tv Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chair Discusses Defense Technology CSPAN July 26, 2021 9:00pm-9:39pm EDT
that supreme court case. the supreme court is saying to those already intimidated and you need to look at john lewis faced in 1965, this brunt force, law enforcement on horses, chasing foot soldiers back over the bridge, eight year olds running for their life and foot sold years and john rob erlt lewis who said he thought he was going to die. ... that's the sacrifices made for voting. taken together this court decision is saying, what's the big deal? it's only voting. just like with bad weather, sometimes you just have to grin and bear it and have a little inconvenience. just a little bit of
discrimination. why do you -- why are you concerned about that? and so i assume that without the 24th amendment, that this conservative majority, the poll taxes and literary tests, to the review standard announced, just a little bit of inconvenience. take that money out and pay that poll tax. you don't have any money? i guess your fundamental right to vote has just been extinguished. that is where we are today. that is why we are here today challenging the filibuster, speaking about the federalist papers, nullification, and trying to understand that the constitution prevails over all of these miserly bills across the nation. one, the 15th amendment. and then the constitution's statement very clearly that
congress, that no one can nullify or stop your rights as a person that is elected to congress because they have no rights. let me, as i yield to representative torres, i ask unanimous consent to submit an article, op-ed, that i submitted, june 26, 2021, authored by myself, the strong voting rights act is needed now more than ever. i ask unanimous consent for this to be submitted into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: now i'd be happy to yield to my co-anchor and thank him again for his joining me tonight and for our journey that we are on trying to raise up justice in this country. mr. torres of new york. mr. torres: thank you, madam chair. thank you, madam speaker. both the 2020 and the 2021
election cycles have been a powerful testament to the influence of the black vote. you know, i proudly come from new york state where we have seen a golden age of black political power. the attorney general, the state senate majority leader, the state assembly speaker, the mayor are all black. and we know that but for the black vote, president biden never would have won the presidency. and the democrats never would have won a majority in the senate. and the attempts at voter suppression that we've seen threatens to reverse the racial process that has been made -- progress that has been made. increasingly we're becoming a multiracial democracy. 70% of the democratic caucus consists of people of color, woman and members of the lgbtq
community. but you would never know that from the structure of the senate. the structure of the senate concentrates power in a small subset of states that are much wider, -- whiter, much more rural, much more conservative than the rest of the country. before the democratic party won the senate in 2021, the senate republican majority represented 10 million to 15 million fewer people than the senate democratic minority. and the problem is that the filibuster takes the undemocratic structure of the senate to an even greater extreme. the notion that one senator who represents a state smaller than our congressional districts should have the power to overturn the will of the
president and the senate and the house is profoundly undemocratic. it makes an absurdity of the democratic process. one particularly egregious example of the filibuster can be found in the area of gun safety. in a rational world, every gun would be registered and safely stored. every gun owner would be licensed and trained. every gun sale would be subject to a background check. but there's nothing rational about a political system that enables one senator from a state smaller than my congressional district to filibuster gun safety at the expense of 330 million americans. name any cause, lgbtq equality,
voting rights enforcement, immigration reform, democracy reform, criminal justice reform . all of these clauses have died at the hands of the filibuster. i would submit to you that we have a party in america that is intent on holding power at any cost and by any means necessary. if the republican party cannot win democratically, then it will insist on winning undemocratically through voter suppression, gerrymandering, the structure of the senate, the electoral college, right wing judicial activism, on the supreme court -- activism on the supreme court. all of these are means of holding onto power by any means necessary, all of these are
means of subverting democracy at any costs. that is the challenge that lies before us and yield back. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from new york. i'm so glad you said the words by any means necessary. that's the striking and without a doubt approach of the activist supreme court, right wing, of the big lies. and of those who wish to stall and stop the very lifeline of american democracy. and that is the right to each person to vote their conscience. as we have said, our message, our power, but our voice, our vote, our vote, our voice. and i thank him for joining me this evening. for elaborating and detailing and roll calling where we are today. i notice the gentleman did not
step in the breach and indicate that we might need to expand the court. that's another discussion altogether. but i'm delighted to have now the distinguished gentlelady from st. louis, missouri, a member of the judiciary committee, and i think she can speak in her own way on the vitality of a vote for poor people. i yield to congresswoman bush of missouri. ms. bush: thank you, madam chairwoman. and thank you, madam speaker, for this moment to be able to address about something that i still have trouble understanding the need to address. when people fought when people bled, when people died. and we're still here and all of that happened, so much of it happened before i was even born, even thought of. and we are still here. so st. louis and i, we rise
today because in missouri our right to vote is the -- is being taken away, taken away from all of us, from many of us. and by us, let me be clear that i mean black folks. i mean brown folks. i mean indigenous folks. and despite the raising of our voices, despite the marching of our feet. despite us turning out the vote to deliver the government to democrats, the senate has yet to do anything about it. h.r. 1 is gathering dust in the senate and the filibuster remains intact. and with every passing day the reality of the situation worsens. yet rather than acting with urgency, some have even suggested instead we want to outorganize voter suppression. after an election year, when black and brown and indigenous organizers gave their blood, their sweat and their tears to deliver democratic -- a
democratic house, senate and white house, a year when black women turned the long-time red state of georgia blue, when black, brown and indigenous voters stood in disproportionately long lines to cast their ballots on an election day that is not a federal holiday, a year when black, brown and indigenous communities have been disproportionately harmed by this pandemic, yet turned out in the face of these suppression tactics to vote in record numbers, we did this because we were promised justice. we were promised that our right to vote would be secure. we were promised a sustainable future. but rather than deliver on those promises we were asked to again give our blood, our sweat and our tears to those who say, just outorganize rather than legislate? i say shame. shame that you take our labor for granted. shame that you take our struggle for granted. shame that your promises continue to go unphil fulfilled
and we have, -- unfulfilled, and we have, like my chairwoman said, we have people who are living and struggling and burdened and oppressed ways that others aren't, are the ones who suffer the most. shame that rather than doing everything within your power to deliver us, we're being asked to overcome voter suppression again. to those who are telling us just to outorganize vote surspecial, my message to you is this. we already did. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman from texas has expired. ms. bush: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, is recognized until 10:00 p.m. as the designee of the minority leader. mr. roy: i thank the speaker. i've been listening to my friend from texas, the gentleman from new york, and other speakers, my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle. and i can't help but observe the reality of the shelby county decision as it was offered by the united states supreme court's majority. authored by chief justice roberts. now, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle failed to mention is the fact that the voting rights act remains intact, the voting rights act remains fully in effect, its purpose, to ensure and preserve the ability of americans to vote, remains fully the law of the land. the only question or the core question before the court back in 2012 or 2013, i could argue 2012 -- it was argued in 2012, decided in 2013, i think, was whether section a -- section 5,
the specific preclearance provision was in fact constitutional. now, the fact of the matter is when this is re-authorized back in, i think, 2006, it was re-authorized based on a 50-year-old coverage formula. now, my friend from texas knows that. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. that it was using a 50-year-old coverage formula. now, people may want to just kind of sweep that aside and say that doesn't matter. but then go back and read the supreme court's opinion in 1966, on the first challenge of the voting rights act, and what the court was saying at the time. that when you set aside the fundamental role of the states in carrying out elections, when you set aside the 10th amendment as the 1965 voting rights act was seeking to do, there has to be a particularly strong purpose.
what was that particularly strong purpose? invidious discrimination of the kind of the jim crow south, of the poll taxes, of massive disparities in voting rates among populations in districts where those prohibitions existed. fast forward 50 years through several iterations of the re-authorization of the voting rights act and in 2012, 2013, when this is being debated and when the court decided it, the court said, look, sorry. you can't apply 50-year-old data to uphold and re-authorize the voting rights act. i know that because i was a lawyer on the senate judiciary committee. and i poured over every one of those documents that came before us and read and reviewed them, sitting in the staff room of the senate judiciary committee, where we knew full
well what the data was showing us and what the data looked like. but here we are right now and the american people are only hearing that part of the story. that we are somehow unwinding the voting rights act. we have done no such thing. out of enormous respect for my friend from texas, despite how these hours usually work, i will yield, briefly, to the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: since i was on the committee, you might have been on the staff but i know in the house we had at least 100 hearings and 15,000 pages of testimony and it was chaired at that time by jim sensenbrenner, a republican, who was me meticulous in making sure we had a record. i'm not sure where the gentleman is getting his information from, i'll just finish by simply saying the voter suppression laws wear dealing with today is all engaged, responding to the
big lie that there was not a legitimate election in 2020 and my good friend knows that president joe biden and kamala harris for elected in 2020 so we wond they are ebasis of the voter suppression laws and i thank the gentlelady and will not take more of his time. mr. roy: i think this body would do a wonder for the american people if we could engage in this for hour, not seconds. i think the gentlelady agrees that we should have this kind of debate back and forth, for the american people to see, so we could flesh out our differences. what i would respond to the gentlelady about the point of what occurred, poring over it as a starer -- as a staffer as i did is that the member, including the chairman of the judiciary committee then, sensenbrenner, as well as on the senate side, i won't speak for the house, i was on the senate side, but i was in the room with chairman specter and i was in
the room with all those in 2006 going through all. this i was in the room with about 15 republicans sitting over there, each of whom said it is unconstitutional, we can't really do this, but we dare not go down this political road. ok, well that is what that is. fast forward and for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bemoan, quote, activist courts, unquote, welcome to the club. welcome to the party. of being concerned about activist courts. i would argue that is -- this is not activism. but fine. let's have that debate about how much power we want to cede to the building over there across the street. because when we're talking about activism, we can go way back on activism in terms of our veurks in terms of roe, in terms of other areas where the court has inserted itself in public debate. but here we are.
the legislature acted, the court said whoa, you can't do that. why did they do that? applying the fundamentals of federalism, and that states have prime city over election laws, that's what the court did. that's actually, if you believe in judicial review, subsequent to marbury vs. madison, as i believe my friend from texas who is now leaving the floor does believe in, then that's what the court was doing. that's what they did. that's what the opinion says. when you read the opinion, it's just dripping with all of the things that you would expect it to be filled with in terms of deference to what occurred in 1965, with the -- what the supreme court said subsequent to that about why it was a particularly important time for congress to step over the role of the states, because of the nature of the invidious discrimination in jim crow south and other areas of the country,
one just the south -- it wasn't just the south, it was other areas of the country. but i pored over the data. there were counties in florida that were covered and counties that weren't covered. you could see the voting rates of black voters, hispanic voters, other voters that vast numbers of people were turning out to show up to vote, those numbers were high for the some of the covered jurisdiction. you had no basis to cover one county versus another in the state of florida. i would challenge all of my colleague, other side of the aisle, go open up those views, go look in and look at the data, look at the table, and what you will find is that there was significant numbers of counties and states that were then at that time covered by the voting rights act that had better turnout rate, better participation rates than those that were uncovered which left the court looking a that the law say, hold on a second. the whole reason that the court upheld the law was because there
was a unique circumstance where there was massive disparities. because of very direct actions by those states. i just want the american people to know that. that's what's being said right now. suddenly, if i say, we might want voter i.d. why might we want voter i.d.? to assure that the one person voting, one person, one vote, is actually the one voting. i say i want voter i.d. maybe because i've witnessed reasons that that's so. somehow that's voter suppression? that's what's so entirely frustrating. you come forward and say, hey, i think that there's a good reason for this, that in my mind i see very clearly as being important for the integrity of the election. let's not get wrapped up in the 2016, or 2020, election cycles. i've said a lot on the floor of the house about those matters. let's focus on voter integrity,
election integrity. wanting to make sure the people who vote know that their vote is going to count. fully. and that you're not going to have someone voting with your i.d. we know for sure that there are individuals who come to the united states and use the identifications of other, of americans. we know that for sure. that's a fact. we know we end up with multiple people voting. we end up with all sorts of different possible and potential fraudulent activity. for example, the "new york times" in 2012, quote, yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised, more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth. that's "the new yorktimes," the bastion of right wing conspiracy. we know the carter-baker commission, jimmy carter, known right-win conspirator in georgia, and james baker, again, not really known to be, you know, a right wing activist,
quote, in their report, absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud. that's just data. analyze it. it's just fact. then you go other examples of known fraud. 2016. 83 registered voters in san pedro received ballots at the same small apartment. a republican operative had allegedly requested more than 1,200 absentee ballots on voters' behalf and checked the ballots from their homes when they were mailed out. i can go through item after item. in o2017 a -- in 2017, an investigation in dallas found multiple ballots cast by the same man. since 2005, the office of attorney general pros cued 500 instances of fraud against 150
individuals. i can go through county by county. four people including an elected justice of pe the peace charged with election fraud. the charges included ballot harvesting and illegal voting. i can go example by example. were all those examples i just gave enough to turn an election? i don't know. that's the point. we would like to noavment wherever that truth may lead. in whatever state, in whatever county, wherever that takes us. those are the facts. when somebody said i think we ought to have voter i.d. i think we ought to have voter i.d. or a way to attach an individual to a mail-many ballot. suddenly that's voter suppression? suddenly major league baseball says, i have an idea. let's pull out the all-star game from atlanta, georgia, where we could celebrate hank aaron which is a 50% black city and move it to colorado, to denver, which is a 10% black city and pat ourselveses on the back for being so exceptionally in tune
with what's going on in the world. let's move the all-star game to colorado. why? the laws that were put on the books in georgia this year that were being voted on in georgia would basically make parity with what colorado already has on the books. this is the kind of debate we want to be able to have can we just agree, get a whiteboard up, put the facts up, of what these things are, what these bills are, what the laws are? then at least be debating from the same sheet of music? i have a few more things to say. i have some colleagues here that i want to be mindful of their time. i just -- my floor time, i digressed there a little bit because i was hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle but election integrity is critically important right now. i have colleagues from texas who are completely abandoning their duty, state legislature colleagues, to be clear, who are abandoning their duty to
represent their constituents in the state of texas and have a full-throated debate about the current bills in the essential legislative session in texas and have come to d.c. they are not doing their job. i generally want to flee d.c. to go back to texas. it's rare i'd be saying i want to flee texas to come to d.c. but these democratic members of the texas legislature have fled austin to skip out on working in the texas legislative session, have an open debate, and they're coming to d.c. to sit down with the vice president, to go push and promote h.r. 1, or other bill, to say we need to federalize elections instead of actually doing their job. which brings me to my point. i'll say a few things here and then i'll recognize my colleagues. at some point we have to decide, what is it that is actually sacred about what we are doing here as a nation and as a body?
our borders right now are wide open. opioids skyrocketing. massive numbers across the border. i'll get into some of these details in a minute. we've done it, i've done it before. we have schools teaching so-called anti-racism. i walked through the austin airport today and saw the book by ibrahim kendi, the anti-racism book, saw it sitting there in the bookstore. didn't see a lot of conservative books there. saw that book sitting there in the front. on page 19 of that book he writes, quote, if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual, based on that person's race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. the defining question is whether the discrimination is creating
equity or inequity, and if discrimination is creating inequity then it is anti-racist. interesting definition of discrimination. not sure it fits within the civil rights act. but i'll leave that for another discussion. but what i'm saying is, we are heightening the level to which every single aspect of our lives is taken through a political lens. every single thing. i'm asking my staff to look at every hearing that this body has had since the beginning of january and tell me what percentage of the hearings has had a focus or something to do on race or on sexual orientation or an issue in that type of framework. i guarantee you, i don't have to count them, that number is going to be massively high.
i'll just go ahead and stipulate right now without having done any counting. the percentage of hearings that this body has held, the percentage of the hearings that's focused on race or lgbtq issue, sexual orientation, those issues, will be extraordinarily high as a percentage. ok. so. the majority believes that's where our focus should be. while we just spent $6 trillion, while inflation is running through the roof, while small businesses can't hire people, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. assuredly they've got small businesses in their district or go to restaurants or go to places like i've gone to. and they can't hire people. because we're paying people more not to work than to work. so we have a principal focus on race-related issues, a complete
abandonment of the responsibility of this body to secure the border of the united states, it's wide open, opioids running amuck, cartels own it, people pouring across it to their detriment and our, ranchers getting overrun in texas. and now today, just yesterday, or i don't know, last few days, the senate armed services committee votes overwhelmingly to draft our daughters. heck, we had eight republicans of the 13 vote for that nonsense. to draft our daughters. who are we? genuine question, who are we as a people, as a country? where are the sacred boundaries of being able to decide how to live? and to recognize truths that man is man that woman is woman, and that i as a father do not want to have my daughter get drafted? you say, what about draft your
son, use the power of the government to draft your son. we can have debate about ending the draft. everyone comes back and says, don't worry, there's not going to be a draft, there hasn't been one in 50 years. don't worry about it. when my daughter turns 18 in eight years and has to sign a piece of paper to register, i shouldn't be worried about my daughter being draft and getting sent to a foxhole in afghanistan or iraq or somewhere else? what do you mean, don't worry about that? that's precisely what this body is doing. the senate armed services committee voted on it. the house already has that language. let me be perfectly clear. i i will not be honoring whatever law says is drafting my daughter. and that is the fundamental problem. the rule of law, the rule of law depends on it being rooted
in any basic understanding of who we are as a people, where we come from, what our values are, and then actually being able to get the consent of the governed in a way that actually connects with the governed. it doesn't just come on down from on high, from a senate armed services committee that votes, by the way, behind closed doors, not in public viewing. and by the way, none of them will gut out -- will go out and enforce this garbage. but no, somebody one day will show up and hand a form to my daughter and say, i'm sorry, ma'am, you're going to have to register for the draft and i'm going to be sitting there as a dad and i can promise you my wife is a little bit more fired up about this than i am. my wife is going to be sitting there saying, over my dead dang body. no. this is what we do. when we rip apart our society when we forget where those sacred boundaries are, about what the role of this
institution is or how we're supposed to govern. i'm going to pause for a few moments. i know that my -- i think both of my colleagues who were here want to speak to the issues that we're seeing unfold in cuba. maybe a few other matters of importance to them and i certainly appreciate their time. i know -- i think they share some of the sentiments that i'm sharing. but i'd like to defer to my friend from texas for three minutes and then we can yield some more time. does that work for my friend from texas? >> absolutely. thank you so much for having this special order on freedom, on liberty, on constitutionalism. our god-given rights. thank you for what you have said there, from chip. madam speaker, i'm here tonight to highlight and amplify the miraculous events that have happened less than 100 miles from u.s. soil on the island of
cuba. news that, sadly, we haven't heard nearly enough about. after more than 60 years of oppression and justice and fear under a communist party that enjoys op lent privileges -- opulent privileges while others struggle just to survive, cubans took to the streets shouting, liberty, down with communism, and this wasn't just in havana and the big cities. renewed calls for freedom were heard all across small villages and towns in the cuban countryside. these brave protesters, many of them young people, they knew their appeals would be met with violence. they understood that they would be putting themselves and their families at grave risk. they do -- if they do, they'll be labeled enemies of the state, enemies of the revolution and they would be arrested or potentially even murdered. today i'd like to let each of my liberty-loving cuban
brothers and sisters out there know we hear you. i commend your outstanding and astounding courage, your thirst for freedom, and your desire for true justice in cuba. we as americans have a moral responsibility to support these protests of cuba's cruel communist jet stream. how can we continue to be the shining city upon a hill, as president reagan once eloquently said, if we do not help those that are seeking the same divine right that our ancestors fought and died for in the revolution, the same rights that our heavily father intend for all people? i think it's time -- heavenly father intended for all people? i think it's time for the reign of dictatorship and terror to come to an end and for freedom and for liberty to take their rightful place. thank you and i yield back.
mr. roy: i thank the gentleman from texas, my friend, and i'm going to yield the gentleman from california here in a second and i would just ask one question to the gentleman from texas and i'll preet that question to my friend from california -- i'll repeat that question to my friend from california. i share your enthusiasm and your commitment to wanting to help the people of cuba and who are seeking freedom and obviously have been living under the thumb of tyranny for far too long. i was chief of staff to senator ted cruz. his father is a dear friend and he knew all too well what life was like under that murderous regime. our friend and our colleague, alex mooney, his wonderful mother, similarly, at the same rough time frame, was subjected to the horrors of cuba in that time, in the late 1950's, early 196 0s -- -- early 1960's and then came to the united states. i would ask my friend, as we watch these individuals from
cuba seeking freedom and god bless them and we need to support them, and/or seeking to come to the united states seeking freedom, do you believe that our country is itself upholding and adhering to the ideals that they are seeking? mr. babin: my friend, at this time i cannot answer in the affirmative. i think our country is under grave attack, our liberties and our freedoms, our constitutional rights, the bill of rights, the very, very reasons that samuel adams and dr. joseph warren and all of those founders, john hancock had started the movement that culminated in the revolutionary war and got us out from under the yolk of great britain, and i will say this, what we're seeing today, what we're seeing today is quite frankly a startling, unbelievable change
of events that i never thought that i would see in my entire lifetime of the assault on our god-given rights that we're seeing today. and what you just said about drafting our daughters and what you just mentioned, and listening to our friends across the aisle over there talking about the unfairness of our -- the racism that is incumbent and inherently in our election processes, and what their solution would be, an absolute violation of the u.s. constitution. and i think it goes without saying that if you have to show an i.d. to get into the white house or to get a loan or to do anything really of any kind of nature as far as that's concerned, that we have to have -- have to have the ability to ask for a photo i.d., to ascertain whether you are
indeed that person that you are actually professing to be when you come in and cast that vote. so, we hear a lot of talk but i'll tell you, it's just talk. when we talk about freedom and liberties, we have to follow that constitution and god's law. that's what it has to be. roy that i -- i thank my friend from -- roy thank my friend from texas -- mr. roy: i thank my friend from texas. i'll yield to my friend from california in second. i couldn't agree more with respect to the current situation we find ourselves and our country. a country where we're now talking about vaccine passports , where we're talking about diving into the private affairs of american citizens in the alleged name of health and the welfare of the people. we're forgetting that fundamental core liberty of being free from government coercion. right? i mean, when you look at the constitution, you know, when we talk about the president of the united states talking about going door to door, and i know
it might have been a rhetorical statement but you never really know, but when the constitution contemplates going door to door, it does so only in a couple of contexts. the census and then protecting individuals against it. by in the third amendment preventing the quartering of troops in the homes of the american people. by preventing through the fourth amendment unreasonable search and seizure. right? that was what was on the minds of the founders. that was why the constitution was structured the way it was structured. it wasn't to empower government in the name of something supposedly greater in the, quote, common good. how many hundreds of millions of people in this world have been slaughtered in the name of the common good? how many? let's ask the people of cuba. let's ask the people of cuba seeking freedom, seek