, tactics like literacy tests were ``legislative evil genius.'' They didn't disenfranchise voters on the basis of their skin color outright. But they were only administered to some voters, and you can imagine which ones. Thank God the Members of the Senate on a bipartisan basis decided in the 1960s to outlaw this legislative sleight of hand. Our predecessors didn't cave in to the disingenuous cries of ``States' rights,'' which we hear to this day on the Republican side of the aisle. Our predecessors understood that voting is a fundamental liberty. It should be treated differently. It is the reason we pledge allegiance to that flag, because we make the decision, under that flag, of who governs us. Right now, millions of American voters are facing a new wave of voter suppression laws, and much like the proponents of Jim Crow laws did in their day, Republicans State lawmakers today are erecting new barriers to the ballot box, latching onto the myth of ``widespread voter fraud.'' That is what the State legislative leaders are saying. Where could they have come up with that idea? Is it possible that it is a disgruntled former President with a bruised ego because he lost his effort for reelection in 2020? The reality is, the laws they are passing in these States are not about preventing voter fraud. They are about preventing eligible Americans from voting. The nurse working back-to-back shifts on election day, the single parent who doesn't own a car or can't afford a babysitter, or a person living with a disability--should we be concerned as to whether they have an opportunity to vote? We certainly should. The new laws enacted in nearly 20 States will prevent our most vulnerable neighbors from exercising their right to vote. That is why we ought to look at the Senate rules. It isn't just a matter of some theoretical academic debate on the rules. These are real-life decisions in States across the Nation. And the most troubling of these laws take the assault of democracy even further. They give partisan actors more power to meddle and interfere in election administration. Some of the proposals we have seen can potentially allow partisans to overrule the valid votes of the American people and anoint a victor of their own choosing. Over the next few days, I expect many of us will quote excerpts of Dr. King's most famous speeches. My hope is that we will take heed of the words he wrote in that letter from the Birmingham jail. In it, he responded to a group of White religious leaders who had pleaded with him and his fellow civil rights advocates to slow down, wait a little longer, racial equality is going to follow soon. In response, Dr. King wrote: ``For years now, I've heard the word `Wait!'. . . . This `Wait' has almost meant `Never'. . . . We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, of yesterday that `justice too long delayed is justice denied.''' He continued, ``We've waited for more than 340 years for our God- given and constitutional rights. . . . I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.'' The issue that we are debating on voting rights and the issue of our rules is not just a casual conversation about a rule book no one hardly knows of. It is an issue that does go to the heart of our democracy, to our pledge of allegiance to the flag, not to the filibuster. The issue is our Republican colleagues are afraid of this debate. Traditionally, they played a key role in the passage of the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. In fact, percentagewise, there were more Republican Senators voting for that than Democratic Senators. And I say that acknowledging that my Democratic Party, in those days, was not altogether on the right side. We have been told that we are breaking the Senate if we change this rule to protect people's right to vote. At the heart of what the Senate is and what it stands for and the reason it exists is the right of Americans to vote. Is it worth a carve-out? Is it worth a change? Is it worth a modification of the Senate rules to protect the right to vote? Can anything be more sacred? I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes and Senators Padilla and Cantwell for up to 5 minutes each prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there are several issues swirling around the Senate at this moment. They relate to the voting rights of Americans. They relate to the voting rights of Senators--interesting that they would both be on parallel tracks as we debate them on the floor. It appears that the voting rights of Americans is witnessing a historic shift. You see, my Democratic Party, and yours, in history has a spotty record when it comes to voting rights. In fact, Southern States--then in the thrall of the Democratic Party--wrote a terrible record after the Civil War. We released African Americans from slavery, guaranteed them the right to vote, and then watched what happened. There was jubilation all over the country, I believe, for the most part, and there was jubilation in the southern States by African Americans who had newfound freedoms they never dreamed of with the end of slavery. And they took them to heart. They did register to vote. And there were dramatic differences in many States because in many States the slave population, the African-American population, was much larger than any voting had ever reflected, and now they had the chance. And as they were elected to local offices and even congressional seats and even a senatorial seat, there was a backlash from the White population. This period of Reconstruction after the Civil War lapsed into a period of denial of the right to vote and elaborate plans by Whites-- White Democrats, I might add--in southern States to manufacture obstacles to the voting of African Americans--poll taxes, for example, literacy tests, things that had little or nothing to do with citizenship but were designed expressly to jeopardize the voting opportunities for those without advanced educations or the kind of clout necessary to overcome. And so the net result was the South went White again in terms of its political leadership. It was known as Jim Crow. And the Democratic Party of that day was behind it. The opposition came from Abraham Lincoln's party, the Republican Party. They were the ones for abolition of slavery. They were the ones who supported Reconstruction. They were the ones, by and large, who sent the Federal troops in to enforce equality in the South. But, ultimately, sadly, as a result of a brokered Presidential election, there was a concession made that gave to the Democrat Party-controlled South States' rights to determine voting standards. And that was the situation that applied in the United States from that period of time in the mid-19th century, until the 1960s, when this issue was debated anew, right here in Washington, right here in this Chamber. And those who opposed striking down the Jim Crow laws, those who opposed efforts to deny to African Americans the right to vote, asserted one abiding principle: States rights. The States should be allowed to make this decision. It didn't go very far. It took a lot of years of debate, I might add, I don't want to oversimplify it. But anyone who took the time to read this book, the Constitution of the United States, understands it is explicit. It doesn't take long to read the sections that are applying. Listen to this and think in your mind whether there is any question who has the authority to determine the rules of Federal elections. And I read: ``Article I, section 4--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, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.'' The 15th Amendment went further on the issue of race, and the net result of it was the passage of some laws in the 1960s, the Voting Rights Act, and the establishment of standards to open up opportunities to vote in the South for people of color. It took that long from the late 19th century to the 1960s before that issue was addressed effectively. But for the longest time, it became a consensus issue. Republicans were as supportive of this as Democrats. In fact, proportionally, they were more supportive. The Republican Party--the party of Abraham Lincoln--rejected the theory of States rights and said there will be Federal standards that are created and will be enforced on a bipartisan basis by Presidents of both parties. It was an amazing evolution in America, considering what we had been through, a civil war and all that followed, to have reached the point where we said that the Federal Government could review decisions made by States if they, in any way, discriminate on a racial basis or any other basis in terms of ethnic identity. That was so popular and so bipartisan that for years the renewal of that law was automatic. There was hardly a dissenting vote. Boy, have times changed. They have changed to the point where the Democratic Party is now supportive of the Voting Rights Act and what it sought to achieve. And the party of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party, comes to the floor every day and argues States rights. Yes, we are back into that mode again, but the argument is coming from the Republican side of the aisle. The tables have turned. The Democratic Party of the South is a different party today, thank goodness, and a party that stands for the principle that people are entitled to the right to vote. So we staged a national election in 2020. In light of the pandemic that was looming over this Nation, we opened up opportunities to vote, and two things happened. We had the most dramatic turnout of voters in the United States of America for the office of President. We had never seen that kind of turnout of voters. And No. 2, when the Agencies of government took a close look at the votes that were cast, they found no evidence--virtually none--of voter fraud or manipulation of the outcome of the election. It was obvious to all who were honest about it, including some Republicans who have said as much in the last few days. But one man dissented. That man, of course, was the former President of the United States, Donald Trump, the loser--the official loser--in the 2020 election. He is still in total denial. His momentous ego cannot countenance the possibility of rejection by the American voters, and so he claims the Big Lie that somehow or another this vote was stolen from the poor little former President. Though he can't come up with any evidence to prove any aspect of that and has failed miserably virtually every time he has gone to Federal court to argue it, he still continues to make that argument. It was that argument that was the inspiration behind the insurrectionist mob that was here in the Capitol Building a little over a year ago trying to stop the electoral college vote count. They failed, as they should have. The Constitution prevailed. The will of the American people prevailed. And so in legislatures across the country, including the State of Wisconsin, we see Republican legislatures saying that we are unhappy with the results in the 2020 election; we want to change the rules when it comes to voting in our State. And almost without exception, every change in these Republican legislatures results in a limited time to vote, a limited ability to vote, new obstacles to vote, and on and on and on. I have yet to see any of these Republican-led leislatures demonstrate an effort to the contrary, to expand the right to vote. And so based on article I, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, we have written a bill, a bill that establishes basic standards of voting across America as this document envisioned: standards for voter registration, standards for absentee ballots, standards for same-day registration, standards for making election day a national holiday. Every one of these things that we have proposed in our pending legislation is an expansion of opportunities to vote for eligible voters. It gets down to the bottom line: When it comes to eligible voters, should we create obstacles of hardship or should we make it easy for them to vote without endangering their families, without losing their jobs, without hardship? I think that is the basic mission of a democratic legislature, is it not: the greatest possible participation of the greatest number of voters? Then let them decide on issue after issue. So that is the issue of voting rights in America that now comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate. On the question of the voting rights of Senators, it is interesting to me, every morning, that those in the Chamber start the session by pledging allegiance to the flag. It is apparent, from some of the arguments on the Republican side, that they want to start this meeting of the Senate each day additionally with a pledge of allegiance to the filibuster. Now, that is strange, because if you have any history in the U.S. Senate, you know what the filibuster has become. It is not an occasional problem and challenge. It is now the standard. The filibuster, you see, requires 60 votes for passage of a measure in a body of 100 people. It is an extraordinary majority. It gives power to the minority, which the Senate, of course, was designed to do by giving two seats--two Senate seats--to every State, large and small, but it goes a step further. Despite what you may have heard on the floor earlier, the use of the filibuster--I should say the abuse of the filibuster--has led to the elimination, virtually, of debate and amendments on the floor. I have often said that if you are suffering from insomnia and watch C-SPAN and turn on the U.S. Senate, you will see a perfect room and structure for a wedding reception because there is always plenty of room on the floor of the Senate. We should be leasing this out and using the money to reduce the national debt, the Senators use it so infrequently. There was a time--can you believe this now?--10 years ago, there was a time when 12 appropriation bills would come out of the committees and come to the floor and be subject to amendments, and we would take turns offering amendments to all 12 appropriations bills. That was the ordinary course of business. It is no longer the case. It hasn't been that way for 10 years. And when it comes to the debate and amendments on all the other items, the numbers tell the story. I want to thank my friend Jeff Merkley, who has done amazing research on the Senate and its procedures. In the 109th Congress, we considered 314 amendments. That declined to just 26 amendments under Republican leadership in the last Congress. Twenty-six amendments in a year? Compared to 314? Thank you, to the filibuster. That is where we are today. Thank you, to the 60-vote requirement. That is where we are today. And thanks to my colleagues on the Republican side who are trying to ignore those numbers. They are so graphic. On nominations, there were only three cloture motions in the history of the United States before 1975--three. After 1975 to now, 852 times cloture has been filed on nominations--852 weeks of Senate time potentially obstructed. That is the Senate today. That is the Senate under a filibuster. And if this Senate is going to join the House in establishing standards for equal voting rights across America, the filibuster is the obstacle. I know this story personally. I introduced the DREAM Act 20 years ago--20 years ago. And you say: Senator, I thought you were a hotshot legislator. What are you waiting for? Pass it. I sure wish I could. I brought it to the Senate floor five times in that 20-year period, the DREAM Act to help young people living in this country to have a chance, a pathway to citizenship. On five different occasions it has been stopped by filibuster. Don't tell me the filibuster opens debate and opportunity. The filibuster has shut down debate on the DREAM Act five times in the last 20 years, and that is just one isolated example that is personal to me. That is what the filibuster is all about. It is stopping us from doing anything substantial on voting rights. It is stopping us from passing the DREAM Act. It is stopping us from passing meaningful immigration reform. The filibuster is designed for people who want to say no--no to progress, no to government, no to the Senate being engaged in the issues that affect the American people and families. I have seen colleagues come to the floor on the Republican side with quotes from me defending the filibuster. That was when I was a hopeful person in the Senate. My hope has been dashed by reality--by the reality of a Senate that has been shut down when it comes to national debate and shut down when it comes to national achievement. That, to me, has got to come to an end. I am prepared to sit down with any Republicans of good will--and Democrats included--and come up with some meaningful rules. You know, incidentally, that we are sitting here with a calendar that is loaded with nominations? It is not the filibuster, but it is something quite near to it, where one or two Republican Senators have decided that they don't want to take the ordinary course for nominations. They want to drag them out interminably. That is unfair to President Biden. It is unfair to the American people. If you want to defeat a nomination, do your best. But to stop the debate of the Senate on these nominations to impose your will and to slow down the business of the Senate, I think is an unacceptable standard. And so for the voting rights of American to have a chance to be protected and for the voting rights of Senators to finally be engaged on the floor in that process, we have to be ready to make a change. I am ready. And as I said, I am ready to do it on a bipartisan basis. But for goodness' sake, this empty, silent Chamber is no indication of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created this legislature. We are supposed to be engaged in debate, not afraid of debate. We shouldn't be running off and hiding behind 60 votes. I am open for change. I wish some Republicans would join us. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have 7 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: committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 2:45 p.m., to conduct a business meeting on nominations. committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 2:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of he Senate on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 9 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, to conduct a hearing on nominations. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 20 years ago today, a C-141 Starlifter made its final descent toward a naval base in the Caribbean. As the plane landed, two white schoolbuses waited on the apron, together with a swarm of military humvees and a large contingent of armed soldiers. The plane door opened, and the passengers were offloaded. Heads shaven, legs shackled, the passengers were removed from the plane one by one, each wearing the same identical outfit: a fluorescent orange jumpsuit, a matching ski cap, and earmuff-style noise protectors. Some were also wearing blackout goggles over their eyes to completely deprive them of any sentient experience. This was the scene as the first 20 detainees were hauled off to Guantanamo Bay 4 months to the day after September 11 and the hideous terrorist attacks. That afternoon, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld assured the public and made a statement. Listen to his words carefully. This is what the Secretary said: We do plan to, for the most part, treat [the detainees] in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions. Madam President, that Orwellian double-talk kicked off a 20-year saga at Guantanamo Bay, a chapter in American history that it is time to close. As we now know, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was deliberately created to avoid the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and other time-honored treaties that America used to brag about being party to. In the words of one senior official in the Bush administration, Guantanamo exists ``in the legal equivalent of outer space.'' The facility was designed to be a legal black hole, where detainees could be held incommunicado, beyond the reach of laws, beyond public scrutiny, and subjected to torture and unspeakable abuse. It is where due process goes to die. Perhaps the most shameful lie surrounding the creation of Guantanamo's detention facility was that it would help deliver justice to the families of the thousands of Americans who died on 9/11. In March 2002, then-President George W. Bush delivered a speech before Congress where he promised that the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 would ``not escape the justice of this nation.'' Yet, two decades later, the families who lost loved ones that day are still awaiting justice. The case against the alleged 9/11 coconspirators has not been resolved. In fact, it has not even gone to trial 20 years later. At this very moment, those terror suspects are sitting in cells in Guantanamo without any resolution in sight. Think about how the world has changed since September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden has been hunted down. The war in Afghanistan, our Nation's longest war, is over. Four Presidents--four different Presidents--have presided over the facility at Guantanamo Bay. But despite all these changes and all this history, one tragic truth remains: America has failed to provide closure to the families of the victims who suffered those unimaginable losses on September 11, and that is simply because Guantanamo was never intended to deliver justice. If justice delayed is justice denied, Guantanamo speaks for itself, and the documented history of Guantanamo Bay cannot be disputed. Last month, the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on closing Guantanamo Bay finally, once and for all. One of the witnesses who was particularly touching was Colleen Kelly, whose brother Bill died in the North Tower on 9/11. During her testimony, she said: Five men stand accused in the military commissions at Guantanamo of responsibility for planning and supporting the 9/11 attacks. Today . . . a trial has not even begun. Instead, family members have heard years of argument in pre- trial hearings. While these hearings have produced no legal justice for 9/11, they have revealed the shocking role of torture in undermining [any] 9/11 prosecution. At the end of her testimony, Ms. Kelly said: My brother Bill was killed in what was likely the most public event in human history. My family does not have any of my brother's remains, nor do one-third of 9/11 families. She said directly to us: I am asking this Committee and the Biden Administration to deliver the next best thing--a resolution to the 9/11 Military Commission that provides answers to our questions, accountability for unlawful acts, justice too long denied, and a path to closing Guantanamo. When Ms. Kelly spoke before the committee, she wasn't just speaking for her family; she was speaking for our Nation. For 20 years, Guantanamo Bay has defied our constitutional values and the rule of law. It has actually weakened our national security. It costs us dearly--morally, monetarily. Listen to the subsidy which American taxpayers give to Guantanamo Bay. It is a subsidy that subverts justice. Today, most Americans couldn't answer this question: How many detainees are there in Guantanamo? Thirty-nine. Taxpayers spend $550 million a year to keep that facility open. Do the math. That is almost $14 million per year on each prisoner. Moreover, two-thirds of the remaining prisoners have never been charged with any crime. That is right--never charged. Yet they are being detained indefinitely, in violation of our basic constitutional principles. Of the 27 uncharged men, more than half of them have already been approved for transfer. Think of that. Some have been approved for years. Another was approved just yesterday. These individuals are languishing in Guantanamo for no justifiable reason and contrary to any notion of liberty or justice. Every day Guantanamo remains open is a victory for our Nation's enemies. It is a symbol of our failure to hold terrorists accountable and our failure to honor the sacrifices of our servicemembers. These failures should not be passed on to another generation. They should end with the Biden administration. Last fall, I introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to close Guantanamo. It was ambitious, I know, but it was a goal that I felt is most consistent with who we are as Americans and what we say about justice. I was disappointed that the Senate didn't take up any amendments literally or this amendment particularly. Instead, it voted once again to prohibit the use of Federal funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States and made it even harder to transfer detainees to foreign countries willing to accept them. That just delays the Guantanamo experience even longer. But let me be clear, even with these legislative restrictions in place, there is more the Biden administration can and must do to accelerate the closure of Guantanamo. First, the administration should repatriate or resettle the 14 detainees who have been cleared for transfer. There is no excuse, none, for any further delay, which is why President Biden should appoint a special envoy at the State Department to negotiate transfer agreements with other nations. Additionally, the Biden administration should appoint a senior official within the White House who will be accountable for leading the process of closing Guantanamo. Finally, the Justice Department should bring its legal positions in alignment with President Biden's stated goal of closing Guantanamo in his first term. The Department has yet to correct course on a number of troubling legal positions, including failing to acknowledge that our Constitution's due process clause applies to prisoners held in Guantanamo. It is time to stop hiding from our values. Our Federal courts have proven more than capable of handling even the most serious and complex terrorism cases. They have done so swiftly and efficiently. Since 9/11, hundreds of terrorism suspects have been tried and convicted in our Federal court system. Many are now being held safely in Federal prisons. Meanwhile, as I mentioned, the case against alleged conspirators in the 9/11 attacks still has not come to trial. In the face of unimaginable horror, such as the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we must turn to our system of justice to hold our enemies accountable. Legal black holes like Guantanamo are anathema to American values and accountability. One of the military officials who testified in last month's hearing was Michael Lehnert. He was the very first commandant at the facility at Guantanamo. Where does he stand today on that facility? He is calling publicly for its swift closure. During his testimony, General Lehnert said that ``most of America has forgotten about Guantanamo. But hear me when I tell you that our enemies have not. Closing Guantanamo responsibly restores the reputation of America,'' the general said, ``ensures accountability for those who have committed crimes against us, and provides closure for the families of those they have harmed.'' By allowing Guantanamo to remain open, we are giving our enemies the power to define who America is. It is time to reclaim that power and prove to the world that America is not a nation defined by our darkest moments. We are a nation defined by our values. Let us start living up to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened carefully to the Republican leader's statement about the institutions of the Senate, the traditions of the Senate, the rules of the Senate, the precedents of the Senate, and why we are dutybound to follow them, but I couldn't get this image out of my mind as he spoke: the image of that news that came to us one day that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had tragically passed away. And we all remember what happened next. It was the same Republican leader who sent the word out to his Republican Members: Don't even entertain the possibility that President Obama is going to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court. We are going to keep this vacancy open in the hopes that we can elect a Republican President to fill it. Now, that was 8 months at least, maybe 10 months, before the election. And it was the first time in the history of the United States that a Republican leader of the Senate used his power to browbeat his members not even to meet with Merrick Garland, the President's nominee, President Obama's nominee. They wouldn't even entertain an office meeting with him to discuss it. It was out of the question. The Supreme Court was going to have 8 members, period, and not one more because there was an election coming and a Republican opportunity in that election. And so that is what happened. You remember it well, and I do too. So when I hear about preserving the sanctity of traditions in the Senate, I can't help but remember that vacant seat on the Supreme Court for almost a year. I cannot help but remember that in the last year of Obama's Presidency that he was denied the opportunity which other Presidents routinely were given to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. That was the reality. And now there is a question of the future of the filibuster, and I will concede that the filibuster has been part of the profile in the Senate for a long, long time--for many decades. But what the Senate Republican leader fails to note is that the use of the filibuster is out of control. We now have filibusters threatened on everything in sight. It was by design, not by accident. And it was by design to slow down the business of the Senate and stop the production of the Senate, and that is why day after weary day this Chamber is empty. Nothing is happening because a filibuster is usually looming over the body. And for those who want to restore the Senate to an actual legislative body with actual debate and amendments on the floor, we are being told by the Republican leader that we are somehow denying the basic birthright of the Senate, and we know that is wrong. We know that the Senate, as many of us remember, has changed dramatically. It was 25 years ago that I came to the Senate. We voted a lot. We actually had 12 appropriations bills come to the floor of the Senate every year--every year--under an open process where any amendment could be offered and debated and voted on, and ultimately that appropriations bill would go into conference with the House and end up doing what it was supposed to do, funding our government. I can't remember the last time that happened. I think it has been 10 years now since the subcommittees for appropriations did their normal business with the budget resolution and prepared these bills. It is gone. Why? Why is it gone? Wasn't it the tradition of the Senate that you consider those bills? It is gone because of abuse of the filibuster. Any amendment that is offered is threatened with a 60-vote requirement and things grind to a halt. And you know the net result of it? We have something called an omnibus. All the spending bills are merged into one massive piece of legislation. Let the staff write it. Let the Members look over their shoulder and see if there is anything in there of interest, and we pass it year after year after year. Is that another fine tradition of the Senate that we want to protect? I hope not. Let me say a word about voting, if I can. For as long as we have had this Nation, there has always been a basic question as to who will choose the leaders. Our Founding Fathers showed a lot of wisdom, but they missed it when it came to voting--at least by this century's standards because they denied the vote to African Americans who, by and large, were slaves in that culture, and they denied the vote to women. And they said that basically propertied individuals were the ones who would choose the leaders of our country. We have a different view of America's democracy today, and many of us believe that every eligible person in this country should be given an opportunity to vote that is not a hardship. So in the 2020 election, we had a record turnout. There were many of us who felt we should build on that to have an even larger turnout in the next election--let the people speak, let the people vote. And in about 20 different State legislatures controlled by the Republicans, exactly the opposite was decided. They decided that they would restrict opportunities to vote. Too many darn people voted in that 2020 election, and the results weren't what some of the Republican legislatures and Governors expected. So they decided they wanted to change it--reduce the opportunity for early voting, reduce the opportunities for registration, reduce the opportunity for same-day registration. They argued that some States have them and some don't. Well, the bottom line, as we see it on the Democratic side, is if we are going to open opportunity for people across the country who are eligible to vote without hardship, then we ought to do it across the board, and that is why we support legislation--Federal legislation ordained and envisioned by our Constitution to establish standards that will make it easier to vote. The Senator from Kentucky likes to come to the floor and say, well, New York doesn't have all those good things. He may be right. But why shouldn't they? As far as I am concerned, Illinois, New York, Hawaii, all States should be governed by standards and give people an additional opportunity to vote. I would rather come down on the side of a larger turnout of the electorate and let democracy speak than the alternative, which is being suggested by the Republican leader. They want to selectively make it difficult for some people to come and vote. I don't. I think they are wrong. Time and again, the Senate Republican leader came to the floor and called things fake. I guess we are now into that characterization and can thank President Trump for leading us down that path. What is not fake is this. Throughout the history of the United States, the opportunity to vote has been denied, primarily to people of color and the poor, year after year, in an effort to try to ensure that election results turned out a certain way. For the longest time, my Democratic Party was guilty of that sin. I readily confess it because history makes it clear, but now that mantle has been passed to the party of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party, which is now trying to restrict the right to vote across the Nation. When you heard that in Georgia you couldn't provide water or food to people waiting in line, it probably struck most Americans as odd. Why would they say that? Well, visualize, if you will, the lines of voters, and you will find, if your memory is the same as mine, that largely they were minority voters who were standing in line for hours to vote--hours to vote. And so the Georgia State Legislature and others have said, if you give them water or food, you have violated the law. Let them stand in line without any support. Really? Is that what it has come down to? The fear that if you give a cup of water to someone waiting in line to vote, you are buying their vote? I just can't believe the thinking that leads to that. But we know behind it were a lot of situations where machinery and voting places were limited to minority populations.