Floor Statements

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

Madam President, first, I want to thank and congratulate our colleagues who have been working hard to secure a bipartisan, bicameral solution to complete the appropriations process and fund the government. It had been clear to everyone that in order to reach an agreement, our Democratic colleagues would have to walk away from two extreme positions that had been dictated to them presumably by the far left--the notion that Congress shouldn't spend more than ``one dollar'' on new border barriers and the idea that we should impose a hard, statutory cap on ICE detainees in the interior of our country, which would require the release of criminals into the United States.

Fortunately, our Democratic colleagues did abandon those unreasonable positions, and the negotiations were able to move forward productively. Last night, Chairman Shelby, Senator Leahy, and their counterparts in the House announced they have reached an agreement in principle, which is certainly good news. It provides new funds for miles of new border barriers, and it completes all seven outstanding appropriations bills, so Congress can complete a funding process for all the outstanding parts of the Federal Government with predictability and with certainty.

I know I speak for Members on both sides of the aisle when I say that we are grateful to our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their leadership. We are eager to see them complete this work. As we speak, our colleagues are working hard to produce legislative text. I look forward to reviewing the full text as soon as possible and hope the Senate can act on this legislation in short order.

Madam President, yesterday the Senate advanced S. 47, the Natural Resources Management Act, and later today we will vote to pass it. The lands bill is the product of over 100 pieces of legislation addressing the management and preservation of some of our Nation's most precious natural areas. It touches every State, features the input of a wide coalition of our colleagues, and has earned the support of a broad, diverse coalition of many advocates for public lands, economic development, and conservation.

I am especially proud that the bill will take action on key priorities for my own State, from protecting national monuments, to preserving the legacy of historically Black colleges and universities, to helping local communities fight invasive species.

The fact that we are about to push this comprehensive package across the finish line is a credit to the dedicated efforts of Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Manchin. From the outset, S. 47 has benefitted from good-faith, bipartisan efforts at the committee level and here on the floor. I look forward to voting to pass the bill later this afternoon. I am going to do so enthusiastically for the people of Kentucky and for communities across the Nation.

Madam President, on one final matter, last week the House began the hearing process on Speaker Pelosi's signature bill, H.R. 1, the Democrat Politician Protection Act. I have already touched on several of its outlandish and problematic provisions. What I want to do today is focus on one corner of the craziness. It is the wild idea that what American politics today is really missing is a big taxpayer bailout of political campaigns, attack-ad makers, and campaign consultants.

For everyone who is now convinced they must have misheard what I just said, let me say five of those words again: taxpayer bailout for political campaigns.

It is really something. Democrats have spent months, if not years, crafting this sprawling, 500-plus page Federal takeover of our political speech and our elections. They had all the time in the world to carefully choose each provision and tailor their political strategy, but even after all that, my colleagues in the House Democratic conference are so Washington-centric in their thinking and so

happy to tax and spend other people's money that it never occurred to anyone that maybe the American people wouldn't love the idea of their own tax dollars being redistributed to political campaign consultants. It never occurred to them that the American people might not like to have their tax money redistributed to political consultants. This is how out of touch with taxpayers the modern Democratic Party has become.

They saw all these proposals to take the American people's tax dollars and funnel them into more attack ads, yard signs, and telephone calls, and thought, what a great idea. We will put that in. The Democrat Political Protection Act would do this in several different ways. There would be a new Washington, DC-run voucher program so that would-be political donors could simply ask for chunks of taxpayer money and then hand it out to the campaigns they favor. There would also be a brandnew, sixfold matching program for certain donations. The Federal Government would literally come in--sort of the way some businesses match their workers' charitable contributions--and use the American people's money to match certain campaign contributions sixfold. In other words, millions of dollars would be available for each candidate who comes along asking for his or her share of the taxpayer loot.

Keep in mind--this would put each taxpayer on the hook for financing the candidates and campaigns they personally disagree with. They will take our money and give it to people we are not for. If Democrats have their way, citizens won't just have to sit through television commercials railing against the candidate they plan to vote for; now they would also have the pleasure of bankrolling the ads. You can sit there in front of the TV screen and watch your tax dollars at work supporting a person you are going to vote against. People are going to love that.

When you ask Democrats why exactly they would propose something as absolutely ludicrous as a massive, new, taxpayer-funded bailout of the permanent political class, sometimes they make vague claims that problems in American politics would go away if only we took more power out of the people's hands and shipped it here to the Nation's Capital. The evidence suggests they are dead wrong on this. Research suggests that jurisdictions--and there are a few of them--that have matching- fund systems in many cases also have rampant corruption, misappropriation, and waste. There are numerous examples that there is still plenty of corruption and wrongdoing in those systems--not exactly a surprise outcome when you centralize more money and power through government channels.

Public financing doesn't appear to change the playing field between challengers and incumbents in any way either. Here is how one University of Wisconsin political scientist summed it up: ``The people who propose these systems often oversell them.''

There are no apparent benefits, significant new costs, and they want to stick taxpayers with the bill. This is just another one of the Democrat Politician Protection Act's greatest hits. I will have more in the future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, Kentucky's rich history brings many causes of reflection and celebration. For 200 years, Centre College has been a premier setting for liberal arts education in Kentucky, earning nationwide acclaim and respect. So today I would like to commemorate the bicentennial of one of the Commonwealth's most treasured institutions.

In 1819, the Kentucky Legislature formally established the school in Danville, giving it a name inspired by its central geographic location. Overseeing the school was a board of trustees filled with notable Kentuckians, including our first Governor, Isaac Shelby, as its chairman and Ephraim McDowell, the famed frontier surgeon who performed the first successful ovariotomy. Construction began shortly after on the school's first building, which was completed the next year and stands to this day with the name ``Old Centre.'' Classes began that fall with two professors and five pupils. With a commitment to classical liberal arts education, the curriculum focused on topics such as Latin, Greek, rhetoric, and logic.

Encountering financial difficulties in subsequent years, Kentucky ceded administration of Centre to a Presbyterian denomination but the legislature ensured that the school would remain accessible to students and faculty of all faiths. In 1830, a new president took the reins of the school. Twenty-seven-year-old John C. Young, a minister, teacher, and administrator, expanded the college and helped advance it toward distinction. At the end of his 27 years of leadership, the school boasted a 200-plus student body, secured an endowment of more than $100,000, and employed a renowned faculty.

Through the following decades, the school continued to grow in excellence and impact. Although the Civil War caused a temporary drop in the number of graduates--and the successive occupations of Old Centre by Confederate and Union forces--Centre's commitment to its liberal arts mission never wavered. The school had gained such great national distinction that the president of Princeton University, also the future President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, is said to have remarked in 1903 that, ``There is a little college down in Kentucky which, in her sixty years, has graduated more men who have acquired prominence and fame than has Princeton in her 150 years.''

Centre's reputation for excellence has reached beyond the classroom. In what the New York Times would later call ``Football's Upset of the Century,'' the Praying Colonels scored an unlikely victory over the top-ranked Harvard University football team in 1921. Not long after, Centre officially became coeducational in 1926. The following decades saw the integration of the school, the expansion of the campus to include new buildings, and the establishment of a chapter of the prestigious Phi Beta Kappa honor society.

One of the greatest measures of a college are the alumni it has produced. Centre graduates can be found in a wide range of distinguished fields, including the highest levels of the U.S. Government. Vice Presidents John C. Breckinridge and Adlai Stevenson both held diplomas from the school, as did Supreme Court Chief Justice Fred Vinson and Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan. More than a dozen U.S. Senators, scores of Congressmen, and 11 Governors have also graduated from the school, as have leaders in business, medicine, law, and journalism. Perhaps it was the school's history of producing Vice Presidents and other prominent figures that led to its hosting of not one, but two Vice Presidential debates, in 2000 and 2012.

For such an impressive milestone, Centre has planned a year of celebratory events to mark its history and to herald its potential for the future. With President John Roush, the faculty, staff, students, and one of the most engaged alumni bases in the country, I am proud to mark Centre College's bicentennial. They all deserve the Senate's congratulations and best wishes for the future of liberal arts education in Kentucky.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 461.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a 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. 36 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

I ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, February 13; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Barr nomination; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the Barr nomination.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. President, as recently as a few days ago, our government funding discussions seemed to be in a pretty good place. Bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on finishing out the year's appropriations process seemed to be right on track. We appeared headed toward a compromise result that would have provided much needed investments in border security and completed our remaining appropriations bill to fully fund the government.

Last week, the Democratic leader seemed confident that ``we worked out a plan to refund the government, deal with border security in a way that would be acceptable to all sides. That's working pretty well.'' Just this past Friday, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Leahy, suggested that ``we're 95 to 98 percent done.''

But then over the weekend, we heard that the talks had suddenly hit a snag. The bipartisan momentum had stalled. What went wrong? Here is what happened. The House Democrats decided to add a poison pill demand into the conversations at the eleventh hour. It is a new demand. It is really extreme--a hard, statutory cap on the number of illegal immigrants who could be detained by the Federal Government. This would result in the release of thousands of criminal aliens and our inability to detain thousands more criminal aliens whom our Federal and State law enforcement authorities will apprehend.

This is a poison pill that no administration--not this one, not the previous one--would or should ever accept. Imagine the absurdity of this. House Democrats want to set a limit on how many criminal aliens our government can detain. This is a limit that is not based on any aspect of reality, such as how many criminal aliens there actually are or what crimes they have committed; it is just an arbitrary number a couple of lawmakers have pulled out of thin air. The consequence of such an arbitrary limit is obvious: Thousands of criminal aliens would simply be released into the interior of our country, both immediately and then on a rolling basis into the future.

The National Sheriffs' Association explained this in a letter to Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy. Here is what the sheriffs had to say:

Capping the number of detention beds . . . not only

jeopardizes the integrity of the immigration system, but

would cripple ICE's ability to detain criminal aliens and

other aliens who pose a risk to public safety or are a flight

risk. . . . In order to meet the cap tentatively proposed by

Congress, ICE would be compelled to release thousands of

aliens from custody.

That is what the National Sheriffs' Association had to say about it-- released, just like that, right out into the United States of America. It is hard to believe this is where some Democrats are--a get-out-of- jail-free card for criminals because the radical left doesn't like U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Let me say that again. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals because the radical left doesn't like U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

It is hard to believe the ``Abolish ICE'' fringe among House Democrats actually thinks enforcing our laws is wrong. It is hard to believe a group of House Democrats see kneecapping American law enforcement as a higher priority than keeping the government open. But it would be even harder to believe that leading Democrats would be open to this craziness and would let this last-minute poison pill scuttle the entire appropriations process.

Just last year, when the Democratic leader was highlighting productive, bipartisan work on this appropriations process, he said: ``Both sides have worked to avoid poison pill riders. That has meant steady progress.'' Ranking Member Leahy celebrated that through last year's committee process, ``We avoided new poison pill riders.'' So I hope my Democratic colleagues are able to talk some sense into their side.

Some House Democrats are risking a second partial government shutdown by calling for this absurd, last-minute poison pill. No administration of any party would sign a bill that forced them to release criminal aliens into

the interior of the United States. No administration would accept this poison pill forcing the release of criminals now and on a rolling basis going forward.

I understand that the four leaders on Appropriations in both Chambers will be meeting in just a few minutes. I would implore my friends across the aisle: Untangle yourselves from the most extreme far-left voices out on the fringe. Do not let this radical fringe and its absurd demand prevent you from taking yes for an answer. Don't let them torpedo all of this bipartisan work.

This provision would, rightly, be a total nonstarter with the White House--with any White House, not just this one. It would erase our progress and kick us back to square one. It is a total poison pill, pure and simple.

The American people are not clamoring for more aliens with criminal backgrounds to be roaming at large in their communities. I never heard anybody ask for that. And they certainly are not so eager for that outcome that they want another partial shutdown in order to achieve it.

My Democratic colleagues in this Chamber need to see this stunt for what it is, bring their side back to the table, and finish our work for the American people.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 6, H.J. Res. 1.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to proceed.

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

I withdraw the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 1.

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

Madam President, our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are meeting to advance a number of judicial nominees and the President's choice for Attorney General here to the Senate floor.

In Bill Barr, President Trump has nominated a tried-and-true public servant and a proven professional to lead the men and women of the Department of Justice.

Testifying before the committee last month, Mr. Barr expressed his unwavering commitment to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people.

My colleagues don't have to take his word for it. Having served as Attorney General once before, Mr. Barr's qualifications and job performance speak for themselves.

In 1991, this body saw fit to confirm him to head DOJ by a voice vote. That was the third time he had earned Senate confirmation without opposition. On both sides of the aisle, Senators were vocal in their praise for the ``independent voice'' of an ``honorable guy,'' William Barr.

Today, the job description remains exactly the same as it was years ago, and before us is a nominee who remains eminently well qualified to discharge these duties. The Senate needs to act quickly to put Bill Barr back to work at the Justice Department. I hope and expect he will be confirmed next week.

Natural Resources Management Act

Today, the Senate officially turned to the Natural Resources Management Act, a broad bipartisan package of 100-plus distinct land bills with importance to nearly every Member of this body. I am certainly one of them.

This comprehensive legislation includes two initiatives I introduced with my House colleagues Andy Barr and Hal Rogers. They will incorporate two Civil War sites in Kentucky as part of the National Park System, Camp Nelson and Mill Springs Battlefield. By designating these two sites as national monuments, we will ensure that their rich history will be preserved for the education and service of future generations.

Camp Nelson was established in 1863 in Jessamine County. It would become arguably Kentucky's top recruiting station and training facility for the Union's African-American soldiers. In later years, those seeking freedom from slavery fled to the camp. This historic site helped expedite the destruction of slavery in Kentucky.

My other proposal would protect Mills Springs Battlefield, the site of an 1862 battle that historians remember as the Union's first significant victory in the West, and one of its earliest major victories in the whole Civil War.

Preserving these sites isn't the only way Kentucky will benefit from this sweeping lands package. The bill will help historically Black colleges and universities like Kentucky State University preserve their distinguished contributions to our communities; it extends the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail into Kentucky; and it bolsters our critical efforts to combat invasive species like the dangerous Asian carp that clog up Western Kentucky waterways. These are just examples in my home State.

Across the whole country, communities will benefit from more flexibility for economic development, more commonsense approaches to conservation, and more access to our country's Federal lands. It is no wonder that nearly 300 expert groups and advocacy organizations publicly support the contents of this bill, from economic development organizations to natural resources nonprofits to cultural organizations and prominent historians.

Chairman Murkowski and all of our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee deserve credit for getting us to this point. Senators Gardner and Daines have been particularly effective advocates for this legislation. I look forward to passing it soon.

Elections

Madam President, on one final matter, in the days since House Democrats began arguing for a massive takeover of America's elections, we have heard a lot of dramatic claims about the state of American democracy.

Speaker Pelosi has denounced ``devious vote-suppression schemes.'' The Democrats' response to the State of the Union on Tuesday night warned of ``threats to democracy'' and ``efforts to undermine our right to vote.''

If you listened only to Democrats, you might actually think there is a widespread voting crisis in this country. If you took Democrats' rhetoric at face value, you certainly wouldn't guess that 2018 saw the highest midterm turnout rate in half a century or that 2016 hit an all- time record for Presidential ballots cast and the third highest Presidential turnout rate in 50 years. If you believed the Democrats' rhetoric, you would be shocked--shocked--to see the freedom, openness,

and availability of the electoral franchise across the country in the year 2019.

Let's start with voter registration. Current Federal law provides all Americans the option to register to vote when they apply for an identification card at their local DMV. In many cases, registering is as simple as checking a box on a completed form. If that is not enough, voter registration is available at Agencies that provide social services or disability services. It is available in places like military recruitment centers, post offices, hunting and fishing license offices, and courthouses. Voter registration is even available online in many places, and in places where it isn't, detailed instructions are available to anyone who goes looking.

You will find voter registration drives on college campuses, in high schools, or outside the subways or train stations. You will find them at church and other civic organizations. You will find voter registration drives while you are walking down the street, visiting a grocery store, or many other public places. Heck, many campaigns and advocacy groups will come door to door to register voters.

So what about once voters are registered? To hear these Democrats tell it, all of the polling places across America are staffed-- staffed--by malevolent people who set out to deny the franchise to as many of their neighbors as possible.

But beneath the rhetoric, the procedures they are trying to attack actually could not be more reasonable.

We are talking about things like making sure voters are in the right precinct or even the right county so that they have the opportunity to vote for their local leaders--things like requiring any form of identification to verify that voters are who they claim to be, things like making sure there is enough time between voter registration and election day for officials to verify what district and precinct voters live in or that they are eligible to vote in that State in the first place.

These are simple, commonsense practices. They have worked just fine in communities across the country, in areas overseen by Democratic elected officials and Republican elected officials alike. But now-- now--Democrats have decided these standard processes are so unfair or so immoral that the Federal Government must snatch the reins away from the people and their local representatives. Now Washington Democrats have decided we need them--them--to determine how we elect our leaders.

Once again, the plain facts disprove all of the hyperventilating. After last year's election, the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans about their voting experience, asking: How do you feel about voting?

Ninety-two percent said their voting experience was easy--92 percent--easy. Only 1 percent of voters found their experience ``very difficult.'' One percent? That could be the result of practically any inconvenience: full parking lots maybe, long lines, bad traffic, a forgotten ID. You name it. But more than 9 of 10 voters indicated they had no trouble whatsoever, so it is more than a little suspicious--more than a little suspicious--that Washington Democrats are trying to invent crises to justify a huge power grab for themselves.

This fact-free rhetoric is being used to push legislation that would override the decisions of Americans' democratically chosen local leaders and replace them with one-size-fits-all prescriptions authored by a small handful of politicians, like Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Sarbanes, and a few others whom the vast majority of Americans do not elect and have no way to hold accountable. These prescriptions largely seem designed to help Democrats and their DC attorneys contest rules after election day. I call this 500-plus-page doorstop the Democratic Politician Protection Act for a reason.

Let me be abundantly clear. Every eligible American voter should be completely free to exercise their right to vote at every opportunity and cast a ballot, period. There is no question about that. Every single valid vote should be counted. Opposing the Democratic Politician Protection Act is not opposing those basic tenets.

But the way to honor these basic propositions is to let States and localities take simple, necessary steps to protect our elections and ensure that valid votes are not diluted; to have procedures in place to make sure that voters are casting ballots in the right places; to make sure that the American people are the ones who determine how we elect our leaders.

The real threat to American democracy is staring us in the face-- right in the face: an invented crisis, inaccurate rhetoric, all to justify an unprecedented intrusion by Washington, DC, Democrats into the way States run their elections.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to move to proceed to Executive Calendar No. 14 during today's session of the Senate.