[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 22, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4662-S4668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Iran
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the weekend, Iran held what its
Supreme Leader might call a Presidential election. To the rest the
world, including millions of Iranians, what actually happened was quite
clear. The regime's favored choice was selected from a limited field of
approved candidates in a carefully controlled bit of political theater.
There is no doubt this charade works as intended. The Ayatollah got a
President-elect with a record of strict adherence to his regime's
revolutionary orthodoxy. Meanwhile, former Presidential candidates who
emerged as leaders in the popular 2009 Green Movement remain under
house arrest. Like his predecessors, Ebrahim Raisi will serve as a
figurehead while the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
actually run the show.
But even rigged elections have consequences, and the new most visible
figure in Tehran has a proven history as a hardline theocrat. For
decades, from his time on a so-called death committee in the 1980s, the
President-elect played an intimate role in the trial, conviction, and
summary execution of political prisoners and peaceful protesters. There
is no question he is an extreme hardliner, even in the Iranian context,
and now he is set to be the so-called counterpart to President Biden as
this administration reengages eagerly with the world's most active
state sponsor of terrorism.
In some circles, a looming turnover in the top ranks of Iranian
leadership is being spun as a reason for the White House to rush even
faster than it already is toward restoring the Obama administration's
failed nuclear deal. One particularly eager assessment in the New York
Times called the next 6
[[Page S4663]]
weeks ``a unique window for clinching an agreement,'' like some sort of
liquidation sale in which President Biden needs to take whatever he
can. Meanwhile, rational observers know that the fundamental reality of
the U.S.-Iranian relations certainly has not changed.
If the selection of a new hardline figurehead in Tehran sends any
signal, it is a reminder that showering the regime with sanctions
relief and expecting a change in behavior is a reckless and damaging
approach. In fact, President-elect Raisi has already said as much
himself. Iran's ballistic missile program is ``not negotiable,'' and
meeting with President Biden is not on the table.
Of course, Iranian politicians and diplomats are known to lie and to
dissemble, so we should pay closest attention to this regime's actions.
What will it actually do?
Here is the truth: Domestic political developments in Tehran don't
absolve the Biden administration of its responsibility to confront
Iran's nuclear and missile proliferation, its support for terrorism,
its abuses of human rights, and its relentless efforts to destabilize
the entire region.
If President Biden hopes to earn bipartisan support for an Iran
policy that could outlast his time in office, he needs to start
explaining how he intends to respond as Iran ramps up threats against
the United States and our closest partners in its backyard.
Remember, the thousands of rockets Hamas fired at Israel last month
were made possible by Iran. So were the precision-guided munitions in
Hezbollah's arsenal and the ballistic missiles and UAVs launched into
Saudi Arabia by the Houthis in Yemen. And the dozens of militia attacks
on U.S. interests in Iraq? Carried out by Tehran's reliable accolades.
The Biden administration has had months to develop a coherent
rationale for its eager engagement with the Iranian regime and months
to hash out a better plan than rewarding terrorist sponsors with
sanctions relief. An explanation to Congress is long overdue.
For the People Act of 2021
Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, later today, the
Senate will vote on whether to advance Democrats' transparently
partisan plan to tilt every election in America permanently in their
favor.
By now, the rotten inner workings of this power grab have been
thoroughly exposed to the light. We know that it would shatter a
decades-old understanding that campaign law should have a bipartisan
referee and turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan
majority cudgel for Democrats to wield against their political
opponents. We know that it would let Washington bureaucrats direct
Federal dollars into politicians' campaign accounts--government money
for yard signs and attack ads. We know that it would let Democrats take
a red pen to election laws in each of the 50 States, neutering popular
precautions like voter ID while legalizing shady practices like ballot
harvesting across the board.
It is a recipe for undermining confidence in our elections, for
remaking our entire system of government to suit the preferences of one
far end of the political spectrum. And if they could, many Democrats
would pass it with the slimmest possible majority, even after its
companion faced bipartisan opposition over in the House. What a craven
political calculation. What a way to show your disdain for the American
people's choices.
Of course, it isn't even limited to election law. Among the most
dangerous parts of S. 1 is the way it would equip partisan regulators
to intimidate and to discourage private citizens from engaging in
political speech.
Unfortunately, this one is a familiar concept for too many Americans.
It is not hard to imagine Federal bureaucrats indulging ideological
grudges and chilling free speech. It has actually happened before. The
Nation was reminded just a few weeks ago how unable the Federal
Government can be to protect private citizens' personal information--
unable or just unwilling?
But conservatives in particular didn't need a reminder of what became
institutionalized discrimination under the last Democratic
administration. So when private contributors, nonprofit advocacy
groups, and religious organizations see that S. 1's disclosure
requirements would intentionally unlearn the lessons of the IRS's
abuses under Lois Lerner, they have plenty of reasons--plenty--to fear.
Naming and shaming is not a hypothetical concept; it has been a
concrete reality for thousands of private citizens. Today, Democrats
are asking for a green light to supercharge the intimidation machine
that makes all that possible.
We have heard this entire package described in many ways over the
years. It has been around for a while. The same rotten proposals have
sometimes been called a massive overhaul for a broken democracy,
sometimes just a modest package of tweaks for a democracy that is
working perfectly, and sometimes a response to State actions, which
this bill actually predates by many years. But whichever label
Democrats slap on the bill, the substance remains the same. It has
always been a plan to rewrite the ground rules of American politics.
By the way, no matter what far-left activists are telling our
colleagues, this most sensitive subject would not be the best place to
trash the Senate's rules to ram something through. In fact, these
issues would be the worst possible place to push through a power grab
at any cost.
The Senate is no obstacle to voting laws done the right way. I have
helped write legislation regarding our democracy that has soared
through this Chamber on huge bipartisan margins. The Senate is only an
obstacle when the policy is flawed and the process is rotten, and that
is exactly why this body exists.
Today, the Senate is going to fulfill our founding purpose, stop the
partisan power grab, and reject S. 1.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, what is the status of the floor?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is considering the
Fonzone nomination.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if
in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, let's be clear. We are facing the most
dangerous and overt threat to our democratic system in generations.
Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon wrongly
equated money with speech, and in the decades since, unaccountable dark
money has flooded into our political system. This broken campaign
finance system allows billionaires to drown out the voices of ordinary
Americans with no accountability. This lack of transparency also opens
the door for dangerous disinformation campaigns.
After the Supreme Court gutted article V of the Voting Rights Act in
another terrible decision, we have also seen State legislatures across
the country take up and pass voting laws designed explicitly to prevent
Black, Brown, and young voters from exercising their right to vote.
These new laws in States like Georgia, Arizona, and Texas are right
out of the pre-Voting Rights Act playbook of the Jim Crow South. Some
have called them Jim Crow 2.0, and, frankly, it is hard to disagree.
They make it harder to register to vote. They reduce early voting times
in polling locations. They restrict access to vote by mail. In the
Presiding Officer's State in Georgia, it is now illegal to hand out
water to someone who has been standing in line for hours to vote,
waiting to vote. Could anything be more wrongheaded?
My home State of New Mexico is a good example of what it looks like
to enhance rather than attack participation in our democracy. I am
proud of the ways that election officials in my State have stepped up
in recent years to make voting safer, to make it more secure and at the
same time more accessible for every New Mexican, and our State has seen
greater participation in our elections as a result. Now, unfortunately,
we are seeing the polar opposite of this approach in our neighboring
States.
Just last week, Democratic lawmakers from Texas came to Washington,
DC, to warn us just how dire the situation has become in their State.
Texas's Governor, Greg Abbott, and Republican lawmakers in Austin are
hell-bent on passing sweeping voting restrictions as part of a nakedly
[[Page S4664]]
discriminatory power grab. These proposed changes would reduce voting
hours, push back the start of Sunday early voting when many Black
voters cast their ballots, and eliminate polling locations in larger
urban counties. The goal of this type of legislation is pretty plain to
see.
This shameful and transparent attempt to take away Texans' right to
vote and similar attempts to disenfranchise voters in many other States
should be a wake-up call to every single American. We should all be
able to see that these attacks on voting are taking advantage of and in
many cases being driven by our former President's lies and conspiracy
theories about the last election.
Make no mistake, former President Trump's Big Lie about his loss in
the 2020 election has sown widespread and damaging distrust in our
elections. We should never forget that this same distrust and
disinformation fomented a mob of violent insurrectionists who stormed
into this very building, the very heart of our democracy, less than 6
months ago.
Now, unfortunately, that cat is out of the bag. I don't see this
widespread public distrust in our elections going away anytime soon as
a result, especially as long as our former President continues to add
more fuel to the fire and particularly when Republicans--even
Republicans who know that he is lying--continue to follow him down that
rabbit hole.
In one of New Mexico's other neighboring States, in Arizona, there is
a so-called audit of the votes cast in their largest county. This bogus
audit is being conducted by a private company paid for by secret pro-
Trump funders, with no effective oversight.
When you outsource nonpartisan election work to a firm calling
themselves the Cyber Ninjas, you know things are off the rails. All of
the distrust in our elections that has been ginned up by the former
President is all the more reason for us to come together to pass
commonsense reforms that would restore all Americans' faith in our
elections and in our democracy.
The right of every lawful American to vote is just that; it is a
right, and no one, no one, should be able to take that away. The public
should have confidence that our leaders are working on their behalf,
not in fealty to a class of dark money billionaires. They deserve
transparency so that they can see who is behind the political ads on
their television screens and their social media feeds. Most
importantly, they deserve to know that our fundamentally American right
to vote is secure, accessible, and easy to navigate for every single
lawful American.
That is why it is so important for the Senate to take up the For the
People Act this week. This comprehensive legislation addresses all of
the critical challenges facing our political systems and our democratic
institutions. The For the People Act would restore transparency,
accountability, and strong ethics rules for our elections.
It would stop billionaires from being able to anonymously pour
buckets of cash into our elections in an effort to buy them. It would
put an end to partisan gerrymandering and broken election rules that
allow Republicans and Democrats alike to rig the system for themselves
and for special interests. And it would modernize voting systems so
that every American, no matter their race, their political party, or
their ZIP Code, can have confidence in their ability to exercise their
right to vote.
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate should come together to pass
commonsense election security, voter protections, and campaign finance
reforms in the For the People Act. Each of these provisions, on their
own, have won bipartisan support at the State and local level. In a
previous, less partisan time, these ideas would have earned broad
bipartisan support here in Congress. These are not Democratic or
Republican ideas; they are fundamental reforms that we need to pass in
order to restore the essential American idea that each of us has a say
in who we elect as our leaders.
The House has already passed the For the People Act earlier this
year. It is now the Senate's turn to take up this critical legislation.
Unless we can pass the reforms that are in the For the People Act, we
will keep living under a broken status quo where the special interests
wield far too much control and State lawmakers can continue to
undermine and ignore constitutional rights.
It is outrageous that Senate Republicans, as we heard from the
minority leader, are planning to block legislation to restore voting
rights and bring much-needed transparency and ethics into our
elections. Their refusal to even allow debate on the For the People Act
should be seen for what it is. It is a ringing endorsement of former
President Trump's conspiracy theories and his attacks on our elections
and on reality itself.
Refusing to take up the For the People Act will prop up the campaigns
that we are seeing in States across the country that strip Americans of
our hard-won right to vote.
Mr. President, I want to be clear. If Senate Republicans are
successful later today in using the filibuster to block the Senate from
even debating the For the People Act, this cannot be the end of the
story. We simply cannot give up on passing voting rights legislation in
this Congress, not when our democracy is what is on the line.
We should all remember that the filibuster is a rule, a rule that
cannot even be found in the Constitution, but voting, voting is an
American right. When I think about this, I remember my former colleague
across the hall from me, actually, when I served in the House,
Representative John Lewis. It was one of the most humbling experiences
of my life to be able to serve in the same Chamber as Congressman
Lewis.
John Lewis dedicated his entire life to the fight for the right of
all Americans to cast their ballot safely and without fear of
discrimination. More than 50 years ago, he and so many others marched
and put their lives on the line to call on President Lyndon Johnson and
Members of Congress from both parties to pass the Voting Rights Act.
Back then and every time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized
since, Senators from both parties have found a way to protect our
democracy and preserve the right to vote.
Right now, America is facing down daunting threats to our democratic
values here at home. For the first time since the Civil War, the
greatest threats to the Republic are from within. History will judge
all of us based on what we do to defend that fundamental right for
all--not some but all--of our fellow Americans.
Mr. President, will we meet this moment? If we fail to rise to the
discrimination baked into these State laws, our failure will cast a
long shadow. I will be proud to cast my vote on the side of democracy.
I yield the floor
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on S.
2093. S. 2093 is the new S. 1. It is the latest version of the so-
called For the People Act, which is a massive, massive Federal takeover
of election law.
So why are we taking up a massive Federal takeover of election law?
Well, that is a good question. Two years ago, Democrats told us that we
needed to pass this law because our electoral system was broken. Well,
then came 2020. We had a record voter turnout, the largest voter
turnout since the election of 1900, the largest turnout in 120 years in
American history. And Democrats won the White House.
After that, it got a little awkward to complain that our electoral
system was broken. So Democrats found a new argument. Now, we have to
pass this legislation to stop States from taking away voting rights.
According to Democrats, States' moves to update or clarify their
election laws in the wake of pandemic challenges and vote-counting
confusion are really plots to restrict voter access.
Of course, so far, most 2021 State election law updates have proved
to be both standard and mainstream, but that hasn't stopped Democrats
who have, at times, resorted to outright lies in their efforts to
persuade Americans
[[Page S4665]]
that we are facing a voting rights crisis.
After all, Democrats need to give some reason for why we should allow
the Federal Government to take over our entire electoral system. And
Democrats' real reason--because they think S. 1 will give them an
advantage in future elections--is not really one that they can use to
sell the bill, although Speaker Pelosi did admit on national television
that she thought S. 1 would boost Democrats' electoral chances.
The question is where to start when it comes to the bill's content.
As I said, like the original S. 1, the new S. 1 is an unprecedented
Federal takeover of elections. Historically, running elections has
largely been a matter for States, which tailor election laws to the
particular needs of their cities and communities.
S. 1 would impose one-size-fits-all, Federal regulations on
elections--in many cases, deeply problematic regulations. S. 1 would
require States to allow unlimited ballot harvesting, which is the
controversial practice of allowing political operatives and others to
pick up and deliver ballots, with all of the possibilities for fraud
that that creates.
It would gut State voter ID laws--laws which, I would point out, are
supported by a strong majority of the American people. A recent poll
said 80 percent of Americans support voter ID laws. It would remove
legal penalties for registering individuals who are here illegally--and
so much more.
But the new S. 1, like the old S. 1, goes way beyond undermining the
security of our elections and increasing the likelihood of voter fraud.
It would implement public funding of political campaigns, which would
mean that government dollars, money that belongs to the American
taxpayer, would go to funding yard signs and attack ads. Sitting
Senators alone could qualify for more than $1.8 billion in public
funding. And that doesn't count their challengers.
Yes, with a record high debt, Democrats apparently think that
dropping a couple billion dollars here and there on attack ads and
partisan rallies is a good use of taxpayer dollars.
And from there, believe it or not, the ideas only get worse. S. 1
would permanently undermine confidence in our electoral system by
turning the Federal Election Commission, the primary enforcer of
election law in this country, into a partisan body. That is right. The
Democrats' bill would turn the primary enforcer of election law in this
country into a partisan body. Now, I am interested to hear how this is
supposed to enhance voter confidence in our electoral system. Every
single FEC ruling would be suspect.
And on top of all this, S. 1 makes a concerted attack on freedom of
speech. It would impose onerous requirements and restrictions on
political speech. It would open up private Americans to retaliation and
intimidation simply for making a donation to support a cause they
believe in. And it would allow the IRS to consider organizations'
beliefs when deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status.
In fact, the ACLU--the American Civil Liberties Union--actually
opposed the House's version of S. 1 in the last Congress because the
bill would ``unconstitutionally burden speech and associational
rights.'' That is right. The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the
legislation because the bill would ``unconstitutionally burden speech
and associational rights.''
As hard as it is to believe when you look at the bill's provisions,
S. 1 was billed as an election integrity bill. In fact, this
legislation would undermine election integrity, making our elections
less secure and more susceptible to fraud. And it would undermine voter
confidence in our elections.
The partisan divide in this country has reached new heights, and
voters on both sides have lost confidence in our electoral process. Any
election legislation that we take up should be focused on building
voter confidence in the fairness of our electoral system, not
undermining it.
Do my Democratic colleagues seriously believe--seriously believe--
that S. 1 would do anything to increase voter confidence in the
unbiased character of our electoral system? Do they seriously believe
that their bill looks like a nonpartisan attempt to protect American
elections? They can't possibly.
From the newly partisan FEC to an IRS empowered to reject tax-exempt
status for organizations whose beliefs it doesn't like, S. 1 is very
clearly a bill designed purely and simply to enhance political power--
the political power, Democrats hope, of the Democratic Party. It is the
very opposite of a nonpartisan reform bill.
And I have to ask my Democratic colleagues, do you really want an
electoral system that is perceived as partisan and which half the
country doesn't trust? Haven't we seen the consequences of that? Are
you really prepared to sacrifice voter confidence in our electoral
system just so you can win elections?
Later this afternoon, we will vote on S. 1. And I fully expect that
this legislation will be blocked, and it should be. The Senate's rules,
which require the agreement of 60 Senators to move forward to consider
legislation, were designed--designed--for times just like these, times
when a narrow partisan majority attempts to shove through partisan
legislation, times when a partisan majority attacks the freedoms that
our government exists to protect.
The Senate was established to act as a monitoring body and check
attempts to ride roughshod over minority rights or to curtail our
rights and our liberties. And today the Senate will fulfill that role
and prevent this dangerous, partisan takeover of our electoral system
from moving forward.
To elaborate on that point for just a moment, when I asked the
question earlier on about why would you bring this bill to the floor--
it is a good question, I think, knowing full well that it is going to
fail, and should fail later today, but why would you bring it to the
floor? Well, allegedly, the reason to bring it to the floor was to
provide pressures on certain Democratic Members that this is the reason
that they need to vote to do away with the legislative filibuster,
which is something that has been part of the Senate going back to our
Founding Fathers. In fact, the very reason the Founding Fathers created
the U.S. Senate was a check and balance against majoritarian rule and
running roughshod over the rights of the minority here in the U.S.
Senate. And the legislative filibuster has ensured and provided that
protection, so much so that it was used extensively in the last 6
years, when Republicans were in control of the Senate, by the Democrats
to filibuster legislation. In fact, it was used to filibuster
coronavirus relief bills. It was used to filibuster police reform
bills. It was used over and over to block the former President's
nominees. And yet, now, we are being told that the Senate needs to get
rid of the legislative filibuster and that all those Democrats, all
those on the other side of the aisle who used it extensively to block
Republican legislation over the past 6 years, now believe that we need
to get rid of this legislative filibuster and that this bill is example
No. 1 for why that is necessary.
Well, it is really ironic and interesting to hear Members on the
other side make that argument, given where they were a couple of years
ago. It was just a couple of years ago--maybe 3 years ago--that 33
Democratic Senators signed a letter--a letter--to the Republican leader
at the time, Senator McConnell, saying that we need to preserve the
filibuster, the legislative filibuster, in the Senate because it is so
crucial to the essence of the Senate and the protections that it
provides for the rights of the minority here in the U.S. Senate.
Thirty-three Democrats, many of whom are still serving in this body,
adopted that position.
And, in fact, the Democratic whip, my counterpart on the Democratic
side, said, a couple of years ago on a morning show:
I can tell you that would be the end of the Senate as it
was originally devised and created going back to our Founding
Fathers. We have to acknowledge our respect for the minority,
and that is what the Senate tries to do in its composition
and in its procedure.
``I can tell you,'' he said, the Democratic whip, the Senator from
Illinois, ``that it would be the end of the Senate as it was originally
devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers.'' In other
words, we need to preserve the filibuster to preserve our democracy. It
is essential. That was the view as recently as a couple of years ago.
And now, now, we have to get rid of the filibuster to preserve our
democracy 2
[[Page S4666]]
years later. The filibuster, the legislative filibuster, which in
various forms has served our Republic now for over two centuries. It
has been a part of the U.S. Senate checks and balances that the
Founders envisioned for this country.
And yet here we are bringing a bill to the floor for no other purpose
than to have a show vote to try and pressure certain Democratic
Senators who, rightfully, are defending the legislative filibuster as
an essential element of protecting the rights of the minority in the
Senate, of requiring cooperation and collaboration and bringing people
together on legislation. Solutions in the Senate, historically--and I
was a staffer here back in the 1980s. That is how long my tenure, at
least as a staffer and now subsequently as a Member, goes back. But the
Senate is a place where solutions tend to be found in the middle
because that is required. It is required that there be 60 votes to move
consequential legislation. And as a result of that, Members on both
sides have to come together. If you want to pass big things in the
Senate, you have to figure out a way to get 60 votes. And right now
that would require--in the Senate, if you had every Democrat, 50
Democrats, you would have to get 10 Republicans. As was the case when
we had the majority in the Senate, we had to get seven Democrats to do
anything. And so, in order to even move essential legislation like the
coronavirus bill, we had to reach out to the other side. And it forced
that compromise, that collaboration, that willingness to come together
and work in a bipartisan way on solutions that are durable, that are
durable for this country.
It is really interesting in this Washington Post op-ed by Senator
Sinema, where she points out--makes that very point that if you can do
something at 51 votes today, and one side blows up the rules in the
Senate, that when the majority changes--and it always does in the
Senate, and she points out that sometimes when you get in the majority,
you think you will be there forever. Well, I have been here long enough
to have been in the majority and the minority and in the majority and
the minority again. It goes back and forth.
So what are you going to do then the next time the Senate majority
flips and all those things that the other side thinks are awful, awful
ideas that the Republicans have, and they would love to be able to
block them or at least force Republicans to come to the table and
negotiate a solution that would require some bipartisan participation
to get to 60 votes--what are you going to do then, where we have 51
votes when one side gets the majority and 50 votes and we go back and
forth and we have this policy, this kind of policy roller coaster that
provides no certainty, no predictability, and certainly gets away from
the checks and balances that the Founders intended?
The filibuster--the legislative filibuster, the rules of the Senate,
the procedures of the Senate, are designed to protect and preserve
democracy not to undermine it. What undermines it are cynical attempts
to try and use a piece of legislation that the leadership on the other
side knows is going nowhere and bring it to the floor for a show vote
to put pressure--to put pressure--on Senate Democrats, who, as I said,
rightfully, are defending that very procedure, which has worked so well
to their advantage for the past 6 years.
And now we are told the reason they have to change it is because
Republicans are being so--we are not cooperating. We are not--you know,
we are sticks in the mud. We are stopping and blocking things.
We haven't even been in the minority now for 6 months. We spent the
last 6 years in the majority, as the other side extensively--and I
emphasize ``extensively'' because any study of the data would suggest
that--to block Republican initiatives, to force Republicans to come
together to find 60 votes. That was their position and posture for the
past 6 years, including 33 Democratic Senators who, as recently as 3
years ago, sent a letter to the Republican leader, saying that we have
got to protect the legislative filibuster--statements like the one made
by the Senator from Illinois that doing away with the filibuster would
end the Senate as it was originally devised and created, going back to
our Founding Fathers.
One of the essential elements of this Republic constitutionally was
the need for checks and balances. And the bicameral creation of the
Founding Fathers, the House, which is based upon the majority, 2-year
terms, designed to reflect the will of the of people, the balance and
check that was created against that was the U.S. Senate, with 6-year
terms, where you have procedures and rules that make it more difficult
and challenging, that force this place to be more deliberative, to be
more compromising, to consult and work together.
And so what we are doing today, you are going to get up, and my
colleagues on the other side are going to talk about how critical it is
that we do this because all these States are enacting these terrible,
terrible election reforms. And as I said earlier, most of which, at
least from what I have seen, are very mainstream and consistent with
what the Founders designed in our Constitution, and that is for States
to have principal primacy when it comes to controlling and regulating
elections in this country. But as I said, it was argued 2 years ago, 3
years ago, in 2019, when this bill was introduced, that it needed to be
introduced because we have got to do something to increase
participation in our elections; that we really need to encourage people
to be more active in our elections; that we have got to get people to
vote, which they did, in record numbers--the biggest turnout since
1900, biggest voter participation in the 2020 election literally in 120
years in American history.
So now they introduced a bill this year, and the stated reason is, we
have to do this to stop all these States that are adopting these
legislative solutions that are going to make it more difficult for
people to vote. Well, all I can say is, the rationale for what we are
doing today changes depending on the year, depending on the election,
but the goal is the same, and that is to create a permanent political
advantage for one party--that is all this is about--and to persuade and
pressure certain Democratic Senators to do away with one of the
fundamental elements of the U.S. Senate in the form of a legislative
filibuster.
I hope this vote will make at least some Democrats think twice about
the wisdom of permanently politicizing our electoral system and that it
will encourage them to make sure that any future election reform
proposals are genuinely bipartisan in nature.
Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that Democrats are going to
use this vote to argue for destroying the Senate's longstanding
protections for minority rights. But today--today, at least, the Senate
will fulfill its constitutional mandate and act as a check on this
attempt to undermine our basic freedoms.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla).
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I rise today at a defining moment in
American history and at a time when I sincerely believe that what we do
or fail to do will have long-lasting and far-reaching implications for
the health, viability, and vitality of the world's greatest democracy.
We debate many important issues in this Chamber, but this issue, the
issue of voting rights, I argue, is decidedly different. It is
formative and foundational. It is the framework in which all of our
other debates take place, for this issue is about the preservation and
the protection of the democracy itself. That is, after all, what we
claim to be. That is who we are--a democracy built on that sacred idea
of one person, one vote.
With all the arguments taking place in the country right now, with
all of the audits being ordered, and with all of the voting legislation
being feverishly passed in States all across our country, clearly,
ironically, there is agreement--albeit for different reasons on the
right and on the left--that democracy itself is in danger. Folks on the
left and folks on the right believe that there is something broken and
it needs to be fixed.
[[Page S4667]]
If that is, indeed, the case, what kind of Congress would we be in
the whole history of Congresses if, seeing that discussion out there,
we refuse to even debate the matter in here? Who are we and how are we
to hide in a moment like this?
So I rise with what I think is a simple request of my colleagues.
Let's do our job. Resist the easy route, the temptation to hide behind
Senate procedure, and let's have a principled conversation in front of
the American people about voting rights. Let's have that conversation
right here, right now. How could we do otherwise?
It is said that we are the most important deliberative body on the
planet. Well, colleagues, how derelict in our duty would we be if, in
this defining moment we refuse to even have a debate--a debate--about
how best to preserve and protect that which is most precious: the
democracy itself.
In my maiden speech this past March, I made an urgent call upon this
body to act to protect the right to vote, and I warned then that the
cords of our democracy were dangerously frayed. That was not
theoretical stuff from me. I hail from Georgia. I argued then that our
democracy was being frayed by unfounded conspiracy theories that led to
an attack on this very Chamber and undermined by an onslaught of State-
level proposals aimed at suppressing the vote.
Since I gave that maiden speech, things have only gotten worse. When
I spoke here in March, 250 voter suppression proposals had been
introduced in 43 States--250 proposals. Now it is 389 proposals in 48
States. A violent assault on this Capitol is now metastasizing to voter
suppression proposals all across the United States of America. Since I
spoke here in March, Georgia and 13 other States have enacted these
voter suppression bills into law--14 in total. That is 14 States, and
counting, where partisan actors, power-hungry politicians have acted
along partisan lines to make it harder, not easier, for eligible voters
to cast a ballot and guarantee that ballot will actually count.
In Georgia, after record voter turnout in a historic election, there
is now a provision in S.B. 202 that allows partisan actors at the State
level to take over the board--to take it over--to take over the process
at the local level as voters are casting their ballots. Imagine that.
That same law also allows any citizen to challenge the voting rights of
an unlimited number of citizens, making it difficult to see how you can
certify any election.
Let's not kid ourselves. In this Chamber, of all places, a few months
after January 6, this is dangerous stuff. That is one reason we need to
debate the legislation before us.
I am hoping to include a provision I introduced yesterday with some
of my colleagues that will prevent politicians from being able to
overrule local election officials and therefore subvert the voices of
the people. This provision will also protect local election volunteers
from harassment and intimidation.
Right now across the Nation, constitutional rights are being
assaulted, and I fear that if we don't act as a body in this moment, we
will have crossed a dangerous Rubicon in our Nation that will make it
extremely difficult for the next generation to secure voting rights for
every eligible American.
This is not just another moment in another Congress. We should not
think of this as rote and routine. This is a defining moment that calls
upon us to speak, to debate, to act. After all, Congress represents the
people. It is the job of Congress, as prescribed in article I, section
4, to ensure that the people are not squeezed out and locked out of
their own democracy. This is not our house; this is the house of the
people. We are stewards of that trust. We have to ensure that the
voices of the people can be heard in their own house, and that is why I
am urging my colleagues to begin debating on the voting rights
legislation before us. That debate is happening right now out there.
How could it not happen in here?
I know some of my Republican friends are vowing to prevent this
debate, to stop it before it begins. And we are not talking yet about
passing the bill. Be very clear. We are just talking about talking
about it, and they don't even want to do that. Really?
Surely some of my Republican friends believe at the very least that
in this Chamber, we should be able to debate about voting rights. After
all, voting rights are preservative of all other rights. And what could
be more hypocritical and cynical than invoking minority rights in the
Senate as a pretext for preventing debate about how to preserve
minority rights in the society?
I stand here as a proud American. I believe in democracy with all of
my heart. I believe that democracy is the political enactment of a
spiritual idea, that we are all children of God, and that we have
within us a spark of the divine and therefore a right to help determine
our country's direction and our destiny within it.
I believe in democracy, government of the people, by the people, and
for the people. I believe that the blind spots in our public policy and
the wrongs in our history are made right through the power of
democracy, people of diverse perspectives helping us to see more fully
and embrace more completely what it means to be a government of the
people, by the people, for the people. It is how Black people finally
gained their citizenship; women, the suffrage; members of the LGBTQ+
community, their dignity and equality under law.
Diverse perspectives and voices help us to see what we would not
otherwise see, and that is precisely what is being imperiled right now
by all of these voter suppression bills and by some in this Chamber to
forestall a necessary debate about voting rights at this defining
moment in our history.
Mr. President, who are we and how are we to hide at a moment like
this? Why are some people hiding? To what end? For what purpose? At
whose behest? From whom are they hiding--the American people who sent
us here in the first place?
I hope we can take a bipartisan vote to begin debate on this
important piece of legislation because that is what democracy is all
about. History is watching, and the future is waiting to see if we are
who we say we are--the United States Senate, a serious-minded,
deliberative body, the United States of America, a nation built on that
simple but sublime principle: one person, one vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I had not planned to speak about the
Democratic power grab known as S. 1 and H.R. 1, the For the People Act.
I have said my piece on this bill before on the Senate floor and in
many other forums. But I have listened to my Democratic friends all day
long talk about this bill.
We will later today vote on what is known as a motion to proceed to
the debate on this bill. That motion will fail. It won't come close to
passing. And our Democratic friends are saying: They won't even debate.
They won't even debate election reforms.
Well, first off, let me say, if you ask me what the Republican plan
to federalize our elections is, my answer is, we don't have a plan to
federalize our elections. We don't think we should federalize our
elections. We think the States and their counties have done a pretty
good job, traditionally, of running our elections.
I would also remind my Democratic friends that what they present as
some kind of unprecedented affront to having a democratic debate in the
Senate happened repeatedly, hundreds of times, in the last
administration.
My Democratic friends simply voted not even to have a debate--not
even to have a debate on, say, a coronavirus relief package last
summer, which could have gotten aid to families and businesses when
they needed it. When the pandemic was still raging, when vaccines were
still months away, they filibustered even a debate until after the
election, when we passed, in December, almost exactly the same bill
that was under consideration.
They blocked even a debate--even a debate--on policing reforms last
summer that might have helped provide police departments across the
country with additional financial support or training resources.
I could go on and on about the bills on which they blocked even a
debate, like protecting unborn children who can survive outside their
mother's womb. Yet, today, the Democrats act as if it is some terrible
affront that we are not even going to have a debate on a bill that
would be one of the biggest power grabs by Washington in the history of
our democracy.
[[Page S4668]]
Then you have a lot of Democrats who are complaining that the civic
rules and customs--the filibuster has to go. They say it is a racist
relic of the Jim Crow era.
I will acknowledge that some Democrats over the years used the
filibuster to block civil rights progress, but I will also remind my
Democratic colleagues that, yes, they used the filibuster hundreds of
times in the last administration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this letter written on April 7, 2017, persuasively authored by Susan
Collins and Chris Coons and signed by more than 60 of our fellow
Senators urging Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer to ``preserve the
existing rules, practices and traditions as they pertain to the right
of Members to engage in extended debate on legislation.'
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 7, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader
Schumer: We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to
preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they
pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate
on legislation before the United States Senate. Senators have
expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of
limiting debate when we are considering judicial and
executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past
disagreements on that issue, we are united in our
determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in
extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.
We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the
legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to
ensuring that this great American institution continues to
serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. Therefore,
we are asking you to join us in opposing any effort to
curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to
engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider
legislation before this body in the future.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Collins, Orrin Hatch, Claire McCaskill, Lisa
Murkowski, Christopher A. Coons, Joe Manchin, John McCaine,
Patrick Leahy, Roger F. Wicker, Luther Strange.
Angus S. King, Jr., Michael F. Bennett, Amy Klobuchar,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Martin Heinrich, John Boozman, Lindsey
Graham, Richard Burr, Mark R. Warner, Jerry Moran.
Roy Blunt, Marco Rubio, Jeanne Shaheen, Thom Tillis,
Sherrod Brown, Shelley Moore Capito, Kirsten E. Gillibrand,
Brian Schatz, Michael E. Enzi, Dean Heller.
Cory A. Booker, Mazie K. Hirono, Dianne Feinstein, John
Thune, Bill Cassidy, Heidi Heitkamp, Jeff Flake, Chuck
Grassley, Maria Cantwell, Rob Portman.
Lamar Alexander, John Kennedy, John Tester, Thomas R.
Carper, Pat Roberts, Margaret Wood Hassan, Tammy Duckworth,
Jack Reed, Thad Cochran, Joe Donnelly.
Ben Sasse, Todd Young, Kamala D. Harris, Bill Nelson,
Johnny Isakson, Edward J. Markey, Mike Lee, Debbie Stabenow,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Robert Menendez, Tim Kaine.
Mr. COTTON. They note that these rules have changed on our Executive
Calendar when we consider traditional nominees or executive branch
nominees, but they say:
We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the
legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to
ensuring that this great [American] institution continues to
serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. Therefore,
we are asking you [Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell] to
join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights
and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and
extended debate as we consider legislation before this body
in the future.
Let me remind you, more than 60 Senators signed this. Twenty-six
Democrats currently serving in the Senate signed it, 27 if you include
the Vice President.
Let me just give you a few notables. As I said, the Vice President
signed it. The following chairs of Senate committees signed this letter
4 short years ago: Senators Leahy, Warner, Cantwell, Carper, Reed,
Stabenow, and Menendez. Some other notable Senators--as I said, it was
authored by Senator Coons, one of Joe Biden's closest friends in the
U.S. Senate. Senator King, who often finds himself in the middle of
consequential debates; Senator Heinrich, who apparently has changed his
tune and today is advocating aggressively to eliminate the filibuster,
just like Senator Schatz; Senator Booker; Senator Feinstein, one of the
longest serving Democrats in the Senate; Senator Kaine, who was the
Vice Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party in 2016; Senator
Tester, again, who often finds himself in the middle of consequential,
bipartisan negotiations.
Yet, somehow, something has changed since 2017. Something has
changed, and most of these Democratic Senators now think that the
Senate rules must be destroyed so they can pass their massive power
grab. What could it be that has changed? What could it be? I don't
know. Maybe--maybe it is that Democrats have the most slender reed of
power with Joe Biden in the White House and a 50-50 Senate and a four-
seat majority in the House.
I wish my Democratic colleagues understood that the shoe can pinch
when it is on the other foot.