[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4527-S4528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           FOR THE PEOPLE ACT

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we kicked things off last week with a 
vote on a bill that would exploit the cause of pay fairness, when that 
is already clearly the existing law, but, in this case, to line the 
pockets of trial lawyers.
  Senator Schumer said this month, the Senate will vote on S. 1, the 
partisan Federal election takeover bill. So just as our Democratic 
colleagues went on a spending spree in the name of

[[Page S4528]]

COVID-19, this bill hijacks the constitutional authority of the States 
in the purported name of increasing voting access. But this bill, too, 
is chock full of unnecessary, unpopular, and unconstitutional election 
proposals.
  It makes it much easier for partisans to affect our elections through 
fraud, in part, by removing requirements for the most basic safeguard, 
which is voter identification.
  That was one of the main recommendations in 2005 of the Commission on 
Federal Election Reform, a bipartisan commission cochaired by former 
President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State, 
James Baker, a Republican. That Commission, back in 2005, recommended 
that voters be required to present a photo ID card and the State should 
provide free cards to voters who, for some reason, didn't have a 
driver's license or other identification.
  In order to vote in person, most States require voters to present 
some valid form of identification. Matching the name of an eligible 
voter with the name on a valid form of ID is a commonsense safeguard 
against fraud, but one our Democratic colleagues apparently want to 
eliminate.
  In fact, their legislation would stop the States--actually it would 
prohibit the States--from requiring proof of identification in order to 
vote. Just sign a piece of paper saying you are who you say you are and 
no further questions can be asked.
  On top of that, this bill would require the States to automatically 
register anyone in their databases for everything from the department 
of motor vehicles to public assistance. We know these programs aren't 
limited to eligible voters and could include noncitizens and others who 
aren't eligible to cast a ballot, not to mention the fact that those 
who are already registered to vote would be registered again, 
potentially.
  And even if there are duplicate registrations or if someone passes 
away or moves, States would not be allowed, by this law, to clean up 
their voter rolls within 6 months of an election.
  But just when you think things can't get any crazier, they do. Our 
Democratic colleagues want to provide taxpayer funding for political 
campaigns and elections. That is right. They want you to pay for a 
political candidate's campaign, whether you want to or not, whether you 
support the policies of that candidate or not.
  A lot of companies have matching programs for charitable giving. If 
an employee donates to the charity of their choice, the company often 
will match the donation dollar for dollar. Well, that same principle 
applies here, in part, except instead of the charity getting money, it 
is now a political candidate. Instead of the company footing the bill, 
it is--you got it--it is you, the taxpayer.
  I could go on and on. This proposal, S. 1, which we will be voting on 
in the near future, changes the basic structure of the Federal Election 
Commission, which is currently a bipartisan Commission, which is forced 
to obtain a bipartisan majority before they can act. It split 3 to 3. 
But this bill would eliminate that bipartisan requirement and simply 
allow a partisan Federal election committee to work its will.

  This bill also legalizes something called ballot harvesting, which is 
susceptible to widespread fraud. In other words, it lets a campaign 
worker go around to nursing homes, neighborhoods, union halls, 
wherever, and collect your ballot and then to take them down to the 
clerk's office and cast that ballot. Well, the opportunities for fraud 
are pretty obvious.
  This bill would also implement a new financial disclosure policy that 
even the American Civil Liberties Union says ``could interfere directly 
with the ability of many to engage in political speech about causes 
that they care about.''
  But above all this, this bill undermines the trust and accountability 
that is so important to elections. The Judiciary Committee recently had 
a hearing where the secretary of state, who happens to be a Democrat, 
from New Hampshire said the single most important thing in providing a 
big turnout for elections is public confidence that their ballot will 
be counted. It is not how many days before election day you can vote, 
who can vote by mail; it is the public's confidence that their ballot 
will be counted, no matter how and when cast.
  So S. 1 is not a serious attempt at bipartisanship. It is the 
opposite. It is not an honest effort to pass legislation. Right now, we 
know that Democrats don't even have 50 votes on their side of the 
aisle. But the majority leader is trying to prove that partisanship 
apparently has a death grip on the Senate, but, unfortunately for him, 
it is not the party he thinks.
  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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority whip.

                          ____________________