[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S249-S251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               H.R. 5746

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I first want to thank my colleague 
from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell, for her passion for 
people and the rights of people to vote, and her willingness to 
actually go through the details of the groups outside of this Congress 
that feel so strongly about this, including businesses, as pointed out, 
that understand that you can't do business overseas--having just come 
back from Ukraine, from which I just arrived an hour ago--and uphold 
democracies overseas, if we are allowing our democracy to go to 
shambles by allowing voter suppression laws to pass, as they have in 
numerous States across the country.
  Just this week, we marked the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr., and, today, we are considering legislation that goes to the 
very heartbeat of the democracy--the freedom to vote--that so many have 
fought and died for.
  We are here because a flood of State laws to roll back voting has 
surged up since the 2020 elections, when in the 2020 elections, in the 
middle of a pandemic, more Americans cast a ballot than ever before. 
They were willing to take those risks, and the laws were changed in red 
States and blue States and purple States to allow them to do that.
  But now what do we see? A rollback. A rollback in the Presiding 
Officer's great State of Wisconsin. We see rollbacks attempted across 
the Nation in places like Montana, with same-day registration in place 
for 15 years. And 8,000 people took avail of it in the last election to 
either change their address or register that way.
  So then what happens? Well, say the Republican legislature in Montana 
says: Why don't we get rid of something we have had in place for 15 
years? Why don't we do that?
  Guess what that creates, my friends. Maximum confusion and ultimate 
voter suppression.
  With that core freedom of voting now at stake, it is on us to stand 
up and to take up the torch that Dr. King and so many brave Americans 
carried decades ago and acted to preserve the foundational right of our 
democracy. And while that may sound like an ambitious task, it is one 
within our reach. By passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, we 
can meet these challenges and turn back the tide.

  Today, I want to address a topic that has loomed large over this 
historic debate, and that has to do with the very rules of this 
Chamber.
  This week, every Member of the Senate will have a chance to cast a 
vote that will determine if this is a legislative body that will rise 
to meet a test. The test is participation and voting. The test is 
actually being able to take on the issues of our day.
  It won't be the first time. Indeed, four times already this Congress, 
our Republican colleagues have blocked us from even considering 
legislation to protect the freedom to vote. But we are here again this 
week. We are here because, to quote Ella Baker, a granddaughter of 
slaves from Virginia who worked alongside some of the great leaders of 
the civil rights movement, ``We who believe in freedom cannot rest.''
  So while much has been made of our colleagues who have not committed 
to join us in this effort to change the Senate rules, we must remain 
steadfast in the truth that the right to vote in this country is not 
negotiable. We must forge ahead.
  I want to start by responding to some of the points that have been 
raised as reasons not to move forward with legislation at this 
watershed moment, as reasons not to do what it takes when it comes to 
protecting this most sacred of rights--the right to vote.
  Some have argued that allowing voting rights legislation to pass the 
Senate without clearing a 60-vote threshold would be a mistake that 
would open the door to somehow leading to wild swings in Federal 
policy. I am trying to imagine this place ever being involved in such a 
thing given how slowly we go and how many people understandably want to 
make sure we are careful in how we pass laws, but that is one of the 
things that have been raised for why we need some kind of a 60-vote 
threshold, which, of course, is not in the Constitution. The words 
``filibuster'' and ``cloture'' are not in the Constitution. In fact, 
legislatures across this land, some of which do very good things, do 
not use a 60-vote threshold. In fact, democracies across the world do 
not use a 60-vote threshold.
  The truth is this: We have tried for months to persuade our 
Republican colleagues to join us in supporting legislation, to work 
with us, to debate it,

[[Page S250]]

but what they do is they throw a wrench into the process and then 
basically walk out that door and go home. We don't have that debate 
that allows us to have amendments and allows us to ultimately have a 
vote on the bill. It is cut off from a vote.
  When you look at the past when it comes to voting rights, it has been 
bipartisan not even that long ago. But this time--this time--even 
reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, something that has been law of the 
land and supported on a bipartisan basis, as the President of the 
United States pointed out when he was in Atlanta--this time, no. Only 
one Republican, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, was willing even to allow 
the John Lewis bill to come up for a vote.
  But if our colleagues across the aisle will not work with us, it does 
not mean--it cannot mean--that we should simply give up. A simple look 
at history makes that clear.
  As Representative Clyburn has noted in recent weeks, there have been 
moments in our history when this most fundamental of rights has not 
been extended or defended on a bipartisan basis; that is, the right to 
have these bills come up. He pointed to the 15th Amendment. That, as he 
said, was a single-party vote that gave Black people the right to vote. 
That fact does not make the 15th Amendment any less legitimate.
  I would also say to my colleagues that the real threat facing our 
country isn't too much legislation; it is the gridlock and the 
stalemate in which this Chamber is stuck.
  A number of us were just in Ukraine standing up for democracy, 
standing up for the right of people across the world to be able to 
debate issues and make decisions on the most pressing issues of this 
time. Now we are back here in this Chamber, and we have to have that 
opportunity as well.
  This misses another key point in the arguments made against changing 
the rules. When politicians actually have to vote on stuff, voters can 
hold them accountable for these votes.
  We know that the policies in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act 
enjoy strong support among the American people. They have been adopted 
in red, blue, and purple States.
  Look at places like Utah, where for years there has been mail-in 
balloting. Yet, in other States, sadly, it is really hard to do. In 
other States, you have to get a notary just to get an application or 
you have to get a witness just to get an application even if you have 
COVID and you are in a hospital. Yet, in many States--red, blue, 
purple--this is in place.
  We believe--those of us who support the Freedom to Vote Act--that in 
keeping with the Constitution that says Congress can make or alter the 
laws regarding Federal elections, that this should be the law of the 
land. It is constitutionally supported, and Americans, no matter what 
their ZIP Code, should have the right to vote in a safe way that is 
best for them.

  Arguing that Senate rules are more important than the right to vote 
ignores the very history of this Nation. As Senator Angus King has 
reminded us, in 1890, Henry Cabot Lodge introduced a bill to ensure 
African Americans in the South were not disenfranchised. The bill was 
passed in the House but was blocked by the Senate with a filibuster. 
Lodge argued that the Senate should get rid of the filibuster, saying:

       To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and 
     never vote is imbecile.

  I think that kind of says it all quite directly.
  The Senate chose not to change its rules, and due to repeated 
filibusters in the years that followed, Congress couldn't pass 
legislation to enforce the 15th Amendment until nearly 70 years later 
through the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
  We have also heard that allowing one party to insist on virtually 
unlimited debate so that you can't vote is an essential part of the 
Senate, but experts from both parties have said this isn't true.
  Marty Gold, a respected expert on Senate rules who worked for 
Republican Leader Howard Baker and was staff director of the Senate 
Rules Committee, has written:

       The possibility that a minority of Senators could hold 
     unlimited debate on a topic against the majority's will was 
     unknown [in] the first Senate.

  Those are his words.
  Others have argued that requiring a supermajority, as this filibuster 
does now, to pass legislation was an intentional effort to foster 
compromise, but, again, the historical record simply doesn't back that 
up.
  The Constitutional Convention heard but did not adopt a proposal to 
require a supermajority for legislation. The Framers explicitly decided 
to reserve supermajority requirements for things like constitutional 
amendments, treaties, and impeachment.
  To quote one of them, Benjamin Franklin wrote that a system where 
``the minority overpowers the majority'' would be ``contrary to the 
common practice of assemblies in all countries and ages.''
  Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison:

       It is my principle that the will of the majority should 
     always prevail.

  James Madison was a fierce defender of minority rights, but in 1834, 
even he wrote:

       The vital Principle of Republican Government is . . . the 
     will of the majority.''

  Listening to those words, does it really seem like the Framers of our 
Constitution envisioned a system where a minority of Senators could 
stand in the way of legislation and stop it altogether--stop the vote, 
stop the consideration, throw a wrench into the process, take it off 
the rails--and then just walk out the door and go home? That is not 
what they envisioned.
  I also want to be clear. Updating the Senate rules to meet the needs 
of this moment isn't some radical break with past precedence. 
Throughout the Senate's history, when faced with unrelenting 
obstruction from the minority, the majority has, in fact, changed the 
Senate rules to allow matters to conclude, to be voted on, not to hang 
in abeyance in perpetuity. In fact, since it was first established in 
1917, the cloture rule has been revised multiple times to make it 
easier to end debate and to force a vote.
  Now, for friends watching at home, this is what it means: A cloture 
motion is what allows Senators to bring something to a vote, and under 
the current rules, it takes 60 Senators to open debate or to pass a 
bill.
  Here are some examples of how the cloture rule has changed over time:
  In 1949, cloture was extended to cover all issues pending before the 
Senate, not just bills.
  In 1975, the vote threshold for cloture was reduced to three-fifths 
of all Senators.
  In 1979, total postcloture debate was limited to 100 hours, and then 
it was limited again to 30 hours in 1986.
  In the past decade, the cloture rule has been further reduced for 
various kinds of nominees, most recently by our Republican colleagues 
across the aisle. This isn't something from 100 years ago. This isn't 
something from before we had cars and people were arriving here on 
horseback. This just happened.
  In addition to changes to the cloture rule itself, the Senate has put 
in place exceptions to the rule. In fact, over time, the Senate has 
established over 160 processes and statutes that allow a final vote 
without requiring 60 votes for cloture to end debate; in other words, 
you get to a vote without the 60 votes.
  As a result, we have expedited procedures, including--get this--
reconciliation to pass spending and tax legislation; the Congressional 
Review Act to block regulations; disapproval of arms sales. I guess 
someone decided that was OK to do for less than 60 votes. Even 
approving compensation plans for commercial space accidents doesn't 
require 60 votes, my friends.

  But while the 60-vote threshold was carved up 160 times so Senators 
could pass things like tax cuts under President Trump, block 
regulations, and confirm Supreme Court Justices, when it comes to 
voting rights, we are told that tradition and comity mean that we 
should hug it tight--this old rule--throw voters under the Senate 
desks, and go home.
  It is no wonder that our Republican colleagues support for the 60-
vote threshold rings hollow when their priorities, such as tax cuts and 
a Supreme Court nominee, can be passed with a simple majority.
  Time and time again, the majority in the U.S. Senate has had to 
change the

[[Page S251]]

rules to help pass major legislation. As Senator Merkley has noted time 
and time again, bills we have passed after the majority has modified 
the rules include the Natural Gas Policy Act in 1977; funding for the 
Selective Service System in 1980; deficit reduction legislation in 
1985; a moratorium on listing new species under the Endangered Species 
Act in 1995; and a change made by the majority in 1996 to the 
reconciliation process, which paved the way for the 2001 and 2003 Bush 
tax cuts and the 2017 Trump tax cuts. When circumstances change, 
Senators have changed the rules time and time again.
  All of this history clearly shows that the Senate rules are not 
chiseled in stone. That is probably a good thing because the people out 
there need us to do our jobs. And maybe that is more important than 
some archaic rule that someone is now abusing. They are not an outside 
force, these rules, over which we have no control. They are our rules--
the Senators' rules, yes, but also the people's rules--written and 
changed over the years by Senators representing the people of this 
country, just like the ones sitting in this Chamber today.
  As we move forward, I want to make clear that I agree with my 
colleagues who have said that we must keep the history of this 
institution in mind. By the way, I just gave you the history of this 
institution--160 carve-outs; time and time again when the rules have 
changed. That is the true history of this institution.
  History plainly allows for just this type of action that our 
democracy now demands. If we acknowledge the stakes when it comes to 
protecting the freedom to vote, the cornerstone of our democracy, and 
we acknowledge the history of the rules of this body, I am left with a 
simple conclusion: We must update, change, and improve our rules to 
restore the Senate and meet the moment of our times.
  Our Nation was founded on the ideals of democracy, and we have seen 
for ourselves in this building how we can't afford to take that for 
granted. I certainly saw that this weekend in Ukraine. We cannot afford 
to take any democracy for granted.
  The world is watching us--watching to see how America is taking on 
the challenges of the 21st century, including the threats to our 
democracy. Around the globe, there are those who see weakness as an 
opportunity. They see weakness in our democracy as an opportunity for 
them. Those who are hoping that gridlock and paralysis are the defining 
features of America--they are out there, and you can imagine what world 
leaders I am thinking of right now.
  To put it simply, if we are going to effectively compete with the 
rest of the world, we need a Senate that can do more than just respond 
to crises. We are pretty good at that--tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, 
tsunamis, financial crises, pandemics. OK. We respond to that. But what 
about the long-term challenges that slowly but surely are eroding this 
democracy with voter suppression? There is so much at stake here. We 
must get this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the remarks of Senator Portman, the Senate recess until 6:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________