[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1543-S1544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Election Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about 1 year ago today, Congress was in 
the midst of a debate about the most effective way to respond to COVID-
19. On a call with his colleagues, the House majority whip, Mr. 
Clyburn, reportedly laid out his vision about how his caucus in the 
House should proceed. He said, it is reported: This is a tremendous 
opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.
  For American families, this pandemic has been an unmistakable 
tragedy, one characterized by lost lives and lost livelihoods, but, 
apparently, for some, it is viewed as a tremendous opportunity.
  The partisan $1.9 trillion bill that was signed into law last week is 
proof that, apparently, the Democrats in Congress and in the White 
House agree. After all, this legislation includes a long list of non-
COVID-related priorities, again, completely unrelated to the crisis at 
hand: blank checks for mismanaged union pension funds, funding for 
climate justice, backdoor money for Planned Parenthood, an exclusive 
paid leave program for government bureaucrats, and the list goes on and 
on.
  Before the bill was even signed into law, folks from the other side 
of the aisle started advocating making many of the provisions 
permanent. This is an emergency measure, supposedly, but folks 
advocated making those temporary provisions permanent, further proof 
that this is more than just a pandemic relief response; this is about, 
in the words of Mr. Clyburn, restructuring government as we know it.
  But it doesn't stop there. Now our Democratic colleagues in the House 
and some in the Senate apparently want to hijack the State and Federal 
election system, starting with making temporary pandemic election 
responses permanent. Of course, our elections are run at the State and 
local level. As a matter of fact, I recall, given the efforts of the 
Russian intelligence services to interfere with our election in 2016, 
one of the strengths of our system was its dispersed nature, 
suggesting, in other words, that if it had been a single system, it 
would have been much easier for our adversaries to interfere--and 
particularly in the cyber realm.
  But we know, as a result of the pandemic, States made provisional 
changes to their 2020 election processes to make sure that people could 
safely exercise their right to vote. In my State, we extended early 
voting. We allowed voters to submit mail-in ballots in designated drop 
boxes.
  Several States, of course, expanded eligibility for mail-in voting. 
Some, like California, took things even further and sent mail-in 
ballots to every registered voter. At the time, these changes were 
billed as temporary, given the unique and extraordinary nature of the 
challenges presented by the pandemic, but as the House minority whip 
has said, this pandemic, apparently, is viewed as a tremendous 
opportunity to restructure the way we run and conduct elections.
  House Democrats have passed legislation to make many of the temporary 
changes in the 2020 elections permanent and add a list of other so-
called reforms in order to federalize our State- and local-run 
elections. This is in the face of article I of the Constitution that 
explicitly gives the States the power to regulate the times, places, 
and manner of holding elections.
  Yet this 791-page document creates a one-size-fits-all mandate for 
all States. It actually preempts State law, starting with mail-in 
balloting. Any person in any State could request a mail-in ballot for 
any reason. There is no need to say why you can't vote in person,

[[Page S1544]]

which is the current policy in most States.
  Those ballots would not, under this bill, even have to be mailed in 
by the voter or dropped in a State-sanctioned ballot box because this 
legislation legalizes ballot harvesting, which means that mail-in 
ballots could be collected by paid activists or campaign staffers or 
anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the election
  It goes so far as to specify that States may not put any limit on how 
many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can 
return. It really sounds like an invitation to fraud, and you can see 
how this could go badly pretty quickly. Maybe the ballot gets turned in 
with thousands of others. Maybe it is altered. Maybe it ends up in the 
trash. It is hard to say.
  That gets to one of the root problems with this legislation is it 
does create limitless opportunities for fraud. Every single ballot cast 
illegally or due to fraud undercuts and neutralizes every legally cast 
ballot.
  One way this bill removes some of the most basic requirements of most 
States' ballot integrity safeguards against election fraud is by 
removing any requirement of identification. This was, we should recall, 
one of the main recommendations of the bipartisan 2005 Commission on 
Federal Election Reform, cochaired by former President Jimmy Carter and 
former Secretary of State James Baker III. The Commission recommended 
that voters should be required to present photo ID cards and that 
States should provide free cards to voters who did not have a driver's 
license.
  In order to vote in person, most States require voters to produce 
some valid form of identification. I know mine does. In Texas, there 
are three options--actually, several options: a driver's license, a 
passport, a military ID, a citizenship certificate, and other forms of 
government-issued ID. If, for some reason, you can't obtain one of 
these forms of ID, there is still a process in place to allow a person 
to vote by presenting other documents, making sure that they identify 
the person casting the ballot.
  Matching the name of an eligible voter with the name on a valid form 
of ID is a commonsense safeguard against fraud but one which this 
legislation seeks to eliminate. If you go to a convenience store and 
want to buy a six-pack of beer or if you want to buy cigarettes or you 
want to get on an airplane, you have to present an ID card, but this 
bill eliminates that requirement when it comes to the most sacred duty 
and privilege that we have as citizens, and that is to vote.
  This legislation stops States from requiring voters to provide proof 
of identification. Just sign a piece of paper saying you are who you 
are, and no one can ask any questions. On top of that, this bill would 
require the States to automatically register anyone in their databases, 
for everything from DMV to public assistance programs. Well, we know 
these databases are not limited to registered voters or even eligible 
voters. That could include people illegally present in the country 
because some States allow a driver's license to be issued to 
noncitizens who are not legally present in the country. These databases 
include other noncitizens and others not eligible to vote, not to 
mention the fact that those who are already registered to vote could be 
registered again and again.
  And even if there are duplicate registrations or if someone passes 
away or moves, States would not be allowed to clean up the voter rolls 
within 6 months of an election. Just when you think things can't get 
any crazier, they do.
  Our Democratic colleagues are proposing that the taxpayers fund their 
elections. A lot of companies have a match program for charitable 
giving. If an employee donates to a charity of their choice, then the 
company will match that donation dollar for dollar. The same principle 
applies except, instead of a charity getting the money, under this 
proposed legislation, it is now a political candidate. Instead of a 
company footing the bill, it is the taxpayers, and instead of an exact 
match, it is up to $6 for every $1 donated. That means if someone 
donates 200 bucks to their preferred candidate, Federal taxpayers will 
wind up coughing up $1,200.

  Well, I think there are a lot of better uses for government tax 
dollars. They can go to support crime victims or support the response 
to the humanitarian crisis at the border, which we are experiencing 
right now. But, no, the proposal in this legislation is, let's use it 
to elect them.
  Then there are the campaign vouchers. This bill creates a new program 
that provides eligible voters with a $25 voucher to donate to the 
campaign of their choosing--again, more government, taxpayer-funded 
election activities.
  I could go on and on.
  This legislation also alters the fundamental structure of the Federal 
Election Commission to remove any need for bipartisanship or consensus 
building. It undermines trust and accountability in elections. It 
implements a new financial disclosure policy that even the American 
Civil Liberties Union says ``could directly interfere with the ability 
of many to engage in political speech about causes that they care 
about.'' That is the ACLU.
  Above all, this bill amounts to nothing more than a Federal hijacking 
of State elections. I can promise you, folks in my State don't want 
Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Schumer to determine how elections 
are run in our State. They want accountable leaders in our State, 
elected by and accountable to them, to determine the best way to 
conduct free and fair elections.
  Following the last two Presidential campaigns, the side that lost had 
expressed concerns about election security. A partisan attempt to 
overhaul our entire election system is hardly a confidence-building 
exercise. This bill is not a serious attempt to improve security and 
accountability in our elections; rather, it is a partisan power grab 
that will do serious damage to our Republic.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey