[Pages S483-S497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S SECURITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ACT OF 2019--MOTION
TO PROCEED--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending
business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to S. 1, a bill to make improvements to
certain defense and security assistance provisions and to
authorize the appropriation of funds to Israel, to
reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act
of 2015, and to halt the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian
people, and for other purposes.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday, the Republican leader, my
friend, announced that the Senate would hold two votes on Thursday
afternoon. First, the Senate will vote on the President's proposal, and
then the Senate will vote on an amendment that is essentially identical
to the underlying bill sent to us from the House, meaning a continuing
resolution that opens the government for 3 weeks plus disaster
assistance.
Let me be very clear. These two votes are not equivalent votes. It is
not ``on the one hand, on the other hand.'' The President's proposal
demands a wall and radical legal immigration changes in exchange for
opening up the government. The second vote demands nothing in exchange
for opening up the government.
The first vote--unless you do it my way, I am keeping the government
shut down--is the Trump amendment. Our amendment says: Open up the
government, and then let's talk.
To say, well, one is a Democratic amendment and one is a Republican
amendment doesn't get the magnitude of this. The difference is one is
holding 800,000 workers hostage--millions of Americans hostage--unless
the amendment authors get their way. The second vote doesn't demand
anything. It just says to open up the government and then let's discuss
it.
The first vote, on the President's plan, includes radical changes to
our asylum system and the full funding the President asked for the
border wall in exchange for reopening the government. The first vote is
completely partisan. The first vote is the President's hostage-taking
position codified into an amendment. It says: You must do it our way
and pay $5.7 billion for a wall before we open the government.
The second vote is the opposite. It does not demand anything before
we reopen the government. It simply reopens the government for 3 weeks
and allows us to continue debating border security. There is nothing
partisan about the second vote. If President Trump weren't opposed to
it, there would be nothing controversial about the second vote and just
about every Republican would vote for it, as they did the first time, a
month ago.

[[Page S484]]

The second vote is not a Democratic proposal with demands. The first
vote is a Republican proposal with Republican demands. One simply
reopens the government. The other says: No way. It embodies the
President's temper tantrum: If you don't do it my way, I am shutting
down the government and hurting lots of people.
The two votes are not equivalent. It is not ``on the one hand, on the
other.'' They are diametrically opposed in concept.
I do give Leader McConnell credit. He put on the floor, for the first
time, an ability for Senators to vote on a clean proposal to reopen the
government. That is the second vote. It is completely silent on the
issue of border security. A vote for the continuing resolution does not
preclude a continued discussion on how we best secure our border. It
isn't pro-wall or anti-wall. It just says: Open up the government. It
is a way to reopen government while we continue to work out our
differences.
I want my Republican friends to understand the stakes here. Reopening
the government for 3 weeks may not sound like a long time, but it is
massively important to 800,000 public servants who have been
languishing without pay. Reopening the government even for 3 weeks
would mean that all 800,000 get their backpay, to which they are
entitled. That is three full paychecks: one for January 11, one for
January 25, and one for February 8. Let me repeat that. Even a 3-week
continuing resolution would provide three full paychecks to our Federal
employees: TSA, Border Patrol, FBI agents, air traffic controllers,
food safety inspectors, Coast Guard. Every one of the ones I mentioned
involves our security. The President says--in my opinion, totally
incorrectly, misstating all of the facts--that we need the big wall for
our security. Even if he succeeds--which he will not, I believe--it
would take years to build that wall. There is also eminent domain and
so many other issues that it might never be built at all. But this is
hurting TSA, hurting Border Patrol, and hurting FBI agents, air traffic
controllers, food safety inspectors, and Coast Guard members, who all
deal with our security right now--right now.
So if you believe in the security of America, you vote for the second
amendment, no matter what you think of the wall.
The American people, more and more--it is amazing--were on our side
to start with, and they are turning more on our side now. In a CBS poll
this morning, 7 out of 10 Americans say the issue of a border wall is
not worth this government shutdown, including 71 percent of
Independents, but, astoundingly, 43 percent of all Republicans say a
border wall is not worth a government shutdown. Close to half of all
Republican voters are saying to President Trump and to Leader McConnell
and to every Republican Senator in this Chamber: Don't keep this
shutdown going over the wall. Don't hold the government hostage. Open
it back up and figure out your policy differences.
Parenthetically, I would remind my colleagues that this poll--and
another one this morning showed the same thing with President Trump's
ratings lower than ever--occurred after his speech on Saturday. His
gambit to try to get the shutdown off his back failed, as it should
have, because the shutdown is solely his. He said he was proud of it.
He said 25 times before he did it that he wanted to do it. Everyone
knows the shutdown is his. Neither the President nor our Republican
friends can squiggle out of that one. Because of the President's
destructive hostage-taking gambit, as I said, his disapproval rating
reached the highest level of his Presidency in the CBS poll.
What more do my Republican colleagues need to hear? The will of the
American people is crystal clear: Open the government.
I know that President Trump has some power in these Republican
primaries, but sometimes you have to rise to the occasion.
The second bill, without any preconceptions or preconditions says:
Open the government. The first bill is hostage-taking: Unless you do it
my way, the government is staying shut down.
So these are not equivalent bills. These are not ``on the one hand,
on the other hand.''
For weeks we have been at a stalemate. Leader McConnell has not
allowed a vote on legislation to reopen the government until now.
Tomorrow the Senate will finally have its chance. We can reopen the
government until February 8 and continue to discuss border security. If
you are worried about hundreds of thousands of Federal employees going
without pay, if you are worried about the impacts of the shutdown on
our economy or our basic security--as law enforcement, Border Patrol,
and food safety are not paid--if you are worried about our national
security, and if you are looking for a way to open up the government,
this is the way. The second vote is the only way that is on the floor
of the Senate and can actually open up the government.
I urge all of my Republican colleagues, as they did once before--
before President Trump said what he said--to join Democrats on a
bipartisan basis on the second vote tomorrow and, finally, open up the
government.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the ongoing
government shutdown and the need to provide more security on our
southern border and to try to put a little perspective around it.
The President just issued his own proposal. It is a reasonable
proposal, I think, and a constructive proposal to try to end this
shutdown and reopen the government and strengthen the southern border.
I am told we are going to vote on that plan tomorrow here in the
Senate. It includes a lot of the ideas that I have been discussing with
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, over
the past few weeks. Some of these ideas are ones that Democrats support
more, and some the Republicans support more. It is the basis for a
compromise.
I am going to vote for the President's plan, and I am going to
explain here in a minute why I would hope that colleagues on both sides
of the aisle would support that plan tomorrow as a way to take a step
forward and to take a step back from the partisanship and the division
that is keeping our government shutdown.
My hope is that even if the proposal cannot pass with a 60-vote
majority, which, unfortunately, seems likely right now, it will spark
good-faith negotiations to enable us to quickly end the government
shutdown and move forward.
Unfortunately, some of the partisanship and division I talked about
has made that harder. It is interesting that even before the President
made his announcement, but on the day he was making it, the Speaker of
the House, Nancy Pelosi, said the proposal was a nonstarter before she
knew what was in it. That is not serious. That is not the basis for a
serious negotiation and certainly not responsible for us in the middle
of a partial government shutdown.
I think there is in this body--and, I think, in the House, as well--a
general consensus that we need to do more to protect the southern
border. The Democratic leadership of the House and the Speaker of the
House just presented a billion-dollar plan, for instance, for more
border security.
I call it a crisis, but call it what you want. Here are the facts.
During October and November of last year, the most recent months for
which we have good information, Customs and Border Protection agents
apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter our country
illegally. That is nearly double the number of people who were
apprehended a year ago in 2017. That is twice as many people.
The big increase, as you know, is with families and kids,
unaccompanied children. According to the Department of Homeland
Security, there has been a 50-percent increase in the number of
families coming across the border illegally and a 25 percent increase
in the number of children during fiscal year 2018. Along with that,
there has been a 2,000-percent increase over the past 5 years in asylum
claims. That increase has primarily come from three Central American
countries: Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. While 9 out of 10 of
these asylum claims are ultimately rejected by the immigration courts,
the applicants have long since been released into the interior of the

[[Page S485]]

United States. People don't stay in detention waiting for their
hearing. They are released into our communities. I am told by Customs
and Border Protection that they think about 90 percent of those
families and children are never removed.
Is that a problem? I think everyone should agree that this is a
problem. The system is breaking down.
In fiscal year 2018, Customs and Border Protection referred nearly
50,000 unaccompanied minors--all of whom came across our southern
border to seek asylum--to the Department of Health and Human Services
for care. I have done a lot of work on this issue in the Homeland
Security subcommittee called the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations.
It is a tough situation. It is a tough situation to have these kids
in any kind of detention for any kind of time. It is a tough situation
for these children, many of whom have experienced trauma and violence
on their journey north and need significant help.
Human trafficking remains a significant problem along the border. Law
enforcement officials on both sides continue to arrest people for
facilitating labor and sex trafficking of adults and children, women
and children. Local law enforcement along the border have repeatedly
voiced their concerns.
In addition to the individuals trafficked into the United States
involuntarily, criminal smuggling networks mislead prospective migrants
by assuring them a safe route into the United States. This happens all
the time. According to a survey by Doctors Without Borders, over two-
thirds of migrants report facing violence on the journey north,
including theft, extortion, torture, and sexual assault. Almost one-
third of women report being sexually abused while being taken on that
journey north to enter the United States. This is something none of us
should find acceptable.

Furthermore, as we know, the Drug Enforcement Agency has said: ``The
southwest border remains the primary entry point for heroin into the
United States.'' There is no disagreement about that. I am told that
about 90 percent of the heroin that is flowing into our communities
comes across the southern border and that fentanyl, which is this
incredibly powerful synthetic opioid that is 50 times more powerful
than heroin and comes primarily from China and primarily through the
Postal Service, is actually increasingly going through Mexico too. Law
enforcement tells me that it is being shipped from China to Mexico and
is then being taken across the southern border. Seizures of fentanyl--
which, by the way, is the No. 1 cause of death in my home State of Ohio
and in, probably, your States--increased by 135 percent in its coming
across the southern border last year as compared to 2017. Again, most
of it is coming from China, and most of it is coming through the mail
system, but increasingly it is also coming across the border.
It gets worse. Over the past few weeks, I have been at three meetings
with drug abuse task forces in Ohio and have talked about the crisis
back home and how we should address it, and we are making some
progress. That is the good news. Progress is also being made with
regard to opioids. We are seeing fewer deaths by overdose, and we are
seeing fewer addictions.
What we have done here in Congress is to put more money into
prevention and treatment and longer term recovery, and our providing
Narcan to our first responders and others is beginning to work.
Guess what I heard from all three of these task forces. It is that
now, coming up--raising its ugly head--is pure crystal meth.
Methamphetamines are taking the place of opioids in some of these
communities. That is the new scourge. Guess where this crystal meth is
coming from--Mexico. This is pure, powerful crystal meth. We have seen
a 38-percent increase in methamphetamine trafficking across the border,
again, just from 2017 to 2018.
I don't think there is any disagreement on either side of the aisle
that we need a more secure southern border, not just because of people
coming in illegally but because of the fact that there is trafficking,
that there are drugs being transported across that border, and we all
want to address it.
Senator Schumer, who just spoke, has talked a lot about the need for
more screening at our ports of entry because most of these drugs come
in by way of cars and trucks. He is right. By the way, that is in the
President's proposal.
Because of all of those problems, the experts tell us we need to do
some things. One thing they say they need are more physical barriers.
This is from the experts. They also want more Border Patrol agents.
They want more technology. They want more surveillance, more cameras.
They want drones to be in some places that are out in the desert so
they can see what is going on. They want more screening at the ports of
entry. Again, the Democrats have supported it, and I have supported it.
They are looking for anything they can do to try to stop the flow of
drugs and to do it with technology, and that takes more money.
I believe the proposal the President outlined over the weekend hits
all of those points. That is why I think it is responsible. He made
clear that he is prepared to have these new barriers that he is
proposing not be cement walls, which is what so many Democrats have
opposed, but, rather, to be fences. In some places, they should be
wire--pedestrian fences. In other places, they should be low vehicle
barriers. In other places, they should be what the President has called
steel barriers, the ones you see through. That is the kind of
construction we are talking about here, not the cement wall that a lot
of people think he is proposing. Frankly, that is what they have taken
from what he has said and from what the Democrats have said. It is
almost like we are talking past each other.
Second, specifically, his proposal stipulates that these barriers
would be constructed in a way that would be consistent with the
``Border Security Improvement Plan.'' It is a plan that experts at the
Customs and Border Protection Agency have proposed. These are the
experts.
It is not 2,000 miles of the border that would have these fences and
structures and barriers that we are talking about. In the President's
proposal--and this is going to surprise you--it would be 234 miles of
the border.
So, No. 1, they would not be the cement walls in the way that people
are talking about. No. 2, it is going to be done in the way in which
the experts recommend in terms of where they are going to be placed and
what kinds of structures they will be. It will also be a total of 234
miles out of the 2,000-mile border.
The 234 miles are going to support the top 10 priorities of this plan
that the Customs and Border Protection people have submitted, which is
this ``Border Security Improvement Plan.'' It is going to be
specifically what the experts say the top 10 priorities are. What are
their top 10 priorities? I am told, for instance, it is a new fence in
parts of Texas where there is no fencing in the urban areas. That is in
the plan. The White House is not making these decisions, but the
experts are through this border security plan.
The legislation that the President has proposed has some specific
language in it saying that these barriers must be built in an
operational, effective design that prioritizes agents' safety. That
language, folks, was taken right out of the bipartisan fiscal 2018
appropriations bill that this Senate passed last year. This is
consistent with votes we have taken in the past as to what kind of wall
it will be and where it will be. That means the definition is one we
have long voted for. As we speak, approximately 115 miles of border
barrier is being built using this same definition because it was
proposed and voted on by this Chamber last year, just a year ago, on a
bipartisan basis.

The $5.7 billion proposal in funding for the construction of
additional physical barriers along the southern border is consistent
with what the experts say ought to be done.
Based on the Secure Fence Act back in 2006, which, again, was
bipartisan, more than 500 miles of fencing have already been built in
California, in Arizona, and in New Mexico by previous administrations,
Republican and Democratic alike. Based on the data, on the actual
facts, it is making a difference. The data from Customs and Border
Protection show that in areas where this fencing has been built,
apprehensions have decreased substantially. That probably doesn't
surprise

[[Page S486]]

you if you think about it. At a minimum, having these barriers slows
people down and keeps vehicles from coming across that desert terrain,
which gives the Border Patrol a chance to respond, along with there
being the technology--the cameras, the sensors.
Again, another one of the misconceptions about this whole debate is
that it is over the entire 2,000-mile border. It is not. It is over 234
miles. These barriers will be strategically deployed. They will be
built where they are the most needed--in populated areas, where there
are not already natural barriers to keep people from crossing. What his
proposal does, as I look at it, is it fills a demonstrated
infrastructure gap along the border but only where it is necessary.
As we talked about, our Border Patrol experts say Texas is their top
priority. Why? It is because Texas is 1,200 miles of the 2,000-mile
border and because there are only 100 miles of barrier in Texas
currently. So there are over 500 miles of border that have barriers,
and only 100 miles of that is in Texas, which has 1,200 miles of the
border. It has most of the border.
The new fencing is particularly necessary in the most populated parts
of the Rio Grande Valley. McAllen, TX, is one example of that. To me,
that makes sense because that is where about 40 percent of the
crossings occur and because they are asking for this fencing there.
These are the experts.
In addition to there being more funding for more barriers, the
President has requested more money with which to hire another 750
Border Patrol agents and 2,000 additional law enforcement
professionals. Again, more people to be able to respond is something
that on a bipartisan basis, I think we support here.
He is proposing $800 million for humanitarian needs, to fund and
enhance medical support and transportation facilities for those who are
detained at the border. This is consistent with what the Democrats have
supported in order to deal with the humanitarian challenge. The
Homeland Security appropriations bill already includes funding for
these purposes, but the President requested additional funds to help
with the influx we have talked about. So it is like a supplemental
spending request. We have had more families and more unaccompanied
children in particular, so it makes sense to have more humanitarian
funds available to deal with that.
The President has also requested $563 million for 75 additional
immigration judges and support staff so we can reduce the nearly
800,000 pending immigration cases that are backlogged. This backlog is
part of our problem because people are typically in the communities,
and many of them don't show up for their court cases. Reduce the
backlog--that is the obvious answer here. By the way, this part of the
President's proposal is identical to the proposal Speaker Pelosi made
just a few days ago. It is identical--75 new judges and support staff.
Finally, the President has requested a total of $805 million for
counternarcotics and weapons technology screening at the ports of
entry. There is $675 million within that for reinvestment in drug and
weapons detection and $130 million for K-9 units, training, personnel,
and portable scanners. Again, this is one some of us feel very strongly
about, including Senator Schumer and including a lot of us on this side
of the aisle. It is one that was also proposed by Speaker Pelosi a few
days ago--more money for screening at the ports of entry. Her proposal
is almost identical to the President's, except, frankly, the President
proposes a little more money for the same purposes.
It is like we are talking past each other. We know there is a need.
We generally agree. There is a general consensus on the need for what
has to be done along the border; yet we can't seem to find common
ground. To try to get there, in addition to these funding requests--and
I applaud him for this--the President outlined his support for dealing
with other immigration reforms that both parties support, such as DACA.
I remember DACA as being these young people who came here as children
through no fault of their own and that the question was, Do you
continue the program that President Obama set in place or not? My view
is to resolve this political football once and for all and provide
certainty to these young people who came here through no fault of their
own. Some of them are working, some of them are in school, and some are
in the military. They are looking for some certainty.
In the way the legislation is drafted, it is for these young people
who have taken the responsible course and have gone to school or who
are working or who are in our military. This is a process whereby we
can provide that certainty, and the President has proposed it. He has
proposed for all of those children who have applied for and been
accepted into this DACA Program 3 years of additional authorization to
be here, which will be past this administration.
The President has also embraced an effort to look at this issue of
temporary protected status, or TPS, which allows us to provide
protection to individuals who come from particularly trouble-stricken
countries, and there are now 10 countries on that list. The Secretary
of Homeland Security has the authority to provide harbor to those
individuals where there has been a natural disaster, where there is a
war, or where there has been a lot of violence in those countries.
Some of those TPS visas are expiring. I believe the President has
laid out something that many Democrats have called for that makes
sense, in my view, which is to provide some more certainty for some of
those individuals. Again, it is a 3-year authorization, which will go
beyond the next election.
The President has also talked about changing the asylum process. He
has picked up some ideas from that side of the aisle and this side of
the aisle, including having people apply for asylum in their own
countries.
This is an attempt to find that common ground. Yes, let's be sure we
have a protected southern border, but let's also deal with what have
been some political and, unfortunately, intractable problems. For all
of these reasons, I think we need to come together and negotiate a
solution. I think the President's proposal is a reasonable one. That is
why I plan to support it.
I know my Democratic colleagues have other ideas as well. What I said
to them this morning and last night and will say again this afternoon
when we meet--Republicans and Democrats alike--is, let's talk. We are
not that far apart. Let's close this gap. That is what I find to be the
most frustrating part of this. Yes, we have had shutdowns in the past,
but I don't think we have ever had a shutdown that is so easy to
resolve. We are not that far apart. If we would stop talking past each
other, including as to what kind of structures we are going to put
along the border, as I talked about, I think we could get there.
In my view, shutdowns don't make sense. We are now in day 33 of this
government shutdown. I am not a big fan. I have legislation I have now
introduced five times in Congress to say let's end government
shutdowns. The legislation would simply continue the spending from the
previous year and reduce it by 1 percent after 120 days and another 1
percent after the next 90 days in order to incentivize Congress to get
its act together and actually pass the appropriations bills.
At day 33, 800,000 workers have missed one paycheck, and another
paycheck is coming up tomorrow.
I have heard from a lot of folks in my State of Ohio--TSA employees,
of course, at the airports, many of whom I spoke to when I came to
Washington yesterday morning. It is a tough situation for them. Some of
them don't have the savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. They are
getting by through a combination of things--family members helping
them, talking to the banks about their car payments or their mortgage
payments. It is putting a lot of stress on them. I applaud them for
showing up to work, by the way.
Workers at NASA--NASA Glenn in Cleveland, OH--can't go to work, so
our space program is being slowed down. That is a problem.
Across the board, I am hearing from people who are in law
enforcement, our prosecutors, saying they can't pay informants to be
able to go after drug dealers. I am hearing from our Coast Guard
personnel on Lake Erie. Again, these are patriots. They are showing up
for work. I applaud them for that. I thank them. We owe them an end to
this shutdown and a resolution to this issue.

[[Page S487]]

I also don't like shutdowns because, frankly, as bad as they are for
families, they are also bad for taxpayers. As taxpayers, we always end
up paying more in the end. In the end, we are paying people not to work
because people who are furloughed are going to get their paychecks when
this is over. That doesn't seem very good for taxpayers. The people who
are actually showing up for work--we are not paying them now, but we
will pay them later. It is inefficient. Services are being cut off.
Yet, in the end, taxpayers are going to be paying for it. So it doesn't
help taxpayers.
I also don't like it because it hurts our economy. People say: Well,
not much. We are doing fine.
We are doing fine. Thanks to the tax cuts and tax reform and
regulatory relief, the economy is doing better, but this is running the
other way. This is providing negative momentum.
The Council of Economic Advisers at the White House told us this week
that the shutdown is going to reduce quarterly economic growth by 0.13
percent for every week it lasts. In other words, every week the
shutdown continues, it hurts our economy more. If this shutdown lasts
another 4 weeks, that will be a full point off GDP. So in just another
23 days, it will be a full point off our GDP. That is a big deal. That
hurts paychecks, it hurts jobs, and it hurts the economic growth that
all of us are so happy to finally have--to see the fact that
unemployment is low, to see the fact that there are more jobs out there
than there are workers looking, and to see the fact that wages are
finally starting to increase. Let's not go the other way.
We have the opportunity before us to solve this. It is not that hard.
Let's stop talking past each other. Let's find that common ground.
The President is going to have to continue to negotiate, and he says
that he will. The Speaker of the House is going to have to move. It is
not responsible for her to say not a penny more for barriers along the
border, which she traditionally supported, as have other Democrats.
Let's act in good faith. Let's move forward to a responsible
resolution that will reopen the government but will also ensure that we
have a secure southern border. That is what the American people want.
That is what we should be providing in the Senate and in the House,
working with the President. Let's come together, and let's get it done.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I have up here a quote from the
Washington Post from January 20, 2019. The words say: ``to refuse even
to talk until the government reopens does no favors to sidelined
Federal workers and contractors''--to refuse even to talk. This is a
Washington Post editorial message to the Democrats.
The Post says that the Democrats should welcome the President's
weekend offer and return to the negotiating table to end this partial
government shutdown, which is now in its fifth week. I agree. It is
time to end this stalemate. It is time to talk, and it is time to vote.
The title of the editorial was ``Make a deal. Save the dreamers''--
make a deal.
Divided government is often messy business. It is also serious
business. It is what the American people have voted for and what we
have seen more often than not in this country. Politically, there
really are no winners and losers in this arena. What I worry about is
the American people. Nobody wins in terms of a shutdown.
The Senate will vote tomorrow on commonsense, compromise legislation
to secure the border, reopen the government, as well as to address what
I believe are key immigration issues for the country.
We do have a national security and a humanitarian crisis at our
southern border. President Trump has, again, requested $5.7 billion.
That is one one-thousandth of the Federal spending. He has requested
the money for a steel barrier system.
The southern border is almost 2,000 miles. The physical barrier
already protects about 650 miles. The President wants to build more
security barriers because we know they are a proven solution.
In addition, the President is proposing to grant provisional status--
a 3-year reprieve--for the 700,000 Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals illegal immigrants, known as DACA. This 3-year reprieve will
also help 300,000 temporary protected status immigrants. When people
say TPS, that is what it stands for--immigrants with temporary
protected status. Right now, they have protected status, but that is
expiring. These are individuals who have suffered devastation in their
lives due to the challenges previously faced in Haiti, as well as
individuals from Central America. So we are talking about over 1
million people for whom the President is proposing changes that would
impact them and their lives.
These DACA and TPS measures are an immigration policy bandaid. They
are not the solution to everything. They deal with an immediate problem
for a limited period of time. Once the government reopens, the
President then plans, as he said, to hold weekly, bipartisan meetings
aimed at broader immigration reform.
Border security policy has always been bipartisan. For decades,
Presidents and congressional leaders from both parties have supported
security barriers to protect the American people.
In 2006, Senate Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama at the time
and Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Joe Biden and Senator Chuck
Schumer--all of them--voted to construct a physical barrier on the
southern barrier.
In 2005, then-Senator Obama said this: ``We simply cannot allow
people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and
unchecked.'' Then, when Senator Obama became President Obama, he
actually described the border situation as a crisis, but he failed to
fix it.
President Trump resolved to fix the decades-old problem. That is when
Democratic leaders suddenly changed their tune. They withdrew support
for securing the border and dug in their heels, prolonging the partial
government shutdown.
Even President Obama's last Border Patrol Chief, Mark Morgan,
supports President Trump's efforts. President Trump did not keep him in
the job, but Mark Morgan has said--and he was on television the other
day--that building the wall is key to solving the security crisis and
that Trump--President Trump--should ``stay the course.''
Still, Democrats refuse to negotiate with this President, so we can't
reopen the affected Federal Agencies and pay the 800,000 furloughed
Federal workers.
President Trump has the truth on his side. Here is the Homeland
Security Department's assessment of the border situation: Each month,
60,000 illegal immigrants reach the border. Drug smuggling spiked in
2018, with a 38-percent increase in methamphetamine, a 22-percent
increase in heroin, and a 73-percent increase in fentanyl. We also saw
a surge in arrests of dangerous criminals, including 17,000 adults with
criminal records and 6,000 MS-13 and other gang members.
In 2018, 60,000 unaccompanied children and 161,000 families reached
the border--a dramatic increase from 2017. Many were victimized along
their journey.
The Border Patrol areas that do have enhanced or expanded physical
barriers have seen a dramatic decrease in illegal traffic. That is why
the President has requested additional funds to construct more
barriers. The areas he has pointed to are the 10 locations where the
Border Patrol has said: These are the spots where we really need the
help.
All Americans want a healthy immigration system that enforces the law
and keeps families together. The President has put a reasonable,
bipartisan compromise on the table to end this partial shutdown and to
pay furloughed Federal workers. President Trump is ready to sign this
legislation. The Senate will vote on it tomorrow.
The House Democrats hold the keys to reopening the government. I
believe Democrats should stop playing politics and meet President Trump
in the middle. That is what President has done with his good-faith
effort.
I say: Let's vote to secure the border and vote to reopen the
government.

Tribute to Alfred Redman, Sr.

Madam President, now I would like to turn to a different topic that
would

[[Page S488]]

be at an appropriate location in the Record. It is something that I
think the Presiding Officer, as the former chairman of the Indian
Affairs Committee, would find interesting. That is because I rise today
to pay tribute to an incredible individual, a great man, the legendary
Indian High School boys' basketball coach, Alfred Redman.
Saturday night, in Ethete, WY, the long-time coach was surrounded by
school officials, by players, and by fans, who gathered for a ceremony
renaming the school's gymnasium in his honor. Redman's incredible
coaching record as he coached the Chiefs was 426 wins and 118 losses in
26 seasons.
Under his leadership, the Chiefs consistently made State tournament
appearances, winning six State championship titles, and finishing
second six additional times.
Coach Redman was tough. He conditioned his players through grueling
practices. This was his formula for success: Work the players hard and
make the games easier to win. His toughness paid off. He put Wyoming
Indian basketball on the map, both at the State and the national
levels.
Over the seasons, from 1983 to 1986, Redman's Chiefs set the State
bar with a recordbreaking 50 straight victories. That record still
stands today. It is no surprise that Redman is both a Wyoming and a
national coaches Hall of Fame inductee.
Wyoming owes a great debt of gratitude to Coach Redman--a giant in
State basketball history.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Government Funding

Mr. REED. Madam President, I come to the floor again to urge an end
to the Trump shutdown, which is over a month old--the longest in
history.
Let's be clear. This is the Trump shutdown. The President called for
a shutdown two dozen times, and he said he would be proud to own it.
Regrettably, it is clear that he does not care about the impact his
shutdown is having on families across the United States. He barely
acknowledges their pain.
If you needed any reminder of the low regard the President has for
the Federal workforce, remember that on December 28, in the midst of
the shutdown he instigated, he signed an Executive order that will
freeze pay for the civilian workforce in 2019--assuming he ever reopens
the government.
With his announcement on Saturday, the President is now playing games
with the lives of hundreds of thousands of refugees and Dreamers, who,
because of his earlier actions, could face the real threat of
deportation.
Meanwhile, his administration is playing favorites, rewarding those
with deep pockets and good connections, forcing IRS employees back to
work without pay to process tax returns, reopening the Department of
the Interior to help pave the way for oil and gas leaks.
For those without resources, it is often a different story.
Recipients of Federal housing assistance, for example, are wondering
what their status might be in the next month.
FBI agents are worried about the effect the shutdown will have on
active investigations. Air traffic controllers, FAA inspectors, and TSA
workers are working long hours to keep flights on time and safe, but
the cost to them and their Agencies will stretch years into the future.
Transit agencies, unable to draw down needed Federal capital and
operating funding, are also feeling the pinch, which could affect
service and safety down the line. We have seen this coming. That is why
Democrats have been pleading with the majority leader for weeks to
allow a vote on the funding bills that Senate Republicans wrote last
year so we can reopen the government. These measures have broad
bipartisan support. In fact, the leader voted for each of them, but for
weeks, the majority leader refused to allow a vote on these and other
bills, saying the Senate will not waste floor time on show votes, on
bills he believes the President will not sign. By his definition, he
can only bring up bills that can pass the House, earn 60 votes in the
Senate, and get the President's signature.

As the leader knows, when there is a veto-proof majority--as there
has been in the Senate on these very bills to fund the government--the
President is, quite frankly, irrelevant.
Here is what the record shows: Last year, the Senate passed the
Agriculture appropriations bill 92 to 6. We passed the Interior
appropriations bill 92 to 6. We passed the Financial Services-General
Government appropriations bill 92 to 6. We passed the Transportation-
HUD appropriations bill 92 to 6. Although they didn't come to the
floor, the Appropriations Committee passed the Commerce-Justice-Science
bill and the State-Foreign Operations bill unanimously.
As for the Department of Homeland Security, we passed a continuing
resolution in the Senate unanimously last year to keep the Department
funded at least temporarily. There is no reason we can't pass that
measure again and start paying our coastguardsmen and other DHS
personnel. What cannot pass is President Trump's demand for billions
and billions to build hundreds of miles of ineffective wall through
places where it is unwarranted.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to Congressman Will Hurd, a Texas
Republican, who represents a district he says includes 820 miles of the
roughly 1,900-mile border with Mexico. Congressman Hurd has called the
wall ``the most expensive and least effective way to secure the
border.'' He is correct, and MIT engineers and other experts have
estimated this wall will cost well north of $30-plus billion.
Democrats want to focus on border security infrastructure but the
improvements of greatest need, including ports of entry and more
effective technology to detect illegal border crossings and drug
smuggling. Once the government is open, there is room for debate on how
best to improve border security and even on longstanding immigration
matters.
It will not be easy. First, the President's call for a wall is as
political as the day is long. He is focused on motivating the roughly
30 percent of Americans who think keeping the government shut down is a
good thing.
Second, negotiating with this President has proved a difficult job,
even for members of his own party because he has a hard time keeping
his end of the bargain. In December, when Republicans controlled both
the House and Senate, the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan deal,
sponsored by the majority leader, to keep the government funded until
the beginning of February. The clear understanding was that the
President, as communicated by Vice President Pence, would sign the
legislation, but, within hours, the President scuttled the agreement.
Going back to March 2018, the President nearly vetoed the Republican
Omnibus appropriations bill that was based on funding levels he had
already agreed to.
As far as funding for border security, the President changes his
demands constantly. First, Mexico was going to pay for the President's
border wall. Last February, he asked taxpayers for $1.6 billion. Then
it became $5 billion. Now it is $5.7 billion. How is it possible to
make a deal with, frankly, such an unreliable party?
Here is one other point, and it goes beyond President Trump. If
Congress capitulates to his demands because he has shut down the
government, he will be emboldened to use the same tactic again and
again and again. If he succeeds, then every President who follows will
feel justified in using the same ploy. Rather than ending one shutdown,
we will be inviting more in the future.
The only choice we have in Congress is to pass the bills we know have
overwhelming bipartisan support and reopen the government with or
without the President's signature.
Tomorrow the majority leader will be asking the Senate to surrender
to the President's cynical demands for wall funding. That proposal is a
dead letter purposely filled with poison pills: It will not get 60
votes in the Senate and will not pass the House. It fails the very test
the majority leader has been saying must be met. It is, by his own
definition, a show vote.
As an alternative, the Senate will have the opportunity to vote again
on the majority leader's proposal from last December, which would
reopen the government through February 8. Added to that measure will be
much needed disaster assistance. It will be interesting to see if the
Senate Republicans

[[Page S489]]

will support or oppose this measure, which is essentially one they
wrote. I hope they will take yes for an answer and vote with all of us
to reopen the government and to begin serious, thoughtful, and
principled discussions on ways we can improve borders and many other
topics.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
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.

[[Page S490]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 21

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 5, H.R. 21,
making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019,
and for other purposes. I further ask that the bill be considered read
a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Government Funding

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss the effects of the
Federal Government shutdown. I have given a number of floor speeches
about the effects of the shutdown on Federal employees and their
families. I heard the Presiding Officer give a similar speech about the
effects on the Coast Guard in Kodiak, AK, the other day. I have also
talked about the effect of the shutdown on American citizens who depend
upon the services of Agencies that have been shuttered or dramatically
reduced in capacity.
Today I want to talk about something different. I want to talk about
the effect of the shutdown on American businesses, especially small
businesses.
Over the past month, I have had numerous conversations with business
owners who tell me how this shutdown has hurt them, and, no surprise,
economic analysts have indicated that the shutdown is having a massive
effect on the U.S. economy.
S&P, for example, has concluded that the shutdown will cost the
United States more than $6 billion by week's end, a little bit over 1
month in.
President Trump's chief economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, said that a
zero-percent growth rate is possible because of the shutdown.
His quote in an article dated January 23:

If [the shutdown] extended for a whole quarter and given
the fact that the first quarter tends to be low because of
residual seasonality, then you could end up with a number
close to zero in the first quarter.

We are now more than 1 month into the shutdown, and this economic
effect is very real.
I just returned this morning from a discussion with businesses in
Loudoun County, VA, which is sort of in the western outer suburbs of
Washington, and here is what these businesses told me:
A conference hotel in Loudoun whose bookings in the first quarter are
down 50 percent from the same quarter last year, and because they had
such a strong year last year, they said they were projecting for
increases this year, so their bookings are down 70 percent from what
they had projected for the first quarter of 2019.
When they lose revenue because of lost bookings, that affects their
ability to hire people. It also affects their purchase of supplies from
area suppliers. They say they have a HIVA practice--Hire Virginia--and
what did they call the other one--a SUVA practice, Supplies from
Virginia. They try to buy all of their supplies and hire all of their
people from Virginia, and so the reduced bookings are having a direct
effect on other businesses and individuals as well.
A local chamber of commerce, with 1,200 members who are suffering in
a variety of ways, but the chamber president pointed out to me that 300
members are nonprofits--nonprofits which are seeing reduced
contributions because of the shutdown and people having less income but
also increased demands for services.
Local restaurants whose revenues are down 20 to 30 percent--that
reduction in revenue, which is fewer people coming in or people coming
in and spending less, affects hiring and it affects their payments to
local suppliers, thus having a second-order effect on other businesses.
Restaurants are reporting that they are seeing a big uptick in
Federal employees applying for part-time work at their restaurants,
which they have a hard time providing because their revenues are down
and fewer customers are coming in.
Many government contracting firms in Northern Virginia--often started
and operated by veterans--whose employees are furloughed or working
fewer hours, thereby affecting the profitability of their businesses,
most said they are trying to continue to pay their employees even
though they are not working, even though they are not bringing in
revenue, which is affecting profitability and eventually the viability
of the very businesses themselves.
The contractors are talking about how they are starting to lose
employees in a tight labor market to other businesses that are not
dependent upon government contracts.
Loudoun is the third most popular tourism destination in Virginia out
of 134 cities and counties. I did not know that until I was informed of
it by a proud operator of the Loudoun Tourism Department today, but
they are seeing dramatically reduced attendance at any tourism site,
from restaurants to hotels and bars, to museums and all kinds of other
historic sites in Loudoun.
Here is one that was interesting, and it dovetails with a discourse,
a speech given by the Presiding Officer on the floor a few days ago--a
local microbrewery. A local microbrewery said, first, sales are down
due to people losing salaries, and sales being down affects their
employment, but they are also unable to launch new product lines. New
product lines require an approval by a Department of the Federal
Government to approve that a new product line is offered. There are
7,000 microbreweries in the United States, and they all need approval
from this Federal Agency, the TTB, when they want to offer a new
product line.
The owner of Old Ox Brewery told me: We set it up months in advance.
This was going to be the March release. Normally, it would take about 2
weeks from an application. This Agency is really pretty prompt. They
get back with you quickly, and they tend to approve quickly, but he
said: I have two problems with the Agency right now. They are shuttered
so they can't approve the product lines I have developed and I wanted
to brew for March. I

[[Page S491]]

can't brew them now if I can't sell them. That means products I
promised not only in-house at our brewery but to grocery stores and
restaurants that I promised, I can't brew. He said: I know this Agency,
when they finally come back with a reopening, with 7,000 breweries just
like mine having filed with them, the backlog is going to mean they are
not going to be able to respond in 2 weeks. It is going to take them
significantly longer.
If I might read a letter--this is not from the Old Ox Brewery, where
I was this morning, but another brewery in Alexandria, VA:

Dear Senator Kaine,
Here is a summary of the negative effects the government
shutdown is having on our small business in Alexandria, VA.
The Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) has stopped
reviewing recipes and labels. . . . It affects our entire
operation, and damages our revenue stream, which relies on
new beers in the market.
It also hurts our employees, some of whom are paid on
commission from the sale of our beer.
Upstream in our supply chain, it negatively affects our
farmers who provide our grain, as well as our hop growers and
malt suppliers. It also hurts our other suppliers, such as
our label printers and box manufacturers.
Downstream, it hurts our distributors and retailers because
they don't have our new beers to sell [and ultimately affects
customers].
We have a pending Small Business Administration loan for
our new bottling equipment. The SBA has closed and we cannot
close on this loan until the shutdown is over.

The brewery I was at this morning--the Old Ox Brewery--was a little
bit ahead of Port City in the process. They got a loan to renovate a
new facility in Middleburg, VA, which they have purchased and
renovated, but they can't get it open until the TTB comes out and does
the inspection of the brewery equipment.
He said: I invested, and I am paying, but I am not able to bring in
any revenue, and I have no idea when I am going to be able to bring in
revenue.
Traditionally opening a new facility requires a TTB approval first,
and you then go to the State to get permission to open the facility.
He said: Am I looking at 90 days? Am I looking at 4 months of paying
for this facility without being able to bring in any revenue for it?
This same challenge as was indicated in the letter from Port City
affects not only breweries but wineries. Loudoun County has a lot of
farm wineries.
One owner of a local winery came. This is a small operation. They
started the winery so they could preserve the family farm and not have
to sell it to developers.
A lot of our small family farms get turned into subdivisions unless
the family who operates the farm can find a productive way to make a
small acreage profitable.
In 2002, this family, who had been in farming for generations,
decided: We don't want to sell for a subdivision. The way we will try
to be profitable is to operate a farm winery.
The same Agency, the TTB, is charged with approving their product and
also labels. They have done their grape harvest, and they booked time
at the local bottling plant in March to take all of the wine and put it
in bottles with labels affixed, but they can't get the labels approved.
They have all their product, and they have booked time at a facility
that starts in a very few weeks, but there would be no reason to use
the bottling facility to put wine in bottles with no labels on them.
They couldn't sell it. The Agency that is required to approve labels is
shuttered. They don't know what they are going to do.
A 10-person, small family business--maybe this spoke to me because I
grew up in a house with a small business where, in a good year, there
would be eight employees, and in a bad year, there would be five, plus
three teenage boys and my mother. So this business was a lot like my
own family's experience in size. They distribute janitorial supplies to
customers, such as the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian operations are
closed. They also distribute janitorial supplies to WMATA, their
largest customer.
WMATA is open. WMATA's Federal revenues are still coming in, but
WMATA also relies on the farebox revenue. WMATA is down $400,000 a day
because, with Federal employees furloughed, huge numbers of people who
normally ride the Metro Monday to Friday aren't.
That $400,000-a-day hit on WMATA has not yet affected this business--
he was careful to point that out--but with the Smithsonian shut and
WMATA affected, he is worried about when he will see his 10-person
business affected.
There is deep concern by area businesses in this part of Loudoun,
which is very close to Dulles, about the effect of the shutdown on TSA
workers and air traffic controllers, as would be the case in Alaska,
where air travel is critical. It would probably be air or snowmobile
for many people living in Alaska. In Virginia, air travel is critical.
Anything that affects commercial air poses huge jeopardy on people's
access and on the local economy.
This one was interesting--a local consignment shop. I was like, well,
how are you affected by the shutdown? It is a consignment shop that is
fairly notable and has won awards for being one of the best small
businesses in the county. They talk about how their business is
dramatically affected by the shutdown. They see it every day. More
Federal employees are bringing in personal items to try to submit to
consignment because to make do, they need to sell personal items they
might not otherwise want to. Also, there are fewer people coming in to
buy the items that are available in the consignment shop because there
is less discretionary income. This shop has reduced its own employees'
hours by 20 percent.
A local small business development center--this is kind of a
community center, like an incubator for small business. It is funded
through SBA. It serves 300 startup businesses a year. They are unable
to operate. They have some local funds. They can see clear to March,
but they don't know whether they can stay open thereafter due to no
Federal funding. These small business centers operate around the
country. One of the things they do is help businesses like Port City
get small business loans. They can't do that now because there are no
business loans being made.
A Federal contractor who is currently unaffected because their
contracts are with DOD Agencies had an expansion plan to go out and
work with other Agencies that are shuttered by the shutdown; thus they
cannot move forward on the expansion plan.
Finally, county government officials who were at the meeting have now
had to provide emergency funding for local food banks and for free
public transportation for affected Federal employees and other
emergency services as well. That wasn't what they thought they would
need to be doing with the budget they had planned for. The fiscal year
began July 1. They hadn't put it into the budget, but they are having
to cobble together ways to serve the Federal employees and their
families who are affected.
There are so many other stories like this that I heard around
Virginia. One that stuck with me in particular was a local dentist
commenting that so many patients are canceling appointments because of
their concerns about inability to pay copays or buy medications.
Hopefully, these are postponements and not cancellations. Obviously, it
is not good for people's health and not good for the small business
this dentist operates.

We do have a solution to this that the Senate will take up tomorrow.
I am heartened by the fact that we will have an opportunity tomorrow to
vote on a solution. I think we should vote to open government until
February 8. That is not a lot of time. From tomorrow, it will be 15
days. Then we should engage immediately in an effort to consider,
debate, amend, and vote upon the proposal the President introduced
through the majority leader yesterday.
I listened to the majority leader's comments before I spoke, and he
said a deal was on the table. As I saw Republicans--for example, my
colleague from Oklahoma--describe the deal on Sunday during one of the
television shows--he said: It is the President's opening proposal. It
is meant to inspire constructive dialogue.
In that sense, I agree. It is a proposal to inspire constructive
dialogue. The four elements of the President's proposal--border
security, the temporary protected status program, the DACA Program,
asylum processes, and the bases for receiving asylum--are very

[[Page S492]]

legitimate discussions on which I believe we can find a bipartisan
compromise.
We will have a vote on that proposal tomorrow, but it will not be a
proposal that is about compromise--it will be an up-or-down vote. Do
you accept the President's proposal without the opportunity to hear its
justification, without the opportunity to offer an amendment? Take it
or leave it. Under those circumstances, it is very hard to say that is
a constructive debate or dialogue; however, we have the opportunity to
do that.
I believe that if we vote to open government through February 8--15
days--the Senate should, in this humble Senator's view, put that bill
in committee next week. There should be an administration explanation
of the pieces of the bill, with the members of the relevant committees
being able to ask questions. For example, on the TPS proposal, you
propose to restore TPS for 4 of the 10 affected countries but not the
other 6. Why is that? Is there some reason for that, or can we explore
it?
I think those questions need to be asked, and they need to be
answered. There may be a reason there. There may be a better approach
there.
Then the committee should be able to move--again, in my opinion; I am
not on either of the relevant committees, Appropriations or Judiciary,
but with Republican majorities and Republican chairs, I believe this
could be done--move to a markup of the bill a few days or 2 days after
the explanatory discussion. The bill could then be on the floor the
following week, before February 8, where we could do the same thing and
have the opportunity to try to make the bill as strong as it can be, as
bipartisan as it can be because it would need to be to have a realistic
chance of passing in the House.
I do agree with the majority leader--there is now a proposal on the
table. It is a proposal that is worthy of discussion. I have some ideas
about ways to make it better, and I bet virtually every Member--
Republican and Democratic--in the Chamber would have ideas as well. But
if we are going to take it seriously, let's take the time to take it
seriously.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on one of the votes we will take
tomorrow, which would reopen government for 15 days while we engage
earnestly with the President's proposal. I deeply believe that if we
undertake that kind of focused effort without being pulled away because
of the needs of constituents affected by the shutdown, we can be
focused and find an answer.
The last thing I will say before I yield the floor is this. Some
would say: Why don't you negotiate while the shutdown is in place?
If there was a hurricane in Virginia Beach, everybody in this Chamber
would understand that I wasn't here; I was in Virginia Beach dealing
with people who were hurting. This is a hurricane. When it affects the
livelihood of so many Virginians who are hurting deeply, I am out every
day with people who are hurting. In the middle of a hurricane, no one
would fault me for being in Virginia Beach or a Florida Senator from
being in Florida trying to comfort people who are hurting. Nobody would
say: Why aren't you back here having around-the-clock negotiations on
something?
For this Senator, the top priority I have every day is trying to be
out with people who are hurting and trying to provide them with answers
and some assurance that we can move forward. If we can get government
open for 15 days, we can be here around the clock, and we can find a
solution to this. I am confident we can. I ask my colleagues to join me
in that when we have that vote.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, government shutdowns, regardless of
which party controls Congress or the White House, are always harmful to
Federal employees and their families, who struggle to pay their bills
without paychecks, to Americans who need help from closed government
Agencies, and to our economy, which is damaged by the decline in
consumer spending and consumer confidence. Ironically, they also always
end up costing taxpayers more money than if government had been funded
on time. That is why I have always worked to end shutdowns.
In 2013, for example, I convened a bipartisan group, of which the
Presiding Officer was the very first member, that produced the plan
that led to the reopening of government after a 16-day shutdown.
During the past month, I have had numerous discussions with
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as with White House
officials, on what we can do to reopen government. At the same time, I
have been working to mitigate the impacts of this shutdown as much as
possible for the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and their
families. These families are being unfairly and seriously harmed, and
they have no idea when they will receive their next paycheck.
Right around Christmas, I worked closely with the White House to
ensure that the Coast Guard received pay for their work prior to the
shutdown, when an anomaly in the pay system put their paychecks at
risk. In addition, Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and I sponsored a bill
to guarantee backpay to Federal workers affected by the shutdown. Our
legislation was passed by both chambers and was signed into law by the
President.
I have also joined Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin in introducing
the Shutdown Fairness Act, which would ensure that Federal workers who
are deemed essential and required to come to work each day are paid on
time despite the partial government shutdown. It is simply not fair to
force employees to work and not pay them, and I hope that this bill,
too, will become law.
As the Presiding Officer is well aware, after 33 days--the longest
shutdown in history--it is long overdue for all sides to come together
to engage in constructive debate and compromise to end this standoff.
Shutdowns represent the ultimate failure to govern and should never be
used as a weapon to achieve an outcome.
Here is what does not reopen government. Political ads do not end
shutdowns. Overheated and inflammatory statements do not end shutdowns.
An unwillingness to budge and a lack of specific proposals do not end
shutdowns. What will end this shutdown? Remembering the real harm that
this shutdown is causing, putting specific proposals on the table so
that the administration and Republicans and Democrats in both the
Senate and the House can see signs of good faith and compromise, voting
on specific proposals and trying to get to yes--that is what is
necessary to end shutdowns.
Finally, over the weekend, the President submitted a plan to end the
shutdown, which the Senate will consider tomorrow. His legislative
package avoids the chicken-and-egg dilemma of whether we should reopen
government first or whether border security measures should be
considered first. It combines all of those issues in one package that
would reopen government, strengthen the security of our borders, change
some immigration rules for the better and some, in my judgment, for the
worse, and provide disaster relief funding. The administration's
package would reopen government for 800,000 Federal employees,
including hundreds of thousands who work at the FBI, the TSA, Border
Patrol, Coast Guard, and the DEA, who have been working without pay to
protect us from terrorists, drug cartels, and other criminals. It
provides disaster funding to address devastating hurricanes, wildfires,
earthquakes, and volcanoes. The bill also makes border security
investments and includes some immigration changes.
It is important to note that all of the remaining appropriations
bills are incorporated into this package, and, thus, this bill would
fully reopen government until September 30, the end of the fiscal year.
I would also note that these seven bills either passed this Chamber
or the Appropriations Committee last year with widespread bipartisan
support. The Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development bill that I
offered with my good friend and colleague Senator Jack Reed, the
ranking member, is a great example. At its core, this is a bill that
creates jobs, strengthens communities, improves our infrastructure, and
helps low-income families, veterans, seniors, and those who are
homeless with their housing needs. This bill passed the Senate in
August by an overwhelming vote of 92 to 6 as

[[Page S493]]

part of a four-bill package. It should be law.

This shutdown is harming low-income families and seniors across the
country. Funds for housing repairs and disaster recovery have been
stopped from being allocated to areas of critical need. Public housing
agencies and multifamily property owners in Maine and across the
country are scrambling to line up short-term loans and other financing
to try to fill the gap caused by a lack of HUD funding.
Since the shutdown began, nearly 42,000 households, most of which are
comprised of low-income seniors or disabled individuals, have not had
their rental assistance renewed, and millions more are at risk the
longer the shutdown continues.
Just this morning, the city of Portland contacted me to express alarm
over the 1,700 housing vouchers serving 3,500 people who will be
affected on March 1. Statewide, that number is in the vicinity of
10,500 vouchers, affecting many thousands more vulnerable individuals
and families.
The problems, unfortunately, go well beyond HUD housing vouchers.
Because most HUD staff have been furloughed, HUD has been unable to
correct computer errors that are keeping local shelters and small
nonprofit groups across the country that assist the homeless and
victims of domestic violence from accessing their grants. Maine's eight
domestic violence shelters are about 75 percent funded by the Federal
Government. If this shutdown continues, how can they continue to serve
the women and children who are escaping abuse and violence?
While there is never a good time of the year to be at risk of losing
one's housing or to be unable to find a shelter if one finds oneself
homeless or to be able to escape domestic violence and abuse, the
middle of the winter is an especially cruel time to face a housing
crisis.
The shutdown is also challenging for our Nation's air traffic
controllers, who remain on the job, dedicated to the safety of every
flight, despite missing paychecks. Our Nation's air traffic controllers
and safety professionals work in a system that has no room for error.
Regrettably, they are now enduring financial strain in jobs that are
already very stressful.
So many other important functions of the Federal Government--
operating our national parks and the tourism they support, ensuring the
safety of the food that we eat, preventing hunger, avoiding drug
shortages, processing tax refunds, addressing the opioid epidemic,
providing access to loan guarantees for small businesses and
homeowners--all would be addressed by reopening government.
Let me provide just a few examples from my State of Maine. I have
heard from physicians in Portland about emergency shortages of critical
drugs. We cannot reach the FDA, which is where we would normally turn
for assistance because of the furloughs. Instead, we are contacting the
manufacturers to try to get help.
A small Maine-owned architecture and engineering business in Western
Maine has contracts with 10 Federal Agencies. It will very soon not
have enough work for its employees because it is not being paid by
these Agencies. A smoked salmon facility in Hancock, ME, cannot operate
because it lacks a vital certificate from the FDA. Seniors at the Maine
Maritime Academy are unable to take their licensing exams, which will
delay their job searches significantly, and current merchant mariners
who need to renew their licensees cannot do so.
The Coast Guard, which is so important to my State and to the State
of the Presiding Officer, is not being paid, and yet its members are
required to work to perform absolutely vital tasks, and they cannot be
absent to take on another job to pay the bills.
Of course, like many of my colleagues, I have talked with so many TSA
employees in Bangor and in Portland who are having difficulties paying
their bills, having to take out loans or rely on family or friends, and
yet they are so devoted to their important mission that they show up
for work day after day, despite not being paid.
In addition to reopening government, the legislation also includes
investments and policies to lessen the problems at our southern border.
Ninety percent of the heroin that is flooding into this country is
coming from Mexico, some through legal ports of entry that lack the
technology to detect these drugs and some smuggled across the border
outside of ports of entry.
Physical barriers have proven to be an effective deterrent in many
areas where they have been built, such as San Diego and El Paso. That
is why Congress and two previous administrations, on a bipartisan
basis, authorized and built more than 600 miles of walls, fences, and
other barriers by January 2017, an often overlooked fact.
In fact, to listen to this debate, you would think that there were no
barriers along our southern border, and that is not true. There are
more than 600 miles of physical barriers. In some places, they don't
make sense, but in some places, they have proven to be an effective
deterrent. Republicans and Democrats voted to support the construction
of these physical barriers in 2006.
As recently as last June, the Senate Appropriations Committee
passed--again, on a bipartisan basis--a Homeland Security funding bill
that would have provided the money for additional physical barriers at
the border. The package before us that we will vote on tomorrow would
supplement this existing infrastructure by providing funding for an
additional 234 miles of barriers at high-priority locations identified
by the experts at Customs and Border Patrol.
We already have more than 650 miles of physical barriers. What this
bill would provide is funding for 234 additional miles of fences,
walls, and other kinds of physical barriers that have been specifically
identified as needed by the experts at Customs and Border Patrol.
The bill would also provide $800 million to meet the urgent
humanitarian needs of those who are crossing the border, as well as
additional funding for new Border Patrol agents, immigration judges,
and Customs officers. Again, you rarely hear any discussion that this
package includes $800 million for humanitarian assistance, as well as
funding for personnel, for technology, for K-9, and for sensors. This
has to be a multipronged approach to be effective.
The package also takes some preliminary steps to alter our broken
immigration system. We need to focus on the Dreamer population, those
young people who were brought to this country by a parent usually at a
very young age.
I so remember a conversation I had with a Dreamer who lives in
Portland, ME, and attends the University of Southern Maine. He was
brought to this country by his parents when he was age 4. He had no
idea that he was not an American. He thought he was born in Portland
and had lived his whole life there. It was only when he was going to
apply for his driver's license that his parents told him the truth. The
fact is, like so many other Dreamers, this young man has known no other
country but America.
Many of the Dreamers are going to school, working, serving in the
military, or otherwise contributing to our country. This legislation
does not go as far as I would like, but it would at least provide
relief for 3 years to the 700,000 young immigrants who are enrolled in
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA Program.
Frankly, I would prefer giving these young people a path to
citizenship, provided that they have abided by and continue to abide by
our laws.
We also need to help those legally receiving temporary protected
status, the so-called TPS population. Many of these immigrants have
been in the United States for years--even decades--working hard,
creating jobs, and becoming established and valued members of their
communities.
On the other hand, some of the asylum changes proposed in the
President's bill are problematic. Allowing people to apply for asylum
in their home countries appears to me to be a good idea, but raising
the bar to qualify for asylum needs much more study.
The plan put forth by President Trump is by no means ideal, but it
would result in the reopening of government--my priority--and the
outlines of a compromise are before us. I urge my Democratic colleagues
to also put forth a specific plan that addresses all of these issues.

[[Page S494]]

Compromise is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of strength,
particularly when hundreds of thousands of families are being harmed.
The administration and Senate Republicans and Democrats have the
opportunity to resolve the stalemate before 800,000 Federal workers and
their families--dedicated public servants--miss yet another paycheck,
and our economy is further damaged. Shutdowns harm too many innocent
Federal employees and their families as well as vulnerable citizens,
homeowners, small businesses, and rural communities. This shutdown must
end.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, it is day 33 of this dangerous and
unnecessary government shutdown.
Let me share with my colleagues that this morning, I stopped by an
IBEW office that was set up by the Maryland Food Bank. We are very
proud to have the Maryland Food Bank in Maryland. It provides the
necessary food for hungry Marylanders who go through tough times and
can't get enough food for their families. I don't think we ever thought
it would have to set up a special location for Federal workers and for
those who are impacted because of a Federal shutdown, but it is exactly
what it did today. I am very proud of those at the Maryland Food Bank.
I thank them for their services to the people of our State. They have
now been able to provide basic food to patriotic Federal workers who
are not getting their paychecks.
This will be the second pay period this week for which Federal
workers' pay stubs will read ``zero'' for the work they will have done.
Of the over 800,000 Federal workers, 30 percent are veterans. They are
patriotic Americans who show up every day to do work--to keep us safe,
to deal with our national security, to deal with our food safety. The
list goes on and on and on. They are showing up today and working on
the 33rd day. They are being asked to carry out their work with their
having no prospects of getting paid in the near future. These are
patriotic Americans.
The number is more than 800,000. We also have contract workers who
get contracts from the government. Many of these contractors employ
low-wage workers to do basic work for the government. These workers are
not getting paid.
We have small businesses that depend upon contracts that are not
being fulfilled right now because of the government shutdown. They are
laying off workers.
Then we have the general impact on our economy. It is projected that
we are going to lose all of our economic growth, which will slow down
and create more unemployment in America.
All of that is happening because of this shutdown. It is in our
national security interest to end this dangerous shutdown. The FBI is
on shutdown, meaning many of its workers are not even being brought in,
and those who are being brought in are having a difficult time doing
their jobs. On Thursday, the FBI Agents Association released a petition
that describes the shutdown as a matter of national security. It urges
leaders in Washington to reopen the government.
``On Friday, January 11, 2019, FBI Agents will not be paid due to the
partial government shutdown, but we will continue our work protecting
our nation,'' the petition reads. ``We urge our elected representatives
to fund the Department of Justice . . . and the FBI because financial
security is a matter of national security.''
My colleagues, these are people who go to work every day to keep us
safe, and we are asking them to do that without their having a full
complement of supporting workers and to do it without being paid.
Recently, I met with our airport security people--the TSA and
others--who are charged with keeping our airports safe. They are
responsible for air traffic safety. They asked me how they can do their
work when they are distracted. How are they going to pay their bills?
They also don't have the full complement of support staff necessary.
That is what it is at risk.
We know security is being compromised in our Federal Prison System.
On Friday, prison guard Brian Shoemaker was patrolling the halls of Lee
penitentiary in Southwestern Virginia when an inmate tried to squeeze
past him into a restricted area. Seconds after Shoemaker told the
prisoner to turn around, the inmate lunged at him and punched him in
his shoulder. Mr. Shoemaker did not sustain a major injury, but it did
not escape him that he was working without a paycheck at one of the
most dangerous Federal jobs in America during this partial government
shutdown. Fears for his and other prison staff members' safety are
escalating as 16-hour shifts become routine and as a growing number of
guards call in sick in protest and work side jobs to pay their bills.
``I don't think we should be subjected to that kind of thing and not
receive a paycheck,'' said Shoemaker, age 48, a 17-year veteran of Lee
penitentiary. ``I'm walking in here and doing my job every day, and
it's very dangerous.''
Mr. Shoemaker is one of 36,000 Federal prison workers who is deemed
to be an essential employee by the U.S. Government, which means he is
expected to report for work during the shutdown even though he will not
get paid until the government reopens. He has worked 33 days without
pay.
Even though these employees are supposed to work, union officials at
10 prisons, including Lee, who were reached by the Washington Post, say
the number of employees who are not showing up for work has at least
doubled since the shutdown began. This cannot continue.
As a result, those who are showing up are routinely working double
shifts, correctional officers and other prison staff members say.
Secretaries, janitors, and teachers are filling in for absent officers.
There is at least one prison--Hazelton Federal Correctional Complex in
West Virginia--at which the number of assaults on officers has
increased since the shutdown, according to a union official there.
``There has been a rise in people calling in sick and taking leave
during the shutdown,'' said Richard Heldreth, the local union president
at the Hazelton prison. ``The staff who are showing up are dealing with
this violence, long hours and extra overtime with the uncertainty of
when we will be compensated.''
The list goes on.
I had a chance to meet with some of our Coast Guard workers this
morning. The Coast Guard is in a partial shutdown. Here is one of the
critical national security Agencies of this Nation that is not working
at its full strength. We have heard the President talk about border
security. He has compromised border security by not allowing Homeland
Security to be fully operational--to have all of its capacity--and its
workers to be paid to do their work.
Research is being very badly hurt as a result of this shutdown. A
coalition of more than 40 patient and healthcare provider groups is
warning about the effects of the government shutdown on the FDA. This
marks the first time advocacy organizations have weighed in on the more
than month-long lapse in appropriations.
``We fear that this continued shutdown not only puts the current
health and safety of Americans' safety at risk, but has begun to put
future scientific discovery and innovation in jeopardy,'' the group
wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump and senior congressional
leadership. The effort, spearheaded by Friends of Cancer Research, has
drawn in the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Society of
Clinical Oncology, Research!America, and the National Organization for
Rare Disorders.
The shutdown is keeping the FDA from reviewing new drug and medical
device applications and from conducting certain inspections of food and
medical product facilities. It has also slowed the hiring and
onboarding of new staff at an Agency that is already grappling with
hundreds of vacancies. Some FDA research and policy development has
also come to a halt.
The FDA regulates products and industries that comprise about one-
quarter of the U.S. economy. The FDA ensures a safe food supply;
protects patients from contaminated and unsafe medical products; and
approves new lifesaving treatments, the group wrote.
The list goes on.
Diplomatic missions around the world are being compromised. I had a
chance to talk to one of our Ambassadors in a key country of great
interest to the United States. He confided in

[[Page S495]]

me that without a full complement of staff, his mission is being
compromised, and our national security is being put at risk.
Let's take a look at the faces of the people who are impacted by this
shutdown. I already mentioned the fact that just a few hours ago, I was
at the Maryland Food Bank location at which I saw very proud, patriotic
government workers stand in line to get bags so they could pick up food
because they didn't have the money to pay for food for their families.
That is what is at stake.

I have received letters from Federal workers who are concerned about
whether they will be able to continue their dental and vision health
protection because those payments are not automatically made when we
are in shutdown. The workers are supposed to make those payments
directly. How many workers are going to be able to or will even know
that they need to make the payments? They may see the loss of critical
coverage.
I know it is affecting people's credit scores. We know credit
agencies are not very tolerant with late payments. Yet government
workers are going to have to slow down in paying their bills because
they will not have money. Most workers live paycheck to paycheck in
paying their bills. Now their credit scores are going to be affected,
and that is going to affect the cost of credit. It may affect such
things as their security clearances, which will affect their
employment.
I have heard from several Federal workers. I heard from one who said:
I have this dilemma. I live 90 miles away from where I work as a
Federal worker. I am expected to be there every day. I don't have the
money to pay for gasoline for my car. Yet I am expected to pay for that
without getting a paycheck. By the way, I don't have the money to pay
for the childcare for my children. How am I expected to show up for
work and do essential work when I don't have the money to take care of
my needs so I can get transportation to my job and take care of my
family's needs with safe childcare?
This is the face of the people who have been impacted by this partial
government shutdown. Her circumstances are really shocking.
One might be surprised to learn that many Federal workers are
expected to use their own personal credit cards to pay for government
expenses. If they travel on behalf of the government, they use their
own credit cards to pay for those expenses. I am told it averages
somewhere around $600 a month. At the end of the month, they have to,
of course, pay their credit card bills, but they have their
reimbursements from the Federal Government for these legitimate
expenses. In a government shutdown, there is no Agency that can
reimburse them for that money. The credit card companies are going to
demand that they pay. These are government expenses, not theirs. What
do they do? This is where we are today with the tragedies.
There was an ad in the paper that really got to me. It was written by
a government worker who said she was looking for a job.
She writes:

I'm currently furloughed due to the government shutdown and
am available for baby-sitting during the workday. I have
plenty of childcare experience from raising my two children,
ages 3 and 5, so I know how hard it can be to find last-
minute weekday childcare. Alternatively, I'm also happy to
provide science tutoring for any high school or college
students. I have a Ph.D. in cellular and molecular medicine
and can help with biology, genetics, microbiology,
biochemistry, cell bio, or research methods. Please message
me if interested, and I would be happy to provide you with
additional information. Thanks.

Here is a Federal worker whom we want to keep in Federal service. She
needs money to pay her bills and is willing to be a babysitter but has
scientific training. We know she could be gobbled up in the private
sector for a lot more money than she is making as a government
employee, and we are going to lose her. We are going to lose a lot of
talented workers who ask: How much longer can I put up with this? How
much longer can I work without pay? The critical missions that she is
performing on behalf of America will be compromised and lost. This is
what is at risk. This is what we are risking.
I haven't even gone into all of the different Agencies or the work
that is important to Americans. HUD's being closed means FHA loans are
not being processed and that you can't go forward with your closing on
a home. I know several senior housing projects are being put on hold,
which jeopardizes quality, affordable housing for our seniors. The IRS
season is beginning, but it doesn't have its full complement. People
want their refunds, but they are going to be delayed. The list goes on
and on and on.
This is President Trump's shutdown. Many of us, on both sides of the
aisle--Democrats and Republicans--understand border security issues. In
the fiscal year 2019 appropriations, our appropriators did their work.
The distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, is on the floor. He
worked very closely with Senator Shelby on every single appropriations
bill in a bipartisan manner. We did our work in the U.S. Senate.
Seven of the appropriations bills have not yet been completed through
no fault of the work of our appropriators. Four of them passed the
Senate by a vote of 92 to 6. Why don't we just pick them up and pass
them? We have tried. I have asked unanimous consent. Because we don't
want to offend the President, the Republican leaders have refused to
allow us to consider them. Two others passed the Appropriations
Committee by votes of 31 to 0 and 30 to 1.

With regard to Homeland Security, on border security the committee
did its work on the fiscal year 2019 budget. They came up with a game
plan on border security. We did our work on time, in a bipartisan
manner. We know how to deal with border security issues. We have the
expertise to work to make sure that we spend our money in the most
appropriate way to defend our border and to protect Americans.
So what should we do? First, we should open the government. There is
no excuse for the government to be closed. We are a coequal branch of
government. We need to act as a coequal branch of government. It is our
responsibility. We will have that chance tomorrow.
There will be a vote on the floor of the Senate to pass a short-term
continuing resolution. This is identical to what we acted on by
unanimous consent before the President changed his mind.
Let's remove the hostage-taking of the American public. Let's have a
short period of time to prove that we can use the legislative process
here, as we have in the past, to work on border security issues and
pass a bipartisan border security bill, but not under the tactics the
President of the United States is currently using. We can act that way
on behalf of the American people.
This is a dangerous shutdown. We have seen the results, and we know
people's lives have been compromised and our national security has been
affected. We need to take the leadership.
I hope my colleagues will join me tomorrow in voting for the
continuing resolution so we can open the government and use our
legislative process to deal with the border security issues and to deal
with what is important to the American people.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I hope the country has heard what the
distinguished senior Senator from Maryland said. He sees this every
day. He sees it when he goes home to Baltimore. He sees it when he
talks with his neighbors. He sees it when he is in the grocery store.
He sees it at the temple. He sees it everywhere because these are the
people who are among our finest government workers, and they are out of
work. They are not being paid. I suspect he also sees it with the
contractors and subcontractors and those who are not on the Federal
payroll but who would lose their jobs if the Federal Government is
closed. So I compliment him for doing this.
I also appreciate what he said about the Appropriations Committee.
The distinguished Presiding Officer is one of the hardest working
chairs of the Appropriations subcommittees. I realize she cannot
respond in her position as Presiding Officer, but I note that she moved
her bill through. She did it in a way that got enormous support from
Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum, which is the
way we are supposed to do it. It certainly has

[[Page S496]]

been the way we have seen it done with people from her State. We did it
with her father. We did it with my dear friend, Senator Stevens, when
he was chair of the Appropriations Committee. We did it when the
distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, was chair of
the overall committee. We got this done.
It is a lot of work. It is tremendous work for our staffs on both
sides of the aisle--a lot of late nights and weekends--but it is done
because the American people want the U.S. Government to work.
For a month now, much of the Federal Government has been closed for
business while the President of the United States rants and raves about
his personal obsession, the centerpiece of his extreme, anti-
immigration agenda--a wall on our southern border.
For a month now, hundreds of thousands of dedicated public servants
have gone without a paycheck, even while many of them showed up for
work every single day. Many can no longer pay their bills. They worry
about how they are going to put food on the table. Many are looking for
temporary work. Many are standing in line at food pantries. These are
professionals. They are trying to figure out: How do we pay for
childcare or healthcare? How do we pay our student loans? How do we pay
for our mortgage?
It is not just the individuals. It is also our institutions. Our
Federal courts are running out of money. Our Federal courts are running
out of money. TSA agents are calling in sick in droves after weeks on
the job without pay. What is that doing with air traffic, especially
during the winter, in America?
Thousands of people who are trying to buy new homes, which boosts our
economy, with a Federal Housing Administration loan told: Come back
later.
Come back when?
Well, we don't know. Whenever President Trump ends the shutdown, come
back.
Small businesses and farmers cannot get federally backed loans. This
is after this body--under the leadership of the distinguished
Republican, Senator Roberts, and the distinguished Democrat, Senator
Stabenow--put through a 5-year farm bill, which brought almost all of
us together. We voted for it, but now farmers can't use it. They don't
even know what the new rules are because nobody is there to answer
their questions.
We scaled back on food inspections. We are not enforcing our clean
air and clean water rules. Our national parks are being vandalized and
permanently damaged as they remain open to the public, but they are not
staffed.
As a former prosecutor, here is something that sends a chill down my
spine. The FBI Agents Association says criminal investigations are
being stymied, grand jury subpoenas are going undelivered, and
confidential sources are being lost. It is quickly becoming a national
security threat.
This is America? This is the country I am proud to serve?
Either the President does not understand the harm his shutdown is
causing, or he does not care. But the country is suffering. Our economy
is suffering. The American people are suffering.
The Trump shutdown makes us look foolish and weak to the rest of the
world. This is the leader of the free world we are seeing as weak and
incompetent. However, over the weekend, the President addressed the
country from the White House, and he laid out his price to stop the
shutdown. Calling it a compromise, he made vague promises for
protections for DACA recipients and those who receive TPS, or temporary
protected status. We could end this shutdown, he said, and all U.S.
taxpayers had to do was fund his wall--a wasteful monument to himself
that he just wants the taxpayers to fund, even though he gave his word
to all Americans, over and over, that Mexico would pay for it. He did
not tell the truth then, and now he wants the American taxpayers to
bail him out.
It was a transparent attempt to look reasonable on national
television, while simultaneously holding the Federal Government and
millions of Americans hostage to a shutdown that harms our economy and
our communities every day. But as for offering temporary protections
for vulnerable immigrants--protections that he unilaterally chose to
strip, in the first place--in exchange for a permanent, ineffective
wall, nobody can call that reasonable. It is hardly reasonable to hold
the well-being of our Federal workforce or the services upon which many
in America rely as hostages to fund a pet project. The President cannot
bargain with something that he broke.
On Monday night, Senate Republicans unveiled the President's plan in
more detail. It became clear that what seemed like a disingenuous ploy
to seem reasonable to stop his slide in the polls was really a much
more cynical attempt to implement his hard-lined, anti-immigration
agenda, using the harm of the Trump shutdown as leverage.
The McConnell bill before us reads like an A-through-Z immigration
wish list for President Trump and those in his anti-immigrant inner
circle. First, the bill provides $5.7 billion for a wasteful monument
to the President's ego--a wall that most experts say would do little to
address the real problems on our southern border.
The bill, ultimately, dramatically increases the number of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or so-called ICE, detention beds
to 52,000 and ICE enforcement agents by 2,000. Even as I give these
numbers, I think of walking through these rooms with cages that
children are being kept in. Every one of us who has children or
grandchildren and every one of us who has gone through a school yard
and has seen young children has heard that the decibel level is
outstanding. They are laughing. They are playing. They are talking with
each other. When you go through these cages--these cages holding these
young, innocent children--there is dead silence--no laughter, no
talking with each other, no joking. There is dead silence.
This is America. What are we showing the rest of the world?
The Trump administration has repeatedly proven it does not know how
to prioritize its immigration enforcement resources. In the first 14
months of the Trump administration, ICE's arrests of immigrants with no
criminal convictions--no criminal convictions--spiked by 203 percent
over the last 14 months of the previous administration. So it shows
that President Trump has not deployed resources to round up, as he
said, ``bad hombres'' or threats to our national security. He is
deploying his enforcement resources to strike fear into the hearts of
all undocumented immigrants.
This administration's enforcement policies are driven by the cruel
desire to scare undocumented immigrants into believing that they or
their disabled children or their elderly parents could be next. Until
the Trump administration changes its dragnet approach to immigration
enforcement, Congress should not fund an expansion of his detention and
deportation force.
I would ask anybody to walk past those cages with the children in
them. I never thought I would see this in America. I have seen it in
war zones and other countries, but not America--not in the America I
love.
The bill also contains provisions that serve as fig leaves to fix
problems the Trump administration brought about in the first place. It
would provide 3 years of temporary protection to 700,000 individuals
currently involved in DACA--protections that are only required because
of the President's own decision to terminate the DACA Program. It would
not provide a path to citizenship for these Dreamers or any protections
to the nearly 1 million more individuals who are eligible for DACA
protections. Similarly, the bill would provide 3 years of temporary
protection to TPS recipients from a few countries with TPS designation
the Trump administration terminated in the first place.

If you provide permanent funding for a wall in exchange for
provisions that temporarily clean up messes of the Trump
administration's own making, that is not a compromise. It is taking
hostages on top of hostages. That is a nonstarter. Stripping away
protections from Dreamers and TPS recipients and then treating them
like pawns by suddenly offering them temporary reprieve--this is not
compassion. It is callous. It is wicked. It is evil.
Finally, the bill seeks to dismantle our humanitarian asylum system
as we

[[Page S497]]

know it. It contains provisions that would effectively bar any asylum
applications from Honduran, Guatemalan, and Salvadoran minors that are
not made from a designated processing center somewhere in Central
America. In other words, thousands of vulnerable children fleeing the
horrors of torture, murder, and rape in the Northern Triangle and
arriving at our border would be categorically barred from applying for
asylum and be subject to immediate removal proceedings.
The entire point of asylum is to provide an opportunity for those who
have fled from persecution and violence to seek refuge in our country.
Our asylum system would become distorted beyond recognition if,
instead, we punish these desperate children--punish them for the very
act of fleeing for their lives.
It is remarkable that the man whose name is on the book called ``The
Art of the Deal'' would think that Democrats would accept what amounts
to a deal breaker. This Democrat will not.
I welcome a debate on the need for immigration reform. I would remind
Senators that in 2013, when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, I issued a bipartisan bill to reform the immigration system
and secure our border through the committee. We held dozens of
hearings. We considered hundreds of amendments. We often met until late
at night. Then, when we brought it before the Senate, it got 68 votes
here on the Senate floor. Republicans and Democrats joined together to
give it a supermajority. So it shows it can be done, but not while the
President holds hostage all Americans, including hundreds of thousands
of Federal workers and their families.
I remind the Senate that on December 19, when Republicans controlled
the House and Republicans controlled the Senate, the Senate passed a
bipartisan bill to fund the government by a voice vote. In other words,
the Senate was for keeping the government open--until President Trump
changed the mind of our Republican leader.
The President and Senate Republicans should reopen the government
now, without any further foot-dragging. Congress and the Senate are a
coequal and independent branch of government. We have bipartisan bills
before Congress right now to do that. My friend the majority leader has
refused to bring them up while the country pays the price. This has to
end. I hope he will pull up the bipartisan bills. I hope he will let us
vote.
Again, I would say that we are looking weak to the rest of the world.
We are looking foolish to the rest of the world. But what hurts the
most are the people--not only Federal employees but contractors,
private industry, and everybody else in every one of our States--who
are suffering and watching our economy sink further as a result.
I see the distinguished majority leader on the floor, so I yield the
floor.

____________________