The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FOR THE PEOPLE ACT” mentioning Charles E. Schumer was published in the Senate section on pages S4527-S4528 on June 15.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up