[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4537-S4538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2021

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment about 
S. 1.
  This bill says that politicians and unelected bureaucrats who spend 
their entire careers in the same few square miles of Washington, DC, 
know how to run Nebraska's elections better than Nebraskans. I was glad 
to see the senior Senator from West Virginia come out against S. 1 and 
provide some much-needed honesty about what some Democrats' true 
intentions are with this bill.
  I think he summed up this issue well when he wrote in his op-ed: 
``Today's debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to 
hold elections, however, is not about finding common ground, but 
seeking partisan advantage.''
  As I said at the Rules Committee's markup for S. 1 a few weeks ago, I 
simply cannot understand why so many of my Democratic colleagues would 
like to hand over the control of our elections to the Federal 
Government.
  To take one example, this bill would allow candidates for the Senate 
to receive Federal funding for their campaigns through a new program 
supported by Federal dollars. That would include a 6-to-1 match for 
contributions up to $200, meaning that, if a donor gives $100, Federal 
dollars coming from taxpayers would match that with $600 more.
  During the bill's markup, I offered an amendment to prevent sitting 
Members of the Senate from benefiting from this windfall, but it was 
rejected by all of my Democratic colleagues on the committee. This does 
not help voters make informed decisions. This only helps those of us 
who are already here in Congress. The changes S. 1 proposes only get 
more radical from there.
  This bill would effectively turn the bipartisan six-member Federal 
Election Commission--the agency that oversees the financing of Federal 
elections--into a five-person panel subject to partisan control by 
giving the sitting President the power to appoint an independent fifth 
Commissioner to the agency. Because only a slim majority would then be 
needed to make a decision, this Commissioner could act as the deciding 
vote on issues that have historically been bipartisan.
  If Senate Republicans were still in the majority and I told you that 
our leader wanted to pass a bill that would tip the balance of the FEC 
toward our party, those on the other side would object, and they would 
be right to do so. This Commission must remain truly bipartisan, and 
that is done by having equal Democratic and Republican membership.
  S. 1 would also repeal an appropriations amendment that helps ensure 
the IRS does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of taxpayers 
who contribute to nonprofits. Allowing the IRS to possess this 
information when it is not a campaign finance enforcement agency only 
empowers bad actors at the agency to target groups that it dislikes. 
This is especially problematic given the recent leak of sensitive 
taxpayer information, and the IRS's history of targeting tax-exempt 
applicants solely based on their political leanings.
  Also, this bill would not only allow people to register to vote at a 
polling place on election day without presenting any form of 
identification, it would tell the 36 States that have some form of 
voter ID laws on the books now that those laws would be illegal. This 
is despite the fact that a majority of Americans supports requiring 
photo ID

[[Page S4538]]

to vote, and it flies in the face of the practices of other 
democracies, like Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, and France, 
which all require voters to verify their identities before casting 
their ballots.
  Despite all of the revolutionary changes this bill proposes, the most 
disheartening thing might be that it was introduced to solve a problem 
that doesn't actually exist. More people voted in last year's elections 
than ever before, including a record 76 percent of voters in my State 
of Nebraska. In the middle of a pandemic, voters turned out in historic 
numbers to make their voices heard.
  Defenders of this bill can't say that this turnout was an issue, so 
they have tried to scapegoat States like Georgia and Florida, which 
have recently passed new election laws. President Biden went as far as 
to call Georgia's bill ``Jim Crow in the 21st century'' before 
admitting that he was speaking about a very early draft, not the bill 
that actually became law.
  Reality gets in the way of that narrative, too, as Georgia's bill is 
less restrictive than the laws of more liberal States like New York and 
Delaware. Reasonable people can disagree about the best way to conduct 
elections, but it is disingenuous to say that something is voter 
suppression or undemocratic just because you may not agree with it.
  I hope we can agree that we all want to make sure that all American 
voters are able to make their voices heard in our elections. To see 
that in action, you only have to look at States like Nebraska. We have 
been a ``no excuse'' State for absentee and early voting for years, 
which means that anyone who has already provided an ID when registering 
to vote can vote by mail for any reason whatsoever. In fact, a bill 
that originally allowed for mail-in voting in Nebraska was the first 
bill I introduced and passed as a State legislator in 2005.
  Many other States go out of their way to make it easy to vote, 
regardless of which party is in power and regardless of whether they 
are red States or blue States. That is the beauty of the American 
system. Each State can do as it sees fit and respond to events like the 
COVID-19 pandemic while still producing positive reforms. By keeping 
States free from Federal mandates, we are allowing them to innovate and 
introduce the changes that work best for them.
  Washington, DC, isn't what makes America great. Our 50 States, each 
with its own history and its own needs, are what make this country so 
unique.
  This bill jeopardizes that diversity, and it would do away with a 
system that works well and replace it with one that would be partisan, 
divisive, and, frankly, chaotic.
  I think we would be making a terrible mistake if we pass S. 1 as it 
is currently written.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The majority leader.

                          ____________________