August 4, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 138 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S4731-S4735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. Duckworth):
  S. 4407. A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
Education Act of 2006 to give the Department of Education the authority 
to award competitive grants to eligible entities to establish, expand, 
or support school-based mentoring programs to assist at-risk students 
in middle school and high school in developing cognitive and social-
emotional skills to prepare them for success in high school, 
postsecondary education, and the workforce; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 4407

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mentoring to Succeed Act of 
     2020''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to make assistance available for 
     school-based mentoring programs for at-risk students in order 
     to--
       (1) establish, expand, or support school-based mentoring 
     programs;
       (2) assist at-risk students in middle school and high 
     school in developing cognitive and social-emotional skills; 
     and
       (3) prepare such at-risk students for success in high 
     school, postsecondary education, and the workforce.

     SEC. 3. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING PROGRAM.

       Part C of title I of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 
     Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2351 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 136. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) At-risk student.--The term `at-risk student' means a 
     student who--
       ``(A) is failing academically or at risk of dropping out of 
     school;
       ``(B) is pregnant or a parent;
       ``(C) is a gang member;
       ``(D) is a child or youth in foster care or a youth who has 
     been emancipated from foster care, but is still enrolled in 
     high school;
       ``(E) is or has recently been a homeless child or youth;
       ``(F) is chronically absent;
       ``(G) has changed schools 3 or more times in the past 6 
     months;
       ``(H) has come in contact with the juvenile justice system 
     in the past;
       ``(I) has a history of multiple suspensions or disciplinary 
     actions;
       ``(J) is an English learner;
       ``(K) has one or both parents incarcerated;
       ``(L) has experienced one or more adverse childhood 
     experiences, traumatic events, or toxic stressors, as 
     assessed through an evidence-based screening;

[[Page S4732]]

       ``(M) lives in a high-poverty area with a high rate of 
     community violence;
       ``(N) has a disability; or
       ``(O) shows signs of alcohol or drug misuse or abuse or has 
     a parent or guardian who is struggling with substance abuse.
       ``(2) Disability.--The term `disability' has the meaning 
     given the term for purposes of section 602(3) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1401(3)).
       ``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity'--
       ``(A) means a high-need local educational agency, high-need 
     school, or local government entity; and
       ``(B) may include a partnership between an entity described 
     in subparagraph (A) and a nonprofit, community-based, or 
     faith-based organization, or institution of higher education.
       ``(4) English learner.--The term `English learner' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 8101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       ``(5) Foster care.--The term `foster care' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 1355.20 of title 45, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       ``(6) High-need local educational agency.--The term `high-
     need local educational agency' means a local educational 
     agency that serves at least one high-need school.
       ``(7) High-need school.--The term `high-need school' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 2211(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6631(b)).
       ``(8) Homeless children and youths.--The term `homeless 
     children and youths' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 11434a).
       ``(9) School-based mentoring.--The term `school-based 
     mentoring' means a structured, managed, evidenced-based 
     program conducted in partnership with teachers, 
     administrators, school psychologists, school social workers 
     or counselors, and other school staff, in which at-risk 
     students are appropriately matched with screened and trained 
     professional or volunteer mentors who provide guidance, 
     support, and encouragement, involving meetings, group-based 
     sessions, and educational and workforce-related activities on 
     a regular basis to prepare at-risk students for success in 
     high school, postsecondary education, and the workforce.
       ``(b) School-based Mentoring Competitive Grant Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants on a 
     competitive basis to eligible entities to establish, expand, 
     or support school-based mentoring programs that--
       ``(A) are designed to assist at-risk students in high-need 
     schools in developing cognitive skills and promoting social-
     emotional learning to prepare them for success in high 
     school, postsecondary education, and the workforce by linking 
     them with mentors who--
       ``(i) have received mentor training, including on trauma-
     informed practices, youth engagement, cultural competency, 
     and social-emotional learning; and
       ``(ii) have been screened using appropriate reference 
     checks and criminal background checks;
       ``(B) provide coaching and technical assistance to mentors 
     in each such mentoring program;
       ``(C) provide at-risk students with a positive relationship 
     with a skilled adult offering support and guidance;
       ``(D) improve the academic achievement of at-risk students;
       ``(E) foster positive relationships between at-risk 
     students and their peers, teachers, other adults, and family 
     members;
       ``(F) reduce dropout rates and absenteeism and improve 
     school engagement of at-risk students and their families;
       ``(G) reduce juvenile justice involvement of at-risk 
     students;
       ``(H) develop the cognitive and social-emotional skills of 
     at-risk students;
       ``(I) develop the workforce readiness skills of at-risk 
     students by exploring paths to employment, including 
     encouraging students with disabilities to explore transition 
     services;
       ``(J) encourage at-risk students to participate in 
     community service activities; and
       ``(K) encourage at-risk students to set goals and plan for 
     their futures, including encouraging such students to make 
     plans and identify goals for postsecondary education and the 
     workforce.
       ``(2) Duration.--The Secretary shall award grants under 
     this section for a period not to exceed 5 years.
       ``(3) Application.--To receive a grant under this section, 
     an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application that includes--
       ``(A) a needs assessment that includes baseline data on the 
     measures described in paragraph (6)(A)(ii); and
       ``(B) a plan to meet the requirements of paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Priority.--In selecting grant recipients, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to applicants that--
       ``(A) serve children and youth with the greatest need 
     living in high-poverty, high-crime areas, rural areas, or who 
     attend schools with high rates of community violence;
       ``(B) provide at-risk students with opportunities for 
     postsecondary education preparation and career development, 
     including--
       ``(i) job training, professional development, work 
     shadowing, internships, networking, resume writing and 
     review, interview preparation, transition services for 
     students with disabilities, application assistance and visits 
     to institutions of higher education, and leadership 
     development through community service; and
       ``(ii) partnerships with the private sector and local 
     businesses to provide internship and career exploration 
     activities and resources; and
       ``(C) seek to provide match lengths between at-risk 
     students and mentors for at least 1 academic year.
       ``(5) Use of funds.--An eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under this section may use such funds to--
       ``(A) develop and carry out regular training for mentors, 
     including on--
       ``(i) the impact of adverse childhood experiences;
       ``(ii) trauma-informed practices and interventions;
       ``(iii) supporting homeless children and youths;
       ``(iv) supporting children and youth in foster care or 
     youth who have been emancipated from foster care, but are 
     still enrolled in high school;
       ``(v) cultural competency;
       ``(vi) meeting all appropriate privacy and confidentiality 
     requirements for students, including students in foster care;
       ``(vii) working in coordination with a public school 
     system;
       ``(viii) positive youth development and engagement 
     practices; and
       ``(ix) disability inclusion practices to ensure access and 
     participation by students with disabilities;
       ``(B) recruit, screen, match, and train mentors;
       ``(C) hire staff to perform or support the objectives of 
     the school-based mentoring program;
       ``(D) provide inclusive and accessible youth engagement 
     activities, such as--
       ``(i) enrichment field trips to cultural destinations; and
       ``(ii) career awareness activities, including job site 
     visits, informational interviews, resume writing, interview 
     preparation, and networking; and
       ``(iii) academic or postsecondary education preparation 
     activities, including trade or vocational school visits, 
     visits to institutions of higher education, and assistance in 
     applying to institutions of higher education; and
       ``(E) conduct program evaluation, including by acquiring 
     and analyzing the data described under paragraph (6).
       ``(6) Reporting requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the end of 
     each academic year during the grant period, an eligible 
     entity receiving a grant under this section shall submit to 
     the Secretary a report that includes--
       ``(i) the number of students who participated in the 
     school-based mentoring program that was funded in whole or in 
     part with the grant funds;
       ``(ii) data on the academic achievement, dropout rates, 
     truancy, absenteeism, outcomes of arrests for violent crime, 
     summer employment, and postsecondary education enrollment of 
     students in the program;
       ``(iii) the number of group sessions and number of one-to-
     one contacts between students in the program and their 
     mentors;
       ``(iv) the average attendance of students enrolled in the 
     program;
       ``(v) the number of students with disabilities connected to 
     transition services;
       ``(vi) data on social-emotional development of students as 
     assessed with a validated social-emotional assessment tool; 
     and
       ``(vii) any other information that the Secretary may 
     require to evaluate the success of the school-based mentoring 
     program.
       ``(B) Student privacy.--An eligible entity shall ensure 
     that the report submitted under subparagraph (A) is prepared 
     in a manner that protects the privacy rights of each student 
     in accordance with section 444 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (commonly referred to as the `Family 
     Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974') (20 U.S.C. 
     1232g).
       ``(7) Mentoring resources and community service 
     coordination.--
       ``(A) Best practices.--The Secretary shall work with the 
     Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to--
       ``(i) refer grantees under this section to the National 
     Mentoring Resource Center to obtain resources on best 
     practices and research related to mentoring and to request 
     no-cost training and technical assistance; and
       ``(ii) provide grantees under this section with information 
     to promote positive youth development, including transitional 
     services for at-risk students returning from correctional 
     facilities, and transition services for students with 
     disabilities.
       ``(B) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
     with the Corporation for National and Community Service, 
     including through entering into an interagency agreement or a 
     memorandum of understanding, to provide technical assistance 
     and other resources to support grantees under this section as 
     they provide mentoring and community service-related 
     activities for at-risk students.
       ``(c) Authorization of Funds.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2025.''.

     SEC. 4. INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES STUDY ON SCHOOL-BASED 
                   MENTORING PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Education, acting through 
     the Director of the

[[Page S4733]]

     Institute of Education Sciences, shall conduct a study to--
       (1) identify successful school-based mentoring programs and 
     effective strategies for administering and monitoring such 
     programs;
       (2) evaluate the role of mentors in promoting cognitive 
     development and social-emotional learning to enhance academic 
     achievement and to improve workforce readiness; and
       (3) evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program under 
     section 136 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006, as added by section 3, on student 
     academic outcomes and youth career development.
       (b) Timing.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education, acting 
     through the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, 
     shall submit the results of the study to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Daines):
  S. 4431. A bill to increase wildfire preparedness and response 
throughout the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of the 
bipartisan Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020, a bill 
that Senator Daines and I are introducing today to protect our 
constituents from the increasing threat of catastrophic wildfires.
  As a result of climate change, California and other Western States 
are experiencing a growing crisis. Over my 27 years in the Senate, I 
have witnessed dozens of massive wildfires. But the level of 
destruction we have seen in recent years and the transformation of 
wildfire from a seasonal phenomenon into a year-round threat require 
bold, new action. Our bill would do just that by giving Federal, State, 
and local governments new tools to better manage wildfires and protect 
communities.
  While California has always had dangerous wildfires, the particularly 
devastating fires in 2017 and 2018 were a wake-up call and a harsh 
example of the consequences of inaction on climate change. The latest 
National Climate Assessment found that, over the past three decades, 
the number of acres burned in the Western United States is double what 
would have burned if the climate weren't changing. Nowhere is this 
being felt more than in California.
  The 2018 Camp Fire killed 86 people in town of Paradise and destroyed 
15,000 homes. That fire spread as fast as 80 acres a minute according 
to some estimates. After the 2017 Tubbs Fire, I visited the Coffey Park 
subdivision of Santa Rosa, which was destroyed when wildfire swept 
through Napa and Sonoma. The devastation was unlike anything I have 
ever seen.
  According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 
statistics, 10 of the 20 most destructive wildfires in California state 
history have occurred in just the last 5 years and 2018 was the most 
destructive wildfire season in recorded California history: nearly 2 
million acres burned in our State, displacing hundreds of thousands and 
leading to billions of dollars of damage.
  These problems will only grow worse as temperatures continue to rise 
as a result of climate change. But we can't simply wait for the world 
to roll back emissions to address our wildfire problem. Preparing for 
these challenges will require an all-of-the-above approach utilizing 
the latest science, even if some solutions aren't politically popular.
  There are more than 150 million dead trees in California's forests, 
the result of both the historic drought and bark beetle populations 
that are thriving as temperatures warm. A single spark in the middle of 
those dead trees can lead to an inferno. And while 60 percent of the 
forestland in California is owned by the Federal Government, fires 
don't stop at the borders between federal, state, and private land, so 
any action must be coordinated.
  I have joined California leaders and environmentalists in opposing 
the wholesale clearing of forests. There is a growing consensus around 
what appropriate forest management actions consist of, and I am 
encouraged by cooperative efforts such as the Tahoe-Central Sierra 
Initiative.
  We can and should increase the use of firebreaks to stop massive 
wildfires from spreading into communities, and we can identify 
landscapes that are overgrown and restore resilience to our forests. 
But we must do it in a smart and sustainable way.
  We should also continue to expand commercial markets for timber and 
wood products. Biomass energy generation would not only help remove 
overgrowth from the forests but would also provide energy for 
California homes and businesses.
  We should increase our use of advanced detection systems to identify 
outbreaks sooner, and invest in safer power transmission lines and 
other methods to harden infrastructure. While California has 
requirements for defensible space around at-risk homes, incentives 
should be provided for homeowners to use fire-safe building materials. 
The Federal Government should also increase support for outreach 
efforts, so that risks and mitigation strategies are communicated to 
vulnerable individuals and communities.
  This is why I am introducing The Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety 
Act of 2020. Our bill would protect communities by reducing wildfire 
risk in Federal forests, getting the private sector more involved in 
addressing wildfire risk, improving best practices for addressing 
wildfire, and creating more resilient communities and energy grids.
  The bill would authorize the Forest Service to undertake three 
priority wildfire mitigation projects that would be limited to 75,000 
acres in size, would allow for expedited environmental reviews 
regarding the installation of fuel breaks near existing roads, trails, 
transmission lines and pipelines, and would include a technical fix to 
ensure that the Forest Service consults with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service when new public peer-reviewed research demonstrates potential 
harm to threatened or endangered species. The bill would also codify an 
existing administrative practice that allows the Forest Service to 
expedite hazardous fuel removal projects in emergency situations where 
it is immediately necessary to protect life, property, or natural and 
cultural resources.
  The bill also makes important changes to stimulate the private market 
for low-value timber that poses a wildfire danger. The bill would 
establish a new $100 million biomass infrastructure program to provide 
grant funding to build biomass facilities near forests that are at risk 
of wildfire and to offset the cost of transporting dead and dying trees 
out of high-hazard fire zones. The bill would also lift the current 
export ban on unprocessed timber from federal lands in the west for 
trees that are dead, dying, or if there is no demand in the United 
States. These measures are necessary to ensure that we can mitigate 
wildfire in a commercially viable way, and not just through continued 
government funding.
  In terms of utilizing the latest science and techniques, the bill 
would also expedite permitting for the installation of wildfire 
detection equipment such as sensors, cameras, and other relevant 
equipment and expand the use of satellite data to assist wildfire 
response. The bill would also establish a new prescribed fire center to 
coordinate research and training of foresters and forest managers in 
the latest methods and innovations in prescribed fire practices to 
reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fires and improve the health of 
forests.
  Given the generational shortage of workers in the forest management 
field, the bill would authorize a new workforce development program to 
assist in developing a career training pipeline for forestry workers.
  Lastly, the bill would creating more resilient communities and energy 
grids by expanding the Energy Department's weatherization program to 
allow for the retrofit of homes to make them more resilient to wildfire 
through the use of fire-resistant building materials and other methods, 
and by establishing a new $100 million grant program to help critical 
facilities like hospitals and police stations become more energy 
efficient and better adapted to function during power shutoffs. The new 
program would also provide funding for the expanded use of distributed 
energy systems, including microgrids. Finally, the bill would allow 
FEMA hazard mitigation funding to be used for the installation of fire-
resistant wires and infrastructure as well as for the undergrounding of 
wires.
  It is important to be realistic about the threat we face. There have 
always

[[Page S4734]]

been wildfires in the West, and there always will be. But we must face 
the reality that climate change and rising temperatures will mean more 
risk of wildfires. We can and should prepare for this future beginning 
today. That is why we have introduced this new bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Merkley, 
        Ms. Hirono, Mr. Markey, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Blumenthal):
  S.J. Res. 75. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to the fundamental right to 
vote; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the days since we lost our colleague 
Congressman  John Lewis, many of us have come to the floor to talk 
about his extraordinary courage and tenacity.
  At the age of 25--25--he joined 600 civil rights activists to march 
across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, in pursuit of the right 
to vote. We have talked about how that day became known as Bloody 
Sunday, after John and the other courageous marchers were met with 
brutal beatings from Alabama State troopers, and how, in the days that 
followed, President Lyndon B. Johnson called on Congress to pass the 
Voting Rights Act.
  It was 55 years ago this week that President Johnson sat at a desk in 
the President's Room right off this Chamber, a room that we walk by 
many times each week, and signed the Voting Rights Act into law. He 
noted at the signing ceremony:

       [L]ast March, with the outrage of Selma still fresh, I came 
     down to this Capitol one evening and asked Congress and the 
     people for swift and for sweeping action to guarantee to 
     every man and woman the right to vote. In less than 48 hours, 
     I sent the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Congress. In little 
     more than 4 months the Congress, with overwhelming 
     majorities, enacted one of the most monumental laws in the 
     history of American freedom.

  Those were the words of Lyndon Johnson. He signed the Voting Rights 
Act in 1965.
  Well, we have made significant progress since that day, thanks to 
great men like John Lewis, who marched to enact the Voting Rights Act, 
and the advocates and litigators who battled for decades to enforce it.
  But there is a grim reality. Insidious voter suppression efforts 
still continue in America today. These efforts may not seem as obvious 
as the old-school poll taxes and literacy tests. But make no mistake. 
They are aimed at denying the fundamental right to vote, and all too 
often they are successful.
  When I was chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, I decided to travel to 
the States of Florida and Ohio for public hearings to speak to 
officials and experts on the ground and to determine why those States, 
through their legislatures, were passing laws--what I considered 
burdensome laws, such as reducing opportunities for early voting. Why 
were they making it harder to vote in Ohio and Florida?
  In both States I asked witnesses, under oath, what evidence of 
widespread voter fraud prompted these laws that made it more difficult 
for people to vote and limited the time when they could vote. The 
answer was simple. Under oath, what was the evidence of fraud? There 
was no evidence of fraud.
  It turned out that there were a handful of election fraud cases here 
and there, rarely prosecuted, and that is it.
  In contrast to the mere specter of widespread voter fraud, we learned 
that these voter suppression laws really had consequences. We heard 
over and over that restrictive voting laws have a disproportionate 
impact on whom? Low income voters, Black voters, Brown voters, young 
voters, elderly, vulnerable voting populations.
  When you make it harder to vote, it is tougher for these people to 
show up and vote. Someone knew that.
  After the hearings, we learned more about the real reason behind 
those laws. According to news reports, Republican consultants and 
former officials admitted after the 2012 election that the Florida law 
discussed at my hearing was literally designed to suppress the vote, 
particularly among those leaning toward the Democratic column.
  A year later, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder. In a 5-to-4 vote, the divided Court struck down the 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act that required certain jurisdictions 
to preclear any changes in their voting laws with the Department of 
Justice.
  The decision effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in 
the aftermath, several State legislatures pushed through discriminatory 
restrictions on voting that previously would have required approval by 
the Justice Department ahead of time.
  As an example, in North Carolina the legislature enacted a massive 
voter suppression bill, including a strict photo ID requirement, early 
voting cutbacks, and the elimination of same-day registration, out-of-
precinct voting, and preregistration for teenagers who were about to 
turn 18 before an election.
  What did a three-judge Federal panel have to say about this North 
Carolina law? They said ``it targeted African Americans with almost 
surgical precision'' and ``enacted the law with discriminatory 
intent.''
  Those are unequivocal words. Despite all the press releases to the 
contrary, the Court knew exactly what was going on in North Carolina. 
They were trying to stop African-American voters in that State from 
being counted.
  Unfortunately, litigation targeting these voter suppression efforts 
has faced an increasingly uphill battle, as President Trump has packed 
the Federal courts with partisan, rightwing judges, including several 
with appalling records on voting rights.
  And though the Supreme Court continues to state that the right to 
vote is both ``fundamental'' and ``preservative of other basic civil 
and political rights,'' the Court has also continued to permit broad 
assaults on America's access to the ballot box.
  Let me give you an example. In April, the Court forced thousands of 
Wisconsin primary voters in April of this year to choose between their 
health and exercising their right to vote in the middle of a COVID-19 
pandemic. The Court refused to extend the deadline for returning 
absentee ballots, despite the public health national emergency we face.
  A State official in Wisconsin recently said that at least 71 people 
were infected with COVID-19 after voting in person or working at the 
polls during that primary election.
  In June, the Supreme Court turned down a request to reinstate a Texas 
district court judge's order which would have ensured that all voters 
in the State could ask to vote by mail, in light of the pandemic.
  And just last month, the same Court refused to lift a stay in Florida 
that will prevent hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible 
Floridians from voting in this month's primary election, simply because 
they can't pay the fines and fees imposed on them long ago as part of a 
criminal sentence.
  What did Justice Sotomayor say in her dissent about this Florida 
case? ``This court's inaction continues a trend of condoning 
disfranchisement.''
  Well, it is time for this to end. I am introducing today a joint 
resolution. I don't do this lightly.
  In the time that I have served in Congress, I believe that this is 
only the second time that I have proposed an amendment to this 
Constitution.
  I believe, at least personally, that I am humbled by this document. I 
know it was far from perfect when written. We have learned that over 
the years with all the amendments and the history that has followed. 
But I have never thought myself worthy to add words to that document. 
One other time, on abolishing the electoral college, I had a bipartisan 
measure that I offered. But this is only the second time I have done 
it.
  This joint resolution would create and enshrine an explicit, 
individual right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, and protect all 
Americans who seek to exercise this fundamental right.
  Specifically, the amendment would provide an affirmative right to 
vote for every American citizen of legal voting age at any public 
election held in the jurisdiction in which they reside.
  It would also require that any efforts to limit the fundamental right 
to vote would be subject to the strictest level of review in the 
courts.
  Additionally, it would ensure that States could no longer rely on 
section

[[Page S4735]]

2 of the 14th Amendment to prevent Americans from voting due to an 
earlier criminal conviction.
  Finally, the amendment would provide that Congress has the 
irrefutable authority to protect the right to vote through legislation.
  If ratified, this constitutional amendment would protect against 
nefarious election administration changes that lead to long lines and 
people beating on doors, trying to get in to vote. These long lines 
have reduced voter turnout on election day. How in the world can we be 
a stronger nation if fewer people participate in the most important 
part of democracy?
  It would protect against photo identification requirements that 
disproportionately harm low-income voters and African Americans and 
Hispanics.
  Black lives matter. Brown lives matter. American lives matter. And 
when it comes to voting, this insidious effort to undermine the 
opportunity for these people to vote has to be called out for what it 
is.
  It would also provide a path to end discriminatory criminal 
disfranchisement laws that are a relic of the Jim Crow era and yet 
continue to strip millions of citizens of their fundamental right to 
participate in our democracy.
  Some may ask why we should pursue this amendment, when there are 
clearer, perhaps easier, steps that Congress can take right now to 
protect voting rights under its existing constitutional authority
  Let me give you an example. The Senate can quickly pass the  John 
Lewis Voting Rights Act amendment, which the House passed last year, 
but that would rely on the decision by Senator McConnell to actually 
let the Senate vote on a measure coming over from the House. There is 
little hope that is going to happen.
  Given the ongoing ruthless assault on voting rights in America, it is 
clear that additional tools are necessary to push back against 
widespread voter suppression. I recognize that amending the 
Constitution is no small matter. I am well aware that introducing this 
amendment today is not going to lead to any immediate change, but I 
also believe that this moment represents the next step in a movement--a 
movement in America that will ultimately lead to a ratification of this 
amendment.
  I am going to work with my colleagues and constituents to build 
support. I will ask opponents as to why they believe that fundamental 
right, preservative of all other rights in America, should not be 
affirmatively granted to the American people and literally enshrined in 
the United States Constitution--the right to vote. I plan to work with 
grassroots organizations who are fighting for their voting rights to be 
restored.
  I am going to work with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, who 
has led this effort in the House, and I plan to work with civil rights 
leaders, including an old friend, Jessie Jackson, who for years has 
called for this amendment to be introduced in the Senate.
  I want to thank Reverend Jackson for his timeless leadership and 
advocacy. I am grateful to have the support of the Rainbow/Push 
Coalition as we introduce this amendment, along with the Advancement 
Project national office. Let me thank Senators Warren, Sanders, 
Merkley, Hirono, Markey, Van Hollen, and Blumenthal for cosponsoring, 
and I hope others will join us.
  By accident, I was given a book several years ago entitled ``White 
Rage,'' written by Carol Anderson. Carol Anderson is a professor at 
Emory University. The book was given to me by my brother-in-law, and I 
was skeptical that I would even read it, let alone like it. Well, I 
have to state that I have read it and recommended it over and over to 
my colleagues in the Senate, including giving a copy to then Senate 
Majority Leader Harry Reid. He decided, after reading the book, that it 
was so good that he invited Professor Carol Anderson to come speak to 
our caucus. She is an amazing person and a great historian.
  She followed ``White Rage'' with this book, ``One Person, No Vote.'' 
In it she tells the history of voter suppression. It is an eye-opener.
  After the Civil War and all those deaths to end slavery, after the 
assassination of Lincoln and after the effort was made to finally give 
to Blacks in the South a chance to become full-fledged citizens, they 
ran into Jim Crow laws.
  She talks about something which I had heard of but knew little about. 
I would like to say a word from the book.
  The question is about the efforts made to suppress the Black vote in 
the South, and she writes:

       That became most apparent in 1890 when the Magnolia State 
     passed the Mississippi Plan, 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'' to the voting booth. 
     This feigned legal innocence was legislative evil genius.
       Virginia representative Carter Glass, like so many others, 
     swooned at the thought of bringing the Mississippi Plan to 
     his own state [of Virginia], especially after he saw how well 
     it had worked. He rushed to champion a bill in the 
     legislature that would ``eliminate the darkey as a political 
     factor . . . in less than five years.'' Glass, whom President 
     Franklin Roosevelt would one day describe as an 
     ``unreconstructed rebel,'' planned not to ``deprive a single 
     white man of the ballot, but [to] inevitably cut from the 
     existing electorate four-fifths of the Negro voters'' in 
     Virginia.
       One delegate questioned him: ``Will it not be done by fraud 
     and discrimination?''
       ``By fraud, no. By discrimination, yes,'' Glass retorted. 
     ``Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose . . 
     . to discriminate to the very extremity . . . permissible . . 
     . under . . . the Federal Constitution, with a view to the 
     elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, 
     legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength 
     of the white electorate.''

  Unapologetic, straight in his remarks, his racism was rampant, and so 
it was across the country.
  Black lives matter. America matters. And our democracy matters. Once 
and for all, the right to vote should be enshrined in our Constitution. 
People died for it. It is time for us to work hard to show that we care
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 75

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Every citizen of the United States, who is of 
     legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in 
     any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the 
     citizen resides.
       ``Section 2. The fundamental right of citizens of the 
     United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the 
     United States or by any State or political subdivision within 
     a State unless such denial or abridgment is in furtherance of 
     a compelling governmental interest and is the least 
     restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental 
     interest.
       ``Section 3. The portion of section 2 of the fourteenth 
     article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     that consists of the phrase `or other crime,' is repealed.
       ``Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce 
     this article and protect against any denial or abridgement of 
     the fundamental right to vote by legislation.''.

                          ____________________