-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source