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 OF 2021” mentioning Deb Fischer was published in the Senate section on pages S4537-S4538 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 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 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.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up