[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S103-S104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week I spoke on the floor, and I 
reflected on the unthinkable events of January 6, 2021. We all remember 
when a violent mob attempted to snuff out one of our democracy's most 
sacred traditions: the peaceful transition of power. That mob's attack 
on our Nation's Capitol was fueled by our former President's Big Lie, 
the utterly false alternate reality that Joe Biden stole the 2020 
election through widespread fraud.
  But the January 6 insurrection, as nightmarish as it was, was not the 
only thing that was spawned by the Big Lie. Inspired by the former 
President's baseless conspiracy theory, dozens of States have passed 
new laws suppressing voters and making it easier for partisan officials 
to overturn the will of their constituents. These have been billed as 
``election integrity'' or ``election security'' laws. Even George 
Orwell would be impressed by these brazen euphemisms.
  Disenfranchising tens of thousands of minority voters does nothing to 
improve the integrity of our elections, and empowering partisan actors 
to disqualify ballots and ignore the popular will actually makes our 
elections more insecure.
  A record number of these voter suppression laws are being considered 
and enacted as we head toward a major midterm election that will shape 
the direction of our country. Many of these laws would not see the 
light of day if the Department of Justice still possessed its 
preclearance powers under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. However, the 
Supreme Court unwisely decided to gut the Justice Department's 
preclearance powers in the Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013. 
And then, adding insult to injury, the Supreme Court toppled another 
critical pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the 2021 Brnovich decision, 
even further limiting the Federal Government's tools to combat voter 
suppression.
  So with a green light from our Nation's highest Court and constant 
prodding from a man who refuses to accept reality, partisan State 
actors have breathed new life into the Big Lie--not by breaking laws as 
the January 6 mob did but by making them.
  Now, I happen to have a bipartisan bill to restore the Justice 
Department's powers to oversee and prevent States from enacting 
discriminatory voting laws: the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
Act. I worked very hard to craft a compromise bill that has garnered 
Republican support here in the Senate, so it was truly a low point when 
Republicans recently refused to even allow debate on my bipartisan 
legislation--wouldn't even allow debate. Isn't that the whole point of 
being a Senator--to debate and vote on bills?
  How can you justify telling your constituents that you refuse to even 
allow debate on a voting rights bill with a 56-year record of 
bipartisanship? Are we that afraid to simply do our jobs?
  It bears repeating, but the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act 
would simply restore and update provisions of the Voting Rights Act 
that have been overwhelmingly supported by both parties throughout the 
law's history. The Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized by large 
bipartisan majorities in Congress five times and proudly signed into 
law by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. That is not what 
you might call a liberal trio of Presidents.
  The most recent Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 2006 was a 98-
to-0

[[Page S104]]

vote here in the Senate. In fact, a number of Senators still serving 
today, both Republican and Democrat, voted to support that legislation, 
as did I.
  Now, the compromise bill I crafted with Senator Murkowski follows the 
very same blueprint of these other bipartisan efforts to restore the 
Voting Rights Act. Probably I am old-fashioned, but it would be a 
tragedy if Senators have completely sacrificed our sense of common 
purpose at the altar of partisanship.
  We used to believe that protecting our right to vote--the very right 
that gives democracy its name--is bigger than party or politics. We 
used to believe that a system of self-government--a government of, by, 
and for the people--is one that is worth preserving for generations to 
come.
  And we used to believe, regardless of party, that government exists 
to serve the will of the people, not the other way around. I would 
sincerely hope we still believe these things. The only way to prove it, 
though, is through our actions.
  I don't know what the next few weeks is going to have in store, but 
if we have an opportunity to consider the bipartisan John Lewis Voting 
Rights Advancement Act, I hope that all of us--my Republican friends 
and Democrats--will at least have the courage of their convictions and 
allow a vote on it.
  And if you oppose a bipartisan bill to restore a landmark voting 
rights law that has had nearly six decades of unwavering bipartisan 
support, then have the courage to stand up on the Senate floor and vote 
against it. I, for one, will proudly vote yes. All the tweeting and 
partisan posturing that seems to consume most of our energy these days 
will quickly be forgotten. What will be remembered for decades is what 
the Senate did in our democracy's hour of peril. I hope--indeed, I 
pray--that the answer is not nothing.
  Too many hide behind parliamentary procedures not to have to vote on 
anything. What is wrong with us? We get 6-year terms. Don't be afraid 
to vote. Vote yes or vote no, but stand up and let the people know 
where you stand and vote. This ``Well, we are going to block this 
coming to a vote'' means, ``I don't have the courage to stand up and 
vote.'' That is all it means.
  If you want to stop these things from coming to a vote, it means you 
don't have the courage to vote; you are not willing to go on record and 
vote or you are afraid somebody might look at your vote someday and 
say: Hmm, why did he or she vote that way?
  I have voted more than 17,000 times on this floor. I have been proud 
to vote the way I have. I am sure I could look back over decades of 
voting and find a vote here and a vote there and say: You know, maybe I 
should have voted differently, but these issues always come back up 
again, and I will correct my vote--but not if we are not allowed to 
vote.
  I had one Senator say that the reason we want this kind of open 
voting is so that we can elect just Democrats. That is balderdash. My 
State of Vermont has probably the most open voting, the most accessible 
voting, of any State in the Union. We also have one of the highest 
turnouts of any State in the Union. Anybody can request an absentee 
ballot. Anybody can vote right up to the last minute.
  And is this for partisanship? I look at the last election a little 
over a year ago. We elect our Governor and our Lieutenant Governor 
separately. Voters all came to the polls in a record turnout. They 
elected a Republican as Governor and a Democrat as Lieutenant Governor. 
I think the Republican who was elected is proud of the way we vote, and 
I know the Lieutenant Governor who was elected, she is proud of the way 
we vote because it reflected that the voters actually vote for who they 
want, not in some partisan way.
  And we hurt this country and we hurt this Senate that I love if we 
are afraid to vote. I am proud to be the dean of the Senate. I am proud 
to be the President pro tempore. But I am not proud when we don't vote. 
I am not proud when we hide behind mechanisms and we don't vote.
  I am not proud to see partisan voting on nominees, something that has 
blocked--something where there has been far more votes against women in 
our Senate Judiciary Committee than I have seen in the decades I have 
served on that committee.
  We can't do this. Stand up and vote. Let people know where you stand. 
If it is your automatic thing to vote against women for nominations, I 
disagree with that, but have the courage to stand up and vote and show 
people where you are. That is what we have to do.
  If people are afraid to vote and have their votes heard, their votes 
recorded, then they don't belong in the U.S. Senate--not in a body that 
should be the conscience of the Nation.
  I hope that we will come together and vote these voting rights bills 
up or down. In this country, we have seen too many times in the past 
where people were not allowed to vote or were blocked from voting--from 
whatever way it was done. And think of every time that happened. Our 
country suffered. Our country suffered.
  What we are saying is, let everybody vote--whether Republicans, 
Democrats, or Independents--stand up and vote, have the ability to 
vote. Don't use artificial ways to block people from voting just 
because you think they may vote differently than you do, just as I have 
fought all my career to make sure that, in my own State of Vermont, 
everybody has a chance to vote.
  Marcelle and I have even done ads on our television saying: We want 
everybody to vote, whether you are voting for a Republican or voting 
for a Democrat. Get out and vote.
  Of course, I was hoping they would vote for me, and I am sure my 
Republican opponents hoped they would vote for them. But the point I 
was trying to make is, it is important that everybody votes, whether 
they are voting for me or against me. And that is why in Vermont we 
have one of the highest percentage of voters.
  And if we want to keep having these ``suppression of vote'' bills, we 
all suffer. The country suffers. Our image around the world suffers. 
Don't be afraid to vote. We are not going to get perfect people every 
time, but we can have a perfect way of voting. In the long run, the 
country is better off.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.