[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1451-S1452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           For the People Act

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am here this afternoon to speak in 
opposition to H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act. Every 
American--no American should be fooled by the wholesome title of H.R. 
1. H.R. 1 is an affront to the U.S. Constitution, and the drastic 
impact this legislation would have on federalizing elections, 
restricting free speech, and accelerating the divide in this country--
that divide between left and right, rural and urban, red States and 
blue States--would be terribly damaging to our Nation.
  We often hear that elections have consequences. In November, 
Americans voted for a Congress that is nearly a 50-50 split between the 
parties in the House and precisely a 50-50 split in the Senate. If 
elections have consequences, then the consequence American voters may 
have had in mind was to encourage Congress to put aside partisan 
differences and to work together to do its job on their behalf.
  Americans did not vote to give one party free rein to implement an 
unprecedented power grab, to nationalize elections, and to strip power 
from States and localities from now into perpetuity, forever.
  I am a conservative, and I believe in the primacy of individual 
liberties and in a Federal Government that exercises restraint. I 
believe that State and local units of government are inherently more 
responsive to the wishes of our citizens. Article I, section 4 of the 
Constitution states that ``Time, Places and Manner'' of congressional 
elections ``shall be prescribed [by the States].'' My adherence to the 
Constitution thus instructs deference to State governments to oversee 
their own elections, as they always have and always should.
  There are so many problematic and, frankly, unconstitutional aspects 
of

[[Page S1452]]

this legislation, particularly as it pertains to the micromanagement of 
local elections by the Federal Government.
  With regard to the bill's intent to Federalize State elections, I 
draw your attention to page 44, section 1004. Democrats, in sponsoring 
and pursuing passage of this legislation, seek to eliminate voter 
identification laws. Voter identification laws have a lot of merit. It 
is required that you be a U.S. citizen to cast a vote in the United 
States. American people generally have common sense, and the Gallup 
poll indicates that 80 percent of Americans support voter ID laws. When 
you explain to Americans what voter ID really is, they do support it. 
Yet, under this legislation, voters showing up to the polls without an 
ID could simply sign a statement claiming they are who they say they 
are. If you want to dispel the notion that voter fraud occurs in our 
elections, this is not the place, this is not the way to accomplish 
that. I don't want our laws to discourage people from voting, but I 
want people to be legal who do vote.

  On page 166, this bill requires that ballots be counted outside a 
voter's precinct, removing a local government's ability to verify voter 
rolls. That authority would instead go to a bureaucrat in Washington.
  The requirement to allow third parties, including those politically 
affiliated, to pick up and deliver absentee ballots, known as ballot 
harvesting, further erodes confidence in elections. Such a requirement 
is directly at odds with recommendations from a 2005 bipartisan 
Commission on Federal Election Reform led by former President Jimmy 
Carter, which recommended that States prohibit this practice due to an 
increased likelihood of fraud.
  H.R. 1 doesn't even keep the bipartisan nature of the Federal 
Election Commission in place. It alters its structure deliberately to 
make it work on behalf of the party in power.
  One last point on local elections. This bill allows for in-person 
voting 15 days before an election. This is the typical, the classic 
unfunded mandate. I talked to local election officials about this 
provision specifically, and it would kill their budgets, maintaining 
rent and staff for weeks on end in rural counties across Kansas where, 
realistically, you might get fewer than a handful of people to show up 
on a day that far before the election. There are plenty of other ways 
to vote in advance when necessary. This would create real-world 
consequences, real consequences in rural America and in rural Kansas. A 
one-size solution from Washington, DC, does not solve all problems and, 
in fact, in many instances creates more problems.
  While this provision alone probably wouldn't have contributed to 
voter fraud, this bill does so by prohibiting officials from reviewing 
voter eligibility or barring local officials from removing ineligible 
voters from the voter rolls.
  It is imperative that we restore America's faith in our elections, 
and that is why I am a supporter of S. 13, legislation led by our own 
Senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, to establish a bipartisan 
advisory committee to make recommendations that will improve the 
security, integrity, and administration of Federal elections. This is a 
measured approach that will help us regain the trust of American 
voters.
  H.R. 1 goes as far to the other end of the spectrum as is imaginable. 
It drastically changes the rules of our election, implementing every 
leftwing policy idea pertaining to Federal elections--ideas that are 
evidently so good, they must be made mandatory. If they were good, they 
might find their way into existence across the country because they are 
good, not because the Federal Government requires them.
  This legislation would sow immense doubts among voters about the 
integrity and administration of our elections--something we further do 
not need. It would corrode our entire system of elections, and for what 
purpose? Because, simply put, I think Democrats believe passing H.R. 1 
would render rural voters, red State voters, impotent and therefore 
help them win elections.
  At a time when our country is so divided, when we should be working 
together, for example, to end the consequences of the COVID-19 
pandemic, to get America vaccinated, and get our economy back on track, 
this is a very damaging policy to our Republic, and it is contained 
within the 800 pages of H.R. 1.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle take time to read and 
understand this bill and see and determine for themselves what it truly 
is. I am interested in making sure that all people have the opportunity 
to vote. All people who are legally eligible to vote, I want them to 
vote. But we ought to not skew our elections to see that those we want 
to vote are the only ones who are eligible to do so and that those who 
are not eligible to vote are able to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.