[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 145 (Tuesday, August 10, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6250-S6253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2021--MOTION TO DISCHARGE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, even at this late hour, and before the conclusion 
of the session, this Chamber is going to take one more step in the 
fight to protect voting rights in this country.
  In a moment, I will move to discharge the Rules Committee from 
further consideration of the For the People Act, a vehicle for the 
Senate to have a debate on voting rights.
  It is my intention that the first amendment to the bill would be the 
text of a compromise bill that a group of Senators are working on.
  Let me be very clear. This is a debate the Senate must have. In 
America today, we are witnessing the most sweeping and coordinated 
attacks on voting rights since the era of Jim Crow.
  Reactionary Republican legislatures are making it harder for poorer, 
younger, and non-White Americans to vote, while at the same time making 
it easier for partisan actors to steal an election.
  Senate Democrats are not going to stand by while this happens. We are 
going to fight to protect the sacred right to vote.
  Now, before I make my motion, I yield to my colleague and friend from 
West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I have made it crystal clear that I do 
not support the For the People Act.
  Over the past few months, I have worked to eliminate the far-reaching 
aspects of that bill and amend the legislation to make sure our 
elections are fair, accessible, and secure.
  In June, I voted to begin debate in the Senate on my amended voting 
rights legislation, not For the People Act. Tonight, I am again voting 
to move that process forward because I believe that we need to come 
together to restore people's faith in the integrity of our elections.
  But I do make it very clear that I will not support the For the 
People Act. For example, I firmly believe that we need commonsense 
voter ID requirements, just like we have in West Virginia, that 
strengthen the security of our elections without making it harder for 
Americans to vote.
  I also firmly believe that we shouldn't politicize the Federal 
Election Commission, prohibit any guardrails on vote by mail, or 
prevent local election officials from doing basic maintenance of voter 
rolls.
  The compromise bill we voted on in June included all of these 
important provisions, and I urge my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, to allow us to debate this critical issue and come up with 
a bipartisan solution that protects every American's right to vote.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my friend for his dedication to 
finding a way forward on this critical issue.
  And now, pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Rules Committee being tied on 
the question of reporting, I move to discharge the Rules Committee from 
further consideration of S. 1, For the People Act of 2021.
  And for the information of the Senate, it is my intention the first 
amendment to the bill would be the text of a compromise bill that a 
group of Senators are working on
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of S. Res. 27, there will 
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees with no motions, points of order, or 
amendments in order.
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, well, here we go again, colleagues. 
We have seen this once before, and I think it is fitting that after 
passing this budget resolution full of reckless taxing and spending, we 
end the evening with an effort to Federalize--take over all elections 
all across America by the Federal Government.
  Now, we are hearing it is going to be a substitute, but what is 
technically before us is as follows: After ramming through this 
reckless taxing-and-spending spree here in the dead of night, they also 
want to start tearing up the ground rules of our democracy and writing 
new ones, of course, on a purely partisan basis.
  I suppose the timing actually makes sense, given the terrible votes 
that every Democratic Senator has just cast here tonight. I can 
understand why their thoughts have turned so quickly to their next 
elections and why they might be feeling especially anxious to tilt the 
playing field in their direction.
  This ridiculous, go-nowhere bill that is stuck in the Rules Committee 
would let Washington Democrats take over 50 State election laws, 
completely Federalize how we handle elections in this country.
  It would attack popular safeguards, like voter ID. It would turn the 
Federal Election Commission into a partisan body. It would even spend 
public funds on our political companies. Four-plus trillion dollars in 
new spending actually wasn't enough tonight. It wasn't enough.
  The preference of at least 49 out of 50 of them is to spend public 
money on our own elections; have public money finance the attack ads of 
people you disagree with.
  So, look, my view is that maybe this is just concluding the night 
with a little comic relief. S. 1 is an absurd and clumsy effort by one 
political party to literally rewrite the ground rules of our democracy 
to try to advantage them and disadvantage the other side.
  It is always a temptation when the majority wants to write the rules 
to make it more likely you can get the outcome you want.
  This isn't going to work. It isn't going to work tonight, and it 
isn't going to work when we get back.


                             Vote on Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield all 
remaining time on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 358 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rounds
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). On this vote, the yeas are 50, the 
nays are 49. The motion to discharge is agreed to, and the bill will be 
placed on the calendar.
  The motion was agreed to.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2093

  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2093, the For the 
People Act of 2021.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S6251]]

  

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill 
would constitute a Federal Government takeover of elections. It would 
constitute a massive power grab by Democrats. It would disenfranchise 
millions of Americans. It would do precisely the opposite of its 
nominal title, ``For the People.'' It is, instead, for the politicians 
because it entrenches politicians and ensures that the people cannot 
vote them out of office.
  It would strike down virtually every reasonable voter integrity law 
in the country, including voter ID laws supported by the overwhelming 
majority of this country; including prohibitions on ballot harvesting--
again, widely supported by people in this country. It would mandate 
that felons be allowed to vote, and it would automatically register 
millions of illegal aliens to vote. It would profoundly undermine 
democracy in this country, and for that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2670

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Republican minority has just prevented the Senate 
from even having a debate--a debate; just that--on voting rights in 
this country.
  I understand my Republican colleagues don't approve of every aspect 
of the Democratic bill to protect voting rights, but surely there are 
areas where our two parties can find some agreement. Partisan 
gerrymandering, for instance, has plagued our country for too long. It 
skews our democracy towards the extremes. It strips the American people 
of their right to have a truly representative government.
  Voters ought to pick their politicians, not the other way around. But 
in so many States, partisan legislators draw maps that artificially 
maximize the number of seats that the majority party will win. Some 
districts are so safe that the most extreme candidates can run and win 
with hardly any competition.
  Surely my Republican colleagues would agree that partisan 
gerrymandering deserves a debate on the Senate floor. It is a small 
part of S. 1 but one that has broad universal support--and the support, 
by the way, of all 49 of my Democratic colleagues.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 2670, Calendar No. 119, the Redistricting Reform 
Act of 2021.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the text of 
the Constitution explicitly assigns power to engage in redistricting to 
elected State legislatures in the States. There is a reason for that. 
That ensures that redistricting is controlled by the people.
  We have an unfortunate pattern in today's Congress, which is today's 
Democrats no longer believe in democracy. Their bill, S. 1--what many 
call the Corrupt Politicians Act--is designed to prevent the voters 
from voting Democrats out of office.
  This bill, the bill to remove the State legislatures from their 
constitutionally appointed responsibility of being in charge of 
redistricting, would instead assign that to commissions and ultimately 
to the Federal courts, to unelected Federal judges.
  Now, redistricting and gerrymandering can lead to ugly consequences. 
This is not new. The Founders were well aware of the ugly consequences 
of gerrymandering. Indeed, the very word ``gerrymander'' comes from 
Elbridge Gerry, one of the Founders whose district was so contorted, it 
looked like a salamander. That is where the district came from.
  The Founders knew that if you give redistricting to elected 
politicians, they will act based on political concerns. The reason the 
Founders did so is, even with those down sides, it keeps the process 
accountable to the people. If you instead hand it over to unelected 
commissions or to unelected Federal judges, the people are 
disenfranchised. That is a serious mistake.
  I would note, over a decade ago, I defended the constitutionality and 
the constitutional assignment of that responsibility to the State 
legislatures before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Texas redistricting 
case, and we won a landmark 5-to-4 victory where the Supreme Court 
upheld the clear constitutional authorization of legislatures to engage 
in redistricting even if they engaged in political concerns because the 
check on that is not unelected judges second-guessing the people; 
rather, the check on that is democracy and the people engaging in their 
own check and balance.
  Accordingly, I object.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. So the American people should understand, Republicans 
just blocked the Senate from even debating legislation to end partisan 
gerrymandering and make our Congress more representative of the people.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2671

  Mr. President, surely our Republican colleagues, however, would agree 
that billions of dollars in anonymous campaign donations every year is 
not a function of a healthy democracy. Surely they must agree that 
America's representatives should have only one boss--the people, not 
the special interests.
  So I am going to ask the Senate now to debate a simple measure to 
bring a much needed transparency to campaign donations--just 
transparency, not even limits, although I would certainly support 
those. At the very least, the American people deserve to know who is 
trying to influence their representatives and how strenuously.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 2671, Calendar No. 120, the DISCLOSE Act of 2021, 
which has the support of our entire caucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, you know, I would note there 
is a long history of government trying to force the disclosure of the 
identity of political contributions, and much of that history is 
sordid.
  Indeed, in a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court, racist 
southern Democratic politicians tried to force the NAACP to hand over 
their donor list, and they wanted to do so for reasons that were not 
difficult to discern, because they intended to persecute those who dare 
contribute to the NAACP.
  And the Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, concluded that the 
Constitution protects against that forced disclosure. But I will say, 
the majority leader said just a few minutes ago that surely there must 
be some area of common ground, and indeed there is on this issue.
  I think all of us, if we were speaking in a moment of candor, if we 
were not engaged in our typical partisan battle on the floor, would 
acknowledge the current system is stupid. The current system makes no 
sense. Super-PACs make no sense. Why is that? Because in all of our 
elections--every one of us has run for election--there are super-PACs, 
which are independent groups. It is illegal for us, as candidates, to 
speak with those independent groups. And in every one of our races--I 
see the Senator from Arizona. He is going have a hotly contested race. 
It wouldn't surprise me to see $100 million or more spent in his race, 
perhaps on both sides. Much of that will be spent in super-PACs.
  It is illegal for us, as candidates, to communicate with those super-
PACs. So we are left with the bizarre situation where there is millions 
or sometimes tens of millions of dollars being spent on behalf of us; 
millions, sometimes tens of millions of dollars, spent attacking us; 
and we can't communicate with them. We hope it has some bearing or 
relevance to what we believe.
  Every Congress, since I have been here, I have introduced legislation 
to end this. This is legislation called the SuperPAC Elimination Act. 
This act does two very simple things. No. 1, it allows unlimited 
individual contributions to Federal campaigns, not from unions, not 
from corporations but from real human beings, from people--unlimited 
contributions.
  I would note this is the way the State of Texas handles State 
elections.
  No. 2, my legislation, the SuperPAC Elimination Act, requires 
immediate 24-hour disclosure. So if an individual

[[Page S6252]]

writes a check to a campaign, that gets disclosed immediately, and you 
can debate about whether that contribution was corrosive or not.
  This legislation would not prohibit super-PACs, but, as a practical 
matter, super-PACs would fade from relevance because every candidate 
would much prefer money given to their campaign, where you can spend on 
your own message. It would make far more sense to have an open, 
transparent system.
  Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of a bill at the desk that would protect 
freedom of speech in America's electoral process and ensure 
transparency in campaign finance. I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be considered read a third time and passed, and that a motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the able.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I object to the Senator from Texas's 
legislation. It is obvious to just about every American that it would 
make a bad situation even worse. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request from the Senator of New 
York?
  Mr. CRUZ. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in conclusion, before I turn it over to 
some of my colleagues, Democrats have tried to do something very 
simple. We asked the Senate to start debate--just debate--on 
legislation to protect voting rights and strengthen our democracy. 
Republicans said no. Democrats have asked to debate a measure just to 
prevent partisan gerrymandering, and, then, frankly, in my colleague's 
response, he was all over the lot: It is good to have politicians do 
it; it is not good to have politicians do it. It is good to have judges 
do it; it is not good to have judges do it.
  We would set standards to make sure that in a State like Wisconsin, 
where 53 percent of the people voted for a Democratic member of the 
State assembly, only a third of the districts were Democratic, drawn by 
a Republican legislature.
  So Republicans have said no. They don't even want to debate these 
issues.
  Democrats have asked to debate the measure to bring much needed 
transparency to campaign donations and get special interest dark money 
out of politics. Republicans still said no.
  So let there be no mistake about what is going on here. We have 
reached a point in this Chamber where Republicans appear to oppose any 
measure--any measure--no matter how common sense, to protect voting 
rights and strengthen our democracy.
  Let there be no mistake. Both inside this Chamber and outside of it, 
Republicans have formed a wall--a total wall--of opposition against 
progress on voting rights in the U.S. Senate. Even on an issue as 
sacred as the right to vote, Senate Republicans refuse to allow even a 
debate. They are afraid to debate.
  Yesterday morning, we saw what it looks like when the Senate comes 
together. This is what it looks like when it doesn't. Apparently, there 
are very serious and important limits to bipartisanship. There are some 
issues where Republicans refuse to join us, in good faith, to make 
progress for our country.
  I never thought I would see the day when voting rights, which used to 
be supported in a bipartisan way as recently as 2006, would be one of 
those issues. But that is what we have come to--total Republican 
intransigence when it comes to simple measures to make our democracy 
more perfect and strengthen the hand of the individual voter.
  Now, let me be clear. Republicans refusing to support anything on 
voting rights is not an excuse for Democrats to do nothing. In recent 
weeks, I met with a number of Democratic Senators: Senators Klobuchar 
and Merkley, Manchin and Warnock and Padilla, Kaine, King, and Tester 
to discuss a compromise voting rights bill. We have made a great deal 
of progress on that legislation. We had a very good meeting as late 
recently as yesterday afternoon, and we intend to rally around it.
  So, tonight, I am filing cloture on a vehicle to allow the Senate to 
take up the compromise voting rights bill. Voting rights--voting 
rights--will be the first matter of legislative business when the 
Senate returns to session in September. Our democracy demands no less.
  I yield the floor. I yield to my colleague from Oregon and then my 
colleague from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have the privilege to come to this 
floor and examine issues important to every American. And what could be 
more important than the fundamental right to participate in the 
guidance of our country and to be able to cast a ballot. And that 
ballot box, it is the pulsating heart of our Republic.
  In fact, it is 56 years ago, just a couple of days ago, that 
President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And what did he 
say? He said it is wrong--deadly wrong--to deny any American the 
opportunity to vote. Well, what was deadly wrong in 1965 is deadly 
wrong in 2021.
  It is hard to believe that over 50 years--over half a century--has 
passed, and we are reverting to that period before 1965, where there 
was a systematic effort to target specific groups of voters and prevent 
them from going to the poll.
  And we all know how this worked. On election day, there would be 
fewer precinct voting locations in those areas that you didn't want to 
vote, and they would be understaffed so there would be long lines, or 
their voting machines would be out of order, or they would change the 
location every 2 years so people would be confused about where to go, 
or they would locate them where there was no parking--all of these 
things deliberately aimed at preventing Black Americans from voting and 
preventing other communities of color from voting.
  Well, today, we are seeing in State after State after State an 
expanded version of this, not just targeting Black Americans and other 
communities of color but also targeting poor communities and college 
students. And we see these laws unfolding in just the recent months.
  I would expect 100 of our colleagues here to stand up and defend the 
ballot box. Aren't we long removed from those days of that racist past? 
But apparently not.
  So some of us have to stand up and say: We are going to stand up to 
the vision of our Constitution where all men and women are created 
equal and every man and woman has the right to participate in the 
guidance of this country.
  You know, we know that in the founding of our country, we had a 
beautiful vision, imperfectly formed, that Black Americans, Native 
Americans, and women were not allowed to vote. We fixed those things 
over time. We progressed in an arc to full opportunity, and that is 
what we are fighting for now--full opportunity of every citizen to have 
a full measure of what it means to be a participant in a Republic.
  Well, there is much more in this bill to mend the assault on equal 
representation through the diabolical gerrymandering denied to bias the 
outcome from one party over the other, and certainly to keep 
billionaires from buying elections.
  And when we ask people around the country--Independents, Democrats, 
Republicans--they all say: We do not want billionaires to buy 
elections. We do not want equal representation destroyed by diabolical 
gerrymandering, and we want every citizen to have access to the ballot 
box.
  But in this Chamber, suddenly, the views of the Republicans across 
this country are forgotten by my Republican colleagues across the 
aisle. In that thirsty quest for power, they are willing to violate the 
fundamental principles that inspire our Nation, and it is wrong--deadly 
wrong--today as it was in 1965.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, a short word on dark money. When the 
Republican justices on the Supreme Court opened the floodgates of 
unlimited money in the disgraceful Citizens United decision, that 
suddenly made something new very important, and that was to hide who 
you are when you are spending the money.

[[Page S6253]]

  If the biggest check you can write is $5,000, there is no great 
premium in hiding who you are. When you can write a $5 million check to 
back a candidate, suddenly hiding who you are becomes extremely 
valuable and salient.
  So, suddenly, this became very real. But those Justices who had 
opened the door to unlimited money, when they made that decision, in 
order to justify that decision, they had to say that the spending had 
to be transparent. Otherwise, the Citizens United decision would not 
have worked in the constitutional scheme. They had to say that.
  But for the next decade, what did they do about it? Case after case 
came before them where the dark money problem was raised. We rode 
through a billion dollars in dark money being spent in our elections. 
This was on the front page of the newspaper. This was being done in 
plain view. And what did the Republican Justices on the Supreme Court 
do to enforce their own stated requirement of transparency? Not one 
thing.
  And so we have had a decade of corruption of government by 
billionaire interests who can hide who they are and operate through an 
enormous phalanx of phony front groups whom they have stood up. And if 
you want to know how real this is, look at what we have had to do in 
the reconciliation measure to address climate change--because when I 
got here, there were Republicans willing to address climate change.
  We had bill after bill in the Senate that were bipartisan and serious 
and sincere. That stopped dead in January of 2010. When Citizens United 
was decided, the dark money spigots opened, and the fossil fuel 
industry behind them enforced compliance across the entire Republican 
Party. If you crossed the fossil fuel industry on climate change, if 
you are Bob Inglis, you were out, you were done. If you lined up with 
them and did what they said, in came tens of millions of dollars in 
dark money to support you.
  It was a devil's bargain, and it cost us a lost decade on climate 
change. And now we have to go forward, sadly, in a partisan way to 
solve this problem. That is the pressure of dark money in our politics. 
It is behind the capture of the Supreme Court. It is behind voter 
suppression. This is demonstrable stuff, and we have got to put an end 
to it. And it is a tragedy and a disgrace that we can't go to cleaning 
up the dark money mess.
  My Republican colleagues and their dark money groups are actually at 
the point now where they are accusing us of taking dark money. They are 
accusing Democrats of being the dark money party. Well, we just settled 
that question tonight. Democrats want to clean it up. They want to 
protect it. It is as simple as that. That is all you need to know.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I must do a couple of procedural things.
  But do my colleagues from Georgia and California want to speak on 
voting rights?
  No. Thank you. I am sure the Senators from New Jersey and Connecticut 
are very grateful as well.
  I will be brief.

                          ____________________