Mitch McConnell

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. 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. McCONNELL

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 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, 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. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, Senate Democrats finally dropped their filibuster of S. 1, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act. It took 24 days and 4 cloture votes, but enough of my Democratic colleagues have now voted to advance this legislation concerning America's role in the world. As I mentioned before, the bill would reaffirm our Nation's commitment to Israel's security through military assistance and cooperative missile defense, as well as loan guarantees. It would deepen our ties of strategic cooperation with Jordan, as the security and humanitarian ramifications of the Syrian civil war continue to take their toll, and the legislation also includes the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which would hold accountable those who have enabled and carried out the butchery of the Assad regime. But I would like to take a few moments this morning to discuss an amendment that I plan to propose as well. The amendment I plan to propose would expand on the legislation and take a further step to emphasize the need for American leadership in our troubled world, particularly with respect to our ongoing fight against al-Qaida and ISIS in Syria and Afghanistan. My amendment would acknowledge the plain fact that al-Qaida, ISIS, and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose a serious threat to us here at home. It would recognize the danger of a precipitous withdrawal from either conflict and highlight the need for diplomatic engagement and political solutions to the underlying conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan. We have seen the costs of a precipitous withdrawal before in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, we have seen the downsides of telling the enemy they can just wait us out; we will be gone on a date certain. My amendment would also urge continued commitment from the U.S. military and our partners until--until--we have set the conditions for the enduring defeat of these vile terrorists. This measure would reflect the conclusions of our Nation's military and national security professionals. It would speak directly to our allies and reassure our local partners who are doing the bulk of the fighting against a shared enemy. Simply put, while it is tempting to retreat to the comfort and security of our own shores, there is still a great deal of work to be done, and we know that left untended, these conflicts will reverberate right here in our own cities. We are not the world's policemen, but we are the leader of the free world, and it is incumbent upon the United States to lead, to continue to maintain a global coalition against terror, and to stand by our local partners who are engaged in the daily fight against the terrorists. My amendment would further condemn Iran for its hampering of diplomatic efforts and its destabilizing work throughout the region. It would call for greater consultation with the United States' allies and partners in the region, especially Israel, with regard to future stability we seek in a critical region, and it would reiterate the importance of the administration's consulting and coordinating with Congress on its long-term strategies for success in these struggles, including a thorough accounting of the risk of withdrawing too hastily. I am glad that, after needless political delays, our Democratic colleagues finally allowed a first procedural vote on this legislation. I am proud to support its provisions that concern Israel, Jordan, and Syria, and I will be proud to offer this amendment so the Senate can speak equally clearly on the fight against al-Qaida, ISIS, and other bad actors that needs to continue in both Syria and Afghanistan.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 3 o'clock p.m. today, all postcloture time on the motion to proceed to S. 1 expire and the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1.

Mr. McCONNELL. For information of all of our colleagues, the vote will be at 3 o'clock. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 65.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for Senate amendment No. 65.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon, Wednesday, January 30; 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; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1 for debate only.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later this afternoon, the Senate will hold its fourth cloture vote on a package of important foreign policy legislation that was introduced back on January 4. For weeks, Senate Democrats have effectively filibustered this legislation and blocked it from moving forward. At first, my colleague the Democratic leader said his party was simply opposed to considering any other business during the partial government shutdown, but then just a few days later, he actually sought to move ahead with a foreign policy vote of his own. In other words, though Senate Democrats were filibustering this pro-Israel legislation with the thin excuse that they didn't want to take up any other business, it turns out it was just the pro-Israel legislation that was actually off-limits. While Senate Democrats were filibustering this legislation, by the way, the Democratic House had no problem considering one component of it, which it passed by voice vote. So I remain curious as to the real reason why the Democrats insisted on filibustering these critical bills. Maybe we will get a better explanation this week, assuming Democrats finally drop the filibuster and allow this body to get back to work. This is an important piece of legislation. It comes at an urgent time. For the past 8 years, the world has seen a despotic regime wage brutal war upon its own people. The conflict in Syria has taken more than 400,000 lives and driven more than 5.6 million civilians to flee the country, straining the capacity of nations in the region, as well as Europe, to deal with the refugee and humanitarian fallout. Bashar al-Assad and his cronies have paved the way for the persistent terror of the Islamic State and invited the chaotic influence of foreign powers, especially Iran and Russia. Of course, this is a region that already contends with persistent-- persistent--instability, including Iran's meddling, financial support for terror, and explicit threats against Israel, but the legislation at hand addresses these challenges actually head-on. It tells our ally Israel that our commitment to its security is ironclad. It tells our partners in Jordan that we have their backs as they grapple with the flow of refugees and other ongoing effects of the Syrian crisis. It makes a crystal clear statement to the Syrian regime and those who abet it: Your brutality needs to end. Here is how the legislation accomplishes all that: It makes sure the United States walks the walk when it comes to supporting Israel by authorizing military assistance, loan guarantees, and teamwork on missile defense. Another bipartisan provision would preserve communities' rights to combat the destructive BDS movement by ensuring that States and local governments can choose not to funnel taxpayer dollars to companies that push anti-Israel boycotts. With respect to Jordan, the bill before us reauthorizes legislation to deepen our cooperation with this key regional partner, which has faced grave challenges from the chaos that continues to unfold in its neighbor to its north. With respect to Syria, this legislation includes the bipartisan Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. As I mentioned earlier, this passed the House on a voice vote just last week. It would create new pathways to hold accountable the individuals and institutions that have tortured and murdered countless Syrian civilians over the course of the civil war. It would ensure that unless the Syrian regime shifts course and ends its brutality, the nation's major industries and financial institutions would pay a heavy price due to American sanctions. So if it weren't obvious, these are critically important issues, and none of them have been put on pause because the Democrats' political strategy has blocked this body from taking action. Due to the Democrats' filibuster, Israel, Jordan, and the innocent people of Syria have already had to wait 24 days for the Senate to proceed to these largely noncontroversial and widely supported bipartisan bills. I hope our colleagues across the aisle don't keep them waiting much longer.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for more than 30 years, the men and women of Paducah, KY, have prospered with the leadership of my friend, Bob Leeper, in city, State, and finally county government. There are few individuals more appreciated for their public service in western Kentucky. At the end of last year, Bob completed his term as McCracken County judge-executive, and I would like to take a moment to offer my gratitude and reflect on his many years of service. There is a common expression identifying two types of people who are elected to office: show horses and work horses. The first kind thrives when driving home a point in front of the camera or in making a bold headline. On the other hand, a work horse will forgo acclaim in favor of accomplishment and reject praise for progress. Without a doubt, Bob has spent his career as a work horse. His achievements will leave a lasting impact on the area and our Commonwealth. To say the least, Bob cared little for party labels. As a matter of fact, during his distinguished career, Bob hit the political ``trifecta'' of sorts, having been elected by his constituents as a registered Democrat, then a Republican, and lastly as an Independent. In his first elected office as Paducah city commissioner, Bob also served as mayor pro tem and quickly earned his colleagues' respect. From there, Bob won a seat in the Kentucky State Senate. In Frankfort, Bob set himself apart as a constructive leader and a problemsolver. His reputation for handling complex issues with fairness garnered the appreciation of his fellow senators on both sides of the aisle. Reelected five times, Bob served for 24 years in Kentucky's legislature including as the chair of the senate appropriations and revenue committee. His work from this important post displayed his integrity, skill, and his characteristic nature as a work horse. Bob chose to leave the Senate in 2014, but that didn't end his career of public service. The same year, he was elected as the McCracken County judge-executive, the top job in county government. In that role, Bob had the opportunity to continue serving his community and making positive impacts on the lives of his neighbors. Among his proudest accomplishments, he includes a number of infrastructure improvements at the courthouse, jail, road department, and in the local parks. I enjoyed partnering with him on behalf of workers at Paducah's U.S. Department of Energy site. For his decades of service in Kentucky, the current members of the Paducah City Commission wanted to express their gratitude to Bob at his retirement with a lasting testament to his work. The commission unanimously voted to name a footbridge in his honor in Paducah. When completed, the Bob Leeper Bridge will connect the city and county's trail systems, a fitting tribute to a man who spent his career working to benefit his community. As he enters his retirement from public service, Bob plans to return to his first calling: treating patients at his chiropractic clinic. He also will spend more time volunteering, playing tennis, and relaxing with his beloved wife Gina. It is my privilege to join so many in McCracken County to thank Bob for his three decades of committed vision and leadership. I ask my Senate colleagues to help me congratulate Judge-Executive Bob Leeper on this milestone and to extend best wishes in his retirement. Mr. President, the Paducah Sun recently published an editorial expressing appreciation to Bob. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, for weeks, I have continuously said I wouldn't let the Senate become a theater for show votes and messaging stunts from either side. We would only vote on plans that stood an actual chance of being signed by the President and, thus, obviously becoming law. So I was glad to hear today the President's announcement that he and our Democratic colleagues have reached an agreement that will immediately reopen the government while providing the room to negotiate a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Further, negotiations on DHS will be prioritized over the consideration of any other funding bill. With cooperation, we can pass legislation opening the government, and we can send the DHS appropriations bill to a conference today with the House. I am glad the closed portions of the Federal Government will reopen and get back online. I am glad the dedicated men and women of the Coast Guard, law enforcement, the TSA, and all of the other Federal employees will not have to go longer without pay for their work and will receive their backpay. I know the pain this episode has caused for many Kentuckians and for people all over our country. They deserve this resolution. In going forward, I hope our Democratic friends will stay true to the commitment they have stated constantly over the past weeks that once the government was reopened, they would be perfectly willing to negotiate in good faith on full-year government funding that would include a significant investment in urgently needed border security measures, including physical barriers. After all, the only way Federal workers are going to have stability and certainty beyond the next 3 weeks and the only way our border is going to have real security is if the Democrats will stop playing partisan games and get serious about negotiating with the President on a long-term compromise. The days ahead will tell us whether our Democratic colleagues are actually serious about securing our Nation--whether they actually mean what they say. The President has called on the Senate to act on these proposals, and now that there has been an agreement between the Democrats and the White House, we can make that happen. Recognition of the Minority Leader