[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 83 (Thursday, May 13, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2502-S2503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       For the People Act of 2021

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, on Tuesday, the Senate Rules Committee 
conducted its markup of S. 1, which is the Senate's version of the 
Democrats' election bill that is designed to increase the Democrats' 
chances of maintaining their currently tenuous hold on power.
  We are told that passing this bill is urgent. We were told that in 
the last Congress, too, when the Democrats first proposed this 
legislation. They said the same thing--that there were serious election 
problems and that we needed to pass this legislation to address them.
  Then, of course, we had the 2020 elections, which the Democrats won 
and which featured record voter turnout. In fact, it was the largest 
voter turnout since 1900. So it became just a little difficult for the 
Democrats to argue that there were grave problems with our electoral 
system. Yet they still really, really want to pass this bill--a bill 
that contains what one respected legal scholar has called ``some of the 
most blatantly partisan, most obviously unconstitutional, and most 
unwise provisions ever passed by a chamber of Congress.'' So they have 
had to come up with a new rationale for trying to jam through this 
legislation.
  Now we are being warned about a new crisis: States, which under the 
Constitution, historically, have had primary responsibility when it 
comes to elections, are debating election administration measures that 
will return our Nation to the Jim Crow era, and so we have to pass S. 1 
to prevent the damage these States are going to do. The only thing, of 
course, is that this crisis is as manufactured as the last one.
  Take Georgia, the Democrats have made Georgia a poster child for the 
need to pass election legislation.
  ``Georgia's new voting law,'' the Senate Democratic whip asserted, 
``is a deliberate effort to suppress voters, particularly voters of 
color.''
  The President feverishly described the Georgia law as ``Jim Crow on 
steroids.''
  The only problem with that argument is ``the law does not put up 
roadblocks to Black Americans registering to vote.''
  Those aren't my words. Those are the words of The Washington Post 
Fact Checker, but the Democrats haven't allowed facts or reason to 
intrude when it comes to their characterizations of Georgia's election 
law.
  The Democratic whip has come down to the floor and claimed that the 
Georgia law makes it a crime to give water to voters in line. In fact, 
while the law does place restrictions on activists' and candidates' 
handing out water and other items--an obvious conflict--it explicitly 
permits neutral election officials to offer voters water.
  The President has repeatedly claimed that the law is designed to keep 
working Americans from voting, except it is not. The Washington Post, 
as I mentioned, gave the President four Pinocchios, a rating that the 
Washington Post reserves for ``whoppers'' for that claim by the 
President of the United States.
  In fact, as the Washington Post Fact Checker's piece makes clear, 
there is reason to think that the law might actually--wait for it--
expand access to early voting. A fairminded 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.''
  Georgia's voting laws are actually, in some ways, more permissive 
than voting laws in some Democratic-led States. Georgia allows more 
early voting than both the President and the Democratic leaders' home 
States, Delaware and New York. Unlike Georgia, neither Delaware nor New 
York offers any no-excuse absentee voting. I look forward to seeing the 
President and the

[[Page S2503]]

Democratic leader talk about how their home States are promoting voter 
suppression.
  The fact of the matter is, Georgia's new election law is squarely in 
the mainstream when it comes to State election laws. The Georgia bill 
would likely have been barely a blip in the news cycle if the Democrats 
had not seen an opportunity to distort this bill to advance their 
electoral agenda. Yet I want to talk about the actual substance of the 
Democrats' bill and why every Member of Congress should be opposing it.
  We are supposed to believe that this is an election integrity bill. 
In fact, it is the complete opposite. This bill would undermine 
election integrity in this country. It would do everything from making 
our election system more susceptible to fraud to undermining voter 
faith in our electoral system by politicizing election law.
  Let me just highlight a handful of the bill's worst provisions. Note 
that multiple amendments to address these concerns were voted down by 
the Democrats at Tuesday's markup, which says a lot about the partisan 
nature of the Democrats' aims with this bill.
  First, this bill would make the Federal Election Commission into a 
partisan body. Let me just repeat that. This bill would make the 
Federal Election Commission--the primary enforcer of election law in 
this country--into a partisan body. Instead of an independent 
Commission, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, which is 
what it is today, the FEC would become just a partisan arm of whichever 
President is in power.
  Tell me how that is supposed to enhance voter confidence in our 
system. Every single FEC ruling would be suspect. No Democrat voter 
would trust a Republican FEC, and no Republican voter would trust a 
Democrat one.
  Speaking of trust, let's talk about election fraud.
  The bill takes aim at State voter ID laws, which are commonsense 
measures--strongly supported by the American people--to ensure that 
voters are who they say they are before they vote. The Pew Research 
Center reports that 76 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of 
Democrats, support voter ID requirements.
  Now, I have always been at a loss to understand the congressional 
Democrats' passionate opposition to requiring people to provide 
identification before voting. I haven't heard the Democrats spend a lot 
of time complaining about requiring people to have a photo ID to drive 
or to fly or to go on a tour at the White House, but, somehow, asking 
people to provide an ID to vote is beyond the pale.
  Great Britain is actually planning to implement a voter ID 
requirement to prevent--you guessed it--electoral fraud. In fact, many 
European countries, including France, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 
require a form of identification to vote. Canada requires a form of 
identification to vote. It is difficult to understand the Democrats' 
fierce opposition to this commonsense fraud prevention measure.
  While we are on the subject of electoral fraud, let's talk about 
ballot harvesting.
  In addition to effectively eliminating States' voter ID requirements, 
S. 1 would also require 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, and that is to put 
it mildly. Yet the Democrats' bill would not just permit States to 
allow it; it would require them--require them--to allow it. I could go 
on and on and on.
  S. 1 would allow the unprecedented regulation of political speech and 
issue advocacy. It would impose disclosure requirements for 
organizations, which would open up donors to retaliation and 
intimidation. It would spend taxpayer dollars--possibly tens of 
millions of taxpayer dollars per candidate--on the public financing of 
political campaigns.
  That is right. With a soaring national debt and priorities like 
infrastructure to fund, the Federal Government would end up steering 
hundreds of millions of dollars to political campaigns. Perhaps the 
best illustration of that is Senator Cruz, here in the U.S. Senate, who 
pointed out that in the first quarter of this year under this law, the 
Federal Government would have had to cut him a check for $30 million 
for his campaign.
  This legislation is not about voter integrity. It is not about 
preventing voter suppression. It is about permanently changing the 
electoral playing field to give Democrats a permanent electoral 
advantage.
  It is the same reason Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court or 
admit DC as a State. Democrats want to use whatever political power 
they have to secure a permanent advantage for Democrat candidates and 
Democrat policies.
  If Democrats were serious about protecting the integrity of our 
election system, they would be working with Republicans to develop 
bipartisan legislation, not pushing a bill that is unlikely to get a 
single Republican vote.
  Passing a huge Federal election reform measure on a partisan basis 
would completely undermine one of the main purposes of election reform 
legislation, which is enhancing confidence in the integrity of our 
system.
  I can assure Democrats that S. 1 would do nothing to enhance 
Republican voters' confidence in the integrity of elections. I suspect 
there are a number of Democrat voters and Independent voters who will 
also see this bill for what it is--a partisan takeover of our electoral 
system.
  We are fortunate that our electoral system by and large seems to be 
operating well. As I mentioned, see the record turnout of voters in the 
2020 election. It was the highest turnout since 1900.
  But there are certainly measures we can take up to further enhance 
election integrity--not S. 1, which would do nothing to further 
election integrity, but there are other measures we could take up. But 
in order to have any degree of legitimacy, any election reform measures 
we consider should be taken up on a bipartisan basis, and if Democrats 
really wanted to enhance voter confidence and protect the integrity of 
our system, that is what they would be doing--taking up bipartisan 
legislation on a bipartisan basis.
  It is unfortunate that their aims are more partisan than public-
spirited. S. 1 is a solution in search of a problem that would result 
in the unprecedented politicization of our electoral system. For the 
good of the country, every Member of Congress should oppose it.
  I yield the floor.