Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, the recent Colonial Pipeline hack, which saw more than 15,000 gas stations run out of fuel and drove gas prices to their highest level in almost 7 years, was a timely reminder of the importance of cyber security.

In today's world, where almost everything we do has a cyber component, cyber security has to be a priority. Companies have to prioritize it to keep their systems, services, and customer information secure. State governments have to prioritize it, and the Federal Government has to prioritize it. Cyber security is a crucial part of our national defense, and it is vital that we keep security systems and data secure.

The Colonial Pipeline hack was also a timely reminder of something else, and that is the importance of maintaining our energy security via energy independence.

As Americans panicked over gas shortages from the Colonial shutdown, gas stations saw lines that harkened back to the 1970s, when conflict in the Middle East and an oil embargo resulted in serious shortages here at home.

Since then, the United States has, to a greater or lesser extent, worked to become energy independent; in other words, to make sure that we are able to rely almost entirely on North American energy sources instead of imports from overseas and to make sure that American consumers never have to question whether they will have reliable and affordable access to energy and fuel.

We have made a lot of progress on that front, but it requires continued commitment and investment. It also requires an ``all of the above'' energy policy that pursues investment in everything from oil and natural gas, to ethanol and other biofuels, to solar, wind, and hydropower. Unfortunately, Democrats are increasingly minimizing the oil and natural gas part of that equation.

I am a longtime advocate of clean energy and clean fuels, but the fact is that our economy is still going to need traditional sources of energy--namely, oil and natural gas--for a long time to come. I don't expect airplanes or freight trains to be running on electricity or solar power anytime in the near future. Fortunately, as technology has advanced, it has become easier and easier to explore for, extract, and transport oil and natural gas in an environmentally responsible way.

It is vital that we continue to develop domestic oil and gas resources so that, down the road, we don't find ourselves again relying on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, or other unstable areas of the world. That is why it was so disappointing that one of President Biden's first actions as President was to pause new leases for oil and gas production on Federal lands and offshore.

Oil and gas production on public lands and offshore is an essential part of the U.S. domestic energy supply, accounting for 22 percent of domestic oil production and 12 percent of domestic gas production in 2019. Only a tiny percentage of public land is used for production, but the resulting oil and natural gas is significant.

Halting new oil and gas drilling could jeopardize the stability of our affordable energy supply, and it would definitely jeopardize the hundreds of thousands of American jobs that are supported by this industry, not to mention the billions of dollars of revenue that oil and gas development disburses to States and to Federal programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Another early and discouraging sign of President Biden's hostility to affordable and reliable energy security came when he halted construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline on the first day of his Presidency. That one hit particularly close to home since the pipeline would have run through nine counties in South Dakota and brought economic growth to small towns like Philip and Murdo.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has to be the most studied project, literally, in the history of our Nation, probably in the history of the world, and it has been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the pipeline would provide an environmentally responsible way of

transporting oil from Canada and the Bakken oilfields in Montana and North Dakota to refineries on the gulf coast.

The Obama administration--that is right, the Obama administration-- concluded that the pipeline provided the most environmentally sensitive way of transporting the oil. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a staunch liberal, included the pipeline in Canada's clean energy plan. On top of all that, the pipeline's owner committed to offsetting the pipeline's operations with $1.7 billion in renewable energy investment.

But none of that mattered to leftist environmentalists, who fixed on Keystone XL as a proxy for their opposition to oil. It is difficult to think of a more counterproductive crusade. Thanks to their efforts, oil that would have been transported via the pipeline will now be transported by rail or truck--more environmentally hazardous methods of travel, which, incidentally, will also produce far more emissions-- emissions that will likely not be offset by a renewable energy investment.

I haven't even mentioned the cost to people's livelihoods. The cancelation of the pipeline will end up costing 11,000 American jobs, most of them those good union jobs the President keeps talking about. It also means that Americans will not see lower prices at the pump as a result of the efficiencies of the pipeline, which is particularly frustrating at a time when prices are rising. But when you are pursuing an ideological crusade, I guess all that doesn't matter.

I find it particularly fascinating--or maybe more accurately, troubling--that the President canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline and its 11,000 American jobs yet is conceding to Russia--Russia--on the construction of a Russian pipeline, Nord Stream 2, by waiving sanctions against the Russian company constructing the pipeline. Think about that. The irony. Of course, the President has more direct authority over pipelines here in the United States, but the President is taking a notably new position.

The successful construction of Nord Stream 2 will further isolate Ukraine and deny the country billions in revenue as it defends against Russian aggression, and it will make our allies more dependent on Russia's energy monopoly for their energy supplies.

The President has talked aggressively about countering Putin and Russian aggression, and his Secretary of State has talked explicitly about the importance of halting the construction of Nord Stream 2. But now, with a chance to do something about halting the construction of the pipeline, the President is taking the pressure off, even though the President himself has correctly called the pipeline ``a fundamentally bad deal'' for Europe

It is deeply troubling that our European allies may soon be relying on Russia for an increased portion of their energy needs. Yet it is another reminder of the need to make sure that the United States is not dependent on bad actors anywhere in the world for our oil or any other energy resource.

I hope the Biden administration will end its embargo on new oil and gas leases and think about pursuing an energy policy that embraces not only environmentalists' pet energy projects but all--all--important energy sources. It is no exaggeration to say that our very national security depends on it.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the

Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago, President Biden unveiled his so-called American Families Plan, which one might summarize as free stuff--free preschool, free community college, lots of government subsidies. It sounds great, but the problem, of course, is that none of that is really free. The government may not send individuals a bill for any of those items, but that doesn't mean they don't have to be paid for by someone. So President Biden proposed a raft of tax hikes to at least partially pay for his proposals--a hike in the capital gains tax, an additional new death tax to add to the one we already have, and a hike in the top income tax rate.

Now, President Biden is selling these tax increases as tax hikes on wealthy Americans, whom Democrats view as a bottomless source of funding for new government programs, but there are two problems with that.

In the first place, there is no question that some middle-class Americans will be hit by President Biden's new death tax. While he provides an exemption for gains of $1 million or less, the truth is that it is possible to die with an estate whose value has increased by more than $1 million over the course of your life, while never breaking out of the middle class. We are not talking about individuals with a yearly income of $1 million; we are talking about the lifetime gains on assets an individual has at his or her death.

Then, of course, there is a good bet that many of those individuals' heirs--the ones whose inheritance will be diminished by this tax--are thoroughly middle class. Your parents might die with an estate that has gained $1 million-plus in value, but you yourself might be earning just $40,000 or $50,000 a year.

All this is especially true in the case of family farms and businesses. Farming is a cash-poor business. Farmers might have land that has appreciated over decades by substantially more than $1 million even though the farmers themselves may at times struggle even to break even. Levying President Biden's new tax at death could permanently destroy a family farm or business.

Now, President Biden has suggested that he will carve out an exemption for family farms and businesses if the next generation commits to running them, but it remains to be seen what that exception looks like and whether it truly protects family farms. He has not pledged to carve out an exception for middle-class Americans whose inheritance will be hit by this new tax.

Then there is the fact that President Biden's new income tax hike will also hit small businesses, many of whose owners pour a substantial part of their profits back into the business instead of raking in a large salary.

But even leaving all that aside and supposing that President Biden's new taxes will be levied only on wealthy Americans, there is still a problem. Sure, if you are in the middle class, the government might not be sending you a tax bill, but that doesn't mean you won't be negatively affected by these taxes.

You see, Democrats operate under the entirely false assumption that you can tax higher earners without consequences, that you can tax investments without consequences, and that you can tax businesses without consequences. In Democrats' world, you can heavily tax something, but no one will behave any differently. No one will reduce his or her investments. No business will flee high tax rates by moving overseas. No business will pass on higher tax bills to consumers in the form of higher prices at a time when inflation is already on the rise.

But, of course, in the real world, people do respond to tax hikes. Businesses raise prices on their products, they limit wage growth to their workers, and they create fewer jobs. In fact, studies suggest that 50 to 70 percent or more of the burden o corporate tax hikes is borne by workers in the form of lower wages and fewer job opportunities.

Corporations also move overseas. Before Republicans lowered the corporate tax rate to make American businesses more competitive in the global economy, a significant number of American companies were moving their headquarters overseas.

Small businesses hit with big tax hikes cut jobs or limit their creation of new ones. They raise prices. They decide not to expand.

Investors hit with major tax hikes decide not to invest as much. Since investment fuels jobs and innovation, both of those suffer as a result.

In every one of these cases, ordinary Americans are affected--not just the rich; not just millionaires; ordinary, middle-class Americans. After all, most Americans, if they are not self-employed or working for government, are employed by businesses. If the business they work for isn't doing well, their prospects are going to be significantly affected. If businesses hold down wages to deal with the impact of tax hikes, for example, ordinary Americans' long-term earning potential will be diminished. These effects may not sound as concrete as being handed a tax bill, but they have just as real of an impact on Americans' income and Americans' lives.

Democrats talk a lot about making the rich pay their fair share. We hear it constantly. From the way Democrats talk, you would think that rich people rarely pay any taxes. That is not even close to being the case.

The fact is that our tax system is highly--highly--progressive, the most progressive in the world, and the tax relief Republicans passed 3 years ago actually made it even more progressive.

In 2013, individuals making over $1 million paid twice as much per dollar in taxes--I should say in 2018, individuals making over $1 million paid twice as much per dollar in taxes as individuals making between 75,000 and $100,000 or more than 10 times--10 times as much per dollar as individuals making between $20,000 and $30,000.

It would be interesting to know what exactly Democrats consider to be a fair share. When financially successful Americans are paying half of their income in taxes, is that when it is fair? Seventy-five percent of their income? Ninety-five percent of their income? And when they are paying that much, what happens then? Well, I have already indicated what happens. Investment declines, wages stagnate, prices go up, job creation goes down, and ordinary Americans start feeling the consequences. But, unfortunately, Democrats are so used to viewing the wealthy as an inexhaustible source of money that they refuse to admit that hiking taxes on wealthier Americans will have consequences.

It even goes further than that. It is not just that Democrats view wealthier Americans as an inexhaustible source

of money; it is that Democrats are well on their way to a kind of Marxist-style class warfare that demonizes success.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the fact that Democrats are proposing a capital gains tax hike on the wealthy that will fail to maximize government revenue. That is right. Democrats could actually get more revenue to pay for their social programs if they raised the capital gains tax less. Democrats are proposing a capital gains increase so substantial that it will actually return less government revenue--thanks to the resulting decrease in investment--than a lower rate hike would return.

At the level of tax hike Democrats have proposed, the tax hike becomes less about raising government revenue and more about punishing more prosperous Americans for being successful, which is a pretty un- American way of looking at things. Democrats like to portray the wealthy as a bunch of billionaires sitting on inherited piles of money and not doing a day's work. But the truth is that a lot of prosperous people in this country are, A, not billionaires, and B, only wealthy because they worked hard, saved, and made prudent financial decisions and took advantage of the opportunities they were given.

Focusing on punishing successful Americans for being successful instead of focusing on how we can create opportunity and remove obstacles to success for everyone else is counterproductive because it has a negative effect on our economy. It fosters an atmosphere of envy instead of possibility, hostility instead of determination. Rather than focusing on how we can lift everybody up, the focus becomes on how we can drag part of society down.

Rather than counterproductively hiking taxes to punish the successful or pay for an ever-increasing array of government programs, we should be focusing on creating an economy that gives every single American the chance for success and that reduces the need for government programs by increasing economic opportunity for all Americans. Unfortunately for the American people, Democrats' tax hikes will have the opposite effect.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

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

Mr. President, Ronald Reagan once said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are ``I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.''

He was partially joking, of course, but what he was getting at is that government is not always the solution, and the government can sometimes do more harm than good, and we are definitely seeing some evidence of that right now.

On May 7, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April jobs report. With businesses desperate to hire and vaccinations increasing daily, the report was expected to be big, with a good chance that a million or more workers would be hired.

But that is not what happened. Just 266,000 workers were hired, despite the fact that there were 8.1 million job openings as of the end of March, and the unemployment rate ticked up.

That is right. Despite the fact that businesses are desperate to hire workers, the unemployment rate actually increased, and it turns out that we don't have to look far for one of the reasons--Democrats' massive, partisan spending bill, which, among others things, extended the expanded unemployment benefits to September of this year, to the point where many workers are making more staying home than they would be going back to work.

Increasing unemployment benefits was the right thing to do early in the pandemic. Businesses were closed, workers were being forced to say home, and the landscape was bleak. But even last year it became clear that our economy was starting to rebound.

That didn't mean it was time to eliminate all government help, but it did mean that we needed to calibrate the help to actual need.

But Democrats consistently rejected that line of thinking, and despite the fact that we had passed our fifth bipartisan COVID relief bill in December--bringing the total amount of COVID funding the Federal Government had provided to $4 trillion--weeks later, Democrats announced that we needed another massive COVID relief bill.

Republicans tried to suggest that maybe we should keep it carefully targeted to meet remaining needs without wasting taxpayer dollars or running the risk of overstimulating the economy and driving up inflation, but Democrats were having none of that. This was urgently needed funding, we were told. America needed a massive rescue plan to save us from the virus, and Democrats were going to make it happen.

Well, as it turns out, that massive rescue package was too massive. Democrats insisted on extending increased unemployment benefits to September of this year, and now we are seeing the result.

Reports suggest that many people are declining to return to work because they can make more money staying home and drawing unemployment benefits. That is right. Jobs are available--the number of job openings is very high--but thanks to Democrats' long-term extension of increased unemployment benefits, some workers are staying on the sidelines.

It is not surprising. If individuals can make as much or more sitting at home instead of working, it is not very shocking that many would choose not to work.

The long-term increase in unemployment benefits is not, of course, the only factor keeping people from returning to the workforce, but it is clear that it is one substantial reason why businesses are struggling to find workers.

In the wake of April's dismal jobs report, Democrats, of course, were quick to discredit or downplay any association between increased unemployment benefits and the reluctance of some workers to come off the sidelines.

The President's Treasury Secretary suggested that a significant reason for not returning to work was the fact that schools have not fully reopened. Well, that is definitely another factor, and it is a problem Democrats could have addressed wit their March COVID legislation.

Democrats directed tens of billions of additional dollars to schools in their legislation, most of which will be used long after the pandemic is over.

Republicans repeatedly urged Democrats to tie this funding to school reopening, but the teachers unions were not too interested in returning to school, and Democrats have made it very clear that unions' wish is Democrats' command.

And so Democrats gave schools billions of additional dollars to respond to COVID, without actually requiring schools to follow the science and reopen.

And so, yes, many parents are struggling with returning to work because their kids are still not fully back to in-person learning, and it is too bad that Democrats were more committed to satisfying the teachers unions than getting kids back to the classroom.

Before Democrats passed their COVID bill, there were concerns that the size of it could end up overstimulating the economy and thus driving up inflation. Even some liberal economists sounded the alarm over the size of Democrats' coronavirus legislation. But, again, Democrats were not about to listen to any calls to reduce the size of their massive spending bill.

And while the full results of Democrats' spending spree have yet to be seen, there are already signs that inflation may be becoming a problem.

Consumers are seeing increases--in some cases, steep increases--in the price of everything from groceries to used cars, to trucks.

There is no question that government had a significant role to play in responding to the COVID crisis. That is why a Republican-led Senate passed five--five--COVID relief bills, totaling $4 trillion, and why we supported everything from increased unemployment benefits to forgivable loans to help small businesses weather the virus.

But as the crisis wanes, so should the role of government. American workers are no longer being forced to stay home while businesses close their doors. Our economy is back up and running, and businesses are desperate for workers.

We should be doing everything that we can to get Americans back to work, and Democrats' $1.9 trillion boondoggle isn't helping us with that goal.

A Democratic operative famously said: ``Never let a serious crisis go to waste.'' And as our economy has recovered, a lot of Democrats have seemed very unwilling to let go of the pandemic. I don't know if that is because Democrats want to take credit for getting our Nation out of this, even though all the essential groundwork for our massive vaccination campaign and our economic recovery was laid in the previous administration or if it is because Democrats think that the COVID crisis will provide them with the cover they need to permanently increase government spending and government intervention on a massive scale. But whatever their motivation, the fact is that Democrats need to realize that it is time--it is time to get government out of the way of the recovery, and that should start with increasing, not decreasing, incentives for Americans to get back to work.

As we are seeing right now, sometimes throwing government money at a situation can do more harm than good.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks before the vote.

Madam President, on Tuesday, the Senate Rules Committee conducted its markup of S. 1, which is the Senate's version of the Democrats' election bill that is designed to increase the Democrats' chances of maintaining their currently tenuous hold on power.

We are told that passing this bill is urgent. We were told that in the last Congress, too, when the Democrats first proposed this legislation. They said the same thing--that there were serious election problems and that we needed to pass this legislation to address them.

Then, of course, we had the 2020 elections, which the Democrats won and which featured record voter turnout. In fact, it was the largest voter turnout since 1900. So it became just a little difficult for the Democrats to argue that there were grave problems with our electoral system. Yet they still really, really want to pass this bill--a bill that contains what one respected legal scholar has called ``some of the most blatantly partisan, most obviously unconstitutional, and most unwise provisions ever passed by a chamber of Congress.'' So they have had to come up with a new rationale for trying to jam through this legislation.

Now we are being warned about a new crisis: States, which under the Constitution, historically, have had primary responsibility when it comes to elections, are debating election administration measures that will return our Nation to the Jim Crow era, and so we have to pass S. 1 to prevent the damage these States are going to do. The only thing, of course, is that this crisis is as manufactured as the last one.

Take Georgia, the Democrats have made Georgia a poster child for the need to pass election legislation.

``Georgia's new voting law,'' the Senate Democratic whip asserted, ``is a deliberate effort to suppress voters, particularly voters of color.''

The President feverishly described the Georgia law as ``Jim Crow on steroids.''

The only problem with that argument is ``the law does not put up roadblocks to Black Americans registering to vote.''

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of The Washington Post Fact Checker, but the Democrats haven't allowed facts or reason to intrude when it comes to their characterizations of Georgia's election law.

The Democratic whip has come down to the floor and claimed that the Georgia law makes it a crime to give water to voters in line. In fact, while the law does place restrictions on activists' and candidates' handing out water and other items--an obvious conflict--it explicitly permits neutral election officials to offer voters water.

The President has repeatedly claimed that the law is designed to keep working Americans from voting, except it is not. The Washington Post, as I mentioned, gave the President four Pinocchios, a rating that the Washington Post reserves for ``whoppers'' for that claim by the President of the United States.

In fact, as the Washington Post Fact Checker's piece makes clear, there is reason to think that the law might actually--wait for it-- expand access to early voting. A fairminded piece in the New York Times--hardly a newspaper that carries water for Republicans--concluded that the voting provisions of the Georgia law are ``unlikely to significantly affect turnout or Democratic chances.''

Georgia's voting laws are actually, in some ways, more permissive than voting laws in some Democratic-led States. Georgia allows more early voting than both the President and the Democratic leaders' home States, Delaware and New York. Unlike Georgia, neither Delaware nor New York offers any no-excuse absentee voting. I look forward to seeing the President and the

Democratic leader talk about how their home States are promoting voter suppression.

The fact of the matter is, Georgia's new election law is squarely in the mainstream when it comes to State election laws. The Georgia bill would likely have been barely a blip in the news cycle if the Democrats had not seen an opportunity to distort this bill to advance their electoral agenda. Yet I want to talk about the actual substance of the Democrats' bill and why every Member of Congress should be opposing it.

We are supposed to believe that this is an election integrity bill. In fact, it is the complete opposite. This bill would undermine election integrity in this country. It would do everything from making our election system more susceptible to fraud to undermining voter faith in our electoral system by politicizing election law.

Let me just highlight a handful of the bill's worst provisions. Note that multiple amendments to address these concerns were voted down by the Democrats at Tuesday's markup, which says a lot about the partisan nature of the Democrats' aims with this bill.

First, this bill would make the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body. Let me just repeat that. This bill would make the Federal Election Commission--the primary enforcer of election law in this country--into a partisan body. Instead of an independent Commission, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, which is what it is today, the FEC would become just a partisan arm of whichever President is in power.

Tell me how that is supposed to enhance voter confidence in our system. Every single FEC ruling would be suspect. No Democrat voter would trust a Republican FEC, and no Republican voter would trust a Democrat one.

Speaking of trust, let's talk about election fraud.

The bill takes aim at State voter ID laws, which are commonsense measures--strongly supported by the American people--to ensure that voters are who they say they are before they vote. The Pew Research Center reports that 76 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Democrats, support voter ID requirements.

Now, I have always been at a loss to understand the congressional Democrats' passionate opposition to requiring people to provide identification before voting. I haven't heard the Democrats spend a lot of time complaining about requiring people to have a photo ID to drive or to fly or to go on a tour at the White House, but, somehow, asking people to provide an ID to vote is beyond the pale.

Great Britain is actually planning to implement a voter ID requirement to prevent--you guessed it--electoral fraud. In fact, many European countries, including France, the Netherlands, and Sweden, require a form of identification to vote. Canada requires a form of identification to vote. It is difficult to understand the Democrats' fierce opposition to this commonsense fraud prevention measure.

While we are on the subject of electoral fraud, let's talk about ballot harvesting.

In addition to effectively eliminating States' voter ID requirements, S. 1 would also require that States allow ballot harvesting, the controversial practice of allowing political operatives to collect and submit ballots. Needless to say, ballot harvesting opens up a lot of questions about voter fraud and election integrity, and that is to put it mildly. Yet the Democrats' bill would not just permit States to allow it; it would require them--require them--to allow it. I could go on and on and on.

S. 1 would allow the unprecedented regulation of political speech and issue advocacy. It would impose disclosure requirements for organizations, which would open up donors to retaliation and intimidation. It would spend taxpayer dollars--possibly tens of millions of taxpayer dollars per candidate--on the public financing of political campaigns.

That is right. With a soaring national debt and priorities like infrastructure to fund, the Federal Government would end up steering hundreds of millions of dollars to political campaigns. Perhaps the best illustration of that is Senator Cruz, here in the U.S. Senate, who pointed out that in the first quarter of this year under this law, the Federal Government would have had to cut him a check for $30 million for his campaign.

This legislation is not about voter integrity. It is not about preventing voter suppression. It is about permanently changing the electoral playing field to give Democrats a permanent electoral advantage.

It is the same reason Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court or admit DC as a State. Democrats want to use whatever political power they have to secure a permanent advantage for Democrat candidates and Democrat policies.

If Democrats were serious about protecting the integrity of our election system, they would be working with Republicans to develop bipartisan legislation, not pushing a bill that is unlikely to get a single Republican vote.

Passing a huge Federal election reform measure on a partisan basis would completely undermine one of the main purposes of election reform legislation, which is enhancing confidence in the integrity of our system.

I can assure Democrats that S. 1 would do nothing to enhance Republican voters' confidence in the integrity of elections. I suspect there are a number of Democrat voters and Independent voters who will also see this bill for what it is--a partisan takeover of our electoral system.

We are fortunate that our electoral system by and large seems to be operating well. As I mentioned, see the record turnout of voters in the 2020 election. It was the highest turnout since 1900.

But there are certainly measures we can take up to further enhance election integrity--not S. 1, which would do nothing to further election integrity, but there are other measures we could take up. But in order to have any degree of legitimacy, any election reform measures we consider should be taken up on a bipartisan basis, and if Democrats really wanted to enhance voter confidence and protect the integrity of our system, that is what they would be doing--taking up bipartisan legislation on a bipartisan basis.

It is unfortunate that their aims are more partisan than public- spirited. S. 1 is a solution in search of a problem that would result in the unprecedented politicization of our electoral system. For the good of the country, every Member of Congress should oppose it.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay.''