Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this anniversary also reminds us of how many urgent issues are crying out for substantive, bipartisan, bicameral cooperation for the good of the American people. I am talking about funding our Armed Forces and the Department of Defense, just as both sides agreed to do back in the summer when we signed on to a bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement that Democrats have lately sort of wandered away from--just wandered right away from it. I am talking about passing the USMCA, the most consequential update to North American trade policy in a generation, which Speaker Pelosi has put on ice in order to move Democrats' impeachment obsession to the front burner, despite the fact that there are 176,000 new American jobs on the line if we pass the USMCA. The needs of the American people have not been put on pause just because Washington Democrats have decided it doesn't suit them to get along with the White House. My friends in Democratic leadership insist over and over that their focus on undoing the 2016 election will not keep them from the substantive legislation that American families need. Well, our Armed Forces are still waiting for their funding; our workers and small businesses are still waiting on their new trade agreement. Our Senate Democratic colleagues have enough time to push partisan resolutions, such as their effort yesterday to enact a new tax cut-- listen to this--their effort yesterday to enact a new tax cut for wealthy people in blue States, like New York and New Jersey, at the expense of working families everywhere else. But so far we have seen little--little--indication that they are really ready to put our differences aside and come to the table on significant bipartisan subjects that can actually become law. I worry that something like the landmark opioid package that we are celebrating today would not have moved through the Congress today, just one year later. I worry it would have been another victim of Democrats' decision to avoid working with Republicans and the White House on basically anything, to keep all of their focus trained on impeachment. I hope I am mistaken. I hope we make real progress soon. The American people are waiting on us.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Schumer, I send to the desk a resolution authorizing the production of testimony and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a subpoena for testimony in a criminal action pending in Superior Court in the District of Columbia. In this action, the defendant is charged with demonstrating during a Subcommittee hearing of the Judiciary Committee and continuing to demonstrate after being instructed to stop by a law enforcement officer. A trial is scheduled to begin in the case on October 28, 2019. The Government is seeking testimony at the trial about Committee hearing procedures from Jason Covey, hearing clerk of the Judiciary Committee. The Committee would like to comply with the subpoena by making Mr. Covey available for testimony in this case. The enclosed resolution would authorize the production of testimony from Mr. Covey in the upcoming trial.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first, I want to acknowledge two notable events taking place in the Capitol today. As we speak, the First Lady of the United States is just down the hall for a special event related to our Nation's opioid epidemic, marking the progress that Congress and the administration have made in recent years and focusing our efforts on the work still ahead. I will have more to say on the subject tomorrow, which will mark the 1-year anniversary of President Trump signing our landmark opioid legislation into law. I want to warmly welcome the First Lady to the Senate this morning and thank her for her continued focus on this crisis, which affects so many of our States. I offer these thanks not only as the majority leader but as the senior Senator from Kentucky, which has been hit hard by this epidemic.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later today, in the old Senate Chamber, family, friends, and former colleagues of our late colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, will gather for the unveiling of the Senator's leadership portrait. Senator Stevens' likeness will join the storied ranks of the leadership portrait collection--images of majority leaders, minority leaders, and Presidents pro tem, which are proudly displayed around the building. Our distinguished predecessors watch over the corridors they walked, the rooms in which they debated, and the body they served. It is fitting that Senator Stevens is being recognized for his service as President pro tem. As we all know, unlike the elected party leaders, that is not a job which you can campaign or persuade your way into. The only way to become President pro tem is to persuade your home State, over and over, to rehire you, and Ted Stevens was about the most dogged advocate for his home State that anybody could possibly imagine. He was Alaska's son and Alaska's champion 24 hours a day and then some. I look forward to honoring our former colleague's memory this afternoon.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, later today, I understand the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 4617. This is the latest installment in Speaker Pelosi's campaign to expand government's control over America's political speech. It is a transparent attack on the First Amendment that has united an unlikely band of opponents across the political spectrum. Everybody from hardcore conservatives to the ACLU is speaking out against this effort to erode Americans' constitutional rights. The proposal would give the Federal Election Commission unprecedented license to track and regulate Americans' political speech on the internet and decide what speech qualifies as political in the first place. If it were not bad enough on principle to fill more Washington, DC, filing cabinets with which citizens hold what beliefs, their bill would also deputize media companies into this effort. They would force publications to keep excessive records for any advertisement they accept not only for political campaigns but on any issue of national importance. When this regulatory burden has been tried on a smaller scale, it has frightened media platforms into rejecting political ads altogether. It is a textbook example of policy designed to reduce the amount of free speech in our country. Press organizations such as the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun have already sued over similar regulations on First Amendment grounds and won in court. House Democrats want to violate the First Amendment and harm journalists in order to give more control to the FEC. That would be the same FEC that Democrats have recently tried to shift from a bipartisan body to a partisan body for the first time in its history. A different part of the House bill refers to ``legitimate journalistic activities.'' I look forward to hearing what Orwellian commission or process House Democrats may have in mind for determining whether Washington, DC, deems a particular journalist legitimate. These are just a few examples. Even the ACLU--widely viewed as a left-leaning organization that is not known for siding with Republicans--is publicly opposing the Democrats' bill. Here is what the ACLU said: ``The SHIELD Act . . . strikes the wrong balance, sweeping too broadly and encompassing more speech than necessary. . . . The SHIELD Act goes too far . . . to the detriment of the public and the First Amendment.'' That is the ACLU. Congress has real business to attend to. House Democrats need to stop blocking the USMCA. Senate Democrats need to stop blocking defense funding. Yet, rather than working on these issues, we instead see Democrats continue to fixate--fixate--on chipping away at the First Amendment. It is a pet project they return to time and again. It is disturbing, especially in light of recent blatant attempts to intimidate Americans into silence. Just a few months ago, a sitting House Democrat earned national criticism when he publicly tweeted out a list of his own constituents in San Antonio, TX, who had donated to President Trump's campaign. He listed these private citizens' names along with their employers or businesses. In this era of political harassment and online mobs, the implication was clear as day. From Twitter posts to partisan messaging bills, House Democrats' mission is the same: Chill the exercise of free speech. Send a message to Americans with inconvenient views that speaking up is more trouble than it is worth. This proposal will not do anything to stop maligned foreign actors-- something that every Member of this body cares deeply about. As three former FEC Chairmen recently pointed out, foreign adversaries like Russia are not going to stop their malign operations for fear of an FEC fine. Let me say that again. Adversaries like Russia are not going to stop their malign operations for fear of an FEC fine. ``Campaign-finance law isn't the tool to prevent foreign meddling. . . . Adversaries won't be scared off by civil penalties. . . . This is a job for diplomatic, national security, and counterintelligence agencies. [This legislation] is a needless sacrifice to First Amendment rights, not a serious effort to secure elections.'' That is three former Chairmen of the Federal Election Commission. I certainly agree. It was focusing on defense and counterintelligence, not attacking the First Amendment, that made the 2018 elections go more smoothly than the 2016 elections. That is why the hundreds of millions of dollars Congress has set aside for State grants have made a big difference. That needs to remain our focus as we continue our efforts to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2016. House Democrats have achieved something remarkable here. They have drafted legislation that is so anti-First Amendment that it has united everybody from former FEC Commissioners, to the ACLU, to yours truly in opposition. I am sorry that Speaker Pelosi deems go-nowhere messaging bills a better use of the House's time than the USMCA and the 176,000 new American jobs that experts tell us it would create. The American people deserve a House of Representatives that works with the Senate and the President to actually make law and make progress for the families we represent.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today Senate Democrats will push forward their own resolution that seeks to undermine part of the historic tax reform we passed in 2017. Remember, back then, Washington Democrats were downright hysterical about our plan to let working Americans send less of their paycheck to the IRS. Speaker Pelosi called the tax cuts ``Armageddon.'' She said it was ``the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress.'' That is the Speaker on the 2017 tax reform bill. I guess that shows how much Democrats hate to cut taxes. But tax reform passed, and the results are clear. It has increased Americans' take-home pay and helped generate one of the best economic moments for working families in a generation. Since tax reform, 22 States, including my State of Kentucky, have set new record-low unemployment rates. The national unemployment rate has set a 50-year low. But, alas, rather than acknowledge that the sky hasn't fallen, our Democratic friends still want to undermine tax reform--and listen to where they have elected to start. Listen to this. Democrats' first target is changing the Tax Code so that working families across the country have to subsidize wealthy people in States like New York, New Jersey, and California. Here is the background. As part of tax reform, in order to maximize middle-class relief, the deductibility of State and local tax payments was capped. Most middle-class taxpayers were more than compensated for this through other tax cuts, but for some wealthy people who elect to live in high-tax States, this represented a partial increase. Republicans didn't think it was fair that middle-class working families in States the Obama economy left behind had to subsidize the tax bills of rich people in high-tax States without limit. We didn't eliminate the State and local tax deduction; we just capped it for high earners. That cap is what Democrats want to undermine. Their resolution would help high-tax States--typically governed by Democrats--create workarounds for their high-earners. Let's be clear about what would happen if Democrats got their real objective and repealed the SALT cap altogether. According to data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, 94 percent of the benefit would flow to taxpayers who earn more than $200,000 a year. That is what they are advocating. Ninety-four percent of the benefit would flow to taxpayers who earn more than $200,000 a year. More than half of it would actually go to people who make more than $1 million a year--cutting taxes for the rich. Repealing the SALT cap would give millionaires an average tax cut of $60,000. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than $10. There would be $60,000 tax cuts for wealthy people and $10 tax cuts for the middle class. Apparently that sounds like a good trade to our Democratic colleagues. It doesn't sound like good trade to me. I am sorry to break it to my Democratic colleagues, but the middle- class Kentuckians I represent have zero interest--zero interest--in cross-subsidizing the tax bills of millionaires who live in Brooklyn and the Bay Area. It is bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it is downright comical that their top priority--a top priority--is helping wealthy people in blue States find loopholes to pay even less. They won't even propose to repeal the SALT cap outright because they know it is bad policy and negates all of their talking points about tax fairness. They just want to bless a backdoor workaround. I urge Members on both sides to use common sense and reject Democrats' resolution when we vote on it later today.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there is a joint resolution at the desk that is due a second reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. In order to place the joint resolution on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture motion on Executive Calendar No. 457 ripen at 12 noon on Thursday, October 24; further, that if cloture is invoked, at 1:45 p.m., the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further ask that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have 4 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Seapower The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, October 24; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Walker nomination under the previous order; finally, that the Senate recess from 10:30 a.m. until 12 noon tomorrow.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote on finally getting the appropriations process moving. We will vote on considering a package of domestic funding bills, and if we take up the legislation, I intend to stay on it until we complete it. On both sides of the Capitol, our Democratic colleagues have spent recent weeks insisting over and over that their 3-year-old quest to impeach the President will not prevent them from the substantive work American families need us to tackle. So far, the early returns haven't been too encouraging. A few weeks ago, we saw the unusual spectacle of Senate Democrats voting to filibuster defense funding due to political fights with the White House. Democrats blocked a pay raise for our servicemembers because they would rather fight with the President. We know that across the Capitol, for months now, Speaker Pelosi has been blocking the USMCA and blocking the 176,000 new American jobs it would create. This week offers another test. Soon we will be voting on appropriations, and we will see whether our Democratic friends really can put aside their impeachment obsession long enough to get some real work done on the side. Actions speak louder than words. First, I hope we will tackle a package of domestic funding bills. After that, we will turn to a defense vehicle. I urge our Democratic colleagues to drop the stall tactics that have left funding for our Armed Forces in limbo and join with Republicans to deliver the funding our military commanders need to keep us safe.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, I opposed President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria so I am encouraged by press reports that his administration is considering retaining a military presence in that country to keep the pressure on ISIS. Since September 11, our Nation has learned several key lessons about the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. The terrorist threat cannot be wished away. The terrorists mean us harm, and we cannot allow them to establish safe havens and solidify their networks. When they do, the bloodshed ends up right here on our shores. American leadership is essential. We have seen our partners and allies step up and take on important roles. In fact, as we speak, France is playing a leading role in the African Sahel, but just about every place President Obama tried to ``lead from behind'' provides tragic reminders that there are certain kinds of leadership only America can contribute. Fortunately, we are not in this alone. The huge progress we have won in recent years against ISIS and the Taliban has come by partnering with local forces, with support from a broad international coalition. America has only provided limited specialized capabilities to reinforce the local partners that do the heaviest lifting. This approach is sustainable. Unfortunately, we know exactly what happens when America forgets these lessons and simply decides we are tired of sustaining the fight. Abandoning Afghanistan in the 1990s helped create the conditions for al-Qaida's ability to grow and plan the September 11 attacks from a safe haven far from our shores. President Obama's retreat from Iraq allowed ISIS to rise from the still-warm ashes of al-Qaida in Iraq. If not arrested, withdrawing from Syria will invite more of the chaos that breeds terrorism and creates a vacuum our adversaries will certainly fill. It will invite the brutal Assad regime to reassert its oppressive control over northeastern Syria, repressing Sunni Arab communities and creating the same conditions that led to ISIS's growth in the first place. Russia will gain more leverage to amass power and influence throughout the Middle East, project power into the Mediterranean, and even promote its interests in Africa. Iran-backed forces could have access to a strategic corridor that runs all the way from Tehran to the very doorstep of Israel. So where do we go from here? Many of us in the Senate were ahead of the game on the need to reaffirm American global leadership in the ongoing fight against radical terror. At the beginning of this year, a bipartisan supermajority of Senators warned about exactly this course of events. The McConnell amendment to S. 1 earned 70 votes back in February. We specifically warned against a precipitous withdrawal from either Afghanistan or Syria and noted the need for an American presence. Congress should affirm--actually, reaffirm--the same truths today, and we should do so strongly. Unfortunately, the resolution crafted by House Democrats is simply not sufficient. It is not so much wrong as it is badly insufficient. It focuses solely on the Kurds, ignoring the critical Sunni-Arab community that suffered under both Assad's regime and ISIS and vulnerable minority communities like the Christian Arabs of Syria. The House was silent on the key matter of maintaining an actual physical U.S. military presence in Syria. Perhaps the goal was to paper over disagreements within the Democratic Party. After all, our colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, recently told a national television audience--this is the senior Senator from Massachusetts--``I think that we ought to get out of the Middle East.'' ``I think we ought to get out of the Middle East,'' said the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and almost all of our Democratic colleagues currently running for President refused to sign on to the McConnell amendment that earned 70 votes earlier this year. We can't afford to dance around the critical question of a U.S. presence in Syria and the Middle East for the sake of Democratic Presidential primary politics. The Senate needs to speak up. We cannot effectively support our partners on the ground without a military presence. Senators who thought we should withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan in February do not get to criticize President Trump for withdrawing from Syria today unless they go on the record, admit they changed their minds, and say it is too dangerous to quit. So, today, along with Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Risch, Chairman Burr, and Senator Graham, I am introducing a stronger resolution that acknowledges hard truths and focuses on our strategic interests in the Middle East. Our resolution acknowledges the vital role our Kurdish and Arab Syrian partners have played in rooting out and destroying the ISIS caliphate. It condemns Turkey's decision to escalate hostilities in Syria, warns against the abandonment of our allies and partners in Syria, and urges President Trump to rethink his invitation for President Erdogan to visit the White House. It also acknowledges Turkey's legitimate national security concerns emanating from the conflict in Syria and the significant risks to the United States if such a strategically consequential ally were to fall further into Moscow's orbit. It recognizes the grave consequences of U.S. withdrawal: the rising influence of Russia, Iran, and the Assad regime and the escape of more than 100 ISIS-affiliated fighters detained in the region. We specifically urge the President to end--end the drawdown, something that, fortunately, appears to be underway. We urge a reengagement with our partners in this region. We highlight the need for international diplomatic efforts to end the underlying civil wars in Syria and Afghanistan on terms that address the conditions that have allowed al-Qaida and ISIS to thrive. We cannot repeat this mistake in Afghanistan. I am aware there is some appetite on both sides of the aisle to quickly reach for the toolbox of sanctions. I myself played a critical role in creating sanction regimes in the past, but I caution us against developing a reflex to use sanctions as our tool of first, last, and only resort in implementing our foreign policy. Sanctions may play an important role in this process, and I am open to the Senate considering them, but we need to think extremely carefully before we employ the same tools against a democratic NATO ally that we would against the worst rogue state. Do we know what political impacts such sanctions will have inside Turkey? Will they weaken President Erdogan or rally the country to his cause? Do we know the impact sanctions will have on U.S. companies or on the economies of our closest allies that have deeply integrated their economies with Turkey? If we are going to use sanctions against a democratic ally, we are going to have to be careful. We are going to have to be smart. We are going to have to be thoughtful and deliberate. We don't want to further drive a NATO ally into the arms of the Russians. Serious conversations about the use of sanctions must involve our colleagues on the Foreign Relations, Banking, and Finance Committees to ensure that this tool is used correctly. The most important thing the Senate can do right now is speak clearly and reaffirm the core principles that unite most of us, Republicans and Democrats, about the proper role for American leadership in Syria, in the Middle East, and, for that matter, in the world. We hope the damage in Syria can be undone, but perhaps, even more importantly, we absolutely must take steps so the same mistakes--the same mistakes are not repeated in Iraq or Afghanistan. I feel confident that my resolution is a strong and sorely needed step. I feel confident my colleagues will agree, and I urge them to join me.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2740 ripen at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in concurrence with the Democratic leader.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the motion to proceed.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 457.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 950.