Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 118.

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

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

Mr. President I move to proceed to Calendar No. 114,

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: PN97, PN99, PN100, and PN513, Executive Calendar Nos. 298 and 299.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, that no further motions be in order, and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, following morning business on Tuesday, June 18, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Cairncross nomination, and the cloture vote on the nomination occur at 12 noon. I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 2:15 p.m., and if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Cairncross nomination, the Senate vote on the pending cloture motions on the following nominations in the order listed: Executive Calendar Nos. 22, 28, 50, and 118; that if cloture is invoked, the confirmation votes occur on Wednesday, June 19, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader. I further ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1790 ripen following disposition of Executive Calendar No. 118.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3151.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 231, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I know of no further debate on the measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for a pro forma session only with no business conducted on Monday, June 17, 2019, at 3 p.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Monday, June 17, it next convene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 18; 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 the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each until 11:30 a.m.; finally, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

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

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

Mr. President, this week we are continuing to confirm more unobjectionable nominees who had to move through the Senate more slowly than they should. Yesterday we confirmed Sarah Daggett Morrison to serve as U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, and despite the fact that our Democratic friends forced us to file cloture on her nomination, when she finally received a vote, she was confirmed 89 to 7.

That is probably because Ms. Morrison, like the other nominees we are considering this week, is thoroughly noncontroversial and very well- qualified for the job. Thanks to the modest reforms to the Senate rules we put in place this spring, more nominees who fit this description are being confirmed in a fraction of the time it would have otherwise taken.

So I hope the strong bipartisan support we saw yesterday will be shown to the jurists we will vote to confirm on the Federal bench today: Pamela Barker to the Northern District of Ohio; Corey Maze to the Northern District of Alabama; Rodney Smith to the Southern District of Florida; Thomas Barber to the Middle District of Florida; and Jean- Paul Boulee to the Northern District of Georgia.

Together, these nominees possess more than a century of legal experience. Their resumes include work in State attorneys' offices, as county judges, and as State solicitor general. They include a former U.S. Army defense counsel and a U.S. Supreme Court litigator. Each has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the Constitution and preserving the rule of law. Each deserves strong, bipartisan support.

Mr. President, on another matter, the Trump administration's new agreement with Mexico marks an important breakthrough in the ongoing border crisis. It kept harmful tariffs from going into effect and cemented new steps to make certain that immigration enforcement and the rule of law are priorities on both sides of the border.

But, of course, the Mexican Government was not the only outstanding party with an unmet responsibility to address this crisis. Right here in Congress we have been waiting for 6 weeks now--6 weeks--for our Democratic colleagues to get serious about the administration's urgent request for more resources for border security and humanitarian efforts.

This week's progress with our Mexican neighbors throws the Democrats' refusal to act into even starker relief. My colleagues and I have come to the floor day after day, week after week, detailing all the evidence that our southern border is in a state of crisis. The inflow of would- be illegal immigrants is unprecedented. Our facilities and our efforts to house and care for the individuals we detain are stretched literally to the breaking point. In short, the men and women stationed on our southern border are running on fumes. They have been charged with the tasks that circumstances have made incredibly difficult, and they are begging for more funding to keep up.

As I noticed yesterday, the most recent data show that apprehensions last month reached a 13-year high, with higher numbers in every category--more individuals, more family units, and more unaccompanied children arriving at border facilities that are already at overcapacity. The Border Patrol is teetering on the brink. They are nearing the point where they will be unable to perform even the most basic humanitarian and security functions for lack of resources. This is even with funds being diverted away from other important priorities at the Department of Homeland Security on a contingency basis.

So let me say it again one more time. The Department of Homeland Security has had to pull money and people off of other critical missions just to try and meet the overwhelming surge of human traffic down at the border. This is the Department that includes the Transportation Security Administration, the Secret Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Congress's inaction has backed them into a corner.

The officials who are responsible for protecting the homeland and safeguarding these individuals could not have been clearer in their pleading to Congress. They could not have been more clear. The Acting Homeland Security Secretary has told us already that ``given the scale of what we are facing, we will exhaust our resources before the end of this fiscal year''--``exhaust our resources before the end of this fiscal year.''

The Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has said: ``We are begging.'' ``Begging.'' ``We are asking Congress, please help us.''

By any honest reckoning, this constitutes a crisis. That is why Americans across the entire political spectrum agree that Democrats in Congress need to put aside their allergy to finding an inch of common ground with President Trump and finally agree to get something done.

We know exactly what the holdup has been. The New York Times reported in late May exactly why this money didn't make it into the disaster funding package despite Republican efforts. ``Democrats balked at allocating billions of dollars more toward border security.'' ``Democrats balked.'' That is the New York Times.

Around the same time, one House Democrat admitted as much. He told reporters: ``In my opinion, we do have to come up with some money. But we've got to convince our more progressive friends. . . . `'

Well, look, I am sorry that a humanitarian crisis is not convincing enough to the far left. I am sorry that two separate New York Times editorials haven't made an impact on House Democrats either.

So here we have it. The New York Times editorial page, May 5-- incredibly enough: ``Congress, Give Trump His Border Money.'' That is the New York Times saying: ``Give Trump [the] border money.'' They didn't listen.

So several weeks later, on May 23, as I quoted, ``Democrats balked at allocating billions of dollars more toward border security.''

On June 9, a couple of days ago, in the New York Times: ``When Will Congress Get Serious About the Suffering at the Border?''

Here is the situation. The Trump administration and the New York Times are on the same side--and House Democrats don't want to take this up? Goodness, I am having a hard time remembering the last time the New York Times editorial page was on the same side as the Trump administration or Republicans in Congress. It is not a common sight, but here we are.

All of us agree that the border crisis is unacceptable and unsustainable, but still, House Democrats will not act. Yesterday, even my colleague the Democratic leader admitted where this extended delay is coming from. He told reporters that the House wasn't for it, but we were.

Yes, I guess that was true, but in any event, apparently that is where we are now. The House Democrats are the problem. So if they are serious about wanting to resolve this, I hope they will get a grip--get a grip on their far-left colleagues--in a hurry.

So here is what we are going to do. Chairman Shelby has announced that the Appropriations Committee is going to vote on a $4.5 billion package a week from tomorrow, with more than $3 billion in humanitarian funds to expand shelter facilities, increase dedicated care for unaccompanied children, and another billion dollars to prop up critical security missions. I am grateful to Chairman Shelby for interest in this and his leadership, along with the work of Senator Capito and Senator Blunt.

I cannot urge my Democratic friends strongly enough to finally--what does it take to convince them to get serious?--find their way to yes.

House Democrats may want to come down to the left of the New York Times editorial page--there is not much space over there--but the rest of the country thinks it is just crazy--because it is.

Partisan theater in the House doesn't improve the conditions in border shelters. Melodramatic hearings and Presidential harassment don't secure the border. ``The resistance'' doesn't pay the bills. This spectacle of opposition for opposition's sake, even on such an obvious nonpartisan priority, has been more than embarrassing. It is completely irresponsible. It needs to end soon.

In the coming days, it will. We are going to act in the Senate, and we are going to move forward to find the funding necessary to try to solve this humanitarian crisis.

This week, the Senate is making more progress in the personnel business. Since returning to more prompt consideration for unobjectionable, lower level nominees, we are continuing to fill important vacancies around the executive branch and on the Federal bench.

Yesterday we confirmed several more well-qualified nominees to important seats on the Federal judiciary--Ryan Holte of Ohio and Richard Hertling of Maryland to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Rossie David Alston, of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. These brandnew judges possess impressive legal and academic credentials.

In the case of Mr. Holte, who taught law school for several years, 125 former students wrote our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to say their former professor would ``provide impartial, unbiased, and principled decisions, and will apply the law faithfully no matter the litigants.''

That is exactly what this body should look for in every nominee we consider for the Federal bench. So I am glad we will have the opportunity this week to consider six more distinguished judicial nominees.

First up today will be Sarah Daggett Morrison, tapped by the President to serve the Southern District of Ohio. Ms. Morrison is a graduate of Ohio State University and Capital University Law School. Earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee reported her nomination favorably on a voice vote.

After Ms. Morrison's nomination is confirmed, we will turn to consider Pamela Barker for the Northern Virginia District of Ohio, Corey Maze for the Northern District of Alabama, Rodney Smith for the Southern District of Florida, Thomas Barber for the Middle District of Florida, and Jean-Paul Boulee for the Northern District of Georgia.

Following them, we will fill two more executive branch vacancies, one each at the State Department and in the diplomatic corps. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to confirm each of these nominees with strong bipartisan support on the floor.