[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 183 (Tuesday, October 19, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7040-S7041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Freedom to Vote Act

  Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether to protect 
free and fair elections in America.
  A big question we have to ask in the U.S. Senate is whether the right 
to vote and free and fair elections are worth any of our time.
  You see, the first vote we have here is what is known as a motion to 
proceed. It is a basic question in the Senate: You want to talk about 
something? Is it important enough for your time? You want to bring it 
up here and say a few words about the right to vote in America?
  That is the first vote. I think it is pretty simple.
  Why wouldn't we, at this moment in history, with everything that is 
going on, spend some time talking about the right to vote?
  Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, says, no, we shouldn't take 
any time to discuss the right to vote in the United States of America. 
He and many of our Republican colleagues are threatening to use the 
age-old weapon against civil rights, the filibuster, to stop even a 
conversation on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the right to vote.
  That would make it the third time this year that Senate Republicans 
have used the filibuster to kill voting rights legislation. They 
filibustered For the People Act twice this year after it passed the 
House. They said then they support voting rights, but not that voting 
rights bill. They said more compromise was needed. You can't reach 
compromise on anything until you talk about it.
  We are going to have a motion to proceed to talk about voting rights 
on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. If they want to offer a 
compromise, if they want to get into a conversation or debate, that is 
the moment.
  This empty Chamber--I wonder sometimes why we leave it the way it is. 
This would be a great meeting hall. We could rent it out for wedding 
receptions and have something productive happen on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate. But instead, this empty Chamber, day after day, finds ways 
to avoid the important issues of our time. That is sad.
  There are very few of us who have been given this great honor and 
opportunity to serve in the Senate. We are supposed to come and talk 
about the things that matter in America.
  Isn't the right to vote one of the most important things that matters 
in this country?
  The Freedom to Vote Act is a compromise itself. It is based on a set 
of principles offered by Senator Manchin of West Virginia. Now, Senator 
Manchin has not concealed the fact that he didn't agree with the 
original bill, but in fairness to him, he sat down in good faith and 
bargained a compromised bill. He has worked exhaustively for months 
with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to find some common 
ground. I salute him for that. That is what we all should be doing.
  The Freedom to Vote Act includes reasonable national standards for a 
voter ID in States that require identification for in-person voting. 
Now, that is a big concession from the Democratic side because, 
although many of our States have a photo voter ID requirement, many do 
not, and we believe in some cases in the past it has been abused.
  With the fundamental concept of a voter ID, I don't have any 
objection to, as long as it is managed and administered fairly. That is 
what we are setting out to do.
  If our Republican colleagues are really worried about election 
integrity and making sure voters are who they say they are, wouldn't 
you think that they would at least vote to start the debate on the 
Freedom to Vote Act? That we would have a conversation in this empty 
Chamber that might even attract a handful of Senators on both sides of 
the aisle to talk about the right to vote in America in the year 2021 
and beyond?
  That just seems so basic.
  Well, what the Republicans say is the Freedom to Vote Act is much 
more than just a debate topic; it is a Federal takeover of our 
elections.
  That simply is not the case. The Freedom to Vote Act does not create 
any undue burden on any State. Instead, it sets reasonable, minimum 
standards for voting access in all States, including automatic and 
same-day voter registration, 2 weeks of early voting, no-excuse mail-in 
voting. It establishes election day as a Federal holiday.
  (Mr. PADILLA assumed the Chair.)
  All of these proposals are consistent with the clear language of the 
Constitution. It will protect nonpartisan election officials from undue 
pressure and prevent politicians from overturning elections if they 
don't agree with voters' choices.
  The Freedom to Vote Act makes it harder for billionaires and powerful 
corporations to buy elections. Let's be real honest, Members of 
Congress and others who run for office and set out to raise money, but 
the important fundraising is taking place in a mystery, in secret, with 
dark money that comes into an election with no indication of its 
source.
  The Freedom to Vote Act is going to prevent the flow of foreign money 
into U.S. elections. Is there anybody who wants to argue for the 
premise that we should allow foreigners to invest in our election 
results or to try to influence the electorate, sometimes with 
misinformation and outright lies? I don't think they have any business 
interfering in our elections. I think most Americans agree with that. 
That is what the Freedom to Vote Act says.
  In addition to that, dark money needs to get out of politics. If you 
want to stand up and support a candidate, so be it. But for goodness' 
sake, say who you are; identify yourself; let the American people know 
who is pushing one candidate or the other.
  Organizations engaged in political spending will be required to tell 
the public who is giving them how much money. That is pretty simple, 
pretty obvious. There was a time when that level of disclosure was 
supported by the Republican minority leader in the Senate. I remember 
his speeches well on floor of the Senate. He shifted 180 degrees on the 
topic now.
  Last fall, 2020, Americans braved a pandemic to vote in record 
numbers, but supporters of the former President nonetheless exhausted 
legal challenges and recounts seeking to validate the outrageous lie of 
election fraud, and their efforts went nowhere. Former President Trump 
went to 50 or 60 different courts to argue that Joe Biden didn't win 
the election. He couldn't produce a shred of evidence. All he had were 
the ramblings and gossip and fake news, if you will, on the internet. 
It didn't work.
  Rudy Giuliani came up with some hair-brained schemes on behalf of 
President Trump: ``Italy-gate,'' that somehow the Italians had 
satellites that controlled America's voting machinery. Ridiculous 
things.
  When that didn't work, the former President decided he would just 
take over the Department of Justice. Our Judiciary Committee, which I 
serve on, Mr. President, went into extensive investigation of that and 
came up with

[[Page S7041]]

detailed information, which we released to the public 2 weeks ago. And 
the Republicans were in on all of our investigation. They were invited 
to question the witnesses, to be present, to even see our majority 
report in advance.
  We wanted to make this bipartisan and fair, and we did. And what we 
found was the President's failed attempt to take over the Department of 
Justice--to force them to go to the States and say: Don't validate the 
2020 election.
  A few people stood up and showed courage at the Department of Justice 
and said they were prepared to resign before they bent to President 
Trump's pressure, and that was a fact.
  That is what we are faced with now--this former President still 
marketing his lies across America about the outcome of the 2020 
election, and we will not even take the time to discuss elections and 
voting. The Republicans will stop us with a filibuster.
  Many politicians in many States continue to use the Big Lie of the 
stolen election to try to make it harder for citizens to vote in future 
elections.
  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 19 States passed 33 
bills to make it harder for citizens to vote, so far this year.
  Hundreds of similar bills have been proposed in 49 States. These laws 
and proposals are a dagger at the heart of America's democracy.
  The Freedom to Vote Act, which we want to start the conversation on, 
just the conversation and debate on tomorrow, is America's democracy 
defense act.
  I want to commend the bill's sponsors: Senator Amy Klobuchar. I don't 
know anybody who has worked harder than she has as chair of the Senate 
Rules Committee; Senator Manchin, he has been involved in the 
compromise; Senators Tim Kaine, Angus King, and Rev. Raphael Warnock.
  And particularly I want to acknowledge our majority leader, Chuck 
Schumer, for his leadership in this effort. He has worked hard at it, 
trying to bring this matter before the American people and on the 
floor.
  We have also been engaged in a similar process on an equally critical 
piece of legislation, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  I have been here long enough to remember a time when the Voting 
Rights Act came before the U.S. Senate and got 98 votes--virtually all 
the Democrats, all the Republicans voted for it. No controversy. They 
believed that this product of the 1960s civil rights debate was fair. 
It said that in certain States with a proven history of discrimination 
against minority voters, when they proposed changes in election laws, 
we would examine them, preclear them, as they say.
  The Supreme Court tossed out that section, and we have tried to 
restore it. I think the Supreme Court was wrong and maybe even naive in 
believing that voter discrimination could not take place in the future.
  When there was a voter suppression law passed in North Carolina and 
it was taken to a Federal court, the court said, and I paraphrase: They 
worked with ``surgical precision'' to violate the voting rights of 
minority voters.
  The Freedom to Vote Act is the first of two crucial steps to take 
what our friend and colleague John Lewis said is a ``precious, almost 
sacred'' right, and I hope we take similar action on the Voting Rights 
soon.
  Like the Freedom to Vote Act, the Voting Rights Act extension that 
Ronald Reagan signed in 1982 was the result of a compromise. In signing 
it, President Reagan said the final bill ``prove[d] that differences 
can be settled in good will and good faith.''
  Wouldn't that be nice to have that happen on this empty floor of the 
Senate tomorrow? That is all we ask of our Senate colleagues. Don't use 
the filibuster, the weapon of Jim Crow, to abet the attacks we are 
seeing on Americans' voting rights.
  Offer amendments if you like, but work with us in good will and good 
faith to protect the voting rights which so many have sacrificed for.