Floor Statements

Mr. President, unfortunately, I need to begin this morning with some tragic news from Kentucky.

Late last night, Sheriff's Deputy Josh Phipps, of Russell County, was killed in the line of duty. His sacrifice is a sober reminder of the debt we owe our courageous law enforcement officials. They are the first to run toward fire and the first to put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe.

Today, I know the entire Commonwealth is holding Sheriff's Deputy Phipps in our thoughts and our prayers. So I would ask my colleagues to join me in sending our deepest sympathy to Russell County and the Phipps family as they mourn his loss.

Mr. President, on another matter, free speech has been an animating principle for my entire career here in the Senate. I am second to no one in my defense of the First Amendment. So I have found the recent habit of the Federal judiciary's bureaucracy to try and abridge its protections alarming, to say the least.

The courts are where citizens go to have their free speech rights vindicated against censorious government officials. I know this from experience. I sued to stop the anti-speech campaign finance rules signed into law by President Bush, and I took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

But where do people go when the courts decide to behave like any other branch of government? When they put other interests over the First Amendment? Even having to ask the question is troubling.

Two of my colleagues and I recently wrote to the head of the Standing Committee on Federal Rules to express our opposition to the proposed amendment to the rules governing appellate courts. The amendment is the result of persistent bullying of the Senate Democrats, and it would force parties seeking to be heard as friends of the court to disclose their donors in certain instances.

The forced disclosure of donors is a longstanding offense against the First Amendment. This has been abundantly clear since Justice Harlan eloquently explained it in NAACP v. Alabama. The courts only tolerate forced disclosure in cases of actual candidate electioneering to ensure election integrity. But court cases aren't elections, and friends of the court are not candidates. The fact that the Appellate Rules Committee doesn't understand this and wants to chill free speech by mandating donor disclosure is a shocking reversal of NAACP v. Alabama.

That is why my colleagues and I encouraged the Standing Committee, the Judicial Conference, and the Supreme Court to scrap--scrap--this unconstitutional amendment.

Unfortunately, there is even more. Another committee in the judiciary bureaucracy, the Codes of Conduct Committee, recently amended one of its advisory opinions to prevent law clerks from seeking political employment. This is the same committee that tried to ban Federal judges from joining the nonpartisan Federalist Society while allowing them to join the highly partisan and leftwing American Bar Association. The committee reversed itself on that boneheaded decision after an uproar, an uproar from the judges of all political stripes.

In its new advisory opinion, the committee concluded that clerks could seek employment from law firms, impact litigators, elected officials, and the government, but they cannot even talk to political parties or candidates for office about a job. Doing so, they conclude, ``risks linking the judge's chambers to political activity, which could compromise the independence of the judiciary.''

Consider just how absurd this is. First, political activity is at the core of freedom of speech. To single it out for a special disability among clerks seeking employment turns the First Amendment on its head. Prohibiting a clerk from discussing employment options with the Harris campaign because it might make ``the judiciary'' look bad hurts the clerk's constitutional rights in order to preserve some theoretical, attenuated interest.

Second, it is indeed a special disability and one that has no correspondence to the real world. Why is the ``link'' any more problematic when a clerk wants to talk to a Republican campaign, which is prohibited, but not when she wants to talk to an elected Republican, which is allowed? What about seeking employment as a political appointee in a highly partisan Garland Justice Department? Do the large law firms to which the Democratic Party outsources its campaign litigation not provide a ``link'' to the judiciary?

Indeed, one prominent law firm, the Elias Law Group, explicitly claims that its goal is to elect Democrats. And yet a clerk can presumably seek employment there but not from the Democratic National Committee? These are distinctions without differences.

But wait, there is more. Last week, the Judiciary Conference, in its zeal to take a hard line against misconduct in the workplace, referred a disgraced former judge to the House for impeachment. Yes, that is right. They referred a private citizen for impeachment.

Without getting into the merits of the allegations against the former judge--other than to note that they caused him to resign in disgrace-- this was a remarkable action by the Federal bureaucracy. They were surely aware that whether or not you can impeach a former official is hotly disputed, but they referred it anyway.

In other words, while trying to make a point about one political issue--workplace misconduct in the judiciary--they ended up making a point about another one--the impeachment of former officials. And for what? Forty sitting Senators have already said that you can't do this as a matter of constitutional law, thereby making the conviction all but impossible.

The judiciary itself is under increasing attack from Democrats who want to destroy it as an independent branch of government, and the judicial bureaucracy seems desperate to appear apolitical. It has been taking affirmative steps to virtue signal on issues that matter to Democrats, from Federalist Society membership to single-judge divisions to amicus disclosure.

It would be one thing if this were empty virtue signaling, but we are talking about behavior increasingly in tension with constitutional provisions, including First Amendment rights.

So my advice to the Judicial Conference is this: The way to avoid getting involved in politics is to avoid getting involved in politics.

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

Madam President, I am dismayed to begin another week with news of an assassination attempt against a former President. We are certainly all grateful once again that the worst outcome was avoided.

This ought to be a moment of soul-searching for all Americans. It is a

time to reflect on the ways that our political process has been injected by reprehensible violence. In America, our democracy flows from the ballot box, not from the barrel of a gun--period.

In the meantime, for the second time in as many months, law enforcement faces an even more urgent task: completing a thorough, swift, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of yesterday's close call.

The American people deserve answers. They deserve assurance that a former President whom tens of millions of Americans have nominated once again will receive every appropriate measure of security. And they ought to receive them without delay.

Madam President, now on another matter, I have repeatedly warned colleagues on both sides against setting aside America's interests in pursuit of closer relations with foreign leaders who they think share their values.

I made it clear to Washington Democrats that whatever kudos the Paris climate deal earned them with European greens, punishing America for producing affordable, reliable, and abundant energy was welcome news to China, the world's leading emitter of carbon, and to Russia, which would weaponize Europe's own reliance in due course.

Likewise, I have urged fellow Republicans to recognize that despite whatever affinity we might be expected to hold for a Hungarian ruling party that professes traditional values, legitimizing Victor Orban's reckless obeisance to China, Russia, and Iran is not in America's interests.

And I have been clear-eyed about the regimes with which the United States shares neither interests nor values, and acted accordingly. For example, the strategic case for maximum pressure and credible deterrence against Iran, the world's most active state sponsor of terror, is compelling enough on its own. Weakening sanctions in exchange for empty promises on nuclear proliferation is not in America's strategic interests; neither is responding to proxy violence with half measures.

The only way to achieve measurable improvements to the security of America's interests in Iran's backyard is to change Iran's calculus. This is, of course, an opportunity for the United States and allies with common interests in the region to work more closely together in applying meaningful pressure on Tehran--an opportunity as yet unseized.

But lest anyone forget, just as Tehran's export of terror threatens America's interests, its repression at home is an affront to American values. Today is the second anniversary of the beating, detention, and murder of Mahsa Amini at the hands of Iran's morality police. Tehran's thugs killed another 500 people and detained thousands more who took to the streets in protest.

Today, Iranian women are continuing their protest against the regime's repressive morality laws. Many are walking the streets without head coverings, and 34 political prisoners have gone on a hunger strike. Tehran is marking the anniversary in its own way: placing Ms. Amini's surviving family under unofficial house arrest.

Further east, in Kabul, another group of medieval theocrats is dragging Afghan women and girls even further backward into the familiar repression of Taliban rule. A new ``vice and virtue law'' amounts to an even more severe crackdown on education for Afghan girls, with even tighter restrictions on women's behavior in public.

Like in Iran, Taliban repression is not difficult to recognize as abhorrent, and the latest developments are an outcome many of us saw coming years ago. Unfortunately, they are also a shameful reminder of a decision that damaged American interests and a sales campaign that denied observable reality. Recall that as the Taliban surged back into power in Kabul, President Biden insisted that ``human rights will be the center of our foreign policy.'' Remember how the President's National Security Advisor declared that the administration was ``absolutely resolutely committed'' to ``alleviate the burden that [Afghan] women and girls will face in the days ahead.''

I am curious how the administration would rate the effectiveness of that commitment. I wonder whether it thinks its confidence in so-called over-the-horizon counterterrorism has paid off.

And when the administration's special envoy warns that its ``patience with the Taliban is running out,'' I can't help but ask why on Earth any such patience would align with America's interests in the first place, let alone our values.

I am so grateful for your overly generous assessment of my work over the years. One of the joys of being in this job as long as I have is the opportunity to work with you and to watch the way you handle so many things so skillfully. So thank you very much. I appreciate that.

As you indicated, I am not going anywhere yet.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to begin by reminding our colleagues of a report released before the August State work period. It is a report Congress commissioned in the fiscal year 2022 NDAA, produced by a panel of experts that Congress appointed--the bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy.

The Commission was tasked with reviewing the Biden administration's national defense strategy and conducting an independent assessment of the threats and requirements of our common defense.

Any of our colleagues who haven't yet taken a close look at this report should. But I would like to reiterate a few of its conclusions that I discussed just last month as the Appropriations Committee finalized defense spending legislation for the coming year.

This ought to grab our attention, from the report:

[T]he U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the

capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in

combat.

[T]he U.S. defense industrial base . . . is unable to meet

the equipment, technology, and munitions needs of the United

States and its allies and partners.

[T]he U.S. public are largely unaware of the dangers the

United States faces or the costs (financial and otherwise)

required to adequately prepare.

The report doesn't flinch in assessing the full scale of the threats posed by major adversaries: Russian victory in Ukraine would make Moscow ``an emboldened and likely stronger power, requiring NATO to build and deploy additional forces, potentially at the expense of other locations where these resources could be applied.

China is outpacing the United States and has largely

negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific

through two decades of focused military investment.

And, perhaps most alarmingly, the growing partnership and collaboration between our adversaries ``increases the

likelihood that a conflict with one would expand to multiple fronts, causing simultaneous demands on U.S. and ally resources.

It is a sobering assessment with some urgent recommendations to go along with it. The question now is what we are willing to do about it.

Congress has a constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. We have a responsibility to align resources with our requirements and our strategy to provide funding adequate to ensure American military superiority.

Unfortunately, this is work Congress must do without help from this administration. And as one Commissioner, Roger Zakheim, has observed, President Biden's 2022 NDS mentioned neither ``budget,'' ``funding,'' nor ``dollar.''

But after a week back in Washington, Congress is no closer to delivering full-year top-line defense spending than we were back on August 1. The critical increases Vice Chair Collins secured over the President's anemic budget request are no closer to becoming law, neither is the National Defense Authorization Act, which the Democratic leader has yet to schedule for floor time.

So it is one thing to request expert analysis; it would be quite another to do the urgent work that analysis rightly prescribes.

Mr. President, when I announced back in February that I would be wrapping up my time as Republican leader, I assured our colleagues that I wouldn't be bowing out of worthwhile fights anytime soon, and, of course, I meant that. But it is never too early to tell the folks you work with that you appreciate them. There is no such thing as saying ``thank you'' too often. So this is as good a time as any to brag a bit about the team I have been so fortunate to have in my Capitol office.

Today, I would like to focus on a number of my talented communications staff, beginning with the longest serving member of our team, senior research adviser David Hauptmann. David himself has joked once or twice that he came with the furniture in the Leader's office, but I would rather not give up the credit for making such a great personnel decision myself.

In a line of work where turnover and burnout aren't uncommon, David's longevity is truly remarkable. But, like me, he relishes a worthy fight. We have seen plenty of them over the years together, and there always seems to be another one just around the corner.

By my count, David has been on hand for the last six Supreme Court nomination fights. Time and again, with tenacious focus, he has sifted through archives, combed media coverage, and lent deep institutional knowledge that equips my entire team for success. More than once, his research quite literally changed the course of confirmations.

But as much as I would like to believe this principled public servant has stuck around all this time out of personal loyalty, it is clear to anyone who knows David that what animates his work the most is a deep devotion to the Senate as an institution. Every last-minute project, every weekend session spent away from his lovely wife Allison--all in defense of what makes the Senate the Senate. I know he agrees it has been worth every second.

So, David, thank you so much.

Mr. President, that is just half of the office's all- star research team. In any organization that has been around for a while, bringing in fresh ideas is essential, and Matt Burton has brought an invaluable new perspective as research director over the past year.

As is so often the case with recovering House staffers, I like to think Matt wasted no time at all becoming a Senate guy through and through, and behind his mild manner are killer political instincts and an unbeatable attention to the smallest details. These are, of course, essential qualities in a team I literally lean on for everything from equipping the conference with background research on the issues of the day, to vetting the records of pending nominations, to catching factual errors in drafts of my remarks. Simply put, nothing--nothing--gets past Matt Burton.

So this speech is a rare occasion when Matt hasn't seen and scoured an advance copy. We are in uncharted territory, and I hope he will forgive me for breaking protocol just this once.

Matt, it has been great having you on the team. Thank you for having my back.

Mr. President, of course, the excellent work of our researchers and the whole team gets a major leg up thanks to the talents of my digital director, Ryan Flynn.

For as long as digital media have played a major role in politics, I have been fortunate to have a maven on the team making sure we could compete in a fast-changing online landscape. Each one has brought a unique perspective and incredible talents.

Ryan has met this high bar and pushed it even higher. He has excelled at a job that requires him to wear multiple hats. In a single day, he is in the trenches of online messaging campaigns and racing around the Capitol in real life to capture and preserve important moments for posterity.

Aside from a small handful of senior-most advisers, Ryan is often the only one in the room with me in the highest profile meetings with foreign heads of state and other notables, and he just takes it all in stride.

I am grateful that Ryan's wife Clare allows us to occupy so much of his time. I know the team is particularly grateful for Ryan's ability to lighten even the most demanding situations--sometimes with sincere encouragement, sometimes with a practical joke.

Ryan, thank you for all the hard work. Or as you say yourself, ``Thanks for playing.''

Mr. President, now, Ryan is not the only one with the tough job of making me look good. That task also rests in the capable hands of my broadcast media adviser, Kaily Grabemann.

Kaily is simply the best in the business at what she does. Whether it is a quick radio call-in from the road or a big prime-time interview in the studio, Kaily makes sure I am armed and ready, including the occasional visual touch-ups she likes to refer to as ``glam.''

As our colleagues know, I am not always a frequent flyer on the cable news networks. But with Kaily's help, I keep a close eye on who is. And in that regard, I am hardly the only beneficiary of her media savvy. For years now, colleagues across the Republican conference have come to rely on Kaily as a clearinghouse for media advisability, helping Senators get on the air with important messages and helping producers get the Senators they are looking for.

For the sake of their sanity, most folks in this town try to avoid spending too much time glued to the news. To my good fortune, Kaily doesn't have that luxury. There are a number of things I am sure Kaily would rather do with her evenings or Sunday mornings--like, perhaps, train for the next marathon--but I am grateful she has been so willing to keep a watchful eye out instead.

Kaily, thank you so much.

Mr. President, now, this entire operation I have just described is rowing in the same direction thanks to the staff director of the Senate Republican communications center, Scott Sloofman.

Scott is actually a two-timer on my staff. The first time around, he hitched a ride back to Washington after steering my campaign's research operation through a vigorous reelection fight in 2014. It was clear from the beginning that he had a knack for politics like few people I have ever met.

As it turns out, ``Sloof'' felt so at home in the trenches of campaign life that we had to let him go out and win a few other races before he was ready to settle into life here in the Senate. When he came back, we wanted to make him feel at home so we lined up a couple of high-stakes Supreme Court confirmation battles and budget reconciliation fights.

Through it all, Sloof has displayed unflappable political instincts. And as the coordinator of a multipronged communications team, he has never been afraid to bet big on the right message. Time and again, his willingness to question assumptions, challenge conventional wisdom, and play devil's advocate have made his colleagues and me sharper and better prepared to take on tough challenges.

So, Sloof, I am glad to have you in my corner. Thank you so much.

Mr. President, now, the fine work of the communications center only makes it here to the floor because we have talented wordsmiths like my deputy speech writer, Catherine Francois, on the job. From her seat in the same noisy bullpen where the rest of the team wrestles with the news cycle, Catherine is engaged in a relentless process of air traffic control: digesting the latest news and research, helping me organize my thoughts on a given topic, running interference with fact checks and formatting, and getting the best possible draft on paper by the time the Senate opens every day, before doing it all over again the next day. It is a workflow that could make anyone's head spin, but Catherine's grace amid the chaos is all the more impressive when you consider that my team managed to poach her from the comparatively steady, contemplative world of policy analysis and think tanks.

So the comms center may have been quite a culture shock, but the habits of a true policy wonk die hard. Catherine has lent us an invaluable knack for hunting down fresh sources, interesting data, and underdiscussed angles on the issues of the day and then helping me package them in a compelling way for delivery from this podium. And I am so grateful for her contributions.

Catherine, thank you very much.

Mr. President, now on my chief speech writer, Dylan Vorbach. I admit that when Dylan's long-time predecessor, Andy Quinn, told me he was leaving, I worried what I would do without him. After all, the rapport you build with a speech writer is built on a lot of trust.

I shouldn't have worried. Dylan stepped right into the senior role and quickly became an invaluable partner in my preparations for all sorts of speaking engagements, especially on the topic of American leadership, which is what I have focused on so heavily.

Dylan is a consummate professional: loyal, reliable, and steady. He is a high-capacity, low-drama individual--an ideal combination for a job where everything can change on you in an instant.

When we engage in daily partisan warfare, Dylan's pen is as sharp as they come. But Dylan carries a unique piece of his own portfolio as well.

This institution is special, and the Senate leaders have a responsibility to the institution on certain occasions to speak not only for ourselves but also for our colleagues: a funeral for a beloved colleague, a tribute to a retiring doorkeeper, a heroic Congressional Gold Medal recipient, or the Senate spouses who really keep all of us grounded. In each and every moment, Dylan strikes the perfect grace note. He makes us look better than we are, and that serves us all very, very well.

I am not quite sure how a young man raised in New England has managed to become an honorary son of the South, but ever since Dylan came to us from our former colleague Luther Strange, he has hung onto an extra talent for channeling the best parts of our country.

But Dylan's talents extend far beyond putting words on a page. Somehow, his idea of unwinding on the weekend is a multiday baking project or an off-road bike race. I am just grateful he hasn't broken any of his typing fingers.

So, Dylan, thank you so much.