[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2093-S2094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           For the People Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is another day and another manufactured 
crisis. Yesterday, I came down to the floor to talk about the supposed 
crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court that requires us to 
immediately add four additional Democrat-chosen Justices.
  Today, I want to talk about another manufactured crisis, and that is 
the supposed election crisis that requires us to pass H.R. 1, a 
Democrat piece of legislation designed to increase Democrats' chances 
of maintaining their current tenuous hold on power.
  H.R. 1 is not new legislation. Democrats introduced a nearly 
identical version of this bill in the last Congress as well. Back then, 
we were told that we needed this bill to address profound electoral 
problems in our democracy--in other words, Democrats didn't like the 
results of the 2016 elections.
  Then, of course, last year, we had an election with record voter 
turnout--the highest voter turnout since 1900--an election that gave 
Democrats the Presidency and paper-thin majorities in Congress, and the 
story changed. Now we are told that we need to pass H.R. 1 and 
federalize elections because legislatures around the country are 
passing ``voter suppression'' laws.
  The State of Georgia recently passed an election reform measure--a 
law that keeps Georgia squarely in the mainstream when it comes to 
State election laws.
  The Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives noted yesterday 
in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that while Georgia 
has made its no-excuse absentee voting more secure with this law, 
States like Delaware and New York--among many others--don't even allow 
no-excuse voting.
  Delaware, of course, is the home State of the President of the United 
States. New York is the home State of the Democratic leader. I haven't 
noticed the President or the Democratic leader criticizing their home 
States for voter suppression. Nevertheless, Democrats decided that the 
Georgia measure would serve as a useful rallying cry for H.R. 1, so 
they spread a web of misinformation and outright lies, attempting to 
get people worked up by portraying Georgia's fairly ordinary election 
reform laws as a radical attempt to suppress voters and to suppress 
votes.
  President Biden irresponsibly described the law as ``Jim Crow on 
steroids,'' as if the Georgia Legislature had decided to reinstate the 
evil of segregation. The President has been repeatedly rebuked by none 
other than the Washington Post for repeating a completely false claim 
about the Georgia law. In fact, the Washington Post gave the President 
four Pinocchios--a rating that the Post reserves for ``whoppers''--for 
his false claim that the law is designed to keep working Americans from 
voting. In fact, as the Post's Fact Checker piece makes clear, there is 
reason to think the law might actually--wait for it, Mr. President--
expand access to early voting.
  A fair-minded piece in the New York Times, hardly a newspaper that 
carries water for Republicans, concluded that the voting provisions of 
the Georgia law are ``unlikely to significantly affect turnout or 
Democratic chances.'' But that hasn't stopped Democrats from using 
Georgia's law as the poster child for supposed voter suppression and 
the pressing reason to pass H.R. 1.
  Let's talk about the substance of H.R. 1. To start with, this 
legislation would transfer control over elections from States to the 
Federal Government despite the fact that the Constitution gives primary 
control over elections to the States. Under this law, States' ability 
to develop election systems that address the needs and challenges 
facing their States would be substantially limited.
  Of course, Democrats would like us to believe that this Federal power 
grab is urgently needed since, they argue, States are contemplating 
voter suppression laws, but as I pointed out, the last election, with 
its record turnout--the largest turnout since 1900--did not exactly 
suggest that States are incapable of setting their own election rules.
  Ironically, H.R. 1, which purports to be an election integrity bill, 
would actually undermine election integrity. The bill takes aim at 
State voter ID laws--a longtime obsession, I might add, of the 
Democrats. I have always been at a loss to understand Democrats' 
passionate opposition to requiring people to provide identification 
before voting.

[[Page S2094]]

  Democrats, of course, present voter ID laws as an attempt to suppress 
votes by forcing people to go through a challenging process of 
obtaining a government ID. I have to ask if Democrats also think laws 
requiring ID to drive are somehow discriminatory. We constantly require 
photo identification in our society to drive, to board planes, to enter 
many government buildings, to pick up tickets to Major League baseball 
games. These requirements are pretty universally accepted. It is 
difficult to understand how requiring identification to vote is so 
outrageous. The American people don't seem to think so. Polls show that 
a majority of Americans support voter ID laws.
  In addition to effectively eliminating State voter ID requirements, 
H.R. 1 also requires that States allow ballot harvesting, the 
controversial practice of allowing political operatives to collect and 
submit ballots. Needless to say, ballot harvesting opens up a lot of 
questions about voter fraud and election integrity, but the Democrats' 
bill would require it.
  As I mentioned, Democrats introduced an almost identical version of 
H.R. 1 in the last Congress, and--get this--the ACLU opposed it. The 
ACLU opposed it. That is right. The American Civil Liberties Union 
opposed it. Why? Because the bill would ``unconstitutionally burden 
speech and associational rights.'' Unconstitutionally burden speech and 
associational rights. H.R. 1 would impose a vast new array of 
restrictions on political speech and issue advocacy, and it would 
impose disclosure requirements for organizations that would open up 
donors to retaliation and intimidation.
  I could fill up several speeches with a discussion of all the bad 
provisions in this bill. H.R. 1 would turn the FEC, the Federal 
Election Commission, into a partisan body. It would require taxpayer 
funding of political campaigns. Taxpayer dollars would go to fund 
bumper stickers and political ads. It would allow the IRS to deny tax-
exempt status to organizations whose positions it doesn't like and on 
and on.
  Then there is the fact that on a purely practical level, this bill 
would be a disaster. A recent Daily Beast article highlighted the 
onerous and impossible-to-meet requirements the bill imposes on 
conducting elections. To quote the Daily Beast, another media outlet 
not exactly known for its favoritism toward conservative Republicans, 
the bill ``was written with apparently no consultation with election 
administrators, and it shows . . . it comes packed with deadlines and 
requirements election administrators cannot possibly meet without 
throwing their systems into chaos.''
  The article goes on to say:

       The sections of the bill relating to voting systems . . . 
     show remarkably little understanding of the problems the 
     authors apply alarmingly prescriptive solutions to. Many of 
     the changes the bill demands of election administrators are 
     literally impossible to implement.

  That, again, is from the Daily Beast.
  Like the Democrats' Supreme Court power grab, H.R. 1 is a solution in 
search of a problem. Protecting the right to vote and preserving the 
integrity of our election systems are essential. While we are fortunate 
that our electoral system by and large seems to be operating well, 
there are certainly measures that we can take up to further enhance 
election integrity. H.R. 1 is not one of those measures. This 
legislation is an unacceptable Federal takeover of elections that would 
undermine election integrity and substantially curtail First Amendment 
rights. Every single Member of Congress should be opposing it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.