WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. MS. COLLINS: MR. PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: THE SENATOR FROM MAINE. COLLINS THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. -- MS. COLLINS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. FIRST LET ME SAY I APPRECIATE THE SINCERITY OF THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA, MY FRIEND, SENATOR KAINE, IN HIS COMMENTS ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER OF I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT THE SPEECH THAT I GAVE LAST WEEK ON THE VITAL SAFEGUARDS THAT THE FILIBUSTER PROVIDES TO THE MINORITY PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND T DELIBERATIVE BODY IN THE WORLD. INSTEAD, MRS., SINCE -- INSTEAD, MR. PRESIDENT, SINCE I'VE ALREADY TALKED ON THAT ISSUE, I FEEL COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY SENATOR OSSOFF, THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA, EARLIER THIS EVENING IN WHICH HE SINGLED OUT FOUR REPUBLICAN SENATORS -- SENATOR McCONNELL, SENATOR CORNYN, SENATO BURR, AND MYSELF, AND OUR POSITION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965. A SEMINAL LAW THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, IN GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ALL AMERICANS. WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, I WAS NOT IN THE SENATE IN 1965. I WAS 13. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA WAS EVEN BORN IN 19 65, BUT THAT IS NOT REALLY MY POINT. MY POINTOI IS THAT OF ME, THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA, MR. OSSOFF , SAID SENATOR COLLINS PREVIOUSLY SAID THAT THIS BILL WILL ENSURE THAT VOTING RIGHTS AFFORDED TO ALL AMERICANS ARE PROTECTED, B NOT ANYMORE. MR. PRESIDENT, I VOTED ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND DID SAY THAT ABOUT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION IN 2006, AND SURELY MY COLLEAGUE IS NOT CONFUSING THAT BILL, WHICH WAS FIVE PAGES LONG -- FIVE PAGES -- WITH THE BILL THAT IS BEFORE THE SENATE TONIGHT, WHICH IS 735 PAGES LONG. SURELY, HE IS NOT CONFUSING THOSE TWO BILLS. IF HE IS, I WOULD LIKE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK WITH HIM ABOUT THE ENORMOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO BILLS. BUT FRANKLY, THE NUMBERF PAGES SAYS IT ALL. I DO SUPPORT THE REAUTHORIZATION THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, AND I DID SO, AS DID EVERY OTHER SENATOR, IN 2006. BUT TO EQUATE THAT TO THE LEGISLATION THAT IS BEFORE US NOW IS SIMPLY NOT WORTHY. AND HAD I BEEN ON THE FLOOR AT THOUGHT OF REMINDING THE SENATOR THAT WE HAVE A RULE IN THE SENATE, RULE 19, WHICH PROHIBITS IMPUGNING THE INTEGRITY OR THE MOTIVES OF OTHER SENATORS. NOT JUST ONE SENATOR IN THIS CASE, BUTOUR SENATORS. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. I DO SUPPORT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965. I SUPPORTED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2006, AS DID EVERY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO WERE MENTIONED BY SENATOR OSSOFF THIS EVENING. E IMPLIED OTHERWISE ABOUT OUR SUPPORT FOR SUCH IMPORTANT CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION. I YIELD THE FLOOR. MR. OSSOFF: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: WHO SPEAKS? MR. OSSOFF:MR MR. PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: OH, THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA, I'M SORRY. MR. OSSOFF: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. BRIEFLY, MR. PRESIDENT, RESPONDING TO THE COMMENTS FROM SENATOR FOR WHOM I HAVE GREAT RESPECT AND WHOSE REPUTATION FOR BIPARTISANSHIP, FOR SUBSTANCE, FOR A THOUGHTFUL, STATESPERSON-LIKE AND PATRIOT APPROACH PRECEDES HER. WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO, SENATOR COLLINS, WAS THE LEGISLATION THAT THE SENATE TOOK UP EARLIER THIS YEAR, WHICH Y IN RESPONSE O THE SUPREME COURT'S INVITATION TO CONGRESS, AFTER THE SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER DECISION, WOULD HAVE UPDATED THE PRECLEARANCE FORMULAS THAT GOVERN SECTIONS 4 AND SECTIONS 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, SUCH THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COULD CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT ITS VITAL WORK PRECLEARING CHANGES TO VOTING PROCEDURES IN STATES AND JURISDICTIONS THAT EXHIBIT A HISTORY OR PATTERN OF VOTER SUPPRESSION AND THAT IS AN OBLIGATION THAT I BELIEVE THIS CONGRESS HAS. THE SUPREME COURT, IN FACT, INVITED US TO CARRY OUT THAT OBLIGATION, AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNDER SENATOR DURBIN'S LEADERSHIP CAREFULLY CRAFTED LEGISLATION THAT WE BELIEVE RESPONDED TO THE SUPREME COURT'S INVITATION TO DO JUST THAT. RESPECTFULLY, SENATOR COLLINS, RUNNING THE STATE OF GEORGIA, WHERE AS I MENTIONED EARLIER WE FACED A WAVE OF BILLS AND NOW LAW WHICH EVERYBODY IN MY STATE KNOWS ARE INTENDED DELIBERATELY TO DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT SERP COMMUNITIES, LAWS -- CERTAIN COMMUNITIES, LAWS THAT PRIOR TO THE SHELBY COUNTY DECISION WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRECLEARANCE, I BELIEVE MORE STRONGLY THAN EVER THAT PRECLEARANCE IS NECESSARY. AND WHAT I WAS RESPECTFULLY NOTING, SENATOR COLLINS, WITHOUT ANY IMPLICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR MOTIVES OR INTEGRITY, WAS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A INCONSISTENCY, AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN VOTING CONSISTENTLY TO REAUTHORIZE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AND LAUDING IT A ASA SIGNATURE CIVIL RIGHTS ACHIEVEMENT, BUT THEN VOTING NOT EVEN TO ALLOW DEBATE IN THIS BODY ON THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS CREATED TO RESPOND TO THE SUPRE COURT'S INVITATION TO UPHOLD ITS PRECLEARANCE PROVISION. I YIELD. Y MS. COLLINS: MR. PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: THE SENATOR FROM MAINE. MS. COLLINS: MR. PRESIDENT, RHETT M E JUST -- LET ME JUST NOTE THAT THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, HAS CHALLENGED THE LAW OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA AND THE STATE OF TEXAS. SO THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NO LONGER HAS AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE LS WITH WHICH IT DISAGREES OR REGULATIONS OR PCTICES IS SIMP NOT ACCURATE. SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT PROVIDES THAT AUTHORITY. IT IS IN EFFECT, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RIGHT PLI OR WRONGLY, HAS -- RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, HAS INVOKED IT. MR. OSSOFF: MR. PRESINT. THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA. MR. OSSOFF: I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESS TO ATTEND TO AND AN IMPORTANT VOTE. SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. SECTION SECTION 4 AND SECTION 5, WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE PRECLEARANCE OF CHANGES TO VOTING LAWS IN JURISDICTIONS WITH A HISTORY OR PATTERN OF VOTER SUPPRESSION, ARE VITAL, PRECISELY BECAUSE THE POST FACTO LITIGATION THAT D.O.J. MUST EMBARK UPON TO CHALLENGE STATE POLICIES ONCE THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN ENACTED CAN BE FAR TOO TIME-CONSUMING TO ALLOW A REMEDY TO EMERGE IN THE COURTS. AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHY SECTION 4 AND SECTION 5 A WERE ENACTED AT THE TIME, TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE POWER IT NEEDS TO PRECLEAR THESE CHANGES IN PLACES WITH A HISTORY OF SEGREGATION AND VOTER SUPPRESSION. AND IN MY STATE, DESPITE ALL OF THE PROTESTATIONS TO THE CONTRARY, WE ARE RIGHT NOW WITNESSING A SIGNIFICANT WAVE OF VOTER SPRESSION POLICIES. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRECLEAR THOSE CHANGES TO LAW, TO ENSURE WE DON'T DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT MINORITY COMMUNITIES. SO TEXT 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS IMPORTANT. BUT IF SECTION 4 AND SECTION 5 WERE VITAL WHEN YOU VOTED TO REAUTHORIZE THEM IN 2006, WHY AREN'T THEY VITAL TODAY? THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: THE SENATOR FROM MAINE. MS. COLLINS: I PROMISE MY COLLEAGUES THIS WILL BE MY LAST COMMENT. THIS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM A DEBATE ON A 735-PAGE BILL. I WOULD INVITE MY COLLEAGUE FROM GEORGIA TO REVIEW EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID EARLIER THIS EVENING. THANK YOU, AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
