John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.

Mr. THUNE. 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''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, ``infrastructure,'' ``court packing,'' ``crisis,'' ``Jim Crow,'' ``bipartisan''--all words that we recognize, all words with fixed, long-established meanings, and all words whose meanings are currently being twisted unrecognizably. In the brave new world of the Biden administration, the Democratic Congress, the plain meaning of language is no longer so plain. Take the term ``infrastructure.'' Ask anybody what they think of when they think of infrastructure, and I can guarantee what they will tell you: roads, bridges, waterways, maybe airports. I can also tell you what they won't think of: Medicaid expansion, support for Big Labor, free community college. Why? Because none of those things has ever been part of the definition of ``infrastructure,'' until now. Now Democrats are claiming that infrastructure is pretty much whatever they want it to be. One Democratic Senator tweeted: Paid leave is infrastructure. Childcare is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure. Well, actually, no, they are not. Those are policy proposals-- proposals that could be discussed, but they are not infrastructure. Saying something is infrastructure doesn't make it so. And, unfortunately, Democrats' redefinition of infrastructure, as Orwellian as it is, is actually less alarming than some of Democrats' other attempts at linguistic redefinition. Take court packing. Everyone who has ever sat through an American history class knows exactly what court packing refers to--expanding the number of Justices on the Supreme Court so that you can get the Supreme Court decisions that you want. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed it in the 1930s, and it was defeated by a bipartisan majority of Senators. And most thought the idea had been consigned to the ash heap of history, until Democrats resurrected it during the Trump administration. Upset by the Court's current makeup and worried that the Court might not rubberstamp Democratic policies, a growing number of Democrats are getting behind the idea of court packing. But, of course, they are eager to escape the negative connotations of the term. After all, President Roosevelt's Court-packing attempt is not exactly regarded as a shining moment of his Presidency. And so in a move worthy of Orwell's ``Nineteen Eighty-Four,'' Democrats are asking us to accept the fantastical notion that Republicans packed the Court-- indeed, packed the entire judiciary--and that Democrats are merely seeking to restore balance. Yes, in the Democrats' brave new world, the President performing his constitutional duty to nominate judges and Justices, and a Senate duly confirming them, is now defined as a nakedly partisan power grab akin to President Roosevelt's attempt to secure a favorable outcome for his policies from the Supreme Court. I should say a Republican President fulfilling his constitutional duty and a Republican Senate confirming his nominees because we all know--we all know that if it were President Biden who had filled multiple seats on the Supreme Court and succeeded in having a lot of judges confirmed, his actions would not be regarded as Court packing; they would be regarded correctly as business as usual. That is what we do around here. They would be regarded correctly as a President doing his job and performing his constitutional duty. Then there is Jim Crow. Americans know what ``Jim Crow'' means. It refers to the reprehensible period of segregation, when Black Americans were forced to live as second-class citizens and denied the equal protection of the laws. ``Jim Crow'' is one of the great stains on our country's history, and it is a term that should not be used lightly, but that is exactly what Democrats are doing. They decided that it suits their purposes to call to mind the history of this word, and so they have applied the term to an ordinary, mainstream election reform bill in Georgia. In fact, the President went so far as to call the Georgia law ``Jim Crow on steroids,'' as if it would not only bring us back to the era of segregation but return us to something even worse. And all this for an election law that is squarely in the mainstream when it comes to State election laws and in some ways is more permissive than election laws in presumably utopian Democratic-led States like New York. I could go on. There are Democrats' attempts to redefine ``bipartisan'' from something that is supported by both parties in Congress to something that is maybe--maybe--supported by some Republican voters in some poll, no matter how dubious its reliability. Or there is the White House's contorted refusal to call the situation at our southern border a crisis, as if by refusing to use the word they could somehow change the reality of the situation. But let me ask a question. Why is the plain meaning of language under assault by the Democratic Party? Why are Democrats dramatically redefining ordinary words and concepts? Well, maybe it is because reality isn't so pretty. Take court packing. The truth is that Democrats are afraid that the current Supreme Court is not going to rule the way Democrats want in cases they care about. So they want to expand the Supreme Court and let President Biden nominate new Justices so they can guarantee the outcomes that they want. But saying that doesn't sound so great. In fact, it sounds more autocratic than democratic. So Democrats are attempting to disguise the real reason behind their partisan court-packing plan by applying the word ``Court packing'' not to their own attempts to pack the Court but to the ordinary work of the President and the Congress. Or take infrastructure. Pretty much everybody supports infrastructure. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't thinking the government should maintain our roads and bridges. It would be a lot easier, on the other hand, to find people who think that maybe government shouldn't be in the business of substantially increasing spending or expanding into new areas of Americans' lives. So Democrats have chosen to disguise their plans for massive government spending and government expansion under the heading of ``infrastructure.'' After all, everybody supports infrastructure. So if they can sell their plans for government expansion as infrastructure, then they might be able to implement a lot of proposals that otherwise might not make it through Congress Or take Jim Crow. With H.R. 1 and S. 1, Democrats are pushing to pass an election law that would federalize elections, inject a massive dose of partisanship into our election system, and give Democrats what they hope will be a permanent advantage in elections going forward, but obviously they can't say that. They can't suggest that we pass H.R. 1 to improve Democrats' electoral chances so they have had to find another reason to push Americans to pass this bill. And so they have manufactured a crisis--States are passing dangerous election laws that harken back to Jim Crow, and we need the Democrats' election bill to save the day. Sometimes I wonder when the President is bashing the Georgia election law if he remembers that the legislature that passed that law was elected by the same voters who gave him the victory in Georgia and sent two Democrats to the U.S. Senate. Does he really want to call those voters racist? Ultimately, Democrats' assault on language is about power. Change the language, and you can change the outcome and secure your political control. It is no coincidence that oppressive regimes have cracked down on speech and redefined it to suit their purposes or that they manufacture crises to keep the people in need of government. The problem for Democrats is that there is no mandate for Democrats' far-left agenda. Democrats' radical socialist candidates couldn't even make it through the Democratic primary, let alone the general election. President Biden won the Democrat primary and the election in large part because he campaigned, perhaps disingenuously, as a moderate. And as for Congress, Democrats lost seats in the House and have a paper-thin majority in both Chambers. If there was any mandate to be gathered from November, it was a mandate for moderation. But Democrats aren't interested in moderation. They are increasingly enthralled with the far-left wing of their party, and they have a radical agenda to push and possibly a very limited window to push it. And since there is no mandate for that agenda, they have to create one. That is why you see Democrats redefining the very plain meaning of common words. Say that you don't like the makeup of the Supreme Court, and most Americans would say: Tough, that is the way the ball bounces sometimes in our democracy. Claim that Republicans engaged in court packing, on the other hand, and all of a sudden Democrats' radically partisan Supreme Court power grab seems a lot more acceptable. I get Democrats' passion for their politics. I feel pretty strongly about my political principles. But their manipulation of language to advance their politics is deeply disturbing. Instead of trying to pursue a radical agenda cloaked in misleading language, I suggest Democrats turn their efforts to bipartisan cooperation. As the November election made clear, that is what the American people are looking for. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennslyvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

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

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, along with my livestock producer protection bill, I am also introducing legislation today to eliminate the November 1 haying and grazing date for cover crops. Cover crops provide a lot of environmental benefits. They improve soil health, reduce erosion and nutrient runoff, improve water quality, and sequester carbon. They also benefit farmers, since their animals can graze these crops, or the cover crops can be harvested to provide forage for livestock. Currently, the haying and grazing date--the date on which farmers can start harvesting or grazing cover groups on prevent plant acres--is set for November 1, which is too late in the year for farmers in more northern States like South Dakota. Early winter weather in these States can cause cover crops to freeze before they can be used for hay and grazing. The legislation I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Stabenow would fix this problem by letting farmers harvest and graze cover crops outside of the primary nesting season, which ends August 1 in South Dakota, allowing for both farmers and our environment to benefit from these crops. Protecting our planet is imperative, and government certainly has a role to play in promoting clean energy and sound environmental policy, but putting the government in charge of our economy--in fact, putting the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life, as the Green New Deal would do--is not the answer. Innovation, not government, is the key to addressing environmental challenges. Unfortunately, President Biden is embracing a whole host of Green New Deal-like policies. Take his so-called 30-by-30 directive directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other Agencies to provide recommendations to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. I have already heard from ranchers and landowners in South Dakota who are concerned about the measures the administration could pursue to meet this goal, including Federal land acquisitions and burdensome regulations on private landowners, many of whom are already doing everything they can to promote the health of their land. There is also serious reason to doubt the government's ability to manage a vast new amount of land. The Federal Government already frequently fails to properly manage the land it already has. Yet some believe that we can give the Federal Government huge new swaths of land, and somehow the government will manage it properly. Yet that is the problem with a lot of these socialist fantasies. They assume that the government will achieve levels of efficiency and productiveness that the government has simply never demonstrated. It is the triumph of fantasy over experience. Surely, the people espousing socialist fantasies have sat in long lines at the DMV or remember how the Obama administration had more than 3 years to prepare for the opening of the ObamaCare exchange yet couldn't even come up with a working website in that time period. Yet the Green New Deal's proponents are advocating that we put the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life. Socialists and the Democrats parroting their ideology don't want to believe it, but the truth is that private individuals are often a lot more efficient, effective, and innovative than government, and we should be focusing our energies on supporting that efficiency and effectiveness and innovation instead of attempting to solve our environmental problems by giving the government more than it can handle. I will continue working here in Congress to advance policies that promote clean energy and improve our environment without placing heavy burdens on American workers or American families. I will continue to advocate for policies that encourage and harness the ingenuity of the American people in facing our environmental challenges, and I will continue to oppose legislation that prioritizes supposed environmental gains over the well-being of the American people

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).