Floor Statements

Madam President, on a totally different matter, earlier this week I began discussing H.R. 1. This is the House Democrats' marquee bill for the new Congress.

I have stated this week that it really adds up to one big expensive partisan power grab, an effort to centralize more control over America's speech and America's voting here in Washington--the ``Democratic Politician Protection Act.'' I am pleased that people are beginning to pay attention to this monstrosity--a monstrosity.

Today I want to focus on how the power grab would affect our elections because when Washington politicians suddenly decide their top priority is grabbing unprecedented control over how they get elected and sent to Washington in the first place, alarm bells should start ringing all over this place.

After all, article I, section IV of the Constitution clearly gives-- clearly gives--State legislatures primary responsibility for ``the Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.''

There are times in American history when it has come to that. There have been times when our Nation has needed the Federal Government to get involved to expand and protect the franchise or to respond to a national emergency, for examples, bills like the Voting Rights Act, which secured the franchise for African Americans, or the Help America Vote Act, which provided guideposts--guideposts--to prevent a crisis like the Bush v. Gore recount from occurring a second time.

So what is the alleged crisis now? What is the alleged crisis now, in 2019, that has House Democrats calling for an unprecedented Federal takeover of elections across our country? Why is this Democratic bill-- which would create more Federal Government mandates over the minutia of the election process than has ever been done in the past--necessary now?

The year 2016 saw the most ballots ever cast in a Presidential election in American history. Now, with population growth, that isn't entirely surprising, but the turnout rate was the third highest since 1968. So people are voting in great numbers.

Let's look at the 2018 midterms--the highest midterm turnout in 50 years. People voted in the midterms.

Listen to what Americans themselves had to say about their experience. After the election, 92 percent--92 percent--of surveyed voters told the Pew Research Center their voting experience was ``very easy'' or ``somewhat easy''--92 percent--very easy or somewhat easy to vote. Regardless of when they voted and how they voted, huge majorities communicated that they had no real trouble--no real trouble--casting their ballots. No trouble.

My Democratic friends seem to be implying there is a supposed crisis here that conveniently is not rooted in the facts or in the opinions of American voters.

There is no objective basis for the sweeping Federal takeover of elections that House Democrats have dreamed up. There is no emergency. It is just a Washington power grab for its very own sake.

Decision after decision that our Constitution properly leaves to the States just melts away in this proposal. Practically every variable of any consequence to American elections gets a top-down mandate written by whom? Why, the Democrats, of course.

Could States require a signature to vote under the Democrats' bill? Only if they accept a computerized mark, making that signature requirement about as serious as clicking one checkbox on a website.

What if States and localities want to make sure that ineligible voters under the age of 18 don't end up on the voter rolls or decide whether or how convicted felons have their voting rights restored? Well, under the ``Democratic Politician Protection Act,'' States have no choice in the matter.

How many early days of voting should there be? Do polls need to be open on Sundays? What is the best way to make absentee ballots available? When can early voting take place, and how long and where should the polling places be located?

Different States and communities have come to different legitimate judgments on all of these questions. It is a core part of our constitutional system, and the decentralization of our election process leads to a more democratic system with more direct impact on the elections of those decision makers.

The United States of America has never been about centralizing all power in Washington, and Washington should not get to micromanage the processes that determine who comes to Washington.

But, alas, House Democrats don't seem to care if their partisan power grab upsets this constitutional balance. These Representatives even-- get this--want the Federal Government to dictate to States how their very own congressional districts will be drawn. They want the Federal Government to tell the States how to draw their congressional districts.

Right now, there is a competition of ideas among the States about the best way to handle this. Different places arrive at different answers.

Naturally, House Democrats have a different idea. They want to force every State to use a commission that is designed by them--by Washington Democrats. Every State will have to use a commission designed by Washington Democrats whose structure and procedures are prescribed, of course, by Washington Democrats. If a State doesn't know how to bow to their will, then the DC Federal court will make the decisions that have been reserved for the State legislatures going back to our Nation's founding.

I know it is not fashionable on the far left to praise the wisdom of our constitutional structure. It seems to be out of fashion. I am sure that in some corners I will be derided for referencing the Constitution at all. They will say: How could it still be relevant after all these years?

Of course, this thinking shows exactly why our founding principles are so important.

Our Constitution is there to protect our liberties and protect our form of government from the whim of whoever happens to be currently in power. These guardrails exist to stop things like a narrow partisan majority in the House of Representatives grabbing control of election laws just to benefit themselves politically. We need to stand with Alexander Hamilton and our Constitution, not with the House Democrats' partisan power grab.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for S. 1.

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 7, S. 47.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to proceed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls be waived.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 37, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 38, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 39, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, February 4; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1; further, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the postcloture time on McConnell amendment No. 65 expire and the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m., Monday; finally, that the filing deadline for today's cloture motion with respect to S. 1 be Monday at 4 p.m. for first-degree amendments.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, as I have discussed several times, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act is a consequential legislative package that would strengthen vital partnerships and reaffirm our active role in matters of global concern. I am proud to support it. I was also proud to lay down an amendment yesterday that would allow the Senate to speak equally forcefully on critical subjects in American foreign policy.

The United States is engaged in Syria and Afghanistan for one simple reason: because our enemies are engaged there. Real dangers to us and to our allies still remain in both of these nations. So we must continue to confront them there. Fortunately, we are not alone. We are joined in the counter-ISIS coalition by 78 other partners, and in both Syria and Afghanistan, local fighters are bearing the brunt--the brunt--of the work.

But American leadership is absolutely essential, and that is what this amendment is all about. My amendment is not partisan. It expresses views and concerns from Senators on both sides of the aisle, and it certainly isn't political. I intended it as an opportunity for the Senate to debate and vote on some of the more consequential matters of the day, and I expected this institution to rise to the occasion.

I was a Senator on September 11, 2001. I don't want America to ever live through another day like that--none of us do.

I have also been here in the Senate for the 17 years since--17 years of American engagement in worldwide efforts to combat terrorism. It hasn't been easy navigating American interests through this complicated and troubled region. It hasn't been easy adapting to an entirely new way of warfare against enemies that have proven adaptive themselves.

It is understandable that as we get further from September 11, many would grow tired of our military efforts a long way from home, but as decisions from the Obama administration have made painfully clear, leaving too abruptly carries its own grave risks.

Had President Obama known that ISIS would emerge in the wake of his withdrawal from Iraq and flourish in the chaos of the Syrian civil war, I suspect he might have done things differently. Perhaps he would not have abandoned Iraq so precipitously, ignored the growing terror threats in Syria, or allowed Assad to steamroll over his now-infamous ``red line.''

We can't undo this unfortunate history, but we certainly cannot afford to repeat it. So it has been a welcome contrast to see the Trump administration make huge progress reinvigorating our fight against al- Qaida in Afghanistan and ISIS in Syria. Unshackling our military has led to progress on the ground, greater pressure placed on the terrorists, and new opportunities for diplomatic and political solutions that have opened up as a result of the pressure that we have applied.

So what we must remember is how hard won these gains have been. Our response to this progress must not be to take our foot off the gas pedal but rather to keep up those strategies that are clearly working.

Our partnership with Iraqi security forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces have stripped ISIS of much territory in those two nations, but we have not yet defeated ISIS. We have not yet defeated al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Civil wars continue to rage in both Syria and Afghanistan. There are still cauldrons--cauldrons--of sectarianism, extremism, and terror.

President Trump is right that this cannot be America's fight alone. The threats that ISIS and al-Qaida pose are global. That is why many countries are with us in this fight. There is more that those partners can and should do to keep up direct pressure on terrorists and on outside actors who interfere with diplomatic efforts to resolve these wars.

Putin's Russia and the ayatollahs in Tehran need to pay a real price for their attempts to back butchers--butchers--like the Assad regime, Hezbollah, and the Taliban.

We also need to understand that if we withdraw too soon--too soon--we will

create vacuums in Syria and Afghanistan. We know from experience that Russia and Iran would be only too happy to fill those vacuums.

If we truly care about containing Russia, the battleground is not only on Twitter or Facebook but also in the world of old fashioned geopolitics.

So my amendment would offer Senators the ability to speak on all these subjects. I honestly did not expect this would be controversial stuff. I didn't expect that my colleagues across the aisle would make a partisan stand and try to block this straightforward ``sense of the Senate'' amendment when it really just restates--restates--what most of us thought was a broad bipartisan consensus about American leadership in the world, but that is what our Democratic colleagues did.

They tried to block it. Democrats objected to a vote on this amendment, apparently because it would expose a rift among their own membership--a division between those Senate Democrats who still subscribe to the vision for America's leadership and their colleagues who have abandoned those principles at the urging of the very far left or are too afraid to take either position--either one. It is quite the split. It shows how caught up my Democratic colleagues are in the partisanship of this moment.

My amendment simply reemphasizes the expertise and counsel offered by experts who have served Presidents of both parties. It is a mainstream amendment with 19 cosponsors, but apparently a significant portion of today's Democratic Party isn't sure--isn't sure--they believe in these principles any more. They would rather try to squash the debate and dodge the vote altogether.

Well, that is not going to work. These are exactly the kinds of issues the Senate should be debating. The Senate has a special role in foreign policy.

Americans are serving in harm's way in Syria and Afghanistan. The American servicemembers, diplomats, and aid workers in those conflict zones all deserve to know whether their elected officials support their efforts or whether we no longer believe their tireless efforts serve our national interest.

Our constituents deserve to know which Senators welcome a thorough debate over Syria and Afghanistan and which are simply trying to duck the debate. Well, despite my Democratic colleagues' attempt, I can assure the American people that they are going to learn precisely that. I filed cloture on the amendment yesterday afternoon, and we will vote on it. Regardless of whatever political contortions the far left may be demanding from Senate Democrats, the American people are going to learn exactly where their Senators stand. Our institution will not shrink from this important duty.

Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, I spoke for the first time, yesterday, on the subject that House Democrats have crowned as their signature effort for this Congress-- H.R. 1, also known as the ``Democratic Politician Protection Act.'' Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues are advertising it as a package of urgent measures to save American democracy. What it really seems to be is a package of urgent measures to rewrite the rules of American politics for the exclusive benefit of the Democratic Party.

Yesterday, I gave a brief tour through several of the most bizarre components of their proposal. Today, I would like to focus on just one of the legislation's major victims--the American taxpayer.

H.R. 1 would victimize every American taxpayer by pouring their money into expensive new subsidies that don't even pass the laugh test. In several new ways, it would put every taxpayer on the hook to line the pockets of candidates, campaigns, and outside consultants.

Do you look forward to bumper stickers, robocalls, attack ads, and campaign mail that descend on the country in seemingly endless cycles?

Speaker Pelosi must think you do, because she wants you to pay for these things with your tax dollars. You get the opportunity, with your money, to pay for attack ads and bumper stickers and the rest. This bill creates brand-new government subsidies--government subsidies--both for political campaign donors and for the campaigns themselves.

The Federal Government would start matching political donations the same way some employers match gifts to charity. You would be literally funding attack ads for the candidates you disagree with. How about that--your money funding ads for the candidates you disagree with?

Maybe that is why every Democrat opposed our tax cuts for middle- class families and small businesses. They were counting on that money to pull off this stimulus package, if you will, for campaign consultants.

And for what reason? To increase the competition? Well, studies have shown that incumbents win just as often in taxpayer-funded elections as they do when campaigns are funded with private money.

To reduce corruption? Hardly. Jurisdictions that have toyed with taxpayer-funded political systems have turned out to be replete with misappropriation, personal use, straw donors, and public corruption scandals.

So I remain curious why, exactly, the ``Democratic Politician Protection Act'' wants to offer the American people's money to thousands of candidates that run for the House of Representatives every 2 years, whether they support these candidates or not. They want citizens to bankroll political materials that they totally disagree with.

But they aren't stopping there. Democrats also want taxpayers on the hook for generous new benefits for Federal bureaucrats and government employees.

Their bill would make election day a new paid holiday for government workers and create an additional brandnew paid leave benefit for up to 6 days for any Federal bureaucrat who decides they would like to hang out at the polls during any election. Just what America needs--another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work, I assume, for our colleagues on the other side on their campaigns.

This is the Democrats' plan to ``restore'' democracy--a brandnew week of paid vacation for every Federal employee who would like to hover around while you cast your ballot? A Washington-based, taxpayer- subsidized clearinghouse for political campaign funding? It is a power grab that is smelling more and more like exactly what it is.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, in Kentucky's oldest town sits a beautiful and historic building on the top of a hill. Beaumont Inn, with its name taken from the French for ``beautiful mount,'' is my State's oldest Southern country inn. The Harrodsburg establishment is a beacon of hospitality with a distinguished history, and I would like to take a moment to mark the centennial anniversary of this treasured Kentucky landmark.

When the main building of today's Beaumont Inn was constructed around 1845, no one could have perceived the incredible future in store, but then again, the location had already had a notable history. An original wooden structure on the site was believed to be the childhood home of John Marshall Harlan, future Kentucky attorney general and Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

For many years afterward, the site served as a series of schools for women, including the Greenville Institute, the Daughters College, and finally as Beaumont College until 1916. The next year, the grounds were purchased by an alumna of the Daughters College, Annie Bell Goddard, and her husband Glave. In 1919, the Goddards opened the new 31-room Beaumont Inn, and the same family has proudly operated this wonderful Kentucky establishment ever since.

Throughout the next century, Glave and Annie Bell's descendants have welcomed countless guests to the inn, preserving this historic building, its picturesque scenery, and the tradition of

Southern hospitality. Beaumont Inn grew, both in physical size and in prestige, even earning inclusion onto the National Register of Historic Places. Some of the new buildings include the Greystone House, Bell Cottage, and Goddard Hall, which honors Beaumont's founder. Not only is the inn a charming destination, but it is also a museum filled with interesting artifacts of Kentucky and American history. Today, the inn is operated by the fourth and fifth generation of the Goddard family, Chuck and Helen Dedman and their son, Dixon.

It is beyond question that quality cuisine is a vital aspect of all Southern hospitality. As a pinnacle of a traditional Bluegrass experience, Beaumont Inn sets a high bar. Visitors are drawn to its main dining room by the famous ``yellow-legged'' fried chicken and 2- year-old Kentucky-cured country ham. The inn's cornmeal batter cakes are a breakfast favorite. In recognition of its culinary excellence, Beaumont Inn has earned some of the highest accolades in this field, including the America's Class Award from the James Beard Foundation. Visitors can also enjoy a Kentucky bourbon at the Owl's Nest lounge or at the Old Owl Tavern, named one of the best bourbon bars in America. As Kentucky leads the Nation in a bourbon revival, the inn has also become an official stop of the Kentucky Bourbon Trail. These amenities reaffirm the strong bonds between this historic institution and one of the Commonwealth's signature industries. In fact, the New York Times published an article about the storied history of Kentucky Owl Bourbon, recently revived by the Dedman family.

I look forward to my next visit to Beaumont Inn, and I would like to thank the Dedman family for their tireless efforts to preserve this Kentucky treasure. Their stewardship of this historic site and long- term vision helps connect our Commonwealth's past to its bright future. As Beaumont Inn celebrates 100 years of excellence, I would like to extend my best wishes to the Dedmans, the staff, and all who enjoy this beloved institution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Thursday, January 31; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1, and that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the McConnell amendment No. 65 at 3:30 p.m. and that the mandatory quorum call be waived.