Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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 Carper.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 26, S. 483.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a 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 understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Leahy, and their House counterparts continued finalizing their legislative proposal to fund the government. Their negotiated solution would wrap up this year's appropriations and avoid another partial government shutdown. As our colleagues hammer out the final details, I would like to thank them again for their cooperative, bipartisan efforts that have brought us to this point. The agreement reached on Monday was achieved because the conference committee set aside far-left poison pills and utterly absurd demands. None of these radical nonstarters was allowed to torpedo the process. Notwithstanding weeks of over-the-top rhetoric from Speaker Pelosi, the agreement did not cave to the far-left demand that no more than a single dollar go toward new barriers on the southern border--no, indeed, it provides well over a billion such dollars. The negotiators also prevented last-minute efforts to hamstring the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement with an unprecedented statutory limit on their ability to detain criminal aliens in the interior of our country. Instead, here is what their agreement does provide. It provides another significant downpayment on the President's plan to secure our Nation's borders with new physical barriers and keep American communities safe. It provides nearly $1.4 billion for new barriers in the Border Patrol's highest priority areas--enough to build nearly twice as many miles as were funded last year. It gives ICE the capacity and the flexibility to continue responding to surges in illegal immigration. It continues to provide the President with appropriate reprogramming authority, so he can direct additional funding toward urgent homeland security priorities should circumstances require. Of course, in addition to all this, the legislation will wrap up all our outstanding regular appropriations bills and get the entire Federal Government funded the right way. It goes without saying that neither side is getting everything it wants. That is the way it goes in divided government. If the text of the bill reflects the principles agreed to on Monday, it won't be a perfect deal, but it will be a good deal. I hope that our colleagues will complete the process of turning these principles into legislation soon and final text that can become law before this Friday's deadline. We can't let any unrelated, cynical, partisan plays get in the way of finishing this important process. I understand, for example, that Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are apparently objecting, believe it or not, to a modest extension of the Violence Against Women Act. They want this authority to expire on Friday. Republicans believe that we should follow standard procedure and extend this important legislation through the end of the fiscal year, which is about 7 months. There are new chairmen in this Congress of both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and a modest extension of this authority would allow them to work on a longer term reauthorization of this important law. In addition, a modest extension of this law is consistent with how this matter has been handled in the past. Every time a continuing resolution was necessary in the past Congress, Republicans made sure it included an extension of VAWA. I don't know what cynical ploy my Democratic colleagues may be trying to pull here, but surely no political maneuvering should be worth letting the Violence Against Women Act lapse this Friday, 2 days from now. It is time to get this done.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I alluded to earlier this week, I have a feeling this conference is just getting started discussing Speaker Pelosi's signature bill, H.R. 1. I, for one, am eager to continue shining the spotlight on the Democrat Politician Protection Act and asking why, exactly, Washington Democrats are so intent on assigning themselves a whole lot more power over what American citizens can say about politics, how we can say it, and how we cast our ballots. Remember, among the many fairly blatant power plays built into this legislation is a naked attempt to turn our neutral Federal Election Commission into a partisan weapon. The FEC is a body that, since Watergate and for obvious reasons, has had an even-numbered membership and equal division between the two parties. Enforcement and penalty require both parties to agree, or at least one Commissioner from one party has to agree with three Commissioners of the other party. This is meant to ensure that complaints are evaluated on their substance, not for purely political considerations. I guess Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues are tired of playing fair and trying to persuade the old-fashioned way because the Democrat Politician Protection Act would take the FEC down to a five-member body and give sitting Presidents--listen to this one--it would give sitting Presidents the power to appoint the Chairperson. They would turn the FEC into a nakedly partisan body and give the sitting President the power to appoint the Chairperson--where his or her party would have a 3-to-2 advantage--who holds the keys to determine whom to investigate and what enforcement to pursue. The evenness of the FEC is a vital way to ensuring that Americans' political speech and campaigns for public office are regulated fairly and evenhandedly. Of course, that needs to be done on a bipartisan basis, but the Democrats want to throw that right out the window and carve out a partisan majority on this crucial Commission. This proposal is outrageous enough on its face, but just wait until you hear about all the new things the Democrat Politician Protection Act would let this newly partisan FEC actually do. First, they turn it over to the party of the President, so they have a clear majority to go after the minority. But let's see what they can do. There are incredibly vague new standards that seem tailor-made to give this partisan FEC the maximum latitude to penalize or silence certain speech. You begin to get the picture. Of course, this partisan FEC is going to want to silence the voices of its opponents. Let me give a few examples. The newly partisan FEC would be handed the ability to determine what kind of speech is ``campaign-related''--growing its jurisdiction and widening its bureaucratic wingspan over more of the public discourse, including issues of the day and not just elections. Private citizens, for example, would be required to make the government aware of times they spend even small amounts of money in engaging in First Amendment activities. Private citizens have to notify the government if they are going to engage in spending small amounts of money on First Amendment activities--on expressing themselves--or they will face penalties. More speech would fall into this category whereby Americans would have to dutifully notify Federal bureaucrats that they are speaking their minds or else pay a fine. To put it another way, it is free speech as long as you fill out government forms and mail a couple of carbon copies to Washington. In other cases, the Democrats want to impose stunningly vague, broad, and potentially unconstitutional restrictions on the abilities of all kinds of advocacy groups--on all sides of the political spectrum--to exercise their constitutional right to speak out about elected politicians and their positions on substantive issues. Let's go over that again because I know this is a technical subject. Under the guise of cracking down on ``super PAC coordination,'' the Democrats want to give a partisan FEC new powers to prohibit advocacy groups from weighing in on politicians' job performances and the issues of the day under a broad set of new conditions. Washington Democrats want individual American citizens, civic groups, trade associations, labor unions, and nonprofits to face more restrictions, more hurdles, and more potential penalties for daring to have opinions about the political races that decide who goes to Washington in the first place. Call me old-fashioned, but I remember when both political parties were more interested in trying to win debates than in trying to shut down debates. This will be an FEC designed to stifle free speech and tilt the playing field in the direction of the President's party. I remember when constitutionally minded leaders on both sides of the aisle would have recoiled at efforts to chill or even to prohibit a private citizen's ability to speak. Let's not forget, in every one of these cases, when these fuzzy, new lines and vague rules need enforcing, who has the final say? Why, it is the newly partisan Federal Election Commission that determines who gets to speak and who doesn't. My Democratic colleagues are trying to muddy the rule book and mount a hostile takeover of the referees all at the same time. Let me just close with this. Back in 1974, as the creation of the FEC was debated here in this Chamber, California Democratic Senator Alan Cranston gave this warning: ``The FEC has such a potential for abuse in our democratic society that the President should not be given power over the Commission.'' Wise words. Back then, a California Democrat was warning against a partisan takeover of the American electoral system. It is the distinguished Member of the House from San Francisco, Speaker Pelosi, who is now, today, cheerleading for that very change. The Democratic Party has changed its views on this subject a lot in the last 45 years, but the purpose of the FEC has not changed one bit, and neither has the importance of the First Amendment.

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, 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. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, February 14; 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 at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Barr nomination.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there are two items at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. McCONNELL. I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Mr. McCONNELL

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