Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the

Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Friday, January 18; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1.

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.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 6:32 p.m., adjourned until Friday, January 18, 2019, at 10 a.m.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, one dollar--one dollar--that is the amount that the Speaker of the House said she would be willing to invest in physical barriers at our southern border--one dollar. Talk about serious, good-faith negotiations. Talk about taking borders seriously.

The men and women on the ground have been unambiguous about the crisis they are facing: the entry of criminal aliens and gang members into our country, the drugs that go on to infect our communities, the ongoing humanitarian crises that are fueled by our government's mixed signals and our inability to enforce our own laws.

According to Speaker Pelosi, these urgent issues are worth about 33 cents each--33 cents. As we all know, that is because the Speaker has recently defined a brandnew dogma for the Democratic Party: Actually enforcing our immigration laws with the help of physical barriers is ``an immorality''--an immorality.

That is quite the indictment of her fellow Democrats' past positions. Recent years have seen Democrats vote for billions--billions--of dollars in physical walls and fencing. Recent years have seen a Democratic administration build the same steel barriers--the very same steel barriers--that this President now wants to expand.

But these days, it seems that Democrats are happy to take their cues from the gentlelady from San Francisco and her extreme, fringe position that walls have now become immoral. Really?

Yesterday, President Trump issued yet another bipartisan invitation for Members of Congress to meet at the White House and actually negotiate. Yet, again, only Republicans came to the table.

For the American people, who deserve both a functioning government as well as a secure border, that really is not a promising sign. For Federal workers who are now stretching every dollar until Democrats lose interest in dead-end political games, the Speaker's $1 punchline is not very entertaining.

So for everyone's sake, I hope our Democratic colleagues will reverse course and work seriously with this White House to reach an agreement that can become law and fulfill our promises to our country.

In the meantime, as the White House made clear just yesterday, cherry-picking continuing resolutions that fail to

address the border crisis will not receive the President's signature. They are not going to.

The only way out of this impasse is a bipartisan agreement, and as the Democratic leader and I have both stated here on the floor, only an all-corners bipartisan agreement will receive a vote here in the Senate.

S.J. Res. 2

Mr. President, on another matter, before the Senate today is a resolution from the Democratic leader that would overrule career civil servants at the Treasury Department and fire from the hip on one of the top foreign policy concerns of the United States.

This is the pending business, despite the fact that the Democratic leader had previously proclaimed he would not let the Senate address any business--any--during this partial government shutdown. Apparently there is an exception to that.

Remember, that was the reason the Democratic leader gave for leading a Democratic filibuster of a bipartisan package that would have reaffirmed our commitment to defend our allies in Israel, stand alongside Jordan, and unlock justice for the victims of Assad's rogue regime.

On one day, they insist we shouldn't do any business; on another, it is time to bring up an unrelated resolution of their own. At the end of the last Congress, they said they would support bipartisan legislation to shore up our allies in the Middle East and deliver justice for victims of unspeakable violence in Syria. Now they are filibustering the bill and have voted against it three times--three times against this potential bill that benefits our allies Israel and Jordan and deals with the victims of cruelty in Syria.

These twists and turns are pretty hard to follow, confusing, until you remember the one key to our Democratic colleagues' thinking these days--political spite for the President comes first, ahead of everything else.

You see, the administration isn't opposed to these bipartisan, urgent bills to back Israel, Jordan, and the Syrian people. President Trump, we expect, would sign these bills. We might actually make a law, which is what people sent us here to do, presumably.

Naturally, the Democratic leader isn't interested. Democrats in Congress don't think working with the President to accomplish things suits their political brand these days.

The Democratic leader's new resolution, which he has been happy to prioritize ahead of Israel and the Syrian people, offers him a chance to make a political splash. It overrules the careful actions of career civil servants at Treasury and blows up a nuanced decision the current law actually requires. Current law actually requires what they do.

Supporting Israel? It is not too interesting to my friends across the aisle, but picking a political fight with the President, boy, they are up for that one every day.

This is the key to understanding this unusual moment. This is the central principle. Democrats have made a marketing decision to obstruct President Trump at all costs, even if it hurts substantive priorities they used to support. That is why we are in day 26 of this partial government shutdown, with Democrats refusing to even show up and negotiate on funds for border security, which they used to brag about supporting. That is why Senate Democrats have decided that aid for Israel and help for the people of Syria are not worthy of this body's time but are happy to spend more time trying to blow up a highly technical Treasury Department decision that current law actually requires.

Let me say that again. They are happy to spend floor time trying to blow up a highly technical Treasury Department decision that current law actually requires. Political obstruction is their top priority. Everything else follows from that.

Nomination of William Barr

Mr. President, on a final matter, even in the midst of this political climate, the President's nominee for Attorney General delivered an impressive performance during the first day of his hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Senators were reminded exactly why he won bipartisan admiration for this body in 1991 and was confirmed as President Bush 41's Attorney General with no opposition--none.

Now, as Mr. Barr himself acknowledged in his testimony yesterday, times have changed, but the core principles that our Nation's Attorney General must uphold haven't changed. As the nominee testified yesterday, ``the American people have to know that there are places in the government where the rule of law--not politics--holds sway . . . the Department of Justice must be such a place.''

Those are the words of the right man for this job. His testimony made clear what he sees as key priorities for the Department of Justice: building on past progress in preventing violent crime, enforcing and improving our Nation's immigration laws, and protecting the integrity of our electoral system.

He stated definitively where his loyalties lie: with ``the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people. That is how it should be. That is how it must be. And, if you confirm me, that is how it will be.''

Experience, integrity, and total commitment--the President has made an outstanding choice. The Judiciary Committee continues its hearings today. I look forward to their continuing review of this nomination and, then, to its being reported here to the floor. The American people deserve the very best. That is just what Attorney General Bill Barr will be

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 11,

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

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

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

Mr. President, I have 5 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 commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct an Executive Session.

committee on environment and public works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Andrew Wheeler, of Virginia, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of William Pelham Barr, of Virginia, to be Attorney General, Department of Justice.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

special committee on aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fighting Elder Fraud: Progress Made, Work to be Done''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 8, H.R. 251.

I ask unanimous consent that the Johnson amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, the Johnson title amendment be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 4 p.m. Thursday, January 17; 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, following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration on the motion to proceed to S. 109; finally, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 109.

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 following the remarks of Senator Merkley.

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

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

Madam President, I move to proceed to S. 1.

Madam President, over the course of this partial government shutdown, we have seen our Democratic colleagues engage in increasingly acrobatic contortions in order to dodge a serious conversation about the urgent humanitarian and security crisis down at our southern border. Their refusal to come to the negotiating table has serious implications for the hundreds of thousands of Federal workers going without pay and for all Americans who deserve a nation that can secure its own border.

Along the way, we have heard that new funding of any sort--any sort-- of border barrier, even the kinds that Democrats have supported so recently and so often, would now be an immorality. An immorality?

We have heard serious proposals brushed aside with joking offers of $1 to address the critical issue. We have even heard frank admissions that, 30 days from now, there would be no progress toward an agreement on border security, even if the government were reopened.

Under normal circumstances, we could expect lines like these from the furthest left organizers and most vocal liberal protesters. But these are not normal circumstances. These are the words, believe it or not, of the Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi.

It is unclear exactly when the Speaker made the determination that the explicit requests of the men and women who secure our borders and the safety of our communities would take a backseat to the political whims of the far left, that the border efforts toward which Democrats have agreed to direct billions of dollars in the past have transformed overnight into something evil. But here we are, day 25. We know the new and unreasonable position of the Speaker of the House.

So here, in the Senate, my Democratic colleagues have an important choice to make. They could stand with common sense, with border experts, with Federal workers--and with their own past voting records, by the way--or they could continue to remain passive spectators, complaining from the sidelines as the Speaker refuses to negotiate with the White House and ensures that our Nation keeps going round and round and round this political carousel. It is up to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Border Security

Madam President, on another matter, the substance of the border security issue is not the only subject that is occasioning a spectacular display of inconsistency from my colleagues across the aisle.

If you recall, since last week, the apparent position of Senate Democrats has been that the Senate itself cannot engage in any of the people's business until government funding is resolved.

Democrats have held this position so dogmatically that three times now they have voted against advancing a bipartisan and urgently needed package of legislation that concerns Israel, Jordan, and the civil war in Syria.

It has been the Democrats' very own ``Senate shutdown'' on top of the partial government shutdown they are prolonging. What about our ally Israel? What about the innocent people of Syria? I guess they are just out of luck--just out of luck. The Democratic leader has made clear that they will just have to wait. They will just have to wait until he decides to end his filibuster of these bipartisan bills, which, until last week, by the way, he supported. It is a bizarre position--a truly bizarre position.

It has directly contradicted the stated foreign policy views of many of our Democratic colleagues, but this has been the Democratic leader's position: Filibuster the expanded assistance for Israel. Filibuster the new consequences for giving aid and comfort to the Assad regime as it butchers its own people. That is what the Democratic caucus has overwhelmingly voted to do on three occasions.

But now, we are informed that it was all just a farce. The Democratic leader actually doesn't mind doing other business because he now intends to bring a privileged and political stunt of a motion relating to the administration's use of sanctions against Russia.

So now at least we know the score. Our Democratic colleagues don't really object to Senate action as such; they just object to debating a bipartisan package of bills to reinforce our support for Israel, help Jordan stand firm amidst regional chaos, and take action to hold accountable those who have tortured and murdered countless--countless-- Syrian civilians.

There is no reason this bill shouldn't sail through Congress and be signed by the President. A bipartisan bill to support Israel, defend Jordan, and provide justice for innocent Syria--that is what the Democratic leader is filibustering. But a partisan motion on an unrelated foreign policy issue? Oh, he is perfectly happy to see it come right here to the floor for a vote. As I said, at least we know the score.

So here is my commitment to Israel and to Jordan and to the Syrian people: I will continue to force these cynical tactics into the light of day. Democrats may vote a fourth time--or a fifth time--to filibuster these bipartisan bills, even as they turn the Senate toward other business. But Republicans will not abandon the need for American leadership in the world.

Nomination of William Barr

Madam President, on one final matter, today our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee will begin nomination hearings for Mr. William Barr, the distinguished public servant President Trump has asked to serve as the Nation's next Attorney General.

Certainly, no one needs me to explain all of the reasons this is a vital position. The Department of Justice is charged with duties such as protecting Americans' civil rights, defending the public order to which citizens are entitled, and upholding the time-honored tradition that the United States of America is a nation governed by law. So it is the Nation's good fortune--our good fortune--that the President has selected such a completely qualified and thoroughly prepared leader to fill this vacancy.

First and foremost, of course, is the fact that Bill Barr has served in this position before. As Attorney General under President Bush 41 in the early 1990s, he fulfilled his oath and led the Department of Justice with honor and with skill. He was widely regarded as a capable administrator and as a strong, independent, and principled advocate for fairness and for following the law.

His tenure confirmed the great confidence that Republican and Democratic Senators had all placed in him when they confirmed him to that position unanimously. Democrats controlled the Senate in 1991-- Democrats controlled the Senate in 1991. That is when he was confirmed--confirmed on a voice vote. Boy, those were the good old days.

Amid the proceedings, our distinguished colleague Senator Leahy expressed confidence that Mr. Barr would be ``an independent voice for all Americans.''

Then-Senator Joe Biden, who was then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, put it this way at the time: He is ``a heck of an honorable guy.''

So 28 years ago, leading Democrats were practically heading up the Bill Barr fan club, and his subsequent service proved they had made the right call. In fact, this nominee has been unanimously confirmed by the Senate three times--three times.

Before serving as Attorney General, he worked as an Assistant Attorney General and a Deputy Attorney General. In no case did even a single Senator identify a good reason to oppose his confirmation--three times unanimously.

So it is beyond safe to say that Mr. Barr is eminently qualified and widely respected. I look forward to his testimony today and to the testimony of those who know him and his work. I hope every Senator will afford Mr. Barr the fair consideration he so obviously deserves.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Let me repeat again what I have said now for some 3 weeks. The solution to this is a negotiation between the one person in the country who can sign something into law, the President of the United States, and our Democratic colleagues. For the Senate Republicans to participate in something that doesn't lead to an outcome strikes me as not what the Senate ought to be involved in.

We have an important package of bills that have been held up during the Senate shutdown--never mind the government shutdown--related to our colleagues, our friends in the Middle East, the Israelis, related to the Syrian civil war and all the atrocities that have occurred. There is business to be done in the Senate.

The way to solve the government shutdown is for the administration and our good friends in the House in the majority and Senate Democrats to reach a legislative solution. When that happens, I will be more than happy to call it up because we know it will actually solve the problem.

I object.

Madam President, I believe the Senate's voice should, indeed, be heard on national security policy. This is why I have moved to have the Senate's first legislative business this Congress be a bipartisan package of foreign policy bills. I made it our first priority to move legislation that would have helped defend Israel and Jordan and provide justice for the Syrians who have been tortured and murdered by the Assad regime, but the Democrats have repeatedly blocked that important legislation.

The Democratic leader said the Senate shouldn't do any business during this partial government shutdown, but, apparently, he didn't actually mean it because now the Democratic leader would like to dictate the terms of a debate on Russia.

We Republicans are hardly strangers to the need for strong policies concerning Russia. We have long seen Vladimir Putin for the KGB thug that he is. We have long advocated for tough measures against him and the kleptocrats who surround him. Just ask the junior Senator from Utah who, only 6 years ago, was mocked by the other side for advocating tough policies against the Kremlin.

This Republican administration has taken far tougher measures against Russia than the previous administration did. It has designated 272 Russia-related individuals and entities for sanctions, expelled scores of Russian intelligence officers, shuttered Russian diplomatic outposts, and equipped Ukraine and Georgia to defend themselves against Russian aggression. Clearly, there is more work to be done, and I look forward to this Congress's taking additional steps to defend our interests against the Russian threats and to additionally impose costs on Putin.

Specifically, I look forward to seeing whether the Democrats will join us in providing additional funding to rebuild our military in key areas to deter and defend against Russian investments and key weapons systems.

I look forward to seeing whether the Democrats will support efforts to modernize our aging nuclear triad as the Russians have done.

I look forward to the Congress's reviewing its existing sanctions policies to see how we can impose additional costs on Putin and his cronies who enable his malign activities.

I look forward to the Congress's ensuring that our sanctions efforts remain multilateral and maximize support from our European allies, whose participation is essential to imposing meaningful costs on the Kremlin.

But, in this narrow case, career civil servants at the Treasury Department simply applied and implemented the law Congress itself wrote and which the Democratic leader supported. Treasury's agreement maintains sanctions on corrupt Russian oligarch Deripaska. It would continue limiting his influence over companies subject to the agreement.

In addition to subjecting the companies and their officers to the unprecedented transparency and monitoring requirements, the agreement preserves Treasury's ability to snapback sanctions on the companies and their officers. If there is any evidence of further malfeasance, I expect Treasury to use that authority to the fullest.

In the meantime, the Democratic leader's political stunt should be rejected. I move to table this effort to overturn the hard and painstaking work of the career officials at Treasury, but I look forward to continuing our efforts to hold Putin and his cronies accountable in a thoughtful, far less politicized manner.

Vote on Motion to Table the Motion to Proceed

I move to table the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 2, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank my friend from Rhode Island.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for S.J. Res. 2.

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

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.