Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Federal takeovers are being discussed in both the House and the Senate this week. The Democrat leaders announced that the Senate will once again be taking up legislation to put the Federal Government, instead of the States, in charge of elections in this country. Meanwhile, over in the House of Representatives, they are expected to vote on legislation to eliminate essentially all State restrictions on abortion, no matter how modest or how widely supported.

So what is up with all of these Federal takeovers? Well, Democrats have been pushing election legislation--what they call H.R. 1, or the For the People Act--for multiple years now. This radical legislation would provide for a massive Federal takeover of our electoral system, chill free speech, and turn the Federal Election Commission, which is the primary enforcer of election law in this country, into a partisan body, among other dangerous measures.

And the reason--the reason for this radical legislation? Well, as even some Democrats have implicitly admitted, this legislation is designed to make it easier for Democrats to win elections.

Fast forward to last week. With H.R. 1 unable to pass the Senate, some Democrats produced a modified version of this legislation. It is called For the People Act ``lite.''

And while I appreciate their efforts, unfortunately, as the Republican leader said yesterday morning, ``This latest version is only a compromise in the sense that the center left compromised with the far left,'' or, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it this morning, ``Calling this bill slimmed down . . . is like touting your healthy choices after you order a Diet Coke with four Big Macs.''

The For the People Act ``lite'' would still impose troubling new burdens on free speech; it would still undermine State voter ID laws; it would still spend taxpayer dollars on political campaigns; it would still make it easier for those here illegally to vote; and, most of all, it would still put Washington, not State governments, in charge of elections for no reason at all.

Let's be clear. There is absolutely zero reason to have the Federal Government start dictating States' election policies--zero reason. There is no systemic problem with State election laws, and State election officials do not need Washington bureaucrats dictating how many days of early voting they should offer or how they should manage mail-in ballots.

This bill, like its parent H.R. 1, is a solution in search of a crisis. States have been doing a fine job running elections. Even Democrats have sort of had to admit that given the huge voter turnout in the last election and the fact that Democrats won, albeit by the slimmest of margins--even Democrats have had to admit that States are doing a pretty good job running elections.

So now that they can no longer tell us that our electoral system is broken, Democrats are telling us that we need election legislation like this because States are passing legislation that will, Democrats claim, threaten election access--baloney. It is just another attempt to manufacture a crisis that will justify passing H.R. 1 or some variant.

Democrats are pushing election legislation for one simple reason: because they think it will improve their chances in future elections. That is not a good reason to bring up election legislation, and I will continue to oppose any Federal takeover of elections.

South Dakota election officials are doing just fine without having their every move dictated by Washington bureaucrats.