[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 8, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S72-S76]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           GOVERNMENT FUNDING

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to talk about 
hostages, seven hostages--seven spending bills that have come through 
this Republican-led Chamber, bills the House is ready to move forward 
on that have, ironically, been taken hostage by the Republican 
leadership of the Senate and the President of the United States.
  Those seven hostages, those spending bills, the House has said: Well, 
Mr. President, we have a difference of opinion that has to be worked 
out, and that is Homeland Security. So let's continue that debate while 
setting the other six free--freedom for six bills passed by the 
Republican-led Senate so we can put America back to work.
  It sounds like a pretty good idea, but good ideas and common sense 
seem to be victims--victims of this Presidential temper tantrum over a 
symbol on the southern border. So it shut down nine Cabinet 
Departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, 
Housing, Interior, State, Transportation, and the Treasury--affecting 
all kinds of everyday functions for Americans.
  The local schools keep functioning. They figure it out. The local 
city doesn't shut down. The county doesn't shut down. Has your State 
shut down? I don't think so. So why this childish behavior, why this 
incompetence, why

[[Page S73]]

this disregard for the quality of life for Americans?
  There are 800,000 workers who are either instructed to work without 
pay or who are instructed to go on furlough. We are all affected. Every 
one of us is affected by these Departments being shut down, but those 
800,000 workers don't get a paycheck.
  What does that mean when they try to write the check that will pay 
for their mortgage or their rent, their student's tuition, or their 
utility bill? How do they keep the lights turned on? It is all fine for 
the President. His lights are staying on. He is not inconvenienced, but 
these 800,000 Americans are more than inconvenienced. They are put into 
a hard place over this hostage-taking by the President and the 
Republican leadership of this body.
  Out in Oregon, the estimate--admittedly somewhat imprecise--is that 
9,000 workers have been affected. It seems in the ballpark. Oregon's 
population is about 1 percent of the country, and 1 percent of 800,000 
is 8,000. So 9,000 sounds in the ballpark. There are 9,000 Oregonians 
who are affected by this foolishness.
  An air traffic controller wrote to me and said, we are ``tired of 
being a pawn in the partisan games that are being played in Washington. 
. . . These shutdowns have compromised aviation safety.''
  He said they hinder the FAA's ability to hire and train new 
controllers and upgrade air traffic control systems. They break down 
morale and an already understaffed and frustrated workforce.
  Then there is the constituent who wrote to me to say: ``It is 
unconscionable for Trump to deprive Federal employees of earned and 
necessary income, holding them hostage for his foolish wall.''
  There are seven spending bills held hostage, along with 800,000 
Americans and their families' finances.
  There is the young man in Lane County whom I spoke with after one of 
my townhall meetings last week. He was supposed to be moving to 
California to begin working in the Sierra National Forest this past 
weekend. He was all set to go, giving up his current living 
arrangements because he was going to be moving into Forest Service 
housing. Then the shutdown happened. Now he has no job, has no key to 
undo the lock. He has no ability to move into that Forest Service 
housing. He is stranded. There are just all kinds of everyday stories 
of challenges to Americans.
  To President Trump, I say: Listen. Listen to the voices of ordinary 
Americans who are having a hard time because of you and because of the 
leadership of this Senate--the Republican leadership of this Senate. 
Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle of this.
  This is your shutdown, Mr. President. You said so. You said it on 
television. You said it from the Oval Office. You said you were proud 
to own this shutdown. You said:

       I am not going to blame anybody else. This is my shutdown.

  Yes, it is, Mr. Trump. Mr. President, it is your shutdown, and it is 
not a shutdown with a mission, a mission that is important, because the 
mission that is important, that you talk about, is border security.
  Every Democrat, every Republican supports border security. All of us 
who were here in 2013 voted for huge sums. I have heard some describe 
that bill we passed in 2013 as $35 billion for border security. I heard 
in an earlier speech tonight that it was over $40 billion for border 
security, smart border security--smart border security.
  Don't you want to spend the taxpayers' dollars smartly? Do you want 
to waste them? Do you want to shut down the government and create a 
hardship for 800,000 people because you want to waste their money?
  Mr. President, and to my colleagues across the aisle, listen to the 
common sense of people in your home State who want border security, but 
they don't want a foolish shutdown.
  The President said there is a crisis--crisis--at the border because 
so many people are coming. How many people are coming to the border? 
Let's take a look. This shows the number of folks who have been 
apprehended at the border from the year 2000--19 years ago now--to 
year-to-date in 2018. This is slightly out of date, so you can add a 
little bit more to that final bar, but you see the point. There were 
massive amounts in the year 2000, really high numbers in 2001 through 
2007, and then the numbers dramatically decline through 2011 and 
beyond.
  I just got the numbers before I came to the floor for the last month 
we had, which was October. About 60,000 people came to the border. In 1 
month, in 2000, 200,000 people came to the border. That is quite a 
difference. That is now less than one-third than last month.
  There is no crisis there, only the humanitarian crisis, Mr. Trump, 
that you are creating with your war on children--your war on migrant 
children--shoving them back into Mexico to put them at the mercy of the 
Mexican gangs; proceeding to let them into the United States and then 
ripping them out of the arms of their parents while you lock up their 
parents; deciding you are going to lock up the children with their 
parents behind barbed wire and internment camps; establishing a 
national system of child prisons that, last month, held 15,000 
children, which is up from 7,000 in June; failing to provide medical 
evaluations for these children when they cross the border. Two have 
died--one after 6 days in the care of the American border guard.
  You, Mr. President, have created a crisis, a humanitarian crisis. The 
arrivals on the border are not the crisis; it is your hardened heart, 
your dark and evil heart, your war on children; the deliberate strategy 
of inflicting trauma on children in order to send a message of 
deterrence, a political message of deterrence.
  Who here believes it is right to deliberately injure children to send 
a message of deterrence? That is the strategy Jeff Sessions announced 
last May that started this intense assault on migrant children. Who 
would defend it today? Find me one caretaker of children who believes 
that inflicting trauma on children is acceptable. Find me one religious 
tradition, one moral code that says that is OK--because it is not OK. 
Every human civilization recognizes that.
  Meanwhile, our farmers are wondering what happened to their Farm 
Service Agencies. They are closed down across the country, including 23 
in Oregon. What happened to those payments that the President promised 
for those affected by tariffs? The payments can't be distributed 
because of the shutdown. How about our Federal firefighters who need to 
be in training right now for the fires we are going to see next summer 
because of climate chaos?
  We are seeing the impacts in every conceivable way, as my colleagues 
have been pointing out, and it is time to end it. It is time to release 
the hostages. It is way past time to end it. It has 18 days--3 days 
from the longest shutdown in history. It is time to end it, put people 
back to work, return to common sense, and at the same time quit 
afflicting children and migrant adults as a political strategy.
  Almost everybody--probably everyone in this room--came here as a 
descendant of immigrants, almost all Americans. Not many of us are 
directly descended from Native Americans. Most of us are descendants 
from immigrants. How did we want them to be treated? We wanted them to 
be treated with respect and decency as they waited for an asylum 
hearing, and that is what we have to return to.
  So release the hostages, return to common sense, and treat the 
American people with respect.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I join in raising these issues tonight 
about the government shutdown. The reason so many of us have referred 
to it simply as the ``Trump shutdown'' is because the President is the 
person who led the way to have the government shut down. He said that 
before the shutdown, as we all know. We have heard the statement he 
made in the Oval Office.
  Then, of course, we went forward. I think it is important to reset 
where we have been and where we are.
  There was an agreement in this body, the U.S. Senate, by 100 
Senators, just before Christmas, to extend funding for the government 
for a short period of time so that if there were issues to debate 
between now and February, we could do that. It is hard to get 100 
Senators to agree on anything around

[[Page S74]]

here, but of course that is what happened.
  Then it went to the House, and we know what happened after that. The 
President got pressure from rightwing talk show hosts, and I guess they 
have more influence on him than a lot of Americans, who never want a 
government shutdown.
  As we stand here tonight, 9 of 15 Federal Departments are closed, 
shut down, and I am not even itemizing the number of Agencies that is. 
Then we came into the new year, on January 3--I don't know what hour it 
was, but it was in the evening--with a new majority in the U.S. House 
of Representatives, a Democratic majority. What did that Democratic 
majority do? What did the Democratic House Speaker do? In her first act 
as Speaker, and in essence their first vote on substance, they voted to 
open up the government by voting in favor of a bill that was 
essentially a Republican appropriations bill. That is what the 
Democratic-controlled House did. They voted to move forward Republican 
appropriations bills that were voted on here in committee but also were 
agreed to here, in a sense, by consensus--a 100-to-0 consensus just 
before Christmas. So there is ample reason, there is a lot of 
documentary evidence--video evidence--that this is a Trump shutdown.
  I think it is important for people to understand. I know some here 
call it a partisan bill. No, it wasn't. It was a bipartisan bill. It 
just happened to have its origin in the work of Republicans in the 
Senate--the Senate appropriations work that was done by Republicans, 
with Democratic help. Of course, this Chamber is controlled by 
Republicans, so these were Republican bills.
  It is also important to know what could happen here. There is 
legislation now that the Senate can vote on that will open the 
government up by doing the following: by funding eight Departments of 
government until the 30th of September. It is important for people to 
understand that. They see the back and forth, and they see how a bill 
like that is characterized on television, but it is important for 
people to know--and I will keep saying it for emphasis because this is 
important we get the facts right--this is an action by a House 
controlled by Democrats to move forward bills that virtually every 
Republican agreed to in one way or another over time on various 
occasions.
  The effect of passing that bill here would open the government for 
those Agencies--those Departments is a more correct word--those 
Departments that are shut down right now, leaving only one Department 
that would now be funded over a longer term, the Department of Homeland 
Security. That Department would not be funded after a certain date in 
February if we can't agree on funding until then.
  What the effect of that is, it moves forward the effort to keep the 
government operating, to keep--just by way of example--13,709 FBI 
agents who could be working without pay, 4,399 DEA agents who could be 
working without pay, and I can go down the list. We have had many 
examples tonight. I will not restate them. It allows all of those 
operations of the Federal Government to go forward but still preserves 
the opportunity for the President or anyone to make assertions, to make 
arguments, and to put forth policy regarding border security, no matter 
what it is. We could debate that from now until that moment in 
February--that date in February when the Department of Homeland 
Security would run out of money--and see what would happen at that 
point.
  That is what people have to understand. There is a way to continue a 
debate about border security, a very important debate. I voted for, I 
don't know how many tens of billions now--billion with a ``b''--on 
border security since I have been here. I voted for the bill in 2013, 
the comprehensive bill that got 68 votes here in 2013--68 votes. That 
means a whole number of Republicans voted for it. That committed more 
than $40 billion to border security, based upon the testimony of 
experts, based upon people who understand border security. Let's be 
honest, folks. A lot of House Members and a lot of Democrats and 
Republicans in both parties and both Houses are not border security 
experts. That is why we should ask for their advice in telling us the 
best way to secure the border. That is essentially what happened in 
2013, when both parties voted--68 votes here--to pass a comprehensive 
bill that had more than $40 billion for border security.
  That is how you do border security. You don't just say: Well, because 
I used a word in a campaign, I used a sound bite in a campaign, 
therefore, the sound bite--which isn't based upon good policy--has to 
become the policy. That is not how we should do things here. No one in 
either party should do it that way.
  Now we are, I guess, 17 days since the President decided to shut down 
the government because he would not get his wall. We should never 
confuse a wall with border security. We all want border security. I 
don't know of a legislator who doesn't support that. Most people here 
voted for it many times--border security--based upon what the experts 
tell us, not the politicians. If we were using politicians for that 
kind of expertise, we would be in big trouble. We wouldn't do that in 
many subject areas, including something as consequential and as 
important and as complicated as border security. We should do it the 
right way and have a debate about it and hear testimony from experts, 
not just hot air from politicians because they said a word or two or 
three in a campaign. That is not policy.
  Right now, there are 820,000 Federal employees, 14,000--some in 
Pennsylvania, wondering how they are going to make a mortgage payment 
or pay the rent or buy food. The list is longer than that. It is, in 
essence, appropriations hostage-taking. My colleague referred to and 
used that word in his remarks earlier. This is appropriations hostage-
taking that hurts a lot of people and will continue to hurt more and 
more people as the days go on.
  That is one of the reasons why I supported the legislation introduced 
by Senators Cardin and Van Hollen that would guarantee backpay for 
these hard-working Federal employees who do so many things for the 
American people that we don't itemize or praise, except when there is a 
crisis like the one we are facing right now, the crisis of not having a 
government fully funded.
  So the President shut down the government over a wall that will not 
work, will not secure the border. Let's not confuse the two. We have 
always made investments over time--both parties, many administrations, 
many sessions of Congress have made investments in effective border 
security based upon the recommendations from experts. We should do that 
again, as we have done over many years. The security experts over the 
number of years charged with keeping our Nation safe have said this 
concrete or steel wall along the width of the southern border will not 
work. It will not work.
  Former Commissioner of Customs and Border Patrol Gil Kerlikowske 
said, in January 2017: ``I think that anyone who's been familiar with 
the southwest border and the terrain . . . kind of recognizes that 
building a wall along the entire southwest border is probably not going 
to work.''
  That is someone who understands this subject. That is what he said. 
He is not a politician spewing out a sound bite or just doing an 
interview. He is a person who has dedicated a large portion of his life 
to border security, and we should listen to those voices.
  Building a concrete wall will not stop illegal activity. Border 
security--effective border security--will. What is that? It is 
technology. It is 24-hour surveillance. It is, as in the 2013 bill, in 
essence, doubling the Border Patrol. I think we could have hired 20,000 
more people at the border to do border enforcement. That is why the 
cost was so high--because to hire 20,000 people costs a lot of money, 
but that is what we voted for then. I haven't even listed all of them, 
but those kinds of methods--battle-tested, proven methods to secure the 
border will work. That is what we should be doing.
  According to a 2017 national drug assessment report, most illegal 
smuggling happens at our ports of entry, not crossing a line in a 
desert at the southwest border--ports of entry. One example is at our 
airports. Airports are among the places we should be focusing our 
attention. I haven't heard the President talk about airports. Maybe I 
haven't been listening, but he has been President now for just about 2 
years, and I am not sure he has talked about stopping smuggling at 
ports of entry.

[[Page S75]]

  If the President was serious about securing the southern border or 
fixing our immigration system, he would work with both parties, both 
Houses, on an immigration system that would secure the border and do a 
whole range of things we need to do because we have a broken system.
  Here is my belief. I can't prove this. This is just my belief 
watching what he has said and listening to his speeches and listening 
to the policies he has supported and the policies he has not supported. 
I don't believe the President has any interest in fixing our broken 
immigration system. He seems to have an interest in building a wall 
that will not work--I am rather certain of that--but I don't think he 
has any interest in fixing this broken system. He has a strong 
interest, in my judgment, of scoring points, and I will give him that. 
He is an expert at scoring political points, but in terms of sitting 
down with people in both parties, taking hours and hours and hours and 
hours of testimony from border security experts, or at least listening 
to the presentations made here by way of hearings or information that 
can be ascertained in a hearing, I don't think he is willing to do 
that. I don't think he has any interest in doing that.
  The Presiding Officer and many Members of this Chamber, including the 
Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Virginia, worked long 
and hard--not over hours but over days and weeks--to come up with a 
proposal last year which would have provided $25 billion for border 
security over about 10 years. It is a lot of money over 10 years, and 
they had to agree to that based upon those expert recommendations. They 
also coupled that with a statutory change that would make sure those 
Dreamers in the DACA Program were given the benefit of the fulfillment 
of our promise to them. That could have been done in law by statute, 
and I commend Republicans who stood up then and worked in a bipartisan 
way.
  What did the President do? He told them he would back them up, that 
he would sign that bill--that bill with $25 billion and a fix for the 
DACA Program. Then his second promise he made was, he said: I will take 
the heat. It didn't happen. He didn't sign it. He denigrated it. Of 
course, he didn't take the heat because he went running for cover.
  I don't see much evidence on the record that he wants to fix a broken 
system. Everyone knows the system is broken, everyone knows we have to 
rely upon experts to secure the border, everyone knows the path to 
citizenship is complicated, but we had a way to do that in the 2013 
bill.
  Everyone knows that the guest worker program and bringing people out 
of the shadows and having order and rules to our immigration system is 
complicated and difficult. Everyone knows you can't do that with a 
sound bite. You can't do that with an image. You can't do that with a 
symbol. You have to do it with policy. That is what you have to do.
  The President seems totally disinterested in sitting down and trying 
to lead an effort on the kind of immigration reform that both parties 
know we need and that most Americans know we need as well. We all want 
to fix this system with a comprehensive bill. I mentioned the 2013 
effort and what that would have done.
  Instead of wasting $5.6 billion on a wall, we could use that money to 
rebuild our infrastructure or to invest in border security that is 
based upon expertise. We could use $5.6 billion to do a lot of 
infrastructure in my State and a lot of States--fixing bridges, for 
example. I live in a State, like many, that has thousands of 
structurally deficient bridges. We could use that money to enhance our 
national security.
  I am told that we are to understand the President is looking for 
money--the $5.6 billion--potentially out of the Defense Department. Is 
that what we should be doing with DOD dollars that are meant for 
national security?
  We could also use $5.6 billion to invest in our children and thereby 
invest in our future, but I don't think the President is interested in 
this. He wants to win a sound bite war or an image or symbol war, not 
fix the problem and not make the investments we should make.
  Instead of creating chaos and perpetuating chaos, the President 
should support the bipartisan funding bill the House passed last week--
the Democratic House, which passed the Republican bills, for a little 
shorthand there. The bills would reopen the government and also provide 
$1 billion for border security that is based upon facts and evidence 
and expertise and effectiveness, not based upon some sound bite and hot 
air.
  The vast majority of Senate Republicans supported these funding 
measures last Congress.
  On August 1, Senate Republicans joined Democrats to advance funding 
for the Department of Agriculture, Financial Services, Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development, and Interior. That big appropriations 
bill is affecting all those Agencies referred to there. The vote was 92 
to 6 on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I don't know who the 6 were, but 
92 is a good number--and obviously in both parties.
  The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations 
bill passed out of committee--this is a committee vote; not a floor 
vote but an important vote--on June 14 by a vote of 30 to 0.
  The State-Foreign Operations bill passed out of committee by a vote 
of 31 to 0.
  So one bill passed on the floor 92 to 6, and the other committee 
votes were 30 to 0 and 31 to 0--again, bills passed by a Democratic 
House that are, in fact, Republican appropriations bills. That is what 
the House did.
  That bill is here, in essence. All the majority leader has to do is 
put it on the floor, and it will pass. The government will be opened 
up, and we could debate border security until the cows come home--all 
the rest of January, longer into February, as long as we all agree to 
debate it. Let's have a real debate. Let's not debate a sound bite 
about an image that refers to a way someone thinks we should do border 
security. Let's have the evidence and put it on the table. I think my 
point of view on this would prevail, but let's hear from both sides.
  We have a way out of this predicament for the American people, a way 
to provide certainty and relief to those families who are suffering 
right now and the many more families who will continue to suffer if 
this continues.
  It is time for the majority leader to schedule a vote and stop making 
excuses why he shouldn't. Let's see what happens if the President has 
to confront a bill passed by both Houses. If he vetoes it, then it is 
further evidence that he is not serious about border security, but we 
will see. Maybe the President would sign a bill that was passed by both 
parties in both Houses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, 
Senator Casey, for his compelling remarks. In fact, for the last 
several hours, we have heard compelling remarks from a number of our 
colleagues. I thank Senator Kaine from Virginia for helping to organize 
this effort and all of those who have come to the floor to talk about 
the lasting and negative effects of this senseless shutdown--a shutdown 
that is all about President Trump yielding to Rush Limbaugh and the 
rightwing commentators who told them he wasn't being tough enough.
  Senators Casey and Markey reminded us how we got here, that we had an 
agreement we thought the President had committed to sign. His Vice 
President, his Acting Chief of Staff, told us he was going to sign it. 
It passed the Senate on a voice vote.
  What is so ironic, as Senator Markey said, is that what is happening 
now is actually making us less safe. The idea that we have all of these 
people on our southern border, all of these TSA agents, people who are 
working, 800,000 employees, 400,000 who are furloughed, 380,000 who are 
working without pay--that is actually making us less safe.
  As Senator Durbin pointed out, a wall across our southern border 
wouldn't do anything to interdict the fentanyl that is coming across 
from China. That is the biggest killer of people in New Hampshire from 
overdoses; it is the fentanyl. As Senator Jones pointed out, the Coast 
Guard's role in interdiction is what is significant. It is not a wall 
that is going to keep out those vehicles that are going to come through 
our ports of entry.

[[Page S76]]

  Senator Stabenow reminded us that there are 38 million people who 
depend on food assistance, and a quarter of the people in New Mexico, 
as Senator Heinrich told us, depend on food assistance. He quoted his 
constituent Kathy, who pointed out that the President is holding us 
hostage. She said: Federal employees are being held hostage. We are now 
being held hostage in the Senate because the majority is unwilling to 
act on the legislation that has passed the House and previously passed 
the Senate.
  Senator Bennet talked about China landing on the dark side of the 
Moon last week. It is a reminder that we have to compete in this world, 
that we can't assume that America is going to be No. 1 in everything 
again. Yet, while China was landing on the dark side of the Moon, our 
government was shut down. Thousands of researchers weren't doing their 
jobs at NASA, the Department of Agriculture, and so many other places 
because we were shut down.
  The cost to the economy as a whole, as Senator Hassan pointed out--
there are craft breweries in New Hampshire, small businesses that can't 
get their businesses started because government is shut down.
  Senator Klobuchar pointed out that the cost to the economy, according 
to the President's own advisers, is $10 billion a week. At a time when 
the stock market is going up and down, when we have people losing 
billions of dollars because of fluctuations in the stock market, $10 
billion a week contributes to that uncertainty.
  Then, of course, Senator Van Hollen and Senator Merkley and virtually 
everybody here talked about the impact on ordinary Americans from this 
government shutdown. We are going to hear from President Trump in about 
5 minutes. He is going to speak to the country. I will bet he doesn't 
talk about the impact on ordinary Americans of this government 
shutdown. I will bet he doesn't talk about the cost to the economy or 
what he promised to sign when this Congress passed funding bills. I 
will bet he doesn't talk about the future of America and what is going 
to happen if we don't continue to invest in research and if we don't 
continue to invest in our people and instead get involved in these 
partisan fights. No. I think what he is going to do is tell Americans a 
made-up story about the emergency at our southern border--an emergency 
that we saw from Senator Durbin and Senator Merkley is not real. We 
have gone from 1.6 million people coming across our southern border and 
being arrested down to about 200,000 in the last year.
  This is not a crisis that is affecting America. We need to address 
border security. Everybody here believes that. All of the people who 
spoke tonight said we need to address border security. We need to do it 
in a way that is thoughtful and that spends taxpayer dollars wisely.
  It is time for us to act in the Senate. It is time for Congress to 
fund this government, to get it back open. I very much appreciate 
Senator Kaine's work here tonight as we talk about the impacts on this 
country of this government shutdown.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield to my colleague from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to finish the colloquy of the 
Democratic Senators who talked about this important issue--the need to 
reopen the government and to stop the shutdown--and I intend to do so 
before 9 o'clock. I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire and 
all the colleagues who appeared on the floor today.
  On Friday, January 11, if we do not end this shutdown, it will be 
tied for the longest shutdown of government in the history of the 
United States. It is also a payday where more than 800,000 Federal 
employees will not get a paycheck. My quick census research suggests 
that is essentially the population of South Dakota. More than 800,000 
people who just want to serve their country, some of whom have been 
forced to work without a paycheck, will not get a paycheck on January.
  Friday, January 11, is right after Christmas, when a lot of Christmas 
bills come due. Friday, January 11, is in the middle of winter, when 
heating bills are at their highest. Friday, January 11, is right before 
the beginning of the college spring semester, and families will be 
sitting around kitchen tables to write tuition checks for their kids to 
go to school for the spring semester. That will be this Friday.
  This shutdown hurts workers. I told stories of workers in Virginia 
who have already suffered, and my colleagues have as well.
  It hurts citizens. I had the experience two Saturdays ago of going to 
four Federal--either national forests or Park Service operations and 
seeing gates closed. I watched families come up. They had driven. They 
may not get a lot of vacation. They had a lot of kids in the car, and 
they were coming up to have fun with their families that day. I watched 
the looks on their faces as they pulled to the locations and saw the 
gates closed and the sign saying that they weren't able to enjoy the 
day they had planned with their family. That is not the same as missing 
a mortgage payment, but for families who are stretched in time and want 
to spend a day enjoying time with each other--I saw the looks on their 
faces as they were turned away.
  Mr. President, you and I have worked together on an important 
initiative to train students, college students, to be our next cyber 
professionals. Today is the cyber jobs fair that the National Science 
Foundation sponsors for college students all over the country. It was 
at National Harbor. I went there. I walked by a lot of students who had 
come because they want to serve the country as cyber professionals, and 
they were having interviews. But a lot of the booths--the Department of 
Justice--there was a booth, there was a sign, but there was nobody 
there. There was nobody there from the Federal Agency to hire.
  These are effects on everyday citizens, kids who want jobs, Federal 
agencies that want to hire workers, families who just want to go to the 
parks.
  This is hurting workers, it is hurting citizens, and it is hurting 
our country.
  In conclusion, I just want to say: Why? Why would we want to hurt 
Federal workers? Why would we want them to be without a paycheck? Why 
do we want to hurt everyday citizens? Why do we want to hurt the 
reputation of the country?
  Because I could see from the looks on the faces of those getting 
turned away at the park not just aggravation, I could see: What kind of 
country is this? I am a hard-working person, I pay taxes, I am coming 
to a national park, I am coming to a national forest, and I am getting 
turned away because the President wants to shut down the government 
over a debate about border security.
  You know, Mr. President, because you and I worked on it together, in 
February, $25 billion for border security, that wasn't enough. The 
President blew up the deal. Five years ago, $44 billion of border 
security wasn't enough for the Republican House.
  We want to fund border security, but as I conclude, I just would say 
to this President: Do not hurt American workers. Do not hurt American 
citizens. Do not hurt the reputation of the greatest country on Earth.
  I would say to my Republican colleagues, please be willing to vote 
and support exactly what you voted and supported just 3 weeks ago.
  Why the change in position? Why was it OK in December, and it is not 
OK now? Is it not OK because the President suddenly said he didn't like 
it? Is it the job of the article I branch to play Mother May I with the 
President and seek his permission to be an article I branch? I don't 
believe it is. Let's end this shutdown. Let's reopen government. Let's 
do border security and immigration reform the right way.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________