[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 10 (Thursday, January 17, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S288-S292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE
ACT OF 2019--Motion to Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 109, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 109, a bill to
prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back our time.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 11, S. 109, a bill to prohibit
taxpayer funded abortions.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S288, January 17, 2019, second column, the following
appears: 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 proceed to Calendar No. 11, S. 109, a bill to prohibit
taxpayer funded abortion. The online Record has been corrected to
read: 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
proceed to Calendar No. 11, S. 109, a bill to prohibit taxpayer
funded abortions.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, Mike Rounds, James M.
Inhofe, John Barrasso, David Perdue, John Kennedy, John
Thune, Thom Tillis, James E. Risch, Cindy Hyde-Smith,
Pat Roberts, John Boozman, James Lankford, Michael B.
Enzi, Roger F. Wicker, John Cornyn.
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 proceed to S. 109, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded
abortions, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Burr), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.'' The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Paul) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Alexander
Burr
Crapo
Graham
Paul
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, and the nays
are 47.
Three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The Democratic leader.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.J. Res. 30
Mr. SCHUMER. We spent the past few days debating the resolution of
disapproval of the Treasury Department's plan to relax sanctions on
Russia. We have made clear that Treasury's plan is insufficient and
lets Putin and his cronies off the hook. We have made clear that
Putin's malign activities around the globe have not abated. We have
made clear that there is no reason to relieve sanctions on one of our
chief adversaries when there has been no reconciliation and in exchange
for nothing.
Earlier this week, 10 brave Republicans joined us on the motion to
proceed and again on cloture, but it was not enough for passage. So
many other Republicans who have campaigned that Democrats are not tough
enough on Putin, when they had a chance to be tough on Putin, ran for
the exits. I just want to let my colleagues know that the House was
different and in this case far more courageous.
The House passed the same resolution of disapproval 362 to 53.
Republicans by more than a 2-to-1 ratio--more than 2 to 1--voted to not
allow the loosening of sanctions on Deripaska's Rusal, as 136 of them
joined with the unanimous--unanimous--support of House Democrats to
pass the resolution.
So two votes--two small votes--stand in the way of passage here in
the Senate. Let the overwhelming bipartisan House vote be a message to
my Republican friends in the Senate. We should pass this resolution. We
should not let Putin get his way simply because Donald Trump has always
wanted him to--too often.
So I am going to shortly reconsider the resolution before it expires
tonight at midnight. I strongly urge my friend the leader not to block
the request and give Republican Senators a chance to change their minds
on this incredibly important motion.
[[Page S289]]
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.J. Res. 30; that the joint
resolution be considered read for a third time and the Senate vote on
passage with a 60-vote affirmative threshold, with no intervening
action or debate; and that if the joint resolution fails to achieve 60
votes for passage, it be returned to the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Virginia.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 21
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 5, H.R. 21,
making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019. I
further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Virginia
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the preceding
motion, but before I do, I would like to yield my time to my colleague
from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Senator Kaine is yielding to me to talk about the Interior
Department in the bill. Let me just thank him for his vigilance. When
we have 800,000 Federal employees across this country and their
families hurting, he has been vigilant with this. I know that in the
Commonwealth of Virginia he and Senator Warner are very concerned, as
are Senator Heinrich and myself about what is happening in New Mexico.
I want to speak a little bit about the Interior Department bill, where
I am the ranking Democrat.
I rise today to call on this body to take action and immediately end
the shutdown that is causing tragic consequences in the lives of
Americans. We are on day 27 of the shutdown, the longest in our
Nation's history.
Every day my constituents in New Mexico are asking me what are we
doing to end this senseless shutdown. So I am here on the Senate floor
demanding that we open the government, demanding that we do our jobs as
a coequal branch of government, demanding that we pass bipartisan
appropriations bills.
I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I know how critical the Interior bill
is, particularly to my home State of New Mexico and to States across
the West and across the country. The Interior bill funds basic services
like healthcare and public safety for 2 million American Indians and
Alaska Natives through the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
This bill keeps our air and water clean through the work of the
Environmental Protection Agency. This bill protects and preserves
national parks and other treasured public lands and helps to support
small businesses that depend on them. The Agencies in this bill fund
science, wildlife protection, energy development, and arts and cultural
programs in every State, and they employ tens of thousands of
Americans. There is no reason why they should be shuttered. They are
simply too important.
This shutdown is particularly devastating for Indian Country. Every
day the President continues to treat Tribal programs like hostages for
political gain. By his action he endangers families across Indian
Country. Multiple health clinics that serve urban Indians have closed
their doors, forced to turn hundreds of patients away. Tribal court
programs are in jeopardy. Food distribution and social service programs
are on the chopping block. Law enforcement services are stretched to
the breaking point. Thousands of Tribal members are furloughed--all to
devastating effect.
Indian Country is paying the price for every day that the President's
reckless shutdown continues. These are people's lives and livelihoods
on the line. Our government is completely failing to uphold its trust
and treaty obligations to Native Americans, and all for what? A wildly
expensive and ineffective wall that this Nation doesn't want and a
vanity project for a President who is not putting the best interests of
this country first. It doesn't make any sense.
We need to pass the Interior appropriations bill so we can reopen the
entire National Park System, along with other public lands, and do so
safely. Already, we have heard about the tragic impacts of the shutdown
on our parks, including thousand-year-old Joshua trees cut down in
California, and fossils that have been looted at Carlsbad Caverns in my
home State of New Mexico. We can't let this kind of damage happen to
our most treasured places, and we must ensure that small businesses
that depend on our public lands--from fishing guides to gas stations
and hotels--are able to thrive and keep our economy strong.
Across the board, this shutdown is hurting businesses, contractors,
and Federal workers. Even the President's own Council of Economic
Advisers has released figures doubling the expected impacts to the
economy. Think about that. The President's own aides admit this
shutdown is worse than they anticipated. This is totally unacceptable,
but it is not too late to change the situation.
We can end this shutdown today. All it takes is for enough of my
Republican colleagues and friends to find the courage to join us to
pass these appropriations bills and to send a message to the White
House that we need to reopen the government. I want to say to them,
let's join together to make sure that Tribal health clinics are open
and Tribal law enforcement officers are on patrol.
Let's work side by side to reopen the entire National Park System and
other public lands and ensure that there are enough staff members on
the ground to protect our Nation's most cherished national and cultural
resources. Let's pass these bipartisan appropriations bills without
delay.
I don't understand how this Chamber can stand by and watch the
devastating effects of this shutdown on our Nation. In New Mexico
alone, we estimate that there are at least 10,800 Federal workers who
are working without pay or are furloughed outright. Nationwide, there
are an estimated 800,000 Federal workers and as many as 2 million
Federal contractors who may be affected. We are talking about millions
of people's paychecks being held hostage for a border wall that the
American public doesn't support.
Yesterday I stood on this floor and talked about the impacts this
shutdown is having on the Ornelas family of Carlsbad, NM. They are
depending on a paycheck from the Department of Interior to help keep
their family afloat as they deal with a disabled son who had two brain
surgeries. The Ornelas family was already dealing with one of the worst
crises a family can go through, and now they have to worry about how to
pay for basic necessities. They are just one example of the lives at
stake.
It is not just Federal workers and Federal contractors. Every single
American relies on the Federal Government for essential public safety
and security. The Food and Drug Administration shut down--contaminated
food can kill thousands. TSA agents and FAA air traffic controllers we
rely on to keep air traffic safe are unpaid. In a massive irony,
President Trump's shutdown means the Department of Homeland Security is
unpaid. There are an estimated 2,000 New Mexicans we rely on for border
security, international trade, and immigration work who are unpaid.
This really truly is madness. For their sake and for the sake of all
Americans who are affected by this tragic situation, we need to end
this shutdown now. The consequences of inaction are too great.
Once again, let me thank Senator Kaine for his passion on this issue,
for his vigilance in terms of bringing this issue, and fighting with
all of us on the floor.
I yield to Senator Kaine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. I will briefly conclude my comments recognizing my
colleague from Indiana is also on the floor.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his words. He spoke about the
[[Page S290]]
motion I just made. I will be on the floor tomorrow and Saturday and
next week--Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday--to share stories that have
been shared with me and are being shared with me every day by
Virginians affected and the Agencies the Senator from New Mexico
discussed and others.
Just to clarify, the motion that I made earlier was to pass a House
bill that is pending before us. It is an appropriation for the
remainder of the fiscal year for the following Departments and
Agencies: Department of Interior; Environmental Protection Agency;
Forest Service; Department of Treasury, including the IRS; Judiciary;
Executive Office of the President--we are trying to fund the Executive
Office of the President; the District of Columbia; Department of
Agriculture, including the Food Stamp Program; the Food and Drug
Administration; Department of Transportation; Department of Housing and
Urban Development; Department of Commerce; Department of Justice,
including the FBI; science-related Agencies, including NASA; the
Department of State and several related and independent Agencies.
That was the motion that I made that was objected to by the majority
leader.
Three items quickly. There are three levels of surreal illogic to the
position we are in. The first is, we are having a legitimate debate
between Congress and the President on border security and immigration
reform. That is a very legitimate debate, in which there are
intellectually respectable differences of opinion. If we are having a
debate about that, why would we punish the workers who are charged with
administering the Food Stamp Program? Why punish workers in the
National Forest and National Parks? Why punish the citizens who need
those services? The first level of illogic to the position we are in is
we are punishing both workers and the citizens who need services
completely unconnected with the border and immigration reform issue.
Surreal illogic No. 2. If we are having a debate about safety and
security on the border, why would we demand Customs and Border Patrol
folks work without pay? Those who are affected and who are part of the
Agencies dealing with the dispute are, by all accounts, the frontline
people who are dealing with this--immigration judges, Custom and Border
Patrol folks, ICE agents, DEA agents, the Coast Guard, which interdicts
drugs, FBI, U.S. marshals, BATF agents--why would we make their lives
harder when they are the safety and security professionals who are
charged with dealing with the issue we are trying to figure out?
The final level of surreal illogic, as I yield to my colleague from
Indiana, is this. I want to thank all my colleagues because a week ago,
by unanimous consent, we passed a backpay bill that the President
signed yesterday. Now we have guaranteed that the Federal Treasury will
write a check for the paychecks for all of these workers. It is
actually probably going to be more because to close and restart
actually costs a little bit more. We agreed to pay backpay in this and
any future shutdown to these workers.
So if we are going to pay them anyway, why wouldn't we want them to
be serving Americans instead of being furloughed? If we are going to
pay them anyway--if the Federal Treasury is going to write that check--
wouldn't it be better if they are in their offices answering phones,
processing food stamp applications, and serving their fellow Americans
than locked out of their offices?
We bar Federal workers from striking because of the need for
continuous government operations, but we are locking them out of their
offices while we have agreed to give them full payment for the work
they would have been doing had we not locked them out. That is not
fiscally smart.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
March for Life
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is very
important to my constituents in my State of Indiana. It is also an
issue that is very close to my heart--the sanctity of life.
Tomorrow we know thousands of pro-life advocates from around the
country, including many Hoosiers, will convene in Washington for the
March for Life. This is the world's largest annual pro-life
demonstration.
You may not be able to tell this by watching today's television or
movies, but there is bipartisan agreement among most Americans that we
must protect human life. This is no old-fashioned point of view. In
fact, a recent survey of millennials showed that 70 percent supported
limits such as parental notification, blocking abortions at 5 months of
pregnancy, and ending government funding for abortion.
In Indiana, concerned citizens from all corners of the State are
fighting tirelessly to protect pro-life principles. These are the
unsung heroes of the pro-life movement--those who have dedicated their
lives to saving innocent children. These and other Hoosiers, of course,
elected me to represent their interests in the Senate, but they also
elected me to represent their values. I have been proud to work on
legislation that reflects those values.
Already in this new Congress, I have joined dozens of my Senate
colleagues on a letter to President Trump asking for a public
commitment to only support pro-life legislative and administrative
policies. To be clear, this President has indeed been supportive of
pro-life policies, but House Democrats have already indicated they
intend to move forward with pro-abortion legislation this Congress. We
would like the President to let the House know that he is going to veto
any kind of legislation that doesn't respect the sanctity of life.
I have also joined several of my colleagues this week to sponsor the
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of 2019, which we just voted on.
This bill would have established a governmentwide statutory prohibition
on taxpayer subsidies for abortion or abortion coverage. Federal
taxpayer dollars should absolutely not be used to fund abortion.
I am incredibly disappointed that my colleagues didn't join me in
voting to pass this important legislation today. I will continue
looking for ways to advance this needed reform.
I am also a cosponsor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection
Act, which ensures that a baby who survives an abortion will receive
the same treatment as any child naturally born premature at the very
same age. We must do all we can to protect innocent life.
Before being elected to the Senate, I sat on the board of directors
of the Hannah House in Bloomington, IN. This is a maternity home that
offers women loving support during their pregnancy. I also spent 2
years as a smalltown attorney in Southern Indiana. During that time, I
offered free legal services to parents who wanted to adopt. I am
passionate about helping children find loving forever homes and helping
caring adults become parents. I have come to appreciate firsthand,
through my own life experiences, the importance of advocating for those
who cannot advocate for themselves.
We are divided on so many issues today, but protecting the lives of
unborn children should not be one of those issues. I will continue
working on legislation that advances pro-life values, and I am hopeful
we can soon turn these actions into law.
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. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
March For Life
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, this week, folks from all over the
country--all ages, all backgrounds, and all walks of life--are coming
together to celebrate and highlight one of the single most important
priorities of this Nation, and that is protecting the unborn.
In fact, tomorrow, nearly 100,000 of these folks will march right
here in Washington, DC, at the March for Life rally. In fact, I will be
speaking at that rally tomorrow.
As American citizens, I believe in our founding principle that all
men and all women are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Every human life must be valued. Every human life must be
protected from conception until
[[Page S291]]
death. We must stand to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and
that includes the unborn.
I am grateful that under President Trump's leadership and the
Republican-led U.S. Senate, we have delivered some of the strongest
pro-life results in history. In fact, in the last Congress, this
Republican-led Senate confirmed 85 conservative judges. That includes a
record-setting 30 circuit court judges. We also confirmed 53 district
court judges and two new Supreme Court Justices.
I remember when I left the private sector to come to public service
that when the Senate put a judge on the bench, that meant these were
lifetime appointments. We can pass laws here. Laws can be changed in
the current Congress. Laws can be changed in a future Congress. But
these judges are lifetime appointments.
Despite the great progress we have made over the last couple of
years, there is plenty of work to be done. In fact, just this week, I
was grateful and thankful to see 48 of my Senate colleagues join me in
sending a letter to President Trump urging him to stop any
legislation--any legislation--that is coming out of the House that
would erode pro-life protections.
The good news is, this is a battle we are winning, and this is a
battle we must absolutely win.
Thank you.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Government Funding
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, a couple of days ago I came to the floor
to talk about the partial government shutdown, how it is impacting
different parts of my State--the Great State of Alaska--and, in
particular, how it is impacting the men and women in the U.S. Coast
Guard.
I think we all recognize as we are trying to work through this
partial government shutdown that a lot of Federal workers are being
impacted, but let me talk about the Coast Guard because I think it is a
little different than almost any other group of Federal workers.
On Tuesday, these brave men and women did not receive a paycheck.
They didn't receive a paycheck, and they are the only branch of the
U.S. military right now, out there around the world and around the
globe, risking their lives for the American people, who are not getting
paid. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--we love them all. They are
working hard. They are getting paid. The men and women of the Coast
Guard are not getting paid. That is wrong. That is particularly wrong.
They can't leave the Coast Guard. They would get court-martialed. They
are working hard, saving lives in my State, certainly--in Alaska--all
the time, and they are not getting paid when the other services are
getting paid.
So what did we do? A number of us, Democrats and Republicans--almost
one-quarter of the Members of the U.S. Senate--cosponsored a bill that
says: Let's pay the Coast Guard. Let's pay the Coast Guard right now so
they are treated fairly, like the other men and women serving in our
military.
That was a good start. I was optimistic then. It has been a bit of a
roller coaster ride, but, to be honest, I couldn't imagine that this
bill wouldn't sail through. We are not going to be able to fix
everything right now, but this is one we can start working on, on these
individual issues, and there is a lot of talk of doing it.
Last week, I had the opportunity to raise this with the President and
his administration and the Secretary of Homeland Security, and we
continued to press this issue all week with the OMB Director, the Chief
of Staff of the White House, and the President himself, and he said
this week that he was going to support the bill. That is important. Now
you have the executive branch, the President of the United States, and
he will sign it. He said it. I was in a meeting with him yesterday, and
he said he is 100 percent supportive of this bill. It is bipartisan.
There are actually more Democrats than Republicans on the bill right
now.
What we did, trying to move this quickly, is we said: All right, the
President is going to sign it. We have a quarter of the Senate. It is a
bipartisan bill. Let's move it.
We moved to hotline it. What does that mean? To try to get this bill
to be moved through unanimous consent through the Senate, a hotline
means you are going to try to move it real fast and everybody is going
to vote on it. That started today. By noon, every Republican Member of
the U.S. Senate said: Good to go--cleared, hot. Let's pay the men and
women of the Coast Guard.
I had the opportunity to talk to a local public radio program in
Kodiak, the largest Coast Guard station in the country. I had the
opportunity to say to my fellow Alaskans that I am pretty optimistic.
We have moved. We have a lot of cosponsors--25 percent of the Senate,
Democrats and Republicans--and the President of the United States.
Bingo, Republicans have said we are good to go on it. I have certainly
started working with some of my Democratic colleagues who are also
optimistic. Why would we block this? Why would we block this? Remember,
they are the only men and women in the U.S. military not getting paid
right now, and we have a solution.
So I come to the floor, and I hate to admit it because 2 hours ago I
was pretty optimistic, but I am getting word that my colleagues--the
Democrats and the minority leader--are now saying: Maybe we are just
going to block this. I am not sure why. Nobody has come down here to
say why. We are running the hotline on the Democratic side. So maybe
that is just a rumor. I hope it is just a rumor. Why would you block
it? Come on, my colleagues on the other side. Why would you block it?
We are not going to fix everything tonight, but we could fix this
tonight.
Let me talk a little bit about my State. Some of you have probably
seen the ``Deadliest Catch'' and those kind of shows about Alaska. Look
at the men and women who are out there keeping our fishermen--American
fishermen--safe. On average, every month in the State of Alaska the
Coast Guard saves 22 lives--in 1 month, on average, in one State--and
it assists 53 people, reports and investigates 25 maritime casualties,
conducts close to 20 security boardings and over 20 security patrols.
If you are in trouble on the high seas in Alaska, which is a bad place
to be, the seas are never too rough or the skies never too dismal for
the Coast Guard to come out and rescue you. We have seen it time and
again, but it is not just in Alaska. It is all over the country, and it
is all over the world.
I talked to the Commandant of the Coast Guard just yesterday. I said:
Mr. Commandant, Admiral, I think we are close. The President is good to
go. I think most of the Senators are good to go. The bill has 25
cosponsors.
He reminded me that he has men and women in the Coast Guard deployed
in the Persian Gulf doing anti-piracy operations alongside U.S. Marines
and U.S. Navy personnel--right now, in the Persian Gulf, Marines, Coast
Guard, and Navy--and guess who is not getting paid. Does anyone think
that should be a tolerated situation? The answer is no. The answer is
no.
Again, I hope this is a rumor, and that the hotline is happening
right now on the Democratic side. We have cleared it--good to go. Every
Republican has signed off on this. I hope that this is just a rumor--
that tonight the Democrats will clear this and we will get it to the
House. The Coast Guard said they can start cutting checks again within
24 hours. The President will sign this. So there should be no reason
not to do this.
The partial government shutdown is negatively impacting Federal
workers. The President's request, in my view, for border security is
imminently reasonable. I hope the Speaker will view it that way. A lot
of her members are. We are all working for this. We are all working for
a solution. Senator Johnson put out a bill that I joined as a cosponsor
that would immediately pay all workers who are currently working
without pay. This would expand the idea of what we are doing with the
Coast Guard bill. I think it is a good idea. That is a start, but the
Coast Guard bill right now has momentum. It has momentum.
We could get this done in 24 hours. It is not a complete solution,
but we have the White House, and it should be the Senate and,
hopefully, the House getting ready to find a solution for at least for
some of the men and women in the Federal workforce.
But as I like to emphasize, they are not just any Federal workers.
All of
[[Page S292]]
them are important--there is no doubt--but when you are the only
members of the military not getting paid for risking your lives for
your country and we can fix it here tonight in the Senate, that is what
we should be doing.
I certainly hope this bill isn't being blocked unreasonably. As I
mentioned, it is not a complete solution, but it is the start of a
solution. For the life of me, I can't understand why this bill would be
blocked.
More importantly, the men and women of the Coast Guard will not
understand why this bill is being blocked. Communities that support and
depend on the Coast Guard--like Kodiak, AK--will not understand why
this bill is being blocked. These young men and women, who love their
country and have chosen to serve and protect us, are not going to
understand why this bill is being blocked tonight.
I don't want to use the word plead, but I am asking my colleagues on
the Democratic side to do the right thing and pass this bill tonight.
Every single American who is aware of this situation knows that it is
inequitable when the other members of the military--who are out there
risking their lives just like the men and women of the Coast Guard--are
getting paid and the men and women of the Coast Guard aren't.
We are on the verge of a solution. Passing this bill will take care
of at least one issue that we are all trying to resolve. Again, I urge
my Democratic colleagues--because all of my Republican colleagues have
already passed this bill in the hotline. I urge my colleagues to take
up this bill, do the right thing, and support the men and women of the
Coast Guard, who are not being treated equal to their brothers and
sisters in the other branches of the military.
Until then, I am going to continue to fight for this. I am going to
continue to raise the issue. We have made a lot of progress, including
getting the White House and the President on board and getting all of
our Members here on the Republican side of the Senate on board. I am
hopeful, with more advocacy and more reasoning with my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle, that we will also get there, move this to
the House quickly, and get the men and women of the Coast Guard the
paychecks they are needing.
I yield the floor.
____________________