[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S242-S243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
H.R. 5746
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, last week, I gave a long, detailed
speech on the topic that was at hand last week and is the topic, right
now, that we are focusing on here in the U.S. Senate: voting rights and
the majority leader's goal this week, as it was last week, to blow up
the legislative filibuster.
I believe it would be the first time in U.S. history that a majority
leader would actually seek to do this--to blow up the legislative
filibuster--which, in and of itself, says a lot. This would, of course,
change the Senate and change the country forever. There will be a lot
of speeches on that. There will be many more speeches today, tomorrow,
and Thursday on these important topics.
Now, the President of the United States weighed in on these two
topics--the filibuster and voting rights--in Georgia, in a speech last
week that is already going down as an infamous speech by a President of
the United States. Let's just say it really didn't go very well, the
President's speech.
I ask all Americans to take a look at it. It is quite disturbing for
a whole host of reasons. The President's speech was almost universally
panned, on the left even, on the right, and in the center. I have not
seen one U.S. Senator come down on the floor, this week, to defend it.
It will be interesting, as we debate these issues, if anyone does, but
I doubt there will be, and there are many reasons for this.
As a speech by a President, it was remarkably divisive--in essence,
calling every Senator, Democrat or Republican, who doesn't agree with
him a racist and a traitor. Read the speech. It was historically
absurd--invoking the sacrifices of the Civil War and heroes like
Abraham Lincoln and villains like Jefferson Davis to present-day
circumstances. It was profoundly un-Presidential, as Senator McConnell
stated, rhetoric, completely unbecoming of a President of the United
States, and in an attempt to get Senators, especially Democrat
Senators, to vote the way in which President Biden wants them to vote,
it appears to have been a monumental failure. Now, I wonder why. Well,
of course, here is why.
Calling someone a racist and a traitor is not the normal, logical
route to try to persuade one to come over to your side--neither is
claiming that Republican Senators, Republican legislators, States, and
Republican State voting laws are so-called Jim Crow 2.0, when your very
own State's laws, in terms of voting, are some of the most restrictive
in the country. This is a narrative, I hope, our friends in the media
will keep an eye on during the debates this week.
What am I talking about?
Well, first and foremost, I am talking about Majority Leader Schumer
and Joe Biden and their States, New York and Delaware, which have some
of the most restrictive voting laws in America. Let me repeat that.
Some of the most restrictive voting laws in America come from the
majority leader's State and the President of the United States' State.
Yet listen to their rhetoric. Listen to their rhetoric: Republicans and
Republican States are ``Jim Crow 2.0.''
I was on the floor last week, talking in particular detail about my
State's laws. We are all different States here, but I know my State's
laws. I know them well as they relate to voting rights. Here is one
thing I said last week: On some of the most critical issues, in terms
of voting rights legislation--early in-person voting, automatic voter
registration, and this chart here of no-excuse absentee voting--the
Republican State of Alaska, the great State of Alaska, has voting laws
that are significantly more expansive than the laws of New York, than
the laws of Delaware, than the laws of Connecticut, than the laws of
Massachusetts, than the laws of New Hampshire. It is a long list, a
long list. You can see why Senators like me--my constituents, in
particular--find it more than just a little bit annoying when you have
these smug arguments of Republican States being Jim Crow 2.0.
Let me give you another particular one as it relates to New York, the
majority leader's home State.
My State has no-excuse absentee voting. We have had that for many,
many years--many years. Now, the State of New York just had a statewide
referendum to have same-day voter registration and no-excuse absentee
voting to meet the high standards that we have in Alaska. The people of
New York recently rejected that. I don't know why. I am not from New
York. I am sure they had what they thought were good reasons to do
that, but if the majority leader keeps coming down and calling the
Republican States that restrict voting Jim Crow 2.0, is he going to go
to Times Square and call his own constituents Jim Crow 2.0, relative to
my great State--because they just rejected doing this, restricting
voting rights--according to the logic of the majority leader and the
President of the United States?
There is something really wrong here on these arguments and it is not
just New York and it is not just my making these arguments about where
other States are. Again, my argument here is
[[Page S243]]
not to say: Well, everybody should be like Alaska. In the Constitution,
the Founders gave the States the fundamental right and obligation and
responsibility to design their States' laws in terms of voting. What is
really difficult to swallow is that so many of the arguments we are
going to hear this week and that we heard last week and that we heard
from the President of the United States come from elected officials--
U.S. Senators and the President, who is a former Senator--who come from
States that have some of the most least restrictive voting laws in the
country.
Again, it is not just me making this argument. This is an article I
submitted for the Record, last week, from The Atlantic magazine--not a
Republican mouthpiece by any measure. I am going to read extensively
from this article, which came out last year, because it really makes
the point I am trying to make.
Biden has assailed Georgia's new voting law as an atrocity
akin to ``Jim Crow in the 21st century'' for the impact it
could have on Black citizens. But even once the GOP-passed
measure takes effect, Georgia citizens will have far more
opportunities to vote before Election Day than their
counterparts in the president's home state, where one in
three residents is Black or Latino. To Republicans, Biden's
criticism of the Georgia law smacks of hypocrisy. ``They have
a point,'' says Dwayne Bensing, a voting-rights advocate with
Delaware's ACLU affiliate. ``The state is playing catch-up--
The State of Delaware--
in a lot of ways.''
The article goes on:
Delaware isn't an anomaly among Democratic strongholds, and
its example presents the president's party with an
uncomfortable reminder: Although Democrats like to call out
Republicans for trying to suppress voting, the states they
control in the Northeast make casting a ballot more difficult
than anywhere else.
I am going to read that again. I am going to read that again because
it is an issue that no one is talking about, and it really smacks of
hypocrisy when I see some of my colleagues down here making these great
arguments about Jim Crow 2.0 in Republican States.
Here it is again, from The Atlantic:
Delaware isn't an anomaly among Democrat strongholds--
Democratic State strongholds--
and its example presents the president's party with an
uncomfortable reminder. Although Democrats like to call out
Republicans for trying to suppress voting, the states they
control in the Northeast make casting a ballot more difficult
than anywhere else.
Then the article goes on to say:
Connecticut has no early voting at all--
Holy cow, my State has early voting. We have had it for years--
and New York's onerous rules force voters to change their
registration months in advance if they want to participate in
a party primary.
And, by the way, New York just rejected what Alaska has. Jim Crow 2.0
in New York? Who knows? Maybe, according to the President's logic.
The article goes on:
In Rhode Island, Democrats enacted a decade ago the kind of
photo-ID law that the [Democratic] party has labeled
``racist'' when drafted by Republicans.
Hmm, a little bit of hypocrisy there.
The article goes on:
[T]he State [Rhode Island] also requires voters to get the
signatures of not one but two witnesses when casting an
absentee ballot (only Alabama and North Carolina are
similarly strict).
The article goes on:
According to a new analysis released this week by the
nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research,
Delaware, Connecticut, and New York rank in the bottom third
of states in their access to early and mail-in balloting.
And, as I just said, New York just rejected it again. I really wonder
if the majority leader is going to come down and call his citizens Jim
Crow 2.0.
This is a very important issue, and here is the bottom line: Before
any of my Democratic colleagues come to the floor this week with their
insults, with their smug, offensive, inaccurate arguments about Jim
Crow 2.0 racist traders, mimicking the President of the United States
last week in Georgia, I want my colleagues to come and answer this
simple question--a very simple question: Why should we listen to you?
Why should any American take you seriously, when so many of you come
from States with the most restrictive voting laws in America?
I wonder if any of my colleagues are going to come down to the floor,
particularly those like the majority leader, who love to rant about Jim
Crow 2.0 when their States are leading the charge in America on
restrictive voting.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
____________________