Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what is it about these nominees Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke that drives some of the Members on the other side of the aisle into a rage? Listen to how they describe them. The senior Senator from Texas describes Vanita Gupta as a political ``culture warrior,'' slandering and vilifying people. Then, of course, the junior Senator from Texas calls her an ``extreme partisan ideologue.'' ``Radical twins,'' he calls them. What is it about these two nominees that drives them into such a state of mind that they say these things about individuals seeking an opportunity to again serve our Federal Government? It is amazing to me that the junior Senator from Texas suggests that they are in the thrall of handlers. Handlers. If you heard the story of the lives of these two women and what they have overcome to be where they are today, the last thing in the world you would use is a reference to handlers. They have defied handlers all throughout their lives--sons of immigrants, daughters of immigrants. Like so many of them, they know they have to work hard to prove themselves, and they have done it time and again. Vanita Gupta. Can you picture that moment when the civil rights organizations said to Vanita Gupta: We want you to go to Tulia, TX, because something has happened there that looks like a terrible miscarriage of justice. Forty people have been arrested for drug crimes in Tulia, TX, and we want you to go down there, even though they are in jail and they have been convicted, and defend them and try to find a way that they will be released. That is exactly what Vanita Gupta did. The net result was that they were not only released, but the lawman who had supposedly found them guilty was the one who was discredited and dishonored when it was over, and the Texas Governor--the Republican Texas Governor--acknowledged it with a pardon of these individuals and paying them millions of dollars for what they had lived through. Who led that charge? Vanita Gupta. Was she waiting for a message from a handler? No. She showed extraordinary courage there and throughout her life as an attorney fighting for the civil rights of others and as an attorney representing the Government of the United States of America and the Department of Justice. When I listen to efforts to discredit her and her professionalism, I think, you haven't read the story. You would know in a second she doesn't wait to hear from a handler. She never has. She has shown exceptional courage and professionalism every step of the way. Kristen Clarke, the same. Born in an area of New York City that I am sure Senator Schumer knows, in a public tenement type of building, she overcame all the odds. She graduated from law school and served in the Department of Justice. When the junior Senator from Texas comes and refers to Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke as ``radical twins,'' zealots, ideologues, it is disgusting. It is terrible. It is a terrible reference to a fine life that each of them has lived. And this notion that somehow they have fooled the Fraternal Order of Police into believing that they really do love police, when, in fact, as the Republicans argue, they just want to take all their money away-- we know better. The fact that Vanita Gupta has the endorsement of every major law enforcement organization puts to rest some of the charges they have made against her. I can't believe what they are saying about these two nominees, but I think that a majority of the Senate is ultimately going to judge that they are ready to serve this country again and should, and the Department of Justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 14, S. 400.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, April 15; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed; that upon conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 13, S. 937; finally, that at 12 noon, all postcloture time be considered expired and the motion to proceed to S. 937 be agreed to.

Mr. DURBIN. For the information of Senators, we expect the first rollcall vote at approximately 12 noon on Thursday.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 148.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, over the past several weeks, all eyes have been on Georgia and the State legislation that is being considered on voting rights of Georgia's citizens. In response to the new voting restrictions the State's Governor signed into law last month, American leaders from many walks of life responded. It has really brought the issue of voter suppression to the forefront at the beginning of a national debate. We are told that hundreds--hundreds--of bill changes and amendments are being offered in State legislatures across the country, all modeled after the Georgia goal, the Georgia outline, of reducing the opportunity to vote in America. If you have a functioning democracy where people actually count votes, the number of people who show up is as important as how they vote, and I think the people in Georgia have realized that with this new approach they are taking. There has been a broad condemnation of the Georgia voting law, and it has inspired a display of unity in support of our fundamental right to vote across America. It seems that some of my Republican colleagues would rather silence the law's critics than address the very real issues that the law creates. Over the recess, the minority leader, Senator McConnell, issued a warning to the leaders of corporations who were voicing their opposition to the Georgia law. He said to them: You stay out of politics. He apparently did not say ``Keep your money out of politics'' because he has been a fan of the Citizens United decision, which gives those same corporations not only the opportunity but the experience of spending millions of dollars in every election cycle to affect the outcome. I appreciate the Republican leader's newfound passion for addressing the influence of big corporations, but rather than silencing leaders in the private sector from speaking their minds, which is their constitutional right, I would invite my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in taking more meaningful steps to protect our political system from corporate overreach. They can join us if they wish in supporting the For the People Act, the democracy defense bill. The For the People Act would limit the influence of dark money and special interests in our politics, require big money contributors and special interests to actually drop the veil and show us who they are, and tighten the rules that affect the super PACs. It is a commonsense solution for protecting every American's First Amendment right to free speech, and it would level the playing field of the political system so that everybody has an equal say. I would also invite my Republican colleagues to revive the bipartisan spirit of the Voting Rights Act. I can remember a time when renewal of the Voting Rights Act was a virtually unanimous bipartisan effort. Unfortunately, that changed, and the Supreme Court decision didn't make it any easier. So we are trying with the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to return to the days of bipartisanship in addressing the issue of race and politics. It is especially important given the scourge of voter suppression laws we have seen in State legislatures across the country, Georgia being the most recent example. This new Georgia law isn't new at all. It emerges from the playbook that is over 120 years old. It goes all the way back to the 1890s, when Reconstruction was followed by the Jim Crow era in the South, with the creation of something known as the Mississippi Plan. Historian Dr. Carol Anderson, who teaches at Emory University, has referred to the Mississippi Plan, a template of State law, as ``a dizzying array of poll taxes, literacy tests, understanding clauses, newfangled voter registration rules, and `good character' clauses--all intentionally racially discriminatory but dressed up in the genteel garb of bringing `integrity' back to the voting booth.'' A politician who sought to replicate the Mississippi Plan in the State of Virginia noted that their goal--he was very blunt in what he said--noted their goal was to ``[eliminate] every [Black] voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.'' Today's voter restrictions might not involve poll taxes, literacy tests, or counting the number of beans in a jar, but like the laws passed during the Jim Crow era, Georgia's new voting law is a deliberate effort to suppress voters, particularly voters of color. There is no other way to describe it when the law includes provisions that make it harder for Georgians to vote. Let me give you some examples. I read an article last week in the New York Times, April 11. Nick Corasaniti and Reid Epstein did an analysis, page by page, of what the Georgia law would do, and it was pretty clear why they did it. President Biden won Georgia by just 11,779 votes-- 11,779--out of 5 million. The new law that has been proposed and has been signed by the Governor of Georgia will curtail ballot access for voters in booming urban and suburban counties, home to many Democratic voters. Another provision makes it a crime--a crime--to offer water to voters waiting in line. Of course, those waiting in line tend to be in densely populated communities and largely minority communities. Some of the things that the Georgia law will do: Voters will now have less time to request absentee ballots. Georgia has cut by more than half the period during which voters can request an absentee ballot, from . . . six months . . . to less than three. This will most certainly reduce the number of people [seeking] absentee ballots and the number of people who actually vote. In the last Presidential election-- And this is the key sentence that defines the goal of the Georgia legislation. In the last Presidential election, 1.3 million Georgians-- about 26 percent of the state's electorate--voted with absentee ballots. Of those who returned absentee ballots last year in 2020, 65 percent voted for [Joe] Biden and 34 percent chose Donald J. Trump. Do you understand why the Republican legislature wants to put an end to the absentee ballot? The shorter window will limit opportunities for get-out- the-vote efforts and put strain on new local election boards, which . . . have less time to process ballots. There are strict new ID requirements for absentee ballots. Previously, Georgia law required voters to simply sign their absentee ballot applications. Now they . . . have to provide a number from a driver's license or an equivalent state-issued identification. This is virtually certain to limit access. It is now illegal [under the new Georgia law] for election officials to mail out absentee ballot applications to all voters. When the coronavirus pandemic hit last year, Georgia's [Republican] secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, . . . mailed absentee ballot applications to every registered voter in the state ahead of its June primary. This led to absentee voting by record numbers of Georgians. When Mr. Raffensperger didn't mail applications again for the general election, several local government agencies did so, particularly in Georgia's large urban counties. This is a move that is now being made illegal by the law created by the legislature and signed by Governor Kemp. With the loss of automatically mailed applications, some voters will invariably not request a ballot, since the application served as a reminder to people that were eligible to vote. Keep in mind, it wasn't the ballot that was sent without solicitation; it was an application that had to be returned by the voter before they actually received the ballot. It was a reminder, one that the Georgia legislature would like to drop Speaking of dropping, ``drop boxes still exist for absentee ballots . . . but barely.'' For the 2020 election in Georgia, there were 94 drop boxes across the four counties that make up the core of metropolitan Atlanta: Fulton, DeKalb-- They pronounce it ``DeKab''; we call it ``DeKalb.'' --and Gwinnett. The new law limits the same 4 counties to a total of 23 drop boxes, from 94 to 23. And it won't just be fewer drop boxes to deposit your ballot. ``Instead of 24-hour access outdoors, the boxes [are] placed indoors at government buildings and early-voting sites and will thus be unavailable for voters to drop off their ballots'' in the evening and nonbusiness hours, which means more reliance on mail and the uncertainty of that. With mobile voting centers--as they say in the New York Times, think about ``an RV where you can vote''--``more than 11,200 people voted at the two vehicles at Fulton County in the last election.'' These vehicles traversed the county during voting periods, effectively bringing polling sites to people. ``Georgia has now outlawed this practice.'' Under the Georgia law, early voting has expanded at a lot of small counties but not the most populous ones. The strict rules will affect Georgians who actually work traditional hours for a living. They will have less flexible schedules and fewer opportunities to vote. I spoke to you about the single greatest outrage: Offering food and water for voters waiting in line now risks [criminal] misdemeanor charges. Long lines for voting in Georgia are an unfortunate reality, and are often found in the poor, densely populated communities that tend to vote Democratic. During the primary election last June, when temperatures hovered above 80 degrees with high humidity, multiple voting locations across the State had lines in which voters waited more than two hours. Now they will be denied access to water and food. If you go to the wrong polling place [under the new Georgia law], it will be . . . harder to vote. It put strict requirements there. If election problems arise, a common occurrence, it is now more difficult [even in court] to extend voting hours. With a mix of changes to vote-counting, high-turnout elections will probably mean long, long waits for results. And we remember what happened last year when, during that period of calculating, President Trump went to town with all sorts of bizarre theories rejected by scores of courts as to voter fraud that never was found. Election officials can no longer accept third-party funding, (a measure that nods to rightwing conspiracy theories) [that President Trump is also peddling]. With an eye toward voter fraud, the state attorney general [manages] an election hotline. The Republican-controlled legislature has more control over State Election Board. The secretary of state, for his audacity in challenging Trump's vote fraud theories, has been officially removed as a voting member of the State election board by the legislature in Georgia. The GOP-led legislature is empowered to suspend county election officials. The bottom line is this: The Georgians didn't waste any time taking a look at the voting results where they lost two Senate seats for the first time in history and decided that they had to change the rules. Too many voters showed up, the wrong voters, so they decided to change the rules and make it more difficult for those, particularly minority, voters who wanted to come and express themselves by the right to vote. So the question now is, What are we going to do about it? Well, the a local chamber of commerce, Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines, and others have made it clear that this is an outrage. It is one that we shouldn't countenance or accept in the 21st century. This, unfortunately, was an exercise in the 19th century to reenslave African Americans after the Civil War. Sadly, vestiges of that continued, right up until the 1960s when the new Civil Rights Act ended up banning some of the most outrageous conduct that came out of the Jim Crow era. Now the Republican Party nationally, the Georgia Republican Party, the Governor, and the legislature have decided to return to those days. What a sad commentary it is on Mr. Lincoln's Republican Party. It was embarrassing enough as a Democrat to realize that the earliest stages of Jim Crow were created, conceived, and enforced by the Democrats of their day. For the Republicans, they fought that effort, as they should, in the name of Lincoln and what he brought to their party nationally. Now, today, the tables have turned 180 degrees. It is the Democrats who are trying to bring to the public's attention what is happening in Georgia and in other States. It is sad that the Republicans have decided that the only way to win an election is to control the vote, that their ideas can't be sold anymore to voters across this country.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today marks the first day of Ramadan. For the second year in a row, Muslims around the world will be celebrating Islam's holiest month in the midst of this pandemic. Traditionally, Ramadan is an opportunity for families to gather in prayer and break bread together after a day-long fast, but I know many people of the Muslim faith will not have that opportunity this year. It is a painful reminder of all the sacrifices all of us have been called to make since the beginning of this pandemic. For all of those who observe, may this holy month be a time of peace for you and your loved ones, and I hope you will be able to break bread together soon.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.