Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am here today to address Democrats' deceptively labeled ``For the People Act,'' which should more accurately be labeled the ``For the Politicians Act.''

This legislation represents a breathtaking, unprecedented power grab. In a 50-50 Senate, this is a blatant attempt by those who are in power by the slimmest possible margin to take over and rewrite the election and campaign rules for all 50 States in one fell swoop.

This would be done on an entirely partisan basis to ensure candidates from that same party win elections. In fact, while the only supporters of the bill are Democrats, there is bipartisan opposition to this legislation.

This legislation would disenfranchise every American through the Federal seizure of the authority of each State's representatives to set election rules for their State in accordance with the wishes of their citizens.

This partisan legislation would wash away election integrity measures, making it easier to cheat. Each invalid vote cast dilutes the strength of each valid vote cast.

Our form of government for the people and by the people rests upon voters' faith in the integrity of our elections. If we allow that faith in our elections to continue to be compromised, we are allowing the very foundation of our American system to be eroded.

Democrats don't want to talk about the details of this legislation. They don't want you to peek under the hood. They want to just slap a voting rights bumper sticker on it, jam it through, and then disparage and name-call anyone who opposes it.

So let's take a look at exactly what is in this legislation.

Under this legislation, a Federal politician running for election can take millions in taxpayer money for his or her own campaign.

The legislation says that States must then allow that politician to pay political operatives to visit nursing homes, dormitories, emergency shelters, and other residences to collect thousands of ballots and, then, choose which ones to be dropped into unmanned drop boxes, maybe in the middle of the night.

This bill would make it illegal for States to verify the identity of voters at the polls. Under this bill, ballots arriving even a week after election day would still be counted.

It would require States to adopt universal mail-in voting practices. States would be forced to allow murderers, rapists, and child molesters to vote, even if a State's citizens have adopted laws to prevent it.

It would require States to allow unregistered voters to cast ballots by simply showing up on election day and signing a form, without an ID and with no vetting allowed.

The bill would silence political speech by religious and nonprofit organizations while politicians can use taxpayer dollars to air attack ads with which many Americans would find distasteful.

The bill provides that if anyone disputes any of this, that is OK. They can lodge their complaints with the Federal Election Commission, a body that has been bipartisan since its creation. But wait. In addition to changing the rules to benefit one team, the legislation also ``buys off the umpire'' by transforming the FEC into a partisan, Democrat- controlled body--a body that could hound the opposing party candidates to the ends of the Earth. This bill transforms the judge into the prosecutor.

I wish that was all this legislation did. It also snatches the responsibility for drawing Congressional districts from the elected representatives of all 50 States, who have done that job for the last 230 years, and sets up a Byzantine process that would ultimately hand it over to an academic consultant hired by a liberal judge right here in Washington.

Let me repeat that: A consultant hired by a judge in Washington, DC, will be drawing every congressional district in the country.

Using government power to seize control of elections, to limit speech, to pack tribunals, to ensure the ruling party stays in power-- that sounds like a headline you would hear in Venezuela, Russia, Iran, or even China, not in the United States of America.

Not too long ago, both parties would have considered this partisan power grab beyond the pale. But far-left operatives want permanent power, and Democrats, eager to keep the power for themselves, are afraid to tell them no.

Democrats are now characterizing this legislation as an emergency response to recent legislation in a few States. This legislation isn't just a solution in search of a problem; it is a power grab that for years has been in search of a crisis--any crisis, manufactured or otherwise--that can be used to justify it.

Democrat operatives introduced a previous version of this bill on January 24, 2017, 4 days after President Trump took office. The purported crisis then was the American people's election of Donald Trump, which the Democrats found unacceptable. They continued this effort by introducing yet another version of the ``For the Politicians Act'' in 2019, which at that time passed the House without a single Republican vote. Like the bill the Senate will consider this week, this bill was a Democrat operative's electioneering fantasy--federalizing unlimited mail-in voting, prohibiting voter ID requirements, and allowing unregistered voters to show up and vote on election

day. Wisely, the Senate, in 2019, never took it up.

Then, as the pandemic took root in the spring of 2020, Democrats, in search of yet a new crisis to justify this bill, included it in a pandemic relief bill that the House passed--again, without a single Republican vote. Once again, the Senate dismissed it and wisely focused on providing bipartisan pandemic relief, rather than using the pandemic as a justification to federalize elections.

With the pandemic now in the rearview mirror, this legislation is being pitched as necessary to preserve voting rights, using cartoonish, overheated, and false characterizations of a few sensible, measured voting integrity laws that have recently been enacted by States. Why? Because Democrats have to invent a new crisis every 6 months or so to conceal this quest to install themselves permanently into power.

Don't let them fool you. This isn't about some State election law. The House passed virtually the same bill last year. Most of the components of this bill have been floating in Democrat National Committee back rooms for years.

This isn't about voting rights. This legislation protects voting rights like banning security guards at banks would protect bank depositors.

Now, why are the Democrats so desperate to pass this bill? Well, a recent report from POLITICO explains it. POLITICO says:

What's at stake is . . . potentially the future Democratic

majorities. Many in the party privately worry that frontline

Democrats could lose their seats if Congress doesn't [pass

this bill].

So, to keep power, Democrats have determined that they have to take over State elections. This is about holding on to power and nothing else. There doesn't seem to be a power grab that is too extreme for the modern left, whether it is this bill, legislation to pack the Supreme Court, suddenly changing their position and pushing to scrap fundamental Senate rules in order to obtain short-term political gains or adding Washington, DC, as a State. It is all about one thing-- fulfilling a fantasy of permanent Democrat power.

Under this legislation, American elections would no longer be about earning the support of voters by communicating a powerful vision. Rather, American elections would be all about creating the largest machine, identifying favorable voters, and mass-gathering their ballots door-to-door as efficiently as possible.

The winning campaign would be the one with the largest army of ballot harvesters to drive voters--registered or unregistered, with or without ID--to fill out and hand over a ballot that will be ``dropped'' on their behalf in unmanned ballot boxes.

Americans want commonsense laws that make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. Such laws currently exist throughout the country. That is why we had recordbreaking voter participation in 2020, including in my State of Tennessee.

This legislation is as unnecessary as it is misguided and dangerous. It is a politician protection measure that would do irreparable damage to the fabric of this country, and it should be soundly rejected by this body

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss my serious concerns about the judgment and the temperament of the nominee Colin Kahl, the controversial nominee to be the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the third highest position in our Department of Defense.

On April 13, 2021, I, along with 17 other Senators, wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray requesting an investigation into whether Kahl had improperly disclosed classified information. We also asked the majority leader not to advance Kahl's nomination to the floor until the FBI completes its investigation. Yet here we stand.

The 18 Senators who signed these letters include Senators who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As Senators, the Constitution charges us with providing advice and consent, and so I stand here today because the Senate deserves to have these questions answered so that we may properly discharge our duties.

I fear my Democratic colleagues want to force this nominee through before we know all the facts--facts which may be incredibly damning to his nomination.

Here is what we do know. As a U.S. Government employee with a Top Secret security clearance, Colin Kahl signed a classified information nondisclosure agreement. In fact, he likely signed many of them during his tenure in government. This document binds government employees in perpetuity to protect classified information under U.S. laws, regulations, and Executive orders.

These classified information nondisclosure agreements don't come with footnotes. They don't come with fine print that says you are only obligated to protect classified information when it is a President you like or when it is a President that belongs to the political party you agree with.

Mr. Kahl signed this document to protect classified information in perpetuity, period. Rather than uphold the oath that he took to his Nation and to his government, Kahl decided to recklessly disclose sensitive information to secure political points on Twitter.

Some of the information that Kahl appears to have leaked--internal deliberations of the National Security Council--is of a category that even Senators and Senate staff with the highest security clearances are almost always denied access.

In December of 2017, Kahl publicly bragged that he confirmed the disclosure to the media of classified planning for military operations in North Korea with ``multiple sources inside the Administration.''

You can see right here his tweet:

There is a contingent at the White House that believes a

limited strike is viable and

the US can control escalation by threatening regime change if

Kim Jong Un retaliates.

This is incredible.

Continuing on that same thread, he says:

I've heard this separately from multiple sources inside the

Administration.

In other words, if the intelligence services of North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and other adversaries were working to corroborate the accuracy of this leaked information, Kahl saved them the trouble by working with ``multiple sources inside the Administration'' to confirm this leaked classified information, publicly, no less.

Let me put this in a personal perspective. When Kahl tweeted these leaks in December of 2017, I was serving as U.S. Ambassador to Japan. This was at a time when North Korea had launched two intercontinental ballistic missiles over Japan, and they had also detonated a thermonuclear warhead, putting the lives of my family, my fellow American diplomats, and more than 50,000 Active-Duty U.S. military and their families--all of us living within range of North Korea--in harm's way

At a time when tensions couldn't have been higher, Colin Kahl was willing to expose vital information to North Korea and risk American lives--all of this just to score political points. Reckless, I say.

In February and March of 2017, Kahl leaked details about a classified National Security Council meeting on counterterrorism operations in Yemen that he ``confirmed with 4 separate staffers in the room.''

Here is his message, talking about Yemen, quoting the Deputy National Security Advisor, K.T. McFarland, saying ``saddle up.''

The existence of this meeting should have been classified and certainly anything that was said during this meeting. Here it is on Twitter.

Then he follows up by saying he has ``confirmed with 4 separate staffers in the room.''

In short, Kahl used social media and other forums to leak classified information to brag about his ability to get U.S. Government employees to confirm with him the veracity of leaked classified information.

Whoever holds the third highest position at DOD must be someone who completely understands and appreciates the important nature of sensitive information and is dedicated to safeguarding it.

Yet rather than respect the responsibility that came with his access to sensitive material, Kahl recklessly shared this privileged information on Twitter for the world to see, merely to scratch political, partisan itch.

If we let this nominee slide through under these conditions, what message does it send to other ambitious national security types? Doesn't it say that leaking classified information for political reasons will be rewarded? Doesn't it encourage further disclosure of classified information? Doesn't it play right into our adversaries' hands by showing that our internal political divisions can be exploited to obtain the most sensitive information that our government keeps?

My Senate colleagues and I explained in our letter to FBI Director Wray:

The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy plays a key role

in matters crucial to America's national security and should

be held by a person of sound judgment and temperament--

someone who understands and respects the need to safeguard

classified information and to keep national security affairs

distinct and separate from partisan political activities.''

Kahl's growing record of apparent mishandling of classified

information and his evasive response regarding this issue

fall far short of the standards required for holding one of

our nation's top national security positions.

By apparently soliciting or otherwise receiving classified

information from U.S. government officials serving in

national security roles and repeatedly posting such

information on social media . . . Kahl demonstrated disregard

for security protocols that are designed to protect our

national security interests.

Kahl has shown that he is unfit to serve and his nomination should not move forward until the FBI has completed the investigation requested by me and 17 of my Senate colleagues.

I hope that all of my colleagues want to see answers to these important questions, as well, before we begin to advance his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 11 en bloc motions at the desk, and I ask that they be read and considered en bloc.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by a host of my colleagues. The motions we are proposing are very simple and should attract wide support.

Senators on both sides have said this must be a bipartisan process, but so far, it isn't. Not once did any of the 11 Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over relevant aspects of this legislation meet to consider it--not once. What is the purpose of the Senate's system of expert committees if, as we consider one of the largest bills ever before this body, we are just going to act as if the committees never existed?

We are for pandemic relief. What we are not for is a decade-long spending spree, rushed through this body, much of which has nothing to do with pandemic relief. Our motions would simply

send this legislation back to committee for 3 days so it can be reviewed in a bipartisan manner. These motions would ensure that the legislation supports proven bipartisan programs before launching new programs or spending more money on programs that are already flush with cash. By midweek, we would have bipartisan legislation with committee input that is targeted to timely pandemic relief for those in need.

I urge my colleagues to support these motions.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Scott of South Carolina and myself, I would like to submit a question to the desk.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior Senator from Oklahoma as the lead cosponsor of this amendment in support of our shared objective, maintaining the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, the eternal and the indivisible capital of the Jewish State of Israel.

This Embassy is paving the way for peace throughout the region and should be preserved. Now our allies there know we will stand with them.