March 5, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 39 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in Senate sectionPrev10 of 65Next
Nomination of Chad A. Readler (Executive Session); Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 39
(Senate - March 05, 2019)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S1635-S1637] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Nomination of Chad A. Readler Madam President, following Ms. Rushing, the Senate will consider Chad Readler of Ohio to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Readler is a two-time graduate of the University of Michigan, earning his J.D. with honors in 1997. Following law school, he held a clerkship on the Sixth Circuit and has built a longstanding reputation in private practice as a consummate legal professional. Mr. Readler is also active in pro bono work, including for the United Way of Central Ohio, and his nomination earned a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. So I look forward to advancing yet another of President Trump's impressive judicial nominees later this week. H.R. 1 Madam President, on another matter, this week the House will be devoting floor time to the Democrat politician protection act. That is what I call the signature effort that Speaker Pelosi has given top billing--top billing--as H.R. 1, because this new House Democratic majority's top priority is apparently assigning themselves an unprecedented level of control over how they get elected to Washington, along with how, where, and what American citizens are allowed to say about it. That is their priority No. 1. Over there, across the Capitol, more than anything else, Washington Democrats want a tighter grip on political [[Page S1636]] debate and the operation of elections nationwide. But the Democrat politician protection act is just part of a trio of massive, unprecedented government takeover schemes that Democrats have already rolled out just this Congress. On its face, this proposal might seem less outrageous than Medicare for None or the so-called Green New Deal. It wouldn't seem to impact the middle-class families as directly as making private health insurance plans illegal or sending the U.S. economy on a nosedive in the name of tackling carbon emissions while China goes roaring right by. Here is the thing. Those two proposals are just terrible policy. Bad policy can be stopped or undone through the political process, but H.R. 1 isn't just terrible policy. It is an attempt to rewrite the underlying rules of that political process itself and skew those rules to benefit just one side--that side. By every indication, the Democratic politician protection act is a massive, partisan solution in search of a problem. Democrats want to convince everyone that our Republic is in crisis, but when you scratch the surface of these scare tactics, their two main complaints seem to be that Democrats don't win enough elections, and people Democrats don't like also happen to have First Amendment rights. Just look at the data. In 2016, turnout reached its third highest rate since the 1960s. Turnout was very high. By the sheer number of Presidential ballots cast, an all-time record was set, and these numbers were hardly a fluke. Last November, the midterm turnout rate set a new 50-year record for off-year elections. Nevertheless, the Democrats are intent on fixing our elections even though they aren't broken. Their solution amounts to a hostile, one- sided takeover of the electoral process without--without--the input of both parties. In the Democrats' view, our federalist system, in which State laws evolve to address unique challenges, is old-fashioned and no longer to their liking. Now it is time for sweeping new decrees from Washington. What each State has found works best for them to register voters or to maintain voter rules--all of that is now supposed to yield to what Washington Democrats want. It starts with a massive influx of government data to the registration rolls. In one sweep, all of the duplicative and conflicting data from across State and Federal Government Agencies--as well as colleges and universities--would flood the voter registration system--flood it. This isn't the slightly tested, automatic voter registration some States have installed with the DMV. This is a massive data dump that is sure to invite risk of inaccuracy and a loss of privacy. It is especially concerning, as the Democrats want to mandate that agencies register 16- and 17-year-olds. What about things like one-size-fits-all online voter registration, where the simple safeguard of signing a document can be easily side- stepped? Or a mandatory new one-stop registration and voting procedure in every State, without the assurance of verifying the voter's identity or address before adding their ballot to the ballot box? If your State requires even the loosest voter ID requirement, the Democrats' bill would undermine it. Everything down to the type of paper the ballot is printed on is dictated by Washington Democrats under their proposal. The list goes on and on. Now you might think that with Democrats insisting that every locality subscribe to ever looser registration standards, they must provide strong tools for verification and maintenance of the voter rolls. Think again. In fact, they seem more focused on taking away these safeguards. The bill leaves States with less ability to maintain voter records and to ensure that people aren't registered in multiple States. In many instances, it seems the Democrats want more identification required to correct an erroneous voter entry--listen to this: more identification required to correct an erroneous voter entry--than to register a new voter. In other words, it is harder to get off the rolls than it is to get on the rolls. What if we look at the problems that actually exist? What about the murky ``ballot harvesting'' process that invites misbehavior? It was already illegal in North Carolina, where a congressional election result was thrown out recently due to fraud, but the practice that threw out the election in North Carolina just the other day remains perfectly legal in California, where it seems to benefit, amazingly enough, the Democrats. Somehow, for all of the other top-down changes that H.R. 1 would force on the country, somehow addressing ballot harvesting didn't make the cut. Imagine that. It is almost like Democrats' purpose here is not promoting integrity but, rather, preserving the chaos that would make close elections ripe targets for their DC lawyers to contest. The law itself suggests as much by creating new private rights of action--new private rights of action--for trial lawyers to ramp up litigation when they are unhappy with an outcome. Now as I mentioned, elections aren't the only focus. Democrats are also coming after America's political speech. Under H.R. 1, a newly partisan Federal Election Commission would be empowered with sweeping-- sweeping--new authority to regulate speech that is deemed to be ``campaign related.'' New rules apply to the mere mention of a politician's name. There are new limitations on advocacy groups to speak on substantive issues and strict new penalties for when private groups of citizens cross the lines that Washington Democrats have drawn. But it doesn't stop there. Protecting Democrat politicians is hard work--hard work, indeed--and it requires a multipronged approach. So not only does H.R. 1 deploy stricter regulations on political speech; it also ramps up requirements when private citizens engage in it. Even small expressions of First Amendment rights could require extensive documentation, and in many new cases, forced public disclosure of your private activities would be required. So we are in a dangerous climate for the robust exchange of ideas. There is outright government bias like we saw from Lois Lerner's IRS. There are activist-driven online mobs that come after individuals' reputations and their livelihoods. This is not--I repeat, this is not-- a climate where the people's representatives should be rushing to make more of Americans' private information public. The ACLU is not often an organization that would be described as bipartisan--not always--but here is what the ACLU wrote in a letter to House Democrats just a couple of days ago: There are . . . provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations . . . [the bill] strikes the wrong balance between the public's interest in knowing who supports or opposes candidates for office and the vital associational privacy rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. That is the ACLU. They go on: [H.R. 1] interferes with that ability by impinging on the privacy of these groups, forcing the groups to make a choice: their speech or their donors. Whichever they choose, the First Amendment loses. This is the very issue that the NAACP had to sue the State of Alabama over way back in the 1950s. They won a critical victory when the Supreme Court confirmed that the First Amendment is eroded when Big Brother forces private organizations to publicize the people who work to support them--the NAACP v. Alabama, in the 1950s. It was true in the 1950s, and it remains true today, but that erosion is exactly what House Democrats want to achieve. It is what they want to achieve. Their bill even supports a constitutional amendment to take away First Amendment protections. Even if their proposal does chill the exercise of the First Amendment--fear not--House Democrats have a plan to make sure there is still plenty of activity come election season. It is a taxpayer-funded stimulus package for campaign consultants and political candidates. They are going to take your tax money and give it to candidates you oppose to buy commercials, buttons, balloons, bumper stickers with your tax money. Democrats want to sign taxpayers up to a six-times matching subsidy for certain political contributions. It could total about $5 million in taxpayer money--$5 million in taxpayer money--for every candidate who wants it. What a great idea--right into the pockets of political campaigns--your tax money. That is what these guys want to pass. Middle-class Americans will have the [[Page S1637]] privilege of watching television commercials attacking their own beliefs and the candidates they support and knowing their own tax dollars bought the airtime for candidates they oppose. All of this is what House Democrats are debating on the floor this very week--H.R. 1--all of this and more. I have only scratched the surface of the Democratic Politician Protection Act: running roughshod over States' and communities' control of their own elections, regulating and chilling the American people's exercise of the First Amendment, forcing taxpayers to indirectly donate to the politicians they don't like, and a dozen other bad ideas to boot. Behold the signature legislation of the new House Democratic majority. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. SCHUMER. Madam 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.
All in Senate sectionPrev10 of 65Next