[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 184 (Wednesday, October 20, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7107-S7108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The VICE PRESIDENT. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the 
Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 125, S. 2747, a bill to expand 
     Americans' access to the ballot box and reduce the influence 
     of big money in politics, and for other purpose.
         Charles E. Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, Alex Padilla, Margaret 
           Wood Hassan,

[[Page S7108]]

           Raphael G. Warnock, Ben Ray Lujan, Gary C. Peters, 
           Elizabeth Warren, Christopher Murphy, Tammy Duckworth, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Tim Kaine, Tammy Baldwin, Cory A. Booker, 
           Sherrod Brown.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call 
has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed on S. 2747, a bill to expand Americans' access to the 
ballot box and reduce the influence of big money in politics, and for 
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 420 Ex.]

                                YEAS--49

     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
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     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
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young
  Mr. SCHUMER. I change my vote to no.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 51.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The motion was rejected.


                          Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
failed cloture vote.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion is entered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Madam President, I want to be clear about what just 
happened on the floor of the Senate. Every single Republican Senator 
just blocked this Chamber from having a debate--simply a debate--on 
protecting Americans' right to vote in free and fair elections.
  A little over a year ago, our country held the safest, most 
accessible, most on-the-level elections in modern history. Our former 
President could not accept defeat with grace. He refused to show 
fidelity to the democratic process.
  Instead, he told a Big Lie--a Big Lie that has now poisoned--
poisoned--the roots of our democracy. Capitalizing on this malicious 
lie, his acolytes in conservative-controlled legislatures are now 
passing laws across the country making it harder for younger, poorer, 
urban, and non-White Americans to participate in our elections.
  These laws are a direct attack on our fundamental liberties as 
American citizens. If there is anything--anything--worthy of the 
Senate's attention, it is unquestionably this.
  And yet, given the chance to respond to an obvious problem, given the 
chance to merely debate these latest threats against the franchise, 
Senate Republicans voted unanimously--unanimously--to block any 
opportunity for action.
  Let there be no mistake, Senate Republicans blocking debate today is 
an implicit endorsement of the horrid new voter suppression and 
election subversion laws pushed in conservative States across the 
country. By preventing the Senate from functioning as it was intended, 
Republicans in this body are permitting States to criminalize giving 
food and water to voters at the polls. Republicans are saying it's OK 
to limit polling places and voting hours and shut the doors to more 
expansive vote by mail.
  I mean, my God. Why aren't all of my colleagues outraged by these 
laws?
  Frankly, we haven't heard a clear explanation from Republicans at all 
because they refused for this Chamber to even hold a debate. It is 
ludicrous--ludicrous--for them to simply state that the Federal 
Government has no role to play here. They should read the Constitution 
of these United States of America. It precisely empowers Congress to 
regulate the ``times, places, and manners'' of holding elections. The 
Congress--us. Sometimes the Federal Government has been the only 
recourse when States conspire to shut voters out.
  Madam President, the fight to protect our democracy is far from over 
in the United States Senate. Senate Democrats have made clear that 
voting rights is not like other issues we deal with in this Chamber. 
This isn't about regular old politics. It is not just about even 
regular old policy. It is about protecting the very soul of this 
Nation, about preserving our identity as a free people who are masters 
of our own destiny.
  Republican obstruction is not a cause for throwing in the towel. As 
soon as next week, I am prepared to bring the John Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act here to the floor.
  What we saw from Republicans today is not how the Senate is supposed 
to work. This is supposedly the world's greatest deliberative body, 
where we debate, forge compromise, amend, and pass legislation to help 
the American people. That is the legacy of this great Chamber. The 
Senate needs to be restored to its rightful status as the world's 
greatest deliberative body.
  Now, in the aftermath of the Civil War, and as the Nation began the 
colossal work of Reconstruction, America was more divided than at any 
point in history. It was hard to imagine that a single nation could 
endure after the bloody conflict of the four previous years.
  At the time, the Republican Congress set to work on granting newly 
freed slaves the basic freedoms that had long been denied to them. 
These freedoms were eventually enshrined in the 14th and 15th 
Amendments, granting due process and the right to vote to all citizens, 
regardless of color or race.
  Today, these amendments rank as some of the greatest and most revered 
accomplishments in congressional history. They are proof that our 
country is capable of living up to its founding promise, if we are 
willing to put in the work.
  But at the time, the minority party in both Chambers refused to offer 
a single vote for any of the civil rights legislation put forward 
during Reconstruction. Not one vote. Not one vote. They argued these 
bills represented nothing more than the partisan interests of the 
majority--a power grab, they said, from vengeful northerners.
  But that didn't stop the majority. If expanding basic freedoms meant 
going it alone, that was something they were willing to do. Today, we 
feel the same way.
  To the patriots after the Civil War, this wasn't partisan; it was 
patriotic. And American democracy is better off today because the 
patriots in this Chamber at that time were undeterred by minority 
obstruction. Again, today, we feel the same way.
  Today, the question before the Senate is how we will find a path 
forward on protecting our freedoms in the 21st century.
  Members of this body now face a choice. They can follow in the 
footsteps of our patriotic predecessors in this Chamber, or they can 
sit by as the fabric of our democracy unravels before our very eyes.

                          ____________________