[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1635-S1637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Chad A. Readler

  Madam President, following Ms. Rushing, the Senate will consider Chad 
Readler of Ohio to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. 
Readler is a two-time graduate of the University of Michigan, earning 
his J.D. with honors in 1997. Following law school, he held a clerkship 
on the Sixth Circuit and has built a longstanding reputation in private 
practice as a consummate legal professional.
  Mr. Readler is also active in pro bono work, including for the United 
Way of Central Ohio, and his nomination earned a ``well qualified'' 
rating from the American Bar Association.
  So I look forward to advancing yet another of President Trump's 
impressive judicial nominees later this week.


                                 H.R. 1

  Madam President, on another matter, this week the House will be 
devoting floor time to the Democrat politician protection act. That is 
what I call the signature effort that Speaker Pelosi has given top 
billing--top billing--as H.R. 1, because this new House Democratic 
majority's top priority is apparently assigning themselves an 
unprecedented level of control over how they get elected to Washington, 
along with how, where, and what American citizens are allowed to say 
about it. That is their priority No. 1.
  Over there, across the Capitol, more than anything else, Washington 
Democrats want a tighter grip on political

[[Page S1636]]

debate and the operation of elections nationwide. But the Democrat 
politician protection act is just part of a trio of massive, 
unprecedented government takeover schemes that Democrats have already 
rolled out just this Congress.
  On its face, this proposal might seem less outrageous than Medicare 
for None or the so-called Green New Deal. It wouldn't seem to impact 
the middle-class families as directly as making private health 
insurance plans illegal or sending the U.S. economy on a nosedive in 
the name of tackling carbon emissions while China goes roaring right 
by.
  Here is the thing. Those two proposals are just terrible policy. Bad 
policy can be stopped or undone through the political process, but H.R. 
1 isn't just terrible policy. It is an attempt to rewrite the 
underlying rules of that political process itself and skew those rules 
to benefit just one side--that side.
  By every indication, the Democratic politician protection act is a 
massive, partisan solution in search of a problem. Democrats want to 
convince everyone that our Republic is in crisis, but when you scratch 
the surface of these scare tactics, their two main complaints seem to 
be that Democrats don't win enough elections, and people Democrats 
don't like also happen to have First Amendment rights.
  Just look at the data. In 2016, turnout reached its third highest 
rate since the 1960s. Turnout was very high. By the sheer number of 
Presidential ballots cast, an all-time record was set, and these 
numbers were hardly a fluke. Last November, the midterm turnout rate 
set a new 50-year record for off-year elections.
  Nevertheless, the Democrats are intent on fixing our elections even 
though they aren't broken. Their solution amounts to a hostile, one-
sided takeover of the electoral process without--without--the input of 
both parties.
  In the Democrats' view, our federalist system, in which State laws 
evolve to address unique challenges, is old-fashioned and no longer to 
their liking. Now it is time for sweeping new decrees from Washington.
  What each State has found works best for them to register voters or 
to maintain voter rules--all of that is now supposed to yield to what 
Washington Democrats want.
  It starts with a massive influx of government data to the 
registration rolls. In one sweep, all of the duplicative and 
conflicting data from across State and Federal Government Agencies--as 
well as colleges and universities--would flood the voter registration 
system--flood it.
  This isn't the slightly tested, automatic voter registration some 
States have installed with the DMV. This is a massive data dump that is 
sure to invite risk of inaccuracy and a loss of privacy. It is 
especially concerning, as the Democrats want to mandate that agencies 
register 16- and 17-year-olds.

  What about things like one-size-fits-all online voter registration, 
where the simple safeguard of signing a document can be easily side-
stepped? Or a mandatory new one-stop registration and voting procedure 
in every State, without the assurance of verifying the voter's identity 
or address before adding their ballot to the ballot box?
  If your State requires even the loosest voter ID requirement, the 
Democrats' bill would undermine it. Everything down to the type of 
paper the ballot is printed on is dictated by Washington Democrats 
under their proposal. The list goes on and on.
  Now you might think that with Democrats insisting that every locality 
subscribe to ever looser registration standards, they must provide 
strong tools for verification and maintenance of the voter rolls. Think 
again. In fact, they seem more focused on taking away these safeguards.
  The bill leaves States with less ability to maintain voter records 
and to ensure that people aren't registered in multiple States. In many 
instances, it seems the Democrats want more identification required to 
correct an erroneous voter entry--listen to this: more identification 
required to correct an erroneous voter entry--than to register a new 
voter. In other words, it is harder to get off the rolls than it is to 
get on the rolls.
  What if we look at the problems that actually exist? What about the 
murky ``ballot harvesting'' process that invites misbehavior? It was 
already illegal in North Carolina, where a congressional election 
result was thrown out recently due to fraud, but the practice that 
threw out the election in North Carolina just the other day remains 
perfectly legal in California, where it seems to benefit, amazingly 
enough, the Democrats. Somehow, for all of the other top-down changes 
that H.R. 1 would force on the country, somehow addressing ballot 
harvesting didn't make the cut. Imagine that.
  It is almost like Democrats' purpose here is not promoting integrity 
but, rather, preserving the chaos that would make close elections ripe 
targets for their DC lawyers to contest. The law itself suggests as 
much by creating new private rights of action--new private rights of 
action--for trial lawyers to ramp up litigation when they are unhappy 
with an outcome.
  Now as I mentioned, elections aren't the only focus. Democrats are 
also coming after America's political speech. Under H.R. 1, a newly 
partisan Federal Election Commission would be empowered with sweeping--
sweeping--new authority to regulate speech that is deemed to be 
``campaign related.''
  New rules apply to the mere mention of a politician's name. There are 
new limitations on advocacy groups to speak on substantive issues and 
strict new penalties for when private groups of citizens cross the 
lines that Washington Democrats have drawn.
  But it doesn't stop there. Protecting Democrat politicians is hard 
work--hard work, indeed--and it requires a multipronged approach. So 
not only does H.R. 1 deploy stricter regulations on political speech; 
it also ramps up requirements when private citizens engage in it. Even 
small expressions of First Amendment rights could require extensive 
documentation, and in many new cases, forced public disclosure of your 
private activities would be required.
  So we are in a dangerous climate for the robust exchange of ideas. 
There is outright government bias like we saw from Lois Lerner's IRS. 
There are activist-driven online mobs that come after individuals' 
reputations and their livelihoods. This is not--I repeat, this is not--
a climate where the people's representatives should be rushing to make 
more of Americans' private information public.
  The ACLU is not often an organization that would be described as 
bipartisan--not always--but here is what the ACLU wrote in a letter to 
House Democrats just a couple of days ago:

       There are . . . provisions that unconstitutionally impinge 
     on the free speech rights of American citizens and public 
     interest organizations . . . [the bill] strikes the wrong 
     balance between the public's interest in knowing who supports 
     or opposes candidates for office and the vital associational 
     privacy rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

  That is the ACLU. They go on:

       [H.R. 1] interferes with that ability by impinging on the 
     privacy of these groups, forcing the groups to make a choice: 
     their speech or their donors. Whichever they choose, the 
     First Amendment loses.

  This is the very issue that the NAACP had to sue the State of Alabama 
over way back in the 1950s. They won a critical victory when the 
Supreme Court confirmed that the First Amendment is eroded when Big 
Brother forces private organizations to publicize the people who work 
to support them--the NAACP v. Alabama, in the 1950s.
  It was true in the 1950s, and it remains true today, but that erosion 
is exactly what House Democrats want to achieve. It is what they want 
to achieve. Their bill even supports a constitutional amendment to take 
away First Amendment protections.
  Even if their proposal does chill the exercise of the First 
Amendment--fear not--House Democrats have a plan to make sure there is 
still plenty of activity come election season. It is a taxpayer-funded 
stimulus package for campaign consultants and political candidates. 
They are going to take your tax money and give it to candidates you 
oppose to buy commercials, buttons, balloons, bumper stickers with your 
tax money. Democrats want to sign taxpayers up to a six-times matching 
subsidy for certain political contributions. It could total about $5 
million in taxpayer money--$5 million in taxpayer money--for every 
candidate who wants it. What a great idea--right into the pockets of 
political campaigns--your tax money.
  That is what these guys want to pass. Middle-class Americans will 
have the

[[Page S1637]]

privilege of watching television commercials attacking their own 
beliefs and the candidates they support and knowing their own tax 
dollars bought the airtime for candidates they oppose.
  All of this is what House Democrats are debating on the floor this 
very week--H.R. 1--all of this and more. I have only scratched the 
surface of the Democratic Politician Protection Act: running roughshod 
over States' and communities' control of their own elections, 
regulating and chilling the American people's exercise of the First 
Amendment, forcing taxpayers to indirectly donate to the politicians 
they don't like, and a dozen other bad ideas to boot.
  Behold the signature legislation of the new House Democratic 
majority.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.