Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls be waived.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, tomorrow the Senate will vote on the plan put forward by President Trump to reopen the closed portions of the Federal Government right away, increase security on our southern border, deliver disaster recovery funding, and address some outstanding immigration issues. By way of reminder, this is a compromise measure that was carefully designed to include the kinds of ideas Democrats have been eager to support, including very recently. First and foremost, the legislation would end this partial shutdown and bring all parts of the Federal Government back online for the American people. Normal operations would resume. Federal workers would receive backpay and continue to be paid. This could happen quickly. The bill also takes a compromise approach to the underlying disagreement that brought us to this point. It would fully fund the border security priorities identified by the men and women actually working on the ground: investments in surveillance and security technologies, in recruiting and training new Border Patrol agents, and, yes, additional funding for physical barriers like the walls and fences which Democratic Senators used to boast about voting for and which President Obama's administration bragged about building. Of course, the reality of a divided government is that negotiations do not leave either side with their perfect plan. So the President went out of his way to include additional items that have been priority areas for Democrats. For example, the proposal would grant 3-year lawful status for certain currently enrolled DACA recipients and individuals under TPS. Finally, the White House proposal also includes all seven of our regular order appropriations bills, the product of bipartisan work in this body and in the House throughout last year. So the President's compromise offer should command serious consideration in both Houses of Congress. On day 33 of this partial government shutdown, we have before us a bill to immediately reopen the Federal Government, deliver all remaining full-year appropriations measures, support disaster recovery efforts, fully fund comprehensive border security priorities, and address some outstanding immigration issues. It is hard to think of a good reason to oppose this, but my Democratic friends are trying to come up with something--anything--to justify prolonging the stalemate. I have a great deal of respect for my friends across the aisle, but honestly this is getting downright silly--downright silly. Yesterday the Democratic leader announced that he was denouncing President Trump's proposal because ``there were no serious negotiations with any Democrat.'' It would appear my friend is offended that he wasn't consulted while this compromise was under construction. So let's stop and think about that for a minute. For days--weeks now--the American people have seen the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House make a public strategy out of refusing to negotiate. That has been their position; that we will not negotiate. They have said it publicly. They have announced they are not interested in a negotiated solution to this impasse, not interested in meeting the President halfway on immigration policy or anything else, happy to keep the government closed unless and until everyone agrees to move forward in their preferred manner with no concessions and nothing for border security. Now, that has been the Democrats' public stance. Our friends across the aisle have said repeatedly that they have no intention to negotiate out of the stalemate. The Speaker of the House joked that she would allow $1--$1--for physical barriers like wall fencing. That is why they have turned away from multiple opportunities to negotiate at the White House in recent weeks. So my friend across the aisle is attempting quite the two-step here. First, the Democratic leader repeatedly said he wasn't interested in any talks at this point, but then when President Trump puts forward a proposal to move us forward, my colleague complains he wasn't consulted. Well, the President and the American people are picking up on the strangeness of the Democratic leader's strategy of refusing to even negotiate. Here is one headline from a newspaper editorial that echoes this growing national sentiment. Here is what he said: ``Trump made an offer--it's time for Democrats to start negotiating.'' This is from the Washington Post--the Washington Post: [T]o refuse even to talk until the government reopens does no favors to sidelined federal workers. [A] measure of statesmanship for a member of Congress now is the ability to accept some disappointments, and shrug off the inevitable attacks from the purists. There are signs that Democratic Members in both Chambers are starting to come to the same conclusion, starting to reject their leaders' refusal to even negotiate. Here is what a few of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate have said in the last few days: I personally don't think a border wall is in and of itself immoral. Here is another: Everybody is for border security. . . . There are places a wall makes sense. Here are a few of our Democratic colleagues over in the House: If we don't compromise, the American people are the ones who get hurt. Another said: If I had the opportunity to vote for some sort of deal, I would. Another said: There is common ground. . . . We do have to figure out how to secure our borders. Even Speaker Pelosi's own House majority leader broke completely with her extreme position in a television interview just yesterday. When asked if he would personally be open to wall funding, Congressman Hoyer replied: Look, I think physical barriers are part of the solution. That is the majority leader of the House of Representatives. When the news anchor pressed him on Speaker Pelosi's statement that a wall is immoral, Majority Leader Hoyer replied: It depends on what a wall is used for, whether it's moral or immoral. If it is protecting people, it is moral. That is not the issue. He went on: We want to make sure that people who come into the United States are authorized to do so. . . . We are for border security and I think we can get there. So more and more Democrats seem to be coming to the same collusion as the rest of us. It is time to make a deal--time to make a deal. Fortunately, a deal is on the table. It is a deal for everyone who would rather reopen the government, invest in border security, and secure more certainty for DACA recipients than sacrifice all that for the sake of this radical new position that physical barriers, like walls or fencing, are inherently immoral. So the President has produced a fair compromise that pairs full-year government funding with immigration policy priorities from both sides. Enough political spite--enough. Enough showboating for ``the Resistance.'' Enough refusing to join in talks and then complaining you weren't consulted. Our Federal workforce and the American people deserve a whole lot better than this. I can't believe the bulk of our Democratic colleagues really see opposing the President as more important--more important--to their constituents than restoring full government function, paying our Federal employees, securing the border, and more certainty for the DACA population. When we vote on the President's plan tomorrow, we will see what each Senator decides to prioritize. Covington Catholic High School Madam President, on one final and totally different matter, I need to say a few words about something that took place this past weekend. Last week, Kentuckians of all ages traveled to our Nation's Capital to exercise our fundamental American rights to peacefully assemble and petition the government. Unfortunately for the students of Covington Catholic High School, their participation has resulted in threats on their lives. Far-left activists and members of the national and State media isolated a very few seconds of video footage from any shred of context, and many decided it was time to attack and denigrate these young people. Because of what some highly partisan observers thought--thought--they saw in a few seconds of confusing video, these kids, their school, and their families were met with a deluge--a virtual deluge--of partisan vitriol and hatred from people who never met them and had no idea what had taken place. Some prominent figures even used this pile-on to propose curtailing the First Amendment for groups with whom they disagree, even targeting the students' hats. How quickly some seem to forget why the Framers insisted on these protections in the first place. In a matter of hours, these students were tried, convicted, and sentenced by the media, where accuracy is irrelevant and the presumption of innocence does not exist. To their credit, some apologized for their commentary upon learning more, but by that point too much damage had already been done. Because of the startling death threats against these students and their families, Covington Catholic--which, by the way, is in Kentucky-- was closed yesterday. The school's administration is working closely with law enforcement, but it is unclear when any sense of normalcy might return. This time, it is families in my home State who are paying the price for exercising their freedoms. Sadly, this kind of fact-free rush to judgment is becoming an all-too-often occurrence. If we can learn anything from this weekend, here is what I hope it is: When the rush for headlines takes precedence over the facts, mistakes are made, and our rights as Americans are put at risk. This trend is particularly troubling when young people are involved. Signing Authority Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senior Senator from Alaska be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions today.

Mr. McCONNELL. I object.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to mark the first anniversary of the tragic shooting at Marshall County High School, which took place 1 year ago today in Benton, KY. Bailey Holt and Preston Cope, both 15, began that morning just like any other. Their parents and friends described Bailey and Preston as bright kids with promising futures ahead, but this peaceful community was shattered when a fellow student opened fire, taking Bailey and Preston's lives, and leaving nearly 20 additional students wounded. Their families were left to grieve, and for the past year, the community has done its best to provide comfort and put the pieces back together. This evening, the Marshall County community will join together once again to remember the victims and to continue the healing. As they do, my prayers and those of all their fellow Kentuckians will be with them.

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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Thursday, January 24; 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 time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. 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, here is what happened this weekend with respect to the continuing disagreement over funding the government. Two things happened over the weekend. On Saturday, the Senate was in session, and Members of both parties came to the floor to speak about the urgent need for a bipartisan compromise to reopen the Federal Government for the sake of Federal workers who need certainty, and for the sake of the American people who need their Nation's government fully online. Also on Saturday, President Trump rolled out a bold, comprehensive offer to do just that. It would break through this stalemate and would reopen government swiftly and deliver on a number of other policy priorities that are seen as important on both sides of the aisle. That is where we are on day 32 of this partial government shutdown. That is where we are as this new week begins. We have heard Members of Congress on all sides demanding a resolution to the impasse and a plan to quickly restore full funding to the Federal Government. We now have a plan from the President that would do exactly that, and quickly, while incorporating both the bipartisan work of the Appropriations Committee and bipartisan proposals on current immigration issues. The opportunity to end all of this is staring us right in the face. That is why we will vote on this legislation on the Senate floor this week. All that needs to happen is for our Democratic friends to agree that it is time to put the country ahead of politics, take ``yes'' for an answer, and vote to put this standoff behind us. To be clear, the proposal outlined by President Trump that we will consider in the Senate is the only proposal before us that can be signed by the President and immediately reopen the government. First and foremost, it is the only proposal that would reopen the government fully and immediately. But it is not merely a continuing resolution. It wouldn't kick the can down the road. Instead, it would fulfill Congress's responsibilities--without footnotes, without caveats, without hitting the snooze button. This measure would wrap up last year's historic progress on appropriations. It would pass all seven remaining regular-order funding bills and deliver supplemental funding for disaster recovery. Importantly, it is also the only proposal that would deliver a comprehensive investment in our Nation's border security. To be clear, that is comprehensive by the standards of Border Patrol experts themselves--the men and women actually on the ground. The bill would provide funding for each of the CBP's top 10 priority investments for border security, including a substantial investment in enhanced surveillance technologies, funding for the recruitment and training of 750 new Border Patrol agents, and $5.7 billion for the construction of the physical barrier along the highest priority areas of the southern border. In addition to these measures--similar to the ones that earned strong bipartisan support in the past--the legislation would take significant steps to modify certain areas of immigration policy. For example, it would grant 3-year lawful status for certain currently enrolled DACA recipients and individuals under TPS. These are areas where congressional Democrats have expressed vocal interest. Now they are included in a comprehensive proposal to open the government, fulfill our promise to the Federal employees, and address the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border. It is a proposal that the President will support. As I have stated consistently over the past month, that fact will earn it consideration in the Senate. A fully reopened Federal Government. Certainty and stability for Federal employees once again. The bipartisan appropriations legislation this body worked out together. The full investment in border security that the experts on the ground say they need. Changes to our immigration policies that are similar to the ones Democrats themselves have been fighting for in the past. To reject this proposal, Democrats would have to prioritize political combat with the President ahead of Federal workers, ahead of DACA recipients, ahead of border security, and ahead of stable and predictable funding. Is that really a price Democrats want to pay to prolong this episode, which they say they want to be over and done with? Is their plan truly to send Federal workers, DACA recipients, Customs and Border Patrol, and all Americans under the bus just to extend this run of political theater so they can look like champions of the so- called resistance? That is what some leading Democrats tried to assert right out of the gate, before they had even studied the President's new proposal. Speaker Pelosi came out right away and tried to rally her troops. She immediately described the President's proposals as ``unacceptable.'' That is not exactly surprising, considering that just a few weeks ago, the Speaker went out on a limb and declared that physical border security is on its face ``an immorality.'' Not every Democrat seems to see it that way. And how could they? One Democrat from the State of Washington admitted that ``the wall is not in itself a bad idea . . . it's been done.'' Another from Illinois asserted: ``If we have a partial wall, if we have fencing, if we have technology used to keep our border safe, all of that is fine.'' One of the Speaker's fellow Members of the California delegation said: ``We will support border security . . . all of its elements, including fences.'' This is just a small sampling of House Democrats' actual views about the merits of border security. These quotations don't even begin to touch all of the Democrats' demands that we reopen the government right away and their past calls to bring more certainty to individuals affected by DACA and TPS. On one side of the scale, we have all of my Democratic colleagues' declarations that we must reopen the rest of the Federal Government and get Federal workers their paychecks. We have their statements and past votes that show they believe securing our border with some physical barriers is a good thing. And we have their stated desire to help out a number of individuals with a more certain immigration status. That is one side of the scale. All that is on the other side is the far-left political animus for the current occupant of the White House. It seems to me it is about time to get serious. Even the Washington Post's editorial board, which is no fan of the President's and does not support every piece of this compromise proposal, had this to say about Democrats' outright refusal to negotiate. This is the Washington Post: To refuse even to talk until the government reopens does no favors to sidelined federal workers and contractors. . . . A measure of statesmanship for a member of Congress now is the ability to accept some disappointments, and shrug off the inevitable attacks from purists, if it means rescuing the lives of thousands of deserving people living among us. The Washington Post. If even the Post believes my friends the Democratic leaders' total refusal to negotiate has grown very stale, you have to believe many of their own Members must be starting to feel the same way. The President has made a comprehensive and bipartisan offer that would accomplish everything Democrats have said needs to be accomplished right now, immediately. It is a strong proposal. It is the only thing on the table, and later this week, we will vote on it.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I object.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, tomorrow Washington will play host to one of our Nation's proudest examples of peaceful activism: the 49th annual March for Life. Hundreds of thousands of Americans--from different States, different faiths, different ethnic backgrounds--will speak with one voice on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. I would like to welcome the marchers, especially my fellow Kentuckians, including Margie Montgomery, executive director of Kentucky Right to Life. I welcome all the marchers with gratitude. I am grateful they are helping shed light on this great shame of our society and bearing witness to the fact that human dignity and human rights are for everyone. As they march tomorrow, our friends can take pride in knowing our beliefs are not just consistent with morality and supported by science; they are also squarely within the mainstream of our society. According to one recent survey, a sizable majority of American adults hold views on the subject that are far, far from the absolutist position of the far left. Seventy-five percent of all Americans, including more than 60 percent of those who call themselves pro-choice, support more protection for the lives of unborn children. The far left is wedded to the most extreme positions on this subject. For example, the radical left wants America to remain one of only seven--seven--countries in the entire world, including China and North Korea, that allow elective abortions to occur after 20 weeks and even after the child is capable of feeling pain. The American people, however, know better. That survey also found that a majority of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded abortions. So I am proud today to stand with that majority of Americans and urge every Member of this body to join me in supporting the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act this afternoon. Thanks to the dedication of Senators Wicker, Roberts, Ernst, Lankford, Daines, Blunt, and many others, the bill before us would supplement existing law and bolster the important, longstanding protections of the Hyde amendment. By implementing a governmentwide, statutory prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage, S. 109 would close off Federal support for abortion that flows outside of the Hyde-protected regular appropriations process. In addition, it would explicitly ensure that Federal healthcare facilities are not party to abortions and increase transparency requirements for federally subsidized healthcare plans. I am proud to support this important step forward in protecting Americans' rights of conscience, and I urge every one of our colleagues to vote to advance it.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back our time.

Mr. McCONNELL. I object.

Mr. McCONNELL. Objection.

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 Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 259, which was received from the House.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 10.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 21, submitted earlier today.

Mr. McCONNELL. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion 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 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.