[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S305-S308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FEDERAL REGISTER PRINTING SAVINGS ACT OF 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the Message 
from the House.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 195) entitled ``An Act to amend 
     title 44, United States Code, to restrict the distribution of 
     free printed copies of the Federal Register to Members of 
     Congress and other officers and employees of the United 
     States, and for other purposes.'', with an amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment to H.R. 195.
  I ask unanimous consent that there now be up to 10 minutes of debate, 
equally divided, on the motion to concur and that following the use or 
yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the motion to concur 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would simply like to read a statement 
from Dana W. White, chief Pentagon spokesperson:

       We have been working under a Continuing Resolution for 
     three years now. Our current CR expires tomorrow, 19 Jan. 
     This is wasteful and destructive. We need a fully-funded FY18 
     budget or face ramifications on our military.

  The leader wants to move that very CR that the Pentagon objects to 
even without a 60-vote margin. I strenuously object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on 
the motion to concur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     195.
         Mitch McConnell, John Boozman, Marco Rubio, Deb Fischer, 
           John Barrasso, Richard Burr, John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, 
           John Hoeven, Richard C. Shelby, Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst, 
           James M. Inhofe, Shelley Moore Capito, Steve Daines, 
           James Lankford, Roy Blunt.


                Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 1903

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment to H.R. 195, with a further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to concur 
     in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 195, 
     with an amendment numbered 1903.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end add the following.
       ``This Act shall take effect 1 day after the date of 
     enactment.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur 
with amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1904 to Amendment No. 1903

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1904 to amendment No. 1903.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''

                Motion to Refer with Amendment No. 1905

  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to refer the House message on H.R. 195 to the 
Committee on Appropriations to report back forthwith with instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to refer 
     the House message on H.R. 195 to the Committee on 
     Appropriations to report back forthwith with instructions, 
     being amendment numbered 1905.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end add the following.
       ``This Act shall take effect 3 days after the date of 
     enactment.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1906

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the 
instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1906 to the instructions of the motion to 
     refer H.R. 195 to the Committee on Appropriations.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1907 to Amendment No. 1906

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1907 to amendment No. 1906.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``4'' and insert ``5''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, to delay a vote on cloture makes no sense 
when we all know the outcome. The government's funding expires tomorrow 
night at midnight. Let's vote tonight on cloture so we can move forward 
so, perhaps, we can bring the President to the table--if not, so we can 
undergo serious negotiations to get things done.
  You have just heard from the Pentagon. The Pentagon thinks this CR is 
wrong for our military. This is again the statement from Dana White, 
the chief Pentagon spokesperson. I want to repeat it so my colleagues 
can all hear it.

       We have been working under a Continuing Resolution for 
     three years now. Our current CR expires tomorrow, 19 Jan. 
     This is wasteful and destructive. We need a fully-funded FY18 
     budget or face ramifications on our military.

  Because of the urgent needs we face--the military and so many of the 
others: opioids, veterans, pensions--we should not delay any further. 
We should move cloture tonight and see the outcome--I think we all know 
it will be defeated--and start serious negotiations tomorrow morning. 
That is what we should do.
  I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived and 
that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion filed on the motion 
to

[[Page S306]]

concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 195 ripen 
at 10 p.m. on Thursday, January 18--10 p.m. tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the leader addressed extensively what was 
happening before the vote on the motion to proceed. I would like to 
address that now.
  The House of Representatives has sent the Senate a continuing 
resolution that has been constructed by the Republican Speaker and 
passed without the consultation of House Democrats or Senate Democrats, 
whatsoever. The Republican leader is now saying to us: Take it or leave 
it.
  Here is why Members from both sides of the aisle want to leave it. We 
have been skating by on continuing resolution after continuing 
resolution for almost 6 months. First, we passed a 3-month CR. Then we 
passed a 2-week CR and then a 1-month CR. Now we are offering another 
month-long delay of the inevitable.
  We cannot keep kicking the can down the road and shuffling our feet 
after it. In another month, we will be right back here at this moment 
with the same web of problems at our feet and in no better position to 
solve them. The government of the most powerful nation in the world 
should, simply, not be run this way.
  These successive, short-term funding bills hurt our military, as I 
have mentioned. Just ask Secretary Mattis if this is what he would 
prefer we do--another continuing resolution--or an honest to goodness 
budget that allows our Defense Department to plan ahead and meet its 
obligations. We all know he would prefer the latter.
  That is why some of my Republican colleagues have already said they 
join with Democrats to reject this bill. They know, like I know, that 
this is no way to do our business. This is not a partisan issue. We 
should be united in trying to come to a solution, not just kick the can 
down the road.
  The truth is that we don't have to do it this way. In his speech 
earlier, the majority leader, my friend, tried to reduce this to a 
binary choice: Take my bill or else shut down the government.
  That is not the case. It is simply not. These aren't the only options 
available to him or to any of us. Democrats and Republicans have been 
negotiating for months about several issues. A bipartisan deal is 
within reach on lifting the caps for both defense and domestic 
spending, on healthcare issues, on disaster relief, on immigration 
issues. A bipartisan deal is within reach. I have been a part of those 
negotiations on all of these issues, and now is the time to reach it, 
not a month from now.
  One reason we haven't gotten one already, frankly, is that the 
President has been impervious to compromise for several months. Another 
is that he cannot maintain a consistent position. We all know that. He 
accepts bipartisan overtures on one day only to reject them on the 
next. He makes and then rescinds and then remakes demands. He 
encourages compromise one day only to thwart it the next by saying he 
will only accept a deal that gives him 100 percent of what he wants. 
That is not what a great deal maker does.
  Folks, the people in Congress in his own party don't even know what 
he wants. I feel for them. I feel for our leader. He is in an awful, 
difficult position. I know that. We all know that. Yesterday, Leader 
McConnell said that he is still trying to figure out what the President 
is for. Only a few moments ago, the leader said the President's views 
have not been made fully apparent yet. Letting this ambivalence and 
chaos continue for another month is just not the answer. It is not a 
good way to get a deal. It is not the right way to run our country--our 
dear, beloved country.
  Tonight or tomorrow, the President will see--I had hoped it would be 
tonight; we cannot waste any time--that this approach was rejected on a 
bipartisan basis. Hopefully, he will see the light, come to the table, 
and negotiate seriously for the first time in this lengthy process.
  Ultimately, the answer here might be to pursue an idea that has been 
floated by a few of my Republican colleagues--pass a clean extension of 
government funding for 4 or 5 days to give us a hard, final deadline to 
finalize a deal. Passing a short-term continuing resolution ensures 
that both sides remain at the table and can quickly reach a deal that 
funds our military, our domestic priorities, like the fight against 
opioids, that protects Dreamers, and that funds healthcare and aid for 
those harmed by recent disasters. Everyone in this Chamber wants some 
of those things, if not all.
  Frankly, I think we can still solve this by the deadline tomorrow. As 
my friend from South Carolina said: We could solve all of this in 30 
minutes if only folks were willing. It may not quite be 30 minutes, but 
knowing the negotiations as I do, we could do it rather quickly. 
Certainly, it wouldn't take us 30 days.
  Hopefully, after the CR goes down, folks will be willing, and with a 
little more time on our hands, maybe the majority leader--we are trying 
to help you, Mitch--can pin down just what President Trump wants in 
order to get a deal. Nobody wants to shut down the government. 
Democrats don't want to shut down the government, and Republicans don't 
want to shut down the government. I believe that sincerely. The only 
person who has ever rooted for a shutdown, frankly, is our President, 
who said our country could use a good shutdown. Only President Trump 
could come up with that phrasing. Nobody else thinks it is a good 
shutdown. Of course, no shutdown can be good for the American people. 
Let us strive to avoid one.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this measure for the reasons I 
mentioned. It was not fair. We were not consulted. It was take it or 
leave it. That is not how it should work. That is how almost none of us 
want this to work.
  If we cannot figure this out by tomorrow night, I urge the majority 
leader, in particular, and the majority to support a clean extension of 
funding for a few days so that we can finally come to a resolution and 
get down to so many of the other things that we need to do in this 
Chamber.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is not terribly complicated.
  We have been in discussions for a couple of months on all of the 
issues that are urgent--the funding of the government, the Children's 
Health Insurance Program--and other matters that we all know need to be 
dealt with.
  My good friend, the Democratic leader, is saying we have had too many 
continuing resolutions but suggests we pass yet another one, and the 
bill that is before us that we just voted to proceed to, I believe, 
enjoys the support--every element of it enjoys the support of almost 
everybody on both sides of the aisle. So it is appropriate to ask the 
question, Why are we where we are? There is only one reason: the 
continuous interjection of an issue, about which there is no urgency, 
into a discussion about how to deal with a potpourri of issues that do 
need to be urgently met, and that is the issue of illegal immigration.
  So what our friends on the other side are saying is, they are 
prepared to shut down the government over the issue of illegal 
immigration. On that issue, there is a bipartisan interest in solving 
the DACA problem, but the President has given us until March. The last 
time I looked this was January. My colleagues, where is the urgency 
here? There isn't any.
  So the reason these talks have gone on so long is because they have 
insisted, continuously, on throwing the illegal immigration issue into 
the pool of these other issues and are now saying to the American 
people: We are going to shut the government down if we can't have our 
way on this issue right now, even though it only becomes a problem in 
March.
  So I hope the American people understand why we are where we are. No 
amount of trying to obfuscate this and confuse it with all of these 
other issues makes any sense at all. There is pretty broad bipartisan 
agreement that we need to address every single one of these issues, but 
the reason we are here right now is, our friends on the other side say: 
Solve this illegal immigration problem right now or we are going to 
shut the government down. That is a

[[Page S307]]

fact. That is not spin. That is a fact. That is the only reason why we 
are where we are tonight. So I hope the American people will not be 
confused about this.
  We want to fund the government. We want to solve the S-CHIP problem 
and a variety of other issues that almost all others agree on, and we 
wanted to do it before tomorrow night, but my assumption is at some 
point between now and tomorrow night, 41 Members of the opposition 
party are going to prevent us from passing a measure, the details of 
which they all support, because they can't get their way on this 
illegal immigration issue which really only becomes urgent in March.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, just a brief rejoinder. First, there have 
been very good attempts, bipartisan attempts to solve this problem. 
Three Democrats and three Republicans met the problem right in the 
middle. It was the other side, your side, Leader, that didn't want to 
go along with that agreement. It was a fair and decent agreement in 
which each side gave. It is an important agreement. It is a vital 
agreement, and no one--no one--no one--has figured out a way to pass a 
bill independently in February. Any vote, any bill that might get a 
majority of the Republicans in the House on this issue will not get 
Democrats, and any bill that gets a majority of Democrats will not get 
a majority of the Republican side in the House and will not be put on 
the floor. So this is the way to go on that issue, but there are many 
other issues out here too. Make no mistake about it.
  Opioids. Our national lifespan rate has declined, how long we live 
has declined because of opioids. We haven't funded it. Every one of us 
in our States knows we need that. This resolution does nothing on 
opioids.
  Veterans. In my State and in your States, veterans are waiting in 
line for treatment after they risked their lives for us. This 
resolution doesn't fund it. You say: Well, maybe we will do it after a 
month, but we sure haven't done it for 6 months.
  What about pensions? The millions of Americans, working people, who 
have paid in month after month who lost salary--they declined salary 
increases so they would know they could live a life of decency--hardly 
wealth--when they retire, that is being extinguished. We have an urgent 
obligation to deal with those people. We feel it, and I know many 
people on the other side feel it.
  There are so many other issues. Healthcare issues. I see my friend 
from Maine. We had a discussion last night, and I talked subsequently 
to my friend from Washington State and my friend from Florida. We could 
come to an arrangement on that rather quickly and deal with that issue.
  Disaster relief for Texas, for Florida, for Puerto Rico, and for the 
West. We need to deal with that issue as well. So there are lots of 
issues to deal with, and on all of these important issues, all of them, 
this resolution kicks the can down the road and gives us no reason to 
believe it will be any different than the first CR, the second CR, the 
third CR, and the fourth CR.
  What we are proposing is not original with us. It was proposed by 
three or four Members on that side of the aisle. A very short-term 
increase would force the President to the table, hopefully, because 
that has been the barrier, in the words of the majority leader, for 
solving the DACA problem and other issues and would get us to act. 
These are not such easy issues. Without a deadline, we may never get 
them done, and the fears of the Pentagon, so well stated tonight by the 
DOD spokesperson, will get worse and worse and worse.
  So I would, in an act of bipartisanship--not accusing one side or the 
other--I didn't accuse one side or the other of shutting down the 
government. I am not trying to play for political points, even false 
ones. I am trying to get us to come together in a bipartisan nature to 
get something done. I hope all of us on both sides of the aisle rise to 
the occasion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Democratic leader has mentioned a 
variety of issues, all of which were being discussed over the last 2 
months in the hopes that we could reach an agreement to address them 
all. So now, I gather, he is saying he opposes the bill because it 
doesn't have everything we have been talking about in it, even though 
the things that are in the bill he does like. So the complaint now is, 
it doesn't have the other issues in it. The reason it doesn't have the 
other issues in it is because we haven't been able to reach a global 
agreement on how much we are going to spend.
  These talks have been going on endlessly. Many of you have not been 
involved in them. We are exhausted. On and on and on we have been 
talking about all this--everything the Democratic leader has mentioned. 
Why will they never let us reach an agreement? Illegal immigration. 
That is what they shoehorned into all this--shoehorned that issue right 
into this and said: We will not solve any of this other stuff until we 
deal with this.
  Now I gather the Democratic leader is questioning the good faith of 
some of us about whether we want to deal with the DACA issue. I do. I 
see Senator Cotton back here, Senator Tillis--I think we all would like 
to deal with the DACA issue, but there are some serious problems with 
legal immigration, and this is a big enough issue to warrant being 
discussed all by itself without being shoehorned into a bill full of 
real emergencies because there is no real emergency in the immigration 
area. We have until March to deal with it.
  So make no mistake about it, we are where we are for one reason and 
one reason only, within a day of a government shutdown, and that is the 
insistence of our friends on the other side that we deal with this 
nonemergency right now because they were unwilling to close out all of 
these other issues we have been discussing ad nauseam, literally for 
months.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader 
clarifying for us what this is all about, and actually I have to thank 
the Democratic leader for clarifying that this is really about the 
issue of illegal immigration. That is the reason there has been no 
agreement on spending caps, because our friends across the aisle don't 
want to agree on spending caps because they want to use everything else 
as leverage in order to get an outcome on this dispute over illegal 
immigration.
  As the majority leader pointed out, this isn't so much about what is 
in the bill as what they said should be in the bill because I presume 
our colleagues are for the 6-year reauthorization of the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, which was voted almost unanimously out on a 
bipartisan basis in the Senate Finance Committee. The matter of 
veterans that the Democratic leader mentioned--well, veterans are going 
to be hurt by what they have done or will do tomorrow, I presume, in 
defeating this 1-month continuing resolution.
  I find it rather disingenuous to say we are against this short-term 
continuing resolution because we want another short-term continuing 
resolution, guaranteeing that there will yet again be another short-
term resolution. Once the spending caps are agreed to, it is going to 
take a couple of weeks for the bill to be put together so we can 
actually vote on it. So our colleagues across the aisle who say they 
want another 3- or 4-day continuing resolution, that guarantees yet 
another continuing resolution, and all of this is really camouflage to 
hide their true intention--as the majority leader pointed out--trying 
to force a decision where there is yet not consensus and a willingness 
of the President to support it on the issue of Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals. That deadline for people who can no longer re-sign 
up is March 5. In the meantime, nobody is in any jeopardy, none of the 
690,000 young people who were brought here as children are in any kind 
of jeopardy, and we are having discussions on a daily basis. We had one 
today with Senator Durbin. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip; the 
majority leader in the House, Kevin McCarthy; and I again met with the 
White House and Department of Homeland Security to try to make some 
progress, and I think there was the beginning of some real progress 
toward a resolution.
  I find it disingenuous to try to claim that we are killing this 1-
month CR,

[[Page S308]]

continuing resolution, because we don't want to hurt the military. This 
damages the military because it creates further chaos and uncertainty 
when it comes to a long-term spending deal because our military has 
been underfunded for way too long. Why? Because our Democratic 
colleagues will not agree to fund our national defense until we agree 
to raise spending on nondefense matters. So it strikes me as very odd 
that you would say you are voting against this continuing resolution 
because you are against continuing resolutions only to guarantee that 
we will have at least two more and then to claim it is about something 
else, when really it is about the matter of illegal immigration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that what we are 
trying to achieve is fund the military and critical agencies of our 
government immediately and to do it with a budget, to do it with 
appropriations bills. I have to use that term and remind you, yes, we 
used to have appropriations bills in the U.S. Senate--not anymore. We 
deal with continuing resolutions, we lurch from week to week, day to 
day, month to month, and as the Secretary of Defense has told us, we 
are not doing the men and women of the military any favors with this 
kind of approach. Make no mistake about it, the Democrats are soundly 
behind national security, and we want to fund them properly rather than 
the way they have been funded to this date.
  Let me address another issue that has been raised--and my name has 
been mentioned by my friend from Texas. It has been said on the floor 
tonight that there is no urgency. Where's the urgency when it comes to 
DACA? Where is the urgency when it comes to Dreamers? If you want to 
know the urgency, look into the Gallery behind me. Look at the people 
who have gathered here late this night, who are following every word 
that we are debating. Why are they here if there is no urgency?
  There is an urgency. There is an urgency in their lives because of 
the uncertainty of tomorrow--whether tomorrow will mean deportation for 
themselves and their families, whether they will be able to work, 
complete school, have a life in America. Yes, there is a real urgency, 
and let me tell you what we have done about that urgency.
  A group of us--three Democrats and three Republican Senators--sat 
down 4 months ago to answer President Trump's challenge to replace 
DACA. Was there a meeting of a committee in this Senate on the same 
subject? There was one public hearing, but no bill, no markup, nothing. 
The activity really came from and evolved from the six of us working 
together--three Democrats and three Republicans. We reached an 
agreement. It wasn't easy. Ask the Senators involved on your side of 
the aisle or on our side of the aisle. We have presented it to the 
Senate, we have defended it over the last several weeks, and I want to 
thank the additional four Republican Senators who have joined us in 
this effort to finally enact a bipartisan solution to this. So to say 
that we have done nothing and we have so much time--let me tell you, 
there is a sense of urgency here.
  Just this week, when the Secretary of DHS testified before the 
Judiciary Committee, she conceded the fact that the President does not 
have authority to extend this deadline of March 5, that we are going 
back and forth in court as to whether there will be any protection for 
these young people whatsoever, and she acknowledged that her Department 
has said that it will take them 6 months to write the regulations once 
we pass the law that will affect their lives and the lives of hundreds 
of thousands.
  You know how I feel about this issue. Some of you have presided over 
the Senate, have seen the presentations we have made over the years. I 
have brought 107 photographs to the floor so that people could see the 
urgency and need for this issue now. It is sad; it is unfortunate that 
those who stand on the floor tonight continue to characterize these as 
illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants. Children, toddlers, infants 
brought to the United States, who have lived their whole lives here and 
are simply asking for a chance to be part of our future, are being 
swept away as illegal immigrants. They are more than that. They are the 
sons and daughters of America who want to be part of our future. They 
are people who inspire me every day. They are folks who guarantee us 
that the American Dream will be alive for another generation because 
they are willing to work for it, to study for it, and to fight for it. 
This is worth our attention.
  We have produced this bipartisan measure. A lot of hard work went 
into it. We would simply ask that the Senate take up the measure that 
we produced or produce a better one, and the leadership has refused. 
That is part of the reason we find ourselves at this moment, but I want 
to assure you, it is an urgent matter. Their lives matter too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The majority leader.


                  Orders for Friday, January 19, 2018

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Friday, 
January 19; 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 concur in the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 195.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KING. I don't understand why we are adjourning when we are in 
this urgent situation. We could vote tonight on cloture and have an 
entire day tomorrow to work on this matter. This is irresponsible, and 
I just don't understand it, so I object to the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request 
that I propounded earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________