Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 23, following the prayer and pledge; further, that Senator Hoeven be recognized to deliver the address.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that the first hour be equally divided, with the Democrats controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half. I further ask that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow the for weekly conference meetings.

I would just say to my friend from Rhode Island that the Senator knows we just finished a lengthy floor consideration of the Keystone bill, with an open amendment process on this and other energy- related topics. The Senate voted on several amendments on climate change, including two from the Senator from Rhode Island, which is more opportunities to vote on these amendments than during the entire 113th Congress.

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 Brown.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 240.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is 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.

Mr. President, yesterday Democrats voted once again to protect politicians by blocking Homeland Security funding. I do not understand why they would want to block the Senate from even debating a bill to fund Homeland Security. It really does not make sense. You would think our Democratic friends would at least want to give the Senate an opportunity to make improvements to the bill, if they want to make such improvements. Why would our friends want to stand tall for the ability of politicians to do things President Obama himself has described as ``unwise and unfair''? Why would our friends go to the mat to protect the political class from the consequences of ``overreach'' that President Obama himself has referred to as ``ignoring the law''?

Well, here is the good news. There is a way forward. There is a way to end this Democratic filibuster. All it requires is a little common sense and a little Democratic courage. Remember, several Democrats previously indicated unease with the idea of overreaching in ways President Obama has seemed to imply would ``violate the law.'' So now is the time to back up those words. Now is the time for our friends on the other side of good conscience to vote with us to break this party's filibuster of Homeland Security funding and help us protect American democracy.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to H.R. 240 be agreed to and that it be in order for the managers or their designees to offer amendments in alternating fashion, with the majority manager or his designee being recognized to offer the first amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just a correction to my good friend the majority leader. There is no Republican opposition to the consent request that the Democratic leader objected to. It is clear on our side. It would allow us to have a fair amendment process. If there are differences with the House, regular order has a remedy. It is called going to conference. None of this is possible while the Democrats continue filibustering even getting on the bill. So therefore, I object.

Mr. President, as my good friend the Democratic leader reminded me for 8 years, the majority leader always gets the last word. So let me say again that the consent request that I offered, to which the Democratic leader objected, was unanimously approved on our side. What it would do would be to set up an order for amendments, rotating from side to side, which is exactly the open amendment process the Democratic leader seems to feel somehow we are preventing. That is exactly what I offered. I am not going to propound it again, but I will just lay out what it said: to offer amendments in an alternating fashion, with the majority manager or his designee being recognized to offer the first amendment. We would go back and forth and back and forth. So that is about as open as I can imagine. And there were no objections to it on the Republican side. Regardless of how Members who are being quoted by the Democratic leader may have observed the overall process for going forward, there is no objection over here to having amendments on both sides, alternating from one side to another.

There is a bipartisan desire to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and I am sure we will resolve this sometime in the next few weeks.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. on Monday, February 9, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 10, the nomination of Michael P. Botticelli to be Director of National Drug Control Policy. I further ask that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided on the nomination, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on confirmation, and that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 71, submitted earlier today.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, February 9; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then be in a period of morning business, equally divided, until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. I further ask that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 240.

Mr. President, it was good to see the new Senate come together and pass another bipartisan bill yesterday. It was a win for our Nation's heroes. It was yet another win for the American people. But that was only one of the votes we took because just hours after joining Republicans to do something good for our veterans, Democrats voted to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security. It was enough to give anyone whiplash.

Now Americans are wondering, what could possibly lead Democrats to filibuster Homeland Security funding? The legislation Democrats are filibustering would fund the Department of Homeland Security. It would also protect American democracy from overreach, described by President Obama as ``unwise and unfair.'' That is it. You would think that a bill such as this would pass overwhelmingly. You would think that at least the Democrats would allow the Senate an opportunity to improve the bill if it needs to be improved. But Democrats voted to filibuster the bill outright. They prevented the legislation from even being debated.

Today's Democratic Party seems willing to go to any extreme to protect the kind of Executive overreach President Obama once described as ``not how our democracy functions.'' It would go so far as to block Homeland Security funding and to give the President the opportunity to continue to do what he is doing.

The whole situation is a bit perplexing given what some of our colleagues said just a few weeks ago, given what they said about the overreach President Obama referred to as ``ignoring the law.'' One Democratic Senator said that ``the President shouldn't make such significant policy changes on his own.'' Another Senator claimed he was ``concerned about the constitutional separation of powers.'' He said, ``The Constitution doesn't say if the Congress fails to act then the President can do x, y, and z. It just doesn't.'' A third Democratic Senator had this to say of the President's plan for overreach: ``It makes me uncomfortable.'' Yet all of these Senators voted to shut down debate and block funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Every last Democrat voted to filibuster rather than work across the aisle to address the very issue they claim to be concerned about.

Perhaps today's Democratic Party is so devoted to the right of politicians to engage in action that would, as the President seemed to imply, ``violate the law,'' that it cannot tolerate dissent. But that is no reason to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. That is no reason to prevent the Senate from even debating whether to fund the Department.

So the Democrats' Homeland Security filibuster needs to end now. Democratic Senators who say they are serious about keeping our Nation safe and addressing what President Obama acknowledged as ``unwise and unfair'' overreach need to prove it.

Recognition Of The Acting Minority Leader

Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 240.

Mr. President, last night I had the honor of speaking at a bourbon event hosted by the Henry Clay Center for Statesmanship and the Kentucky Distillers' Association here in Washington, DC. This event was for Kentuckians and by Kentuckians and featured the so-called ``Bourbon Barrel of Compromise'' that had been delivered from Ashland, the Henry Clay Estate in Lexington, KY. I would ask that my remarks at that event last night be entered into the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee be discharged from consideration of S. Res. 63 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 12, which is at the desk.

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