Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, since October 7, the Israeli military has achieved remarkable success in destroying Hamas's capacity to wage war and in targeting Hezbollah terrorists, but Israel's operations against the Iran-backed terrorists surrounding it have also succeeded in exposing some of the most malignant and persistent biases of Western media against the Jewish State of Israel.

We need to look no further than the astonishing willingness of the most prominent outlets in America to parrot the terrorists' preferred casualty figures, produced by Hamas's own health ministry, or the haste of even the nation's so-called paper of record to attribute to Israel a devastating rocket strike on a hospital that careful observation showed to be the work of the terrorists themselves.

To deny the role of careless coverage and outright bias in the groundswell of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate across the West is willful ignorance.

Consider just this morning's example, courtesy of taxpayer-funded National Public Radio. In its coverage of an apparent Israeli operation to target Hezbollah terrorists via their specialized communications networks, NPR described Hezbollah as a ``Lebanese militant and political group,'' but the most accurate descriptor of Hezbollah--a terrorist organization--was conspicuously absent; but NPR editors did manage to include a quote from a man on the street accusing Israel of terrorism.

Well, as intrepid journalists so often remind us, context matters, and it matters especially in the work of an organization that takes Federal Government funding and whose CEO has declared that ``reverence for the truth might be a distraction.'' So let's establish some context.

Hezbollah is arguably the world's most dangerous terrorist group. The U.S. Government and more than 60 other countries recognize this essential characteristic. Hezbollah is funded, trained, and equipped by Iran, and with Iran's help, Hezbollah has conducted terror attacks all around the world--from bombings in Argentina and Greece to backing the ghoulish Assad regime in the Syrian civil war.

Until 9/11, Hezbollah was responsible for the deadliest terror attacks against the United States, killing 321 Americans in bombings of the U.S. Embassy, marine barracks, and annex in Beirut back in 1983 and 1984. They also coordinated with the IRGC and its master terrorist, Qasem Soleimani, to kill hundreds of U.S. servicemembers in Iraq; and, of course, Hezbollah continues to threaten U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria today.

But, of course, one of Hezbollah's primary reasons for existence is the murder of Jews and the destruction of the Jewish State.

To the extent that it is a political entity, it has corrupted and strangled Lebanon's fragile democracy; and it is Hezbollah's efforts to threaten Israel with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles and its terror tunnels to facilitate the infiltration of Israel that has put Lebanon in the spotlight.

So it may be worth mentioning that, perhaps, the most carefully targeted series of simultaneous attacks against terrorist operatives in human history comes in response to this all-consuming campaign, which has turned Lebanon into the staging area for war on Israel's existence.

So how is that for context?

It is my understanding that the senior Senator from Vermont has said he will introduce joint resolutions of the disapproving of U.S. security assistance to Israel. Such a signal would only empower and embolden terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah. Each of our colleagues deserves a chance to go on the record right away to reject this extremism.

Harris Policy

Now, Mr. President, on a different matter, I spoke yesterday about how working Americans are having a tough time figuring out where Vice President Harris stands on leftwing climate policy. She has played both sides of issues that carry real consequences for the livelihoods and family budgets. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop at the Green New Deal. Voters consistently report that border security is among their top concerns--and with good reason.

In the last 4 years, humanitarian chaos and a security crisis at the southern border has set all the wrong records. Since the Biden-Harris administration took office, the CBP has recorded more than 9.9 million encounters with illegal aliens, and this doesn't include the nearly 2 million known ``got-aways.'' In the past fiscal year alone, the CBP has encountered 2.3 million people attempting to illegally enter our country.

The Democratic nominee for President also happens to be the current administration's point person responsible for this exact issue. You might expect the border czar to have taken command and left a clear idea of where she stands on the issue. Ah, but think again.

Back in 2020, she described President Trump's border wall as a ``complete waste of taxpayer money'' that ``won't make us any safer''; but, recently, she said that she would sign Senator Lankford's border bill into law if it landed on her desk. Remember, this is the bill that would have unlocked hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the construction of that wall.

In 2019, when she first ran for President, our former colleague expressed support for decriminalizing illegal border crossing. Apparently, this was a longstanding view. In her maiden speech in the Senate, she proclaimed:

I know what a crime looks like, and I will tell you: An

undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.

But, according to her campaign, she no longer believes that.

On other aspects of border policy, her campaign has declined to say whether her earlier commitments still hold true.

Vice President Harris has bragged that she was ``one of the first Senators, after President Trump was elected, to advocate for a decrease in funding to ICE.'' Is she still proud of that stand? The Harris campaign won't say. This is especially puzzling given her stated support for the Lankford border bill, which increases the funding for ICE. Does she not know what is in the legislation she says she now endorses?

In this body, she introduced legislation to decrease detention by at least 50 percent and end funding for new detention facilities. Would she sign a bill like that today? Her campaign is mum on the issue. And they are similarly tight-lipped on the Vice President's 2019 statement of support for taxpayer-funded gender transition treatment for persons in immigration detention facilities.

Now, this isn't to say that the American people are at a total loss for clues on where the Vice President stands. She has repeated often on the campaign trail that ``my values have not changed,'' and it is useful to note who has taken her word for it. The executive director of a progressive immigration group recently put it this way:

We all know and trust Harris to make the right decisions

when she's in office.

When it comes to campaign strategy, some of our Democratic colleagues are even saying the quiet part out loud. The senior Senator from Vermont, self-described Democratic Socialist, said:

I don't think she's abandoning her ideals. I think she's

tried to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in

order to win the election.

The senior Senator from Hawaii reiterated this point. He has said:

I certainly don't think we should be demanding that she

take unpopular positions in key States.

Sitting Democratic Senators are calling it like it is: Our former colleague is saying what needs to be said to appeal to independent voters, but when it comes to her progressive agenda, she is dyed in the wool. She just needs to wait until the election to let the mask come off.

So for voters who are trying to make sense of where the Vice President stands, it really comes down to this: If Washington Democrats' leftwing base

isn't afraid of her flip-flops, then it is safe to say that working Americans should be.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, one of my predecessors in the Senate from Kentucky was a guy named Happy Chandler. He had a legendary career that continued back in the Commonwealth as a two-time Governor, and he was actually the baseball commissioner for a while. He was known for what I found to be a wise observation: You can start too late but never too soon.

That sums up how I feel about the task I began this time last week: publicly thanking the talented people who serve with me in the Republican leader's office. It is not because I am going anywhere anytime soon. It is not because there is any shortage of important work still to be done. I have just had the great, good fortune of leaning on an outstanding staff, and it is never too soon to thank them for their devoted service over many years.

The group I would like to single out for particular praise this afternoon includes some of the longest serving members of my team and some of its newest arrivals, some of the most familiar faces around the Capitol and some of the behind-the-scenes heroes who actually keep us going. Every one of them is essential to the work that we do for Kentucky and for the Nation.

I will begin with someone whose first stint on my team predates my time as Republican leader.

Today, the former Secretary of the Senate, Julie Adams, is a senior leader with administrative responsibilities that touch every corner of this institution, but I will claim credit for first bringing this proud Iowan to the Senate as my deputy communications director.

When Julie left my team the first time, she wisely picked an opportunity I would have a rough time objecting to, and that was working for First Lady Laura Bush at the White House. Well, ever since she got back, I have done everything I could to keep Julie's numerous talents right here in the Senate. From complex personnel policy to ancient institutional protocol, Julie hasn't met a Senate challenge she couldn't handle with tact and grace. Appointing Julie as Secretary under the last Republican majority was literally a no-brainer. From this desk, I had a front row seat to Julie's professional excellence, but I wasn't the only one.

As I understand it, Julie's daily appearances on the Senate floor were appointment viewing for her parents Harold and Leah. They tuned in from back home, and they have good reason to be proud of their truly exceptional public servant.

So, Julie, thank you so much.

Mr. President, while Julie has been out amongst the tapestry of the broader Senate, the next pair I would like to thank have been holding down the fort just inside the doors of my Capitol office.

The first person anybody sees when they stop by my office is Grace Harrison, and that is by design. Grace has both the warmth and the poise of a royal and the authoritative confidence of a bouncer. She knows how to make guests feel welcome whether they are Kentuckians stopping by on a family vacation or dignitaries arriving for important meetings. At the same time, she knows how to keep a firm hold on what comes in and out of the office. It is a rare combination of skills and easily takes years to hone, but Grace had it mastered on day one.

As I understand it, it wasn't long after she arrived that Grace also had the names and faces of each of our colleagues committed to memory, and she has wasted no time in taking on extra projects above and beyond the duties of the front office. This isn't at all surprising for someone who, I am told, found time back in high school, amid the demands of academics and extracurriculars, to start up her own business on the side. Well, I am grateful that Grace continues to make it her business to support my entire team so well.

So, Grace, thank you.

Now, Mr. President, if you make it past Grace, you may find yourself striking up a conversation with the other half of my all- star front office, Gaden James.

It usually begins with a detailed account of the incredible history of the room--the very first home of the Library of Congress--but where the conversation goes next is anybody's guess. Gaden is as comfortable discussing the finer points of sport fishing as he is the nuances of Richard Nixon's foreign policy. No matter the topic, you are sure to come away with some new walking-around knowledge. Perhaps that is par for the course with an alumnus of one of our most erudite former colleagues, Rob Portman.

Gaden has struck a sort of balance few young Capitol Hill staffers manage to achieve. He is both 100 percent present for the tasks at hand and 100 percent committed to honing the skills he hopes to use in his future. In other words, he is not above keeping track of my favorite coffee mug, but he never misses an opportunity to attend a briefing on an interesting topic either. And when the Senate works odd hours, so does my front office team. I am grateful that Gaden has been so willing to burn the midnight oil.

So, Gaden, thanks a lot.

Now, Mr. President, if the front office sounds like an energetic place to work, just ask our special assistant, Katie Karam, what it is like helping my senior staff in the back office.

Katie came aboard last year at a particularly busy time for my team. Depending on who you ask, she was either stolen or rescued from the wild world of House campaigns. Regardless, Katie dove headfirst into a tough job: keeping tabs on a chief of staff who is known to come and go from the office via a secret side door, tracking down a national security advisor who is frequently unreachable via phone or email, and taking on extensive other duties as assigned--all with a calm but eager willingness beyond her years.

Katie is a sponge for new knowledge and skills, and my entire staff has come to count on her as a utility player in all kinds of clutch situations.

Katie's contributions in my office follow in a distinguished family tradition of public service, and her loyal commitment to this team is second only to her devotion to her family, whom I know she makes very proud.

So, Katie, thank you.

Of course, Mr. President, I can't talk about how my office runs with calm efficiency and professionalism without mentioning the great work of my scheduling director, Sarah Steinberg.

Around the Senate, it is considered poor form to recruit all-star staffers away from our colleagues, but when my dear friend Lamar Alexander announced his retirement, I concluded it was fair play for the Kentucky delegation to borrow Sarah's talents from her native Tennessee.

At any given moment over the past 5 years, there isn't anyone who has had a better idea of where I am--or, more importantly, where I am supposed to be--than Sarah. Discretion and attention to detail are her calling cards. Sarah closely guards my confidence and vigilantly protects my time. She spots sensitive situations from a mile away and

steers us through them with the ease of a pro who has seen it all.

Indeed, Sarah has seen it all. From her days at the business end of Senate casework back in Tennessee to her tenure managing some of the most demanding schedules here in Washington, to the job of which I am sure she is most proud: raising two young sons, Connor and Graham, with her husband Shane.

I have been so grateful for Sarah's willingness to juggle it all with such excellence.

So, thank you, Sarah.

Mr. President, I am proud of the way my team thrives under pressure, but when technical difficulties throw a wrench in a busy day, even the coolest heads require a bit of grace. In those moments, there is nobody my team is happier to see than my longtime information administrator of information technology, Moon Sulfab.

Of course, with Moon's capable hands on the wheel, moments of technological crises are few and far between. He plugged in the entire Republican leader's office. He will be the only one to unplug it as well, and every day in between, I have relied on Moon's trust, loyalty, discretion, and skill to keep our entire operation secure. Moon's relentless pursuit of professional development makes him not only an asset for my team but for the entire Senate.

But for every memory of Moon bailing us out of a wonky technological problem, my team recalls countless more times when he was just the friendliest colleague they could ask for. Moon asks after their parents and their favorite sports teams. He wants to know about their latest travels and regale them with stories and gifts from his own. And his reputation is hardly limited to my office. Around the Capitol, it is well-known that Moon hasn't ever met a stranger.

By his own admission, he is living an American dream, and by his joy for his work, his lifelong love of learning, and his devotion to this institution, Moon reminds those around him that we are as well.

So, Moon, thank you so much.

Mr. President, my late friend and former chair of the Ethics Committee, Johnny Isakson, liked to warn folks not to drown in shallow water. What he meant, of course, was that while you are focused on the big picture, you can't forget to dot your i's and cross your t's.

Well, my entire team is fortunate that my office manager, Alexandra Jenkins, took that advice as words to live by.

Alex, of course, is a proud Kentuckian. And as I was reminded during my travels during a State work period, Kentucky is quite proud of her as well.

So is our shared alma mater. It is not uncommon for McConnell Scholars in Louisville to come up to me eager to let me know that they know Alex. I suspect they see in her what my staff saw in her years ago, when she joined the team--a passion for public service and a wisdom beyond her years.

It didn't take long before the selfless initiative that prompted Alex to quietly come into work on Sundays to help Kentuckians secure coveted tickets for White House tours invited even greater responsibilities.

As office manager, Alex is constantly immersed in the minutiae of Senate policy and personnel. Well before an issue arises, she makes it her business to become an expert. When my senior-most staff need honest assessments to make sensitive decisions, Alex doesn't pull any punches. Her competence and composure prevent headaches and quite literally keep our team out of harm's way.

I can't help but recall how, on January 6, while working from home, Alex provided such timely instructions and updates to members of my staff literally locked down in the Capitol that many of them assumed she was there as well.

I know my entire team is grateful for Alex's patience, her friendship, and the biting wit that keeps officemates on their toes.

And behind only her proud mom Debra, I count myself among her biggest fans.

So, Alex, thank you.

For a second week in a row, I close by saying that there are still many more incredibly talented and dedicated public servants that I need to thank publicly in the days ahead. In the meantime, my entire team will continue to do what they do best on behalf of Kentucky and the entire Nation.

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

Mr. President, in the weeks since Washington Democrats made Vice President Harris their nominee, the American people have had their hands full in trying to figure out where her campaign stands on the issues on the top of their minds.

They have got serious questions about her role in everything from the runaway spending that gave them the worst inflation in 40 years to the open borders policies that have invited the worst humanitarian and security crisis the southern border has ever seen. Thus far, they haven't received many answers.

The problem is that the Vice President doesn't have a record. She has

campaigned for President once before and worked hand in hand with President Biden for 4 years since. Instead, the problem is that, on issue after issue, Vice President Harris has, at one time or another, played both sides. Well, working families want to know, this time, what side she is on.

Take energy policy. Back in 2019, then-Senator Harris went on record, saying:

There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.

Fast-forward, after 4 years of undermining exploration of abundant American energy, the Harris campaign says her policies as President would be different.

During her time in the Senate, our former colleague cosponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, a bill that would require car manufacturers to sell only zero-emission vehicles after 2040. These days, her campaign avoids getting pinned down about whether she would seek an electric vehicle mandate.

Then-Senator Harris also went on the record in support of the Green New Deal, including its make-work programs and job guarantees. These days, as the Biden-Harris war on American energy rages on, the Harris campaign conveniently reveals that she no longer supports this resolution, and, apparently, there is no policy too small for the campaign to walk back, not even the Vice President's stated support for--get this--a Federal ban on plastic straws. According to the campaign, that has been reversed as well.

Well, micromanaging fountain drinks is one thing, but as millions of Americans contend with the business end of the Biden-Harris climate and economic agenda, they ought to know precisely where the Democratic Party's nominee stands. Policies matter. They can quite literally be the difference between affording gas and groceries and going without. Voters are fed up with flip-flops, and the Vice President ought to come clean.

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

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.