Floor Statements

Madam President, on a final matter, anyone who has been attentive to the news these past few days has learned about the complete debacle that unfolded in last November's election for North Carolina's Ninth Congressional District. Soon after election day, allegations of illegal ballot harvesting and vote tampering clouded a close result. The wrongdoing seemed to have benefited the Republican candidate over the Democratic. Just last week, we saw the State Board of Elections unanimously call for a new election.

For years and years, every Republican who dared to call for commonsense safeguards for Americans' ballots

was demonized by Democrats and their allies. We were hit with leftwing talking points that insisted that voter fraud was not real--it never happens, they said--that fraud just didn't happen and that modest efforts to ensure that voters are who they say they are and are voting in the proper places were really some sinister, rightwing plot to prevent people from voting.

As you might expect, now that an incident of very real voter fraud has become national news and the Republican candidate seems to have benefited, these longstanding Democratic talking points have been really quiet. We haven't heard much lately from the Democrats about how fraud never happens. They have gone silent. Now some are singing a different tune. There is a new interest in ensuring the sanctity of American elections.

I have been focused for decades on protecting the integrity of elections, so I would like to welcome my friends on the left to their new realization. They have just discovered that this subject really matters, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are actually interested in cleaning up the conditions that lead to messes like this one in North Carolina.

At the root of the North Carolina debacle is a practice that is known as ballot harvesting. Essentially, it is a means by which campaign representatives can collect absentee ballots on the premise of delivering them to a polling place or an election office. That is what ballot harvesting is. So think about it. Who in American politics keeps long lists of potential voters? Who mobilizes networks of people to go door-to-door? Who funds and stands up to these kinds of canvassing organizations? Who does those things?

I am sorry to say that there are not huge teams of politically neutral Eagle Scouts who rove the country and hope to use ballot harvesting to politely make voters' lives more convenient. This is not an Eagle Scout activity. The folks who really lick their lips at the prospect of mass ballot harvesting are political operatives, of course--political operatives, interest groups, and one-sided political machines. This is why many jurisdictions, including in North Carolina, have outlawed the practice altogether. I will say that again. Many jurisdictions, including in North Carolina, have outlawed this practice altogether.

Ballot harvesting threatens to change the nature of our representative democracy. Forget about persuading people and spurring them to turn out to the polls; this practice makes elections a kind of scavenger hunt to see which side's operatives can return to headquarters with the most ballots in the trunks of their cars, and once those operatives take ahold of these ballots, the voters have no way to keep tabs on whether they were ever delivered.

Of course, a system that invites political operatives to be rewarded for turning up ballots will open the door to misbehavior. Remember, it is illegal in North Carolina and in most States for the obvious reason, but I have noted with interest that the Democrats' new focus on this practice has yet to extend to California. I wonder why. Well, in California, it is legal. It is a common practice in California. California allows anyone--not just family members but anyone--to show up at polling places on election day with ballots that are not theirs. Welcome to California.

Reports suggest that Orange County alone saw--listen to this--250,000 absentee ballots dropped off on election day last year. The county's registrar told the newspaper that some individuals dropped off hundreds of other people's ballots. We have no way to know if those ballots were sealed or if the people had even voted when they were harvested. The only evidence we have that the voter cast his or her ballot is the signature.

This past election cycle turned out favorably for California Democrats, amazingly enough. These late-arriving ballots seemed to help turn several races their way. Maybe this helps explain why: When House GOP leaders expressed concern over ballot harvesting in California, the State's Democratic secretary of state mocked their concern by saying: ``What they call strange and bizarre we call democracy.'' Now ballot harvesting has thrown out an election result in the U.S. House of Representatives--legal in California, illegal in North Carolina.

Maybe that helps explain why, as it stands, the Democrat Politician Protection Act--Speaker Pelosi's massive new Federal takeover of the way States and communities run their elections--contains no effort whatsoever to crack down on ballot harvesting. It is not in there. Instead, it contains provision after provision that would erode the protections that are supposed to ensure votes reflect the voices of the voters whose names are on the envelopes.

It contains provision after provision that would erode the protections that are supposed to ensure that votes reflect the voice of the voter whose name is on the envelope.

Provision after provision would erode commonsense protections and bring the guardrails down. So would a serious reform bill aimed to take away States' abilities to impose meaningful ID or signature requirements for voters. Would someone concerned about restoring democracy dismiss signature verification as an obstacle to be removed? I don't think so.

Perhaps these facts signal that Democrats see a political advantage in eroding commonsense protections and would rather keep that advantage than make episodes like the North Carolina mess less likely to happen in the future.

An example of real-live voter fraud is staring the country right in the face right now in North Carolina. Yet Democrats choose at this moment to propose a sprawling Federal takeover of election law that would erode the integrity of our elections even further.

So that, I think, pretty well underscores what the priorities of today's Democrat Party is.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I know of no further debate on the Miller nomination.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, first, today I would like to turn attention to the severe weather that is afflicting communities throughout my home State.

Nearly 20 counties from one end of the State to the other have declared states of emergency in response to historically high water levels. Just moments ago, Governor Matt Bevin put

the entire Commonwealth under a state of emergency to mobilize resources where they are needed most. Many families are evacuating toward safety. Approximately 2,400 people in eastern and southern Kentucky are still without power. Mudslides have closed roads. Bridges are flooded, and emergency personnel have been deployed to rescue stranded drivers and others in danger.

I want to express my gratitude to the first responders working around the clock to keep their communities safe. It may be a difficult road to recovery, but Kentuckians are already pitching in to help their neighbors in need.

My staff and I are ready to work with emergency management officials and will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, this week the Senate will resume our work in the personnel business by considering yet another of President Trump's qualified judicial nominees.

Eric Miller has been chosen to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and one look at his legal career to this point says he is well prepared to do so.

Mr. Miller is a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago, where he served on the Law Review editorial staff. He has held prominent clerkships on both the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. His record of public service at the Justice Department and in private practice reflects a legal mind of the highest caliber.

I hope each of my colleagues will join me in voting to advance the first circuit court nominee of this new Congress. That will be 31 since President Trump took office. But first, in just a few hours, the Senate will vote on advancing a straightforward piece of legislation to protect newborn babies. This legislation is simple. It would simply require that medical professionals give the same standard of care and medical treatment to newborn babies who have survived an attempted abortion as any other newborn baby would receive in any other circumstance. It isn't about new restrictions on abortion. It isn't about changing the options available to women. It is just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby, period.

This bill would make clear that in the year 2019, in the United States of America, medical professionals on hand when a baby is born alive need to maintain their basic ethical and professional responsibilities to that newborn. It would make sure our laws reflect the fact that the human rights of newborn boys and girls are innate; they don't come and go based on the circumstances of birth. Whatever the circumstances, if that medical professional comes face-to-face with a baby who has been born alive, they are looking at a human being with human rights, period.

To be frank, it makes me uneasy that such a basic statement seems to be generating actual disagreement. Can the extreme, far-left politics surrounding abortion really have come this far? Are we really supposed to think that it is normal that there are now two sides debating whether newborn, living babies deserve medical attention?

We already know that many of our Democratic colleagues want the United States to remain one of seven nations in the world that permit elective abortions after 20 weeks--seven countries, including North Korea, China, and the United States of America. But now it seems the far left wants to push the envelope even further. Apart from the entire abortion debate, they now seem to be suggesting that newborn babies' right to life may be contingent--contingent--on the circumstances surrounding their birth. Well, evidently, the far left is no longer convinced that all babies are created equal, but the rest of us are still pretty fond of that principle.

My colleagues across the aisle need to decide where they will take their cues on these moral questions. On the one hand, there are a few extreme voices who have decided that some newborn lives are more disposable than others. On the other side is the entire rest of the country.

I would urge my colleagues: Let's listen to the voices of the American people. Let's reaffirm that when we say every life is created equal, we actually mean it. Let's vote to advance the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act later today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, later this week, Leadership Tri-County from Knox, Whitley, and Laurel Counties in my home State will present one of its highest honors: the Leader of the Year award. I was delighted to learn this year's title will be given to Ernest Matt House, a lifelong resident of London, KY, and a remarkable example of entrepreneurship. I would like to take a few moments today to pay tribute to Ernest Matt and his many accomplishments in Kentucky.

From an early age, Ernest Matt's talents were on full display. In high

school, he excelled both in the classroom and on the field, earning 14 varsity letters and a place in the Kentucky High School Athletic Association's Hall of Fame, but these achievements, of course, were just the beginning. Ernest Matt received a full scholarship to play football at Eastern Kentucky University. There, he was EKU's starting quarterback for 3 years and lettered all 4. His notable time in the Colonel's uniform merited inclusion into the school's athletic hall of fame, and he still ranks among the best quarterbacks in its history.

After his graduation, Ernest Matt returned to Laurel County and began working at his family's grocery store. Named for both of his grandfathers, he had big shoes to fill in the family business, but it didn't take long for Ernest Matt to learn the competitive business and set his sights on the future. Although a lot has changed in the grocery business and in the community, Ernest Matt holds onto the tradition of personal service that keeps bringing loyal customers back to the store. Over the next years, his continued entrepreneurial success earned him distinction both in the local community and across the Nation.

Leadership Tri-County was established more than three decades ago to foster and develop emerging local leaders. Its programs in Kentucky invest in the men and women who have spent their lives making their communities a better place to live. This award is given each year to an individual who has contributed to the area's growth and development, and Ernest Matt clearly fits the bill. Through his business success and service on local, regional, and State board and commissions, Ernest Matt has quite a legacy of achievement.

A man of deep faith, Ernest Matt credits his good works both to Christ and to his loving family, especially his wife Kim. I am sure she, along with his children and grandchildren, are quite proud of him. Kentucky has been made better because of Ernest Matt's many contributions, and I would like to congratulate him for being named the 2019 Leader of the Year. I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing his work.

Madam President, I understand there are two measures at the desk due a second reading en bloc.

Madam President, in order to place the measures on the calendar under provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings en bloc.

Madam President, last night, our colleagues Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy filed the final text of a bipartisan, bicameral legislative agreement. For the past couple of weeks, in conference with their House counterparts, they have worked in good faith to reach a compromise to address urgent priorities, including funding for our Nation's border security.

The product of this work is a compromise that no side will view as a perfect deal. For instance, I am frustrated by House Democrats' cynical opposition to including commonsense extensions of the Violence Against Women Act and other important items. Nevertheless, this agreement is something both sides should view as an important step, and today, I hope we will vote to advance it.

When the Senate votes on the agreement, we will be voting to avoid a second partial shutdown and provide the certainty of a fully functioning Federal Government. We will be voting to deliver another downpayment on the President's commitment to securing our Nation's borders and keeping American communities safe. And we will do it free from the influence of poison pills that sought to derail progress and stifle compromise.

To be sure, in recent months, we have seen the radical left go out of its way to try to gum up the works. Even the Speaker of the House threw her support behind wild assertions that tried-and-true methods of securing sovereign borders were now immoral. They said there wouldn't be more than one dollar for border barriers. They said there should be fewer tools for the men and women who enforce our immigration laws. Fortunately, none of that nonsense has carried the day.

So here we are, with a solemn deal in front of us. As the Senate prepares to vote later today, I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Chairman Shelby, along with Ranking Member Leahy and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. This legislation will mark success for our bipartisan process by finalizing all the regular appropriations bills for the fiscal year. Thanks, as well, to Shannon Hines and the entire Appropriations staff, whose hard work made this agreement and all of last year's progress possible.

Later today, I hope each of my colleagues will join me in moving forward with the agreement produced by this hard work, and the President will sign it into law.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 1 occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader.

Pursuant to the order of February 13 with respect to the Barr nomination, I ask the Chair to put the question on the nomination of William Barr to be Attorney General at 12:30 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I just had an opportunity to speak to President Trump, and I will state to all of my colleagues, he is prepared to sign the bill.

He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time, and I indicated to him that I am going to support the national emergency declaration.

So for all of my colleagues, the President will sign the bill we will be voting on shortly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate the conference report to accompany H.J. Res. 31.

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

I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the conference report to accompany H.J. Res. 31 occur at 3:30 p.m. today; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 4.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 17,