[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 107 (Monday, June 21, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4641-S4643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              War on Drugs

  On a different topic, Madam President, last week marked the 50-year 
anniversary of President Nixon's declaration of a War on Drugs. Today, 
America imprisons a greate share of its population than any nation on 
Earth. Drugs are cheaper and more easily available than ever, and 
substance abuse is destroying more American families than ever. The 
greatest harm has fallen on our most vulnerable citizens, particularly 
low-income Americans and communities of color.

  During the first four decades of the Nixon War on Drugs, America's 
Federal prison population grew by 700 percent, and the cost of 
operating Federal prisons exploded by 1,100 percent. Today, nearly half 
the people in Federal prisons are locked up due to drug-related 
charges. We are learning the hard way that we can't jail our way out of 
a public health crisis.
  In recent years, the Senate has come together on a significant 
bipartisan basis to correct some of the gravest mistakes on the War on 
Drugs. I am grateful to my friend, the ranking Republican member on the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, for his leadership in this 
effort. We forged a bipartisan partnership that ended up sending the 
First Step Act, a reform effort, to President Bush to sign into law--
pardon me--sent to President Trump to sign into law.
  Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on 
another crucial piece of reform: Eliminating the disparate treatment of

[[Page S4642]]

crimes involving crack and powder cocaine in Federal sentencing laws. 
Congress established this disparity in the 1980s, based on fear and 
mistaken illusions of science.
  We reduced the disparity with the Fair Sentencing Act, but we didn't 
eliminate it. Today a person arrested for 28 grams of crack will 
receive the same sentence as a person with 500 grams of cocaine powder, 
even though it is exactly the same drug.
  This lingering disparity made racial inequities in our criminal 
justice system even worse, undermined faith in the integrity of our 
justice system, and, worst of all, failed to even curb drug addiction 
in America--talk about three strikes. We should eliminate the disparity 
once and for all, and there will be a hearing tomorrow.


                       For the People Act of 2021

  On another matter, Madam President, tomorrow our democracy will face 
one of its greatest tests in the Senate. On January 7, at close to 4 
o'clock in the morning, this Senate voted to confirm the electoral 
victory of Joe Biden to be the next President of the United States, but 
we all know what happened before that vote. An angry, self-pitying man 
who would not accept defeat, we now know, schemed for weeks about how 
to overturn the election and continue his Presidency. When Donald 
Trump's efforts failed and democracy prevailed, he begged a mob to come 
to Washington and deliver him from reality. You have seen the videos, 
the films--the President standing with the White House in a background, 
railing to this crowd about an election that was ``stolen,'' urging 
them to come to Capitol Hill and make a difference. He demanded that 
they come and ``stop the steal,'' and then he turned that mob on the 
Capitol of the United States. Those of us who were here that day will 
never forget it.
  The outrageous insurrection that followed was the worst attack on 
this building and the most prolonged siege of the Capitol since the 
British attacked our Capitol in the War of 1812. Five people died, and 
more than 140 police officers were injured. It could have been worse. 
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, was right when he 
said the day after the attack that that mob ``could have killed us 
all.''
  The assault on the Capitol left our Nation shaken and the world in 
disbelief that it could happen in America. But it was not what one 
group of Washington power peddlers worried about most when they 
gathered on a conference call 2 days later. These Washington insiders 
scheduled a private conference call just 2 days after this attack on 
the Capitol. They were scrambling to come up with a plan to kill a 
democracy reform bill. The call was organized by the Koch brothers. 
Among the participants was a key member of Senator McConnell's staff.
  A recording of the conference call found its way to Jane Mayer, an 
investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, who wrote about it. 
According to Ms. Mayer's reporting, the reason the political insiders 
and special interests in that call were frightened was because they 
couldn't find a way to beat S. 1.
  The Koch brothers group poll-tested criticisms of the bill, and none 
worked. It wasn't just the Democrats who liked the reforms in that 
bill. It turned out the Republicans liked them, too. According to a 
Koch representative who hosted the meeting, ``There's a large--very 
large--chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these types of 
reforms.'' Surprise, surprise.
  What is a poor political insider to do when you can't manufacture a 
reason to vote against a bill? There is only one way to stop it, and it 
is what the people in the meeting referred to as ``under the dome 
strategies'' to stop this electoral reform bill. Do you know what that 
is? That is the filibuster--the ``killibuster''--that Senate procedure 
which requires 60 votes. They knew they couldn't win a majority, but 
they knew it was tough to come up with 60 votes in favor. And that is 
what I am afraid we are going to see tomorrow. I hope not.
  Last night, I watched with many Americans as the movie ``Selma'' was 
televised. It reminded us of what happened in the 1960s when people 
like my personal friend and hero to many of us, John Lewis, marched 
across that bridge in Selma, AL, trying to speak up for what? Voting 
rights for African Americans. He was beaten and bloodied and almost 
died in the process, but they mustered the strength to come back again 
and to resume the march. And they prevailed. In passing the Voting 
Rights Act, which gave a fighting chance for African Americans and 
other people to be able to vote in the future of America.
  This still is a challenge for us today. Why? I don't know. We have 
seen, in the recent past, six or seven Republicans publicly break with 
Donald Trump in some of his more outrageous positions, and yet they 
have been strangely silent on that side of the aisle when it comes to 
what is happening in States across the Nation where we have measures 
taking place that will limit the right of people to vote.
  What is wrong with this picture? Is democracy not at its strongest 
point when more people are participating? And yet Republican 
legislatures write bill after bill to limit those who can vote in the 
future.
  Madam President, I want to say a word or two about my colleague 
Senator Joe Manchin. I want to thank him for his determined efforts to 
find a compromise on the bill that is coming before us. Senator Manchin 
spoke to everyone in sight--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, 
liberals, and conservatives--and he listened. The compromise he 
proposed is not inclusive of everything I would like to see in the 
bill, but the reality is that it would be an improvement. It would help 
address the dangerous, all-out assault on voting rights that is taking 
place in all these States that I mentioned. It could help put Jim Crow 
back in the grave, where he belongs. And it deserves the support of the 
Senate.
  My last word before I close. I had the honor of serving with Senator 
Robert Byrd. He used to sit back here. He once told me, in his 
illustrious Senate career, the things he was embarrassed by the most. 
He talked about deregulation of airlines, which took the planes out of 
his State of West Virginia. He talked about a nominee for the 
Eisenhower Cabinet who was rejected because he was Jewish. He told me 
he was wrong in the way he voted on those measures. But he said: Mr. 
Durbin, more than anything, I was wrong on civil rights.
  Madam President, this past Saturday was not only Juneteenth, it was 
the 57th anniversary of the Senate's passage of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. It had been filibustered for 2 months before it passed. 
Opposition to the bill wasn't divided along party lines. I will be 
honest. My party, the Democratic Party, particularly southern members 
of the party, was leading the fight against it.
  On June 8, 1964, one of the most conservative Democrats stood on the 
floor with an 800-page speech filled with all kinds of reasoning about 
why civil rights was unnecessary and an infringement on States' 
rights--an echo of a speech we just heard on the Senate floor. That 
Senator's name was Robert C. Byrd. He spoke on this floor for 14 hours 
and 13 minutes. When he finished, the majority leader called the roll, 
and 71 Senators voted to end the filibuster--4 more than were needed. 
Ten days later, on Juneteenth 1964, the Senate passed the Civil Rights 
Act. On July 2, it passed the House and was signed by President 
Johnson.
  Robert C. Byrd would go on to serve for another 46 years in this 
Senate and become majority leader twice and the longest serving Senator 
in history. He later called his filibuster of the Civil Rights Act 
``the worst mistake of my life,'' a decision which he told me 
personally he deeply regretted. He would change. He would begin to 
champion civil rights.
  When President George W. Bush signed the law extending voting rights 
in 2006, it was Robert C. Byrd by his side in the Oval Office, along 
with Ted Kennedy and John Lewis.
  When Robert Byrd died in 2010, John Lewis mourned him and called him 
an ally and ``true statesman.'' Yet, despite all the years that had 
passed and all the good he had accomplished, many articles on his death 
stated that he once stood against civil rights.
  If the last year has taught us anything, it is that life is fragile. 
None of knows how long we have in this Senate or on this Earth. So I 
implore my colleagues who may be wrestling with how to vote tomorrow: 
This is a vote for

[[Page S4643]]

history. This is democracy on trial. Think about how you want to be 
remembered by your children's children.
  If democracy is worth fighting for, even worth dying for, surely a 
democracy reform bill is worthy of debate in the Senate. Allow the 
Senate to do its job and debate the For the People Act.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Shaheen and Ms. Collins pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2146 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.