Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Minnesota. She is an extraordinarily talented legislator and works well in a challenging political environment, and she has tackled this issue with a ferocity and intensity which is seldom seen in the U.S. Senate. It is fitting that she did and that she continues even to this day because of the gravity of the issue, but we are fortunate to have her leadership--extraordinary leadership--to bring us to this moment where we are facing the issue of voting in America. Mr. President, I started on Capitol Hill at the lowest possible level, as an intern, in the office of U.S. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois. I was a college student at Georgetown University. Senator Douglas had served in World War II. He volunteered at the age of 50 to enlist in the Marine Corps and worked his way into a fighting position in the South Pacific. And on the island of Okinawa, he was shot up, and his left arm dangled by his side the rest of his life, much like Bob Dole. He used to refer to that left arm as his paperweight. He had a way of running a Senate office which would be impossible in these days, but he insisted on signing every letter that went out of his office. And he would read them and make notes, which I thought were illegible, but they were his efforts to send personal greetings along with the letters. Well, you can imagine that they stacked up the letters each day--his staff did--as they typed them and used carbon paper back in the day. And he would come in at 5 o'clock at his conference table with a large stack of letters and start to fold them. Of course, with one arm, he needed help. That is where I showed up--and the other interns. We sat next to him and pulled the letters as he signed them. And we were told by the senior staff in the office that, as interns in that capacity, we weren't supposed to talk to this great man because he had important thoughts going through his mind and we shouldn't interrupt him. But, lo and behold, he would open the conversation with me and others, and we felt really fortunate to have a chance to just speak to him for a few minutes. So I would prepare, every time I was going to play that role, to read even more about his background so I knew what he had been through. I can recall the day when I worked up the courage and said--they called him Mr. D.--Mr. D., I read somewhere that before Franklin Roosevelt was elected President of the United States, that you were a socialist and a follower of Norman Thomas, another American socialist. Why were you not a Democrat? He said: Dick, in those days, the Democratic Party was the party of southern Democrats who were not good on civil rights and big-city bosses, whom I always fought in the city of Chicago. So socialism was a good alternative for a progressive like me. I think he used the word ``liberal''--``a liberal like me.'' But then came Roosevelt and opened the door for a lot of us on the liberal side to become part of the Democratic Party--the new Democratic Party--under his leadership. I always remember that and thought that in the course of American history, so many times, tables have turned, and they are turning on this very issue of voting rights, because if you look at the history of voting rights in this country and the suppression of voting rights, particularly toward African Americans, I am sorry to report that it is my Democratic Party--one I am very proud of today--which was guilty of so many sins in the past when it came to discrimination against voters when it came to voting. And that, to me, was a reality that is now interesting today because the tables have turned. The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, was the party, by and large, that fought for voting rights for the recently liberated African-American populations after the Civil War and the Democrats in the South that resisted it. I want to commend a book to those who are following this debate. It is entitled ``One Person, No Vote.'' And the book is written by Carol Anderson, who has become a friend of mine. Carol is a professor in African-American studies at Emory University in Georgia, and she writes the history of reconstruction and Jim Crow. I want to read just a small section of this book to put in perspective what was happening. Here it was, a Civil War in this country, with over half a million Americans dead, with inflamed feelings on both sides of the war. And, afterward, for the first time, African Americans, because of the war and because of constitutional amendments, were going to be enfranchised--actually be allowed to vote. And, of course, when they did turn up in great numbers, they ended up electing their own and electing people who were sympathetic to their cause. Well, there was a backlash, primarily among Democrats in the South, and that backlash led to Jim Crow during Reconstruction and the suppression of the right to vote. It was horrible. I want to read one part of this book, Carol Anderson's book, ``One Person, No Vote.'' She writes: That became most apparent in 1890 when the Magnolia State passed the Mississippi Plan, a dizzying array of poll taxes, literacy tests, understanding clauses, newfangled voter registration rules, and ``good character'' clauses--all intentionally racially discriminatory but dressed up in the genteel garb of bringing ``integrity'' to the voting booth. This feigned legal innocence was legislative evil genius. Virginia representative Carter Glass, like so many others, swooned at the thought of bringing the Mississippi Plan to his own state [of Virginia], especially after he saw how well it had worked. He rushed to champion a bill in the legislature that would ``eliminate the darkey as a political factor . . . in less than five years.'' Glass, whom President Franklin Roosevelt would one day describe as an ``unreconstructed rebel,'' planned ``not to deprive a single white man of the ballot, but [to] inevitably cut from the existing electorate four-fifths of the Negro voters'' in Virginia. One delegate questioned him: ``Will it not be done by fraud and discrimination?'' Glass [answered]: ``By fraud, no. By discrimination, yes.'' ``Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose . . . to discriminate to the very extremity . . . permissible . . . under the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate. Well, the Mississippi Plan was picked up by other States. In Louisiana, for example, where more than 130,000 Blacks had been registered to vote in 1896, after the application of these laws, the number dropped from 130,000 to 1,342. African-American registered voters in Alabama plunged from 180,000 to fewer than 3,000 in just 3 years. I am sorry to say that these were Democrats in the South who were leading that charge. I am sorry to say that that was part of the history of my party. But it is history. It does reflect what is going on today. Now there is a conscious effort by the other party--then-party of Abraham Lincoln--to find ways to reduce the opportunity to vote. And why? Why would they do this? In the last Presidential election, in 2020, we had the largest turnout in the history of the United States, exactly what a democracy should celebrate. And, instead, we find State after State dominated by Republican legislatures and Governors trying to find ways to reduce opportunities to vote. Why? Why wouldn't we make it as easy as possible for every eligible American to vote? Justice Roberts, in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I remember, talked about voting being the right that is the preservative of all other rights. It is so fundamental. You would think that we could accept the premise that if this democracy is to work, the electorate should speak and as many as possible should participate. But today we have the opposite: an effort by nearly 20 States or more to reduce opportunities to vote, and in reducing those opportunities, many people will be denied their chance to speak when it comes to the election. Congress and our Nation marked the first anniversary of one of the darkest days in America history yesterday: the January 6 insurrection, the day American democracy was nearly lost. That day, an embittered, defeated President Trump sent a murderous mob to attack this Capitol and overturn the election he had lost. I was honored to join my colleagues yesterday to speak to the bravery of the Capitol Police, the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police, and the National Guard, who battled not only to defend this building but to defend our way of life and our government. Those defenders of democracy faced down violent extremists for hours. They endured vicious attacks with fists, chemical sprays, baseball bats, flagpoles, steel bars, and other weapons. It is because of their courageous sacrifice that our democracy survived. Five police officers who battled the mob on January 6 died over the following days, weeks, and months. Most of them continue to protect us, even as they heal from the wounds of that day. As these officers will tell you, January 6 was not a normal day for tourists in the Capitol, despite what Congressman Andrew Clyde, Republican of Georgia, claimed. And the threat of January 6 is not over. For a few short hours after the insurrection, many of our Republican colleagues denounced the violence and the former President who provoked it. But sadly, Republican lawmakers throughout America quickly changed their tune. In a matter of days, more and more were intimidated to embrace the former President's Big Lie that the 2020 election somehow was not legitimate. Since January 6, we have seen a torrent of bills introduced in Republican-controlled legislatures to restrict voting rights and undermine the integrity of our democracy. Republican lawmakers in nearly 20 States--including Georgia, Arizona, and Florida--have passed laws making it harder for millions of Americans to vote, and in some cases, making it easier--and this is so critical--for politicians to overturn election results they don't like. Let's be honest. These laws aren't about preventing voter fraud. They are about giving politicians the power to pick and choose the votes they want to count. Does that sound like an echo of the history that we lived through right after the Civil War in the 19th and 20th centuries? Instead of denouncing these efforts, our Republican colleagues have resurrected the age-old battle cry that they were using in those days: States' rights. They insist--falsely--that Congress has no authority to protect citizens whose voting rights are under attack. They are wrong. They have not taken the time to read history or the Constitution. Inside the desk in this Chamber of every single Senator is a little book: the U.S. Constitution. I commend it to my colleagues, particularly in light of this debate. It is article 1, section 4 of that Constitution which says: ``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.'' When you think about what we are trying to do here, as the Senator from Minnesota has described it, we are setting out to establish the standards by law for the choosing of Federal election. Fast forward about 80 years after that sentence was written. The Civil War had come to a close, and the 15th Amendment was ratified to protect the rights of newly freed slaves, including the right to vote. What does that section of the Constitution say? Section 2 of the 15th Amendment: Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. It couldn't be stated any more clearly. Preventing States from denying citizens their right to vote is not constitutional overreach. It is urgent, constitutional obligation, and we must honor it. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance is a think tank in Sweden. Every year, for more than 50 years, it has ranked the world's nations according to their commitment to democracy. In 2021, for the first time ever, the United States' ranking fell to what the group calls ``a backsliding democracy.'' The report said: ``A historic turning point came in 2020-21, when former President Donald Trump questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 elections in the United States.'' We call it the Big Lie. If we in this Senate fail to denounce that Big Lie, do you know what America's future is going to look like? It won't be a government of and by the people. It will be a government ruled by political strongmen with weak principles. These new voter-suppression laws are a coup in slow motion. They are the continuation of the January 6 assault on this building and our Constitution. They are designed to bring your right to decide your future--and deny it. Ask yourself this: If the American people don't decide the outcome of elections, who will? I will tell you: political partisans, special interests, the rich and the powerful. This Senate has the responsibility to protect the power and the rights of American voters in our democracy. And right now, there are two commonsense proposals before the Senate to do just that. I am honored to cosponsor both. The first is the bipartisan--thank you, Senator Murkowski, of Alaska--John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. It would strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement. For decades, Republicans and Democrats have worked together--on a nearly unanimous basis--to reauthorize and update the Voting Rights Act. As Senator Klobuchar mentioned earlier, there were times when more than 90 Senators would vote in favor of the reauthorization of that act. It reached a point in the House of Representatives where I believe the only Republican Congressman who would stand up and continue to vote for the reauthorization of that act was Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. He has since retired. This new version, named in honor of the great John Lewis, our friend and colleague, would restore the full strength and authority of that legislation, which has been dangerously weakened by a series of misguided decisions from the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. I worked with Senators Leahy, Murkowski, and Manchin to craft this compromise bill. The second bill, which Senator Klobuchar spoke to--the Freedom to Vote Act--would preserve the integrity of our elections by establishing minimum standards for voting access in all States, including same-day voter registration and establishing election day as a Federal holiday. What is behind all that? Just a very basic premise: Eligible voters should not face obstacles in voting. We ought to make it easier for them. Isn't it an embarrassment to you--it is to me--to watch the newscast show people standing in line--literally, hours to vote? Bless them for their determination to exercise their rights as citizens in this country. But shame on us--this great Nation--that we would make it so inconvenient and so difficult. And now State legislatures across the Nation are doing even worse. I am grateful to Senator Merkley, who is here, and Senator Klobuchar, for leading the efforts on this critical legislation. Both of these measures are simple, sensible, and popular. Together, they will protect every eligible voter's access to the ballot box. There is no guarantee that more people turning up to vote are all going to vote for Democrats--or even for Republicans. But isn't it the nature of democracy to leave it to the American people to make that choice, not to those of us in legislatures, either State or Federal? So why is it that our colleagues on the other side are once again using the filibuster to prevent the Senate from even beginning debate on these bills? It goes back to that old States' rights argument. I mentioned it earlier. Some Republicans have claimed that our proposals would amount to ``a Federal takeover of our election system.'' To those Republicans, I would say: Open your desk, and open this book, and read. It is a baseless claim. These measures are about preventing partisans from poisoning the well of democracy. We cannot stand idly by as Republicans State legislatures enact a wave of unprecedented voter suppression, returning to that grim, dark period in American history of suppression of voting. We cannot accept that the Senate is powerless. Later this month, we are going to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a champion of democracy in our lifetime. Throughout the civil rights movement, Dr. King would quote a phrase from Thomas Carlyle, the historian, who wrote in his account of the French Revolution: ``No lie can live forever.'' So how much longer will we allow Mr. Trump's Big Lie to tear our Nation apart? How much longer will we accord a simple Senate rule more protection and respect than the Constitution--a Senate rule that began as a clerical error and has been changed 160 times? Right now, the only obstacle standing in the way of stopping this voter suppression is the filibuster. But let's be clear. There is no Senate rule more important than our constitutional right to vote. Americans have given their lives to defend our constitutional rights. No one has ever been asked to risk their life to defend the Senate filibuster rule. For our Republican colleagues to feign outrage about preserving the rules and norms of this Senate, I would ask them to think back a year ago this week. Where were these precious rules and norms when the leader of the Republican Party--then-President Trump--plotted an overthrow of the government by disrupting the Senate business? Where were these rules and norms when some of our colleagues echoed the Big Lie that led to that bloody insurrection? And where were these rules and norms when some members of the Republican Party openly endorsed installing Donald Trump to the Presidency against the will of the American people? Right now, this is not just another political debate; the future of the American democracy is at stake. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a year ago today, we witnessed one of the worst assaults on our democracy in living memory. For those of us who were in the Chamber--that includes virtually every Senator--there are images which are emblazoned in our memory. Mine, like others, was of a Vice President sitting, where you are sitting, who shortly after 2 p.m. in the afternoon was pulled off of the dais by two of his security detail and hurried out that door. It is an unusual thing to happen under any circumstances, but while we were counting the electoral college returns, it was amazing and unprecedented. Then they came up and the Capitol Police instructed us: Stay at your desk. This is going to be a secure room. We are going to start bringing in all the staff, and they will be lining the walls here. We will keep you safe. Well, we all sat there in anticipation of the next thing to happen and, not 10 minutes later, another Capitol policeman came up and said: That last directive is off. Evacuate this body, this room, as quickly and orderly as possible. And we all started piling out the doors. As we left and went down the exit stairways just outside the doors of this Chamber, I looked out the window and saw a sea of Trump signs converging on the Capitol. It was an image I won't forget. We went to what we considered to be a safe location and witnessed over television what most of America was watching. How serious was it? Well, one misguided soul, a Republican Congressman from Georgia, said it was just a group of tourists-- tourists--in the Capitol. Yesterday, the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, had a press conference and remarked on the first anniversary of January 6. And among the things he said was this: All of the investigations--the criminal investigations of what happened that day-- have disclosed some horrible things: evidence of perpetrators punching dozens of law enforcement officers, knocking them unconscious. Some perpetrators tackled and dragged law enforcement officers. Among the many examples of such violence, one officer was crushed in a door, another was dragged down a set of stairs facedown, repeatedly tased and beaten, and suffered a heart attack. Some perpetrators attacked law enforcement officers with chemical agents, burning their eyes and skins. We saw it--didn't we?--spraying the bear spray in the faces of these officers. Some assaulted officers with pipes and poles and other dangerous and deadly weapons. Perpetrators targeted, assaulted, tackled, and harassed journalists, destroying their equipment, and that launched the most comprehensive and perhaps largest criminal prosecution in the history of this Nation. According to the Attorney General, 725 individuals have been charged with a Federal crime, and 145 pled guilty already to Federal misdemeanors. Over 325 have been charged with felonies, many for assaulting officers and many for corruptly obstructing or attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Twenty defendants charged with felonies have already pled guilty, and the investigation continues. They talked about the assistance they received: over 300,000 tips from ordinary citizens to help our government bring to justice those responsible for January 6. I say that because I listened in disbelief to the polling data which suggests that it really wasn't an attack on the Capitol; it was only a visit of tourists who were in an orderly fashion visiting this building. The videos don't lie. The facts are the facts. Individuals are paying a criminal price, and their lives will be changed because of their bad decisions to leave the Trump rally and follow his instructions to come up to this building. That is the reality of what happened that day. But the grimmest reality was the death of five of our law enforcement officials, who have been named and should be named every time we stand on this floor--Officer Brian Sicknick, Officer Howard Liebengood, Officer Jeffrey Smith, Officer Gunther Hashida, and Officer Kyle DeFreytag--and 140 other law enforcement officials who were assaulted, many of them seriously, and are still paying the price for that day in their lives when they stood in defense of us, in defense of this building. That is the reality, and if nothing more comes of this speech, commemoration today, I hope that all of us, regardless of our political persuasion--the most conservative Republican to the most progressive Democrat, Independents in between; Black, White, and Brown; men and women; rural, urban across America, will finally come to agreement on one thing: Violence has no place in a democracy. Those who resort to violence, wherever they fit on the political spectrum, do not fit on that spectrum, do not belong in this country. And what we saw a year ago today was violence unbridled, violence provoked by a former President of the United States, and many innocent people paid a price. I listened as the President and Vice President spoke this morning in Statuary Hall. It was a somber and meaningful occasion, as they talked about what was at stake on January 6 and the challenge we face today. And I thought for a moment what a difference it would have made, in fact, as the President spoke, if Republican and Democratic leaders stood by his side, but that was not to be the case. You see, when the proposal was made for a bipartisan commission of Democrats and Republicans--commissions we have seen in the past, from 9/11 and other events that marked our history--that was stopped by Senator McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate, by the threat of a filibuster. He wouldn't agree to a bipartisan commission to look into the origins of January 6 and what we need to do to avoid them in the future. So I want to salute Speaker Pelosi for organizing a bipartisan committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, who is investigating this matter. I want to salute my fellow Congressman from Illinois, Adam Kinzinger, who has had the courage to step forward and be part of it, as well as Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming and the Democrats who are part of that effort. They are serving this Nation as they should: bringing forth the facts, fighting the resistance from those who don't want to tell the truth. But there is more that we must do. It has been mentioned several times and bears repeating: What is happening across America since January 6 is equally alarming to this assault on the Capitol, and that is the effort by dozens of States across the Nation to restrict Americans' right to vote. To think of it, in that last election in 2020, we had the largest turnout in the history of the United States to cast votes in the Presidential election, and the response by so many of these States controlled by Republican legislatures is to try to do their best to make sure that never happens again; to restrict the opportunity to vote for eligible Americans, when we should be doing just the opposite. I have won elections, and I have lost elections. As long as they were fair elections, I accepted the results, and they all were. I was lucky. Sometimes, I won; sometimes, I lost. But I felt at the end of the day that they were fair elections. We should feel the same way about the election that occurred the year before last, in 2020, with the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States. It was a fair election. It has been certified. I marvel at my colleagues on the Republican side who come to the floor and say we have no right to tell these States what their laws should be when it comes to elections. This little booklet is in each of our desks. I would commend to my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side, to consider opening it and consider reading article I, section 4. I would like to read into the Record: ``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.'' And you go further in and read the Bill of Rights and the amendments to the Constitution. And then Amendment 15 says: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2 of the amendment says: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. And yet Republican after Republican comes to the floor and questions how we can have the audacity to suggest that we are establishing standards so eligible voters across this country have an opportunity to vote. It is our constitutional responsibility to do it, and simply making that eligibility turn into an actual exercise of that right is consistent with our democracy. I know other colleagues are here to speak today. I will close by saying this: What brought that mob to this Capitol was the inspiration of a former President, who provoked them, incited them, and turned them loose on this building, and now, we are led to believe that he sat back and watched on television, as the events unfolded, doing nothing--not picking up the phone, not calling on anyone to stop the violence, to stop the bloodshed, to stop the death that took place in this Capitol. He did nothing for hours until, finally, enough forces came in to reclaim this building. When I saw the images, the photographs, and the videos of people who were clowning in this Chamber, posing for photographs, going through my desk and other desks, and others taking photographs with their phones, sitting in that chair to pose for pictures to send back home, it makes me sick to my stomach. This is a sacred place. It is not sacred because I serve here or anyone else does. It is sacred because it was built to be a symbol of this great Nation. It was during the administration of a man from Illinois named Lincoln, who completed the Capitol dome in the midst of a Civil War so that this building would always be a symbol of the unity of our Nation and the promise of our Nation. That symbol was desecrated on January 6. And now, the question arises: Will we summon the courage to come together and lead to extend the opportunity to vote to more and more Americans, to make this democracy more complete and more just? Or will we step back and accept the verdict of history that we are going to go back in time instead of forward as a Nation? I trust we will move forward. These American people are great people. Regardless of their political persuasion, they have one abiding knowledge, and that is the fact that we are blessed to live in this country, and we each bear a responsibility to its future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California, (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, November 9, 2020, was the first day that the Senate was in session following the Presidential election that year. Six days had passed since the polls had closed. It had been 2 days since enough votes were tallied for the Associated Press and TV networks, including FOX, to conclude that Joe Biden was elected President of the United States. But inside the White House, former President Donald Trump was busy. He was tweeting a torrent of lies and conspiracy theories to deny the obvious. He was ready to pull the White House and the people's house, this U.S. Capitol, down around him in order to overturn an election he had lost. Never before--never in the history of the United States--has a President or Presidential candidate shown such utter contempt for the will of the American people or for the peaceful transition of power in a democracy. Yet, when the Senate convened 6 days after the election, some of our Republican colleagues actually offered excuses for the poor feelings and the attitude and the demeanor of the former President and his incendiary actions. The Republican Senate leader, who was on the floor a few minutes ago, defended President Trump at that time, saying that he was ``100 percent within his right to pursue recounts and litigation.'' Never mind that the lawsuits were based on the same lies that former President Trump was spewing. Over the next few weeks, those lawsuits were initiated. What was the final score? So 64 of the 65 legal challenges brought by the Trump campaign to dismiss the results of the election were dismissed themselves as meritless, many by judges that Donald Trump had appointed. Also on November 9, a person identified only as ``a senior Republican official'' told a Washington Post reporter something that is chilling. Speaking about the defeated President Trump lashing out with poisonous lies and conspiracy theories, this nameless Republican asked: ``Well, what's the downside for humoring him for a little bit of time? No one seriously thinks the results will change.'' This unnamed Republican official went on to say: ``He went golfing this weekend. It's not like he's plotting how to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on January 20. He's tweeting about filing some lawsuits. The lawsuits will fail, then he'll tweet some more on how the election was stolen, then he'll leave.'' That was the Republican attitude toward President Trump after the election results were in. In fact, we know now that plotting to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on January 20 was exactly what Donald Trump was up to. He abused the powers of his office to exert extraordinary pressure on the Justice Department. I know this because I was in the actual deposition in the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, when those in the Justice Department who were contacted by the President for this purpose testified under oath. Politicians and elected officials in key States were also contacted by President Trump. And the Vice President was drawn into the President's plans to nullify an American election. We came perilously close to losing our democracy at that point. It survives today only because men and women of conscience--Democrats and Republicans--refused to cooperate with the former President. As it became apparent that he could not contort the bureaucracy to nullify the election, and it wasn't working in the courts either, Donald Trump turned to a weapon--a desperate weapon--seldom used in American history: political violence. On December 19, 2020, Trump tweeted: ``Big protest in DC on January 6. Be there. WILL BE WILD!'' That was one of the several tweets he sent out summoning his followers to Washington. On January 5, 2021, a year ago today, Steve Bannon, once one of Trump's chief strategists, then discarded, then embraced--I can't keep track--he is now back in the Trump fold. He used his podcast on that day, a year ago today, to telegraph the chaos that was going to erupt the next day. Steve Bannon told his listeners: ``We're going into something that's never happened before in American history,'' he said that a year ago, ``It's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. Okay, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different.'' Bannon said: ``All I can say is strap in. . . . It's all converging, and now we're on the point of attack tomorrow.'' That is a quote from Steve Bannon, a year ago today, about January 6, 2021. I don't have to remind anyone what happened that day. Many of us lived it. Some may try to downplay it or deny it was any threat. They know better. They know the truth. If you were sitting in this Chamber, with Vice President Pence sitting in your chair, preparing to count the electoral vote to determine the President of the United States, and you noted the Vice President's staff come roaring through that door, reach up and grab him by the arms, and pull him off the podium where you are now sitting-- people were dumbstruck. They couldn't imagine what was going on here for a moment. And then to have a member of the Capitol Police come before us and stand where you are seated and to announce that this was going to be the safe room in the Capitol--they were going to start bringing staff members in to line the backs of the floor here because this was a safe place to be, and we should just sit tight and be quiet. Well, then we started hearing the roar outside, as the mob was descending on this building. And within 10 minutes, another member of the Capitol Police stood where you are sitting right now and said: Evacuate the Chamber as quickly as possible. Leave through these doors in an orderly fashion. That was the reality of life in the Capitol and the business of the Senate when the mob--the Trump mob--descended on January 6. We saw what happened. Many of us left and had to follow it by videos that were taken and photos later of people who were assaulted. When it was all over, five people died, and 140 members of law enforcement were assaulted and victimized and physically attacked. Those who dismiss it or don't want to talk about it on the floor have to accept the reality; the reality was there was death and violence against law enforcement officials that day. And the notion that somehow all of these people carrying Trump signs and banners were actually Democrats--what were they thinking? To believe that for a moment is to be totally deluded when it comes to the truth. So what has happened since? The largest criminal prosecution in the history of the United States has ensued. All of those videotapes that were taken by the participants and others in the course of this insurrectionist mob have been used to establish evidence to bring criminal charges against more than 700 individuals, some of whom are already serving time in prison for what they did that day, and it is not over. It is anticipated that another 300 will be charged, some with even more serious crimes. This was no minor incident or, as a Republican Congressman from Georgia said, ``just tourists visiting the Capitol.'' No, it was a deadly moment. People died as a result of what happened that day. People have been changed forever as a result of what happened that day. It was for real. Today, the windows and furniture that were shattered by the rioters have been replaced. The National Guard members have gone home. Thank goodness the security fence around the Capitol is finally down, but there are many invisible scars from January 6. Five police officers who battled the mob died. More than 140 were wounded. And the Big Lie of the stolen election that Trump used to summon his mob continues to metastasize. Over the last year, Republican lawmakers across the country have used this Big Lie as a pretext to pass laws to make it more difficult for Americans to vote. The Republican leader came to the floor and said 94 percent of the people who voted in the last Presidential election said it was easy. Well, I am sure that is true. It was the largest turnout since 1900. But what has happened in almost 20 states since then? Those State legislatures controlled by the Republican Party have tried to make it more difficult in the next election for the same people to vote. That is a fact. And Americans now distrust our elections. More now believe that political violence is acceptable, and that has to change. Our democracy cannot endure with these cancers spreading. Abraham Lincoln called American democracy ``the last best hope on Earth.'' This last year has taught us that it may be the last best hope, but it is fragile. Our generation--every generation--has to be willing to fight to protect it. For the sake of our forbearers, who gave us this democracy, and for our children and grandchildren, who will inherit its future, I am begging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to condemn what happened in this Chamber on January 6, 2021, and to make it clear, once and for all, on a bipartisan basis that we stand together, united, for this democracy to succeed. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Mark Twain said that ``the two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why.'' Harry Reid grew up in the tiny mining town of Searchlight, NV. This politician class, which I am part of, likes to try to trace their roots to some humble beginning, some log cabin experience that they have overcome to reach public office. Harry didn't have to fake it. He was the third of four boys born in the Great Depression to a very poor family. His father was a hard-rock miner who battled alcoholism and was tortured by depression. His father took his own life. Harry came to the floor so many times, I can remember, and spoke of this issue of suicide and what it had meant to him as a boy growing up and what it meant to so many people across America. His mother, a sweet, humble woman, helped to feed the family by doing laundry. The family home was a sight to behold--a tin-roofed, wooden cabin with no indoor plumbing, no hot water, and no telephone. The day Harry came into this world was December 2, 1939. The day he had his Mark Twain moment and learned why he was put here happened 30 years later. Against all odds, Harry had escaped the poverty of his childhood. He had put himself through law school at George Washington University here in Washington, DC, and he worked as a Capitol Police officer in this building to pay for his law school. After graduating, he returned to Nevada as a young lawyer and got involved in local politics. Then came that Mark Twain moment. Harry attended a speech at the University of Nevada in Reno by a writer named Alex Haley. Haley's masterwork, ``Roots,'' traced the story of one American family's triumphant rise over several generations from the horrors of slavery to freedom. Something that Alex Haley said that night hit Harry Reid like a thunderbolt. Haley said: ``Be proud of who you are. You can't escape who you are.'' Harry Reid recalled that moment in his farewell address to the Senate a little over 4 years ago. Harry said: ``I walked out of that event that night a different person, a new man. From that day forward, I would always be Harry Reid from Searchlight.'' As his favorite author, Mark Twain, might say, that was the day Harry Reid found out why he was born. He spent the rest of his life after that Alex Haley experience--almost half a century--climbing the political ladder in America to one of its highest rungs but using that power to help underdogs like the little boy from Searchlight, people like his parents, who struggled to feed their children, and others who felt the crushing hand of fate. Harry Reid believed that the American family could come together as a government and make life better for one another. He believed that wise government decisions gave people an opportunity to overcome adversity. Some who grew up in poverty and hardship and escaped it are so seared by the pain of that life that they never want to look back. They develop a sort of myopia that seems to make it hard for them to even see the struggles of others. That was not Harry Reid. As a young man, he was a tough middleweight boxer. As a lawmaker, he used his boxer's instincts to fight for others. He mastered the arts of dealmaking and lawmaking to help people who work hard and struggle. He will go down in history as a Senate majority leader who helped deliver the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--the most important health and economic security advancement in America in 50 years. Thirty-one million Americans--1 out of every 10--have health insurance today because of Obama's leadership and Harry Reid making it a reality. His work in the Senate, I witnessed personally, day by day by day. I can remember so many chapters, days when I thought it was over; there was no way. Here we were with exactly 60 votes, and our friend, a man we both loved, Teddy Kennedy was dying. We didn't know if we could get to the finish line in time while he was still alive, but Harry was determined. He had a bulldog tenacity to pass that bill. When he fought for the Affordable Care Act, Harry remembered his own life story of how his brother had been writhing in agony in bed with a broken leg because the family couldn't afford to take him to a doctor. Harry used his power to prevent other families from knowing that suffering. After the great recession of 2009 robbed millions of Americans of their jobs, their homes, and their savings, Harry Reid, as majority leader, helped pass the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, to help prevent the abuses that led to that crash. Nevada is home to many immigrants. Senator Harry Reid was a passionate advocate of legislation to fix our broken immigration system. We came to the House together, elected in 1982. He left just a few years later to come to the Senate, and I joined him a few years after that, so we had a friendship that dated back many years. He knew my feelings about immigration, particularly about the DREAM Act. He wasn't sure of exactly what to do until he had two moments in life; one, when his wife Landra talked to him about that issue and how he had to do the right thing and the second was when he came to meet the immigrant people who were in his State of Nevada and hear their life stories. He promised me as my friend and as his whip to his majority leadership that he would bring the DREAM Act to the floor. He knew he had to block out the calendar to do it, and he knew the chances of success were limited, but he was determined to give me my day here on the floor of the Senate. He brought the DREAM Act to the floor of the Senate in December of 2010. We had a majority for it. It wasn't the only time we had majority, but, of course, we fell short of the 60-vote requirement under the filibuster. Then Harry said: What can I do? I told him: Harry, we have to reach out to our friend and former colleague Barack Obama. We have to ask him to do everything in his power to use his Executive Office to do what we cannot accomplish because of the filibuster. So we wrote a letter, 22 of us Democrats, to Barack Obama, pleading with him to step in and help those wonderful young people who were just asking for a chance to be part of America's future. Harry's signature meant a lot as majority leader of the Senate. Barack Obama said he would help and created DACA, and hundreds of thousands of people have had their chance to be legally in America and be part of its future. Harry Reid served in Congress longer than any Nevadan in history. He served in the Senate for 30 years. He was one of only three people to serve 8 years or more as Senate majority leader. He earned the tribute of our Nation, and it will be paid to him this coming weekend and the following week where his body will lie in state in the Rotunda in this Capitol that he loved. Harry was my colleague, my leader, and my friend. Had he not called me personally and asked me to consider running for whip many years ago, I probably wouldn't have done it. But I knew that if he trusted me, I could offer my candidacy to the Senate in the hopes of being elected as whip. He had so many stories to tell. Hardly a day would go by where I wouldn't be in his office. He would tell some story about growing up, about his high school buddies, about his sports experience, about his wonderful wife Landra, about family experiences that always were colorful stories. One involved one of his brothers who got into a fight in a bar in Nevada. His brother was outnumbered, and he was about to take a beating, when the front door of the tavern flung open and Cousin Jeff, a big bruiser of a man, walked in and took control, saving his brother from a beating. I was proud to be called ``Cousin Jeff'' by Harry. When he called me into political battles to be by his side so many times, it was an honor. I was with him when he served as majority and minority whip. Harry was a man of extraordinary humility. He was the first to admit he wasn't much of an orator, and he would say that his good looks didn't win him into public office. But he had a genius for listening to people. He listened to the voices of our caucus, across the aisle, and across America. He managed often to find a way forward. He was a modest man. He didn't care who got the credit as long as the work was done. The only thing that Harry Reid loved as much as the Senate and the promise of America was his family. Landra is such an extraordinary person, Harry's wife of 62 years. They started dating in high school, and Harry knew that she was the ``one.'' It took some convincing for her family to come around to that point of view, but they did, and they had a strong, loving relationship. Their children, Rory, Lana, Key, Leif, and Josh, and their 19 grandchildren were such a great source of pride to Harry more than anything. I want to extend my sympathy to them on my behalf and behalf of my wife Loretta, as well as to the talented staff members who served Harry Reid for so many years, if any of them are still here in the Senate. Above my desk is a portrait of President Lincoln. And above Harry's desk was a painting of Mark Twain. I was confused the first time I saw it because I pictured Mark Twain on the Mississippi, growing up in Missouri. I didn't quite understand the connection. In fact, Mark Twain spent the largest share of his life in Connecticut, where he and his wife raised their family. But Harry Reid said that it was while Samuel Clemens was working as a young newspaper reporter in Nevada that he became ``Mark Twain.'' It was in Nevada where he first used that pseudonym. Harry Reid rose to one of the highest positions in our government. He met with Presidents, Prime Ministers, even Monarchs, and this man from Searchlight helped craft and pass some of the most important legislation of our time. But like Mark Twain, it was in Nevada that Harry discovered why he was born. He fought for justice and fairness, and he always fought for the underdog. He was searching for those young people like himself who grew up in a hard-rock mining town under the toughest of circumstances and did their best. He wanted to give them the same fighting chance he had in life. Harry fought the good fight. He finished the race. America is better for it. I will miss my friend. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on 10 judicial nominees--nine for district courts and one for the Ninth Circuit appeals court--as we continue the critical work of restoring balance to our Federal judiciary. Before briefly speaking on their records, I want to offer a few broad observations. I continue to be impressed by the experience, qualifications, and professional diversity that we see among President Biden's judicial nominees. Looking at these 10 in particular: Nine currently serve as either State court or Federal magistrate judges; three have worked for county or State governments; two have previously served as Federal public defenders; one has served as a Federal prosecutor, while another has worked in various roles at the Justice Department; one has worked for a leading civil rights organization; and several have worked in private legal practice. The judiciary is stronger when our judges come from an array of professional backgrounds, including those that have been historically underrepresented on the bench. Furthermore, all 10 of these nominees are highly qualified, with broad experience and distinguished records. Each of them has demonstrated their commitment to impartiality and evenhandedness. And they will be ready upon confirmation to fully dedicate themselves to the demands of the bench. First is Judge Linda Lopez, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. For the past 3 years, Judge Lopez has served as a magistrate judge in the Southern District of California, where she has presided over seven bench trials. Prior to her appointment, Judge Lopez spent 25 years as a criminal defense attorney, first in private practice and then as a Federal public defender for more than a decade. During this time, she appeared in court frequently and tried 11 jury trials. With such extensive trial experience, both on and off the bench, it is no surprise that Judge Lopez received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association. She has the strong support not only of her home State Senators--Senators Feinstein and Padilla--but also of top Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of California, including the Deputy U.S. Attorney and Criminal Division Chief. We will also vote on Judge Jinsook Ohta's nomination to the Southern District of California. Judge Ohta is currently a judge on the San Diego Superior Court, where she handles family law cases involving domestic violence, child custody, and child support--among many other issues. Prior to assuming the bench, Judge Ohta spent nearly a decade with the consumer protection section of the California Attorney General's Office. In this role, she handled major cases involving healthcare fraud, illegal robocalls--and oversaw an investigation into Facebook's violations of consumer privacy rights. Judge Ohta has been rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA, and she has the strong support of Senators Feinstein and Padilla, her home State Senators. Judge Ohta's family immigrated to the United States from South Korea when she was young, and she grew up in New York City before attending Yale University and New York University School of Law. If confirmed, Judge Ohta would be the first Asian-American woman to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Judge Ohta's wide-ranging legal experience makes her exceptionally well qualified to be a district court judge. Next is David Urias, nominated to the District of New Mexico. Mr. Urias is a highly skilled litigator who is well versed in a number of practice areas, including criminal law, civil rights law, election law, and immigration. He also has experience representing a broad range of clients, from families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to hedge fund managers, to plaintiffs from low-income backgrounds. In addition to having the strong support of his home State Senators-- Senators Heinrich and Lujan--Mr. Urias has been rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the ABA. Given Mr. Urias's broad expertise and his experience representing a wide range of clients, he understands the importance of ensuring that every voice is fairly heard in our Nation's courts. Next is Judge Maame Frimpong, nominated to the Central District of California. Judge Frimpong currently serves as a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles County. During her time on the Superior Court, she has presided over approximately 30 jury trials and thousands of hearings in misdemeanor and felony matters. In this role, Judge Frimpong has demonstrated the acumen and temperament that is required of our Nation's judges. And she is yet another example of both the professional and demographic diversity that President Biden's nominees are adding to our Federal courts. The ABA has unanimously rated Judge Frimpong ``well qualified'' to serve as a district court judge. Judge Frimpong has the strong support of her home State Senators--Senators Feinstein and Padilla--and she has my support as well. We also will consider Judge Jane Beckering's nomination to the Western District of Michigan. Judge Beckering has served as a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals since 2007. Prior to assuming the bench, she spent 17 years as a litigator in private practice, where she appeared regularly in both State and Federal courts and tried three jury trials to verdict. In reviewing her record, I am particularly impressed by Judge Beckering's judicial approach. She has stated, ``My judicial philosophy is that judges should take off their partisan hats when they sit on the bench and treat all comers fairly and impartially . . . they should make their rulings based on the rule of law, not on a political agenda.'' That is exactly the perspective we should be looking for in nominees to the Federal bench. Judge Beckering received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA and has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senators Stabenow and Peters. Next is Judge Shalina Kumar for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Kumar has served on the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Oakland County, MI, since 2007. She is currently the chief judge on this court--the second largest trial court in Michigan--and served in this role on a temporary basis beginning in 2010, 8 years before her official appointment. Over the past 14 years, she has presided over more than 10,000 cases and approximately 100 jury or bench trials on civil, criminal, and juvenile matters. Before joining the bench, Judge Kumar was a skilled litigator. Given her long and distinguished career as a State court judge and her litigation experience, it is unsurprising that Judge Kumar received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association. She likewise has the strong support of Senators Stabenow and Peters. Once confirmed, she will also be the first Federal judge of South Asian descent to serve in Michigan. We will also vote on Judge Jennifer Thurston's nomination to the Eastern District of California. Since 2009, Judge Thurston has served as a magistrate judge for the Eastern District of California. And last year, she was elevated to the position of chief magistrate judge. She has presided over at least 30 trials and 400 bench trials, and she has issued hundreds of judgments involving a range of issues, including civil rights, voting rights, employment discrimination, and criminal cases. Given Judge Thurston's experience as a long-time jurist, she will be ready from day one to take on the challenges of the Eastern District of California, which has one of the highest caseloads in the country. Judge Thurston was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. And she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senators Feinstein and Padilla. We will also be voting on Judge Kate Menendez's nomination to the District of Minnesota. Judge Menendez has served the District of Minnesota as a Federal magistrate judge since 2016. She was appointed to that role by the district's sitting Federal judges, a reflection of Judge Menendez's record, qualifications, and dedication to impartiality. Before assuming the bench, Judge Menendez served for nearly two decades as a Federal public defender, gaining considerable trial and appellate experience. Importantly, she has demonstrated that she understands the difference between the role of an advocate and that of a judge. She received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association and has the strong support of Senators Klobuchar and Smith. We will also consider the nomination of Judge Mary Katherine Dimke for the Eastern District of Washington. For nearly 6 years, Judge Dimke has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Washington, based in Yakima, WA. In this role, Judge Dimke has presided over hundreds of matters, including approximately 400 civil cases that have gone to verdict or judgment. Prior to assuming the bench, Judge Dimke, a first-generation college graduate, spent her legal career as a Federal prosecutor. During this time, she prosecuted a wide range of crimes, with a particular focus on fraud and complex financial crimes. The ABA has unanimously rated Judge Dimke ``well qualified'' to serve as a district court judge, and she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senators Murray and Cantwell. Finally, we have Judge Gabriel Sanchez, nominated to a California seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sanchez is an experienced litigator and appellate jurist with a proven track record of impartial, evenhanded decision-making. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale and a master's degree from Cambridge University. After graduating, he clerked for Judge Richard A. Paez on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Sanchez worked as a civil litigator in private practice for 5 years before serving in the California State government, where he advised then-Governor Jerry Brown on litigation, legislation, appointments, and various policy measures, including criminal justice reform. For example, he helped California develop and implement a response to a 2011 Supreme Court holding ordering the State to reduce its prison population. He served admirably to ensure California met its constitutional obligations while also prioritizing public safety. In 2018, Judge Sanchez was appointed to serve on the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District. The court has appellate jurisdiction over virtually all final judgments and orders issued by 12 counties in California. During his time on the bench, Judge Sanchez has filed or joined in nearly 500 opinions in cases almost evenly split between civil and criminal matters. So his judicial experience has been broad and varied. Judge Sanchez also has the strong support of his home State Senators-- Senators Feinstein and Padilla--and was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the ABA. He is an exceptional nominee with impeccable credentials, and his evenhanded approach to justice will serve him well on the Ninth Circuit. I urge all of my colleagues to support these outstanding judicial nominees. Every one of them has been rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. They will bring much-needed professional and demographic diversity to the bench. They will be impartial and evenhanded in the administration of justice. And they will always be faithful to the rule of law. nomination of mary katherine dimke

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. DURBIN. May I make an inquiry of the Chair? How long was the last rollcall vote?

Mr. DURBIN. If I could make an inquiry of the Chair through the legislative clerk of the last person voting, could the Chair report that?

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield back time.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinsten), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.