Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the bill.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on an entirely different matter, like many of my colleagues, I watched images from Hong Kong this weekend and could not help but be moved by the residents of that metropolis. They are mounting a bold stand to preserve Hong Kong's autonomy from China and, by extension, defend their liberties. Over the weekend, more than 1 million residents, a staggering proportion of the population--about one in seven--took to the streets to protest a draft law that would allow the people of Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China. Hong Kong residents rightly view this measure as another erosion of the rule of law and tightening of Beijing's grip on their imperiled autonomy. These are not just students or lawyers or intellectuals who have taken to the streets but a broad cross-section of Hong Kong's diverse society--all age groups, all professions, all walks of life--all committed to preserving the personal freedoms and judicial independence that have made Hong Kong such a special and prosperous city. The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, which I sponsored, has, for nearly three decades, enshrined America's commitment to preserving Hong Kong's special status and its freedoms. This draft law is inconsistent with the Hong Kong Policy Act and puts Hong Kong on the path of becoming just another one of China's cities subject to Beijing's whims. As the Vice President stated last autumn, ``For a time, Beijing inched toward greater liberty and respect for human rights. But in recent years, China has taken a sharp U-turn toward control and oppression of its own people.'' I regret that reports from Guangdong to Xinjiang continue to prove him right as Beijing's grip on its own people grows tighter, even as the rest of the world marks its 30th anniversary of the violence in Tiananmen Square. I encourage the administration to stay engaged and express our concerns with the authorities in Hong Kong before this proposal becomes law and the Chinese Communist Party further extends its control over the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on one final matter, last week's announcement of progress in negotiations with Mexico was a welcome development. It staved off the threat that tariffs would disrupt an important trading relationship and secured a promise that Mexican authorities will take more responsibility for their own borders, but, as I said yesterday, while this was a critical step, it does not absolve Congress of our duty to finally act--not even close. It was May 1 when the administration first transmitted to Congress its urgent request for supplemental border funding. That will be 6 weeks ago tomorrow that the administration set up a request for supplemental funding for the crisis at the border--6 weeks--and this emergency request is essentially falling on deaf ears among our Democratic colleagues. In the meantime, we should note that the month of May marks a third straight month with more than 100,000 individuals apprehended at the southern border. In fact, last month's total of more than 140,000 was the largest in the last 13 years of CBP data. By the way, that includes more than 84,000 family units and more than 11,000 unaccompanied children. These are enormous numbers of people showing up at our border. The American personnel who are charged with securing our Nation and looking after these individuals are simply overwhelmed. The agencies are overwhelmed. The facilities are overwhelmed. It is a true humanitarian crisis, totally unsustainable for these individuals for whom our national security and rule of law dictate that we need to detain. At overcrowded facilities, beds are in short supply, medical care is wearing thin, money and personnel from across the Department of Homeland Security are being diverted from other important missions on an emergency basis to cover shortfalls, but even that cannot go on much longer. This is from John Sanders, the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Control. He said: ``We are at a full-blown emergency . . . the system is broken.'' The system is broken--that from the head of Customs and Border Patrol. The professionals whom our Nation has entrusted to keep America safe and care for these people have been begging--literally begging--for more resources for 6 weeks. Their calls have solidified a national consensus that spans the entire political spectrum. More than 1 month ago, the editorial board of the New York Times--not what you call devoted admirers of the Trump administration--wrote an editorial they titled--listen to this headline: ``Congress, Give Trump His Border Money.'' That is the New York Times. They wrote: Something needs to be done. Soon. [But] unfortunately, political gamesmanship once again threatens to hold up desperately needed resources. That was the New York Times in early May, at the time both Houses of Congress were negotiating the supplemental funding bill for recent natural disasters, but Democrats chose to come down to the left of the New York Times' editorial pages--that is pretty hard to do--and decided to deny the White House this border money. One Member of the House Democratic conference complained that the need for border money was ``political.'' Political. Another House Democrat admitted to reporters that his own side was the problem. This is what he said: ``In my opinion, we do have to come up with some money. But we've got to convince our more progressive friends.'' Again, these are not resources for any remotely controversial cause. We are talking about humanitarian funding for caring for families and children who show up at the border in need of help. That is what we are talking about. This is not a subject where the political left should need week after week of convincing, but apparently our liberal colleagues just could not get past their animosity for the President, even on something like this. During these last 6 weeks, the House has found plenty of time and energy for purely partisan things. There has been plenty of histrionics and political theater. We have seen hearing room melodrama. We have seen some partisan messaging votes. We have seen plenty of political theater, opposing the President for the sake of opposing him. They have had time for all of that but nothing--nothing--for the urgent border crisis. So, May 5, the New York Times: ``Congress, Give Trump His Border Money.'' May 23, ``Democrats balked at allocating billions of dollars more toward border security.'' June 9, very recently: ``When Will Congress Get Serious About the Suffering at the Border?'' Two New York Times editorials say: Give Trump the money for the border crisis. This is breathtaking--the alliance between the New York Times editorial board and the Trump administration being ignored by our Democratic colleagues. So look, the question we have been asking ourselves every day as the House continues to ignore this crisis is, What is the problem here? I suspect it is the question men and women we ask to secure the border are asking one another every day. When will our Democratic colleagues get serious about this? Believe me, we know that our Democratic counterparts are not charter members of Donald Trump's personal fan club. We get that. They have made that abundantly clear over and over again. Their entire political agenda these days seems to be repeating that fact nice and loud, over and over again in case we hadn't already heard it. We are all plenty familiar with ``the resistance.'' We have seen that here in the Senate. That is why we have had so many nominations clogged up. But, look, ``the resistance'' doesn't pay the bills. ``The resistance'' doesn't produce the funding that the border facilities desperately need. ``The resistance'' doesn't plug the holes in our Nation's border security or improve humanitarian conditions down on the border. There is only one way to fix this--bipartisan legislation with supplemental border funding. That is what we need to do. So for everyone's sake, I think the entire country is hoping that Democrats remember their job is governing, not resisting. It is far past time to get serious about this and solve this problem. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 p.m., Wednesday, June 12, the Senate vote on the confirmation of the Barker, Maze, Smith, Barber, and Boulee nominations in the order listed.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, following the disposition of the Boulee nomination, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Stilwell nomination. This means that we will have six votes starting at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, my privilege to pay tribute to Dr. Mary Pauline Fox, a pioneer of public health in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, who passed away earlier this year at the age of 87. Mary's remarkable life included more than four decades of service to eastern Kentucky communities, and the full effect of her legacy will continue to be felt throughout the region for years to come. Mary began her exceptional career at the age of 19, graduating from Union College in Barbourville, KY. A trailblazer in her time, she then attended the University of Louisville's medical school as one of only five women in a class of 100. Mary also holds the distinction as one of the early women to participate in the Reserve Officers Training Corps. Soon after beginning her career as a doctor, the Kentucky Department of Health appointed Mary as a regional director, and for the next 7 years she oversaw healthcare delivery in 20 eastern Kentucky counties. Afterward, she served as the director of the Pike County Health Department for more than two decades. Mary only agreed to retire from her position after funding was secured to build the current health department facility located in Pikeville. To this day, that facility continues to operate in the same building, which now bears her name. Even at the end of her career, Mary refused to slow down. In coordination with the U.S. Department of State, she was part of the first public health group in our country invited to China. She remained committed to her community, giving sought-after lectures on public health issues throughout the Commonwealth. As a healer and a teacher, Mary made our Commonwealth a better place. Elaine and I commend her for her lifetime of service to others, and we send our condolences to her family and friends.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 45, S. 395.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 504 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCONNELL. I further ask unanimous consent that the Tillis-Sinema amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 245, submitted earlier today.