Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, early on, a major theme of the Biden administration has been false advertising. We have the so-called COVID relief bill that broke a long bipartisan streak on pandemic response and only spent 1 percent of the money on vaccinations.

We have the reintroduction of a sprawling election takeover bill that Democrats wrote years ago under the guise that it is a commonsense voting rights bill.

We have a President who ran on protecting norms flirting with proposals to hot-wire the Senate rules and pack the Supreme Court. And then we have the latest example, where even one Ivy League expert says Democrats' spin ``does a bit of violence to the English language.'' They have assembled a patchwork of leftwing social engineering programs and want to label it ``infrastructure.''

Now, as I pointed out before, the first notable thing about the Bide administration's plan is what it doesn't focus on. Less than 6 percent of the alleged infrastructure bill would invest in roads and bridges. The total amount of funding it would direct to roads, bridges, ports, waterways, and airports combined--all together--adds up to less than what it would spend just on electric cars.

The far left sees a strong family resemblance between these proposals and their socialist Green New Deal. Yesterday, the House and Senate authors of that manifesto reintroduced it, while noting and boasting that the DNA of the Green New Deal is all over President Biden's legislative proposals. No wonder that White House's document rolling out the President's bill mentioned the words ``climate'' and ``union'' more often than ``roads'' and ``bridges.''

It would pick winners and losers in automotive manufacturing. It would force-feed the electrical grid some of the least reliable forms of energy. It would hector school cafeterias to stop using paper plates and force new standards and mandates on family homes.

And the relative pittance this proposal does allocate to actual infrastructure would have to creep through a tangled environmental review process. Without serious permitting reform, it won't build back better; it will build back never.

But at least some of these bad ideas have a tangential relationship to the actual concept of infrastructure, not so for some other statements we have heard from actual Democrats in recent days:

Climate action is infrastructure.

Police accountability is infrastructure.

Caregiving is infrastructure.

Supreme Court expansion is infrastructure.

Now, unsurprisingly, this liberal omnibus is not exactly an efficient engine for driving our economy. The White House's inflated claims of expected job creation have been fact-checked and received Pinocchios from the Washington Post.

Even under the rosiest scholarly assumptions--the rosiest assumptions--the White House's own favored estimates, taxpayers would pay more than $800,000 for each job the plan might create. Now, I know a lot of small businesses that could create more than one job if we handed them $800,000.

And then there are the tax hikes. This proposal is a Trojan horse to roll back the historic 2017 tax reform plan that helped spur big-time wage growth and the best job market in a generation before COVID-19. So the administration's proposal bears little resemblance to the bipartisan infrastructure bill Americans need and deserve. It just reads like customer service for the radical fringe.

Mr. President, now on another matter, over the past few months, Senate Republicans have made clear we believe a President is entitled to choose qualified, mainstream nominees to staff the executive branch and receive prompt and fair treatment from the Senate. I would say the 50 Senate Republicans have treated President Biden's nominees considerably more fairly than Senate Democrats treated the last President's, but the nominee we are considering this week is way outside the mainstream.

I will strongly oppose confirming Vanita Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney General, and I would urge colleagues to do the same. Ms. Gupta has spent her career, in large part, as an activist for leftwing causes. Her work for high-profile liberal interest groups and the Obama Justice Department have left a record of astoundingly radical positions. Those far-left positions were loud and proud until this prospect of promotion seemed to change the nominee's tune.

Previously, this nominee stated that ``states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs.'' She said ``states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs.'' Ah, but now Ms. Gupta claims her position has ``evolved.''

At her confirmation hearing, she refused to say she would accept any--any--limitation on abortions, up to and including partial-birth. That puts her at odds with nearly 70 percent of Americans across the political spectrum.

Recently, Ms. Gupta has insisted she can be trusted to oppose efforts to defund law enforcement, but she told the Judiciary Committee just last year that State and local leaders should ``heed calls'' from groups demanding that they decrease--decrease--police budgets.

This nomination has revealed a lengthy trail of radical claims and hasty backtracks, but there are also questions of temperament. The nominee has repeatedly amplified leftwing fearmongering toward judicial nominees and sitting Federal judges. She has levied ad hominem attacks on Members of this body. And during the confirmation process, she employed the loosest possible interpretation of her oath to deliver honest testimony, even drawing the ire of the liberal Washington Post for transparent flip-flops and misleading Senators about her own public statements.

This nominee contrasts sharply--sharply--with the resume and reputation of Attorney General Garland, whom I voted to confirm. The White House needs to make a better choice for this key post. The Senate should create that opportunity by voting no today.

Mr. President, my friend Joe Grossman has approached his work for the last 35 years with a head for numbers and a heart for people. As an accountant turned CEO of the largest healthcare organization in Southeastern Kentucky, Joe's experienced leadership has helped improve the quality of life for hundreds of thousands. This summer, Joe will close his chapter leading Appalachian Regional Healthcare, ARH, and a career of excellence and accomplishment. As he begins a well-deserved retirement, I would like to share my congratulations and gratitude for his many contributions to the Bluegrass.

For nearly two decades, Joe has been entrusted with key financial and operational positions at ARH. At each step, he has helped the system expand and thrive. When the position opened, Joe was the obvious choice to take over as president and CEO. He pushed ARH to continue growing in service to its patients, employees, and communities.

Today, the system operates 13 hospitals in Kentucky and West Virginia as well as 80-plus clinic locations. With a team of more than 6,000 dedicated professionals, ARH serves nearly 400,000 individuals across the region. The system's extensive reach makes a transformative impact on rural Kentucky communities every day and helps make the area a destination for top-tier medical talent. Joe's leadership even contributed to a national magazine naming ARH one of the Top 10 Employers in Kentucky.

Overseeing an organization of ARH's size and importance would be a remarkable feat in any year, but Joe exceeded expectations once again during the pandemic. Last month, I visited the ARH facility in Hazard to speak with Joe and his team about the rollout of the multiple safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. At that time, three

of the five counties in Kentucky with the top vaccination rates were in ARH's service area. I was proud to congratulate Joe and his team of healthcare heroes who were getting shots in arms to beat this virus.

Joe's contributions to Kentucky extend beyond the hospital doors. He has gone to great lengths to personally partner with the communities he serves. His work with organizations like One East KY, the Hazard-Perry County Economic Development Alliance, and One Harlan County has helped encourage new growth and opportunity. Joe developed a vision for a healthy and successful Kentucky, and he worked tirelessly over the years to bring it closer to reality.

So, we are all going to miss working with Joe. But now he gets to spend more time on his most important roles, husband to Leigh, father, and grandfather. Along with Joe's colleagues and friends, I extend my best wishes for a fulfilling retirement. On behalf of the Senate, I would like to congratulate Joe on all of his success and thank him for his leadership in Kentucky.

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

Mr. President, the situation on our southern border is bad and getting worse. Last month saw overall migrant totals hit a nearly two-decade high. More unaccompanied minors arrived than during any prior month on record.

These kids, crowded in underequipped facilities, tended by increasingly overwhelmed personnel, have become the heart-wrenching face of this crisis. Yet the most resolve, the most strength that this administration has shown on the border has been their commitment to their talking points, their refusal to call the crisis a crisis.

This past weekend, the President of the United States himself slipped up and used that forbidden word. But--get this--he was then overruled by his own staff. Yesterday, his Press Secretary said President Biden actually didn't intend to describe the situation as a crisis. Fascinating.

But then, yesterday, at last, we saw this administration take some new action on immigration. Finally, some proactive steps. Memos were issued to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP with new instruction. Were they new policies to stem the crisis? No. Stepped-up enforcement? No. A way to fix the administration's signals that have induced these new waves of

vulnerable people to try their luck? No, not this either.

Here was the big news: The government will be adopting new, more politically correct rhetoric. Under this administration, we will no longer have ``illegal aliens,'' not because they will secure the border; just because they now will be called ``noncitizens'' or ``undocumented migrants'' and so on.

These priorities are almost a parody of leftwing governance: not securing the border, not a better plan for the children, just woke proofreading. This is not going to get the job done.

Opioid Epidemic

Mr. President, on a related matter, of course, the flow of actual people is not our only border security problem. Americans are dying and communities are being hollowed out because foreign drug dealers and profiteers have taken our opioid crisis as a business opportunity.

Fentanyl and fentanyl analogues that pour into our country impose a staggering, tragic loss. In 2020, the CDC recorded more overdose deaths than any year on record. They attributed the spike primarily to synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

My home State of Kentucky logged a 50-percent year-on-year increase in overdose deaths. Fentanyl and its constantly changing analogues are as toxic and lethal an illegal drug as there is. We are talking about substances that can be orders of magnitude more potent than morphine.

Customs and Border Protection say fentanyl seizures jumped more than 70 percent in fiscal year 2020. They are on pace for another record year in 2021. Much of this poison is manufactured in and exported from China.

The scope of this crisis is truly staggering. But incredibly, some on the political left want to respond to this national crisis by letting the criminal status of fentanyl analogues lapse this spring.

People want to let these drugs become legal. They actually want to let these drugs become legal. I am not making this up. Fentanyl analogues are poised to fall off the schedule of controlled substances in just a few weeks if Congress does not act, and some corners of the soft-on-crime left want us to do nothing. They are unhappy with the sentences that be can be imposed on drug dealers as a result.

These people are seriously arguing--seriously arguing that we should let these substances flow even more freely through American streets and American neighborhoods, costing who knows how many additional American lives to help some drug dealer avoid prison.

I understand that even among Democrats who say they don't want to decriminalize these poisons, there is some effort to kick the can a few months with a temporary extension so that a soft-on-crime bill could be crafted and forcibly paired with this step.

Look, these are terrible ideas, just terrible ideas. The right thing to do is obvious. This isn't a trick question. We need to permanently schedule fentanyl analogues, take this permanent step to protect Americans, and be done with it. We should not just kick the can down the road for 2 months or 5 months or 12 months. We should not let this commonsense step be held hostage for liberal horse trading. We simply need to do the right thing.

Congress cannot hold American lives and communities hostage to try to grease the skids for drug dealers. Continuing to ban these analogues is not even a recipe for mass incarceration. The main effect is to cut down on the incoming supply of these poisons by changing the incentives for producers in China and other foreign countries.

The Department of Justice reports that, in the last 3 years, only 8 people--8 people would have qualified for the mandatory minimum sentences that some people are complaining about. More than anything else, scheduling these terrible drugs is a harm reduction and prevention tool. It works upstream. It disincentivizes their manufacture and their import into our country.

Too many of our neighbors have already been taken from us. Too many communities have already been hollowed out. There is simply no excuse for inaction.

It should not just be a Republican priority to slam the door on the opioid epidemic in every possible way. This should actually be a bipartisan no-brainer. Let's permanently schedule these analogues and keep this poison out of our land and out of our citizens' bloodstreams.

Afghanistan

Mr. President, now, on one final matter, this afternoon, President Biden is sending his top national security officials to brief Members on his misguided plan to abandon the battlefield in Afghanistan.

As I said when this decision was announced, the enemies that threaten America, our allies, and the people of Afghanistan are not vanquished. Taliban retribution and repression and the terror of al-Qaida, ISIS, and the Haqqani Network will likely only grow after we have left.

I know many colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my concerns. I expect that the administration's representatives will face tough questions about the rationale behind their plan for a rushed withdrawal.

So it is appropriate to ask: Does the Taliban share the administration's commitment to a negotiated solution, to not harming Afghan women or girls or seeking vengeance on those who have worked with the United States to root out terror? Somehow I doubt it.

Does the administration have a plan for keeping terrorists off- balance in the absence of troops and leverage in the region? Will it seek to maintain the 2001 AUMF, which authorizes the ongoing counterterrorism operations that have actually kept our homeland safe for 20 years?

How does the administration plan to maintain our insight into terrorist activities or our ability to strike them without a presence on the ground, to sustain our partners who are doing the fighting? I worked hard to find common ground with this administration on foreign policy, but if the White House is serious about making America, our allies, and our interests more secure, it will need to start tacking toward a more enduring approach centered on strength, grounded in reality and not wishful thinking.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, time and again, prominent Democrats show they are no longer content to work within the ground rules and norms of our institutions. They prefer to threaten the institutions themselves.

We have seen it in Presidential elections when Democrats say our democracy is sacrosanct when they win but illegitimate and broken if Republicans win.

We have seen it with the Senate's rules. Democrats just spent 4 years not only praising but using the legislative filibuster. But now that they hold the majority, they say it has actually been intrinsically evil all along and must be scrapped.

We are seeing it right now with voting regulations, where the mere fact that sometimes Republicans win elections has Democrats wanting to rewrite all 50 States' election laws right here in Washington and turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body.

And then there is the judiciary. In recent years, we have seen the Democratic leader stand on the steps of the Court and threaten that specific Justices ``won't know what hit them'' if they didn't rule the way he wanted. We have seen a number of Democratic Senators send a threatening brief suggesting the Court might need to be ``restructured'' if its rulings upset liberals.

Last week, President Biden, who was marketed to the country as a moderate and institutionalist, jumped in with both feet. He set up a pseudo-academic commission to study the merits of packing the Supreme Court. It is just an attempt to clothe this transparent power play in fake legitimacy.

But alas, the far left cannot even wait for the fake theatrics of the fake study to play out. Today, Democrats in the Senate and the House have announced they will once again threaten judicial independence from the steps of the Court. They are introducing a bill to add four new seats to the Supreme Court so that Democrats can pack the Court, destroy its legitimacy, and guarantee the rulings that liberals want.

Across the ideological spectrum, top jurists have been outspoken on what a terrible idea Court packing would be. The late liberal icon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, explicitly warned against Court packing saying: ``If anything would make the Court appear partisan, it would be that.'' ``Nine seems to be a good number''--Justice Ginsburg.

Justice Stephen Breyer reaffirmed his own opposition just last week. The public, by the way, agrees. They see through this discredited concept. One survey late last year showed that a clear majority of Americans opposed packing the Supreme Court.

But the farthest left activists aren't interested in the common good. They want power. And the same Democrats and the same corporate media that spent the last 4 years hyperventilating and declaring a new constitutional crisis was under way every 30 seconds seem to be perfectly content to play along.

Now, if Republicans had introduced a bill to add four Supreme Court seats for the last President to fill, there would have been weeks of wall-to-wall outrage on every newspaper and cable TV channel nonstop. Now it seems the main strategies are either to shrug off, look the other way, or to actively play along and somehow lend credence.

It is not about whether this insane bill becomes law. Part of the point here is the threats themselves. The left wants a sword dangling over the Justices when they weigh the facts in every case. As the Democratic leader threatened just 2 years ago, Democrats want the Justices to know that they will ``pay the price'' for rulings that Democrats don't like.

The left wants these swords dangling over the Senate and State legislators and independent judges. The threats are the point. The hostage-taking is the point. And responsible people across the political spectrum have an absolute duty to denounce this.

(The remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the introduction of S. 1133 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

Now, Madam President, on one final matter, over the years, a lot of talented Kentuckians have joined my team at the start of their careers. I have gotten to watch them hone their skills and grow into real leaders.

Unfortunately, the privilege of working with ultratalented young people also means you often see a real all-star fly the nest, and today I have to offer a reluctant goodbye.

Katelyn Conner Bunning was from Louisville. She joined my personal office almost 11 years ago. She has done just about every job there is, from answering phones to mastering policy issues.

For the last 4 years, I have relied on her extensively as my legislative director. Katelyn has been a key adviser to me, a role model to junior staffers, a key link between my leadership office and my Kentucky-focused staff. Who better to help me deliver for the Commonwealth than the daughter of a former Mr. Kentucky Basketball?

Along the way, some of the trickiest issues facing the Bluegrass have landed on Katelyn's desk: securing retired miners' pensions and healthcare, revitalizing abandoned coalfields, strengthening Kentucky schools and helping students succeed, delivering certainty for Kentucky farmers while opening new doors for industrial hemp, even protecting kids' health by raising the minimum tobacco purchase age to 21.

Last year, I asked Katelyn to take charge of improving safety and medication standards in the thoroughbred racing industry. Even as a national publication was calling to end this sport altogether, Katelyn assembled owners, trainers, jockeys, breeders, and fans to preserve Kentucky's signature industry.

This is a long list of accomplishments. Yet it is only a short summary of Katelyn's impact on my team and our Commonwealth. She has set very high standards. She has helped everyone achieve them.

We are certainly going to miss her around here, but I am sure her husband Eric and their new daughter Alice are looking forward to seeing a bit more of her every day.

So, Katelyn, thank you for your ability, for your friendship. I wish you and your family all the best.

Mr. President, now, on an entirely different matter, colleagues in Congress and my fellow Kentuckians were heartbroken last June when our dear friend, Carol Leavell Barr, suddenly and unexpectedly passed away.

She left behind two beautiful young daughters and an adoring husband in Congressman Andy Barr. She was only 39 years old. Since then, we have learned her fatal heart attack was likely the result of an underlying condition called mitral valve prolapse.

Carol was diagnosed at a young age. Like millions of Americans with heart valve defects, she lived for many years with no apparent symptoms. Tragically, it only took an instant for her condition to turn deadly. Approximately 25,000 Americans each year lose their lives from this heart valve disease. Her passing deprived the Barr family of an extraordinary wife and mother. We all lost a warm and uplifting friend.

One of the most troubling aspects of this syndrome is just how much we still don't know. So Congressman Barr is taking action. He introduced the Cardiovascular Advances in Research and Opportunities Legacy Act, the CAROL Act. It would encourage new research into valvular heart disease, help us better understand the risks, and bring together top experts to identify potential treatments.

With this legislation, we can help prevent more families from enduring this tragedy. More than 120 House colleagues have already cosponsored the CAROL Act. It has also earned the support of major health advocacy groups.

So today, I am proud to introduce the CAROL Act here in the Senate. I am grateful to partner with Senator Sinema, one of Congressman Barr's friends from their days serving together in the House. This important legislation is a fitting tribute to a wonderful Kentuckian. It embodies Carol's lifetime of service to others, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, now, on an entirely different matter, colleagues in Congress and my fellow Kentuckians were heartbroken last June when our dear friend, Carol Leavell Barr, suddenly and unexpectedly passed away.

She left behind two beautiful young daughters and an adoring husband in Congressman Andy Barr. She was only 39 years old. Since then, we have learned her fatal heart attack was likely the result of an underlying condition called mitral valve prolapse.

Carol was diagnosed at a young age. Like millions of Americans with heart valve defects, she lived for many years with no apparent symptoms. Tragically, it only took an instant for her condition to turn deadly. Approximately 25,000 Americans each year lose their lives from this heart valve disease. Her passing deprived the Barr family of an extraordinary wife and mother. We all lost a warm and uplifting friend.

One of the most troubling aspects of this syndrome is just how much we still don't know. So Congressman Barr is taking action. He introduced the Cardiovascular Advances in Research and Opportunities Legacy Act, the CAROL Act. It would encourage new research into valvular heart disease, help us better understand the risks, and bring together top experts to identify potential treatments.

With this legislation, we can help prevent more families from enduring this tragedy. More than 120 House colleagues have already cosponsored the CAROL Act. It has also earned the support of major health advocacy groups.

So today, I am proud to introduce the CAROL Act here in the Senate. I am grateful to partner with Senator Sinema, one of Congressman Barr's friends from their days serving together in the House. This important legislation is a fitting tribute to a wonderful Kentuckian. It embodies Carol's lifetime of service to others, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, ``Biden takes the easy way out of Afghanistan. The likely result is disaster.'' This is the morning's lead editorial from one of the Nation's most liberal newspapers.

The administration has decided to abandon U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, which have helped keep radical Islamic terrorism in check, and bizarrely, they decided to do so by September 11. Apparently, we are to help our adversaries ring in the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by giftwrapping the country and handing it right back to them.

Here is what this administration's own national intelligence threat assessment says will happen:

The Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and

the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at

bay if the coalition withdraws support.

This is a quote from this administration.

In 2019, the Democratic leader and the now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee expressed outrage that the previous administration considered hosting Taliban officials for discussions around the date of September 11.

But now a Democratic administration is going to skip the negotiations and just surrender an entire country back to the Taliban on the very same date? Our President should remember what happened when the Obama administration let political considerations rush a retreat from Iraq-- total chaos and bloodshed and ISIS.

Two years ago, I wrote a bipartisan amendment that warned a Republican administration against recklessly withdrawing from Afghanistan or Syria. A supermajority of Senators right here voted for it. A supermajority of Senators voted for it, warning that the terrorist threat had not abated. Where are the Democratic voices today? I hope we will hear from some of them.

Unfortunately, this mistake in Afghanistan is one of several instances of this new administration's surrendering leverage without making America, our allies, or our interests more secure.

In January, President Biden extended the New START agreement with Russia by Executive order for 5 years--no strings attached, no concessions secured, not even a shorter term extension to keep up pressure on Russia to cooperate on a better agreement. Just a gift--a gift.

And then there is Iran. Senior administration officials have gone from denigrating the former administration's ``maximum pressure'' strategy to simply begging for direct talks with Iran, to proactively offering to remove sanctions that are ``inconsistent with the JCPOA.'' So which sanctions exactly are inconsistent with the JCPOA? Our sanctions on Iran's terrorist organizations or its ballistic missile program?

Most Republicans would be thrilled if President Biden could actually secure a better deal that holds Iran accountable. Giving up the leverage of sanctions before we even get to the table--before we even get to the table--or just return to a bad deal is certainly not a good sign.

It would be hard to support any deal that isn't part of a broader strategy that also confronts the nonnuclear threats Iran poses to America and to the region.

On China, the administration's tough talk has been welcome, but its proposal to cut defense spending after inflation suggests there is less interest in walking the walk. We will not keep pace with China and Russia by cutting defense spending to placate fringe parts of the far left.

The American people need and they deserve a foreign policy that puts our security, our partners, and our interests ahead of the reflexive desire to break with the last 4 years at any cost--at any cost.

If this administration wants a successful legacy on the world stage, if they want accomplishments that will endure, they need to put American strength back at the center and come back to a bipartisan mainstream.

Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, we know Democrats are desperate to create a national controversy over voting regulations, but the facts and the truth keep getting in the way.

For more than a year, we have seen a coordinated campaign to call any

American institution that occasionally frustrates liberal activists an evil relic of Jim Crow. Let me say that again. For more than a year, we have seen a coordinated campaign to call any American institution that occasionally frustrates liberal activists an evil relic of Jim Crow.

When these talking points came into circulation last summer, their focus was the legislative filibuster here in the Senate, except it was Senate Democrats who had just used the legislative filibuster to kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform, body camera, and anti-lynching legislation.

Two days ago, our colleague the assistant Democratic leader suggested he now opposes the filibuster because it was used back in the 1920s to block an anti-lynching bill. To be clear, our colleague from Illinois was a loud and proud defender of the current Senate rules as recently at 2018. This isn't about the 1920s. It is not about the 1920s. It is about Democrats wanting different sets of rules, depending on whether or not they happen to be in the majority.

Our colleague didn't need to go back nine decades to find instances of Democrats' filibustering a Republican anti-lynching bill. He only needed to go back 9 months. He didn't have to go back to the 1920s but just go back 9 months to find an example of Democrats filibustering an anti-lynching bill.

Last summer, 44 Senate Democrats locked arms and filibustered Tim Scott's police reform, body camera, and anti-lynching legislation because it was not far left enough or anti-police enough. That is the irony here. If any recent Senate filibusters have been reminiscent of the 1920s, it was when Democrats killed a Republican anti-lynching bill just last summer.

Here is the truth. Our colleagues can't defend any of the details of their radical policies. So they want to change the subject--change the subject--by any means necessary.

Look at voting regulations. The recent bill passed in the State of Georgia mandates more days of early voting than plenty of Democratic- run States allow. It continues no-excuse absentee voting, which some blue States do not allow. There is no factual standard by which its overall approach is radically more restrictive than the rules in place in many other States, blue or red.

The Washington Post has given the White House its worst rating, four--four Pinocchios--for repeated lies about Georgia and the election law. But the President and his staff just keep on doubling down.

One of our colleagues who represents Georgia put his name to a public statement--to a public statement--with inaccurate information about the bill.

In the Rules Committee, the Democratic leader shouted angry attacks at things the Georgia law simply doesn't do.

Why the fake narratives? Why the falsehoods? We all know why. For more than 2 years, Washington Democrats have been desperate to pass a sweeping partisan takeover of our democracy. It is packed--packed--with shameless provisions that have nothing to do with ballot access.

They want to take the bipartisan Federal Election Commission, make it a partisan body, and give Democrats the majority. They want to send taxpayers' money to political campaigns. They want to expand Washington's policing of Americans' speech. They want to neuter voter ID and mandate ballot harvesting in all 50 States. Strangely enough, for multiple years now, this exact same power grab has been their answer to every changing circumstance. When they didn't like the outcome of the 2016 election, Democrats said our democracy was broken and only this takeover could fix it. Then, in 2020, they got the result they liked. Suddenly, this same bill became the way to simply preserve a system that functioned well.

There seems to be no situation where this attempted power grab is not the Democrats' answer. I think we can learn tomorrow that an asteroid was hurtling toward Earth, and Democrats would say our only hope was to pass H.R. 1.

This isn't about responding to recent State laws. It is not about justice or equity. Washington Democrats want to rewrite all 50 States' election laws. They want to take over the Federal Election Commission. And they have been trying out different justifications for multiple years straight to get what they want.

Any Federal law addressing the ground rules of our democracy has a special obligation to be sober, to be factual, and to be bipartisan. The Senate has done just that in the past. We have passed reasonable laws by huge, bipartisan margins making it easier to vote but harder to cheat.

So ask yourself: Why won't Democrats today deal in truth and facts? Why do they keep using the same smears to distract from their policies? Why are they hell-bent on a bill that passed the House with purely partisan support but bipartisan opposition? Talk about tipping your hand.

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