Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. In order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the past week now, the Senate has been considering a package of legislation to strengthen our Nation's diplomatic presence in the Middle East. The Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act would renew our commitment to Israel's security, expand cooperation with Jordan, and impose new consequences on the perpetrators of Assad's brutality in Syria. When America's national security and vital interests are at stake, some circumstances require not only the use of important diplomatic tools but also direct involvement from the United States. That is why I introduced an amendment to S. 1, so the Senate can speak clearly and directly about the importance of our Nation's ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Syria. I know a broad consensus about American leadership in the world exists in this body. It is time to reaffirm our commitment to this vision and to the men and women fighting on the ground to uphold it. I was glad to see a big bipartisan majority of this body vote to advance my amendment on Thursday. I hope a similar majority joins me in voting to approve this mainstream amendment today, and I look forward to passing this thoroughly bipartisan legislation later this week.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, once we complete our work on S. 1, the Senate will turn to the Natural Resources Management Act, under the leadership of Chairman Murkowski and the Natural Resources Committee. This legislation combines more than 100 individual lands bills. It will allow communities across America to responsibly develop their land and natural resources while maintaining a balance with locally supported conservation. On a national scale, this legislation will achieve things such as permanently reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund and codifying sportsmen's recreational access to Bureau of Land Management and National Forest areas nationwide. On a local scale, communities across America are looking forward to specific provisions. I am particularly proud that the legislation will include two bills I introduced to safeguard historic Kentucky landmarks and designate Camp Nelson and Mill Springs Battlefield as national monuments. I know virtually every one of our colleagues is enthusiastic about local achievements it will deliver in their States as well. This bipartisan legislation is a major priority dating back to the last Congress, when nearly 90 Senators cosponsored its components, and I am glad we will be able to turn to it soon.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. First, Mr. President, later today, the junior Senator from Nebraska will give the Senate an opportunity to address an issue of profound moral importance. I understand that he plans to ask consent to pass legislation that ought to be the very definition of something that receives unanimous consent in this body. It would help ensure that all baby girls and boys who are born alive--all of them--have their right to life respected and receive the medical care they need. It builds on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which did indeed pass this body by unanimous consent, and creates enforcement mechanisms if abortion providers fail to give these newborn babies the medical attention and care they so obviously deserve. Completely apart from the rest of our debate on the issue of life, how could this question be any clearer? What could be more unanimous than this: What medical professionals owe every single newborn American citizen, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, is attention and care--not neglect and certainly not violence. Frankly, it is harrowing that this legislation is even necessary. What is even more disturbing when, last week, a Democratic Governor was unable to clearly and simply state that, of course--of course-- these newborn babies have human rights that must be respected. I have been a proud cosponsor of Senator Sasse's legislation, and I hope none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle invent any reasons to block this request later today. That would make quite a disturbing statement. If they do inexplicably block Senator Sasse's effort, I can assure them this will not be the last time we try to afford newborns this fundamental legal protection.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one final matter--last week, our Nation received yet another wave of good news about our strong economy and all the opportunities it is creating for working Americans. Republicans' pro-growth, pro-family economic policies have helped our Nation's job creators and small businesses hit the accelerator, and middle-class families across the country continue to reap the rewards. The Labor Department tracks the total amount that U.S. employers spend each year on wages and benefits for workers. Last quarter, the year-on-year increase was the highest it has been in more than 10 years. Last month, the total percentage of Americans who are employed hit its highest mark since December 2008. Let me say that again. Following Republican policies, we are now seeing the largest annual jump in a decade in the amount spent on workers' compensation and a higher percentage of Americans working than we saw at any point--at any point--under President Obama. An expert described these data to the New York Times: ``Employers are still actively looking for jobs, and with wages ticking up, it looks like workers are getting some more bargaining power.'' Another expert put it this way: ``The virtuous cycle continues . . . a virtuous cycle of a continuously growing U.S. labor market.'' So I am confident we will hear more about this from the President in his address Tuesday evening. The state of our Nation's economy is thriving and working Americans are feeling the boost. This is what happens when Republican policies get Washington out of the way. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, earlier this week, Senate Democrats stopped filibustering the important legislation before us. They finally joined Republicans and voted to advance these measures to renew our commitment to Israel, deepen our cooperation with Jordan, and deliver justice for the victims of Assad's brutality in Syria. But it appears some of my Democratic colleagues are not finished with their obstruction just yet. On Tuesday, I offered a straightforward amendment to allow for a straightforward debate about the Senate's continued commitment to ongoing missions in Syria and Afghanistan. It is not a partisan amendment. It is not complicated. There is no poison pill--just an opportunity for Senators to go on the record about what our country should be doing in Syria and Afghanistan. I have been clear about my own views on these subjects. I believe the threats remain. ISIS and al-Qaida have yet to be defeated, and American national security interests require continued commitment to our missions there. But I guess some Senate Democrats don't want to vote on these important subjects. Perhaps it could have put some of my colleagues with aims beyond the Senate at odds with parts of the far left. Whatever the reason, our colleagues tried to avoid taking a position and tried to block my amendment from getting a vote. Make no mistake. Today, the Senate will vote on this amendment. Members will go on the record for our allies and our partners in the Middle East. When Senator Rubio introduced S. 1, which is just a collection of bipartisan bills, I hoped for an open amendment process so that the Senate could debate important matters of national security. I am disappointed that our friends on the other side of the aisle have chosen to make that impossible. Another issue I had hoped we could address is America's ironclad commitment to the transatlantic alliance. NATO has a proud history of delivering greater security to America and our allies and greater peace to the world. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies throughout the Cold War; they stood with us following 9/11. NATO's mission in Afghanistan today is an essential element of bringing peace and stability to that troubled country. NATO will continue to be critical to transatlantic security, but it must adapt to new challenges. The United States has made significant new investments in our security posture in Europe, most notably through troop deployments all along the eastern flank and through the European Deterrence Initiative, which has bipartisan support here in Congress. Former Secretary Mattis was also instrumental in pushing NATO to reform, especially in the areas of capabilities modernization, readiness, and military mobility. These reforms are essential to ensuring NATO readiness. President Trump has also reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to NATO. As recently as just a few days ago, he said the United States will ``be with NATO 100 percent.'' The President is right to call upon our allies to contribute their fair share toward our collective defense. As NATO's Secretary General recently explained, President Trump has ``clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more. . . . we agreed to do more . . . and now we see the results. . . . by the end of next year, NATO allies will add . . . 100 billion extra U.S. dollars [for] defense.'' Here is how the Secretary General summed it up: ``So we see some real money, and some real results, and we see that the clear message from President Trump is having an impact.'' We need to build on this momentum and continue strengthening NATO, dispelling all doubt--all doubt--about America's commitment to this alliance, which has reshaped history for the better. NATO deserves the Senate's support. I believe it has the Senate's support, and at some point I hope this institution is able to debate that matter

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

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

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

Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 37, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

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

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

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.