Floor Statements

Madam President, I want to start my remarks this afternoon by saying congratulations to our friend Senator Richard Shelby, Alabama's longest serving U.S. Senator as of this Sunday.

Here in Washington, we know him as chairman of the all-powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, which holds the congressional purse strings, but Alabamians, from Huntsville to Gulf Shores, know him as a devoted public servant working for the good of all of his constituents and an invaluable Member of the U.S. Senate.

Senator Shelby is a man of principles. He believes in smaller government, supports the Second Amendment, and works tirelessly for the military men and women from Alabama.

There is only one thing he is more proud of than his home State, and that may be the Crimson Tide football team and the number of their national championships.

I just wanted to start my comments this afternoon by saying congratulations to our friend Senator Richard Shelby for 32 years of serving the people of Alabama.

Madam President, we will continue to push through a long list of executive and judicial nominations pending before the Senate.

People may wonder, well, why are we making such an emphasis on nominations? That is mainly because of all of the foot-dragging and obstruction we have seen from our friends on the other side of the aisle. They have basically burned the clock and have caused many nominees to simply withdraw. There are not many people who can put their lives on hold and wait a year and a half for the Senate to act on their nominations, especially when it is not a controversial nomination in and of itself.

This is simply a continuing reaction to President Trump's election in 2016. Many of our colleagues simply haven't gotten over the fact that he won. They are just not willing to engage in the normal sorts of advice and consent that the Constitution calls for, nor will they let the President and his administration get the people they want on his team, even if there is not an extraordinary problem.

Under previous administrations, we know the process to confirm nominees is relatively quick and unremarkable and that cloture votes were rarely required. As soon as you start talking about cloture votes, people start falling asleep, but it is actually a pretty significant problem.

Cloture votes basically mean we have to burn the clock and go through the procedures--all of the different hoops that you have to jump through absent some consent or an agreement.

As you can see, under President Trump, the Senate has had to file for cloture 128 times, so it has caused an extended debate, even on uncontroversial nominees. What is worse, even after you vote to close, which is what cloture is, then you still have to burn 30 hours postcloture, which makes it very difficult for us to do anything else in the Senate other than to confirm uncontroversial nominees.

As you can see, when President Clinton was in office, in his first 2 years of office there were only eight cloture votes on nominees. Under President George W. Bush, No. 43, there were only 4, and, of course, under President Obama, there were 12. That is a far cry from the 128 nominees who were essentially obstructed by our colleagues across the aisle.

They aren't forcing these votes because these nominees are controversial or because they are unqualified. Just look at one of the nominees we just confirmed as an example. Nearly 400 days after he was nominated, John Ryder was finally confirmed for a board position with the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Mr. Ryder was initially nominated on February 1 of last year--more than a year ago. Not long after he testified before the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, we saw unanimous support from the members of the committee--bipartisan support.

During simpler times, the process would have been pretty straightforward. He would have been confirmed by the full Senate without any valuable floor time. He probably would have been confirmed by consent or by a voice vote, which would not have burned all of this valuable floor time, which is necessitated when you have to file for cloture. It is now clear that these simpler, more civil, and more bipartisan times have gone out the window.

Our Democratic colleagues have forced cloture on this nominee. Again, it is not because he is not qualified and not because he is controversial but because they are literally using every trick in the book to bring the work of the Senate to a crawl.

It is not Republicans who are being hurt; it is the American people. We are here to serve the American people and not to engage in these sorts of political games that result in nothing.

Sometimes we have important battles, debates, and disagreements, but usually they are over important principles. But here, it is just about burning time and making nominees wait, sometimes for a year or more before their nomination is even voted on.

I am personally aware of a number of nominees who have said: Do you know what? No more. I have a life to live. I can't put my life on hold waiting for the Senate to vote on my nomination, even if it is not going to be controversial.

I am afraid we will see the Democrats' political theater continue. One of the nominees we will soon be voting on is John Fleming of Louisiana, who has been nominated as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development.

Mr. Fleming's nomination was first received by the Senate in June of last year. Again, the committee held a hearing and favorably reported out his nomination within 6 weeks. Here we are, 7 months later, and he still hasn't been confirmed because the only way our Democratic colleagues will allow that is by going through this long and laborious procedure of filing for cloture and burning hours on the clock.

Again, under previous administrations, a nominee for this sort of a position would be confirmed with little or no fanfare and certainly without sitting on the calendar for 7 months.

Again, this isn't about Republicans versus Democrats. Honestly, this is about punishing the American people and these nominees who want to serve by keeping them hanging and forcing them to wait more than a year before they are confirmed. This, again, is part of the ``Never Trump'' syndrome, part of the Trump derangement syndrome that seems to be an epidemic here inside the beltway.

I personally see no reason these games should continue to play out, and that is why I am an advocate for the proposed rule changes to expedite the process.

These expedited changes we will make is something that, if the shoe were on the other foot and we had a Democratic President, Republicans could gladly live with. This isn't about gaining some advantage by a rules change; this is simply about returning the Senate to some sense of normalcy.

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

Mr. President, despite what you hear inside the beltway, the challenges along our southwest border are real, and the people of Texas feel that impact every day along the 1,200-mile common border we have with Mexico.

Last week, for example, the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley Sector arrested 1,300 illegal immigrants in a single day--the second time in 2 weeks they exceeded that number. In the same time period, the Laredo port of entry seized $2.3 million worth of cocaine and marijuana. Sadly, a father and son traveling from Guatemala nearly drowned while attempting to cross the Rio Grande but were saved thanks to the efforts of the Border Patrol. In a small town just north of Eagle Pass, a group of 90 undocumented immigrants--many of whom were women and children between the ages of 1 and 17--were apprehended after crossing the Rio Grande River. That was all in Texas last week.

Last year alone, 400,000 people were detained coming across our southwestern border--400,000. Tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and family units were detained as well.

These stories have become so common, somehow we have become anesthetized to the human emergency and crisis occurring along the border. Frankly, I do not understand why our Democratic friends have become completely apathetic when it comes to border security or dealing with what President Obama himself called a humanitarian crisis.

A few weeks ago, we know President Trump declared a national emergency over this crisis, which would allow some funding to be shifted from other areas to support our Border Patrol missions. This decision was met with a great deal of pushback, some of which I believe is warranted and some of which I believe is not. I would like to explain what I think is warranted and what I think is not.

For those, like some of our colleagues across the Capitol, including some of the Texas Democratic delegation--they call this a fake emergency. I couldn't disagree more. Just ask the folks who live along the border and deal with this each day. The scenes I describe are not isolated incidents; they are happening daily, weekly, monthly, and at a scale and volume that, frankly, are overwhelming the ability of officials and people along the border to deal with.

Let's rewind to 2014. I alluded to this a moment ago. When President Obama was President, we saw an unprecedented number of Central Americans coming across the border claiming asylum. That year, 68,000 family units were apprehended at the southern border--``family units'' meaning at least one adult and at least one child. That is what President Obama called a humanitarian crisis.

Today, not much has changed except for the numbers, and it has gotten worse, not better. In the last 4 months alone, there have been nearly 100,000 family units apprehended at the border. These are people arriving en masse by the thousands, sometimes called a caravan. We know there are dangerous drugs that come in at the same time every day, young women and children are being trafficked into sex slavery, and migrants are being abandoned by coyotes and left to die in the desert.

So I don't see a lot of difference between what President Obama called a humanitarian crisis in 2014 and what President Trump in 2019 calls an emergency.

While I agree that there is a crisis at our border and that more needs to be done, I have been consistent in my concerns about the means by which this funding is being provided.

This whole episode is completely contrived by the fact that the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi--despite the fact that we had bipartisan support for the Secure Fence Act in 2006 and 2008, she all of a sudden decided, because the politics suited her, that building any additional physical barrier was immoral. The Democratic leader here in the Senate said that not one dollar was going to be spent for physical barriers along the border. We saw an impasse that resulted in the Federal Government or at least 25 percent of the government being shut down for 35 days. This was completely unnecessary and contrived. This was all about politics and certainly not about trying to find solutions to the problem.

I have said before and I will say again that where we are now was not anybody's first choice--certainly not mine. We know that many legitimate concerns have been raised about the clear definitions of the role of the legislative and executive branches. It is clear under the separation of powers that Congress holds the checkbook. No matter who the President is or what they want funding for, it must be authorized by Congress. But when Democrats refuse to engage in a problem-solving process, as they have done over the last few months, it makes things much more complicated.

We heard the Speaker of the House, as I said, refuse to provide more than one dollar for border security. The minority leader said that no additional money would be provided for barriers. The reason they made these statements isn't because Democrats are all of a sudden opposed to improved border security. As we have seen in the past, Democrats have supported those physical barriers. In 2006, the Democratic leader himself and a number of our current colleagues and then-colleagues, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, supported the Secure Fence Act, but today, somehow things are different.

Democrats refuse to come to the negotiating table, not because they are against border security, presumably, but because their political base dislikes the man sitting behind the Resolute Desk. This is not about the facts or the problem presented; this is about whether President Trump will be defeated in his attempts to get additional money for border security. As the President found out, it is pretty tough to find a compromise when your negotiating partners--the Speaker and the Democratic leader of the Senate--refuse to come to the table at all. So the President found himself negotiating against himself.

I believe the regular appropriations process should always be the approved method, but, of course, Congress--and this should be a wake-up call to each of us--Congress has approved emergency powers as an exception to the normal process by which money is appropriated.

While some are trying to make this seem like a constitutional crisis and some groundbreaking breach of power by President Trump, I don't believe that is true, because he is using the power that was delegated to the executive branch by Congress. In other words, he is not making this up out of whole cloth, like President Obama did when he provided deferred action for childhood arrivals. He said more than 20 times that he didn't have authority to do it, that there was no statute to authorize it, but he did it anyway. It continues to be litigated--now up to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here is what I found when this controversy arose, when we did some research. We found that Congress has granted the Presidency emergency powers under 123 statutes. This marks the 60th time the emergency powers have been invoked under the National Emergencies Act since 1978. So Congress is responsible for providing this exception to the normal appropriations process. Congress has done that 123 times, and Presidents have used those powers 60 times. That ought to put what is happening today in some larger context. Previous Presidents have used them for things like prohibiting the importation of blood diamonds from Sierra Leone or prohibiting new investment in Burma.

Because the President's emergency declaration fits into the confines of the

authorities Congress has given him, this is not a constitutional crisis, in my view, as some people are painting it to be, but I am concerned about the process for a few reasons.

One, as a number of our colleagues have pointed out over the last few weeks, it does set a precedent. A use of these powers in circumstances under which a conference committee has already come up with a dollar amount for border security that was ultimately signed by the President and he declared a national emergency on top of that in order to gain access to additional money--I do worry that this sets a precedent whereby a future President could abuse this authority.

These 123 congressional grants of authority to Presidents--any President--are broad, and they cover everything from the military, to public health, to Federal pay schedules. Some are pretty unremarkable, such as the one that allows the Secretary of Transportation to waive vehicle weight limits on a stretch of Interstate 95 in Maine. That is one of the congressional delegations of authority. Others are more alarming, such as the one that would authorize the President to suspend a law prohibiting the testing of chemical and biological weapons on human subjects.

What I find most concerning is that the definition of an ``emergency'' is very vague and subjective, which means it is going to end up being the subject of litigation. Yes, lawsuits have already been filed in the Federal district court challenging this declaration of an emergency under these circumstances. This gets to my basic problem, which is that this is not a very productive way to actually accomplish the goal if you know that what you are going to do is going to be tied up in litigation for the next 6 months or a year.

But I have to ask the question: Under these broad grants of authority that Congress has previously given to a President or any President, what would stop a future President from declaring a national emergency over climate change or global warming? I am concerned that we are going to see these emergency powers used as a failsafe for policies favored by the Executive--one who takes it further for a purely ideological goal that in no way comes close to a crisis or emergency.

Yes, I also worry that some of the money that will be accessed under this declaration of national emergency is for military construction projects, many of which are located at military bases in Texas. This is not a case of, do we need border security, or do we need to provide the housing and infrastructure for our military--we need both. So the President and Congress should not try to rob from Peter to pay Paul.

I, along with my colleagues, have fought for these appropriations for military construction because they are important to the ability to recruit and retain men and women who volunteer for the military, and their families. They are important for our national security. I have and I will continue to push the administration to not let these critical projects get caught in the crosshairs in this dispute over adequate border security funds.

Third and finally, I suggest that Congress needs to look in the mirror when it comes to the situation in which we find ourselves. The only reason President Trump had the authority to do what he did is because Congress delegated it to him, just like it is delegated to future Presidents and has been to past Presidents under these 123 separate grants of authority. I worry that Congress has delegated too much of its power to the executive branch.

In the 1944 case Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans--something unimaginable today, but in 1944, during the throes of the Second World War, it was something that was the official policy of the government. It went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Robert Jackson--one of the three dissenters--said that each emergency power ``lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.'' I agree with Justice Jackson's warning.

If our Democratic colleagues are concerned about how this President or any other President will utilize the powers this body has given him, perhaps we should reexamine those powers rather than fault the President for using authorities Congress has already given to him.

Despite these concerns, I believe the President is operating within the authority Congress has delegated to him. It is strictly because of the dysfunction in the Congress and our inability to work together to come up with solutions when it comes to border security or immigration that the President is desperate to find access to the funds he believes are necessary for the national security of our country.

As I said, I think this situation reflects more on the dysfunction in Washington these days and the inability of Congress to work with the President to find bipartisan, commonsense solutions. I think we ought to return to those bipartisan, commonsense solutions rather than engage in some of the drama associated with this particular declaration under these sets of circumstances.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as strange as it seems, socialism is having a bit of a resurgence here in the Nation's Capital these days.

Why, you might ask, has this failed economic theory that is so destructive of individual freedom captured the attention of some of our friends in the Democratic Party? I admit, to me, it is somewhat of a mystery.

My guess is I am not the only one who assumed that every American has learned the lessons of history and that those lessons are common knowledge. Apparently not. One other possibility is that socialism is a stalking horse for other, less obvious goals. I will have more to say about what the Founders believed about the concentration of government power that would be needed to implement these utopian schemes at a later time. I also will return to the Senate floor at another time to talk about the well-funded efforts, including in the State of Texas, to advance the cause of socialism, unbeknownst to most of my fellow Texans.

Maybe self-identified socialists or democratic socialists--by the way, that is an impossible contradiction in terms. You can't be democratic and a socialist at the same time. Obviously, people put those two terms together to try to mask their true intentions.

Obviously, these self-identified democratic socialists have never learned what it is or what it stands for. Recent polling suggests that Americans have vastly different ideas about what socialism really means. A Gallup poll, for example, found that 23 percent of the people who responded understood that it means economic equality--though the definition of what equality looks like varies pretty significantly. About the same number of people said they didn't know or had no opinion of what socialism means. Roughly 17 percent understand it to mean government ownership or control of business and the economy.

There were a variety of answers, ranging from government-guaranteed benefits to communism, to people simply being social and getting along. That is what some people think socialism is. This confusion about what, exactly, socialism is has allowed its supporters to push this discredited idea back into the political mainstream.

The so-called democratic socialists are trying to convince the American people that bigger government and less liberty are the solutions to economic inequality. But they don't just want economic opportunity or equal opportunity; they want equal outcomes. They clearly want to put the government in charge of Americans' lives.

To be sure, they will not be honest about the means by which that equality would be accomplished under socialism. They use a lot of feel- good phrases to mask the consequences of their argument. They say things like ``give a voice to the voiceless'' or ``to achieve a more just society.'' What they don't tell you is that in order to redistribute economic benefits, you would have to marshal the power of the government to coerce the American people to give up the fruits of their labor in pursuit of socialist, utopian aims.

While socialists will not tell you what the government would have to do to force that redistribution, they like to point to Scandinavian countries as a model for socialism's success. But there are some problems with that.

They will say: Look at Denmark. They have free higher education, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare, and they are doing great. So, they say, socialism works. But facts are stubborn things. For one, Denmark is not a socialist country. Just ask the Danish Prime Minister, who said:

Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is

a market economy.

The left argues: It is still a good model. We want that.

OK, so how are they paying for all of these programs? It is certainly not just from the top 1 percent of the wealthiest of Americans. It is the middle class too. Margaret Thatcher once said: ``The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.''

Let's look at tax rates. Danes pay some of the highest taxes in the world. In the United States, tax revenue accounts for just over a quarter of the size of our economy. In Denmark, it is 50 percent--or double.

Let's also compare our two countries. The population of the country of Denmark is roughly 1/60th the population of the United States. In terms of landmass, it is about 16,000 square miles. Texas is almost 17 times the size of Denmark.

So if the model used in Denmark is, one, not socialism and, two, unaffordable, let's instead look for a better example of a country that has embraced socialism. I would suggest Venezuela would be a good candidate.

In the late 1990s, then-Presidential Candidate Hugo Chavez delivered impassioned speeches promising to lead Venezuela into a socialist paradise. He talked about the country's wealth being stolen by evil capitalists and greedy corporations and promised hope and change if he was elected. That sounds similar to some of the snake oil being sold by a number of radical Democrats today. By the way, you don't see caravans of people attempting to immigrate to socialist countries like Venezuela. It is just the opposite.

We now know that Chavez's promises were empty and dangerous, and while Venezuela certainly saw a lot of change, it wasn't the kind they wanted or the kind they expected. The government took over businesses; they shut down free markets; and they suppressed free speech. As a result, one of the richest countries in the world is now among the poorest. Basic commodities like food, medicine, and water are in short supply; freedom of the press has disappeared; crime rates have skyrocketed; and millions have fled.

Of course, it is no surprise that self-proclaimed socialists in the United

States refuse to accept this as an example of socialism. But this is the truth. That is why socialism must be soundly rejected.

Sir Winston Churchill, who had an incredible gift for words, once said:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of

blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal

sharing of miseries.

Clearly, misery would be a result of a current fad celebrating socialism, and we must firmly and clearly reject it.

In a society like ours, based on the free enterprise system, business owners compete for business and make decisions based on what the customer wants and needs, and this helps keep the cost of living low while offering consumers choice.

Competition and free enterprise are the opposite of centrally planned and administered socialist economies and the only economic system compatible with individual liberty.

In a socialist country, the government owns or controls everything. If you don't like it or insist on going your own way, you will be squished like a bug. Socialism forces citizens to be submissive to the government's plan--a far cry from the freedoms and liberties promised under our Constitution.

Most Americans don't want the government to run their lives. They want less government, which is to say they want more freedom. So while things like free healthcare or free higher education or free housing sound pretty good superficially, they are a fantasy and part of the agenda to move the United States toward a socialist, government- controlled economy.

Under our free enterprise system, people work to earn their living. The harder you work, the more you benefit and the better you can provide for yourself and your family. That is something we call the American dream. But with socialism, that kind of motivation doesn't exist at all. Why would you put in the extra effort? Why would you work longer hours when you will receive the same pay and benefits as everybody else? Why would you pursue an advanced degree and pour your heart into researching new medical cures when you know, at the end of the day, the person who chooses to do nothing will receive the same benefits you do? Well, you wouldn't. That is why socialism doesn't work.

In a recent Washington Post column, George Will defined today's understanding of socialism as this:

Almost everyone will be nice to almost everyone, using

money taken from a few. This means having government

distribute, according to its conception of equity, the wealth

produced by capitalism.

The problem is, as he said, the government will take and take until eventually there is nothing more to take. Once that happens, the economy will tank; jobs will dry up; taxes will get higher to pay for the benefits promised; and those utopian sentiments will not feel quite so good anymore.

The enemy of socialism isn't greed. It is experience. That is why there are no socialist success stories. Venezuela, the Soviet Union, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania--time and again, we have seen socialism fail. That has been the universal experience.

As President Trump said in Miami last week:

Socialism promises prosperity, but it delivers poverty.

Socialism promises unity, but it delivers hatred and it

delivers division. Socialism promises a better future, but it

always returns to the darkest chapters of the past.

Slapping the word ``democratic'' in front of the word ``socialism'' doesn't make it any less radical or any less terrifying. In fact, democracy and socialism are at war with each other.

This is not about lifting up the poor. It is about taking our freedom away and turning it over to our government overlords and taskmasters.

As so many seem to have forgotten the lessons of history, I plan to return to the Senate floor to discuss this disturbing trend further and remind the American people why socialism is the enemy, not a friend, of our country.

Mr. President, I have 7 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Neomi J. Rao, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, Joseph F. Bianco, of New York, and Michael H. Park, of New York, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, Greg Girard Guidry, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Michael T. Liburdi, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, Peter D. Welte, to be United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, Aditya Bamzai, of Virginia, and Travis LeBlanc, of Maryland, both to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and Drew H. Wrigley, to be United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota, Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``China's impact on United States education system.'

Mr. President, maybe the fastest way to put people to sleep is to give a speech on cloture here in the Senate, but I hope that is not the case, because, as my colleague from Iowa just pointed out, this is an abuse of the Senate rules to do nothing but to obstruct and to slow down President Trump's well-qualified nominees for important positions.

This is not about their qualifications. This is not about exercising the constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. In virtually every instance in which the clock has been burned to get to an eventual vote, these largely noncontroversial nominees have been confirmed overwhelmingly.

Call it part of the ``Trump derangement'' syndrome or the ``never Trump'' effort. It is very clear to me that rather than take these nominees one at a time, treat them fairly, assess their qualifications, and vote on their nomination, these people are being delayed and denied an opportunity to serve, and many of them have just simply given up because of the backlog of nominations. It is unfair to them, it is unfair to this administration, and it is completely an abuse of the Senate rules.

We know that our Democratic colleagues have unnecessarily blocked nominees, put them through the ringer in hearings, and, in one particular case--the Kavanaugh nomination--engaged in an all-out smear campaign.

This treatment has grabbed headlines, but the story that doesn't get much attention is what I want to talk about now--this practice of eating up time on the floor, using every second of the rules to essentially eliminate the possibility that we can take up other bipartisan legislation or consider these nominees on any sort of efficient and effective basis.

As a result of the work, these nominees are being denied an opportunity to serve, the floor is being occupied by nominations that are uncontroversial, and we are unable to get to other important work that the American people want us to do.

Now, it is true that the Senate is not known for speed, and, more often than not, there is a good reason. When we are appropriating taxpayer dollars or debating sanctions on hostile governments or negotiating changes to our healthcare system, speed is not always an asset.

But when it comes to confirming nominees--those who already have had a hearing, who aren't controversial, who have already received a vote in committee--the process should be able to move rather quickly and efficiently.

But, as I said, this is part of a concerted effort to undermine the Trump administration, to deny them the appointees necessary for them to conduct the Nation's business, and, in many instances, these are Ambassadors who should be representing the United States of America in foreign countries where it is important we maintain good communication with those other countries.

Over the last 2 years, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have forced votes on nominees who in previous years would have sailed through the Senate.

Let's look at some of these numbers. You can see how much red there is on this chart--cloture votes in the first Congress. President Trump had 128 cloture votes, President Obama had 12, President Bush had 4, and President Clinton had 8. What that means is that, for example, in the Clinton administration, there were 120 nominees who were confirmed without the necessity of even going through the procedure of cloture. Frequently, these nominees are either passed by voice vote or unanimous consent or at some agreed upon time. Even fewer required a cloture vote under President George W. Bush. There were 12 under President Obama and 128 under President Trump. If we were to continue down this same path, we would not be able to do anything else except consider nominations by this President, and we still wouldn't get to the end of the list.

Our Democratic colleagues don't want to hold votes on these nominees to support or oppose a nomination; they simply want to waste the Senate's time and to test the patience of the American people. The majority of these nominees, as I said, aren't controversial. Nearly half received the support of 60 or more Senators during the cloture vote, and more than one-third got 70-plus votes.

As I said, the delay and obstruction have led to a long list of vacancies across every Department and Agency. Critical leadership positions have gone unfulfilled while the nominees await confirmation votes from the Senate. As I said, many have simply given up, unwilling to accept any more disruption in their personal lives in the vain hope that perhaps someday, somehow, they will get a vote in the Senate. This list includes Ambassadors, Federal judges, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and inspectors general. The list continues to grow while our Democratic colleagues insist on votes that will not change the outcome.

It is one thing to have a nominee whose qualifications are controversial or where a debate would enlighten the Members of the Senate on how best to cast their vote, but that is not what is happening here.

Despite our repeated pleas for Democrats to cooperate, things aren't going to change. That is why the rules change we are contemplating is so important. It would expedite the process for many nominees to receive a vote on the floor. It won't change the number of votes they need to get confirmed--they will still need to get a majority of votes--or tilt the scale in their favor in any way; it will simply make sure we are not wasting time that is not being used in order to delay or defeat nominations.

Ironically, we have been told by our Senate colleagues on the other side that if we were to pass a rule limiting the postcloture time to 2 hours and we would start it in 2021, at the end of President Trump's current term of office, they would vote for it. So this is really an unprincipled and nakedly partisan approach, because while they are willing to do it for the next President--and that could well be a second Trump term, or it could well be another President--they won't do it now, which demonstrates the hypocrisy they are exhibiting.

What would happen is, a nominee would get a hearing in front of the appropriate committee. That would be debated, and there would be a vote up or down. If the nominee was passed out of the committee and made available to come to the floor, the Senate majority leader could still file a paper asking for a cloture vote. If that was obtained, then the postcloture time would be reduced from 30 hours to 2 hours. In the

meantime, there would be an intervening day during which debate would occur. Every Senator would still enjoy the right to vote against any nominee they don't support, but to just burn time for time's sake is an abuse of the Senate rules and needs to stop. It is not just hurting these nominees; it is not just hurting the Senate; it is hurting the country. These Ambassadors, judges, and appointed officials who serve in the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the inspectors general who make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent legally and efficiently and that people are doing their jobs--none of those positions are able to be filled.

I would point out that this rule change does not apply to all nominees. High-level Cabinet positions and Supreme Court Justices would still receive the 30 hours of debate time after 51 Senators have voted to proceed to that vote.

It is important to note that this type of rules change isn't new. Actually, in 2013, there was a negotiated, bipartisan standing rule when Majority Leader Harry Reid and the current Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, introduced a similar change to speed up the process, and this simply builds on the foundation they laid down. So if we asked them to do now what was done then on a bipartisan basis, their answer will be no--for no good reason other than it is President Trump who would presumably benefit from this restoration of that same process.

As I said, the real hypocrisy of their position is indicated by the fact that they said they would vote for this rule, but they don't want it to take effect now. They want it to take effect in 2021. In short, they appear to believe that what we are trying to do is an important rules change to make, but they don't want to do it if it benefits a President they clearly despise.

This political theater is being orchestrated by Senate Democrats and is impacting our ability to carry out our constitutional duty of advice and consent. I believe this is a necessary step to get the Senate back on track, and I will support this rules change when it comes to the floor for a vote and would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, yesterday evening the Senate had an opportunity to go on record and show our constituents that we supported the most vulnerable among us. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would require doctors to treat a baby, once it is born, with ordinary medical assistance, something they would do under any other circumstances, even though this entailed surviving an abortion.

If you ask the American people, they would say this is just common sense. In a recent poll, more than three-fourths of Americans said they support providing medical treatment for babies who survive abortions. I can't imagine what the other 25 percent are thinking. But there are no Federal laws requiring healthcare providers to care for these babies just as they would any other infant in their care, and for some Members of the opposing party, they are just fine with that.

We all know that a few weeks ago, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam made disturbing comments about how to not care for certain newborns. He was asked: What would you do with a child with birth defects?

He said: Well, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated, if that is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Let me be clear. The Governor, who is a pediatrician, by the way, essentially advocated for infanticide--killing a child who was born alive. Instead of saying, ``well, it is my duty as a physician under the Hippocratic Oath to provide care to save the child,'' he believes the child ought to be made comfortable, and then the mother and doctor sit down and decide whether the child should live or die.

That is not healthcare. That is murder. I believe the Senate has a duty to act and ensure that no child born alive is subjected to the treatment described by Governor Northam.

The bill we voted on last night would protect newborns who have survived abortions and ensure that they receive the same level of care that any other newborn baby would. It builds upon a previous law, which the Senate passed unanimously, called the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. That bill passed unanimously in 2002, and it clarified that every infant born alive at any stage of development is a person, regardless of the manner in which they were born. Yet yesterday, 44 Senators voted to allow that same person's life to be ended with impunity.

The legislation we voted on yesterday would simply clarify that the infants who survive abortions are entitled to the same lifesaving care that other babies should receive. That is why it is so shocking to me that 44 of our colleagues chose to vote against even proceeding to a debate and a vote on the matter.

I am trying to think of a historical counterpart to this. I was reminded of a book I read not long ago called ``Eichmann in Jerusalem.'' This is about the trial of Adolf Eichmann after the atrocities of the holocaust, during which 5 million Jews were killed. The author, Hannah Arendt, was trying to figure out what kind of monster could basically provide for the machinery that ultimately would take the lives of 5 million Jews.

What she saw when she looked at Eichmann was not some monster that looked different from you or me. Unfortunately, what she saw was somebody who looked exactly like you and me. She wrote about the moral collapse associated with the holocaust. She noted that ``in the Third Reich, evil lost its distinctive characteristic by which most people had, until then, recognized it.'' She said that the problem is that at that point it became a ``civil norm.''

She wrote:

Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought, for

as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and

examine the premises and principles from which it originates,

it is frustrated because it finds nothing there.

``That,'' she said, ``is the banality of evil.''

She concluded by saying:

Nearly everybody who attended the trials of mass killers

after the war, some of them respected doctors and

pharmacists, came away with the disconcerting impression that

the killers looked pretty much like you and me.

So while Republicans and Democrats disagree on a range of issues, this should not be one of them. If we have one shred of our humanity left, we ought to agree that protecting human life is essential. This should have been a simple vote for every single Member of this body. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that 44 of our colleagues decided to vote no. I was proud to vote yes on the bill, yes to protecting these newborn babies, yes to equal medical care for all infants, and yes to life.

Mr. President, late last night, we received the text of the appropriations agreement to fund the remaining portions of the government through the end of this fiscal year, which is through the end of September.

We were successful in doing something that we had not done in a long time previously, which was to fund 75 percent of the Federal Government, leaving 25 percent remaining. Unfortunately, the remaining 25 percent was held hostage to this unreasonable and unnecessary debate over whether we should fund border security. I say the debate was unnecessary because I thought that we all shared a conviction that it was important to secure our border.

It is important to note that most of the bill that we will vote on later today has been out in the public domain for more than 6 months. It is the product of bipartisan deliberation by the Appropriations Committee and has been available to any Senator who might want to be acquainted with the details.

The part that is relatively new is the detail relative to border security. I am pleased that, notwithstanding Speaker Pelosi's statement that physical barriers are somehow immoral, this does authorize and fund up to 55 miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

I believe that border security consists of three components: physical barriers in hard-to-control locations; technology, which is important as a force multiplier; and then, of course, the boots on the ground-- the Border Patrol agents, who are absolutely essential. I am pleased to say that this piece of legislation incorporates all

three of those components of what makes up smart and sensible border security.

I am also happy to see that the initial demands made by our colleagues across the aisle that we limit the number of detention beds are not in this bill and that law enforcement can continue to detain people with criminal records who happen to be illegally in this country so that we can discourage and deter further illegal immigration.

One of the worst aspects of our broken immigration system is this notion of catch-and-release. During the George W. Bush administration, I remember talking to Secretary Chertoff about this huge upsurge in Brazilians coming across our border. I asked Secretary Chertoff why we were seeing all these Brazilians coming. He said it was catch-and- release. They knew that if there were no penalty associated with coming across or if they wouldn't be detained, there was no deterrence.

I am glad to see that this appropriations bill, which will prevent another government shutdown, contains no cap on detention beds to detain criminal aliens and others who are exploiting vulnerabilities in our immigration system.

I would say, though, one of the things that is notably absent in this bill is an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides resources to assist women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Republicans made absolutely clear from the get-go that we wanted to extend the current law. I am incredulous that our Democratic colleagues objected to extending the current law, the Violence Against Women Act.

It is really hard for me to believe that Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats object to a modest extension of this critical legislation, which helped countless victims receive the support they need, but because of the political jockeying, the Violence Against Women Act will expire at midnight tomorrow. There were two options available to us. One was to provide an extension through the end of the fiscal year-- through the end of September--which would have allowed us to work on a long-term reauthorization under regular order. The second option, which our Democratic colleagues chose, is to do nothing and let this important legislation expire while trying to plot out a long-term plan. The choice seemed pretty obvious to me, but apparently not to Speaker Pelosi and not to the Democratic leader here in the Senate.

Since my days as attorney general, I have long been a believer in advocating for victims' rights. I am beyond disappointed that we have ended up in this situation. It is shameful to play politics with the Violence Against Women Act. But because of their obstruction, this important resource for victims across the country will lapse tomorrow night at midnight.

Mr. President, on Monday, I was in El Paso, TX, to talk with some of my constituents about the challenges that exist along our southwest border and how we can work together to address them.

It is almost surreal to have people here in Washington, DC, who have never been to the border and whose, perhaps, only supposed knowledge is from novels they have read or movies they have seen. Having spent quite a bit of time along the border of Texas and Mexico, myself, I can tell you it is a unique part of our country and certainly a unique part of my State.

The people you learn the most from are not the elected officials who serve here in Washington but rather from the Border Patrol, the sheriffs, the mayors, and countless others who live and work along the border. They can provide, I think, the kind of expert knowledge that we need in order to address the challenges that exist.

What they tell me and what I have learned is that there is no one- size-fits-all, because you can look at urban environments, like El Paso, or you can go out to Big Bend, which has thousands-of-feet-high cliffs overlooking the Rio Grande. Obviously, a physical barrier in one place, like in highly trafficked urban areas, is one situation, but putting it atop a 3,000-foot cliff is another. So no one-size-fits-all solution works.

That is why it is important to listen to the stakeholders who live and work in these communities, and this is key to actually doing something with the feedback they provide. What I have constantly been reminded of is that border security is a combination of three parts: physical barriers in some hard-to-control locations, personnel, and technology. What is best for a high-trafficked urban area, as I said, is probably much different than what is good for the vast expanses between the ports of entry. Figuring out what we need or where we need it is not a decision that ought to be micromanaged in Washington. It should come from the experts who know the threats and challenges along every mile of the border.

While I was in El Paso, we also talked--as we must--about the important role the border plays with our economy. Border communities in Texas depend on people and goods moving legally through our ports.

For example, in Laredo, TX, alone, about 14,000 trucks pass each day through the ports of entry. It is one of the largest if not the largest land-based port in the United States. These goods need to move legally through our ports, and any disruption in legitimate international commerce can have a swift impact on these communities.

For the people of El Paso, for example, border security means much more than just safety. It means economic security as well. Just as it is important to keep the bad actors out, it is equally important to promote efficient transit through our ports for legitimate trade and commerce.

On Monday, I also had a chance to reconnect with my friend Mayor Dee Margo, the Mayor of El Paso. Among other things, we talked about the importance of ensuring that in our efforts to create a strong border, we are not neglecting our ports of entry.

In recent months, a number of El Paso Sector Customs officers have been sent to other high-need areas along the U.S.-Mexico border. The personnel shortage has resulted in increased wait times for both pedestrian traffic and commerce. Certainly, fewer CBP agents mean a reduced vigilance in terms of screening out contraband and other things that we don't want coming into the country. The goods moving through the ports in El Paso fuel not just the local economy, as I said, but also that of the entire State of Texas--and, I would argue, of the Nation. I share the mayor's concerns on the harmful impact these slowdowns at the ports of entry can have.

As we debate the importance of securing our borders to stop the illegal movement of people and goods, we shouldn't neglect the importance of facilitating legal movement through our ports. We need to do both, whether that means providing additional funding for infrastructure improvements or scanning technology to make sure the ports of entry aren't exploited by drugs in vehicles or other places where they are hard to find. In the absence of scanning technology, if we are unable to find them, the cartels win, and the American people lose. We also know that in addition to that technology, we need additional personnel.

I hope my colleagues listen to the feedback that we have all gotten from the experts and these local stakeholders and take seriously the economic impact on our ports of entry as well.

As I said yesterday, I look forward to reviewing the details of the funding agreement struck by the conference committee, and I hope that, in addition to physical barriers where appropriate, it reflects these principles of smart border security, because when we listen to the experts--the law enforcement officials who work along the border and in the communities--that is when we move in the right direction, spending money in a responsible and smart way rather than just pursuing political agendas from Washington.

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

Madam President, this Friday is our deadline to fund 25 percent of the Federal Government, which remains unfunded as a result of the short-term continuing resolution that was passed to keep it open until February 15, pending negotiations to deal with border security measures.

During the last shutdown, for 35 days, we know that 800,000 Federal workers were not paid, including some 36,000 Texans. During that time, we heard about families who could not afford to buy the necessities of life, whether they be medicines or providing the funding to run the heat in their homes and to keep their utility bills low--families who went from donating food at food banks to then being a recipient of food at those food banks.

Even though this all began as a battle over border security, the impact was much bigger. Employees from the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration--the folks in the blue shirts who usher us through security at airports--NASA, or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the IRS, and a whole host of other Federal Agencies were caught up in the crosshairs of our disagreements here and forced to deal with financial uncertainty for weeks on end.

I personally believe that we were sent here to govern, not to preside over shutdowns, and that we make tough decisions every day here by negotiation and compromise. That is the way the Constitution contemplates how the legislative branch will act.

None of us are dictators. None of us can dictate 100 percent of what we want on any given occasion, so that means we have to negotiate. We have to compromise, and obviously a shutdown represents a failure to compromise.

I have to say that compromise and negotiation require good faith. They require a desire on the part of all parties to actually solve a problem, not to play ``gotcha'' and point score when it comes to politics.

Unfortunately, this last shutdown was a result of some outlandish positions taken by the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, and the Democratic leader here in the Senate, Mr. Schumer. They said, for example, ``Let's be crystal clear. There will be no additional appropriations to pay for the border wall. It is done.'' That was the Democratic leader Senator Schumer.

Then Ms. Pelosi said, ``A wall, in my view, is an immorality.'' She said it is immoral.

I agree with President Trump when he said what is immoral is allowing the poison that is imported across our borders from the South, which has contributed to the 70,000 drug overdose deaths we saw last year as monitored and reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; that is immoral--not doing anything about that, not dealing with the human trafficking, the sex slavery, and the involuntary servitude of young women and children. That is immoral.

I realize we have gotten caught up in this silly game of semantics. Some people call a wall a fence, and others call a fence a wall. But we all know what we are talking about are physical barriers that form a necessary part of border security.

Again, I go back to the experts. I come from a border State with 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. I look to the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security to answer this most basic question. My question to them is this: What do you need in order to accomplish the mission we have asked you to accomplish?

What the experts have always told me is that they need a combination of three things. They need physical barriers in some locations that are hard to control. They need technology to scan the trucks and the cars that come over the ports of entry; they need ground sensors and radar in the places between the ports of entry. Then they need the boots on the ground; they need the Border Patrol, the law enforcement agents, in order to detain people who come across the border.

I really find this debate over this one component of border security, this physical barrier component, surreal. It really is hard work to try to avoid a solution where the solution is staring you right in the face, where we know that if people of good will were willing to talk and to work through them, we could solve these problems, just as we do so many other problems every day.

I was glad to learn that last night the negotiators on the conference committee reached at least an agreement in principle to fund the remaining Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government. I know we are all eager to see the final details of the agreement and to learn exactly what was included, and I understand, based on reports we heard at lunch, it will probably be tomorrow before we can see the language and make sure the language reflects what we see reported in the press.

As I said, again, I hope this agreement takes into account what we have reportedly heard from the experts--that smart border security is a combination of barriers, technology, and personnel.

I also hope it includes funding for our ports of entry to promote the legal movement of goods and people across the border without compromising security.

I think we all know that a lot of the high-end drugs--what I am talking about are heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and the like--that come across the ports of entry are secreted within compartments in trucks and cars, and what we need is to have the scanning devices to be able to locate those places within those vehicles so that we can find those drugs and hold the people smuggling them accountable. But that means that at our ports of entry we are going to need the personnel and the technology in order to do that. So I hope the negotiators on the conference committee have provided adequate funds for that, in addition to the physical barrier.

For my constituents in Texas, a secure border is not just a political talking point, it is a vital part of their lives. Our communities depend on Customs and Border Protection to stop both dangerous people and goods from crossing illegally. But they also depend on Customs and Border Protection to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, which fuels our economy. About $300 billion of goods were transported both to and from Texas ports of entry along the border last year alone. So I hope this agreement includes funding to strengthen our border and to protect our people.

I want to thank all of our colleagues who have been engaged in these negotiations for their continued commitment to finding a solution that everybody can support, and I plan to review the text as soon as possible.

I happened to come back from El Paso last night with President Trump, who was reviewing the bare bones of this proposal, and he has not yet said whether he will sign it, but I want to make a couple of points.

First of all, if this agreement does, as I believe it is reported to do, provide for 55 miles of additional physical barriers along the border, then the President has won, and Ms. Pelosi has lost because she said not one penny more--I am sorry, that was Senator Schumer--for border walls or border barriers. Ms. Pelosi called them immoral.

But if Democrats on the negotiating committee have now agreed to 55 miles of additional physical barriers, it sounds to me as though they are not in the same place Ms. Pelosi is. I don't say that to try to blow up the deal because, frankly, I believe a shutdown would be a mistake. But what I would encourage the President to do is to count his victory here and then to build on that. He has additional authorities, particularly under the Defense authorization bill, on a nonemergency basis, to reprogram money that has been appropriated already for the Department of Defense.

There are other areas that Congress has already approved the President's reprogramming money through previously passed legislation, so I would encourage the President to bank the win and then to build on that and to do what is necessary to protect our country and to secure our border.

Nomination of William Barr

Madam President, on another matter, this week the Senate will vote on the nomination of William Barr to serve as Attorney General of the United States.

It is hard for me to imagine a better qualified person for that job. It is particularly impressive to me that some 27 years after he last held the job as Attorney General, he would be willing to step forward and accept the responsibilities of that job once again. But that is exactly what he has done.

More than two decades ago, he was nominated and unanimously confirmed for three incredibly important positions at the Department of Justice, culminating in the very position he is being considered for right now.

Since he first held the job of Attorney General, times have changed-- something he acknowledged during his hearing. But his steadfast commitment to the rule of law has not shifted. That is undoubtedly why Mr. Barr has received the endorsement of former Attorneys General, Department of Justice alumni, State attorneys general, and several important law enforcement groups.

He has also received support from some of the toughest critics in Washington: the editorial boards of some of the newspapers. Following his hearing, the USA Today editorial board wrote a piece called ``Confirm William Barr as attorney general,'' and that says it all, although they went on to say:

There are times for Democrats to confront President Trump

and times not to. The nomination of William Barr to be

attorney general, pending before the Senate Judiciary

Committee, is an example of the latter.

In that piece, the editorial board discussed something that was a major focus during Mr. Barr's hearing--the Mueller investigation. Our Democratic colleagues were eager to hear him say that he would allow the special counsel to continue his investigation without intervention, which he did repeatedly.

At one point, Mr. Barr said: ``I believe it is in the best interest of everyone--the President, the Congress, and, most importantly, the American people--that this matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work.'' I agree with that, and I agree with the conclusion of USA Today's editorial board that the sooner he is on the job the better.

We saw, I would note, pieces from the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Daily News to the same effect. Even the Washington Post believes that Democrats should vote for William Barr. They wrote that he ``came across as a highly qualified person and committed to the traditions, procedures and mores of the Justice Department.''

Good for them. The headline of that editorial was ``Confirm William Barr--and hold him to his pledge of independence.''

I have said before, and I will say it again, that being Attorney General is probably the most difficult job of the President's Cabinet because not only are you the chief law enforcement officer for the country, you are really a political appointee of the President. But I am satisfied that Mr. Barr can balance those two responsibilities in a responsible and ethical sort of way. I believe he will bring the same independent voice to the DOJ that he did more than two decades ago and will continue his longstanding reputation of being an unwavering defender of the rule of law.

I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will judge this nominee based on his qualifications, not on the person who nominated him.

It has been common, it seems these days, that anyone or anything that President Trump is for, our Democratic colleagues reflexively oppose without thinking about the issue at hand or the qualifications, in this case, of the nominee.

I hope, rather than a reflexive, partisan rejection of President Trump's nominee to be Attorney General, that our colleagues will give him the fair

consideration that he is due and will provide, as the Constitution provides, advice and consent on this nomination, and join me in consenting to this nomination, and confirm William Barr as the next Attorney General of the United States.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a vote on William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

During his confirmation hearing a few weeks ago, we saw an articulate, measured, and highly capable individual. There is no question in my mind why two separate Presidents have selected him to lead the Department of Justice.

Throughout his impressive career, Mr. Barr has displayed both legal acumen and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law--a basic prerequisite to serve as the highest law enforcement officer in the country.

I will add that the Attorney General is a unique member of the Cabinet because, as I said, he is the chief law enforcement officer of the country, but he is also a political appointee of the President. It takes some skill to navigate that very thin line and to do it with distinction and honor--something that Mr. Barr has done before.

President George Herbert Walker Bush recognized the talent in Mr. Barr more than 25 years ago and nominated him for not one, not two, but three important roles in the Department of Justice.

Mr. Barr testified before the Judiciary Committee for each of these positions: Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Deputy Attorney General, and, finally, Attorney General of the United States. All three times, he was unanimously approved by the Senate.

As impressive as Mr. Barr was during these confirmation hearings, he was even more impressive once he was actually on the job. It is clear he made a lasting impression on his colleagues at the Department of Justice.

A group of 120 former Justice Department and law enforcement officials have written a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee supporting Mr. Barr's nomination. The list includes former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General, FBI Directors and Deputy Directors, a Department of Homeland Security Secretary, and a host of high-ranking DOJ officials.

They wrote: ``Bill is that rare combination of intellect and principle who has served our country in the Department of Justice with great distinction and then excelled as a senior executive in the private sector.''

They continued: ``Bill also developed great partnerships with state and local law enforcement around the country through the Department's Executive Working Group, creating joint task forces to combat white collar crime, drug trafficking and violent crime across the nation.''

Knowing that, it is no surprise he received the endorsement of several organizations that represent law enforcement, like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Fraternal

Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, and the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, as well as others.

I quote our friend, the ranking member Dianne Feinstein herself, who said: ``No one can say he isn't qualified.''

We are fortunate to have such an individual who is willing to, once again, step back into the spotlight to serve his country. To me, that speaks volumes.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for Mr. Barr to say: Well, I have been there and done that. Now I have worked in the private sector, been a success, and I am ready to hang it up or at least enjoy my retirement years with my grandkids and my wife.

That is not Bill Barr. Bill Barr is a person driven by his sense of duty and his desire to serve the American people. To me, that is one of the distinctions about him that impresses me the most.

It would be easy for him to take a walk and to not accept this responsibility during these polarized times, but he is willing to serve, and I think we ought to embrace that willingness to serve and confirm him.

I was proud to support Mr. Barr's nomination in the Judiciary Committee today, and I look forward to voting yes on his nomination next week when we vote on it.

Although Mr. Barr's name has been in the headlines, there are also a number of well-qualified nominees for Federal judgeships across the United States who were reported out of the Judiciary Committee today, including four Texans. They are J. Campbell Barker and Michael Truncale to be U.S. district judges for the Eastern District of Texas, Matthew Kacsmaryk to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Texas, and David Morales to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas. These individuals are principled and highly qualified for the Federal bench.

Senator Cruz and I worked closely with our Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee--a bipartisan committee of the best lawyers in the State of Texas--to screen these individuals and then make recommendations to the White House. I am confident in their ability to serve Texans by faithfully applying the law, and I hope the Senate will move quickly to confirm them.

Mr. President, finally, following the President's call for unity and bipartisanship in his State of the Union Address earlier this week, I am glad to see the Senate responding to that call and taking up legislation that we are currently on that has received broad bipartisan support in the Senate just today.

Near the end of the last Congress, the Senate and the House reached an agreement on a package of more than 100 individual lands bills that received broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, we ran out of time and weren't able to get it done, but next week, we will have the opportunity to vote on this important piece of legislation and send this bipartisan bill to the President's desk and demonstrate, once again, to the American people--lest anybody be in doubt--that we are capable of working together in a bipartisan way in advancing the interests of the American people.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been an advocate for America's outdoor sporting traditions and commonsense wildlife conservation policies. Enhancing and expanding sportsmen's access to Federal lands has been on Congress's to-do list for years, and this legislation will help make that a reality.

This package includes a series of bipartisan provisions negotiated over years, which will provide increased opportunities for sportsmen and sportswomen to utilize Federal lands for hunting and fishing. Those changes are coupled with additional ones for conserving and enhancing wildlife habitats to ensure we are protecting these lands for generations to come.

This legislation also authorizes dozens of land swaps--exchanges--and conveyances, which will deliver big changes to communities across the country, including in my State.

For example, the Lake Fannin recreation area was once a thriving tourist attraction for Texas, but, through the years, it has become dilapidated due to the inability of the Forest Service to properly do maintenance.

The county has now developed a comprehensive plan to manage that land for recreation, and this bill will restore local control to more than 2,000 acres in Fannin County, TX.

This legislation will also protect property owners along the Red River--the border between Texas and Oklahoma--who have faced uncertainty following a flawed Bureau of Land Management survey under the previous administration. This legislation will assure these landowners that the Federal Government has no rightful claim and will make no claim to their property.

Again, I look forward to debating this legislation in the coming days, and I hope we can pass this bill, which will allow for the responsible development and conservation of land across our country.

I see no Senators seeking the floor, so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 8 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 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled

``Organizational business meeting to consider committee rules, subcommittee assignments, and committee budget resolutions.''

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, February 6, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct an executive hearing.

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, February 6, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Winning the Race to G and the Next Era of Technology Innovation in the United States''.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct an organizational hearing.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting and hearing entitled ``Organizational business meeting to consider committee rules, subcommittee assignments, and an original resolution authorizing expenditures by the committee.''

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Organizational business meeting to consider committee rules, subcommittee assignments, and committee budget resolutions.''

Special Committee on Aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financial Security in Retirement: InnoVation and Best Practices to Promote Savings.''

Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I never cease to be amazed how the politics here inside the beltway remind me of two ships passing in the night, where we can all be looking at exactly the same thing and describe it in such remarkably different ways.

I have been amazed at the Democratic leader's negative comments about the President's speech last night, and I listened to comments of my friend the Democrat whip. They found virtually nothing to like about what the President had to say last night.

So I was a little bit surprised to see a CBS News poll that indicates that 70 percent of the viewers approved of what they heard in President Trump's speech last night at the State of the Union, and 72 percent said they approved of President Trump's ideas on immigration, one of the most contentious and divisive issues that faces our country.

One conclusion might be that it is because our Democratic colleagues are simply unwilling to do anything to

work with President Trump and are determined to do everything they can in order to defeat him or that anything that he happens to be for they are reflexively against. That seemed to be what gave us the 35-day shutdown, where Nancy Pelosi said that building a physical barrier along the southwestern border was immoral, even though Democrats and Republicans had routinely voted for fencing, extending the hundreds of miles there in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and 2008. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, all voted for that. Now Nancy Pelosi woke up one morning and decided it was immoral to build any physical barrier at all along the southwestern border.

I agree with those who say the real immorality here is to see the scourge of human trafficking, sex slavery, women and children being held against their will by the traffickers who transfer people up and across the southwestern border. What is really immoral is to stand by and do nothing and watch 70,000 Americans die of drug overdoses last year alone, with a significant amount of that due to opioid addiction, including the 90 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States from Mexico. To me, that is the immorality, not some fence or wall or pedestrian bridge or whatever the physical barrier may be.

I agree with those who were polled in the CBS News poll who believe that what we heard last night from the President was a strong message in his second State of the Union address. Since President Trump took office 2 years ago, the American people have seen real results and a shot of adrenalin has been given to our economy, allowing millions of Americans to get back to work.

Yes, our economy is booming. We have gotten our optimism and confidence back again. Wages are on the rise. People are getting to keep more of what they earn, and middle-class Americans are seeing their paychecks expand.

We have heard the remarkable statistics that people who have disabilities are now reentering the workforce because there is such demand for workers that even people who previously weren't able to find work are now able to get that work.

Yes, in addition to the low unemployment rate, we are seeing minority unemployment and African-American and Hispanic unemployment lower than it has ever been in recorded history. You would think that would be something that people would want to applaud on a bipartisan basis.

But time and again, we saw our friends across the aisle last night sitting on their hands with a grim and sort of discontented look on their face. That is another reason why I think so many people believe that Washington, DC, and what happens here and the politics that take place here are completely removed and disconnected from their experience across the breadth of this country.

We have done some pretty significant things in the last year together, on a bipartisan basis. We combatted the opioid crisis. We improved our criminal justice system just this last December by huge, overwhelming margins. We repealed taxes on low- and middle-class Americans, known as the ObamaCare individual mandate, punishing people simply because they could not afford the high premiums and deductibles of the so-called Affordable Care Act, and we restored much needed funding to our military in a still very dangerous world and provided an overdue pay raise for our troops.

But President Trump wasn't there just to tout his accomplishments. He was there to assure the American people that we are not going to rest on our laurels. There is still work to be done, and we are eager to get moving. The President offered up some constructive ideas about what that might be: rebuilding America's infrastructure, making healthcare and prescription drugs more affordable, and, finally, eliminating the scourge of HIV over the next decade.

I remember being at the dedication of the George Bush Library at SMU a few years ago, when they had all the living Presidents speaking at that dedication. President Jimmy Carter, surprisingly--to me, anyway-- applauded President George W. Bush for saving millions of lives in Africa as a result of the PEPFAR program, providing new, incredible drugs to help reduce and eliminate the scourge of HIV in Africa. The President now wants to do that in the United States, and I applaud him for it.

To address these and other countless challenges before us, the President stressed the need for unity. As much as we would like to, nobody gets everything they want in Congress. In a country where democracy prevails, we know that means that we are going to have to negotiate and compromise, but there are 80-percent solutions that when we see them, we ought to grab them. Just turning on the news or social media, it is easy to think there is more that divides us than unites us as a country, but the President reminded us that citizens of goodwill share the same goal, and that is to build a stronger and better America.

As the President said last night:

There is a new opportunity in American politics, if only we

have the courage to seize it. Victory is not winning for our

party. Victory is winning for our country.

I hope all of us will answer the President's call to work together to respond to the better angels of our nature and to build on the successes of the last 2 years for the benefit of all the American people.

Nomination of Neomi Rao

Mr. President, yesterday, we had the Judiciary Committee hold a hearing to consider an important nomination, and that is of Neomi Rao to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, what some have called the ``second highest court in the land.'' This is the seat, of course, that has been vacated by the elevation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ms. Rao is currently the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an obscure but important Agency--probably the most powerful Agency nobody has ever heard of here in Washington, DC. She was confirmed to that position on a bipartisan basis in 2017, and since taking the helm at OIRA, Agencies have reduced regulatory costs by more than $23 billion, which has been another spur to the American economy.

Ms. Rao is currently an associate professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and a leading scholar in the field of administrative law.

Through her career, Ms. Rao has served in all three branches of the Federal Government. She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and Judge Harvie Wilkinson on the Fourth Circuit. She served as an Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President George W. Bush, and she has also worked here in the Senate as a counsel for the then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, our friend, Orrin Hatch.

Suffice it to say that she has a vast understanding of the workings of the Federal Government, as well as the rulemaking process. In a court that frequently hears challenges to Federal regulations, her unique experience and knowledge of administrative law will be an incredibly valuable asset.

Unsurprisingly, I am not the only one who holds that view. Two dozen former Supreme Court clerks who worked alongside Ms. Rao sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee touting her qualifications. They noted:

Many of us have worked in government, at both federal and

state levels, some for Democrats and some for Republicans.

They went on to say:

While our professional and personal paths have thus

diverged, one of the things we have shared is admiration for

Neomi. We are confident she will serve our country well on

the D.C. Circuit.

We have seen similar letters from her classmates at both Yale and the University of Chicago Law School, as well as from her former students.

Adding to the list of her glowing recommendations, Ms. Rao has received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. My colleagues, Senator Schumer from New York and Senator Leahy from Vermont, once referred to this rating as ``the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.''

But despite her outstanding qualifications, Ms. Rao has faced some unconvincing attacks by opponents of this administration. I am convinced that some of our colleagues would oppose any judicial nominee by this

President just because they were nominated by President Trump.

On Monday, the day before her hearing, I was surprised to see a headline from POLITICO. The story was entitled: ``Dems hope to draw blood from potential Trump SCOTUS pick.'' What they were referring to, I assume, is that Ms. Rao, as qualified as she is and nominated for the court of appeals, once confirmed, she could possibly in the future be a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. So the goal is to rough her up now, tarnish her reputation the best you can, in preparation for that potentiality in the future.

This is not entirely surprising, but it is regrettable. Before we even had a chance to hear from the nominee and discuss her qualifications for a circuit court seat, some on the other side are sharpening their claws, and the special interests are unfairly trying to undermine her nomination. This war being waged against Ms. Rao is not because she is unqualified for the job, but it is because some fear her commitment to the rule of law and speculate, as I said, that someday she might be a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Wall Street Journal editor last week warned that Ms. Rao might get ``Kavanaughed.'' That is a new verb. It used to be called to get ``Borked,'' after Robert Bork. But of course, they said she could get ``Kavanaughed'' because of her writings in college newspapers more than two decades ago. So the term ``Borked'' has now been supplanted by the term ``Kavanaughed'' as a description of the scorched earth tactics of the radical left.

A young conservative at the time, her biweekly column for the Yale Herald was called ``Against the Current,'' and it challenged the politically correct, although poorly reasoned, views of some of her classmates at the liberal Ivy League school. I guess, when you consider what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, at least we moved on from high school yearbooks now to things that somebody has written in college. I don't know whether that represents progress or not.

Ms. Rao has said repeatedly, however, that she no longer holds the same views she held more than 20 years ago. That is called growing up and maturing. In any event, she said she wouldn't substitute her personal views for the laws of Congress or the precedents of the Supreme Court. Of course, the flimsy suggestion is that these articles are enough to deny her a seat on the Federal bench. The left's attempt to block this qualified nominee by any means necessary reminds me of a comment made by Judge Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

He noted that many members of the committee are taking our job of ``advice and consent'' to mean ``search and destroy.'' We have before us a highly qualified nominee with an almost unparalleled understanding of administrative law. She has received positive remarks from the American Bar Association, the so-called gold standard for nominees. She enjoys high praise from former colleagues and students who represent both liberal and conservative viewpoints.

I hope our colleagues can look objectively at these endorsements and all she has accomplished during her career rather than follow the radical voices down some rabbit trail. I believe Ms. Rao is exceptionally qualified for a seat on the DC Circuit Court, and I thank her for answering the call to serve despite the divisive political times in which we live.