[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 15 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S430-S437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        FEDERAL REGISTER PRINTING SAVINGS ACT OF 2017--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to urge Senate Democratic 
leadership to end their reckless government shutdown.
  It is no secret that over the years I have made clear that I don't 
like funding our Federal Government from one shortsighted, bandaid bill 
to another. We must establish a path forward to responsibly fund our 
government for the long term. It is the responsible and right thing to 
do for our military, for future generations, for our veterans, and for 
the American people.
  But rather than finding a long-term funding solution to ensure 
stability in our military, the Senate Democratic leadership has decided 
to shut down the government. What does that mean for our military? 
Well, for starters, critical defense projects have come to a halt. We 
could also see delays in maintenance of our critical aircraft, ships, 
and weapons systems at a time when our adversaries are becoming more 
aggressive and more advanced. Our servicemembers, who put their lives 
on the line every day for our country, don't know when they will 
receive a paycheck.
  I have an adviser right now who is deployed to the Middle East. I 
received an email from him this morning. He said: It is really hard for 
all of us here knowing that our government is shut down. But every day 
it is the same for us here in Afghanistan. We will do what we need to 
do.
  God bless him for that.
  Iowa National Guardsmen are deployed overseas right now. One of my 
former units, the 248th Aviation Support Battalion, is spread out 
through the Middle East, doing their mission while we struggle to find 
a way forward for them here in Washington, DC.
  Military schools have been canceled. I spoke to an Active-Duty Army 
officer this morning. She was scheduled for her precommand course this 
weekend, and her orders were canceled. She told me: I will not be able 
to go to that precommand course before I deploy. She will head overseas 
not having had a vital course to instruct her on leadership in the 
military. The likelihood of her picking up that course again in the 
future is near zero--near zero.
  Additionally, having served as a battalion commander in the Iowa Army 
National Guard during our last government shutdown, I can tell you that 
these shutdowns have a significant impact on our National Guardsmen. A 
shutdown prohibits our citizen soldiers from participating in drill and 
training exercises essential to our military readiness.
  Our public affairs officer sent out this notice this morning from the 
Iowa National Guard. The headline:

       IOWA NATIONAL GUARD FEELS EFFECTS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
     SHUTDOWN
       More than 1,000 full-time federal technicians furloughed

  That is in Iowa alone. ``Approximately 400 personnel sent home from 
weekend training.'' That is just Iowa.
  And 110,000 National Guardsmen were affected after this last weekend 
because of the shutdown. Should these men and women be called to defend 
our Nation in the face of danger, it is critical that they are properly 
prepared, and a government shutdown does not allow this. During the 
time that the government shutdown goes on, we are not able to maintain 
our equipment; that hurts our readiness. Our personnel can't do their 
wellness and medical checks; that hurts our readiness. Our military 
members can't get to their schools for advancement in their careers; 
that hurts our readiness. And once those orders to schools have been 
canceled, you can't just pick up on Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday 
and say: OK, I am going to school now. There are only so many slots 
allocated, and if you miss that training period, you may be waiting 
months, perhaps even a year, in the National Guard to pick up those 
schools.
  During a shutdown, our folks are furloughed. Depending on how long 
the government is shut down, our citizen soldiers might not receive 
enough training days to be adequately prepared for duty. This could 
also mean that their time serving throughout the year might not be 
included in their total years of service, potentially further 
jeopardizing their benefits and pay.
  What a lot of folks here who haven't served in the military--the 
Reserves, Guard, or Active Duty--don't understand is that in the 
Reserves and Guard you have to meet so many points in a year for that 
to be considered a good retirement year. If you fall a few days short 
of that, the entire year does not count toward your retirement. The 
entire year does not count toward your retirement.
  Despite their rhetoric otherwise, Senate Democrats are turning their 
backs on our men and women in uniform by putting our military's 
resources and readiness in jeopardy. It is inexcusable.
  Additionally, the legislation the Senate voted on Friday night would 
have reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 years--
6 years--providing approximately 80,000 Iowa children with access to 
important healthcare services, especially in the rural and underserved 
areas.
  Unfortunately, Senate Democratic leadership is playing political 
games and has opposed our efforts to ensure this critical funding is in 
place for children in Iowa and across the country. Instead, the Senate 
Democratic leadership's shutdown hurts Iowa's low-income children, puts 
rural and underserved areas at a major disadvantage, and disrupts 
States' abilities to ensure sound financial planning for their 
healthcare programs.
  Folks, the reality is, this shutdown happened because Democratic 
leadership didn't get everything they wanted in this funding bill. They 
didn't get everything they wanted. As a result, they decided to hold 
hostage our military, our military's readiness, our children's 
healthcare, and our government.
  You see, the Senate Democrats who chose to play politics also set 
arbitrary--arbitrary--deadlines regarding Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals, also known as DACA. I, too, want to ensure that Congress 
finds a solution for DACA recipients. We have many, many recipients in 
Iowa. Many of my colleagues want to see resolution on this as well.
  America is a nation of immigrants, and our diversity truly is our 
strength. It is incredibly important that we find a fix for DACA 
recipients, as they are so important to the fabric of our communities 
and to our future.
  Many young, undocumented children were brought here truly through no 
fault of their own. Congress has been and must continue to work 
together to identify and pursue a measured approach that addresses DACA 
recipients' unique situation and also respects the importance of our 
immigration laws, keeps our borders secure, and discourages future 
illegal immigration.
  There is still time to achieve a solution. There is still time. But 
holding the government hostage and stalling important discussions on 
DACA really is nonsensical.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues are starting to show a willingness 
to work through these issues and reopen the government, and I am asking 
them

[[Page S431]]

to vote yes for funding our government so that we can move ahead. But 
the decision to remain shut down lies solely with the Democratic 
leadership here in the Senate.
  So today, I am calling on Senate Democratic leaders to put their 
reckless games aside and start working with us on a path forward to 
fund the government, ensure that low-income children have access to 
healthcare, provide the resources our military needs, and find a 
solution for our DACA recipients.
  I am asking my Senate colleagues--those whom I have spoken with on 
both sides of the aisle--to join us in a ``yes'' vote today at noon or 
shortly thereafter so that we can find solutions.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Today, we enter the third day of the Trump shutdown, the first ever 
real shutdown to occur when one party controls the entire legislative 
process. The Republican Party controls the House, the Senate, the 
Presidency, and yet they were unable to keep the government open for 
the American people.
  Leader McConnell knows it takes 60 votes to win passage of a spending 
bill, and yet he moved forward with a last-minute extension that he 
knew lacked the votes. Both Democrats and Republicans voted against 
that bill.
  The reason the Republican majority had such difficulty finding 
consensus is they could never get a firm grip on what the President of 
their party wanted to do. These days you never know whom to deal with 
when it comes to the Republicans. The Republican leaders told me to 
work out a deal with the White House. The White House said work it out 
with Republican leaders on the Hill. Separately, President Trump turned 
away from not one but two bipartisan compromises--each would have 
averted this shutdown, each would have led to a deal on the budget, 
healthcare, disaster aid, and things like opioids, veterans, pensions, 
and on immigration.
  My recent offer to the President was a generous one. I put his 
signature campaign issue on the table in exchange for DACA and still he 
turned away. President Trump's unwillingness to compromise caused the 
Trump shutdown and brought us to this moment. The facts are well known.
  Now I wish to update the Senate on where things stand after this 
weekend. Since our meeting in the Oval Office on Friday, the President 
and I have not spoken, and the White House refused to engage in 
negotiations over the weekend. The great deal-making President sat on 
the sidelines. Despite and because of this frustration, I have been 
having conversations with the Republican leader over the weekend about 
a path forward. After several discussions, offers, and counteroffers, 
the Republican leader and I have come to an arrangement.
  We will vote today to reopen the government, to continue negotiating 
a global agreement, with the commitment that if an agreement isn't 
reached by February 8, the Senate will immediately proceed to 
consideration of legislation dealing with DACA. The process will be 
neutral and fair to all sides. We expect that a bipartisan bill on DACA 
will receive fair consideration and an up-or-down vote on the floor.
  Now, it is a shame the American people and the Senate have had to 
endure such hand-wringing, finger-pointing stridency to secure a 
guarantee that we will finally move to address this urgent issue. It is 
something the majority could have avoided entirely, a concern the 
President could have obviated if he were only willing to take yes for 
an answer.
  While this procedure will not satisfy everyone on both sides, it is a 
way forward. I am confident we can get the 60 votes in the Senate for a 
DACA bill, and now there is a real pathway to get a bill on the floor 
and through the Senate. It is a good solution, and I will vote for it.
  I am incredibly grateful to the bipartisan group that has come 
together in recent days to renew the immigration debate with a sense of 
urgency. I believe this group has the potential to return the Senate to 
the kind of place it should be on the issue of immigration, a place for 
bipartisanship, a place for action, a place for achievement. The 
bipartisan group, in a very fine way, filled the glaring absence of the 
President in these talks.
  I expect the majority leader to fulfill his commitment to the Senate, 
to me and to the bipartisan group and abide by this agreement. If he 
does not, of course--and I expect he will--he will have breached the 
trust of not only the Democratic Senators but Members of his own party 
as well.
  Through these complicated and lengthy negotiations, Democrats have 
always sought to be reasonable, to act in good faith, and get something 
real done. Despite all of our entreaties, the President was obstinate. 
Despite bipartisan support for DACA, the Republican Party dithered.
  The Senate has muddled along for too long, content to delay action on 
our most pressing challenges until the very last moment. That ends 
today. The Republican majority now has 17 days to prevent the Dreamers 
from being deported. We have a way to address the fate of the Dreamers 
starting right now, instead of waiting until March, with the minority 
and the moderate middle empowered to bring a bill to the floor instead 
of being held by the most strident anti-immigration voices in the 
Republican caucus.
  We, on our side of the aisle, will continue to fight as strongly as 
we can for the Dreamers in the weeks ahead. I say to all Americans: 
Urge your Senators to vote yes on the bipartisan compromise when it 
comes forward. Write, tweet, email, phone, visit, do everything you can 
so we can finally pass this bill.
  In a few hours, the government will reopen. We have a lot to do. The 
issue of the Dreamers demands resolution, a budget must be written, 
healthcare has to be addressed, relief provided to disaster-stricken 
parts of our country, pensions, opioids, veterans, and childcare--all 
have to be taken care of. The Trump shutdown will soon end, but the 
work must go on, and it will.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his 
comments and his indication that he intends to support the measure 
before us.
  I think if we have learned anything during this process, it is that a 
strategy to shut down the government over the issue of illegal 
immigration is something the American people didn't understand and 
would not have understood in the future. So I am glad we have gotten 
past that, and we have a chance now to get back to work.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur with a further amendment in the House amendment to the 
     Senate amendment to H.R. 195.
         Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, Shelley Moore Capito, Deb 
           Fischer, David Perdue, John Kennedy, John Hoeven, John 
           Thune, John Barrasso, Roy Blunt, Lisa Murkowski, Susan 
           M. Collins, Bill Cassidy, Richard C. Shelby, Pat 
           Roberts, James E. Risch, Johnny Isakson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
195, with a further amendment, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

[[Page S432]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before we call the roll, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Democratic whip be allowed to address the Chamber for 
3 minutes, with the gracious approval of the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, thank you very much, and I thank the 
majority leader for this opportunity.
  Let me thank my friend, my colleague, and our leader on the 
Democratic side for his passionate personal commitment to this issue 
involving the Dreamers and DACA. He has been by my side, and I have 
been inspired by his leadership from the start.
  Let me thank my colleagues. So many of you cast a vote that was very 
hard and very difficult because you believed, as I did, that the issue 
of immigration and the issue of the Dreamers is the civil rights issue 
of our time. You stuck your necks out and said: I am willing to go on 
record, even though it is hard to explain back home, and I will never 
forget that.
  The question now is how we move forward. What I have seen on the 
floor of the Senate in the last few days is something we have not seen 
for years--constructive, bipartisan conversations and dialogue on the 
floor, not just about this issue, which is obviously front and center, 
but about the future of this institution and what the Senate will be 
from this point forward. That, to me, has been encouraging because it 
says to me we do have an opportunity to work together.
  My special thanks to Senator Susan Collins, my friend, and Senator 
Lisa Murkowski for joining with Jeff Flake and joining with Lindsey 
Graham and joining with Cory Gardner and others who have been working 
on this issue for so long to try to make a positive impact on this 
debate so we can move forward.
  I cannot tell my colleagues how many have come up to me from the 
other side of the aisle who said: We are with you on this issue. We 
want to help get this done. Each of them has a little different take on 
what that means, but I do believe them, and I do believe we have this 
opportunity to move this together.
  Now comes the real test as to whether we can get this done--whether 
we can be the Senate again, whether we can return to regular order on 
the floor and constructively have a debate. For some of you, it will be 
the first time you have ever seen it, but believe me, it is worth the 
price of admission, all it took for you to come to the U.S. Senate. So 
now we have to stand together.
  My last word is this: We have gathered the largest bipartisan group 
of Senators to ever commit on moving forward on the Dream Act and 
immigration. We have a process.
  I thank Senator McConnell for explicitly saying today it will be a 
level playing field. It will be open to both sides. We will move to the 
issue, as you characterized it this morning, of DACA and immigration. 
Thank you for doing that. I believe that then sets the stage for us to 
work together.
  For the first time in 5 years, we will have debate on the floor of 
the Senate on the Dream Act and immigration. To all the Dreamers who 
are watching today, don't give up. I know that your lives are hanging 
in the balance on what we do here on Capitol Hill and with the White 
House. Three weeks from now, I hope to be joining you and celebrating 
the passage, with you and your families and your communities, of a 
measure which will strengthen America and give you an opportunity to be 
part of our future.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--18

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cortez Masto
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hirono
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Paul
     Sanders
     Tester
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 
18.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me tell you how pleased I am for the 
people in Maryland that we are now in the process of ending this 
government shutdown.
  A government shutdown does not benefit anyone. It certainly doesn't 
benefit the Federal workers who live in Maryland and the Federal 
workers around the Nation. There is the uncertainty that a shutdown 
brings. Those who are exempted are asked to work without knowing when 
they will get a paycheck. Those who are on furlough don't know whether 
they will ever get a paycheck or not. It is not in the interest of our 
Federal workforce. It is certainly not in the interest of Federal 
contractors, who depend upon contracts that have been put on 
suspension. It is not in the interest of the public, who depends upon 
governmental services. It ends up costing taxpayers more money.
  I am pleased to see that we are on a path to end this shutdown and to 
get the government back up and with a path forward. I also am pleased 
that we have at least accelerated the deadline for getting a budget 
done by 2 weeks.
  Many of us have expressed major concern about continuing to operate 
under a continuing resolution. That makes no sense. We heard from the 
Department of Defense that they cannot keep our country safe on 
continuing resolutions. We know that agencies, when they are trying to 
plan their mission, cannot operate on continuing resolutions.
  For the public, continuing resolutions state that we are going to 
operate on last year's budget. It doesn't reflect this year's 
priorities, and that is what we should be doing every year.
  So in this case, the Republicans control the House, the Senate, and 
the White House. We would think that a budget could have been done by 
October 1 of last year, which is when the fiscal year began. We are now 
approaching 4 months under the fiscal year 2018 budget, and we still 
don't have a budget.
  One of the parts I am pleased about is that, as we move forward, we 
have had really positive discussions that by February 8 it is realistic 
to expect that we are going to be able to enact budget numbers so that 
the Appropriations Committee can recommend to the full Chamber, and we 
can pass, appropriations bills or a CRomnibus or an omnibus that will 
allow our agencies to have the remainder of this year's appropriations.
  I certainly hope it will include fiscal year 2019--that would 
certainly be the best--and that it will be balanced between the needs 
of the Department of Defense and the nondefense agencies.
  We have critical functions that require to have a full year of 
appropriations, which include our national defense, the Department of 
Defense, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human 
Services, the work that is done in the National Institutes of Health, 
food safety and the Food and Drug Administration, and the ability of 
the Social Security Administration to deliver checks to our seniors and 
to take care of our healthcare needs. All

[[Page S433]]

that requires that we have the predictability of a budget.
  I wasn't pleased we had a shutdown, but I am pleased that during this 
debate, we had great discussions among Democrats and Republicans that 
we are committed to bringing out a budget by February 8 so that we can 
give that type of predictability to the people of this country. That 
was one of the principal frustrations, that many of us didn't want to 
go for another continuing resolution without knowing how we were going 
to deal with the budget.

  There are some special needs that we have paid particular attention 
to that we really also need to get done by no later than February 8.
  One of those is the opioid funding. It is in our national interest to 
recognize that we have a national crisis. Every community in the 
country is suffering from the opioid crisis, and we need to make sure 
we have the wherewithal for the Federal Government to be a strong 
partner in dealing with this crisis.
  Many of my colleagues have talked about disaster relief. We certainly 
need to help the communities of Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and deal 
with the wildfires in the West. We know we have to get that done now. 
We can't wait another month. Let's make sure that by no later than 
February 8, we have also dealt with those issues.
  In the legislation we are considering now, I am pleased that we will 
deal with the Children's Health Insurance Program. I wish it were 
permanent. Rather than putting another deadline on the program, we 
should try to make it permanent. It has been a bipartisan success in 
all of our States, and the Children's Health Insurance Program needs 
further attention for permanency.
  However, the legislation we are in the process of passing does not 
deal with community health centers. We know that most of our children 
and their parents who are using the CHIP program are going to be using 
health centers. We need to extend the program for our health centers.
  There are a lot of extenders out there on which we need to act. Just 
to mention one, the one that I have been interested in and have 
authored legislation on deals with the therapy cap. A therapy cap means 
that those who have the most serious need for therapy services--those 
suffering from strokes and those types of injuries--are not able to get 
the full services or are at least threatened to not get the services 
because of a therapy cap. We have extended it ever since we put it into 
law. The cap should never have been put into law. We also need to pay 
attention to it in this budget debate. That also needs to be dealt with 
by February 8.
  My colleagues brought up the serious pension issues that affect the 
workers of this country. That needs to be addressed.
  There is reason to say that I am pleased that the government is back 
up--or will be back up shortly--but we really need to negotiate and not 
operate under continuing resolutions.
  I think that because of the amount of spotlight that has been put on 
these issues, we have a much better chance to get these budget issues 
resolved through an appropriations or a CRomnibus or an omnibus rather 
than a continuing resolution.
  Then there is the issue of the Dreamers that I have talked about 
numerous times on the floor of the Senate. The Dreamer issue is urgent. 
It is urgent. Many Dreamers' lives have already been affected, and 
their lives have been changed as a result of President Trump's 
announcement last September that he was putting a 6-month time limit on 
when the Dreamers would be subject to deportation. That deadline occurs 
in early March.
  In the meantime, those who are up for renewal status--there has been 
uncertainty as to whether they will be able to continue to reside here 
in America, whether they will be able to continue to have a driver's 
license or to work. They feel like they have--and they do have--a sign 
on their backs saying that they expire on a particular date. That 
anxiety needs to end. It should never have been started under President 
Trump's edict in September, but we need to respond to that in an urgent 
way.
  I was very pleased that we have a commitment from the majority leader 
that by no later than February 8, if we have not passed the bipartisan 
DACA protection, Dreamer protection bill, we will have that bill on the 
floor of the Senate in a manner in which the Senate can speak on the 
issue.
  I am very confident that because of the compromise that has been 
negotiated with Senator Graham and Senator Durbin, we will be able to 
pass that bill that will protect the Dreamers. What it does is it 
allows them to maintain their Dreamer status, and it puts them on a 
pathway so they can have permanent citizenship here in the United 
States, and they will know their future is here in America. After all, 
it is the only country most of them know. That is certainly a very 
encouraging sign.
  I was also very pleased to hear in the negotiations that took place 
that this legislation would also provide the protection for those who 
are here in temporary protected status. In some of the cases, President 
Trump has extended dates and said: This is the last extension. That 
could expire within the next 18 months. In some cases, he has deferred 
making that decision for some countries.
  What we know about those in temporary protected status is that they 
are very similar to the Dreamers. Many know no country but the United 
States as their home, and it is important that we protect their status 
here in the United States and provide them a pathway for permanency and 
citizenship here in the United States. They are part of America, and 
they are part of our economy.
  In the meantime, I would hope that there would be consensus here and 
support from the White House that the enforcement procedures that are 
being used against the immigrant community be mindful of the efforts 
being made here to provide them a permanent status and that the 
priorities on enforcement that we have heard mentioned many times--
which, quite frankly, are very confusing to the immigrant community--
that those priorities would not be aimed at those who are going to be 
protected under the legislation we will be considering in the next few 
weeks.
  We all are pleased that we are now able to move forward to keep the 
government open, that we have a commitment to deal with the budget of 
our country by February 8 and the Dreamer issue by that date. We have 
made real progress.
  As Senator Durbin observed--and I must tell you, I think each of us 
did also--during this very difficult time, the conversations we have 
had among our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been very 
encouraging. I think the Members of this body want to return to the 
great traditions of the Senate where we listen to each other, where we 
work together, where we compromise, and where we are able to come to 
successful completion of our work. Virtually no work has been done, but 
too much is on the table right now that needs to get finished. Let's 
take advantage of these next few weeks to show the American people that 
indeed we will work together in the best interest of our country, 
putting partisan politics aside, dealing with our budget issues, 
dealing with our immigration issues, dealing with our healthcare 
issues, and dealing with our pension issues.
  We can do the people's work. Let's get that done, and let's start 
right now getting that work completed.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Section 148

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has just done the right 
thing. In a matter of hours, hopefully, the decision to fund the 
government and to put people back to work will find its way to the 
House of Representatives. I am sure that it will find a quick agreement 
there, and tomorrow everyone will be back in place, and both the House 
and the Senate can work aggressively between now and February 8 to make 
sure that this doesn't happen again and that we bring permanency and 
certainty to the funding.

[[Page S434]]

  The vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and I were notified 
when the House CR appeared that there was language in it that was 
different than in the past. The language in section 148 of the CR is of 
concern to the Intelligence Committee. Let me just read the language:

       Sec. 148. Funds appropriated by the Department of Defense 
     Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriation Act, 
     2018 (division B of Public Law 115-96) may be obligated and 
     expended notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National 
     Security Act of 1947.

  This language is troublesome for the committee because it would 
authorize the intelligence community to spend funds ``notwithstanding'' 
the law that requires prior authorization by the Senate Intelligence 
Committee or by the House Intelligence Committee.
  The vice chairman and I were on the floor, I think, last week, and we 
had a 65-to-34 vote to reauthorize the most significant intelligence 
tool to keep America safe. In that debate, both Senator Warner and I 
said to our opposition that we would do everything within the 
committee's power to make sure we did aggressive, real-time oversight 
over the entire intelligence community.
  Sometimes that means that when we see there might be something we are 
uncomfortable with, we alter the ability to access funds. In 
congressional terms, we call it fencing off money. But we utilize the 
tools as an authorizer to affect what, in fact, individuals within the 
intelligence community can choose to do.
  When you take away section 504 authorities that the committees have, 
for the next 3 weeks we will have an inability to exercise, in our 
estimation, the tools that we might need to keep our commitment to 34 
individuals who still voted against us but, more importantly, to the 
American people, for whom we would do everything to make sure our 
intelligence communities act in a way that those educated and elected 
in this body see fit. As a result, this language can erode the powers 
of the authorizing committee. Effectively, the intelligence community 
could expend funds as it sees fit without an authorization bill in 
place and with no statutory direction indicating that an authorization 
bill for 2018 is forthcoming.
  Let me just say to my colleagues, a situation like this is untenable. 
We have worked with our colleagues in HPSCI to develop language to 
change this. I might say, we have had a couple of opportunities to do 
it, and we should have done it literally when we changed the date of 
the CR. When we changed the date from the original date, which I think 
was the 16th, to the 8th of February, we should have inserted this new 
language. But because there is a fight between appropriators and the 
Intelligence Committee in the House, we weren't able to do that.
  I have a feeling that Senator Warner and I are going to find there is 
now a fight between the Intelligence Committee and the appropriators in 
the U.S. Senate because, I fear, someone might object to the unanimous 
consent request I will ask after Senator Warner speaks.
  Let me read what the committee has come up with. This is bicameral. 
The House Select Committee on Intelligence is in agreement. In section 
148, it would say:

       Funds appropriated by the Department of Defense Missile 
     Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriations Act, 2018 
     (division B of Public Law 115-96), for intelligence or 
     intelligence related activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2018 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018.

  The vice chairman is a lawyer; I am not. I really rely upon the legal 
counsel that we have within the committee to interpret U.S. law. It 
really doesn't take a law degree to understand that there is a huge 
difference between ignoring section 504, ``notwithstanding,'' and 
applying section 504, which our change makes.
  This isn't really a misinterpretation. This is a question of whether 
you want to take section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
U.S.C. 414) and continue to let it apply or whether you are going to 
provide the intelligence community a waiver that exempts them from 
having to adhere to a part of U.S. Code.
  The reason I wanted the opportunity to speak before we ask unanimous 
consent is, I want my colleagues to understand that we take our 
oversight role extremely seriously. We want to have every tool in our 
basket that we can to give the American people the assurance that we 
know exactly what is going on and that we are at least in agreement 
that they proceed forward, not that they have free rein only because 
they have been appropriated a pot of money because an executive request 
was made. It would be no different under the Obama administration or 
under the Trump administration. I would encourage my colleagues not to 
object to it when I ask for the unanimous consent because that is what 
we are here for.

  With that, I yield to the vice chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to echo a number of the comments my 
friend, the chairman, the Senator from North Carolina made. Ten days 
ago, we asked for reauthorization of section 702, and I came to this 
floor and advocated that this was a critically important tool. Part of 
the reforms of that legislation would even give us more insight into 
how that tool was used. We said, at that point, not only to those 
Members who didn't agree with us on that but to all of the Members--for 
that matter, the American people--that the Intelligence Committee would 
continue its vigorous oversight of that program and other programs.
  Being on the Intelligence Committee, at least until recently, has not 
been necessarily all that high attention and profile. We spend hundreds 
and hundreds of hours every month in a SCIF. One of the things I find 
so rewarding about the Intelligence Committee's work is that on issue 
after issue, you couldn't tell who is a Democrat and Republican. We all 
take extraordinarily serious our oversight responsibilities.
  If this exemption is granted, you could potentially have an 
administration--any administration--go off and take on covert 
activities, for example, with no ability for our committee, which 
spends the time and has the oversight, to say timeout or to say we 
actually disagree with that policy.
  I have been very disturbed about the whole process that arose in the 
House, how it was attempted to get slipped in. I hope, as well as the 
chairman, that no Member would choose to object. If they do choose to 
object, I hope they will be able to explain to the American public why 
they would want to remove the Intelligence Committee's ability to 
monitor, and then if we make a decision, withdraw funds if we don't 
agree and have that ongoing tool that is one of the most key components 
of our oversight responsibility--why they would want to, in effect, 
give any administration, for that matter, a blank check.
  Again, my hope is no one will object to this request; that we will 
continue the policies that existed for as long as I have been on the 
committee; and that those of us on that committee will continue to take 
the responsibility of oversight very seriously and will continue to do 
it in a bipartisan way.
  With that, I yield back to the chairman.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the vice chairman of the committee. 
There are over 30-plus professional staffers who staff both sides of 
the Intelligence Committee. On each side, there is a staffer designated 
for each of the intelligence agencies in this country. I would dare say 
today they know their particular portfolio of intelligence agencies as 
well as the employees who work inside that agency. They are experts. 
They are tasked with that degree of knowledge. Layered on top of that 
are 15 Members of the U.S. Senate whom the leadership on both sides 
have asked to spend countless hours behind closed doors--as the vice 
chairman said--typically in a bipartisan fashion to provide for every 
Member and for the American people our certification that we agree with 
what the intelligence community is doing; that it lives within the 
letter of the law; that there is some congressional oversight on a 
constant basis, in real-time, assuring Members and the American people 
of that accuracy. Why would you take away the tools we have to actually 
hold them accountable?
  I know appropriators believe this hinders their ability to spend 
money when we are in a continuing resolution

[[Page S435]]

period because of section 504. I am not sure I interpret it the same 
way they do. Just because an executive branch has asked for a pot of 
money, I have never considered that the committee couldn't go in, 
because of a vehement disagreement with the way some of it is being 
spent, and alter it. That altering means that on the part of 15 Members 
we have a hesitancy as to how it is being done. If you neuter the 
committee, you neuter our oversight.
  Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Burr 
amendment to amendment No. 1917, which is at the desk, be considered 
and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the language in section 148 of the 
continuing resolution is included exactly as requested by the 
administration. It is consistent with language that has been adopted 
many times in past continuing resolutions.
  The appropriation for missile defeat previously approved by Congress 
is very explicit. Section 2002 of that appropriation provides that the 
funds ``shall be allocated to programs, projects, and activities in 
accordance with the detailed congressional budget justifications 
submitted by the Department of Defense to accompany the Fiscal Year 
2018 Budget Amendments requested by the President on November 6, 
2017.'' It further provides that ``changes to the allocation of such 
funds shall be subject to the reprogramming requirements set forth in 
the annual appropriations Act.'' Section 2002 explicitly protects the 
oversight prerogatives of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
and its role in approving deviations from the Administration's request.
  I will continue to work with the Senator from North Carolina on his 
concerns but must object to his request.
  Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, it is my hope that we will come to our 
senses at some point in this process and that this waiver to U.S. Code 
will, in fact, not be in place, but I will assure, on behalf of the 
vice chairman and myself to all our Members, we will, to the best of 
our ability, given the limitation that is placed on us, hold the 
intelligence community accountable for everything they do and that we 
will be much more active in the future relative to the appropriations 
that find their way there if, in fact, they are not going to provide us 
the tools to manage, in a constructive way, those things the agencies 
choose to carry out.
  If I didn't have the number of individuals in Members and in staff 
who are experts, I probably wouldn't be as confident, but these folks 
take it extremely seriously because we know what is at stake--the trust 
we have with our Members and the trust we have with the American 
people.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back but with great disappointment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the news is good today. It looks as though 
we are close to a resolution, and what makes that resolution attractive 
to me is not just that we are going to see the government run, which is 
the job of this Congress--this is the first time, as we know, that 
Congress, the House, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court 
were controlled by one party--it is the first time that that has been 
the case in a government shutdown, so we know where responsibility 
lies. But that is the past. I want to look at the future. The future 
is, this should make it easier because of the discussions so many of us 
had over the weekend with Senators in our own party and the other 
party. Regardless of the party of any of us, I think we are reaching a 
place where we can get serious about negotiations on a whole lot of 
issues. Once this is behind us, after this vote later today, once the 
House passes the continuing resolution and once the President signs it, 
I am hopeful that we can get serious about a whole host of other 
issues.
  In Ohio in the last 2 weeks, two hospitals have closed down--one for-
profit in Massillon, a small, industrial city not far from Canton, OH, 
and a not-for-profit hospital in Dayton, OH. Both announced the closure 
of those hospitals, and we know what that means to people in the 
neighborhoods, people in the region. It means slower response time, 
lost jobs--the loss of all the things that a good hospital means in a 
community.
  Part of the reason for those hospital closings, frankly, is that we 
haven't done our jobs here--the attacks on the Affordable Care Act, the 
unrelenting attacks from the President and from the majority party 
here. I stood with my Governor, a Republican Governor--I am a 
Democrat--Governor Kasich and I--against these Medicaid cuts, against 
the attacks on the Affordable Care Act, against the shrinking of the 
signup period, the undercutting of the marketing campaigns, and all the 
things that have caused more volatility and instability in the 
healthcare market.
  I am hopeful that after this bill is signed by the President later 
today and the government reopens, we can then get serious about what we 
do about not just CHIP--I thank people of both parties here for 
finally--although it took 4 months--giving CHIP not just new life but 6 
years of life. I am thrilled about that. But to make CHIP work, we need 
community health centers because in a working family, each making $10 
an hour--if they don't have enough money to buy insurance or if they 
don't have a job, perhaps, that has insurance, they rely on CHIP. Well, 
if their child gets sick and wants to go to a health center, if the 
community health centers are closed or underfunded or underoperating, 
there is no place to go. So you don't need just CHIP; you need the 
community health centers too.
  We need to pay attention to rural hospitals. A lot of my State is 
rural. I have been, for instance, to the Bryan Hospital. Phil Ennen is 
the president of that hospital and does a very good job with a 
difficult task, because in small towns--it is a county in the northwest 
corner of the State. The county borders Indiana to the west and 
Michigan to the north. Small towns like that have more challenges 
running their hospitals, and I am hopeful we can focus on that.
  We can focus on 340B, which is a Medicaid prescription drug cost 
provision. I am hopeful that we can focus on the disproportionate share 
of payments. I am hopeful that we can focus on some of the Medicare 
extenders so that we can, in fact, bring some stability to this 
healthcare system.
  These two hospitals in Dayton and Massillon that have announced their 
closure--we are working to try to keep both open. It is a real 
challenge. I hope the closure of those hospitals isn't just the 
harbinger of more to come because of the volatility created in the 
healthcare market by this administration and this Congress's attack on 
the healthcare market and the healthcare laws over the last year, but 
that is why we need serious, long-term negotiations here.
  The other issue that is so important is pensions. In the Presiding 
Officer's home State of Indiana, in my State of Ohio, in Pennsylvania, 
North Dakota, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, there are 
literally hundreds of thousands of teamsters, coal miners, ironworkers, 
carpenters, and confectionary workers who, even though they paid into a 
pension for 30 years, even though they gave up dollars today at the 
bargaining table so they could put dollars aside for the future, often 
matched by their employer--because of Wall Street greed and Wall Street 
malfeasance and misfeasance, in part, these pensions are going to face 
huge cuts.
  Senator Young, Senator Donnelly, Senator Portman, Senator Johnson, 
and a number of us are working out some--I hope working toward some 
agreement on pensions so we can make sure that if you didn't work 40 
years you wouldn't see a 40-percent cut in your pension. I start with 
the Butch Lewis Act legislation that I have introduced with a number of 
cosponsors. We

[[Page S436]]

want to work with both parties to make sure this works. I am hopeful 
this deal today helps to clear a path so that the two Senators from 
Indiana and I and Senator Portman and others can work together to make 
this happen. It is so important. In my State alone, it is 50,000 
teamsters. It is another 5,000, more or less, coal miners. It is 
another 7,000, 8,000, or 10,000 other workers.

  The last thing I want to say, again, is that every one of these cases 
is a union plan. These union members gave up wages today. They 
understood: I don't take as much pay today, but that money will be set 
aside so I have healthcare and my pension is there when I retire in 30 
years.
  They did it right. They played by the rules. Their government needs 
to back them up. That is the importance of this pension bill. That is 
why I appreciate the work of the Presiding Officer and others in coming 
to some agreement and making this work.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the paperwork is being finalized, 
but I for one--and I guess I am not the only one; I am sure there is 
broad appreciation for the fact that our Democratic colleagues who 
voted to close the government have now changed their minds and now will 
vote on final passage, having just voted on cloture, to reopen the 
Federal Government. This was a strategy that lacked an endgame and was 
never going to work.
  The safety, health, and livelihoods of Americans across the country 
didn't deserve to be held hostage, and the American people have had 
enough of these kinds of games. I think, basically, the verdict of the 
American people is ``A pox on both your houses.''
  I don't think anybody comes out of this looking very good. But 
surely, this calculated stunt that put funding for our government, 
military, and the Children's Health Insurance Program at risk, all 
because our colleagues wanted to accelerate consideration of the DACA 
issue--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--was a mistake by any 
measure.
  They, of course, had planned this strategy for months. Many of them 
had signaled their intention to vote against any spending bills unless 
the DACA issue was resolved, despite the fact that a majority of 
Americans in recent polls said that avoiding a shutdown was more 
important to them than other priorities.
  If we just think about it, trying to deal with the concerns--and they 
are legitimate; I am sympathetic with them--of the 690,000 DACA 
recipients versus 320 million Americans who were hurt by this shutdown, 
it just seems disproportionate and unnecessary.
  For most of the last 3 days, negotiations led to nowhere. The 
majority leader in particular took the conciliatory gesture of--instead 
of pursuing the 4-week extension--saying: OK. We will do it for 3 
weeks. That is ultimately what our colleagues across the aisle voted 
on, but what did they have to show for that? To my mind, they got 
nothing to show for that.
  Sure, they got a commitment from Senator McConnell, the majority 
leader, to take up the issue of immigration in February. He was going 
to do that anyway. We know the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
Program expires on March 5. So logic would tell us that, yes, we are 
going to have to take it up in February. But it just seemed so 
unnecessary and so harmful to try to shut down the government to force 
something that was going to happen anyway. So I said: That doesn't make 
much sense to me.
  I am glad our colleagues decided to take this step to reopen the 
government while we resume our work to find a solution on this 
immigration issue. But we have a lot of other important issues.
  First of all, the Children's Health Insurance Program will be 
reauthorized as part of this vote here shortly. But we have other 
issues.
  We have to agree on spending caps for this fiscal year so that the 
Appropriations Committees can figure out, How much money can we commit 
to our national security? We have shortchanged our national security in 
recent years because of the Budget Control Act and sequestration, which 
creates automatic spending caps, absent some agreed-upon grand bargain. 
This has been a perennial problem, not just for Congress and the 
country, but it has particularly fallen hard on our military at a time 
when James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, said 
that in his 50 years in the intelligence community, he had never seen a 
more diverse array of threats confronting our country and confronting 
the world. We can tick down the list, from North Korea, to Iran, to 
Russia to China. There is a threat of home-grown terrorism here in the 
United States because of domestically inspired Islamic extremists. The 
world is a dangerous place, and it is made safer only when America is 
strong and America leads, and we can't do that while underfunding our 
national security apparatus, our intelligence agencies, and the 
Department of Defense. So we need to take care of that.
  We also need to deal with disaster relief. I come from a State that 
was hammered by Hurricane Harvey, the most significant rain event in 
many, many--perhaps even 1,000--years. More than 50 inches of rain 
inundated the city of Houston and that environment. Many people are 
still hurting. Many people are still not back in their homes. Their 
businesses were blown away. And while the House of Representatives has 
voted on an $81 billion disaster relief package, because of the holdup 
here--again, because our Democratic colleagues in the Senate think this 
DACA issue is more important than those victims of natural disasters, 
not to mention the wildfires out west--that has been put on ice as 
well.
  There are a lot of important things that we need to get done, and I 
hope we will take advantage of the next few weeks here to get them done 
as we continue our discussions about DACA and what to do to provide 
some assistance to these 690,000 young people who were brought here as 
minor children by their parents and are in somewhat of a box.

  Earlier today, I went to the White House with several of my 
colleagues to meet with President Trump to discuss the four areas he 
has laid out to address the March 5 deadline relating to DACA. We are 
working through those four issues as I speak, trying to find a 
permanent solution for the DACA recipients and making sure that border 
security and interior enforcement is beefed up so that we don't have a 
repetition of this situation in the future.
  We also are looking to limit chain migration and perhaps even to use 
some of the additional visas left over to accelerate the movement of 
people who have been playing by the rules and have been waiting in 
line, some for 10 or 20 years, just to rejoin their families here in 
the United States.
  Finally, the President instructed us to deal with the diversity 
lottery visa program. There are about 50,000 visas that are literally 
provided based on a lottery, not because the immigrant has any special 
skills or qualities that would help enhance our country and help them 
contribute to our country but merely because they happened to win the 
lottery. I think it makes sense to reform that and perhaps use some of 
those additional visas, again, to deal with the backlog of people who 
have been waiting in line, patiently trying to immigrate to the country 
in a legal fashion--we ought to reward them, not continue to punish 
them--but also, to try to do what we might to maybe reassign some of 
those visas to merit-based immigration, people who have graduated with 
skills that we need here in the United States, including the STEM 
fields--science, technology, engineering, math. I think that makes a 
lot of sense.
  Obviously, I am not going to decide this by myself. We are going to 
have to build a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, and I think we 
can. I think we can demonstrate our natural American compassion when it 
comes to immigrants. As I have said before, we are a country that has 
been built by immigrants. But the part we seem to always forget in this 
conversation on immigration is that we are also a nation of laws. That 
is what people have lost confidence in--that the Federal Government is 
committed to securing the

[[Page S437]]

border and enforcing our laws. If we do that, I think the American 
people will continue to welcome people through a legal immigration 
system who want to come here to America for a better life, to 
contribute, and to pursue their dream.
  Our meeting at the White House was a productive conversation. It was 
just one of many. I know Senator Schumer visited with the President, I 
believe last Friday, on the immigration question. Our colleagues, 
Senator Durbin and Senator Graham, have been working with Senator 
Flake, Senator Menendez--I think Senator Gardner is part of that, as 
well, and I am probably leaving somebody out. But they have a 
bipartisan proposal that they took to the White House. Unfortunately, 
the President said that it wasn't a proposal he could support, so back 
we go to the drawing boards. Nobody pretends that this solution is 
easy, but it is one that we need to address.
  I believe the President remains engaged and committed to finding a 
solution for these young adults who were brought here, as I said, 
through no fault of their own.
  I especially remain committed to the 124,000 DACA recipients in my 
home State of Texas. It is no surprise that Texas has a large immigrant 
population because of our proximity to the border. But we are not 
alone, and many of these 690,000 DACA recipients are spread throughout 
every State in the country.
  I have a personal interest in making sure we come up with a 
bipartisan solution for these young adults who face such uncertainty, 
but it is important that any solution we agree on contains two things. 
First is a DACA solution for these young adults, many of whom are huge 
contributors to our communities; indeed, these are our neighbors, and 
they work alongside us in our community. They deserve a thoughtful and 
compassionate solution that I hope we deliver.
  I understand the plight they find themselves in. I have had a chance, 
like all of the Members of the Senate and the House, to meet many of 
these young people, and many of them are extraordinarily impressive. 
They have excelled in school. They have a lot of promise. But, 
unfortunately, they carry this burden of a status that does not permit 
them to stay in the country absent legislative action. So it is a 
precarious position, I am sure, to live every day not quite sure of 
what the future will mean.
  But any solution we come up with over the next several weeks must 
also protect the 320 million Americans who already live in the country, 
in addition to these DACA recipients. What I mean by that is I think 
there needs to be some natural symmetry here. To the extent that we 
provide compassionate relief to these young people, I think we need to 
correspondingly assure the American people that we are actually serious 
about border security and enforcing our laws.
  My State has had to bear the burden of a lot of the cost of border 
security, including placing law enforcement personnel along the border, 
because the Federal Government has simply failed to do its job over 
these many years. I know leaders in my State will be glad to see the 
Federal Government finally step up and accept their responsibility.
  I know the President has talked frequently about a wall. Some people 
talk about tactical infrastructure. As a matter of fact, the President 
referred to the 2006 Secure Fence Act and said: Well, basically, we are 
talking about the same thing. The Border Patrol usually refers to this 
as tactical infrastructure.
  My tutor on matters affecting border security is the current sector 
chief of the Rio Grande Valley sector, Manny Padilla, who has had a lot 
of experience in Arizona, Texas, and California. He says that each and 
every place along the border, each of which is unique in its own way, 
requires a combination of three things. He said it requires 
infrastructure--call it defense, call it a wall, call it a barrier; 
whatever you call it, that's one piece of it. But the second is 
technological; it is technology. It is an aerostat balloon in the sky, 
it is ground sensors, it is radar, it is a UAV--an unmanned aerial 
vehicle--but it basically is tied up in a system that is complemented 
by boots on the ground, by the Border Patrol, which is an essential 
component. So when Manny Padilla says that border security at each 
place along the border involves infrastructure, technology, and people, 
what he is saying is that we should leave to the experts how to deploy 
each of these items where it makes the most sense.
  In Big Bend, out in West Texas, I have flown over the cliffs there 
that are 3,200 feet tall, that look down into the Rio Grande River. You 
don't need to build a fence there. You don't need to build a wall 
there. But if you go to San Diego, CA, or to some of the corridors or 
to the hard-to-control places on the Texas-Mexico border, maybe what 
you would prefer to do is to have a technological solution. Or in an 
urban area, where it is easy to dart across the border into the United 
States and melt into the urban landscape, maybe it makes sense to have 
fencing and tactical infrastructures and walls, where appropriate.
  Being able to put in place the right mix of infrastructure, 
personnel, and technology will enable us to begin to regain the 
public's confidence on this issue because if we address the plight of 
these young adults but do not address the cause of the problem, which 
is illegal immigration--which is how they got here, being brought here 
by their parents--we will be back here arguing the same issue a decade 
from now.
  I stand ready to work, and I am glad our Democratic colleagues have 
joined us today in reopening the government so we can work on finding a 
solution to our border security and immigration challenges. We are all 
working, and have been for months, on a path forward on DACA, and we 
will continue to do so now that the government has reopened. We can 
roll up our sleeves, work with the White House, work with our 
colleagues in the House and the Senate, and come up with solutions to 
the four items the President has identified for us.
  I welcome ideas from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in 
both Chambers, and certainly from the President himself. Work on this 
issue will require an effort by all of us. Now it is up to the House to 
do its job, after we pass this continuing resolution for 3 weeks, and 
move us past the shutdown. Let's reopen the government and all get back 
to work.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________