[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S124-S129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Voting Rights Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, President Biden will be 
speaking in Georgia as part of Democrats' effort to convince the 
American people that voting rights are under attack so they can justify 
their attempt to abolish the Senate filibuster to pass their partisan 
election legislation.
  A noted Democrat operative once famously said that you should never 
let a good crisis go to waste. He meant, of course, that a crisis could 
give you the opportunity to push things through that you might not be 
able to get done in the ordinary course of things. It is a lesson the 
Democrats have learned well.
  Last March, for example, Democrats used the cover of the COVID crisis 
to pass a so-called COVID relief bill that had very little to do with 
COVID relief and had a lot to do with expanding the role of government 
and providing payoffs to Democrat constituencies.
  But, unfortunately for Democrats, when it comes to election 
legislation, there is no crisis for Democrats to exploit, so Democrats 
have spent the past year busily trying to manufacture one. I say the 
past year, but Democrats have actually been claiming there is a voting 
crisis for much longer.
  The source of the election bill that we will likely vote on this week 
is H.R. 1--election legislation that was first introduced by Democrats 
back in 2019. Back then, Democrats told us that our election system was 
broken and that we needed this bill to fix it. After all, a Republican 
had won the last Presidential election and beat a favored Democrat 
candidate. Surely, surely, that meant our system was in trouble. But 
then the 2020 elections came along, and Democrats won the Presidency 
and a majority--albeit a narrow majority--in both Houses of Congress. 
Voter turnout was massive, and a Pew Research Center poll found that 94 
percent of people found it easy to vote--94 percent. So all of a 
sudden, it was pretty

[[Page S125]]

difficult for Democrats to claim that our system was broken. But they 
still wanted to pass their election legislation, so they came up with a 
new crisis.
  In 2021, a number of States passed updates to their voting laws--
partly because of the challenges and special circumstances that arose 
as a result of the pandemic. Democrats decided that these commonsense, 
mainstream updates represented an unprecedented attack on voting 
rights.
  Georgia, which was one of the first to enact voting legislation, has 
become the poster child for the Democrats' campaign to convince 
Americans that their voting rights are in danger.
  So what terrible voter suppression measures are States imposing? 
Well, one provision of the Georgia law that has come in for a lot of 
Democrat outrage is its measure forbidding partisan political 
organizations from providing individuals with food or water within 150 
feet of a polling place. Yes, apparently preventing partisan political 
organizations from providing lunch to voters threatens the very 
stability of our entire democracy.
  Now, nothing in Georgia's law prevents outside groups from providing 
food and water to individuals outside the 150-foot radius, and 
Georgia's law explicitly allows nonpartisan election workers, as 
opposed to political groups, to make water available to voters. Of 
course, I am pretty sure any voter can bring his or her own food and 
water. But none of that has prevented Democrats from suggesting that 
rules about food and water distribution at polling places represent a 
grave threat to voting rights.
  Ironically, the State of New York has a similar provision in its 
election law prohibiting any refreshment or provision to a voter at a 
polling place except if the retail value of what is given is less than 
$1 and the person or entity providing it is not identified. Yet I don't 
see the Democrats traveling to New York to decry the threat to 
democracy posed by the New York Legislature.
  After Georgia passed its voting law, President Biden got up and 
attacked the law for supposedly ending voting early to prevent working 
people from voting. He made that accusation repeatedly. The problem? 
There was exactly zero truth to his claim. In fact, as the Washington 
Post's Fact Checker column pointed out, ``experts say the net effect of 
the new early-voting rules was to expand the opportunities to vote for 
more Georgians, not limit them.''
  That is from the Washington Post's Fact Checker. Let me just repeat 
that:

       [E]xperts say that the net effect of the new early-voting 
     rules was to expand the opportunities to vote for most 
     Georgians, not limit them.

  The Fact Checker gave the President four Pinocchios--a rating the 
column reserves for ``whoppers''--for his false claim that the law was 
designed to keep working Americans from voting.
  I would also like to point out that not only is Georgia's election 
reform law thoroughly mainstream, Georgia's laws are actually more 
permissive in some respects than voting laws in some Democrat States.
  Georgia offers no-excuse absentee voting. The Democrat leader's home 
State--Senator Schumer's home State--does not. In fact, voters in the 
Democrat leader's home State actually just rejected a ballot measure 
that would have allowed no-excuse absentee voting. I guess the Democrat 
leader thinks that those voters are trying to destroy our democracy.
  Georgia also has way more days of early voting than the Democrat 
leader's home State. So does Arizona, another State that has come under 
fire from Democrats for updating its election laws. Yet red States, 
according to Democrats, are the States attempting to suppress votes.
  It is also important to note that the Georgia law was written to 
address concerns from Republican and Democrat voters, including 
concerns raised by Stacey Abrams-affiliated groups over the 2018 
Georgia gubernatorial election.
  There is no question--no question--we should make voting easy and 
accessible, but there are a lot of different ways to do that. States 
can have different requirements and still all offer ample opportunities 
to vote.
  Also, I think my Democrat friends need a little perspective check. 
There are countries where individuals would consider it a privilege to 
be able to stand in line to vote in a free election--even if someone 
didn't provide them with food and water.
  Of course, no one wants voters to have to stand in long lines, and, 
in fact, Georgia's election law will make it less likely that they have 
to. But Democrats' dramatic claims that a long line or a lack of a drop 
box or, say, 9 as opposed to 10 days of early voting somehow threatens 
the right to vote in this country are nothing short of absurd. I have 
faith that Americans are capable of voting even without the Democratic 
Party providing them with a boxed lunch.
  There is no election crisis in this country. This last election--
biggest turnout in American history in 120 years. You have to go back 
to the year 1900 to find a time when the election turnout in an 
American election was equal to or exceeded what we had in 2020. What 
there is, is a partisan Democrat election bill the Democrats have 
wanted to pass since long before the Georgia Legislature reformed their 
election laws because they think it will give them an advantage in 
future elections. You don't have to take my word for it; more than one 
Democrat has openly admitted the Democrats want to pass a Federal 
election takeover because they think it will give their party an 
advantage in the next election.
  If Democrats were really concerned about the security of our 
democracy and the integrity of our elections, if they really cared 
about affirming Americans' faith in our electoral system, they would 
not be seeking to break the Senate rules to pass a totally--totally--
partisan election bill on a totally partisan basis. A partisan Federal 
election takeover is not going to do anything to strengthen Americans' 
faith in our system. On the contrary, it will sow mistrust and division 
and heighten partisanship.
  Instead of changing the rules to gain an advantage in the next 
election, I would suggest that my Democrat colleagues instead try 
coming up with an agenda that would appeal to a broad majority of 
Americans--perhaps starting with a plan to address the inflation crisis 
the Democrats have helped create. That would be a far better use of 
their time than undermining faith in our electoral system with a 
partisan rules change and a partisan Federal takeover of elections.
  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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will speak today on two topics--No. 1, 
the substance of the bill, which is, I guess, yet to be known, 
regarding voting rights, which I consider to be a Federal takeover of 
State elections, and the constant threat of changing the rules of the 
Senate to do away with the legislative filibuster as we know it.
  I would say to my Democratic colleagues, this has been going on for 
quite a while, the constant threat by Senator Schumer to change the 
rules to pass whatever legislation you-all can come up with.
  All I can say is, things were different when we were in charge. We 
had the House, the Senate, and the White House. President Trump 
constantly urged Senator McConnell and all of us on the Republican side 
to change the rules of the Senate so he could pass his agenda 
unimpeded; that anything that came out of the House, which was under 
Republican control, could sail right through the Senate with Republican 
votes only.
  It was pretty clear to my Democratic colleagues that was not a good 
outcome, I thought for the country, but I guess for them.
  We signed a letter on April 7, 2017--61 signatures: 28 Republicans, 
32 Democrats, and 1 Independent. The letter was sent to Senator 
McConnell, who was the majority leader, and the minority leader was 
Senator Schumer at the time, urging both leaders that, no matter what 
differences we have had regarding Executive nominations and judges, we 
should preserve the minority's rights under the so-called legislative 
filibuster.

[[Page S126]]

  Apparently, it made perfect sense to my Democratic colleagues that 
the Senate not change to accommodate Donald Trump and his wishes. I was 
assuming that the statement by my Democratic colleagues was about the 
institution, not just about the Trump Presidency and the times in which 
we lived in 2017.
  Apparently, I was wrong--except for a handful. And to Senators Sinema 
and Manchin, you have led from the front, not from the rear. You have 
taken your fair share of criticism as you have opposed changing the 
Senate rules to accommodate the voting rights bill, and it has been--
the argument goes that this is so fundamental to democracy, voting, 
that the Senate has to give way in this instance.
  All I can say is that when many of us were in your shoes, we didn't 
make an exception for a piece of legislation that we thought was 
critical to the future of the country. And it would be easy to find an 
exception here and there and everywhere, to the point that the rule 
bends with the exception. Now, I appreciate your steadfastness in that 
regard, and, apparently, as you read the news, a few more Democrats are 
becoming publicly unnerved by the thought of changing the legislative 
filibuster--just a handful. And we are supposed to be in over the 
weekend, I think, maybe even into Monday, to have the change--rules 
change--but that may be in flux now because it appears a handful of 
Democrats are showing some distaste for changing the rules. I don't 
know why they are coming out now. I appreciate it.
  I don't think it would be very popular in certain States to change 
the rules of the Senate that would pave the way for the most radical 
agenda in my lifetime. I don't know if that has got something to do 
with it or if there is a newfound religion here by a handful.
  To the rest, I won't forget this. I was 1 of the 28 Republicans who 
signed the letter to the leaders of the Senate asking that the 
institution maintain the legislative filibuster, and not because it 
benefited me personally but because I thought it benefited the American 
people.
  The day you make the Senate the House, we are going to have wild 
policy changes. When we are in charge, we will go down one road; when 
Democrats are in charge, they will go down another road, and there will 
be a just unnerving aspect of this, in my view, and I think for well 
over a century, the Senate has prevented these wild changes. And that 
means you don't get what you would like as conservatives. The same 
people who are applauding my resistance to changing the filibuster 
today were all over me when we were in charge wanting me to change the 
filibuster. I understand that.
  Ideological people want their way, and they don't particularly care 
how they get it. Most Americans have a more balanced approach about how 
the legislative process should work, and I think, over time, the 
requirement to get a handful of people from the other party to pass 
legislation, particularly major legislation, has served the country 
well.
  There are things that we would do completely different than our 
Democratic friends because we have different views, and some of these 
ideas just never make it through the Senate. And every now and then we 
will come up with solutions to hard problems that are bipartisan 
because we have to, as long as the legislative filibuster is around.
  So the idea of changing the legislative filibuster would pave the 
way, if Democrats have all branches of government here, to make DC and 
Puerto Rico a State. I think they would. It paves the way for 
increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme Court because liberals 
don't like the current makeup. I think there would be a move to abolish 
the electoral college, which would be devastating for South Carolina.
  And to all the people in this body, adding two more States may serve 
your interests, but it certainly dilutes the power you have as an 
individual State.
  So the legislative filibuster is a stop sign to the most radical 
agenda I have seen since I have been up here, and it was a stop sign to 
the Trump agenda, and you just fill in the blanks.
  This effort by Senator Schumer to abolish the legislative filibuster 
under the guise of a single exception is cynical and I think a sign of 
desperation.
  I like Senator Schumer. I have been able to work with him--
immigration and other hot-button issues--but the truth of the matter 
is, this all started back when President Bush's judicial nominees were 
filibustered en mass that led to the Gang of 14, spearheaded by Senator 
Byrd, sort of one of the icons of the Senate, to make sure that 
filibustering judges would be done only in extraordinary circumstances. 
We broke the logjam. We lost a couple of good conservative judges as 
part of the compromise, and that held until it no longer held.
  In 2013, I got a call from Senator Schumer--I never will forget it--
that we are going to push for a rules change when it comes to court of 
appeals and district court judges--I think in 2013.
  I remember the reaction I had and Senator McCain's, and they were 
able to do that. And when President Trump became President and had a 
couple of Democratic--excuse me--a couple Supreme Court vacancies to 
fill, they were all filibustered, starting with Gorsuch, to the point 
that we changed the rules so that he could get some people on the Court 
who I think were highly qualified. So the bottom line is, when it comes 
to judges, the ship has sailed. Executive appointments, maybe that 
should have been changed. The effect on the judiciary, I think, is 
going to be detrimental over time.
  The most ideological elements of each conference will have a large 
say about what kind of judges we put on the court, and you will see a 
change over time from the right and the left because you no longer have 
to reach across the aisle to put a judge on the court.
  Apply that to legislation and, again, it would be devastating to the 
country and this body to not require some form of consensus when it 
comes to legislation and deny the minority the ability to require that 
consensus.
  As to voting rights itself, I think this is the most hyped, 
manufactured issue in a long time. This is a problem in search of--it 
is not a problem in search of a solution; it is a manufactured problem.
  States under our Constitution are supposed to run elections. In my 
State, I think we do a pretty good job. There are some efforts to 
change election laws throughout the country. As more and more people 
vote by mail, I think it is incumbent that you have the same voter 
identification requirements by voting by mail as you do in person. It 
would be so easy to manipulate that system.
  The bottom line here is this is an effort by the Democratic leader to 
basically say that Republicans, at our heart, are a bunch of racists 
when it comes to voting; that the reason they are having to do this is 
that States are changing laws to disenfranchise people of color and 
minorities.
  I find that, like, incredibly offensive--I mean, just beyond 
offensive. In my State, which is 30 percent-plus African American, we 
have robust opportunity to vote. All these laws that are being changed 
to implement voter integrity, I think, are necessary in the times in 
which we live.
  But the bill coming before the body, whatever it is, is a 
federalization of the election process. It is not about enfranchising 
the voters; it is about enfranchising the ability of the left to take 
over the electoral process to skew it to their favor, and I think 
almost all of us see it that way over here.
  So, you know, as a Republican, particularly from the South, you sort 
of get used to being called a racist. It is never pleasant, but you 
sort of get used to it. It is the cheapest form of politics. It is very 
unsavory to the people in my State.
  I went through that process in 2020, and I hope I have lived a life 
to convince reasonable people that, whatever flaws I have, being a 
racist is not one of them.
  And to clothe this exercise here as some kind of moral imperative 
that if we don't do this bill, then people throughout the country will 
lose their right to vote because Republicans, at the end of the day, 
don't want people of color to vote is beyond offensive, and I hope it 
fails and that we can get back to some sense of regular order around 
here.
  But I will end with this: When the shoe was on the other foot, most 
of us didn't do this. Your country needs you

[[Page S127]]

right now to speak up. If you support changing the legislative 
filibuster one time for the voting rights bill, you support the end of 
it because there will be no end to the exceptions.
  And most of you over there have been hiding in the corner, letting 
other people take the arrows. It is time for you to speak up. I 
actually hope we have a vote because I want to know where people are, 
whom I can count on and whom I can't, to understand what is 
transactional and what is about the body. Time will tell.
  I yield the floor to Senator Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, considering the way our Democratic friends 
talk about the state of voting rights in America, it is easy to see why 
some people have expressed concerns because if you took them at face 
value, you might be very worried about the state of voting rights in 
our country, but there is more to the story than that, which I will 
hope to explain here in the next few minutes.
  For example, when it comes to the alarmism about voting rights, look 
no further than the Democratic majority whip, Senator Durbin from 
Illinois, who said there is an ``insidious effort to suppress the 
rights of voters of color.''
  Senator Schumer, the majority leader, Senator from New York, has said 
the right to vote is ``under attack in ways we have not seen in 
generations.''
  President Biden himself has said there is a ``21st century Jim Crow 
assault'' on the right to vote.
  If you were to take these at face value and accept them, obviously, 
you would be very concerned about the state of voting rights.
  But there is more to the story, as I said. If you just listen to 
these statements, you would think that the States--the 50 States--had 
just imposed literacy tests on voting. You would think the disgusting 
and subjective determinations of ``good moral character'' that existed 
before the civil rights movement had somehow sprung back to life. You 
might even wonder if the Supreme Court of the United States has struck 
down the Voting Rights Act itself.
  (Mr. KELLY assumed the Chair.)
  Obviously, none of these things are true. There is simply no 
concerted effort to attempt to prevent voters of color or any eligible 
voters from casting their ballots.
  The Voting Rights Act--one of the most important pieces of 
legislation in our Nation's history--is alive and well. I think the 
Voting Rights Act has done more to change our country for the better 
than any other piece of legislation that I can think of.
  So, to be frank, the facts simply don't support our Democratic 
colleagues' alarming rhetoric about the state of voting in America. 
This narrative of widespread voter suppression is nothing more than a 
scare tactic to achieve a political outcome.
  Our colleagues across the aisle have introduced many different 
versions of their Federal takeover of State elections bill, but the 
justification seems to always change. First they said it was a matter 
of election security; then of voter confidence; and then and now, a way 
to remove obstacles that prevented people from voting. Today, our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this legislation 
is necessary because the States have passed new laws that restrict 
voting access. So let's just take a look at what some of those laws 
entail.
  One of those laws in my State of Texas, where the goal is pretty 
simple, which is to make voting easier and to make it harder to cheat--
Texas already offers 2 weeks of early voting in person, and the new law 
didn't make any changes in that. For 2 weeks, you can show up and vote 
in person before election day--hardly a restriction on people's access 
to the ballot.
  This law did, in addition to making sure that people had 2 weeks to 
vote in person early, extend voting hours in more than 60 different 
Texas counties and clarify that voters who were in line at the time the 
polls closed would still be able to cast their ballot. It doesn't sound 
like voter suppression to me.
  But the law also took some measures to reduce opportunities for fraud 
or mischief. Texas voting systems must now be tested before an election 
to ensure there are no technical difficulties. I am sure all of us are 
familiar with the occasional problem with voting machines, technical 
difficulties that need to be fixed to make sure it counts each 
legitimate vote. And we did make sure that voting rolls reflected only 
qualified voters. In other words, voters who passed away were removed 
from the voting rolls.
  My State, like others, has clarified that the temporary, pandemic-
related measures were not intended to be permanent. We did take some 
extraordinary precautions in the midst of COVID-19 to make sure people 
had access to the ballot. But these are hardly--restoration of the 
status quo before COVID-19 is hardly an example of voter repression.
  I mentioned Texas and its expansive right to cast your ballot in 
person and to make sure everybody in line when the polls close could 
still cast their ballot.
  Another State that has come under fire is Georgia. As a matter of 
fact, the Attorney General of the United States has sued Texas and 
Florida and Georgia under the Voting Rights Act. And, of course, 
President Biden is highlighting the Georgia laws because he is visiting 
today doing what I have never seen a President do before, and that is, 
villainize a State's new voting law, which, to me, is a bizarre thing 
for a sitting President to do, to travel to a State for the purpose of 
villainizing that State's law.
  I doubt he will mention the fact that Georgia actually extended early 
voting to 17 days. That is not an example of voter suppression, of 
trying to restrict people's access to the ballot. As a matter of fact, 
that is much more generous than what President Biden's home State of 
Delaware has offered in terms of early access to the ballot.
  So these clearly are not examples of Jim Crow voter suppression. 
These are commonsense measures designed to encourage people's 
confidence in the integrity of the voting systems and to make sure that 
they are both accessible and secure. These efforts should not be 
villainized; they should be applauded. They shouldn't be twisted beyond 
recognition, trying to manipulate the facts in order to achieve a 
political outcome.

  If these State voting laws, then, are not designed to restrict access 
to the ballot, you might wonder whether there was a preexisting 
problem. So let's have a look.
  Did voters actually have a problem casting their ballot during the 
last election? Well, following the 2020 election, the Pew Research 
Center conducted a poll of the voting experience, and it found that the 
vast majority of voters, 94 percent--94 percent--said that voting was 
easy. I don't think you could get 94 percent of people to agree that 
the Earth is round anymore, but here we have 94 percent of the voters 
who voted with ease in 2020. This is a stark contrast with the claimed 
assault on voting rights that we have heard so much about from our 
colleagues on the left.
  Despite what the radical left might lead you to believe, there is no 
nationwide assault on voting rights. If there were, every person in 
this building would be lined up to defend the right to vote, not just 
Democrats. This is a manufactured crisis designed to achieve a 
political outcome.
  There are plenty of safeguards already in place to prevent 
discriminatory voting laws from taking effect, the most important of 
which, as I have already said, is the Voting Rights Act. Because of 
this legislation, the Justice Department has the authority to take 
action against any State, any political entity that discriminates on 
the basis of race, color, or membership in a language-minority group. 
This has been the case for half a century, and no one--no one--wants to 
weaken or eliminate those protections.
  Unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the left have misrepresented 
the picture of voting rights in America to justify this partisan power 
grab. The legislation they have introduced does more to enhance their 
own power than it does to address voting rights. These bills aren't 
about supporting disenfranchised voters or fighting voter suppression 
because, as we know, there is no nationwide assault on the right to 
vote, notwithstanding what some have claimed. This is simply about 
enhancing the political power of the Democratic Party. They want to 
seize States' constitutional authority to

[[Page S128]]

manage their own elections and use it for their own benefit.
  That is one of the most curious things about this debate that we are 
hearing from some of our Democratic colleagues. They want to actually 
vote for a nationwide, one-size-fits-all standard, to the detriment of 
their own States' voting laws.
  It is pretty strange to come here representing a State--let's say I 
was in the shoes of the Democrats. If I were to come here to say 
``Well, my State has passed voting laws. I represent my State, but I 
want the Federal Government to take over the voting laws and to 
suppress and supersede the voting laws in my State''--that is what our 
Democratic colleagues are asking for.
  President Biden, apparently, rather than changing the voting laws in 
his home State of Delaware, wants the Federal Government to create a 
one-size-fits-all answer to voting rights in America--again, something 
that is inconsistent with the Constitution and makes no sense at all.
  Well, to make matters even worse, some of our colleagues are even 
advocating blowing up the Senate in order to achieve their goals 
because they know they don't have 60 votes in order to close off 
debate.
  Now, the 60-vote requirement is the subject of a lot of controversy, 
but, frankly, it makes good common sense. In a country as big and 
diverse as America, do you really want to have a partisan majority of 
51 writing the laws that affect 330 million people, only to have, after 
the next election, the next majority undo those or change them in some 
other way? Wouldn't you want a mechanism that forces us to do what we 
might consider to be a little unnatural, which is actually to build 
consensus and build bipartisanship to make sure that the laws we pass 
are not only adequately debated and thought out, but they could endure 
beyond the next election because they enjoyed the support of bipartisan 
majorities?

  That is what the 60-vote cloture requirement is really about. It is 
about making sure that purely partisan outcomes don't succeed and 
forcing us to do what I believe is in the best interest of the American 
people, which is force us to work together to achieve bipartisan 
consensus.
  The election takeover bill may be the first one our Democratic 
colleagues try to pass if they eliminate or weaken the filibuster, but 
it won't be the last. This isn't going to be a one-and-done exercise. 
Anybody who says you can carve out voting laws and everything else will 
remain the same is just kidding themselves and the American people. If 
the Democrats created a carve-out for election-related bills, there 
would be nothing--nothing--stopping them from resurrecting early 
versions of the election takeover bill and passing them on a completely 
partisan basis.
  Previous versions of this bill would have turned the historically 
bipartisan Federal Election Commission into a partisan body. They would 
have mandated ballot harvesting and seized States' constitutional 
authority to draw their own congressional districts. These are the 
types of radical measures that we could see under what our colleagues 
call a modest carve-out.
  If our Democrat colleagues eliminated the bipartisan 60-vote 
requirement, the floodgates of partisan legislation would surely open. 
Last year, our colleagues tried to pass legislation that exploits the 
cause of pay fairness to send a wave of business to trial lawyers. They 
pushed for another bill that would impose crushing legal penalties on 
those who refuse to comply with woke social norms.
  If the filibuster--the 60-vote bipartisan filibuster--were 
eliminated, Republicans would have no way of stopping these bills from 
becoming law. And it doesn't stop there. The threat doesn't stop there.
  Think of the most controversial bills that our Democratic colleagues 
have proposed. They could add new States to the Union--DC statehood, 
Puerto Rican statehood. They could pack the Supreme Court of the United 
States with liberal Justices. They could pass laws that infringe on the 
Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, 
or legalize abortion up until the time a baby is delivered in the third 
trimester. They could impose job-killing taxes and kick-start the Green 
New Deal.
  So what is at stake here this week is far more than the fate of one 
or two bills. Our colleagues are proposing to put a thumb on the scale 
to benefit the Democratic Party.
  If the filibuster, the bipartisan 60-vote requirement, is eliminated, 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will have unchecked power 
to write the laws affecting 330 million Americans. We know they are 
already willing to manufacture a voting rights crisis to increase their 
own power. If they are willing to do that, what aren't they willing to 
do? I know I am not alone in saying I hope we never find out.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague from Texas yield for a 
request, just a request. I would like to borrow his chart.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have yielded the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. OK. My colleague, I would yield to you. I have the 
floor.
  Do you mind if I borrow your chart? Great. Thank you.
  Now, my good colleague from Texas says 94 percent of voters said 
voting was easy in 2020. So why don't we keep it that way?
  Isn't it true that all of the changes that we are arguing about are 
post-2020, and is it an overwhelming likelihood that this number, if 
these changes are allowed to go into effect, will go way down? So, yes, 
we agree. Keep the 2020 laws. Maybe we should improve them. Right now, 
what we are combating is a series of legislatures--19--and 33 laws that 
will make this number surely go down because it makes voting less hard. 
So we agree that 2020 worked out OK. I guess my friend is saying the 
Big Lie is false because Donald Trump said it was fraudulent, the 
election results.
  I would thank my colleague for his chart and will be using it again.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I sure would.
  Mr. CORNYN. Would you give me an example of one of the laws passed in 
Georgia or in Texas since the 2020 election which you believe 
suppresses the right to vote.
  Mr. SCHUMER. There is a long list of them, which I have listed in my 
speeches. Let me just give one or two: one, making early voting places 
and dropoff voting places many fewer; No. 2, in the largest county--
Democratic county, African-American county--in Georgia, taking away the 
bipartisan ability to collect those votes; No. 3, in Georgia, making it 
a crime that, if you are standing in line, you can't be fed, and the 
lines, by the way, according to the reports I get, are much longer in 
African-American communities than in White suburban communities, making 
it much, much harder--making it a crime, rather--to give people water 
or a sandwich.
  So I am going to now give my remarks, but I thank my colleague for 
the question, and I am going to take the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have one more question to clarify your 
response.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The last question, yes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Is the Senator suggesting that ballot harvesting should 
be required in all 50 States? That is the ability of a partisan or a 
participant in a political election to go around to nursing homes or to 
other vulnerable populations and collect ballots and turn them in.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator would yield, as long as there is no 
fraud, if a person in a nursing home can't get to the polling place and 
wants to vote and someone collects their ballot, there is nothing wrong 
with that. In fact, that is good. That makes it easier for them to 
vote.
  With all of these things that they bring up, there has been no 
evidence of fraud--none. Donald Trump has not produced any evidence of 
fraud. He lost by 7 million votes. Yet he is saying he won the 
election.
  We all know what is motivating our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle--obeisance to Donald Trump. I would guess most of them know 
that the election was not stolen, that the Big Lie doesn't take effect, 
but Trump has such power over the Republican Party--such power--that 
they do what he wants in the legislatures and here in the Senate.

[[Page S129]]

  I would remind my good friend from Texas that his fellow Texans 
George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush proudly supported an extension of 
the Voting Rights Act. They proudly did that. It was bipartisan until 
Donald Trump came over and, in my opinion, poisoned the Republican 
Party on voting rights. We could use a little resistance to Donald 
Trump. We see it from a good number of Republicans out in the country, 
and we see it from a good number of Republican commentators, but we 
don't see it here in the Senate, and that is unfortunate.

  I am not going to yield for a further question.
  Mr. President, as I begin my remarks, let me begin with the following 
figure--and we will have a debate later.