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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source