Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today on two very important subjects. The first is about an issue that is of vital importance for the United States across economic, security, and humanitarian spheres, and that is vaccinating the world's population. I think we all have learned in a very hard, hard way the last 2 years that the coronavirus does not respect international borders. It started in China. It came to America. It went all over the world. Experts have been warning for months that if the virus continues to spread in other parts of the world, new variants could continue to emerge, just as we are emerging and seeing each other again and going to family gatherings and having people and tour groups come into the Capitol. We cannot let our guard down. American companies have worked with the world to create the most effective vaccines in existence. We put our faith in science, and now we have an incredible vaccine that we can be proud of. And as we continue to ensure that Americans get their shots and their boosters, we know that ending this pandemic is going to require a sustained, multinational approach to getting these lifesaving shots to the rest of the world. This makes sense from a humanitarian perspective, it makes sense from an economic perspective, and it is just common sense, because we can't let this happen again, and we certainly can't put our heads in the sand and pretend that, just because it is going on in another continent or across the ocean, it won't affect us. For those in America who have lost loved ones, that couldn't even say goodbye to their loved ones, because they were in a hospital, holding the hand of a nurse, and all they could do was see them in the hospital bed over a Zoom screen or on an iPad, we can't let any of that happen again. And that means that we not only do our work at home and get the vaccines out and the leadership that we have seen out of the White House on that front, but it is also about leading in the world. The United States has long been a leader in global health programs. President George W. Bush established PEPFAR, which stands for President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. That program saved over 20 million lives and prevented millions of infections. It was a bipartisan effort that was led by President Bush. The United States has also connected global towns and villages with clean water, thought to prevent malaria, and led efforts to end smallpox and polio around the world. This is our legacy, but we can't rest on our success and the leadership from the past. We have to lead now. At this point, only about 56 percent of the world's population is fully vaccinated. In nations around the world, the individual rate is much lower. In Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, only 5 percent of people are fully vaccinated. Few people would disagree with the assessment that new variants will continue to form--ask Dr. Fauci--as long as much of the world remains unvaccinated, and that makes every nation vulnerable, including ours. And we can do this at such a relatively small cost to what the gain will be--the gain in saving lives abroad and in America, the gain in keeping a stable economy around the world, because you know we export to the world, and we know we are interconnected with the world. So when it comes to beating this virus, we have to recognize that our destiny is linked with the rest of the world. We can't give up this fight. Now is not the time to cut corners. We have suffered enough through this virus, and we have the needed tools to vaccinate a global population. We have the vaccine. We just have to get it to the people that need it. I will keep fighting to get the resources to get this done. We will work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle until we get this done and vaccinate the world.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here on a very important bipartisan bill, but I first wanted to address the fact that I am proud to be supporting Judge Jackson. I think she has incredible legal experience--more experience as a judge going into the job than four of the people had when they went on to the Supreme Court. She is in the top two for trial experience. She showed incredible grace under pressure when one over-the-top, inappropriate question was asked of her after another. She will be walking into that Supreme Court with her head held high, and she is going to be confirmed next week. As I said, I will speak more to this later. I spoke a lot about it in the Judiciary Committee, but she is going to be a great Supreme Court Justice. Ocean Shipping Reform Act Mr. President, I rise today to highlight my bill with Senator Thune, which just passed the Senate, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. We worked for months together on this bill to come to an agreement. We did everything right and got cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. I particularly want to thank Baz, my staff member on the Commerce Committee, who did such a great job in working on this. And I also want to thank Senators Cantwell and Wicker for their support of the bill as the chair and ranking member on the Commerce Committee. We worked together on some changes to the bill, and I appreciated their input. As U.S. Senators representing Minnesota and South Dakota, Senator Thune and I know how crucial it is for American businesses to be able to export throughout the country and across the globe. American farmers feed the world, and consumers and businesses look to them for in-demand agricultural goods like soybeans, corn, dairy, poultry, pork, and beef, just to name a few. And American manufacturers support so many of the essential parts and products that fill our jobs, businesses, and store shelves. As I look at our economy as we come out of this economic downturn, we must be an economy and a country that makes stuff, that invents things, that exports to the world. No matter how much American ingenuity we have--and there is a lot of it--if ships owned by foreign interests are going to other countries with empty containers and exporting nothing but air and then come to our country filled with foreign goods, that is not exactly an even playing field. As the past 2 years have highlighted, significant supply chain disruptions and vulnerabilities have occurred. There are many answers here, one of them being workforce, one of them being port infrastructure and rail infrastructure and the like, but what we have seen when it comes to shipping--and I am so glad my colleague from South Dakota has joined me here on the floor--what we have seen in the middle of the country, where people are pretty sensible, all of a sudden they are looking at this, and they see the price of shipping containers increase by four times in just 2 years. Four times--that is not normal. We have also heard from U.S. companies that they have only been able to ship 60 percent of their orders because they can't access the shipping containers. At the same time, these ocean carriers--almost all foreign-owned--have reported record profits. It is estimated that the container shipping industry made a record $190 billion in profits in 2021, a sevenfold increase from the previous year. Their financial performance isn't a result of improved performance when our manufacturers and farmers can't ship out their goods, no. They are fleecing consumers and exporters because they know they can get away with it, and this is all while exporters and consumers are literally paying the price for the supply chain disruptions caused by unreliable service. (Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.) We need to get exports to those who need them, but it is plainly obvious that the ocean carriers are prioritizing non-American shipments at the expense of both American exporters--as in manufacturers, so many of them in Minnesota and South Dakota, as Senator Thune knows, being small businesses--as well as farmers and American consumers. It isn't sustainable, and it isn't acceptable. We can't let ocean carriers slow down our supply chain while shaking down our American businesses and farmers for their own profit. That is why we introduced the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. It just passed the Senate. Our bill protects American farmers and manufacturers by making it easier for them to ship ready-to-export goods waiting at our ports. Our bill aims to level the playing field for American exporters by updating the Federal rules for the global shipping industry. It will give the Federal Maritime Commission greater authority to regulate harmful practices by these big international carriers. It directs the Federal Maritime Commission to issue a rule prohibiting international ocean carriers from unreasonably declining shipping opportunities for U.S. exports. This will make it harder for them to leave our products behind, just sitting there at a port, in favor of shipping over to China, sailing over to China, and then bringing their products back to us. In addition to giving the FMC more authority to investigate bad practices by ocean carriers, the bill also directs the Federal Maritime Commission to set new rules for what the international carrier companies can reasonably charge and require them to certify and ultimately prove that fees that they charge are fair. As rates continue to climb, this is more urgent than ever. And I personally believe that, even before this rule goes into effect, the fact that we passed this unanimously in the U.S. Senate sent a pretty strong shot across the bow because there is so much more we could do and we will do if this practice continues. As I was working on this bill with Senator Thune, I heard about exporters who wanted to speak out against these predatory practices but were scared into silence because they feared that the ocean carriers would retaliate. That is why our bill includes strong anti-retaliation protection for shippers. In short, this bipartisan legislation says to the foreign-owned shipping alliances: Charge fair prices, stop profiting off our backs, and fill your empty crates with American-made products. Senator Thune and I have a bipartisan group of 29 cosponsors representing a variety of regions: Senators Cantwell; Wicker; Baldwin; Hoeven; Stabenow; Marshall; Peters; Moran; Blumenthal; Young; Kelly; Crapo; Smith of Minnesota; Blackburn; Booker; Ernst; Cortez Masto, the Presiding Officer; Braun; Warnock; Risch; Bennet; Cramer; Wyden; Blunt; Van Hollen; Boozman; Fischer; Padilla; and Hickenlooper. The legislation earned the endorsement of the American Association of Port Authorities, which represents more than 130 Port authorities across North and South America, including my own port of Duluth. This bill is also endorsed by more than 100 organizations, including the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, the National Retail Federation, the American Trucking Associations, and the Consumer Technology Association. I also want to mention the House leaders on this bill-- Representatives John Garamendi and Dusty Johnson of South Dakota-- whose companion legislation has already passed the House. I see this as a truly bipartisan solution to a problem that is impacting millions of Americans and a great example of what is possible when we work together. I want to congratulate Senator Thune for his great leadership. He may be a bit taller than I, but we have worked together on many, many things across our borders.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for her incredible leadership of the Commerce Committee and focusing on the issues that matter to businesses, something the Presiding Officer, as the former Governor of Colorado and someone who knows a little bit about business understands as well. We have to fix these supply chain issues, and we have to actually take up the torch. We have gotten through the worst of this pandemic; we see the lighthouse on the horizon; and it is time to move forward with our economy. And instead of just diagnosing the problem, we actually have to do some things to fix it. And on that list, for my own State, I would say, No. 1 is workforce and getting people into the jobs that we have available; No. 2, something Senator Cantwell has made so clear, is the semiconductors and all of the things we should be making in America; No. 3 is infrastructure. We are so proud of the bipartisan infrastructure bill that we worked so hard on and the money going to improve our ports, including the port in Duluth, the busiest port on Lake Superior. And then, finally, something I am going to address today, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, a bipartisan bill that I lead with Senator Thune, unanimously passed the Commerce Committee yesterday, and I want to thank Senators Cantwell and Wicker for their leadership and help on the bill. Senator Thune and I are both in the middle of the country. In fact, we are neighbors in Minnesota and South Dakota, and we know that American farmers feed the world and consumers and businesses look to them for in-demand ag goods from soybeans to corn, to dairy, to poultry, to pork, to beef, to name just a few. We also have tons of small and big manufacturers in the middle of the country--and it is not just Minnesota or Colorado or South Dakota that have been seeing the delays in shipping. It is everywhere in this Nation. The past 2 years have highlighted significant supply chain disruptions and vulnerabilities for U.S. exporters, including many families across my home State. U.S. companies have only been able to ship 60 percent of their orders because they can't access shipping containers during certain parts of this pandemic. At the same time, ocean carriers--almost all foreign owned--have reported record profits. It is estimated that the mostly foreign container shipping industry made a record $190 billion in profits in 2021, a sevenfold increase from the previous year. Their financial performance certainly isn't the result of improved performance, given how many things we have not been able to ship out. No, they are fleecing consumers and exporters because they know they can get away with it, and this is all while exporters and consumers are paying the price, literally, for the supply chain disruptions caused by their unreliable service. We need to get exports to those who need them. We need to be a country that makes stuff, invents things, exports to the world. That is why Senator Thune and I put together the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. We also want to thank our colleagues in the House who have a very similar bill. Our bill protects American farmers and manufacturers by making it easier for them to ship ready-to-export goods waiting at our ports. It levels the playing field for American exporters by updating Federal regulations for the global shipping industry. It gives the Federal Maritime Commission greater authority to regulate harmful practices by big international ocean carriers. It directs the Federal Maritime Commission to issue a rule prohibiting international ocean carriers from unreasonably declining shipping opportunities for U.S. exports. Believe it or not, they bring in stuff from other countries, and then what do they export back? Air. Air. So many empty containers with nothing in them. This would fix that. In addition to giving the FMC more authority to investigate bad practices, the bill also directs the FMC to set new rules for what the international carrier companies can reasonably charge and require ocean carriers to certify and ultimately prove that the fees they charge are fair. As rates continue to climb, this is more urgent than ever. The sheer act of passing this bill will send a major message to the foreign-owned ocean shipping industry that it is time to ship our goods out of America and to charge our American manufacturers and our American farmers and, thus, our consumers a fair rate. I want to again thank Chairman Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker for holding a compelling hearing on this bill, all members of the Commerce Committee for passing it through, and Senator Thune and I have a bipartisan group of 27 cosponsors: Baldwin, Hoeven, Stabenow, Marshall, Peters, Moran, Blumenthal, Young, Kelly, Crapo, Tina Smith, Marsha Blackburn, Cory Booker, Joni Ernst, Cortez Masto, Braun, Warnock, Risch, Bennet, Cramer, Wyden, Blunt, Van Hollen, Boozman, Fischer, Padilla, and, yes, the Presiding Officer, Senator Hickenlooper. We are excited about the bill, and I am going to end my remarks a little quickly because I know Senator Coons has some very important remarks himself about a fantastic staff member. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to bring attention to the need to support the Ukrainian people in the face of Russia's invasion. Over the weekend, I took part in a Senate delegation to Poland alongside my colleagues Senator Rob Portman, Senator Richard Blumenthal, and Senator Roger Wicker. We met with Ukrainian refugees--women, children, grandparents--some who were carrying their whole lives on their backs. Three weeks ago, Ukrainians were thinking about their jobs, their plans, and their dreams. Now, so much of that is in shambles. Women have been figuring out how to get their older parents and young children to safety across the border while their brothers and husbands take up arms. The most heartbreaking conversations I had were with children who didn't know if they had a future. Seeing the cost of this invasion up close has only strengthened my resolve to stand with Ukraine, both with humanitarian aid for refugees and military support. With advanced weapons from the United States and allies, Ukraine's Territorial Defense has been more effective in stifling Russia's invasion than most imagined. Vladimir Putin thought he would be greeted with rose petals--instead it was Molotov cocktails. And 21 days later, Kyiv still stands. I was proud to join the bipartisan Senate majority in allocating $13.6 billion for aid to Ukraine, but more support is needed. Over the past few weeks, Russian aircraft have been behind brutal assaults on residential neighborhoods, religious institutions, and hospitals in Ukraine. Ukraine needs more air defense support. Drones, Stingers, and Javelins have proven to be highly effective in taking down Russian aircraft and tanks, so we must continue to provide that critical weaponry and more. In the face of this devastation, Poland has shown that it is a country with a big heart, taking in more than 1.7 million Ukrainian refugees. For perspective, Poland is a country of 38 million. Since they have opened their doors, the country's population has grown by over 4 percent. In Warsaw alone, the population has increased by 11 percent. Poles are meeting refugees at the border and welcoming them into their communities--even into their own homes. The Polish people don't have to imagine what it is like to live through a full-scale invasion. Their history is marked by invasions by Prussia, the Habsburgs, the Nazis, and yes, Russia. Poland is also well aware of its 332-mile border with Ukraine. Last week, Russian missiles struck 15 miles from Poland's border. The Polish border guards I spoke with said they could literally feel the earth shake. As Putin's war inches westward, we must affirm our commitment to our NATO ally from a military and humanitarian standpoint. During our trip, Senator Portman, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Wicker, and I had the honor of meeting with the 82nd Airborne. They briefed us on everything that is being done to help Ukrainian refugees, as well as fighters on the front lines. I also met with Minnesota troops, and I was inspired by their character and determination. It was clear that they understood the patriotic value of their service. I pray for their safety as they continue their mission in the region. Across the Atlantic in Ukraine, we are all seeing how precious democracy truly is. Putin has shown his true colors. But you know what else? The people of Ukraine have shown their true colors--in bright blue and yellow--they are showing the world what true courage is all about. We must continue to stand with them in their fight.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today in support of the two nominees from my State: Andy Luger, who has been nominated to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota; and Eddie Frizell, a veteran, serving our country bravely overseas, who has been nominated to be the U.S. marshal. I was sitting here thinking to myself as I listened to Senator Cotton that there were a lot of things I disagreed with at the Trump Justice Department--many, many things; many, many things--but never once did I think about holding up the U.S. attorney of Arkansas or of Arizona or of Illinois because I disagreed with Donald Trump. Why? Because as someone who used to be in law enforcement, I understand how important these positions are, and I don't think they should be held hostage simply because he happens to have a disagreement about something the Justice Department is doing. There were so many things that I disagreed with Bill Barr and his associates about, and not only did I support the nominee for Minnesota whom Donald Trump put up for both the marshal and the U.S. attorney and voted for them, but I actually issued a public statement saying that they were qualified. I worked with them, and I talked to them ahead of time, and I actually liked them, because they might not have been, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out, my first choice, but there was something larger than politics and my first choice. My first choice was our justice system, our country, and the safety of our citizens. Right now, in my home State, they do not understand why a Senator from Arkansas is holding up law enforcement in the State of Minnesota. As the chief Federal law enforcement officer for their respective districts, U.S. attorneys are critical to ensuring that American communities are kept safe. This role is so vital that the Founders created the position during the very first Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. This is the same act that created the Attorney General and the structure of the courts. Today, in my State, the U.S. attorney leads a team of nearly 130 dedicated law enforcement professionals, including 65 assistant U.S. attorneys. The office is responsible for bringing to justice those who commit a range of Federal crimes, including drug trafficking, child exploitation, cyber crimes, and national security matters. After 9/11, it was the U.S. Attorney's Office in my home State of Minnesota that was involved in what was known as the hijacker who got caught. A citizen turned him in, and it was our U.S. Attorney's Office that worked with New York on that case. It was our U.S. Attorney's Office that took on the second biggest white-collar case next to Madoff and won. It was our U.S. Attorney's Office, under the nominee who is right now on the floor, Andy Luger, that took on perhaps the most infamous missing children case in the country. I know that the Presiding Officer, being from the State of Wisconsin, knows this case of Jacob Wetterling--sad, tragic case. He was able to put together the puzzle pieces that had eluded law enforcement because of his vast experience working as an assistant in the State of New York, working in Minnesota in this very office as an assistant and working his way up. He was able to put together that case with local, State, and Federal law enforcement and solve it and bring some justice and bring some closure for the Wetterling family, who will never see their son again. That is Andy Luger. This is a guy who took on a sex trafficking case on his own with a young woman trafficked in the city of Rochester and brought the case to trial. This is someone who has reached out to our communities--our Native American communities--and gotten things done. And this is someone, based on my discussions, Senator Cotton, with the Trump White House, that they would have actually, after firing all the U.S. attorneys, would have had him back. He decided to go to the private sector for a while, and now he is ready to come back. So this is someone whom I have gotten calls about, since you put this hold on all the U.S. attorneys, from Republican Members of Congress who think we need him in place. I have gotten calls from Republicans across my State who want to put this guy in place. We have double jeopardy here for my State because you are not only holding up, Senator Cotton, the U.S. attorney for the State of Minnesota, you are also holding up the U.S. marshal. Andy Luger, the U.S. attorney nominee, as I noted, previously led the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota from 2014 to 2017. His proven experience is exactly what is needed to handle the challenges facing law enforcement in Minnesota today. He has been waiting since January 1 to get this done because he figured this went well before the Committee--so he is waiting. He is waiting to serve our State, as is our U.S. marshal candidate. In addition to the U.S. Attorney's Office, for over 160 years, the U.S. Marshals Service has helped keep Minnesota safe, protecting public servants, tracking down and apprehending fugitives, and operating the Witness Protection Program. President Biden's nominee to serve as U.S. marshal for the District of Minnesota, as I noted, is Eddie Frizell. Chief Frizell was recommended by a selection committee, as was Andy Luger that Senator Smith and I convened. It included leaders in Minnesota's law enforcement advocacy and communities. Eddie Frizell brings nearly 30 years of experience in law enforcement in my State, including serving as a chief of police for the Metro Transit Police Department. As I noted, he is also a 30-year veteran of the Minnesota Army National Guard. I once met him coming off a plane after his deployment. I will never forget that moment. As the brave soldiers are getting off that plane, I thought, ``I know that guy.'' Yes, I was a Senator now. I knew him when he was a police officer and I was a county attorney. Thirty years, veteran of the Minnesota Army National Guard, including two overseas deployments--one to Bosnia and another to Kuwait and Iraq. Throughout his career, he has led by example, immersing himself in the community and becoming what our newspaper called a ``model of persistence.'' His proven experience is exactly what is needed. So why haven't we been able to confirm these two nominees, both of whom moved through the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote with broad bipartisan support, after I, as I noted, proudly supported President Trump's nominees--who, by the way, they went into their jobs, and they did their jobs. That is how we do law enforcement. That is how it is supposed to work. This hold has nothing to with the qualifications of the nominees for my State. Instead, as Senator Durbin has just noted, Senator Cotton has put an indiscriminate hold on all the Department of Justice law enforcement nominees, stalling appointments for critical positions in Illinois, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, the Virgin Islands, and, yes, my State of Minnesota. And I am sure, if he continues this--and as Senator Schumer has noted, he is going to have to call up votes for positions that, during the Trump administration, went through with consent during the Trump administration. These nominees in these States are ready to serve millions of Americans, including 5.7 million people in my State who need the leadership of a permanent U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal. Senator Cotton is seeking information from the Department of Justice, and I hope that his questions are answered, but I cannot stand by and let him use critical law enforcement nominations as leverage. I note--and I will end with this--the timetables. During the last administration, Erica MacDonald--the U.S. attorney I mentioned, former judge who had been appointed by Tim Pawlenty--whom I met with in my house so I could make sure that we moved her nomination quickly, she was confirmed by the Senate, Senator Durbin, to be U.S. attorney the same day her nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee on May 24, 2018. Tom Heffelfinger was nominated by, by the way, two President Bushes-- the first and the second President Bush. When he was nominated by President George W. Bush to be U.S. attorney for Minnesota, his nomination was received by the Senate on September 4, 2001. He was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee on September 13 and confirmed by the full Senate the next day. His entire confirmation process took 10 days. And, by the way, when he retired from his position, he then served on my selection committees--the U.S. attorney who had served under both President Bushes. This is how law enforcement is supposed to work. Before him, Todd Jones, who became, by the way, the head of the ATF-- he was nominated by President Bill Clinton to be U.S. attorney for Minnesota. His nomination was received in the Senate on October 7, 1998. He was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee the next day and confirmed by the full Senate on October 21, 1998. His entire confirmation process took only 14 days. Finally, there was James Rosenbalm, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to be the U.S. attorney for Minnesota. His nomination was received by the Senate on October 21, 1981. He was reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee that day and was confirmed by the full Senate that day. His entire confirmation process happened in 1 day. I hope we can get back to this tradition of cooperation and recognition that these law enforcement leaders aren't pawns in a political game. They are needed to help keep our communities safe and deserve to move through the Senate expeditiously. We expect sound judgment from Federal law enforcement. Our constituents expect sound judgment when it comes to confirming top Federal law enforcement officers for a State. And it is time to do the right thing by confirming not just Mr. Luger and Mr. Frizell but the other law enforcement officers who have been held up. And I am happy to come back here day after day after day until we get this done. The people who work in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Marshals Office, and my constituents deserve to have people in place. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Being that I am the Senator from Minnesota and I am not on the staff of the Attorney General of the United States and I have nothing to with the State in which this happened, I am not aware of all the facts of this. And I think it would actually be inappropriate for me to be involved in Justice Department policy. I am here on behalf of the people in my State, and I want to get someone in place. And I have made the case, Senator Cotton, that at no time did I not only hold up the U.S. attorneys or the marshals under Donald Trump, I actually supported the ones in my State. And I am just asking for that same courtesy for the people of my State. We have talked about this before. And I simply believe that we should be able to get our U.S. attorneys and marshals in place. And you can do what you want to complain about what is going on in the Justice Department, to make your case to them, to go on TV about it, to make speeches in this Chamber, to write letters about it, to advocate, to gather your friends who might support you on this, but you shouldn't be hurting the people of my State while you do it.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I object. As chair of the Rules Committee, with oversight of the security of this Capitol, I share Senator Hagerty's goal and Senator Braun's goal of ensuring that this building is open and accessible to the public. I agree with them that it is important to reopen the Capitol, and I personally can't wait to have my constituents back as well for our Thursday morning breakfasts. But we must do this in a way that takes into account the health and safety of everyone who works here and not just the Senators. This is a decision for the Capitol Police Board, in consultation with the medical experts in the Office of Attending Physician. While the worst of the Omicron surge is behind us--and that is such a good thing--they have told us there is still work to do. At the same time--and I think this is one of our challenges as we look at how we are reopening and how we do it, because I think we will end up doing this incrementally, and I hope we can start soon--at the same time, ongoing staffing challenges facing the Capitol Police are an important consideration that must be managed carefully by the Capitol Police Board. The Capitol Police are already stretched thin. More than 130 officers have left the force since the January 6 insurrection last year. At a Rules Committee hearing that I held with Senator Blunt just last month, Chief Manger testified that the Department is down 447 officers. Let me repeat that: 447 officers. The officers who remain have had vacations canceled and have worked significant overtime. The Department, as we learned at our oversight hearing--we had two in the last 3 months--has taken steps--and I personally asked about this, Senator Hagerty, because I care so much about reopening the Capitol-- they have taken steps to address these shortfalls, including addressing the number of recruit classes, with the goal of recruiting 280 officers per year for the next 3 years. That is additional officers. The Department has also taken steps to retain officers already on the force, including by issuing retention bonuses and hazard pay. We took a very important step last summer on a bipartisan basis to provide funding for security improvements at the Capitol and to ensure that the Capitol Police have the resources to do their jobs when we passed the emergency funding bill led by Senator Leahy and Senator Shelby that the President signed into law. But, as Chief Manger just said at a public hearing when he explained that we were 447 officers short--which, of course, means who is the at the doors, what doors are open, and what backup do they have--he said we still have a ways to go before he has officers to staff all the posts needed to safely reopen to the public. So there is still much more work to do. I, for one, am in favor of making changes so we can begin the process of reopening as soon as possible. The Capitol Complex should, of course, reopen so Americans from across the country can visit and see our democracy at work. We are simply relying on the health and security experts to ensure that how and when we do reopen, we do it safely for everyone who works here, including the staff. For these reasons, Madam President, I object.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I think you know Senator Sanders and I debated a number of issues before, but from the beginning, we have been strongly united on one thing, and that is bringing down costs for the American people. And that is, as he just said, not one bit radical. We have joined together to introduce the Cutting Medicare Prescription Drug Prices in Half Act because that is what we should be doing. America pays more. The people of this country pay more for their prescription drugs than any other country in the world. How can that be, as Senator Sanders has noted, when it is our country, our taxpayers who are investing in all this research? How can we come up short when it comes to what our people are paying for drugs? The examples: In the past 5 years, the cost of Lyrica--a drug that you see advertised on TV, millions of dollars in ads--a drug that treats nerve pain or Symbicort, an asthma medication, increased almost 50 percent. What is the result of these kinds of increases? Nearly 20 percent of older adults have reported not taking their medicines as prescribed because of the cost. Last month alone, drug companies hiked the price of 742 drugs in America. What do we do? We sit. We sit; we talk about it; and we are not taking action. That is why Senator Sanders and I are putting our bill in today. We would love to spend the week debating it. We would like to move to this bill so we can get this done. We know that prescription drug prices in the United States are more than 250-percent higher than other industrialized nations. What is our simple solution? The VA, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, that we empower with the lives of our veterans and their healthcare--they negotiate the prices of the drugs they purchase and dispense for our Nation's veterans. One report found that the VA price is often half as much as what Medicare pays. Why? It is simple. The VA negotiates for prices; Medicare doesn't. I kind of think--and Senator Sanders and I know this well--that 46 million seniors in America could get a pretty good deal if you allow the government to negotiate on their behalf, a good deal for the taxpayers of this country, for people who care about deficits, for people who care about the bottom-line budget, and a good deal for customers. Guess what. It wouldn't just help seniors because that is such a large block of customers in this country that it would bring down the drug costs for everyone. The stories in my State--people like Claire from St. Paul. When the cost of the prescription drug she relied on to manage her rheumatoid arthritis jumped from $60 a month to $1,400 per month, she could no longer afford it. In her words, her arthritis became so bad that she could barely handle a fork and a knife or the young man who is the manager of a restaurant, a full-time job. When he aged off his parents' insurance, what happened to him? You know this story, Madam President. He started to ration his insulin. He had severe diabetes, and he died. His mother has made her life about getting better drug prices. Senator Sanders and I believe you start with the biggest buying block. You start with seniors. You get that negotiation going, and it will make a big difference. For people who believe in free markets and negotiation and competition, I don't know how you can say no to this proposal. It is time to allow this to be debated to move forward with this bill. Let's get it on the floor and call it up for a vote. Thank you, Senator Sanders.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam Vice President, I rise today after hearing from my friend Senator Blunt. I remember on January 6, as all of you do that day, when he and I and Vice President Pence and two young women with the mahogany box filled with the last of the ballots--up to Wyoming-- took that long walk through the shattered glass, the spray-painted statues, and we did our jobs. I will be forever grateful for what he did that night and what so many people in this Chamber did. But, for me, it didn't end that night because, sadly, what wasn't accomplished by the people who rifled through these desks and got up on that dais, Madam Vice President; what wasn't accomplished with bear spray; what wasn't accomplished with the bayonets--and I still remember the blood on the officers' faces--sadly has continued on. The votes that we took that night were important, but the votes that the people of this country take in every election are just as important. That is why, when you look at the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, you have to understand what it is grounded in, and that is our belief in our democracy. I want to thank every single Member of the Democratic caucus who has worked so hard to agree on this bill. I will say the voting rights groups, the Rules Committee--and I do differ from Senator Blunt on this. We spent a lot of time making changes to that bill over the year. We have made many changes in response to concerns from secretaries of state and local election officials all across this country. I also thank the Vice President and the President for your leadership. Since this country's founding when brave patriots rose up and ultimately established a country in the name of ``we the people,'' America has been a shining beacon for the world, a touchstone for democracy. We travel the world as Senators, as Senators Shaheen and Portman and I and several of our Democratic and Republican colleagues did just this weekend. When we went to decry dictators and bullies who attempt to undermine democracies, as Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine, we were proud on that trip to wear lapel pins with the Ukrainian flag on one side and the U.S. flag on the other. We are proud of our democracy, and that democracy is fundamentally based on the freedom to vote. Over the years, we made improvements to address wrongs that kept too many Americans from joining in the rights on which our Nation was founded. But for generation after generation, Americans have believed truly in our country's founding promise. They fought for it, and they died for it. We are here today against that backdrop of history, at a time when our democracy is facing a new wave of threat, a flood that has surged up since the 2020 elections, when more Americans cast a ballot than ever before as a pandemic raged. It is up to us to turn back that tide and to preserve the right that lies at the bedrock of our system of government. Again, I disagree with Senator Blunt about what has been going on. I look at the law that was passed in Montana that Senator Tester described. That was set in place for 15 years for same-day registration in the State of Montana--15 years. In the last election, 8,000 people took advantage of it on election day, either newly registering to vote or changing their address because they moved. It was just taken away from them with what one court described for another law years ago in North Carolina as ``surgical precision.'' You look at what our friends Senator Ossoff and Senator Warnock have described has happened in Georgia, where 70,000 people registered during that last week of the election in the runoff period--70,000 people in the last election. That has been stripped away, passed into law that that cannot happen again. The Founding Fathers knew that our democracy would face obstacles. A lot of people have been quoting them. I will quote this one from Samuel Adams. He said this: The liberties of our country . . . are worth defending [at] all hazards. And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. When you have had over 9,000 threats against Members of Congress in just the last year--double, triple what we have seen before--I don't see that walk we took, that really important walk--that it all ended that day. When you have local election officials across this country being threatened and the names of their kids and their homes put out on the internet, like the Republican local election official in Senator Casey's home State of Pennsylvania--his house, his kids, with a threat that said: ``Tell the Truth Or Your Three Kids Will Be Fatally Shot''-- it is on all of us to uphold and protect this democracy. The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act meets the challenges before us by establishing basic Federal standards for our election, restoring and strengthening the Voting Rights Act, countering the power of secret money in our politics, and taking on new threats to our elections to ensure that every vote is properly counted. And, again, let me read from the Constitution from article I, section 4. That clause empowers Congress to ``make or alter'' rules for Federal elections ``at any time''--at any time. As Senator Kaine noted, that is the only time that ``any time'' is used in the Constitution, ``at any time.'' The word ``filibuster'' isn't in this document. The word ``cloture'' isn't in this document. But it was anticipated that Congress could and should be involved in Federal elections when necessary. What brought us to the point today? We are here in the midst of a concerted effort to stop people from exercising the most fundamental right in our democracy. Because, as Reverend Warnock has put so well, ``some people don't want some people to vote.'' We are here because the people of this country know what is going on. I am talking about a veteran in Georgia who didn't have to stand in line to serve his country, but he had to--I met him myself. He had to stand in line hours and hours and hours in the hot Sun just to cast a ballot. We are here because of those voters in Wisconsin who stood in the rain, in homemade masks and garbage bags in the beginning of a pandemic, just to exercise their right to vote. We are here because of a voter in a wheelchair in Texas who traveled 3 hours on four buses just to vote; a woman in Montana who had open-heart surgery, uncertain about how to return her mail ballot; a former election official from a rural county was ousted by Republicans in the Georgia Legislature after a decade of service; and a 92-year-old woman who was purged from the rolls after voting in every election for decades, since 1968. We are here because after a record number of voters voted to make their voices heard, there are people, sadly, who are working in every State capitol to make sure it never happens again. And I note that for every one of these laws that have passed in 19 different States, it has been with a simple majority, State by State by State--a simple majority. And then, as was noted by several of my colleagues, after this Chamber has established over 160 carve-outs, 160 processes in law to allow for a final vote without a 60-vote threshold--whether it is for the debt ceiling, whether it is for the Bush tax cuts, whether it is for the Trump tax cuts, whether it is for Justice Amy Coney Barrett--51 votes--now we hear, at this very moment, that we must embrace this archaic rule that is not in the Constitution and did not exist when the Senate was founded. And we are not even talking about getting rid of this rule. We are simply talking about restoring the Senate to what it once was so we can have debates, and we can actually vote on bills when those debates have concluded and when the speeches are exhausted. We are here because we took an oath to defend the Constitution as we did that night on January 6. We are here because we know that the eyes of the world are on us, watching to see if America will stand up and take on the challenges of our time. To paraphrase Dr. King, whose legacy has been honored many, many times today, while there may be finite disappointment in this country for so many people every day, we must never lose infinite hope. We are not losing it. That, my friends, is why we on the Democratic side of the aisle are supporting this bill. With history's eyes on us and with so much at stake, we must and we will fight on. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here on this momentous day for our country, and I would like to address some of the remarks from my friend and neighbor from the State of South Dakota. I hope he will stay for my remarks. What is the Senate about? That is what Senator Thune was just addressing. What is the Senate about? We come here to represent the people of our States, and we come here to make decisions and to vote. I don't think anyone in our States wants us to come here and hug an archaic tradition and then simply stop votes, stop debates; hug that tradition tight and then throw the voters under the desk and go home and raise money; because, basically, that is what this tradition has turned into. I believe what our Founding Fathers wanted when it became clear that this country was forming, they wanted to have a Senate that worked. And when you go back and look, there is no mention about filibuster in the Constitution. There is no mention of 60 votes. There is no mention of cloture. Rules developed over time. And believe it or not, to my friend from South Dakota, those rules changed with the times. In the words of Senator Byrd, someone who believed in the traditions of this place, the rules change with the circumstances. And in the words of our Constitution, which the Senator from South Dakota failed to mention, ``The Times, Places and Manner of . . . Elections''--well, this is what it says: ``Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.'' That is what it says. It was very, very clear, at the beginning of this country, that it was anticipated that the Congress would have a role in these elections. Why? Because they are Federal elections. And now before us--before us--is the freedom to vote, something that has been a long and hard fought battle in our country's history. And today we continue that march toward justice in the Senate because we face a coordinated and relentless campaign to limit Americans' constitutional right to vote. As President Biden said last week--I was honored to be there with him and Vice President Harris in Atlanta. As he said, ``This is the test of our time.'' There are moments in the life of our Nation, like when a bomb blew up the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham and four little girls were murdered; like when John Lewis and so many others were bloodied as they crossed that bridge in Selma--there are moments in time when things stand still. And make no mistake, our country is at one of those moments right now. It is no coincidence that after more Americans voted than in the history of this country in the 2020 election, that suddenly there was a slew--a flood--of State election laws meant to suppress the votes of Americans. It is not, as the minority leader just described, a fake panic. A fake panic? Let's see what is fake about this. What is fake about this law that passed in Georgia, where, suddenly, when 70,000 people registered to vote during the runoff period--I would say to the minority leader if he were here, when 70,000 people registered to vote during the runoff period--they changed that law. They reduced the time of the runoff period. They make it so no one can register during that time. In Montana, 8,000 people availed themselves of same-day registration in the last election by either changing their address because they moved or registering for the first time. What did they do? That is it. That is not going to happen, even though it has been in place for 15 years, long before the pandemic. That is not fake. There is nothing about that that is fake. And when I think about the moment in time we are in now, I look back to that moment when Senator Blunt and I and Vice President Pence--the last ones remaining in this Chamber, with two young women holding the mahogany box with the last of the electoral ballots through W, Wyoming. At 3:30 in the morning, as we took that long walk over to the House of Representatives--that walk that had been so joyful just that morning. That glass, broken on the sides of that wall, that was not fake. The statues covered in spray paint, that was not fake. That was real--just as real as the fact that over 440 bills, since that fateful day, have been introduced to restrict voting, and 30 of these bills have been signed into law in 19 States. What is happening in States like Florida, Georgia, and Texas, with their omnibus bills, that is very real. The voters--they know it is real. Last summer, when we took the Rules Committee on a field hearing--joined by Senator Ossoff, who is a member of the committee, and Senator Reverend Warnock, who has taken on this torch in his State and across the country--we met a veteran, living in central Georgia. He told us how he took his older neighbors to vote early, but they had to give up and go home after seeing the line wrapped around the block, and when he later went back to vote, he had to wait, himself, for 3 hours in the hot Sun. That is not fake, I say to the minority leader. That is real. This guy is a veteran. He served in the Air Force during Operation Desert Storm. When I asked him if he had to wait in line when he signed up to serve, he said no. But when he came home and wanted to vote in an election in the United States of America, he had to wait in the hot Sun hour after hour, after hour. When the minority leader said that no American deserved to have his voice silenced, as he just said in this Chamber--those long lines, one ballot box in the middle of Harris County, TX, with over 5 million people, which would be like putting one ballot box in the middle of my entire State--then what are those laws about? Silencing people. That is what it is about. When we were in Atlanta, we also heard from Helen Butler, a former elections official for a rural county, who told us how she was ousted by the Republicans in the State legislature after over a decade of service, which the new law makes even easier to do by stripping power away from local officials and, ultimately, putting it in the hands of the State legislature. They are messing around, my friends, with the very counting of the votes, with proposals made in Wisconsin, with proposals made in other States. One Montana woman, living on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, had open heart surgery a week before the 2020 election and relied on a Tribal assistance provider to return her ballot, but under another new law, the assistance she received is now banned. These are real, and these are real people. It is voters who were made to stand in the rain, in homemade masks and garbage bags, at the beginning of the pandemic, just to exercise their right to vote. It is veterans standing in hot lines in the Sun in Georgia. It is a voter in a wheelchair in Texas being forced to travel 3 hours and take 4 buses roundtrip to reach a ballot drop-off box. It is a voter in Arizona being told that she didn't receive her mail-in ballot for the State's primary because she had been marked as an inactive voter even though she had just cast her ballot in the Presidential primary. It is five States--Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas--still telling over 30 million--30 million--Americans, registered voters, that they cannot request a mail-in ballot during a pandemic without an approved excuse. That is why it is on us, with the support of the Constitution, to take action. As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, it was, in fact, anticipated in the Constitution with that clause that empowers Congress to make or alter rules for Federal elections. What does the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act do? It sets basic Federal standards to ensure that Americans can participate in the franchise. It guarantees at least 2 weeks of early voting, like voters now have in two-thirds of States, including red States. It provides for same-day registration, like they had for 15 years in Montana. It allows all voters to request a mail-in ballot, without an excuse, and ensures voters do not need to provide witness signatures or notarizations of notary publics, whom they would have to hire, on mail-in ballots because, if you are in South Carolina right now and you want to cast a mail-in ballot and you have COVID or you are in a hospital, you have to have a witness sign off on that ballot. It also makes your voters have access to drop boxes. The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would also include much needed protections against those seeking to undermine our elections. Senator Blunt and I held a bipartisan hearing this last year, and we found out that nearly one in three local elections officials feels unsafe because of the job, and nearly one in six has received threats of violence. The Republican Kentucky secretary of state said that, if something doesn't happen, they are not going to have enough people to work at elections. Now, he didn't agree with what we were going to do, but he did note that they no longer have enough volunteers to work their polls. A Republican Philadelphia city commissioner who did want to see legislation passed, Al Schmidt, told us about the threats--he is no longer in his job--he received as a result of his work of simply counting the ballots. He told us--I see the Senator from Pennsylvania here--that his family's names, his kids' names have been put out on the internet as well as his address, a picture of his house, and a message, saying: Tell the truth or your three kids will be fatally shot. Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs told us she received a message: I am a hunter, and I think you should be hunted. These are not just 1-point examples. Over 9,000 Members of Congress have received threats--double, triple. This is according to the Capitol Police, in numbers that we have never seen before. So, no, I say to the minority leader. This is not fake. This is not one big fake. It calls for Federal action. Yes, I am disappointed that four times our colleagues have voted down allowing us to go forward with the Freedom to Vote Act or the John Lewis bill, which are now combined into one. With the exception of Senator Murkowski, who did allow for the debate to continue on one of the bills, the John Lewis bill, no one stood up and joined us in allowing for a debate on these bills--no one. So that is why we are here. I say to Senator Thune: The reason we are looking to restore the rules of the Senate is that there is no other way to move forward to guarantee Americans the right to vote. In the past, this was bipartisan. In 2006, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized under President George W. Bush by a vote of 98 to 0--98 to 0--but that is, sadly, not where we are today. When it comes to the rules of the Senate--and I am not going to belabor this, as I see my friend Senator Merkley of Oregon, who is a historical expert on all of this--I will say this: There are 160 exceptions--160 exceptions--to the filibuster rule. Things have been changed to benefit my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Somehow, it only took 51 votes to put in place the Trump tax cuts or the Bush tax cuts. Somehow, it only took 51 votes to put Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court of the United States--a change by them, made by them. Somehow, it only takes 51 votes to try to overturn a regulation or to try to mess around with the Affordable Care Act. But then, when it comes to something like voting rights, suddenly, everyone on the other side of the aisle is hugging that filibuster tight, knowing that, in so many times in history, including most recently with the debt ceiling, changes have been made to allow a vote with less than 60 votes: the National Gas Policy Act in 1977; in 1995, the Endangered Species Act; in 1996, a change to the reconciliation process--160 times. And, as Representative Clyburn pointed out so well, there have been times in our history when that most sacrosanct of rights has been extended or defended--the right to vote--on a bipartisan basis, like with the 15th Amendment. But we know, as he said, that that was a single-party vote that gave Black people the right to vote, and that fact does not make the 15th Amendment any less legitimate. During the past week, so many in this Chamber celebrated the life of Martin Luther King, but let us not forget what he stood for. He did not stand for the filibuster. He didn't like it. As Reverend Warnock has pointed out so many times, he stood for action and fairness and freedom. Last week, I met with Martin Luther King III and his wife and daughter, who came to Washington to help us pass this legislation. They told me that their daughter was born in 2008, the year that President Obama was elected. They told me how the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision was issued 5 years later, followed by Georgia's anti-voting law, enacted just last year. How sad is it that, if we do not act, their daughter--the granddaughter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--and her classmates will face more obstacles in voting, in casting a ballot, than the promise that they were born with? This cannot be the democracy that our children inherit. Dr. King once said--and I will paraphrase--that disappointment is finite. I don't know how today is going to end, but if it ends without this bill's passing, we will be much less of a country moving forward. Yet I will keep this in mind, what he said: Disappointment is finite, but hope is infinite. The people of this country will not tolerate, as the minority leader has said, the silencing of their voices. Truly, I think, by voting this down, by not allowing us to even debate this to get to the conclusion of a vote, that this is silencing the people of America--all in the name of an archaic Senate rule that isn't even in the Constitution. That is just wrong. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Senator Wyden. I want to thank you. Oregon was the first to use vote-by-mail for a Federal election. Although, I think Senator Padilla, a great member of the Rules Committee from California, would tell you, in fact, that California and Washington first allowed any voter to request a mail-in ballot in the 1970s. But since then, what has happened? Utah, considered a red State by all accounts has mail-in balloting for nearly all of their voters. We have seen this across the country. Today, 34 States allow any voter to request a mail-in ballot. During the pandemic, 45 States actually allowed this to happen without an excuse. What happened during the pandemic is that we saw 11 States that didn't typically allow all voters to request a mail-in ballot do so. Sadly, 10 of them have already started rolling this back for the next election. We know that this is a really safe and good way to vote, whether there is a pandemic or there isn't a pandemic. And the key is voters got used to it, they liked it, and attempts to roll this back and to make it harder to vote are the wrong way to go for our country. And, instead, we should be assuring everyone that regardless of their ZIP Code, regardless of their State, they should be able to vote by mail. Thank you for the question.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I first want to thank my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell, for her passion for people and the rights of people to vote, and her willingness to actually go through the details of the groups outside of this Congress that feel so strongly about this, including businesses, as pointed out, that understand that you can't do business overseas--having just come back from Ukraine, from which I just arrived an hour ago--and uphold democracies overseas, if we are allowing our democracy to go to shambles by allowing voter suppression laws to pass, as they have in numerous States across the country. Just this week, we marked the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and, today, we are considering legislation that goes to the very heartbeat of the democracy--the freedom to vote--that so many have fought and died for. We are here because a flood of State laws to roll back voting has surged up since the 2020 elections, when in the 2020 elections, in the middle of a pandemic, more Americans cast a ballot than ever before. They were willing to take those risks, and the laws were changed in red States and blue States and purple States to allow them to do that. But now what do we see? A rollback. A rollback in the Presiding Officer's great State of Wisconsin. We see rollbacks attempted across the Nation in places like Montana, with same-day registration in place for 15 years. And 8,000 people took avail of it in the last election to either change their address or register that way. So then what happens? Well, say the Republican legislature in Montana says: Why don't we get rid of something we have had in place for 15 years? Why don't we do that? Guess what that creates, my friends. Maximum confusion and ultimate voter suppression. With that core freedom of voting now at stake, it is on us to stand up and to take up the torch that Dr. King and so many brave Americans carried decades ago and acted to preserve the foundational right of our democracy. And while that may sound like an ambitious task, it is one within our reach. By passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, we can meet these challenges and turn back the tide. Today, I want to address a topic that has loomed large over this historic debate, and that has to do with the very rules of this Chamber. This week, every Member of the Senate will have a chance to cast a vote that will determine if this is a legislative body that will rise to meet a test. The test is participation and voting. The test is actually being able to take on the issues of our day. It won't be the first time. Indeed, four times already this Congress, our Republican colleagues have blocked us from even considering legislation to protect the freedom to vote. But we are here again this week. We are here because, to quote Ella Baker, a granddaughter of slaves from Virginia who worked alongside some of the great leaders of the civil rights movement, ``We who believe in freedom cannot rest.'' So while much has been made of our colleagues who have not committed to join us in this effort to change the Senate rules, we must remain steadfast in the truth that the right to vote in this country is not negotiable. We must forge ahead. I want to start by responding to some of the points that have been raised as reasons not to move forward with legislation at this watershed moment, as reasons not to do what it takes when it comes to protecting this most sacred of rights--the right to vote. Some have argued that allowing voting rights legislation to pass the Senate without clearing a 60-vote threshold would be a mistake that would open the door to somehow leading to wild swings in Federal policy. I am trying to imagine this place ever being involved in such a thing given how slowly we go and how many people understandably want to make sure we are careful in how we pass laws, but that is one of the things that have been raised for why we need some kind of a 60-vote threshold, which, of course, is not in the Constitution. The words ``filibuster'' and ``cloture'' are not in the Constitution. In fact, legislatures across this land, some of which do very good things, do not use a 60-vote threshold. In fact, democracies across the world do not use a 60-vote threshold. The truth is this: We have tried for months to persuade our Republican colleagues to join us in supporting legislation, to work with us, to debate it, but what they do is they throw a wrench into the process and then basically walk out that door and go home. We don't have that debate that allows us to have amendments and allows us to ultimately have a vote on the bill. It is cut off from a vote. When you look at the past when it comes to voting rights, it has been bipartisan not even that long ago. But this time--this time--even reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, something that has been law of the land and supported on a bipartisan basis, as the President of the United States pointed out when he was in Atlanta--this time, no. Only one Republican, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, was willing even to allow the John Lewis bill to come up for a vote. But if our colleagues across the aisle will not work with us, it does not mean--it cannot mean--that we should simply give up. A simple look at history makes that clear. As Representative Clyburn has noted in recent weeks, there have been moments in our history when this most fundamental of rights has not been extended or defended on a bipartisan basis; that is, the right to have these bills come up. He pointed to the 15th Amendment. That, as he said, was a single-party vote that gave Black people the right to vote. That fact does not make the 15th Amendment any less legitimate. I would also say to my colleagues that the real threat facing our country isn't too much legislation; it is the gridlock and the stalemate in which this Chamber is stuck. A number of us were just in Ukraine standing up for democracy, standing up for the right of people across the world to be able to debate issues and make decisions on the most pressing issues of this time. Now we are back here in this Chamber, and we have to have that opportunity as well. This misses another key point in the arguments made against changing the rules. When politicians actually have to vote on stuff, voters can hold them accountable for these votes. We know that the policies in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act enjoy strong support among the American people. They have been adopted in red, blue, and purple States. Look at places like Utah, where for years there has been mail-in balloting. Yet, in other States, sadly, it is really hard to do. In other States, you have to get a notary just to get an application or you have to get a witness just to get an application even if you have COVID and you are in a hospital. Yet, in many States--red, blue, purple--this is in place. We believe--those of us who support the Freedom to Vote Act--that in keeping with the Constitution that says Congress can make or alter the laws regarding Federal elections, that this should be the law of the land. It is constitutionally supported, and Americans, no matter what their ZIP Code, should have the right to vote in a safe way that is best for them. Arguing that Senate rules are more important than the right to vote ignores the very history of this Nation. As Senator Angus King has reminded us, in 1890, Henry Cabot Lodge introduced a bill to ensure African Americans in the South were not disenfranchised. The bill was passed in the House but was blocked by the Senate with a filibuster. Lodge argued that the Senate should get rid of the filibuster, saying: To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile. I think that kind of says it all quite directly. The Senate chose not to change its rules, and due to repeated filibusters in the years that followed, Congress couldn't pass legislation to enforce the 15th Amendment until nearly 70 years later through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. We have also heard that allowing one party to insist on virtually unlimited debate so that you can't vote is an essential part of the Senate, but experts from both parties have said this isn't true. Marty Gold, a respected expert on Senate rules who worked for Republican Leader Howard Baker and was staff director of the Senate Rules Committee, has written: The possibility that a minority of Senators could hold unlimited debate on a topic against the majority's will was unknown [in] the first Senate. Those are his words. Others have argued that requiring a supermajority, as this filibuster does now, to pass legislation was an intentional effort to foster compromise, but, again, the historical record simply doesn't back that up. The Constitutional Convention heard but did not adopt a proposal to require a supermajority for legislation. The Framers explicitly decided to reserve supermajority requirements for things like constitutional amendments, treaties, and impeachment. To quote one of them, Benjamin Franklin wrote that a system where ``the minority overpowers the majority'' would be ``contrary to the common practice of assemblies in all countries and ages.'' Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison: It is my principle that the will of the majority should always prevail. James Madison was a fierce defender of minority rights, but in 1834, even he wrote: The vital Principle of Republican Government is . . . the will of the majority.'' Listening to those words, does it really seem like the Framers of our Constitution envisioned a system where a minority of Senators could stand in the way of legislation and stop it altogether--stop the vote, stop the consideration, throw a wrench into the process, take it off the rails--and then just walk out the door and go home? That is not what they envisioned. I also want to be clear. Updating the Senate rules to meet the needs of this moment isn't some radical break with past precedence. Throughout the Senate's history, when faced with unrelenting obstruction from the minority, the majority has, in fact, changed the Senate rules to allow matters to conclude, to be voted on, not to hang in abeyance in perpetuity. In fact, since it was first established in 1917, the cloture rule has been revised multiple times to make it easier to end debate and to force a vote. Now, for friends watching at home, this is what it means: A cloture motion is what allows Senators to bring something to a vote, and under the current rules, it takes 60 Senators to open debate or to pass a bill. Here are some examples of how the cloture rule has changed over time: In 1949, cloture was extended to cover all issues pending before the Senate, not just bills. In 1975, the vote threshold for cloture was reduced to three-fifths of all Senators. In 1979, total postcloture debate was limited to 100 hours, and then it was limited again to 30 hours in 1986. In the past decade, the cloture rule has been further reduced for various kinds of nominees, most recently by our Republican colleagues across the aisle. This isn't something from 100 years ago. This isn't something from before we had cars and people were arriving here on horseback. This just happened. In addition to changes to the cloture rule itself, the Senate has put in place exceptions to the rule. In fact, over time, the Senate has established over 160 processes and statutes that allow a final vote without requiring 60 votes for cloture to end debate; in other words, you get to a vote without the 60 votes. As a result, we have expedited procedures, including--get this-- reconciliation to pass spending and tax legislation; the Congressional Review Act to block regulations; disapproval of arms sales. I guess someone decided that was OK to do for less than 60 votes. Even approving compensation plans for commercial space accidents doesn't require 60 votes, my friends. But while the 60-vote threshold was carved up 160 times so Senators could pass things like tax cuts under President Trump, block regulations, and confirm Supreme Court Justices, when it comes to voting rights, we are told that tradition and comity mean that we should hug it tight--this old rule--throw voters under the Senate desks, and go home. It is no wonder that our Republican colleagues support for the 60- vote threshold rings hollow when their priorities, such as tax cuts and a Supreme Court nominee, can be passed with a simple majority. Time and time again, the majority in the U.S. Senate has had to change the rules to help pass major legislation. As Senator Merkley has noted time and time again, bills we have passed after the majority has modified the rules include the Natural Gas Policy Act in 1977; funding for the Selective Service System in 1980; deficit reduction legislation in 1985; a moratorium on listing new species under the Endangered Species Act in 1995; and a change made by the majority in 1996 to the reconciliation process, which paved the way for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the 2017 Trump tax cuts. When circumstances change, Senators have changed the rules time and time again. All of this history clearly shows that the Senate rules are not chiseled in stone. That is probably a good thing because the people out there need us to do our jobs. And maybe that is more important than some archaic rule that someone is now abusing. They are not an outside force, these rules, over which we have no control. They are our rules-- the Senators' rules, yes, but also the people's rules--written and changed over the years by Senators representing the people of this country, just like the ones sitting in this Chamber today. As we move forward, I want to make clear that I agree with my colleagues who have said that we must keep the history of this institution in mind. By the way, I just gave you the history of this institution--160 carve-outs; time and time again when the rules have changed. That is the true history of this institution. History plainly allows for just this type of action that our democracy now demands. If we acknowledge the stakes when it comes to protecting the freedom to vote, the cornerstone of our democracy, and we acknowledge the history of the rules of this body, I am left with a simple conclusion: We must update, change, and improve our rules to restore the Senate and meet the moment of our times. Our Nation was founded on the ideals of democracy, and we have seen for ourselves in this building how we can't afford to take that for granted. I certainly saw that this weekend in Ukraine. We cannot afford to take any democracy for granted. The world is watching us--watching to see how America is taking on the challenges of the 21st century, including the threats to our democracy. Around the globe, there are those who see weakness as an opportunity. They see weakness in our democracy as an opportunity for them. Those who are hoping that gridlock and paralysis are the defining features of America--they are out there, and you can imagine what world leaders I am thinking of right now. To put it simply, if we are going to effectively compete with the rest of the world, we need a Senate that can do more than just respond to crises. We are pretty good at that--tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, financial crises, pandemics. OK. We respond to that. But what about the long-term challenges that slowly but surely are eroding this democracy with voter suppression? There is so much at stake here. We must get this done. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Portman, the Senate recess until 6:15 p.m.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Rabbi Moshe Feller for the beautiful prayer he offered us this week. He could be considered a prolific guest chaplain--having led both Houses of Congress in prayer a combined 10 times over the last several decades. Each time, his wisdom, his faith in God, and his regard for the work of this body have all shined through. Today was no exception. It was particularly special to know that he was joined by one of his sons, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Feller, as well as three of his grandchildren, Rabbi Tzemach Feller, Rabbi Yossi Feller, and Moussie Feller. I am confident that his other son, Rabbi Levi Feller, and his many other grandchildren were excitedly watching from home. And I know that if Mindelle, Rabbi Moshe Feller's wife of 56 years who passed away in 2017, were still with us today, she too would be so proud. I have had the honor of meeting Rabbi Feller many times over the years, and I am glad he was able to return to this Chamber today. In addition to being the longest serving Rabbi in Minnesota, Rabbi Feller leads the Upper Midwest Merkos Chabad Lubavitch in St. Paul and is a member of the board of Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, the education arm of the International Chabad movement. Through his work, he mentors and inspires people of all faiths in Minnesota and across the country. A passionate and dedicated leader, he has been instrumental in cultivating Jewish life in Minnesota, and his numerous contributions have enriched our State as a whole. Whether by overseeing the founding and establishment of over 30 Jewish institutions in the Midwest or by serving as a counselor and mentor to those seeking to grow closer to their faith, Rabbi Feller unwaveringly answers the call. With his remarks this morning, Rabbi Feller offered a clarion reminder that the work we do in this body, to pass just laws, is not just important--it is sacred. I will be holding his words close to my heart, and I am sure my esteemed colleagues will be doing the same. Thank you to Rabbi Moshe Feller for joining us this morning. I look forward to seeing you back in Minnesota.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of legislation that is critical to our democracy, the Freedom to Vote Act, which I introduced this year with many Senators who worked together through the summer to come up with a bill that would make a difference for our country, with input from secretaries of state across our country, election experts, in order to give the people of this country the right to vote, to protect the right to vote, and to make sure that they understood that they can vote anywhere from any ZIP Code in a safe way because right now, sadly, that is simply not the case in many States in our country. If you are in North Carolina right now and you want to cast a mail-in ballot and you have COVID or you are in the hospital, you have to get a notary public to sign off on your ballot. If you are in Georgia, and you don't register, you are a new resident there, you have moved there from another State, and you are in a big election, and you think, well, I am going to vote in the final place, you are no longer allowed to register in the last month as you were in the past during the runoff election. As we saw in the last election in 2020 in Houston, in that county--5 million people--there was only one drop-off box in the entire county; Harris County, 5 million people, only one drop-off box. There are places in States where you wait in line, 8, 10 hours in the hot Sun just to exercise your right to vote. That is why, through the year, we worked together with, of course, Leader Schumer, who brought us together, and Senators Manchin, Merkley, Padilla, King, Kaine, Tester, and Warnock--different Senators coming from different parts of the country with different political views on certain issues, but we came together and cosponsored this bill, which is supported by every Member of the Democratic caucus. I want to thank all of them for their ongoing hard work to get the bill passed and also to thank Senators Schumer, Durbin, Kaine, and Merkley for joining me on the floor today in support of this bill. The freedom to vote is fundamental to all of our freedoms, which is why we called it the Freedom to Vote Act. It ensures that people are part of a franchise and that government is accountable to the people, but, today, this fundamental right that is the very foundation of our system of government is under attack. Since the 2020 election, we have seen a persistent and coordinated assault on the freedom to vote in States across the country. I just used a few examples of the laws that have changed, the attempts that have been made in nearly every State, with over 400 bills, to change those laws. But then there have been direct threats. Local election officials, many secretaries of state have told me that they are having trouble now recruiting people to run their election-day and election-month facilities. Why? Because there are threats. There have been polls and studies that have shown that election officials in inordinate numbers are the victims of these threats. One Republican commissioner in Philadelphia, election commissioner who recently left his job, they actually put his family's names, young kids' names, a picture of his house, and his address on the internet so that people can target his very family. The emails, the voice messages left, the one left for Katie Hobbs, the secretary of state for Arizona: We will hunt you down, Katie. We will hunt you down. These attacks on our local election officials and also Members of Congress of both parties--a record number 9,600 in the last year, which is double or triple what it has ever been. You cannot look at the incident of January 6, of that insurrection, on its own. These threats of violence have continued into the year. And why is that? Well, we know there is this enormous lack of trust right now in our election system. We know that people have wrongly been told, have been given misinformation, have been motivated, as we saw, as those people marched down the Mall on January 6, to believe that somehow our democracy and our voting system is a fraud. Now, we know that is not right because we hear it from Republican and Democratic local officials all the time. President Trump's own Homeland Security election head, after the last election, said it was the most secure in the history of America. That was President Trump's appointee. Former Attorney General Barr made it very clear that there was not widespread fraud in the last election of any kind. But yet this lie continues, and people, sadly, continue to believe it. And what is the most sad is that elected leaders in States--a number of States, not just one or two, multiple States--are passing laws with the false tenet of fraud and literally taking away people's right to vote, kicking them off of voting rolls. People who for years have gone to one polling location now can't figure out where they are supposed to vote; people in Georgia who suddenly have been told--after the last election did it differently-- that they have to write their birthday on the outside of an envelope. Anyone who is asked to write a date on an envelope for a ballot, one would assume it is the date that you are putting your ballot in the mail. But, no, it is your birthday. That is the kind of thing we are seeing across the country. As one court in North Carolina once said about previous efforts to suppress the law, it is discrimination with surgical precision, State by State by State. These attacks on our democracy demand a federalist response. Just as we saw in the 1960s with civil rights legislation, at some point, the Federal Government had to step in. And, in fact, our own Founding Fathers actually anticipated that this might be necessary because right in the Constitution, it says that Congress can ``make or alter'' the laws regarding Federal elections--as clear as can be, ``make or alter'' the laws regarding Federal elections. So what we are talking about here are some minimum standards in place for how you do early voting, for the fact that you can register, for the fact that you can have drop-off boxes, ``make or alter'' the rules for Federal elections. When you have States, certain States messing around to the extent that they are, with the clear intent that they have, this is the moment that we look to the Constitution for guidance, and it is right there. This is why the need for action could not be more serious. This is why, as Leader Schumer has announced, we will be moving to advance the Freedom to Vote Act next week. With State legislatures beginning to convene for their 2022 legislative sessions this week, with plans to pass more bills that will restrict voting and with primaries for the 2022 election just around the corner, we cannot wait another moment. Yesterday, we gathered in this Chamber to mark 1 year since the violent mob of insurrectionists stormed into this Capitol. I can see everything like it was in technicolor--when we came back into this Chamber, to our desks, everyone looking in their desks to see if anything had been taken; the videos we saw, which only a few hours before people had invaded this Chamber; and the walk that Senator Blunt and the Vice President and I took through the broken glass, spray- painted statues, with the young staff members with the mahogany boxes containing the last of the electoral ballots. As I said 2 weeks later at the inauguration, this is the moment when our democracy brushes itself off, stands straight, moves forward, ``one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' You just said that pledge, I say to the Presiding Officer, in this very Chamber. The pages said that pledge in this very Chamber. To me, those are not just empty words; they are a pledge that we must keep. Election officials, as I noted, across the country have been targeted by an overwhelming increase in the number of threats. We cannot keep that pledge, ``for liberty and justice for all,'' and a democracy if we can't have fair elections and literally people who are just doing their jobs, whether in this building or out in Mississippi or out in Pennsylvania or in Arizona, getting threatened just for counting votes. We actually even heard from the Republican Kentucky secretary of state recently in a hearing that Senator Blunt and I had about how difficult it is to fill those jobs. So in light of all of this, let's talk some basics about what the Freedom to Vote Act does. It strengthens protections for election workers by making it a Federal crime to ``intimidate, threaten, or coerce'' election workers. It protects election officials from improper removal by partisan actors. It puts a standard in place. So you can't just throw them out because you don't like what the results were, what their votes were that they counted; it establishes a statutory right to vote, to have their votes counted; and it protects against sham audits, like the one we saw in Arizona and the ones being advanced in Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, and Pennsylvania. It is worth noting that even though these so-called audits aren't using reliable methods in Arizona, that sham audit actually found President Biden had a larger margin of victory, and the first round of findings in Texas found nothing that could have changed the outcome in the election. A few weeks ago, we gathered for the funeral of a great man who served many years in this Chamber, Senator Dole. President Biden reminded us of something he had once said when the debates in this Chamber--when there were actual debates--were raging about civil rights legislation. Bob Dole said this: No first-class democracy can treat people like second-class citizens. ``No first-class democracy can treat people like second-class citizens.'' We are a first-class democracy. Yet, as I know, 19 States have passed 34 bills that include provisions to restrict voting, and State legislatures are looking at even more. The need for Federal action is urgent. But as we have seen in States like Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Montana, and Texas, we are up against a coordinated attack aimed at limiting the freedom to vote. Examples--I have used a few already, and I am going to keep using them throughout the weeks ahead. The new law in Georgia shortens runoffs by 5 weeks and prevents new voters from registering to vote during runoff elections. In Iowa, a new law cut the days of early voting by 9 days and closes the polls an hour early. That was after the State, in the words of its own Republican secretary of state, shattered its voter turnout record last year. If that shattered the voter turnout record, Senator Kaine, to have an hour extra, why would you then take the hour away? A new law in Montana says you can no longer register to vote on election day. Yet that same-day registration--I know because my State is proud of our same-day registration, and we have the highest voter turnout in the country in nearly every single election--for 15 years that was in place in Montana--15 years. Don't tell me it was some new thing that they weren't used to--15 years. And as part of this coordinated national attack on voting, they took it away. In 2020, the Texas Governor, as I noted, also limited counties, including Harris County, which has as many people as nearly my entire State, to that one ballot dropoff box. We cannot hold free and fair elections with laws and procedures like these. And, yes, there is the issue--the horrendous issue--of messing around with how the votes are counted and getting rid of the nonpartisan boards and allowing partisan legislatures to count and sham audits. All of that is covered by our bill, and it is a big problem. But if you rig the elections before the votes are even counted by making it impossible for certain people to vote--in the words of our great colleague Reverend Warnock, ``Some people don't want some people to vote''--does it even matter if you count them if they are not allowed to vote in the first place? That is why Americans need the Freedom to Vote Act, which builds on the framework put forward by my colleague and former West Virginia secretary of state Senator Manchin last summer. As I note, it reflected the work--hard work--of many, many Senators, including ones in this room today: the Senator from Oregon, Senator Merkley; the Senator from Virginia, Senator Kaine. We can't just sit back and allow for 5 weeks to be cut from the Georgia runoff period--during which over 1.3 million people voted in 2021--or allow for people to be prevented from registering to vote for runoff elections when nearly 70,000 Georgians registered to vote during that time. Protecting elections against subversion also won't bring back same- day registration on election day in Montana unless we do the work from the beginning, which nearly 8,200 Montanans used in 2020 to register or update their registration. That is a lot of people in Montana. It won't ensure that over 16 million registered voters in Texas have access to drop boxes. It simply is not enough to just focus on counting the votes if you want to protect things that matter to people. The best of the best is what the American people want. They want to be able to vote in the safest way possible that works for them. One poll found that 78 percent of Americans, including 63 percent of Republicans--this is from April 2021, Pew--support making early in- person voting available for at least 2 weeks before election day. That is exactly what this bill does. Sixty-eight percent of Americans, including 59 percent of Republicans, support making election day a national holiday--Pew poll, April 2021. That is what this bill does. Sixty-one percent of Americans support automatic voter registration-- Pew, April 2021. That is what this bill does. If you go in and get your driver's license--huh?--why would you have to then, when the State has all of your information, have to go in and register again? So while Senate Republicans claim that this bill isn't popular, there are people in their own party, time and time again, who have supported these provisions. How about, for instance, Utah, where nearly the entire State has mail-in balloting, but yet in other States--like I just mentioned in North Carolina--you can't cast your mail-in ballot without getting a notary public? That is why the Constitution says that, for Federal elections, Congress can make or alter the rules regarding Federal elections. For decades, we know voting rights has been a bipartisan issue. In 2006, the Voting Rights Act--I know Senator Durbin, the author of this bill, has worked so hard on this--was reauthorized. The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized by a vote of 98 to 0. But right now, when we look at changes to the Voting Rights Act in response to a court case out of the Supreme Court, it is so necessary to update that bill right now. Only one Republican, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, voted to even advance that bill to allow for debate. Only one was willing to debate it. Let's be clear. When article I, section 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to make or alter rules for Federal elections at any time--at any time--I believe it is in there for a reason. I don't think they just put that in there for, ``Oh, let's just throw this in,'' in the very few words of a Constitution for the greatest democracy the world has ever known. No, it was in there for a reason. This is the reason. We get to one more thing--and then I will turn it over to my colleagues--and that is the need to look at the Senate rules for voting. So I would argue that maybe for the people of this country--the hundreds of millions of people of this country--their voting rules might be just a little, tiny bit more important than our voting rules in this Chamber. But, nevertheless, acknowledging that, our voting rules have changed many, many times. Since the beginning of the Senate, the rules governing debate have changed, as I said, multiple times. Throughout history, there have been over 160 exceptions to the 60-vote cloture threshold, including nominees, reconciliation, and disapproval of arms sales. Even the number of votes needed to end debate has changed. I am very interested in making this place work. I don't think people would spend all this time getting elected just to come here and stop bills from happening and then go home, but that is pretty much what is going on right now in this Chamber. I look at those pages. I think about that they came here to watch these grand debates in what is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body of all time, and instead we basically have an empty room. This is the moment to protect voting rights. And yes, we acknowledge that to do it--because, sadly, we don't have the bipartisan support that we have had in the past for voting rights and for protecting people's rights--we have to do it this way. And there is nothing magical about the rules as they are now. If there were, there wouldn't be 160 exceptions and they wouldn't have been changed multiple times. I will end with this. Protecting the freedom to vote has never been easy. Throughout our country's 245-year history, we have had to course- correct to ensure that our democracy--for the people, by the people-- always lived up to our ideals. Last year, when speaking in Philadelphia, President Biden called the fight to protect voting rights the test of our time. We owe it to ourselves and future generations of Americans to ensure that our democracy is protected. With that, I thank you, Mr. President, and I turn it over to my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Senator Schumer, for your leadership and your work and your words today. As I stand here, I look at the faces of the staff. I remember the moment when we were pushed out of this Chamber for security reasons. I remember the words of one staff member, Leigh, who yelled out: Take the boxes. Take the boxes. She was talking about the mahogany boxes that were filled with the electoral ballots because we knew they would be destroyed if they were left behind. I remember my own staff--one of them is here today--hearing their stories of being in a closet, hiding in a closet with only forks that happened to be next door to protect themselves, right next to the doors where the insurrectionists had invaded. I remember the staff throughout this building who were marooned in places and the faces of the police officers, the cuts on their faces, the anguish, and the words of Officer Dunn, who said, at the end of the day, that he had been called the N-word multiple times and that he had looked to his friends, as they collapsed in the Rotunda, and said: ``Is this America?'' ``Is this America?'' The haunting words of the police officer on the police radio that was heard broadcast in the middle of the whole thing: ``Is there a plan?'' ``Is there a plan?'' There were many breakdowns that day, but the biggest breakdown was the breakdown of our democracy; that some people actually felt that they could take the law into their own hands; that they could invade not just a building but our very Republic. I look back at the words and the speeches that people gave that day, not only after the insurrection, but what was telling was what they said before it started. I think I would urge people to look at those speeches. That discussion that we were having about this had been raging for weeks and for months. I remember standing at this very place right before we closed down the Senate because of the insurrection and going through the facts-- going through the facts about how President-Elect Biden at the time had won more votes than any President in history; the facts that 10 living Defense Secretaries had actually stood up at the time, including both of Donald Trump's Defense Secretaries, including people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and William Cohen, and came together and said that the scurrilous attacks on our democracy must stop, and we must allow for the peaceful transition of power. Then I looked at the very end of my remarks, and I ended with this right before we were invaded. I said this: My friend Roy Blunt-- Whom I still have immense respect for what he did that evening. My friend Roy Blunt, my fellow Rules Committee leader, many years ago, found a statue, a bust of a man at the top of a bookcase. He did research. He went to the historians. [And][a]ll he could find out was that no one knew who this guy was except that he was a cleric. Hence, the statue is called ``The Unknown Cleric.'' Now, at the time, our leaders [in this great place] thought this man important enough that they would warrant a statue for him, but today no one knows who he is. Senator Blunt's message to schoolkids and Senators alike that visit his office, when he shows them the statue: What we do here is more important than who we are. And I ended with this: Senators, what matters is not our futures, not our short- term destinies. What matters is our democracy's destiny because I think many of us know [that] people will not know who we are 100 years from now or 200 years from now, but what they will know is this: They will know what we did today, how we voted today. [And] that is more important than who we are. [As someone once said,] [i]t is a Republic, if we can keep it. ``It is a Republic, if we can keep it.'' Those words ring more true now than they did a year ago because, as we know, the haunting shrieks of the police that day, the officer pinned between the doors at the hands of rioters--there were people who stood up for our Republic, and there were people who attacked our Republic. I remember Captain Carneysha Mendoza, a 19-year veteran of the Capitol Police, who testified before the Rules Committee, who suffered chemical burns to her face while commanding the officers in the Rotunda while they struggled to hold the doors open. Who can forget Officer Eugene Goodman, who after saving Senator Romney from walking directly into the mob, ran by himself to take on a group of rioters with his baton and then diverted that mob away from the Senate Chamber, allowing us to safely depart? Mr. President, who can forget the image right there where you sit on that dais of the insurrectionists rifling through papers on people's desks, opening up their offices and desks? Tragically, five officers who reported for duty have since passed away--five officers. You wonder why you see sad faces today on many people in this building who were their friends. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died the day after the attack. Four other officers died in the days and months that followed--Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, DC Metropolitan Police Officers Jeffrey Smith, Gunther Hashida, and Kyle DeFreytag. Many more suffered physical injuries and even more sustained emotional trauma from the events of that day. We also remember, of course, Officer Billy Evans, who tragically died doing his job at his post in April. Recognizing the sacrifice of those heroes to defend our democracy is the least we can do. Senator Blunt and I led legislation, with the support our leaders, honoring those who protected the Capitol on January 6 with the Congressional Gold Medal. It was an honor to stand with officers and their families in August as President Biden signed this bill into law. We have made many, many improvements to the security of the Capitol. I think it is very important for staff and officers alike and those who work there to know that. I want to thank Senator Schumer for his work in installing a new Sergeant at Arms, Karen Gibson, for the Senate. We have General Walker over in the House, and we have a new Police Chief, Chief Manger, who did an excellent job yesterday in describing the changes. We know there are many challenges ahead. Last, but not least, is that we do not have enough police officers right now to fill vacancies so people are working double shifts; they are working vacations; they are canceling vacations. We have over 400 openings, an experience that many police departments throughout the country have right now, but one that is very important, and the Chief has committed to fill those vacancies. But what have we done, the progress? Well, we have, one, gotten new personnel in. Two, we have passed a law in this Chamber and signed into law by President Biden that makes it easier for the Chief to call in the National Guard in the case of emergency. We have made sure that there are operational plans in place as there were this summer when major events occur. One of the saddest memories of that day was the fact that 75 percent of the police officers asked to defend this Capitol were in plain clothes--75 percent. In many cases, they had less protective gear on than the invaders of the Capitol. That has changed--no more equipment that is going to be locked on a bus that they can't access. With Senator Leahy's leadership with Appropriations and Senator Shelby's leadership, we have been able to obtain more funding to get them the equipment that they need. All of those things are important. But as Senator Schumer noted, the other piece of this is our democracy itself. And that means getting to the bottom of what happened. Something is happening right now with the House Select Committee that is working to get the facts. We would have loved to have an independent Commission like the 9/11 Commission to do that, but they are doing that work over in the House. Yesterday, we heard from Attorney General Garland, who pledged to look at this at every level and to go where the facts will lead. Those were his words. Accountability at every level for what happened here is key, and it is the largest investigation we have seen in the history of America. Over 700 people have been charged. That is a big piece of this work as well--accountability. As Senator Schumer noted, this is also about carrying on the torch of our democracy. The voting rights legislation that we are working on right now couldn't be more important because what was not accomplished with bear spray and bayonets has now been passed on to others to pass bills as we have seen in Wisconsin, where a bill actually passed that would have allowed for only one ballot dropoff box in the entire city of Milwaukee. That one was vetoed by Governor Evers. But others have passed in States like Georgia, in States like Texas. And across this country is a concerted effort to undermine our democracy. So it is on us, when we take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, no matter what party we are in, to hold our democracy dear. It is a precious, precious thing and it is very fragile and it is in our hands to protect, just as our police officers protected it on January 6. When you have 9,600 threats against Members of Congress--double what it has ever been in the past--that is not a small thing; that is January 6 continued. When you have election officials who have to leave their posts because, in the words of the election official from the city of Philadelphia, his own family was threatened, their names, their addresses, their house put out on the internet; Katie Hobbs, secretary of state in Arizona, receiving a voice mail saying: ``I am a hunter-- and I think you should be hunted;'' people in rural areas who are elected officials who cannot have the kind of security that people may have in this building--that is January 6 continued. And we cannot forget our duty going forward. I will end with that image that I will always cherish and the hope that democracy will prevail. At 3:30 in the morning, when Senator Blunt and I and Vice President Pence took that long walk over to the House with the two young women with the mahogany box filled with the last of the electoral ballots up through Wyoming--there was broken glass on all sides; there was spray paint on statues. It was the same walk we had taken in the morning, which had been so joyful, the celebration of our democracy, so ceremonial--and there we were, the last ones left taking that walk into the House Chambers where we finished our job. So when I look back at that day, that is the lasting image; that in the end, democracy prevailed. Two weeks later, there we were under that beautiful blue sky with leaders of both parties on that inaugural stage saying that, yes, our democracy stood tall. It brushed itself off, and we moved forward as one Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all, as we always do. And that is the spirit with which we must go forward in the coming weeks as we debate the importance--the importance--of keeping that democracy strong with election laws; that we continue to improve the security in this Capitol; and that we hold the people who did this not just to us, not just to this building but to our very Republic-- accountable for what they did. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. We have had a day of tributes to those who work in the Capitol, those who protected us. We have had a day of reflection, and we have had a day of hope as we look to the future for our democracy that we hold with such care. I want to thank the staff that was there that day. And for those of you--I am looking at the pages--who are new in the Senate, over the next few weeks, it is worth talking to one of the staff members who was here that day to hear their stories, to let them reflect on what happened to them, whether they were people who were assigned to the hallways or the trams or the cafeteria. What happened to them that day? The Sergeant at Arms, so many employees there who were here that day because this was the day of the peaceful transition of power in this Chamber and in the House. The Parliamentarian's office, those that work there--that was one of the most difficult moments, to walk into their office late in the morning, 4 in the morning. Senator Blunt and myself, when this was all done, after we had done our work with Vice President Pence and the House, we walked around downstairs. It was eerily quiet. There was no one there. And you walked into the rooms, and there was glass from people's personal photos in the Parliamentarian's office that cracked, things thrown on the floor, their personal belongings. And you wondered: Why did they go in that office? Was it just a fluke? No, they actually understood where that office was. We later found out they knew exactly that that office was in charge of these electoral ballots and in charge that day of the proceedings and had a special place in our democracy. And they actually knew where that office was and deliberately went into that office and invaded that office. Everyone from the Capitol physician to the floor staffs, both Democratic and Republican floor staffs, who were here that day, charged with making this day move like it had over and over and over again every 4 years when, no matter who wins, we go and we do our work that is demanded of us under the Constitution. I remember, 4 years before that, my candidate certainly didn't win in 2016, but we went and we did our job. And I remember at the time, Vice President Biden was presiding over that proceeding because it was the end of his time as Vice President, just like Vice President Pence was involved this last time. And he did his job. I think about what the Senators have talked about today, and we have heard from so many of our colleagues--Senator Warner and Van Hollen and Kaine talking about the National Guards of Virginia and Maryland and their police that came in--not planned that this was going to happen this day--and came in and helped protect the Capitol and, along with National Guards throughout our country, including from my own State of Minnesota, then stayed on for weeks and weeks and months and months until we could get the security in order in this place. The Capitol Police--and so many of my colleagues, including Senator Booker, have shared the stories of the Capitol Police that day. And I know we have used some famous examples of those officers, but I think it is really important to note that every officer did something that mattered that day, some act of heroic duty, by doing their jobs. We thank the work that has done by the staffs of our Rules Committee, who are here today--Senator Blunt's and my staff--as well as Homeland Security, with Senators Peters and Portman, who immediately took on the task of holding very public hearings about what went wrong on the security side and then the decisions to hire new leaders for our Sergeant at Arms; with Senator Schumer's work on that, as well as the police chief with Chief Manger, who testified at length yesterday in a very bipartisan hearing, actually, in the Rules Committee about the changes that have been made, the changes when it comes to equipment, as we remember that 75 percent of the officers that day were in plainclothes and only 25 percent had riot gear--the horrifying image of the riot gear locked onto a bus that no one could access while the Capitol was being invaded; the lack of a plan, in the words of the police officer broadcast on the police radio: Does anyone have a plan? Does anyone have a plan? And, sadly, the answer was, literally, no. That has now changed, as the chief has told us, when events have happened in the last few months in the Capitol--plans in place, operational plans, drills that have been conducted in this Capitol. The lack of resources, which had been demanded in the past, that Senator Leahy in the Appropriations Committee and Senator Shelby have come to the floor and have worked to get them the resources that they need. But the challenges that still remain, the vacancies on the police force, people working double shifts and overtime and people not being able to take their vacation and be with their families because they are still working to protect our Capitol. And the police chief's pledge to work to recruit 200 or so more officers in just the next year with retention benefits and all the work that is being done. The other piece of this that we heard a lot about today was accountability. We heard from Senator Durbin and members of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Booker about the need--and Senator Markey--for accountability. And this includes the select committee over in the House and the investigation that they are conducting with not just Democrats but also two very strong Republicans who have been willing to basically put their careers on the line because they believe so much in this democracy that we must get to the bottom of what happened. The work going on in the Justice Department, which has now been, as of yesterday, as the Attorney General of the United States described to us, the biggest investigation in the history of America, because I don't think people had envisioned that we would have an attack like this, but we did. Two hundred forty-four years of democracy--244 years of democracy-- that it is our charge to protect, and that is why you see this investigation. That is why you see over 700 people charged. This is why you see the Attorney General pledge to follow this to every level and to follow the facts to where they go. We must remember, in the end, as my colleague from Oregon Senator Wyden has addressed, this is not just and was not just an attack on a building; it was an attack on our Republic. I was looking back at the Inauguration Day and that beautiful moment with that blue sky, and there were little snowflakes coming down. I remember hearing the beautiful words of Amanda Gorman, in her gold coat, that day, with that amazing poem, the singing. I remember Garth Brooks singing ``Amazing Grace.'' I looked up at the sky and thought that anything and everything is possible and our democracy has prevailed. I remember the words of Abraham Lincoln, actually, which I quoted in my brief speech that day, when he gave his first inaugural address in front of this Capitol. The dome was only partially constructed--it was braced by ropes of steel back then--and he promised he would finish it. He was actually criticized for spending funds during the Civil War on the dome, as it was somehow frivolous. To those critics, he replied: ``If people see the Capitol going on, it is a sign we intend the Union shall go on.'' When we gathered that day on that inaugural stage, there was still spray paint on the columns. They actually couldn't get it all out because the insurrectionists had first come to that platform because-- just as they knew what was going on in the Parliamentarian's Office, they targeted that platform because that is exactly where President Biden and Vice President Harris were going to receive their oaths of office. There were still traces of spray paint. The windows behind us weren't the real windows; they were makeshift windows. But we all gathered there. The President-elect, now President, would not have his inauguration in a bunker. Senator Blunt and I strongly believed that this should be a public event. As we stood out there, ``The Capitol shall go on''--that was the message we were sending to the country. So what does that mean right now, a year later, this anniversary, ``The Capitol shall go on''? Yes, it means that we have better security, and we do better by our police officers, and we have their backs. It means that. We do better by the staff in this great building. Yes, it means we have accountability for the people who had the audacity to invade this Capitol and take the law into their own hands and commit acts of violence. But the other thing it has to mean a year later is that we carry on that torch of our democracy, as the Senator from Oregon explained, that we make sure our very democracy is protected. (Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.) That means guaranteeing that people have the right to vote. What was not accomplished that day with the bear spray and the bayonets and the flagpoles sadly carried on because these bills that have been introduced in so many States and passed across the country-- over 400 of them passed in many, many States across the country or proposed, seriously proposed, in others--bring us backwards. It basically says: You know what. Democracy--the people who propose these bills--is not about who votes for whom, regardless of who wins; it is about us choosing our voters and deciding haves and have-nots and who is going to be able to vote and who isn't going to be able to vote. When you think about what the people of this country will do to preserve that right to vote--I think about those people in Wisconsin with homemade masks and garbage bags, standing in the pouring rain at the beginning of the pandemic just to exercise their right to vote. I think about the veteran I met when we did our field hearing with Senators Warnock and Ossoff and Senators Merkley and Padilla down in Atlanta. This veteran told us that he had signed up to serve our country, and there wasn't a waiting line, but when he went to exercise his right to vote, he had to wait hours and hours--4, 5 hours--in line in the hot Sun just to exercise his right to vote. He told the stories of older people who had left because they couldn't stand the heat, they couldn't stand out there anymore. That is not what our democracy is supposed to look like. It is not supposed to look like one ballot box in the entire county of Harris County, which includes Houston in Texas, over 5 million people with one ballot drop-off box. That is not our democracy. But the American people in that 2020 election said: You know what. No matter what you do to us, we are going to go vote. And they voted in droves. They voted more votes than in the history of America. Part of that was because, because of the pandemic, changes were made to the law, including that some States took away ridiculous requirements that you have to get a notary public. Think about it--in the middle of a pandemic. Right now, by the way, South Carolina has put this law back into effect. To get your mail-in ballot because you can't go vote in person because you have COVID, you have to have a notary public. There are stories reported in the news of people having notary publics, through the glass windows of hospitals, sign off on the application of ballots. All of that is designed, in the words of Reverend Warnock, so that some people don't allow some people to vote. That is what that is about. So it is on us right now to carry on the democracy. And that feeling we had when the leaders of both parties all stood on that inaugural stage or when we took that last walk, Senator Blunt and Vice President Pence and I and the two young women with the mahogany box with the last of the electoral ballots--that feeling was a good one, and it was a celebration of joy for our country and the peaceful transition of power. As pointed out in our speeches on the Senate floor right after the insurrection--I remember Senator Shaheen standing right there talking about how the world is watching our democracy. Well, this is another moment. The world is watching as we see dictators coming into power in other countries around the world, as we see the former President still out there rallying the troops around this Big Lie that he somehow won the election when every single local election official in this country knows that is not true. This is our moment to stand up to that because the people are watching. Our kids are watching. And the democracy stands in the breach. This is our moment. We must pass the Freedom to Vote Act, and we must uphold our democracy. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to recognize the heroic efforts of our staff, many of whom are here with us today; of our law enforcement who, in the face of overwhelming numbers and an unprecedented violent assault, valiantly placed their lives on the line for this Republic. It is also an opportunity to remember to recommit ourselves to making sure nothing like this ever happens again. As President Biden said today, our democracy held. We, the people, endured; we, the people, prevailed. And we devote this moment of silence to those who stood up, not only for this building, not only for the people that worked here, but for our very democracy itself.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we will be joined shortly by your colleague from the great State of Virginia, and I wanted to address some of the incredible work done by the Maryland and the Virginia National Guard, which was so important that day. We have fixed a lot of the issues going forward about how they get called in, but that moment when they had to stand up, they did. So we really, truly appreciate their help, as well as other National Guards-- from as far away as New Jersey and as close as DC--for helping out that day. They made a critical difference. I see the Senator from Michigan is here, and we thank him for his leadership of the Homeland Security Committee and the work that we did together in the aftermath of this insurrection to make sure something like this--and to guarantee to the staff and the officers in this Capitol that something like this never happens again.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some nominees and how important it is to keep advancing nominees. A President should be able to have his Ambassadors in place so we can deal with the rest of the world, and we have key people who are still missing from Agencies, many of whom got through committees with strong bipartisan support. Let me start with one of them. Today, I rise to discuss the importance of the Senate swiftly confirming Alan Davidson, one of President Biden's very important nominees to the Department of Commerce. If confirmed, he will play a crucial role in the coming months and years in making sure every American has access to reliable, affordable internet. Mr. Davidson has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA. OK. That sounds like a lot of words, but what does it really mean? As head of the NTIA, Mr. Davidson will oversee the distribution of the $40 billion for broadband infrastructure funding coming out of our bipartisan infrastructure bill. So his job couldn't be more important as we look at providing high-speed internet to every corner of this country. He will also play an important role in expanding wireless internet networks, promoting fair competition in the digital sector, and ensuring every American has access to affordable and fast internet. As you know, after months of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, this Senate came together to pass the President's bipartisan infrastructure law, making a once-in-a-generation investment to improve roads, rail systems, and public transit, address climate change by updating our power grid, and, yes, invest in high-speed internet. It is the largest investment our country has ever made in high-speed internet. I was proud to lead in the Senate the base bill-- Representative Clyburn led it in the House--to make this happen when it comes to broadband. Affordable and reliable internet access is more important now than ever as students and families rely on the internet to learn or work from home, access telehealth services, and stay connected to loved ones. As 42 million Americans, including 16 percent of households in rural Minnesota, lack reliable broadband access, the need to make the promises of this law a reality could not be more urgent. As head of the NTIA, Mr. Davidson will be responsible for overseeing the rollout of funding for broadband grants across the country. We don't want to wait. We need someone who knows what he is doing in place now. With more than two decades of experience in the public and private sector as an executive, someone who worked in technology, and as an attorney, it is clear Mr. Davidson is ready for this job. He served in the Department of Commerce during the Obama administration, where he was the Department's first Director of Digital Economy. His background in privacy and internet policy will be invaluable. I am confident he will protect consumers, promote competition, and make this historic law meaningful for everyday Americans. His nomination has earned support from a broad array of organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Consumers League, the Open Technology Institute, and more than 80 others. I should also point out that eight former heads of the NTIA, Republicans and Democrats alike, have urged the Senate to confirm Mr. Davidson. And he did very well in the committee. He came out of the committee with bipartisan support. To me, this should just be done like this. We should just get it done through this Chamber, but we wait through this morass of rules. Instead of making the rules easier so we can restore the Senate so we can actually debate issues, we literally spend hours and hours and hours and hours on nominees who received Republican support in the committee because one person decides, well, I am going to hold that one up. We need to get this done now because while we wait, students, parents, and workers without high-speed internet are falling behind. I have heard too many stories, as I know every Senator in this chamber has heard, about people from our States who have jumped through hoops just to get online. One high school student in Otter Tail County, MN, had such weak internet at her house that she always had to drive to the parking lot of a liquor store to take her online biology quizzes. I met her mom. She told me the story herself. I have also heard from rural doctors who rely on the WiFi in McDonald's parking lots to read their patients' x rays when they are outside the office on weekends. That is just unacceptable. So we need to make sure that this historic broadband funding gets out the door and that we have someone in place to administer it. In addition to this hugely important work, Mr. Davidson will also be responsible for implementing upgrades to our 9-1-1 system. In a crisis, no one should be put in danger because of outdated 9-1-1 systems, and first responders, public safety officials, and law enforcement must be able to communicate seamlessly. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee and as one of the chairs of the Congressional Next Generation 9-1-1 Caucus, I know that these upgrades are urgently needed to help move the country's largely outdated 9-1-1 call centers and related technology into the digital age. We need to enable 9-1-1 call centers to handle text messages, pictures, videos, and other information sent by smartphones, tablets, and other devices when faced with an emergency. Mr. Davidson, with his vast array of experience, will help to bring our 9-1-1 systems into the 21st century by providing State and local governments with the resources they need to update our emergency response networks and keep our communities safe. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Davidson's nomination today to move our country and our economy forward. The stakes are too high to wait. Mr. President, I also come to the floor today to speak on the many Ambassador nominees who are ready for a vote but are being held up by some of our colleagues on the other side. I emphasize ``some'' because many of these nominees got strong bipartisan support. While I appreciate the progress we are now making on some of the nominees as we speak, many have been waiting months for a vote. When we finish today--at least tonight or when we finish in the next few days-- more, we know, will still be waiting because we have well over 100 people who have been waiting for a vote, over 150 people waiting for a vote. This unnecessary delay is sabotaging our diplomatic efforts around the world. The State Department is made up of some of the best, the brightest, and the most patriotic citizens. By failing to confirm Ambassadors, whether to Iraq--we know how important that is--Equatorial Guinea, or Japan, we are hurting not only the nominees and our Foreign Service officers but also all those who look to America as a beacon of democracy. First, let's look at Elizabeth Moore Aubin, who was nominated to be Ambassador to Algeria in April and was reported out of the committee in June--June--the beginning of summer. We are now in the middle of winter. Algeria is an important partner in northern Africa when it comes to economic and strategic security issues. Aubin is clearly up to the task. She previously served as the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and served as the Deputy Chief of Mission in Algiers, Algeria, during a 2013 terrorist attack. Aubin knows from her years at the State Department and from her firsthand experience what it takes to keep Americans safe overseas. Yet she has been held up for 6 months. Americans and Americans in Algeria deserve better. Angola. Another Ambassador who has been waiting since June is Tulinabo Mushingi, who has been nominated to serve as Ambassador to Angola and several other islands off the coast of eastern Africa. He has already served as Ambassador and Deputy Chief of Mission to our Embassy in Ethiopia, so he will be ready to take on this role on day 1. Through our country's partnership with the Angolan Government, we have made significant progress in removing thousands of landmines and advancing economic growth in the region. The United States and Angola will be better served with an experienced Ambassador, and he should be confirmed promptly. Yet that is not all. We also must move forward with Claire Cronin, whom President Biden nominated to be the Ambassador to Ireland. Cronin was the first woman to serve as the Massachusetts House majority leader and the first woman to chair the Massachusetts House Judiciary Committee. President Biden nominated her in June, 6 months ago, and she advanced from committee nearly 2 months ago, in mid-October. Ireland is an economic partner, a security partner, and, of course, the United States is home to many proud Irish Americans. We need Ambassador Cronin to move forward. I know we are making progress, but I think of a country like Japan, where Rahm Emanuel has been nominated--Japan. My good friend, whom we lost this year, Vice President Mondale, was the Ambassador to Japan, and I remember how proud they were when he got voted through and went to Japan. They were so proud that the United States of America sent an ambassador to their country, someone of great experience. This is the case of all these Ambassador nominees. Our country deserves to have people over there representing our Nation. You think they don't notice, these countries? As I said, we are making progress. Today or tomorrow, we may vote to confirm Denise Campbell Bauer, President Biden's nominee to serve as Ambassador to France. Bauer was nominated in July, 5 months ago, and is only now coming to the floor for a vote. She served as Ambassador to Belgium, including during the 2016 terrorist attack in Brussels. She is well qualified for this role. France is our oldest ally and friend, and while we may be making progress, I am deeply concerned that our Republican colleagues have needlessly delayed this post. I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to lift their hold on these Ambassadors and the dozens of other qualified, dedicated nominees. We know there are negotiations afoot that we can move forward. Let's get a bunch of these done. The United States must be able to have strong people in place for our allies to deal with problems overseas and to represent proudly the United States of America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise to honor Minnesota State Senator David Tomassoni, a public servant, Olympian, and friend. Even through his battle with Lou Gehrig's Disease--also known as ALS-- he has continued to serve the people of his district on Minnesota's Iron Range. David's family has a distinctly American story: His grandfather was an immigrant, and his father served in World War II. And David, a son of Chisholm, MN, attended Denver University on a full hockey scholarship before embarking on a professional hockey career that brought him to Italy and the Olympics. He then returned to the place he was so proud to call home: the Iron Range. As David is quick to remind anyone, the Range ``provided the ore that has forged the steel that has made the bridges of America.'' Northern Minnesota was also where David found his true calling as a legislator. In nearly three decades of public service in the Minnesota House of Representatives and State senate, David has represented his community with pride, working every day to deliver real results for workers and families. From bringing good-paying jobs to his district, to improving schools, to fighting for safe conditions for miners, he has always been driven by a commitment to making his constituents' lives better. When David announced his ALS diagnosis, it sent a shock through the entire State senate, and his colleagues rushed to wish him encouragement and good health. But even in the face of his own illness--and in true Tomassoni fashion--he is still thinking of others. He is planning to introduce legislation to invest in new research, care, and ultimately a cure for ALS. He knows he likely will not be able to benefit from that investment himself, but the possibility that he could help another person is enough for him. I want to leave you with David's own words, from the letter he shared with his constituents about his ALS diagnosis. He wrote: ``I give you my word that my brain and my body will continue to represent you with the same passion and vigor I've tried to give in the past. I have been fortunate and blessed in my life, my career, in sports, and with friends and a great family. This is the next challenge.'' David, you are an inspiration, not just to me, but to anyone who values hard work and determination. Thank you for your decades of service to the people of our great State, and my thoughts and best wishes are with you. If anyone is up to this challenge, it is you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in support of legislation that is critical to our democracy--the Freedom to Vote Act. And this is a bill that was the product of work by many, many Senators from across the country with different views but all committed to one thing: our democracy. And I want to thank Senator Schumer for bringing the group together as well as the other Senators: Senator Manchin, whose name is on the bill, whose experience as secretary of state really was so helpful to us in forming this bill and also realizing the differences between so many jurisdictions, including world jurisdictions, that have different staffing levels and different needs; Senator Merkley, an expert on election law; Senator Padilla, also a former secretary of state; Senator King, bringing his independent spirit from the State of Maine; Senator Kaine, former civil rights lawyer; Senator Tester, who sees this and understands all of this firsthand in the State of Montana, where, by the way, for decades they have had same-day registration, which when you look at the States, whether they are red or blue--States that have same-day registration, like my State--tend to have some of the highest voter turnouts in the country, and, sadly, they have disposed of that in the State of Montana recently; and Senator Warnock, from the great State of Georgia, who was the host, along with Senator Ossoff, of a Rules Committee field hearing we recently held in Georgia, where we saw firsthand why so many leaders in the business community across the country and in Georgia have voiced their concern about a bill that recently passed there that would literally say that you cannot vote on weekends during the runoff period, during a critical period of votes in Georgia. That was a group that came together, different views, different levels of experience, but all committed to one idea: that democracy will prevail. The freedom to vote is fundamental to all of our freedoms. That is why this bill is called the Freedom to Vote Act. It ensures that people are part of the franchise and that government is accountable to the people, but this fundamental right that is the very foundation of our system of government is under attack. Since the 2020 election, we have seen a persistent and coordinated assault on the freedom to vote in States across the country. These attacks on our democracy demand a Federal response. The Constitution anticipated that perhaps we would need a Federal response when, in the words of the Constitution, as written by our Founding Fathers, that Congress can make or alter the rules regarding Federal elections. The need for action could not be more serious. It has been almost a year since the violent mob of insurrectionists stormed into this Chamber and desecrated our Capitol. They came into this very room, rifled through the desks, were up there right on the dais where the Presiding Officer now presides. They came here, but what they did was not just an attack on a building, it was an attack on our Republic--an attack on our Republic. I still can picture it like it just happened. Senator Blunt and I were the last two remaining Senators in the Chamber at 3:30 in the morning, along with the incredible staff from the Parliamentarian's office, with the pages, along with Vice President Pence, and the two young women with that mahogany box filled with the remaining electoral ballots. We made our way over to the House of Representatives, where glass was smashed against the sides, where there was still spray paint on statues and on columns, and we finished our job. Two weeks later, as we stood on that inaugural stage--Democrat and Republican leaders from both parties from this Chamber, all the Senators from this Chamber, leaders nationally--Republicans, Democrats stood on that stage under that beautiful blue sky with little flakes of snow, and it was like everything was in technicolor. I said that day, this is a moment where democracy brushes itself off, stands straight and moves forward, one Nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Maybe I was naive. I thought this was the moment in the middle of this raging pandemic that we were going to move forward as a country. And we did, but lurking--lurking--in the background were claims, false, incredibly dangerous claims that somehow the election was invalid and, along with that, a coordinated effort across the country to introduce bills--over 425 of them now--to make it harder, not easier, for people to vote. What has been the result of this democracy on fire? What happened here in the Capitol is that canister of bear spray has been replaced by bill after bill after bill. Those flagpoles that were used to poke and jab at our brave officers who are here to defend us, resulting in several of their deaths--that has been replaced by repeated efforts to lie about the results of the election. What has happened to our democracy? Members in this Chamber know well. This year alone, Capitol Police have responded to nearly 9,000 threats against Members of Congress since the beginning of the year-- 9,000 threats. That is nearly double the threats faced by Members just 3 years ago. Election officials across the country have also been targeted by an overwhelming increase in the number of threats. Senator Blunt and I held a Rules Committee hearing on this deeply disturbing trend this fall. We heard from the Kentucky Republican secretary of state who said if we do not act, States and localities will be unable to retain or recruit people to administer future elections. He talked about the need to make it very clear that local elected officials who are administering the election should be safe; that they should not be threatened. Then we heard from others. Republican Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt shared some of the horrifying threats that he and his family have received after he stood up to lies about election fraud, including a message that said: ``Tell the truth or your three kids will be fatally shot,'' with the names of his 7-year-old son and his 11- and 14-year-old daughters, their address, photos of their house out on the internet. Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, received a voice mail saying: I am a hunter--and I think you should be hunted. These aren't just a few examples; this is happening across our country. This is why we have united on this side of the aisle behind the Freedom to Vote Act. It takes these threats against these election officials head-on by establishing a right to vote and have every vote counted and protects election officials from improper removal by partisan actors. You have to have--malfeasance has to occur to be removed. There are protections against sham audits like the ones we saw in Arizona and the ones being advanced in Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, and Pennsylvania and strengthens the protections for election workers by making it a Federal crime to ``intimidate, threaten, or coerce'' election workers. It was during Senator Bob Dole's funeral service in Washington that President Biden reminded us what Senator Dole had once said. You see, Senator Dole stood against the tide. He supported civil rights legislation when that was a really hard thing to do. He supported the Martin Luther King holiday. And the words he said at that time ring true today. He said this: No first-class democracy can treat people like second-class citizens. No first-class democracy can treat people like second-class citizens. His warning is exactly what is going on today: efforts to treat some Americans as second-class citizens by making them stand for hours and hours and hours to vote in lines; by telling them: Oh, by the way, you are not going to be able to, like you did before, get water or food from certain people who might give it to you while you are standing in line. That is the story we heard in Georgia; by telling them--like a bill that passed in Wisconsin that would have been put into law except for the Governor there. It said we are only going to have one dropoff box in the entire city of Milwaukee; or like what we saw in the last election in Texas, in Harris County, a county that has about as much people as my entire State: We are only going to have one dropoff box there in that county; taking away options for registering to vote; making it harder for people with disabilities or elderly voters to receive the assistance they need to make their voices heard; telling people: Oh, hey, if you have COVID and you are in the hospital and you want to apply for a mail-in ballot because you obviously aren't going to be able to go in and vote, you need to get a notary public to sign the application. South Carolina had taken that requirement away, and then they put it back in. Over 400 bills were introduced in nearly every State to limit the freedom to vote, and over 30 already were signed into law. That is why we must now establish national standards for voting--completely allowed for in the Constitution--to make sure all voters can cast their ballots in the way that works best for them, regardless of what ZIP Code they live in. The need for Federal action is urgent. Redistricting is underway to draw congressional maps that will define our democracy for the next decade. You know how many of these maps do not come close to reflecting, on a nonpartisan basis, what goes on in the State. We know what has been happening in Wisconsin. Actual--actual--ideas and actual proposals are supported by someone in this very Chamber to take away the right of the bipartisan election board to count the ballots and instead have them counted by the legislature. With 19 States having enacted laws this year to roll back the freedom to vote, we can't simply sit back and watch our democracy be threatened. As Senator Rev. Raphael Warnock has said, What is this all about? Some people don't want some people to vote. Whether our democracy is threatened with bear spray, crowbars, and axes, or long lines, no dropoff boxes, and secret money, it is still under siege, and we must stand up and do what is right. We want trust in our government--trust regardless of where people are politically. You know, my State has one of the highest voter turnouts in the country, if not the highest every single time. We have elected a Republican Governor with those standards in Tim Pawlenty; we have elected a Democratic Governor in Tim Walz; and we have elected an Independent Governor in Jesse Ventura. What is the difference? People are part of the franchise. They come up, and they say: Look, I didn't vote for you, but I agreed with you on that; I didn't like what you did on that. They are part of the franchise. As we have seen in States like Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Montana, and Texas, we are up against this coordinated attack. Our democracy cannot wait. The infamous new law in Georgia says you can't vote on weekends, as I mentioned, in the runoff or register to vote during the runoff, and there are limitations when it comes to dropoff boxes for voting by mail and a new requirement--one that used to be in that was taken out for the pandemic because it was so confusing, and then it was put back in with this law--that you have to put a date on the outside of your inside envelope. What date would you think that would be? Anyone casting the ballot would think the date that I am voting. No, no. It is your birthday that has to be put on the outside of the envelope when you put that ballot in. In Iowa, a new law cut the days of early voting by 9 days and will close the polls an hour early. This was after the State, in the words of its own Republican secretary of state, had ``shattered'' its voter turnout record last year. Why do that except that you are trying to make it harder for certain people to vote. The words of a court about a North Carolina law years ago: Discrimination with surgical precision. A new law in Montana that I noticed says you can no longer register to vote on election day after that having been an option in the State for 15 years. In Texas, another new law eliminates drop boxes and puts new restrictions on vote-by-mail by also empowering partisan poll watchers. That is why we need the Freedom to Vote Act, which builds on the framework put forward by our colleague and the former West Virginia secretary of state, Joe Manchin, in June. It includes key reforms like ensuring voters have access to at least 2 weeks of early voting and same-day registration and that voters can cast a mail-in ballot without an excuse. Increasing transparency through the DISCLOSE Act. I don't care if you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent--whatever party you are in--you don't want to have money coming in an election, dark money that you can't even figure out where it is from, telling you stuff that you can't even figure out if it is true. This part of the bill would simply require super PACs and issue advocacy groups to disclose donors who contribute more than $10,000 so at least we know who is putting in all that money to run ads so you understand why they are doing it. It would prohibit partisan gerrymandering so voters choose their elected officials, not the elected officials choosing who votes for them. And we need to enact the bill now to give States time to implement these reforms. As I noted, the Freedom to Vote Act has the support of all 50 Senate Democrats. We have talked to our Republican colleagues about this as well as the John Lewis bill. Why have we done that? Well, for decades voting rights has been a bipartisan issue. In 2006, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized by a vote of 98 to 0. Yes, 2006; it is not that long ago--98 to 0. This bill already includes bipartisan profiles that included many of our Republican colleagues. I know the Honest Ads Act is in this bill. That is a bill I did first with John McCain, whom we so dearly miss, and now with Senator Graham; the Secure Elections Act, which is about backup paper ballots and making sure that we don't have foreign interference on our elections. That is the bill Senator Lankford and I introduced together with the support of Senators Burr and Warner and Senator Graham. But in October, when we had a vote to open debate on the Freedom to Vote Act, not a single one of our Republican colleagues voted to even debate the bill. I see Senator Murkowski is here who did allow a vote to open debate on the John Lewis bill, which is very important to our country. She stood up and said: Look, I may not agree with everything in this bill, but we should allow for debate. Let's be clear again, article I, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America empowers Congress to make or alter rules for Federal elections at any time. I believe this provision was designed to help us in times like these, in times where we are seeing an assault on elections, where people are increasingly starting to distrust the results of elections. In the face of complete obstruction on something so fundamental as the Freedom to Vote Act, we must restore the Senate with rule changes that will allow us to debate this bill. Now, I just want to briefly address this. Throughout Senate history, rules governing debate have changed multiple times. We just somehow found a way to vote on what was good, and that was the debt ceiling vote--hmm, a little bit of a change to allow us to do that with a 51-vote margin. In fact, there are already 161 exceptions-- exceptions to the filibuster. Even the number of votes needed to end debate has changed. In 1975, Senator Mondale led the successful and bipartisan effort that reduced the cloture threshold from 67 to 60 votes. There have been cries for standing debates--standing--what is called a standing filibuster. Why is that? Because instead of an empty Chamber right now, except for me and Senator Murkowski and the Presiding Officer from the great State of Nevada, there is no one else here. And yet we have so many serious things before us. We have a continuing raging pandemic. We have climate change that is causing weather events we never thought possible, including thunderstorms in the middle of the State of Minnesota in the middle of December. Never in history have we had a tornado warning in our State in the middle of December. We have had tragedies across the Midwest with storms of magnitude we never thought possible. We have rising--no. Are we discussing that? No. Are we discussing voting and what is happening in this country right now, except for me giving this long speech? No, we are not. So I think we know that this isn't the Senate that is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, that is supposed to allow us to have votes on amendments and discussions on serious issues, not to ram through things but to have discussions on serious issues so we can make decisions. Do you think the rest of the world isn't watching what is going on here right now? Simple attempts to do something about childcare or preschool or reducing the prices of prescription drugs, when we pay more in our country for prescription drugs than any other country in the world, and we are getting blocked from bringing those bills forward to have actual discussions on them or trying to fit them in little boxes of how they fit some archaic Senate rule. Even Senator Robert Byrd said, when he was advocating for rule reforms way back in 1979: ``Certain rules that were necessary . . . must be changed to reflect changed circumstances.'' Well, I think an all-out assault on our democracy--that is a changed circumstance, where at least we should be debating the solution in this Chamber. I think being unable to advance things that we know we have to tackle, not just immediate crisis, because we are pretty good at those--we are pretty good when a financial crisis occurs or when we have storms or floods or tornadoes or hurricanes. We are pretty good at getting the funds out and rescue help out there. But not everything is an immediate crisis. It is just a crisis about to happen, and our job, our duty when we take that oath is to protect the Constitution. That is what we want to debate right now on this floor, instead of in another empty Chamber. And with the standing filibuster, requiring people to be here and debate and speak, it is not just an old movie, then; it is real life. Requiring people to actually be here and do their jobs--big surprise, news bulletin--we are here debating real issues and legislation and voting on amendments and doing our jobs, instead of just running back in here every four hours and making a vote and then going back out and making phone calls. Protecting the freedom to vote has never been easy. Throughout our country's 245-year history, we have had to course-correct to ensure that our democracy for the people, by the people actually lived up to its ideals. Voting is how Americans control their government and hold elected officials accountable. So for anyone watching this at home, do you want to hold people accountable? It is by making sure that they have the right to vote, so they can exercise their right to vote, and their views at the polls in a safe way, across this Nation. And do you want to hold them accountable? It is by actually having votes on bills and actually debating the issues of our time as the rest of the world watches what should be the beacon of democracy. It strengthens our hand with the rest of the world. It makes us stronger when our democracy is functioning and working, and not when we have a bunch of people in here with bear spray and bayonets going after our police officers. That is the vision, I am sorry to say, that much of the world saw less than a year ago. And that is not the lasting vision that we want of this Chamber or of this democracy. Americans have fought and died to protect our freedom to vote. They have done so on the battlefield and in marches during the civil rights movement, and 56 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed by this Chamber and signed into law, we still continue this fight. But just as we know from those trying to keep their fellow Americans from voting, those trying to undermine our very system of government in State after State across the country, they are not going to stop until we make clear that there is something larger than ourselves. As John McCain used to say, there is nothing more liberating than a cause larger than yourself. That cause, my friends in this Chamber, is our very democracy, and that is why we won't stop. Our Nation was founded on the ideals of democracy, and we have seen for ourselves in this building how we can't afford to take it for granted. We have a lot of work to do in rebuilding our country. And, no, we should not go home tomorrow. No, we should not, not when this is at stake. We must stand up for the salvation of our democracy. And each day that we delay, it gets harder and harder to undo what is being done. We owe it to our country and to the future generation of Americans to take care of this country. We are the stewards, my friends, of this Nation right now and our democracy. So many people before us have found a way to do the right thing. And in the words of Bob Dole, in a first-class democracy, the people deserve better than being treated like second-class citizens. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hoeven, Murray, McConnell, and I be able to complete our remarks prior to the scheduled vote.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak up to 7 minutes; Senator Merkley, up to 15 minutes; and Senator Durbin, up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled votes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Grassley, the Republican lead on this bill; Senator Blumenthal, who has done so much work in the area of competition and protection of children; and Senator Hirono, who came to the floor today; as well as our original cosponsors of this bill, with many more supporters out there. And that includes Senator Durbin, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Lindsey Graham, the former chair; Senator Kennedy; Senator Cory Booker; Senator Josh Hawley, Senator Lummis; and Senator Warner. So, as we noted, as you heard the speakers today, this is a real- world problem. This isn't something where the tech companies can say ``just trust us, we've got this.'' I think anyone who heard the whistleblower a few weeks back in Commerce knows that is not true; or heard the parent I heard from last week, who told me that, as she tries to protect her kids, as she tries to find the right filter or to get them to stop clicking on a link or doing something that is going to expose them to bad content and bad accounts, she said she feels like it is a faucet that is on and it is overflowing in a sink, and she is trying to mop it up, and then the water just keeps coming out as she goes from kid to kid to kid. I think that pretty much sums it up for how a lot of parents feel right now. And the other thing that is going on when you have dominant platforms and you don't have enough competition and you can't get competitors that might have developed the bells and whistles that would have protected us from misinformation and from bad information for our kids--well, that is what happens when you have dominant platforms. And you know what else happens to you when you go to search for restaurant reviews, you might not be able to see what you really want to see. Instead, you get pushed towards less reputable and less informative reviews; or when you go to try to book a flight, you might be missing out on a better deal because of certain dominant platforms' own booking tool is being pushed to the top of your results. You are basically getting ripped off. That is it, plain and simple. It also means a dominant platform using nonpublic data--nonpublic data, stuff it gathered from you. And, by the way, one example, Facebook makes $51 a quarter--a quarter--off of every one of the pages that is sitting here in front of us, off of Senator Merkley, who is patiently waiting to speak. Fifty-one dollars a quarter is how much they make because they have got access to all this information, and then the ads get targeted to us. And we don't get any of that money. Dominant platforms, using nonpublic data that they gather from small businesses can use their platforms--and this is in the retail space; we are talking here, like, Amazon--to build knockoff copies of their products and then compete against the people who we are paying to advertise on their platform. This isn't your local grocery store chain selling store brand potato chips to compete with a brand-name product. This is Amazon using incredibly detailed, nonpublic information that they get from their sellers on their platform to create copycat products and box out competition from small innovators. What does it look like? In one case, an employee of Amazon's private label arm accessed a detailed sales report with 25 columns of information on a car trunk organizer produced by a small Brooklyn company called Fortem. In October 2019, Amazon started selling three trunk organizers of its own. When shown the collection data Amazon had gathered about his brand before launching of their own product, Fortem's cofounder called it a big surprise. Yeah, I don't think most of us assume that trillion-dollar companies put their troves of data to work boxing small businesses out of the trunk organizer market. But it happened. That is why we are here supporting the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. Yeah, you have got to update your competition laws when they haven't been changed since the internet was invented. What does this mean? Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other companies' services from interoperating with their platform. Amazon won't be able to misuse small businesses' data in order to copy their products. And Google won't be able to bias their platform's search results in favor of other products--their own products. The result? A fairer playing field for small and medium businesses, more options, more flexibility, and more access to markets and fostering entrepreneurship for the new kids on the block. And, by the way, as Senator Grassley outlined, this bill does not outlaw Amazon Prime. Let's go for the lie. It does not do that. That is what they have been saying because they want to stop this in its tracks; or free shipping; or stop Apple from freeloading useful apps onto their iPhones. No, no, no. This is the kind of stuff they have been saying for a while. And that is why Senator Grassley and I spent the entire summer working on this bill, to make sure it did none of that. That is why we have such broad support, because this is targeted at anti-competitive conduct. We are really excited about this bill. The positive opinions it has been getting--Boston Globe, Washington Post: ``Finally a promising piece of tech antitrust legislation in Congress.'' I think there are other ones, but that is what they said in there. So commonsense rules of the road for major digital platforms, allowing them to continue to operate their businesses. We are glad for these products. We like these products. We want to keep these companies strong. But they don't need to engage in this kind of behavior. That is why we are here today, and we are looking very forward to getting this bill before the Judiciary Committee and passed through the Senate. I yield the floor.