[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 16, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4564-S4572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Organization

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to express significant 
concern about the Biden administration's decision to file an amicus 
brief in the case of Ramona Matos Rodriguez v. Pan American Health 
Organization.
  This case involves serious allegations that the Pan American Health 
Organization facilitated human trafficking and regrettably places the 
administration in a position in which it is undercutting efforts by the 
victims of the Cuban dictatorship's forced labor schemes.
  Now, let me be clear, I am a strong advocate for the Pan American 
Health Organization and its mission strengthening health systems across 
Latin America and the Caribbean. Given the significant impact of COVID-
19 on the region, PAHO's efforts are needed now more than ever, and I 
have fought to ensure that the Pan American Health Organization has the 
resources it needs to carry out its lifesaving work during the pandemic 
and throughout a good period of time of my congressional career. 
However, I also firmly believe that the Pan American Health 
Organization must be held accountable for its past transgressions, 
including the unacceptable role that it played facilitating a program 
that subjected more than 10,000 Cuban medical professionals to forced 
labor conditions in Brazil.
  From 2013 to 2019, the Pan American Health Organization profited from 
its participation in Brazil's Mais Medicos Program, an initiative that 
allowed Cuba's dictatorship to earn income from trafficking doctors.
  The Cuban regime's so-called foreign medical missions are nothing 
more than human trafficking. In November of 2019, the United Nation's 
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery and the United 
Nation's Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons raised concerns 
that the Cuban regime's trafficking of medical professionals 
constitutes forced labor and modern slavery.
  In fact, the Department of State's last ``Trafficking in Persons'' 
report found the Cuban regime garnishes the wages of its medical 
professionals that serve overseas, surveils them, confiscates their 
passports so they can't

[[Page S4565]]

leave anywhere, and retaliates against family members in Cuba if they 
leave from the program. So if you send me abroad, don't pay me, get 
money from the country that you send me from, take away my passport, 
and retaliate against my family, that is the ultimate forced labor. 
Cuba's dictatorship generated more than $6 billion in profit from its 
forced labor schemes in 2018 alone as it trafficked tens of thousands 
of Cuban medical professionals to some 60 countries.
  The Pan American Health Organization's participation in the Cuban 
dictatorship's human trafficking programs cannot be overlooked, and 
accountability is urgently needed.
  It is against this backdrop that I have reviewed the Biden 
administration's amicus brief in Rodriguez v. Pan American Health 
Organization. And while the brief addresses some of the technical 
aspects of the case, it effectively does nothing--nothing--to condemn 
Cuba's dictatorship for human trafficking or the Pan American Health 
Organization's participation in those programs that were human 
trafficking.
  For over two decades, the United States has led the international 
community in combating human trafficking. In 2000, the United States 
enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act--something I was 
involved with in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--which has set 
a standard for countries around the world to strengthen efforts to 
prosecute traffickers, increase protection for victims, and expand 
foreign assistance programs. We have built a range of financial tools 
to combat the human trafficking industry and its illicit profits. We 
have spearheaded efforts to ensure that slavery-free supply chains--
slavery-free supply chains--that respect workers' rights and prevent 
against forced labor conditions around the world become more and more a 
reality.
  The Biden administration squandered an opportunity in this brief, an 
opportunity to support Cuban trafficking victims and an opportunity to 
advance our extraordinary American leadership in combating all forms of 
human trafficking and modern slavery. It is a major disappointment.
  I urge the President and the Secretary of State to redouble efforts 
to pressure Cuba to end this medical trafficking program and the many 
other abuses it perpetrates against the Cuban people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Tuberville pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2079 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       For the People Act of 2021

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have been told by the majority party 
that soon we will be having a vote on an 800-page bill to change 50 
State voting laws to 1 Federal law. This bill is called the For the 
People Act. It was compiled after the 2018 elections to call into 
question the legitimacy of democratic elections for partisan political 
purposes.
  If it had been a serious attempt at legislating, there would have 
been some outreach to some Republicans because it takes 60 votes, a 
bipartisan vote, to get anything through the U.S. Senate.
  In that process, there would have been consultation also with local 
elected officials--the election officials who conduct the State 
elections--to make sure it was workable. There would have been hearings 
in the Congress. There would have been revisions from the bill 
originally introduced.
  The fact that back in 2018, when it was introduced, is the fact that 
it was intended as political propaganda, and that betrays the absurdity 
of the title, the ``For the People Act.''
  Also, despite Senator Schumer's using Senate rule XIV in the last 
Congress to bypass the committee and put the bill directly on the 
Senate calendar, Senator Schumer never used his right to force a vote 
on moving to the bill. At that time, the Democratic narrative was that 
Republicans were not doing enough to secure the election so the results 
might end up being in doubt. Now, what we know from happening in the 
last election, that argument is out the window now.
  Since the Democrats got the results they wanted, they endlessly quote 
the Trump administration's top cyber security official declaring the 
2020 election the most secure ever in history.
  I assumed last Congress that Senator Schumer would wait until right 
before the 2020 election to force a vote so he could accuse Republicans 
of blocking an election bill for their campaign narrative questioning 
election security. Instead, they repeatedly, dishonestly, blamed the 
Republican leader for blocking the bill, ignoring the fact that the 
Democratic leader had reserved the possibility of forcing a vote.
  The For the People Act is a messaging bill. The bill has now been 
reintroduced and recast as a response to a few State election security 
laws. A handful of relatively modern reforms at the State level have 
been shamelessly and falsely characterized as voter suppression, even 
considering the fact that in the last election, the winner got the 
highest number of votes of any winner for President in the history of 
the United States, and the loser got the highest number of votes of any 
candidate for President of the United States throughout our history.
  As I have mentioned before, the claim by some Trump supporters that a 
certain brand of voting machine switched votes, I pointed out that that 
was lifted entirely from the Democrats' 2004 playbook. And President 
Trump's questioning of his loss in Georgia was simply following in the 
footsteps of the losing candidate for Governor of Georgia 2 years 
before. The Georgia Democrat lost by over 50,000 votes in 2018 and has 
never even bothered to try to prove voting irregularities on that 
scale.
  Foreign adversaries like Russia and China cast doubts on the 
soundness of our democratic system, both to weaken us from within and 
to justify their own repressive regimes. American politics should not 
do these repressive regimes propaganda jobs for them, but too often we 
tend to be doing that.
  This bill is being called democracy reform. I support our American 
democratic system. All Americans should be proud of it. We can and 
should have confidence in our elections. Our democracy does not need a 
fundamental rewrite because our democracy works.
  Let's stop casting doubt on American elections, stop casting 
aspersions on the commonsense election security measures supported by 
Americans of all backgrounds. Let's work together to boost the 
confidence of all Americans in our elections.
  This bill would register illegal aliens. It would do away with State 
voter ID laws. It would have taxpayer-funded elections.
  I remember what our colleague Senator Cruz said. In the first quarter 
of this year, he raised--it must have been in the neighborhood of about 
$5 million from contributors of under $200. So if you get that kind of 
money, under this bill, from people under $200, for every dollar you 
get, you get $6 from the taxpayers. So Senator Cruz, I am told, would 
get about $34 million of taxpayer funds to use for political purposes. 
We don't need to replace 50 State voting laws as this 800-page bill 
would.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, you and I, as we sit on the Rules 
Committee, saw the debate on this bill--the bill that the sponsors call 
the For the People Act. I think it really more accurately could be 
called the ``For the Politicians Act.'' S. 1 was marked up in the Rules 
Committee last month, a markup that I certainly raised a number of 
concerns about the bill and others did too. It is more than 800 pages

[[Page S4566]]

that contains policies relating to election administration, to campaign 
finance, to redistricting, and much more.
  Now, the truth is, we don't know what bill will come to the floor 
because this bill couldn't get out of committee. And apparently we are 
going to not use the committee process but, in fact, we will bring a 
different bill to the floor that nobody has seen yet. But this bill 
seems to get bigger over time, not smaller over time.
  It includes the overwhelmingly bad idea that Congress should impose a 
Federal takeover of elections and force a one-size-fits-all approach on 
the more than 10,000 voting jurisdictions in the country.
  There are very few things that you can develop a formula that works 
just right in 10,000 places. In fact, in our States and in the District 
of Columbia, we have a pretty significant problem coming up with 51 
different structures that work for everywhere in every jurisdiction 
that is impacted by that.
  This bill also has some deadlines that are so short that if it became 
law, it would create chaos in next year's elections and make the 
election process less trusted, not more trusted.
  We should be focusing on Federal laws and State laws that make it 
easier to vote and harder to cheat. I think this bill makes it easier 
to cheat and harder to figure out whether anybody cheated or not.
  S. 1 undermines the popular State voter identification laws. The 
majority of our States now require some kind of identification. And an 
overwhelming number of voters believe that voter identification at the 
polls is a good thing.
  This bill allows political operatives to fan out across a community 
and collect an unlimited number of ballots. In fact, it says States 
can't even stop that process of ballot harvesting. Those ballot 
harvesters can collect ballots from you. They can collect ballots from 
your neighbors, from vulnerable voters like people in nursing homes. 
And, frankly, who knows if they turn them in or not? Who knows if they 
put them in the post office box or not? If they never show up, the 
ballot harvester, who may very well know that your ballot is a ballot 
they don't agree with, could just say, ``Well, I don't know what 
happened. It must have been lost in the mail,'' and who would ever know 
whether it was lost in the mail or not?
  In addition to undermining voter identification laws and making it 
possible for complete strangers to take your ballot, S. 1 disrupts 
States' long-made efforts to maintain an accurate list of eligible 
voters. Voter rolls are the foundation really of election 
administration. I was the chief election official in our State. I was a 
local election official in our State.
  Accurate lists of who can vote that people can look at before the 
election, during the election, and after the election create great 
confidence in the process.
  Accurate lists ensure that voters are able to cast a ballot--and the 
ballot they should cast--in the districts they actually live in. That 
can be pretty complicated sometimes, and really only the election 
authority can be aware of that when they know exactly where you live.
  Election officials, when you have accurate lists, know who has voted, 
and, frankly, they know who hasn't voted. So if the same person comes 
in or at least a person pretending to be the same person comes in a 
second time, they know that.
  Accurate voter lists allow voters to check in more quickly to get 
that efficient and quick exercise of democracy done.
  One of the things everybody constantly talks about is, well, we make 
it too hard to vote. If you really want to make it hard to vote, make 
it hard to figure out who the voters are who are supposed to be voting 
at a given precinct.
  The right to vote is a bedrock principle in our democracy. The right 
to vote wherever you want to vote is not a bedrock principle in our 
democracy. You can't just decide: Well, this year I think it is going 
to be pretty competitive in some other State. I will just drive over 
there on election day and vote. Frankly, you can't just decide: You 
know, that congressional district next door to the one I live in looks 
more competitive than the one I live in. I think I will go over there 
and vote this year instead of in the district that the census tract 
would have put me in.
  The right to vote is a bedrock principle. The right to vote wherever 
you want to isn't. Some of our great local administrators figured this 
out. In St. Louis County, the biggest single election jurisdiction in 
Missouri, you can vote anywhere in the county, but at the place where 
you go vote--the ballot for you individually is generated at the place 
you go vote, and it is counted in the races that are generated for you 
to vote in. That is pretty innovative. I don't think we could probably 
have ever figured that out at the national level.
  But the point is, you are voting for the people who you are living in 
the district that person will represent, whether it is on the local 
school board or in the Congress or in the State legislature. That is a 
very complicated set of things that benefit totally from voter rolls 
and benefit from you voting where you live.
  This bill prohibits States from putting in place really just 
reasonable election security measures that have been upheld by court. 
It takes away the guardrails that prevent fraud from happening and 
ensures that when you do have fraud, you have ways to figure out that 
fraud occurred and what to do about it. You pile up all the ways this 
legislation actually increases the likelihood of fraud, and you think 
about whether you really need a strong reason to change the system 
when, as Senator Grassley said, the system appears to be working pretty 
well.
  Democracies benefits from local responsibility. One political party, 
however, thinks this bill will give it an electoral advantage. They 
have thought that for about 20 years. This is the compilation of 20 
years of Democrats in the Congress thinking, what could we do to change 
the election law that would be helpful for us? That is where we are in 
this legislation. It was written by one party alone. It has been 
steered through Congress by one party alone. It has not actually been 
seen by anybody in the other party yet, and the majority leader says 
this bill, which probably still is going to be about 800 pages, will 
come to the floor next week. In both Chambers of Congress, there has 
been bipartisan opposition to the bill and no bipartisan support for 
this bill.
  The danger of those kinds of sweeping changes really can do a lot to 
negatively impact our election system, but it doesn't stop there. It 
would turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan tool where 
the party of the President has a majority. There is a reason that six-
member Commission was equally divided when it was set up, just like 
there is a reason the Senate Ethics Committee is equally divided.
  This bill would send Federal money to campaign coffers at the rate of 
$6 for every dollar raised for every contribution under $200. I think 
the number my friend Chairman Grassley was talking about was if you 
raised $5 million of under $200, you would get $30 million from the 
Federal Government--$30 million of government money that could clearly 
be used for something else. In fact, the current Members of the Senate 
would be eligible under the total restrictions of the bill to get $1.8 
billion in Federal money. Talk about a conflict of interest when you 
vote for this bill.
  The bill also changes redistricting established in the Constitution 
for the States and basically ensures that all congressional 
redistricting would be done by Federal courts. That doesn't affect the 
Senate much, but it affects the government a lot. It places heavy 
burdens on free speech and impacts every branch of the Federal 
Government.
  I have heard proponents of this bill say that it is necessary to push 
back recently passed State voter laws and protect the voting rights of 
Americans. This bill has nothing to do with voting rights. It doesn't 
protect the right of a single American to cast a ballot. It doesn't 
bring new people into the system as the constitutional amendment did on 
women and other people who have been added, people who had been held in 
a terrible way in slavery, people who had been prevented from voting 
because of their sex or race, and people who were prevented because of 
age at one time. This bill does nothing of that.

[[Page S4567]]

  This is a Federal takeover of elections. It should be rejected by the 
Senate. I believe it will be rejected by the Senate. We look forward to 
seeing the other side defend this bill next week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from West Virginia
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Missouri, 
Senator Blunt, for his leadership on this issue.
  We had the hearing and the markup in the Rules Committee. I think 
that we could tell from the debate that the amount of holes and 
misinformation that is contained within S. 1 is the reason that I call 
it the so-called For the People Act.
  Ronald Reagan famously said that the nine most terrifying words in 
the English language are ``I'm from the government, and I'm here to 
help.'' This can be applied to many examples of what we do here.
  What seems more pertinent, I think, now is this latest partisan 
attempt to federalize one of America's most sacred functions, and that 
is our elections. Advocates claim that this sweeping effort, which 
comes in the form of legislation ironically called For the People Act, 
is to get more people to vote. Let's be clear. Everyone--Republicans, 
Democrats, Independents--we all want to see more people voting. The 
good news is that we have already been doing that across the country 
and in my home State of West Virginia.
  Remember, last year we were voting under a pandemic, under incredibly 
difficult situations for everybody. Our State of West Virginia ran a 
very successful election suited to our State. We had thousands more 
people vote in 2020 than they did in 2016. In fact, the total number of 
ballots cast in 2020 was more than any other election in West 
Virginia's history, with the exception of the 1960 election. The 1960 
election, remember, was the Presidential election that President 
Kennedy won after he had a very successful and a pivotal victory in the 
primary in West Virginia as the first Roman Catholic running for 
President. More than 158 million ballots were cast in 2020. That is a 
7-percent increase since 2016. This is under a pandemic.
  Every State decided the best way to get maximum participation. Last 
November, every single State saw higher turnout rates compared to the 
previous Presidential election. If more people are, in fact, voting, 
what is this Democratic-proposed legislation really about? And that is 
where it is about the federalization of elections and election power 
grab. I believe it lacks credibility. It is really about a way to 
implement absurd and downright un-American provisions in the bill that 
prioritize power over the will of the people.
  I am glad to say that some of my Democratic colleagues are finally 
acknowledging the concerns with this bill. During the Rules Committee 
markup, Republicans and Democrats offered a number of amendments, some 
of which were adopted on a bipartisan basis. That is what we are 
supposed to do--work it through committee. These amendments have been 
heralded by some of my Democratic colleagues as an example of how we 
can work together on this issue.
  Despite the bipartisan amendments in the Rules Committee--despite 
this--the version that the majority leader may bring up for a vote does 
not include any of the amendments that were adopted during the markup 
even though they had bipartisan support. To me, that is a clear sign 
that the majority is not trying to cooperate in good faith but, rather, 
trying to ram through a partisan bill that will encroach on the States' 
abilities--my State's ability--to ensure a free and fair election and a 
well-attended election at the same time.
  The legislation would strip States of their constitutional authority 
to run elections and allow the Federal Government to determine what is 
best.
  It would ban voter ID laws, which are adopted in many States, mine 
included, which maintain the integrity of elections in my State and the 
majority of others. Quite frankly, I haven't heard one person in my 
State complain about having to take an ID to the polls or to submit an 
ID with their vote.
  The bill would also force States to administer same-day voter 
registration--a cumbersome mandate that many States won't be able to 
comply with for dozens of reasons. In my State, it is internet 
connectivity. Many of our polling areas wouldn't be able to accept 
same-day registration because they can't connect, unfortunately, to the 
bigger system to find out if this person is fraudulent or not.
  It would also require that States mandate the unpopular and dangerous 
practice of ballot harvesting, which is ripe for fraud. Now, I will 
tell you, some States have made ballot harvesting legal. Some States 
have same-day voter registration. Good for them. They decided what is 
good for their State through the constitutional duty of States to run 
elections.
  Speaking of fraud, this bill would mandate absentee ballot boxes, 
drop boxes, and force county clerks to accept regular ballots filed in 
the wrong precinct without proof of residency, both of which leave the 
door open to voter fraud.
  If that is not enough, if signed into law, West Virginia's e-voting 
system and others like it--this is the e-voting system that allows our 
Active military who are deployed overseas to be able to vote safely by 
their mobile phone, and the legislature opened that up to people with 
disabilities to be able to use an e-voting system. This bill would 
severely curtail that and negate it in many cases. That is an expansion 
of voting rights that this bill would take away.
  This legislation would allow government funding of congressional 
campaigns, with small donations being matched with Federal funds. Now, 
we heard from our friend Senator Cruz in our committee. He talked 
about, if his contributions were matched for the first 3 months of this 
year, he would get millions of dollars, over $20 million of public 
financing for his campaign. I highly doubt my Democratic colleagues 
would want the Federal Government to help Senator Cruz in the financing 
of his campaign. As a matter of fact, he himself, Senator Cruz, said he 
doesn't want that at all either.
  The bill also would make the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, 
which oversees our elections and our finances, which is now a neutral 
three Republicans, three Democrats on the Commission, as it always has 
been--it would make it into a partisan majority vote. Well, if you are 
going to be making decisions on my colleague from Florida's election or 
my election on financials, or the Presiding Officer's election, do we 
really want a political organization making those? Not when we have had 
a nonpartisan FEC for years and have enforced our campaign laws and put 
them above party politics. But remember, this is only about getting 
people to vote, so don't worry.
  The disaster doesn't stop with politicizing the FEC; it would also 
remove the authority of States to draw district maps and would mandate 
how you do that. Our States can figure out how best--some of them have 
commissions. Some of them do it by the legislature. Some of them do it 
by the supreme court. Let's let the States make that decision.
  I just think that the biggest demonstration of opposition to this 
bill has come from the West Virginia County Clerk's Association. It 
adopted a resolution in opposition to S. 1 that 54 of the 55 county 
clerks in my State signed. These are Republican and Democratic county 
clerks.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record this letter from the West Virginia County Clerk's Association
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    June 10, 2021.

         WVCCA Resolution Opposing the Passage of H.R. 1 & S. 1

       Whereas, the United States Constitution recognizes the 
     authority of the legislatures of each State to regulate the 
     times, places, and manner of holding federal elections; and
       Whereas, election administrators and county officials were 
     not given an opportunity to provide input on the drafting of 
     H.R. 1 and S. 1 prior to the introduction of the legislation, 
     unlike previous bipartisan federal election reforms; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 preempt state law that currently 
     restricts ballot harvesting for the prevention of fraud, by 
     expressly providing that states ``may not put any limit on 
     how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated 
     person can return to the post office, a ballot drop-off 
     location, tribally designated building, or election office''; 
     and

[[Page S4568]]

       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 preempt state law by mandating 
     same-day registration, regardless of the severe lack of 
     internet service and broadband in rural areas: an impossible 
     feat in West Virginia; and
       Whereas, Same-day registration provisions in H.R. 1 and S. 
     1 lack proper security protections, multiplied by the lack of 
     internet capability in polling locations in West Virginia, 
     which undermines the integrity of our elections by making it 
     impossible for election officials to confirm any new voter's 
     eligibility prior to them casting any ballot or from 
     guaranteeing that no voter both registers and votes more than 
     once in an election on Election Day; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 preempt state law by prohibiting 
     requirements for physical proofs of identification for 
     regular in-person and absentee voters, and requiring states 
     to accept just a voter's signature affidavit as proof of 
     eligibility and proper registration; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 preempt state law and adoption of 
     voting systems by requiring decertification of current, 
     federally certified voting systems, and forcing states to 
     purchase new voting equipment--none of which currently 
     comport with the most recently adopted voluntary voting 
     system guidelines (adopted Feb. 2021 by EAC)--wasting 
     millions of dollars in recent upgrades purchased with HAVA 
     funding across West Virginia and requiring new manufacturing 
     by vendors and purchases by counties to the tune of tens of 
     millions of dollars in WV alone; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 creates multiple so-called 
     ``private rights of action'' that would lead to election 
     administrators being targeted for lawsuits all across the 
     country for both real and imagined violations, and causing 
     county clerks to spend more time defending themselves in 
     court than preparing to make sure that elections are run 
     smoothly and securely; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 places dozens of additional 
     mandates on county clerks while providing no ongoing 
     operational funding to fulfill the requirements, causing 
     potential cuts in county budgets to law enforcement and 
     public safety; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 preempt state law by forcing 
     county clerks to accept regular--not provisional--ballots of 
     voters who vote in the incorrect precinct, without sufficient 
     evidence of eligibility or proof of residence; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 fatally contradicts the reliability and 
     security of electronic transmission by permitting voters to 
     cure signature deficiencies electronically (see Sec. 1621) 
     but prohibiting UOCAVA, voters living with disabilities, and 
     first responders called away for service from transmitting 
     absentee ballots securely using extensively tested procedures 
     and methods; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 lump dozens of state agencies and 
     educational institutions into ``voter registration 
     agencies,'' and requires them to integrate into an automatic 
     voter registration system without regard to current systems, 
     data collection practices, or security creating more 
     opportunities for voters' registrations to be mishandled and 
     mistransmitted, and likely resulting in security lapses for 
     agencies currently not covered under the Critical 
     Infrastructure designation of the Department of Homeland 
     Security; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 preempt state law by mandating new 
     dates for the early in-person voting period without regard to 
     state-specific success and voter participation under current 
     election calendars; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1 and S. 1 preempt state law by requiring 
     absentee ballot drop boxes and increasing security concerns 
     for absentee ballots that currently do not exist under state 
     laws: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, that the West Virginia County Clerk's Association 
     opposes the passage of H.R. 1, S. 1, or any other legislation 
     that impedes the state's ability to administer elections in 
     an overreaching, one-size-fits-all approach out of Washington 
     D.C.
       Adopted the 10th day of June, 2021 in Canaan Valley, WV
       Expires: June 2026
     Connie Kaufman,
       Barbour Co. Clerk.
     Roger Toney,
       Boone Co. Clerk.
     Elaine C. Mauck,
       Berkeley Co. Clerk.
     Sue Ann Rutherford,
       Braxton Co. Clerk.
     Kim Barbetta,
       Brooke Co. Clerk.
     Jean Simers,
       Calhun Co. Clerk.
     Catee Slater,
       Doddridge Co. Clerk.
     Jean Butcher,
       Gilmer Co. Clerk.
     Robin Loudermilk,
       Greenbrier Co. Clerk.
     George Foley,
       Hancock Co. Clerk.
     John Spires,
       Harrison Co. Clerk.
     Jacqueline C. Shadle,
       Jefferson Co. Clerk.
     Cynthia S. Rowan,
       Lewis Co. Clerk.
     John A. Turner,
       Logan Co. Clerk.
     Phyllis Smith,
       Cabell Co. Clerk.
     Connie Workman,
       Clay Co. Clerk.
     Michelle Z. Holly,
       Fayette Co. Clerk.
     Bud Fisher,
       Grant Co. Clerk.
     Eric W. Strite,
       Hampshire Co. Clerk.
     Gregory L. Ely,
       Hardy Co. Clerk.
     Cheryl A. Bright,
       Jackson Co. Clerk.
     Vera McCormick,
       Kanawha Co. Clerk.
     Direl G. Baker,
       Lincoln Co. Clerk.
     Julie Kincaid,
       Marion Co. Clerk.
     Jan Pest,
       Marshall Co. Clerk.
     Donald L. Hicks,
       McDowell Co. Clerk.
     Lauren Ellifritz,
       Mineral Co. Clerk.
     Donald J. Evans,
       Monroe Co. Clerk.
     Robert Painter,
       Nicholas Co. Clerk.
     Elise M. White,
       Pendleton Co. Clerk.
     Melissa Bennett,
       Pocahontas Co. Clerk.
     Brian Wood,
       Putnam Co. Clerk.
     Brenda Wiseman,
       Randolph Co. Clerk.
     Diana N. Cromley,
       Mason Co. Clerk.
     Verlin T. Moye,
       Mercer Co. Clerk.
     Larry Croaff,
       Mingo Co. Clerk.
     Kimberly Nickles,
       Morgan Co. Clerk.
     Michael E. Kelly,
       Ohio Co. Clerk.
     Evelyn Davis,
       Pleasants Co. Clerk.
     Linda Huggins,
       Preston Co. Clerk.
     Danny Moore,
       Raleigh Co. Clerk.
     Tracie McDonald,
       Ritchie Co. Clerk.
     Charles B. White, Jr.,
       Roane Co. Clerk.
     Georgianna Thompson,
       Taylor Co. Clerk.
     Neil Archer,
       Tyler Co. Clerk.
     Renick C. Booth,
       Wayne Co. Clerk.
     Carol Haught,
       Wetzel Co. Clerk.
     Mark Rhodes,
       Wood Co. Clerk.
     Mary B. Merritt,
       Summers Co. Clerk.
     Sherry Simmons,
       Tucker Co. Clerk.
     Carol Smith,
       Upshur Co. Clerk.
     Eva R. Green,
       Webster Co. Clerk.
     Marolyn Baldrige,
       Wirt Co. Clerk.
     Jewell Aguilar,
       Wyoming Co. Clerk.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, they raise numerous grievances, many of 
which I have talked about. They talk about the voting machines they 
have right now, which they have spent a lot of money on, that would all 
be taken offline. You would have to fully replace all of that. They 
also fully reject the usurping of what is their constitutionally based 
responsibility to run elections safely, securely, and on time. So I 
appreciate the letter from our clerks and certainly understand their 
deep, deep concerns. The right to vote is a constitutional right, and 
on that, we are in agreement.
  I got to go to a citizenship ceremony wherein 20 new citizens joined 
our country after having waited to get into our country. After becoming 
citizens, the best and most precious right they get is that right to 
vote. Yet S. 1 is merely a partisan power grab that includes all kinds 
of unrelated, harmful provisions. It strips the States of their 
authority to run their elections. To put it simply, States do not need 
the Federal Government to strip them of their authority and impose 
burdensome requirements to fix problems that do not exist. That is 
exactly what this bill does, and it is why the For the People Act does 
not live up to its name.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, the United States is a beacon 
of democracy in the world, and our Nation was founded on free and fair 
elections, but if the American people don't have confidence in our 
elections, we don't have a sustainable democracy.
  Right now, unfortunately, many people do not have confidence. People 
across the country are mad when they look at the blatant power grab by 
the Democrats to fundamentally change our democracy. Do you know what? 
They should be mad. We are talking about the sacred right to vote.
  If we want to continue as a thriving democracy, we have to take 
action so

[[Page S4569]]

that Americans trust in free and fair elections. That is why I 
introduced the Save Democracy Act so as to restore faith in our Federal 
elections and guarantee that voters decide the outcomes of elections, 
not the courts.
  I also introduced the Promoting Election Integrity by Proving Voter 
Identity Act so as to require voter ID. It is pretty simple. If you 
want to vote in person, you will need to bring your current and valid 
ID. If you want to vote by mail, you will need to provide a copy of 
your ID. Like I said, it is pretty simple and straightforward. If we 
want, and we do--we want 100 percent participation in our elections, 
and we want zero fraud. We want it to be easy to vote and very hard to 
cheat. Voter ID helps us meet that goal.
  Of course, the Democrats will do anything to fight against these 
commonsense reforms. Instead, the Democrats are pushing S. 1, otherwise 
known as the Corrupt Politicians Act. S. 1 is the most ridiculous 
legislation I have seen since I have come to the Senate. I would need 
hours to go through all of it. For our purposes here today, I want to 
highlight just one piece of this lunacy: using taxpayer dollars to pay 
for political campaigns.
  The Democrats want to use your tax dollars to subsidize their 
political campaigns. Think about how anti-democratic it is to allow 
public servants to use the people's money to manipulate the people 
themselves. Just to be crystal clear, here is what is exactly being 
proposed by the Democrats in this anti-democratic bill: Public 
officials--the government--take money from you. Then they use that 
money to pay for their campaign ads in order to manipulate you.
  This bill is nothing but a political power grab by Washington 
Democrats. New Hampshire Democrat Secretary of State Bill Gardner even 
said recently that S. 1 was a power grab by the Federal Government that 
would ``trample New Hampshire's state constitution.''
  Under the Democrats' plan, a candidate for the Senate in California 
could spend $80 million in taxpayer dollars to run attack ads and fund 
his campaign--$80 million. In Georgia, a Senate candidate could get as 
much as $25 million in taxpayer money. Candidates in Arizona could get 
almost $19 million. New York candidates would get more than $44 
million. That doesn't make any sense.
  What kind of return on investment are the American people getting 
when their hard-earned tax dollars are funding attack ads? Why is the 
Federal Government in the business of funding campaigns? Because my 
Democratic colleagues want the government to take your money and spend 
it on trying to manipulate your vote.
  Only in Washington would a bunch of politicians look at the 
challenges from recovering from the pandemic and decide the most 
important thing we can do is make taxpayers fund campaign ads.
  This is the most radical piece of voting legislation this Nation has 
ever seen at a time when restoring confidence in our elections has 
never been more important.
  I was sent to the U.S. Senate to fight for Floridians and Americans 
against corrupt politicians. Here is my promise to every American 
family: I am going to fight every day to make sure the Democrats do not 
try to take your money to manipulate your vote.
  If we are serious about working together to move our country forward, 
restore public trust in our elections, and protect democracy, we need 
to reject the insanity of S. 1 and look to commonsense reforms like 
voter ID. We will continue to fight the Democrats' election power grab 
and combat their efforts to prevent measures that protect the integrity 
of our elections
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, it has been so interesting to talk 
with Tennesseans over the past couple of weeks, and it is interesting 
in the vein that they are beginning to really question some of the 
proposals that my Democratic colleagues are bringing forward and items 
that they are pushing from the left side of the aisle.
  I have to tell you that I honestly can't blame them. After all, when 
they promised COVID relief, they delivered a blue State bailout, which 
was something that was not popular in Tennessee. They said that they 
were going to be all for some much needed infrastructure projects. In 
Tennessee, we like to talk about this in terms of roads and railways 
and runways and rivers. Yet what did the people from Tennessee hear? 
They heard all about the Green New Deal, they heard about incentives 
for electric vehicles, and they heard about alternative energy. They 
looked at that infrastructure bill and said: This is fantasyland.
  Then, when they promised to support families and children, what did 
you get from the left side of the aisle? You got support for expanding 
the welfare state.
  Now Senate Democrats have promised to vote on legislation that they 
claim is going to make our elections more transparent. Hmm. That is 
interesting. Surprising no one, the bill the Democrats are trying to 
sell to the American people will do exactly the opposite.
  Of course, in typical fashion of the House, what did it do? It gave 
it a friendly sounding name--the For the People Act--but in actuality, 
this is a bill that would take away rights and responsibilities from 
the American people.
  They are saying: This is going to be about transparency. Well, when 
we think of transparency, we think of things that are going to be seen, 
of things that are going to be easily understood. We think of things 
from which the activity within is going to be made available so that 
people can see this. It should follow, then, that a bill that is 
promising transparent elections would be there to help voters 
understand the rules, trust the people in charge, and cast their votes 
of confidence. It would not be a bill that would seize control from 
local officials and place it in the hands of unelected Washington 
bureaucrats, and it would not be a bill that would make it literally 
impossible to stand up polling places. It certainly would not be a bill 
that would erode confidence in ballot integrity, but that is what we 
have. It just doesn't make sense what they are trying to do when it 
comes to voting.
  Even with all of this, my Democratic colleagues have spent most of 
this year trying to sell the American public on a bill that would 
centralize power, that would impose burdensome rules on State and local 
governments, and that would take away constitutional responsibilities 
and rights and all but ensure rampant voter fraud. That is correct. A 
piece of legislation that would do--what?--make it easier to cheat.
  So, in the interest of the transparency my Democratic colleagues have 
promised, let's take a closer look at the legislation they are pushing 
forward.
  Like most proposals they have tried to force through this year, this 
latest, brazen political power grab is built on a foundation of 
unreasonable mandates--mandates from the Federal Government to the 
State and local governments. Yet, rather than simplifying the process, 
these new rules would throw your local elections into chaos.
  If passed, the provisions in this bill would mandate the use of 
ballot casting technology and voter registration systems that don't 
even exist yet. That is correct. What is being mandated is not in 
existence, but when it does come to exist, you can bet that it will 
cost a fortune, that it will come with a steep learning curve, and that 
there will be buddies of the Democratic Party that will make a bucket 
of money.
  The same automatic registration procedures that failed voters in 
California and Illinois will fail voters in every State in this 
country.
  It would force States to stand aside for activists running ballot 
harvesting schemes--and, indeed, ballot harvesting is a scheme. Anyone 
who has ever watched one of these campaigns in action knows that 
forcing officials to tolerate them is an invitation for these activists 
to engage in a little sleight of hand, if you will.
  In fact, this bill truly outdoes itself when it comes to encouraging 
fraud. Its hallmark provision would ban meaningful voter ID laws and 
stop State and local officials from cleaning up their voter rolls. This 
bill strips away every commonsense defense against voter fraud.
  It would also inject fear into the process by mandating donor 
disclosure and weaponizing a partisan FEC against minority political 
parties.

[[Page S4570]]

  The American people know there is only one reason you would work this 
hard to remove transparency from elections: They are seeking to remove 
transparency from the voter. Truth be told, many of my colleagues 
across the aisle know it, too, which is why this bill has earned 
bipartisan opposition.
  I have spent the better part of 2 years coming to the floor to object 
to various iterations of this bill, and I will continue to do so until 
my colleagues abandon this partisan power grab.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am joining others who have the same 
problem with what the majority party here in the U.S. Senate is trying 
to do. It is something that surprises a lot of people, something that 
would completely revamp, completely change, a system that has been in 
place since 1787.
  I understand that they are soon going to be forcing a vote on a bill 
they are naming the For the People Act, and it is anything but for the 
people.
  For those unfamiliar, this is a Democrat bill to nationalize our 
elections and to give Washington unprecedented and unconstitutional 
power over States and local governments.
  Each speaker, including myself, who has spoken so far has been 
jealously guarding their system because we have put into place a very 
safe and honest way of handling our elections.
  Now, keep in mind, this bill is not new. House Democrats passed this 
back in 2019, right on party-line votes. In fact, the only bipartisan 
aspect of the bill is its opposition, as was just stated by another 
speaker.
  Back in March, along with every single House Republican, one brave 
House Democrat voted against this bill, and the reason is clear--and it 
has been stated--but let me put all five of these things into one area 
so that it is a little easier to understand.
  The bill is filled with dangerous, anti-democratic provisions--
provisions that make it easier to steal votes.
  One, legalizing ballot harvesting. Each Member has been talking about 
ballot harvesting and the threat that is out there.
  Banning voter ID. In my State of Oklahoma, we have ID laws to 
safeguard our votes.
  They are attempting to restore felons' right to vote. Why would you 
want to restore a felon's right to vote? And I have not heard anyone 
yet give a good argument that is persuasive.
  Allowing voters to cast ballots outside of their precincts. That is 
just one step further and one step easier to falsify ballots.
  Subsidize political candidates with Federal funds. We are going to 
talk about that. It is unbelievable. I mentioned some of the--how it 
might affect some individuals.
  It is more accurately named the ``For the Liberal Politicians Act.'' 
In their mind, it not only ensures that they can control elections 
forever with ballot harvesting and other questionable practices, but 
they would also give millions in taxpayers' funds to bulk up their 
campaigns.
  I just reminded them, and others have mentioned this, too, it sounds 
like you might be criticizing Ted Cruz when you say this, but it is not 
because he knows it is wrong. He observed that--when he was running for 
office, that if he had been able to harvest the opportunities you have 
from the Federal Government, he would have raised some $24 million in 
Federal funds in the first quarter of this year for his campaign.
  The Oklahoma State Election Board Secretary, Paul Ziriax, shared with 
me his strong concerns about this bill and what it would do to my State 
of Oklahoma and our election integrity laws. It would impose policies 
that contradict State law, like legalizing ballot harvesting and 
preventing voter ID for in-person voting.
  As he is responsible for managing the elections in Oklahoma, he knows 
how bad this would be for Oklahomans.
  Today, Oklahoma's elections are safe, secure, and fair. Secretary 
Ziriax said it best in 2019, when he testified before the House, that 
Oklahoma's voting system is ``one of the most reliable, most accurate, 
most secure, most efficient, most cost-effective, and speediest voting 
system in the entire world.''
  We pride ourselves on that. That is Oklahoma doing it, not the 
Federal Government--not the Federal Government doing something that 
might benefit one segment of our society.
  It is clear the Democrats are playing politics with S. 1.
  Now, following the 2020 Presidential election, Democrats complained 
about efforts to remove States from running their elections, but now 
Democrats are seeking sweeping Federal control over elections.
  I am going to mention something that no one has mentioned before, and 
I guess the only reason it comes to my mind is I have been doing this 
for a long period of time--being concerned in trying to preserve our 
electoral college.
  Back in 1787, we had a problem. They were putting together a 
Constitution to try to establish a way of voting in the United States 
of America that would be safe for everyone and be equitable.
  And so they came out and--they didn't want to do it just on a one-
person vote because if you do that, that is a decided advantage for all 
of the large States. And so what they did was come up with what they 
called the electoral college, and that was that they made the effort to 
correct the problem. We are talking about back in 1787.
  In 1787, we had a system where we had four very large States and nine 
small States. So if you just--the four large States were comprised of 
more than 50 percent of the electorate so that wouldn't work. That 
wasn't going to work. And, of course, the same thing is true today. 
Today, nine States have a majority of the votes.
  And so it was the clear intent not to let the large States have 
control of our system.
  Now, I am sure some of the large States disagree with that. Some 
Democrats--a lot of Democrats disagree with that because it would be a 
decided advantage in an interim election.
  So what we did, we established the electoral college, and I have 
committed that is my main cause right now because it is in jeopardy 
now. The electoral college is being attacked on a regular basis.
  In fact, one of the prominent Democrats who is currently in the 
leadership in the Democratic Party has introduced a resolution to do 
away with the electoral college. That is something we cannot allow to 
happen.
  And, oddly enough, it has survived for, what, 233 years now--233 
years. And yet, it has survived all that time, but there are those 
attacking it right now.
  So that is another one of the major issues that we are concerned 
with, and that is that we are not only giving up all the creativity and 
the safeguards that are in a secure system, put together not by the 
Federal Government but by the States, and trying to take that over for 
the Federal Government. They have been attempting to do this, now, for 
230 years. They haven't been successful, and I am hoping they will not 
be successful on my watch.
  Thank you
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, if H.R. 1, S. 1 were ever passed into 
law, it would forever be known as the ``Nancy Pelosi Power Grab Act.''
  This legislation lets the Federal Government take over our elections, 
which is clearly unconstitutional.
  Let's talk about ballot harvesting to begin with. Most Americans 
believe that ballot harvesting is wrought with fraud and wrong. 
Frankly, it dilutes your vote.
  For decades, for centuries, Americans have woken up early in the 
morning on voting day to get to church, to vote early before they get 
to work.
  Can you just imagine how much seeing so many show up with a bag full 
of ballots, which can't be vouched for--what it does to devalue your 
vote.
  Let's talk about voter ID for a second. I think most Americans--maybe 
at least 80 percent of Americans--believe that voter ID brings 
integrity to the election process.
  Certainly voter ID has worked for Kansas for years and brings about 
integrity to our election process. Just think about all the things that 
require an ID at this point in time. To rent a car today, if I wanted 
to check into a hotel, if I wanted to board an airplane tonight, I 
would need some type of identification.

[[Page S4571]]

  And I think the value of voting is even more than any of those and 
thus the need for some type of voter identification. This bill takes 
integrity out of the election process.
  Next, most Americans don't want their tax dollars going to fund any 
elections, especially elections of the opposite party to which you 
belong, and I can certainly guarantee that nobody wants to see more 
political attack ads with their hard-earned tax dollars being spent.
  But let me tell you what I am for. I want to make it easier to vote 
and harder to cheat. I want to make it easier to vote and harder to 
cheat.
  Ballot harvesting makes it easier to cheat. Getting rid of voter ID 
makes it easier to cheat. That destroys the integrity of the election 
process.
  This bill, simply stated, is just another attempt at an 
unconstitutional power grab.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, today we are discussing S. 1, the so-
called For the People Act.
  Now, this legislation takes a system that is actually working quite 
well and applies drastic, draconian, and desperate election reforms 
meant to keep Democrats in power.
  Now, why do I say the current system is working well? Well, let me 
tell you just how easy it is back home in my home county of Johnson 
County, IN, to cast one's vote.
  You see, beginning 4 weeks before the election, you can vote early in 
person, with no excuses, Monday through Friday, for at least 8 hours 
per day. The two Saturdays before the election, early voting was open 
for 7 hours each day. Monday, the day before the election, early voting 
was open for 3\1/2\ additional hours. And then on election day, polls 
were open for 12 hours. In total, that is 201\1/2\ hours of voting 
across 23 days, over a period of 4 weeks.
  In total, you see, we afford Hoosiers plenty of opportunity to vote.
  And lest you think that my suburban county is somehow unique in the 
State of Indiana, let me disabuse you of that notion. In neighboring 
Indianapolis, they had 221 hours of early voting over that same period.
  Additionally, Hoosiers have the ability to vote absentee. Now, you 
can vote absentee in the State of Indiana by mail for 11 separate 
reasons, including being sick or caring for someone who is sick or 
working on election day.
  Now, colleagues, in the history of our country, voting has never been 
easier than it is right now. That is right. You may not see this in the 
media, but this is indeed true.
  You see, the truth bears it out right in the numbers. Last year, a 
larger percentage of the population voted than they had in any election 
since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote 50 years ago. A larger 
proportion of the population voted than it had since over the last 50 
years.
  Why aren't we hearing this?
  According to the Census Bureau, voter turnout for African Americans 
and Hispanic Americans were up 3 and 6 percent, respectively, not down. 
Asian Americans saw a huge 10-percent increase. This is fantastic.
  Yet my colleagues on the left would have the American people believe 
that we are living in an era of extreme suppression or, as President 
Biden demagogically, dishonestly, and divisively called it, ``Jim Crow 
on steroids.''
  So what exactly is the national Democratic response to this record 
turnout?
  Well, they would like to strip election powers away from the States, 
States like Indiana, and give those powers to Democratic overlords here 
in Washington, DC. That is how we ended up with S. 1, the For the 
People Act.
  So for the folks back home, what is this For the People Act really 
all about? Why are we having this debate? Why are we going to have this 
vote? It is really about four things--four things.
  One, national Democrats want to fund their campaigns with your 
taxpayer dollars. That is right. Under the For the People Act, a $100 
campaign donation to Nancy Pelosi could be matched by $600 from 
taxpayers.
  I don't know about, you know, my colleagues who are listening, but my 
neighbors work very hard for their wages and salaries, and I expect 
that is the case for them as well. They don't want $600 to match $100 
given to Nancy Pelosi.
  Two, national Democrats want to gut popular voter ID laws, like those 
in the State of Indiana. I know what Hoosiers believe. Hoosiers believe 
you should have to prove who you are in order to vote. Our voter ID 
law, incidentally, passed in 2005. It was challenged in the courts, and 
it was upheld in the Supreme Court of the United States by a vote of 6 
to 3.

  But this bill, this For the People Act, says you don't have to prove 
who you are. You don't have to prove you are who you say you are in 
order to cast your vote. We will just take you at your word. That seems 
to me to be ripe for abuse.
  No. 3, the third thing this is all about is that national Democrats 
want to allow ballot harvesting. It is an awful word, and it is an 
awful thing--the harvesting of ballots. In Indiana, a member of your 
household can already turn in your absentee ballot. You can do it. But 
under this law, anybody can turn in your ballot--or not turn it in--and 
there is no limit as to how many ballots a single person can turn in--
hundreds of ballots, thousands of ballots. It is ripe for abuse.
  The final thing this is about is that national Democrats want to take 
control of the Federal Election Commission. They want to turn it into a 
partisan committee.
  Now, everyone in this body believes that the right to vote is sacred. 
It is a sacred right that all of us have, and we ought to be able to 
exercise it unhindered and with fidelity. We are in this Chamber 
because each one of our respective constituents exercised their right 
to vote. That is how we earned our election certificates, and we all 
agree that our constituents need to be able to trust the systems in 
place that allowed them to cast their vote.
  So we can't take that sacred right and turn it into a partisan 
exercise, as S. 1 proposes we do. That, my friends, is why this Senator 
will be voting no on S. 1, the so-called For the People Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, in each new Congress, the bill number S. 
1 is a sign of the majority's priority legislation. It says a lot about 
the new Democrat majority that the bill they chose to design as S. 1 
prioritizes themselves.
  This bill creates a Federal campaign fund to finance the expenses of 
candidates for Congress. Instead of addressing the important issues 
that are on the minds of my fellow Iowans--like the rising cost of 
gasoline, bread, milk, and all sorts of household goods--this bill 
literally takes money out of the paychecks of working Americans and 
puts it into the campaign coffers of Washington politicians.
  Rather than helping to get Americans back to work, the Democrats' top 
priority, again, is S. 1. Their top priority is to create a Federal 
jobs program for political consultants and pollsters, taxpayer-
subsidized robocalls interrupting your family dinner, junk mail 
cluttering your mailbox, and attack ads blaring--yes--on your TV. And, 
folks, you cannot--cannot--unsubscribe, either, because there is no 
opting out.
  Think about the politician you dislike the most. Now imagine your tax 
dollars funding their ads and fliers and campaign parties and rallies. 
That is what this bill does.
  That is right. The bill subsidizes politicians' campaigns--your tax 
dollars helping to elect politicians who oppose your values.
  This idea is so unpopular that a New York poll found that the 
majority leader's own constituents oppose public funding of campaigns 
by a 3-to-1 margin.
  While the Democrats call the bill the For the People Act, a more apt 
title would be ``Fund the Politicians Act.'' It is about Washington 
politicians--the same ones who just brought back earmarks to pay for 
their pet pork projects with your tax dollars, prioritizing themselves.
  The bill not only subsidizes the campaigns of politicians, it 
nationalizes elections. Washington would tell the rest of the country 
how you can select your representatives. It does so by creating a 
Federal workaround of State voter ID laws by effectively eliminating 
the enforcement of State ID requirements at the polls.

[[Page S4572]]

  Think about what you are required to show an ID to do: drive a car, 
board a plane, buy a beer--and the list goes on. But Democrats think it 
is best if we don't require an ID to vote.
  The majority of Americans disagree with Washington Democrats, and 77 
percent of voters support voter ID. A little known fact is that this 
includes support by 63 percent of Democrats and a vast majority of 
Black and Hispanic voters.
  It is all part of the Democrats' larger scheme and total power grab 
to tilt our political system in their favor. First, eliminate the 
filibuster. Then, rig elections by eliminating election integrity laws 
like voter ID verification. Then, add new States, like the District of 
Columbia and Puerto Rico, that will elect Democrat Senators. And don't 
forget the plan to pack the Court.
  There are just 50 Democratic Senators, but 60 votes are required to 
end debate on legislation in the Senate. Therefore, the Democrats must 
eliminate the filibuster in order to pass S. 1, their priority 
legislation. That is right--changing the rules in order to 
fundamentally change our country.
  And I would remind folks that my friends across the aisle are seeking 
to abolish the very same tool--the filibuster--that they used 327 times 
last year alone when they were in the minority. If they chose to change 
the rules, they would destroy this Chamber's long, proud history as 
being the world's greatest deliberative body.
  The Senate's current assistant majority leader made it clear--very 
clear--in 2018, in no uncertain terms, that ending the filibuster would 
be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going 
back to the Founding fathers
  Because the takeover of elections is just as radical and largely 
unconstitutional, the Democrats' Court-packing scheme is another key 
component of enshrining S. 1.
  Folks, we can all see this for what it is--a transparent play for 
permanent political power. This is not about democracy. It is about 
changing the rules and tipping the scales to favor Washington 
Democrats.
  As a former local elections commissioner, I believe elections are 
always best kept at the State and local level, and I will continue to 
push back on my colleagues' attempts to federalize our elections 
system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.