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 Tom Cotton was published in the Senate section on pages S4533-S4534 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
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the Democrats want to call their voting bill the For the People Act, but I would suggest you not be fooled by the marketing. This bill has nothing to offer the people of our country. The so-called For the People Act is, in fact, a partisan takeover of our elections that seeks a government of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and for the Democrats. So it is no wonder that it is their very top priority and it is literally the first bill filed in both the House and the Senate this year.
If this bill passes, it will shatter our Nation's faith in the fairness of our democracy, weaken the security of our elections, and attempt to entrench Democratic rule in the swamp, unchallenged, for decades to come.
S. 1 is a Federal takeover of our elections that would usurp the constitutional prerogative of the States in determining what the Constitution calls the ``Times, Places, and Manners of holding elections.'' While our Constitution has always given Congress the power to determine certain aspects of how elections are conducted, the Founders envisioned that this power would be exercised, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, only under ``extraordinary circumstances'' and only as ``the last resort.'' For example, Congress could intervene if States were simply refusing to hold Federal elections in an attempt to deprive Congress of the Members needed to operate under the quorum rules of the Constitution. Of course, we face no such extraordinary circumstances today.
No matter the outrageous claims of hysterical journalists and politicians, almost every story you hear and every Democratic claim you hear about State election law reforms misrepresents those reforms or doesn't put them in proper context.
The Democratic Party--the very head of the Democratic Party, President Joe Biden, referred to Georgia's election reform, for instance, as a ``new Jim Crow,'' even though it has far, far more access to the ballot than Democratic-run States like New York and, yes, Joe Biden's own Delaware.
I might also note that Kentucky passed a fairly sweeping election reform bill earlier this year. It still doesn't go as far as Georgia's bill did in providing early access to the ballot. Yet there is no condemnation of Kentucky's bill. I wonder why. Could it be because Kentucky has a Democratic Governor?
The Democrats want to use these kinds of misrepresentations to pass S. 1, which would give all power over our Nation's elections to Democrats in Congress, who think anyone should be able to vote, at any time, at any place, and in any manner, with remarkably little concern even for the basics of election integrity, such as establishing the identity and the legality of individuals who are casting the ballots.
The bill before the Senate would invalidate voter identification laws in States across the country--laws that simply require individuals to present valid photo identification in order to vote. Now, Democrats like to pretend that voter ID laws are racist, just as they like to pretend that anyone who opposes them is also racist. That would be a surprise to most of the American people, though. According to recent polling, three-quarters of Americans support photo ID requirements, including 70 percent of Black voters, who support photo ID requirements. That is a pretty big claim of false consciousness by the Democrats.
After all, it is no great burden to present a driver's license or photo identification at the polling place in order to vote. It is not some devious tactic to suppress any group of voters. If it was, maybe we would need to ask some of these politically correct airlines, like Delta, why they require passengers to present photo identification before boarding flights. Are they engaged in some nefarious, racist practice of traveler suppression? I don't think so.
I think voter ID laws are a basic means of securing the vote, just like three-quarters of all Americans think. Yet S. 1 would still eliminate them all, allowing anyone to register to vote, under any identity, without presenting proof that they are who they claim to be.
The Democrats' bill would also make permanent many of the vote-by-
mail expansions that were rushed through as ill-considered emergency measures during the pandemic last year. The free-for-all of ballot harvesting and mail-in voting during the 2020 elections caused many Americans to doubt the integrity of that vote.
Removing guardrails against fraud will only convince more voters that the electoral process is rigged. Responsible elected officials should be trying to assuage voters' fears by implementing adequate safeguards on our elections. After all, many of these practices were unheard of before the 2020 election.
Now, the Democrats like to say that they have to pass S. 1 in a response to these State election reforms, but I would point out that this bill was introduced in the House 2 years ago, before the States passed any of the election reforms. Oftentimes these State election reforms are being passed by legislatures that were appalled by their Governor's sweeping power grabs. So no matter what the conditions, the Democrats think it is always time to nationalize our elections.
Another provision of the Democrats' election bill would repeal donor privacy laws that keep the IRS from harassing nonprofit organizations about the identities and addresses of their donors. Democrats claim that this change is about dark-money mega donors, but it would apply to any middle-class family who donates a few hundred dollars a year to a cause they care about, like a church or a charity. Yet, if the Democrats have their way, bureaucrats at the IRS would be able to force nonprofits to name their donors or risk losing their tax-exempt status. This should alarm anyone familiar with the IRS's track record of unfairly targeting conservative groups. After all, just last week, we saw a conveniently timed leak of legally protected tax returns that came out right before the Senate Finance Committee had a meeting to justify higher taxes. What a coincidence.
Now, these are just a few of the proposals in the Democrats' election bill. I haven't even talked about the public funding of campaigns. I haven't mentioned transforming the Federal Election Commission into a partisan weapon to be used by the President's party against the opposition. All of these provisions and many more encourage fraud, harassment, and corruption in our campaigns and elections. Not coincidentally, they all seem to work to the advantage of the Democrats or at least to the Democrats' perceived self-advantage. It is little surprise, then, that this partisan bill is supported only by Democrats--not even all Democrats, for that matter, not all the Democrats here in the Senate and not all the Democrats in the House, which passed it earlier this year by the thinnest of margins.
So I am proud to be a part of the bipartisan majority in the Senate that is opposing the Democratic Party's attempted takeover of our States' election processes. Political office in America is not a birthright of any party or any politician, so the Democrats should try winning their elections fair and square instead of taking them over in a centralizing power play.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized
____________________
Alerts Sign-up