[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S179-S181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Voting Rights Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there are several issues swirling around 
the Senate at this moment. They relate to the voting rights of 
Americans. They relate to the voting rights of Senators--interesting 
that they would both be on parallel tracks as we debate them on the 
floor. It appears that the voting rights of Americans is witnessing a 
historic shift. You see, my Democratic Party, and yours, in history has 
a spotty record when it comes to voting rights. In fact, Southern 
States--then in the thrall of the Democratic Party--wrote a terrible 
record after the Civil War.
  We released African Americans from slavery, guaranteed them the right 
to vote, and then watched what happened. There was jubilation all over 
the country, I believe, for the most part, and there was jubilation in 
the southern States by African Americans who had newfound freedoms they 
never dreamed of with the end of slavery. And they took them to heart. 
They did register to vote.
  And there were dramatic differences in many States because in many 
States the slave population, the African-American population, was much 
larger than any voting had ever reflected, and now they had the chance. 
And as they were elected to local offices and even congressional seats 
and even a senatorial seat, there was a backlash from the White 
population.
  This period of Reconstruction after the Civil War lapsed into a 
period of denial of the right to vote and elaborate plans by Whites--
White Democrats, I might add--in southern States to manufacture 
obstacles to the voting of African Americans--poll taxes, for example, 
literacy tests, things that had little or nothing to do with 
citizenship but were designed expressly to jeopardize the voting 
opportunities for those without advanced educations or the kind of 
clout necessary to overcome.
  And so the net result was the South went White again in terms of its 
political leadership. It was known as Jim Crow. And the Democratic 
Party of that day was behind it. The opposition came from Abraham 
Lincoln's party, the Republican Party. They were the ones for abolition 
of slavery. They were the ones who supported Reconstruction. They were 
the ones, by and large, who sent the Federal troops in to enforce 
equality in the South. But, ultimately, sadly, as a result of a 
brokered Presidential election, there was a concession made that gave 
to the Democrat Party-controlled South States' rights to determine 
voting standards. And that was the situation that applied in the United 
States from that period of time in the mid-19th century, until the 
1960s, when this issue was debated anew, right here in Washington, 
right here in this Chamber.
  And those who opposed striking down the Jim Crow laws, those who 
opposed efforts to deny to African Americans the right to vote, 
asserted one abiding principle: States rights. The States should be 
allowed to make this decision. It didn't go very far. It took a lot of 
years of debate, I might add, I don't want to oversimplify it.
  But anyone who took the time to read this book, the Constitution of 
the United States, understands it is explicit. It doesn't take long to 
read the sections that are applying.

  Listen to this and think in your mind whether there is any question 
who has the authority to determine the rules of Federal elections. And 
I read: ``Article I, section 4--The Times, Places, and

[[Page S180]]

Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be 
prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress 
may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the 
Places of chusing Senators.''
  The 15th Amendment went further on the issue of race, and the net 
result of it was the passage of some laws in the 1960s, the Voting 
Rights Act, and the establishment of standards to open up opportunities 
to vote in the South for people of color.
  It took that long from the late 19th century to the 1960s before that 
issue was addressed effectively. But for the longest time, it became a 
consensus issue. Republicans were as supportive of this as Democrats. 
In fact, proportionally, they were more supportive. The Republican 
Party--the party of Abraham Lincoln--rejected the theory of States 
rights and said there will be Federal standards that are created and 
will be enforced on a bipartisan basis by Presidents of both parties.
  It was an amazing evolution in America, considering what we had been 
through, a civil war and all that followed, to have reached the point 
where we said that the Federal Government could review decisions made 
by States if they, in any way, discriminate on a racial basis or any 
other basis in terms of ethnic identity.
  That was so popular and so bipartisan that for years the renewal of 
that law was automatic. There was hardly a dissenting vote. Boy, have 
times changed. They have changed to the point where the Democratic 
Party is now supportive of the Voting Rights Act and what it sought to 
achieve. And the party of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party, comes 
to the floor every day and argues States rights.
  Yes, we are back into that mode again, but the argument is coming 
from the Republican side of the aisle. The tables have turned. The 
Democratic Party of the South is a different party today, thank 
goodness, and a party that stands for the principle that people are 
entitled to the right to vote.
  So we staged a national election in 2020. In light of the pandemic 
that was looming over this Nation, we opened up opportunities to vote, 
and two things happened. We had the most dramatic turnout of voters in 
the United States of America for the office of President. We had never 
seen that kind of turnout of voters.
  And No. 2, when the Agencies of government took a close look at the 
votes that were cast, they found no evidence--virtually none--of voter 
fraud or manipulation of the outcome of the election.
  It was obvious to all who were honest about it, including some 
Republicans who have said as much in the last few days. But one man 
dissented. That man, of course, was the former President of the United 
States, Donald Trump, the loser--the official loser--in the 2020 
election.
  He is still in total denial. His momentous ego cannot countenance the 
possibility of rejection by the American voters, and so he claims the 
Big Lie that somehow or another this vote was stolen from the poor 
little former President. Though he can't come up with any evidence to 
prove any aspect of that and has failed miserably virtually every time 
he has gone to Federal court to argue it, he still continues to make 
that argument.
  It was that argument that was the inspiration behind the 
insurrectionist mob that was here in the Capitol Building a little over 
a year ago trying to stop the electoral college vote count. They 
failed, as they should have. The Constitution prevailed. The will of 
the American people prevailed. And so in legislatures across the 
country, including the State of Wisconsin, we see Republican 
legislatures saying that we are unhappy with the results in the 2020 
election; we want to change the rules when it comes to voting in our 
State.
  And almost without exception, every change in these Republican 
legislatures results in a limited time to vote, a limited ability to 
vote, new obstacles to vote, and on and on and on.
  I have yet to see any of these Republican-led leislatures demonstrate 
an effort to the contrary, to expand the right to vote.
  And so based on article I, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, we 
have written a bill, a bill that establishes basic standards of voting 
across America as this document envisioned: standards for voter 
registration, standards for absentee ballots, standards for same-day 
registration, standards for making election day a national holiday. 
Every one of these things that we have proposed in our pending 
legislation is an expansion of opportunities to vote for eligible 
voters.
  It gets down to the bottom line: When it comes to eligible voters, 
should we create obstacles of hardship or should we make it easy for 
them to vote without endangering their families, without losing their 
jobs, without hardship?
  I think that is the basic mission of a democratic legislature, is it 
not: the greatest possible participation of the greatest number of 
voters? Then let them decide on issue after issue.
  So that is the issue of voting rights in America that now comes to 
the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  On the question of the voting rights of Senators, it is interesting 
to me, every morning, that those in the Chamber start the session by 
pledging allegiance to the flag. It is apparent, from some of the 
arguments on the Republican side, that they want to start this meeting 
of the Senate each day additionally with a pledge of allegiance to the 
filibuster.
  Now, that is strange, because if you have any history in the U.S. 
Senate, you know what the filibuster has become. It is not an 
occasional problem and challenge. It is now the standard.
  The filibuster, you see, requires 60 votes for passage of a measure 
in a body of 100 people. It is an extraordinary majority. It gives 
power to the minority, which the Senate, of course, was designed to do 
by giving two seats--two Senate seats--to every State, large and small, 
but it goes a step further.
  Despite what you may have heard on the floor earlier, the use of the 
filibuster--I should say the abuse of the filibuster--has led to the 
elimination, virtually, of debate and amendments on the floor.
  I have often said that if you are suffering from insomnia and watch 
C-SPAN and turn on the U.S. Senate, you will see a perfect room and 
structure for a wedding reception because there is always plenty of 
room on the floor of the Senate. We should be leasing this out and 
using the money to reduce the national debt, the Senators use it so 
infrequently.
  There was a time--can you believe this now?--10 years ago, there was 
a time when 12 appropriation bills would come out of the committees and 
come to the floor and be subject to amendments, and we would take turns 
offering amendments to all 12 appropriations bills. That was the 
ordinary course of business. It is no longer the case. It hasn't been 
that way for 10 years.
  And when it comes to the debate and amendments on all the other 
items, the numbers tell the story.
  I want to thank my friend Jeff Merkley, who has done amazing research 
on the Senate and its procedures.
  In the 109th Congress, we considered 314 amendments. That declined to 
just 26 amendments under Republican leadership in the last Congress. 
Twenty-six amendments in a year? Compared to 314? Thank you, to the 
filibuster. That is where we are today. Thank you, to the 60-vote 
requirement. That is where we are today. And thanks to my colleagues on 
the Republican side who are trying to ignore those numbers. They are so 
graphic.
  On nominations, there were only three cloture motions in the history 
of the United States before 1975--three. After 1975 to now, 852 times 
cloture has been filed on nominations--852 weeks of Senate time 
potentially obstructed.
  That is the Senate today. That is the Senate under a filibuster. And 
if this Senate is going to join the House in establishing standards for 
equal voting rights across America, the filibuster is the obstacle.
  I know this story personally. I introduced the DREAM Act 20 years 
ago--20 years ago. And you say: Senator, I thought you were a hotshot 
legislator. What are you waiting for? Pass it. I sure wish I could.
  I brought it to the Senate floor five times in that 20-year period, 
the DREAM Act to help young people living in this country to have a 
chance, a pathway to citizenship. On five different occasions it has 
been stopped by

[[Page S181]]

filibuster. Don't tell me the filibuster opens debate and opportunity. 
The filibuster has shut down debate on the DREAM Act five times in the 
last 20 years, and that is just one isolated example that is personal 
to me. That is what the filibuster is all about. It is stopping us from 
doing anything substantial on voting rights. It is stopping us from 
passing the DREAM Act. It is stopping us from passing meaningful 
immigration reform.

  The filibuster is designed for people who want to say no--no to 
progress, no to government, no to the Senate being engaged in the 
issues that affect the American people and families.
  I have seen colleagues come to the floor on the Republican side with 
quotes from me defending the filibuster. That was when I was a hopeful 
person in the Senate.
  My hope has been dashed by reality--by the reality of a Senate that 
has been shut down when it comes to national debate and shut down when 
it comes to national achievement.
  That, to me, has got to come to an end. I am prepared to sit down 
with any Republicans of good will--and Democrats included--and come up 
with some meaningful rules.
  You know, incidentally, that we are sitting here with a calendar that 
is loaded with nominations? It is not the filibuster, but it is 
something quite near to it, where one or two Republican Senators have 
decided that they don't want to take the ordinary course for 
nominations. They want to drag them out interminably.
  That is unfair to President Biden. It is unfair to the American 
people. If you want to defeat a nomination, do your best. But to stop 
the debate of the Senate on these nominations to impose your will and 
to slow down the business of the Senate, I think is an unacceptable 
standard.
  And so for the voting rights of American to have a chance to be 
protected and for the voting rights of Senators to finally be engaged 
on the floor in that process, we have to be ready to make a change. I 
am ready. And as I said, I am ready to do it on a bipartisan basis. But 
for goodness' sake, this empty, silent Chamber is no indication of what 
the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created this legislature.
  We are supposed to be engaged in debate, not afraid of debate. We 
shouldn't be running off and hiding behind 60 votes. I am open for 
change. I wish some Republicans would join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from California.