[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 11 (Friday, January 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S301-S305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
S. 181
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator
Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring
Act. This bill would ensure that we have accurate, detailed information
about the extent of mercury pollution in the United States.
The issue of mercury emissions is growing in importance around the
world. In 2013, the United States was the first country to join and
sign the Minamata Convention on Mercury, a global agreement to reduce
mercury pollution. The Minamata Convention has since been signed by
more than 125 countries, demonstrating the widespread concern that
mercury poses a global threat to human health. At present, however,
scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical
linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human
health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions
to the mercury pollution problem require a comprehensive long-term
solution. It requires much more information. A system for collecting
such information, such as we have for acid rain and other pollution,
does not currently exist for mercury, a much more toxic pollutant.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public
health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is
estimated that approximately 200,000 children born in our country each
year have been exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high
enough to impair their neurological development. Mercury exposure has
gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined, and over the last
decade coal-fired power plants in the United States have reduced their
mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent, but emission levels remain far
too high, given how potent a neurotoxin mercury is.
A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to
protect human health, safeguard our fisheries, and track the effect of
emissions
[[Page S302]]
reductions. This tracking is important in light of increasing mercury
emissions from other countries, including a substantial amount of
mercury emissions from China. Mercury can be transported around the
globe, meaning emissions and releases can affect human health and
environment even in remote locations.
This network is particularly important after the Environmental
Protection Agency's recent proposal on the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards. Last month, the EPA released a proposal that determined it
is no longer ``appropriate and necessary'' to regulate mercury and
toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired plants. I just do not
understand why EPA would send that signal. While the EPA has not
proposed to change the current emission standards on mercury and the
toxic air pollutants in this regulation, the EPA's action has put the
standards in legal jeopardy and could block future efforts to
strengthen this standard that is so important to protecting human
health and our environment.
By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in
atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of
mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury
emissions, a monitoring network would help policymakers, the EPA,
scientists, physicians, and the public to better understand the
sources, consequences, and trends in mercury pollution in the United
States. We must have more comprehensive information and data.
Otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions.
Specifically, our legislation would direct the EPA, in conjunction
with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the
National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and other appropriate Federal Agencies to establish a
national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury
levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in
marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms across the Nation.
Second, it would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise
on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols,
and operations of this monitoring program.
Third, our bill would establish a centralized database for existing
and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely
accessed on the internet and is comprised of data that are compatible
with similar international efforts.
The bill would also require a report to Congress every 2 years on the
program, including trends, and an assessment of the reduction in
mercury rates that need to be achieved in order to prevent adverse
human and ecological effects, and that report would be required every 4
years.
Finally, the bill authorizes $95 million over 3 years to carry out
the Act.
I am pleased to report that this legislation--this bipartisan bill--
has earned the endorsement of the American Lung Association, the
Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Health Strategy
Center, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council. A comprehensive, robust national monitoring network
for mercury would provide the data needed to help make the decisions to
protect the people--particularly, pregnant women and babies and
children--and the environment of Maine and the entire United States.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Government Funding
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here today to talk about the
ongoing partial government shutdown, the crisis along the southern
border, and how we can resolve this in a responsible way.
We are now on day 28 of the government shutdown, and I am more
discouraged now than I have been during this entire impasse. We are
better than this. We are stuck. Eight hundred thousand workers have
missed a paycheck, and there is no end in sight. NASA workers in
Cleveland, TSA employees at our airports across Ohio, Coast Guard
officers on Lake Erie--they have all contacted me, as have others. But
the harm being done to these families and these workers isn't the only
thing that is happening with the shutdown.
I have been through five of these shutdowns since I worked in the
White House for the first President Bush. I remember in 1990 when we
had a weekend shutdown, and everybody thought that was dramatic. Here
we are with the longest shutdown in our history. I don't like
government shutdowns. I don't think they are good for taxpayers. Every
shutdown, we always end up paying more as taxpayers. I don't think
anybody likes them--at least not anybody outside the beltway. Some in
both parties seem to like to use shutdowns, but they are not good for
families who are affected, and they are not good for the economy. They
cost the taxpayers more.
On the economy, we now have a report from the Council of Economic
Advisers, who tell us this week that the shutdown is going to reduce
quarterly economic growth by 0.13 percent for every week it lasts. In
other words, every week the shutdown continues, the economy is hurt
more. We have a great economy right now. Thanks to the tax cuts and the
regulatory relief and other things this Congress has done, we have
record levels of employment. More people are employed than ever in our
history. We have historically low unemployment. We are bringing people
out of the shadows, back into work, off the sidelines.
There is a lot of positive out there, but this is taking us the wrong
way. It is partly the impact on Federal employees, because their
purchasing power is less. We are told that of the $312 billion for
fiscal year 2019 that hasn't been appropriated by this Congress--and
that is what the shutdown is; about 25 percent of government is not
being funded. That is hundreds of millions of dollars each workday that
are not going out to Federal employees. So part of the economic impact
is that people have less spending power, and part of it is that
contractors and a lot of small businesses are not getting paid, so it
has an impact on the economy in that way. Again, what happens in the
end is that everybody gets paid back, but in the meantime, services are
disrupted. It is a very inefficient way to run government, and
taxpayers end up spending more, not less.
I am not big on shutdowns, having lived through five of them, but I
have to say I have never been more frustrated than with this shutdown.
I am frustrated for a very simple reason: The solution is right before
us. The reason we are in this shutdown is that both sides are unwilling
to sit down and talk. That makes this shutdown particularly stupid.
The issue before us is what to do with regard to border security
where, in fact, there is a lot of agreement. Border security is one
where we don't have these fundamental disagreements, as we might on,
let's say, tax cuts or healthcare policy. This is about whether we
should be securing our southern border. I think my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, when pressed, will say: Yes, of course we should.
If you look at the specifics, we are not that far apart. That is what
is most frustrating to me about this one--that we can bring people
together and achieve a result here. I am going to talk about what that
might mean.
I have been working with some colleagues, including the Presiding
Officer, on trying to figure out a way forward. We haven't been
successful yet. There are plenty of folks who want to get to yes in
this Chamber, and we have to figure out a way to provide a forum to do
that, to make it happen.
I am not here today on the floor to assign blame, to point fingers.
There are plenty of people doing that. That is easy to do because there
is lots of blame to go all around. I am here to talk about how to find
that common ground.
Of course, we have to do more to secure our southern border. I
consider it a crisis. Some of my colleagues say it is not a crisis.
Some say it is a crisis. Forget the words. We have a problem on the
southern border.
[[Page S303]]
Here is some of the data. During September and October of last year,
Customs and Border Protection agents apprehended more than 100,000
people trying to enter the country illegally. This has nearly doubled
the number from the same months in 2017. In the most recent data we
have--October and November, just a couple of months ago--there is
double the number of people apprehended between the ports of entry as
we had the year before.
The big increase is families and kids. This is a very tough issue.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, there has been a 50-
percent increase in the number of families coming across the border
illegally and a 25-percent increase in the number of unaccompanied
children.
Along with that, there has been a 2,000-percent increase in asylum
claims over the last 5 years--a 2,000 percent increase in asylum claims
over the last 5 years.
The largest growth is coming, as we know, from three Central American
countries: Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. While 9 out of 10 of
these claims are ultimately rejected by the immigration courts, the
applicants have long since been released into the interior of the
United States. That is a problem. We should all be working on that.
How do we address this problem? There are some constructive ideas on
both sides of the aisle on how to deal with that, but it is a real
problem. In fiscal year 2018, Customs and Border Protection referred
nearly 50,000 accompanied minors--almost all of whom came across the
southern border to seek asylum--to the Department of Health and Human
Services for care.
I have done a lot of work on this issue in the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee and found out
about some of the care these kids have gotten and some of the trauma
these kids have gone through. HHS is currently housing more than 11,000
of these children. Many have experienced violence--as I say, serious
trauma--on their journey to the United States and need significant
help.
Furthermore, the Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that
the southwest border ``remains the primary entry point for heroin into
the United States.'' There is no disagreement about that. I am told
that 90 percent of the heroin that we are experiencing in our
communities here comes across the southern border.
Fentanyl comes primarily from China. We made some progress there
because it comes primarily through the post office from China. We just
passed legislation to deal with that. Fentanyl is the most powerful
drug out there--50 times more powerful than heroin on average--causes
most of the overdoses in my State of Ohio and around the country.
Guess what. More and more of that fentanyl is coming across the
southern border. Last year, seizures of fentanyl--a synthetic heroin
that is causing all these deaths and overdoses--increased by 135
percent last year compared to 2017.
Part of what is happening is that it comes from China to Mexico and
from Mexico into the United States, we are told by law enforcement.
Then, over the last year, we have seen the scientists in Mexico--evil
scientists in Mexico--cook up in these ``super labs'' crystal meth--
methamphetamines, crystal meth, pure crystal meth--that is coming into
our communities.
In the last couple of weeks, I have been at three meetings where I
bring together the people on the drug abuse task forces of different
parts of our State, and I have talked a lot about the opioid crisis,
where I spent a lot of time and effort. What they tell me is that we
are making progress on opioids, finally--thank God--for the first time
in 7 years.
Guess what the new scourge is--crystal meth. It is more pure than
ever, more powerful than ever.
So that is coming from where? It is coming from Mexico. It is a 135-
percent increase, as we talked about, from fentanyl. We have also seen
a 38-percent increase in methamphetamine trafficking across the
southern border just from 2017 to 2018.
This drug issue is a big deal as well, and we need to do more. By the
way, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with that. They
would like to see more funding immediately for better screening at
ports of entry, as an example. Most of these drugs come in through cars
and trucks that cross our border.
While we have been paying attention to this China issue with
fentanyl, what is happening in our southern border continues with very
little interdiction on our part.
I met with the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner last month
in my office. I asked him: How many of these drugs are you
intercepting?
He had to acknowledge: We don't know, of course, but very few.
They need better equipment. They need better technology. They need
more people.
I don't think these numbers are sustainable--the number of families,
the number of children coming in, the number of asylum claims, the
number of drugs coming across our border--for our Border Patrol, for
our judicial system, for our education and health systems, and for our
communities.
Because of all these problems, we need a broad solution at the
border. Experts tell us that our solutions should include more physical
barriers, which the President talks about a lot, but, also, more Border
Patrol agents, more technology, more surveillance, more drones, more
cameras, more screening at our ports of entry, and more technology
there to stop this illegal flow of drugs.
There was a time when all this wasn't all that controversial. In
2006, Congress enacted on a bipartisan basis legislation called the
Secure Fence Act. You have probably heard about it. It authorized 700
miles of additional fencing or physical barriers along the border.
Then-Senator Barack Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act. Then-Senator
Hillary Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act. Senator Chuck Schumer
voted for this bill. It passed by 80 to 19, an overwhelming bipartisan
approval.
As recently as 2013, all of the Senate Democrats and two Independents
voted for a broader immigration reform plan that called for no fewer
than 700 miles of border fencing. That measure ultimately failed in the
House. Let me repeat that. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted
for that bill. Who was the lead sponsor? Senator Chuck Schumer, the
minority leader.
So asking for additional barriers and fencing along the border as
part of a broader strategy to make it more secure shouldn't be that
controversial. Is it the only answer? No, it is not.
Having said all of that, when you remove the partisan politics and
political symbolism, I continue to believe that we are not that far
apart. If you look at the January 6 letter the Trump administration
sent to the Congress, saying, ``Please fund these priorities,'' you
will see that the response to what is happening along our border that
they are proposing is not that far from where we are in the Congress.
Yes, it asks for more barriers. I would think from hearing, frankly,
from both sides--from the administration and from the Democrats in
Congress--that it would be a wall across 2,000 miles of the border. It
is not. That is not the proposal. The proposal is--and I am reading
from it--234 miles of new barriers and fencing--not 2,000 miles but 234
miles of additional barriers of some kind.
As you know, the President has now made clear that he is prepared to
construct these barriers not as a cement wall but as a fence, what he
calls a steel barrier. The White House also made clear in their
submission that these barriers would be constructed in a manner
consistent with the existing language in the Senate committee-passed
bipartisan Homeland Security appropriations bill. That means the
definition of the border barrier that Republicans and Democrats have
long voted for would be the definition used for the construction of
these new barriers.
It is $5.7 billion in funding for the construction of additional
physical barriers along the southern border, consistent with what the
experts say we ought to use--both in terms of the type of barrier and
where the barrier ought to be.
Again, based on the 2006 law, more than 500 miles of fencing have
already been built in California, in Arizona, and in New Mexico. Based
on the data--the actual data--they are making a difference. If you talk
to folks in
[[Page S304]]
those communities and you talk to Customs and Border Protection, they
like having those barriers. At a minimum, it slows people down, and it
keeps vehicles from going across some of that desert landscape. This is
part of a broader strategy that is primarily used now in California,
Arizona, and New Mexico.
The 2006 law resulted in 105 miles of fencing in California, 211
miles in Arizona, and 107 miles in the sector that spans both Arizona
and California. This also includes 166 miles of fencing in a sector
that spans New Mexico and Texas, though most of this is in New Mexico.
In Texas, in total, there is less than 100 miles of fencing. This is
where the priority is now for the Border Patrol, in Texas. Why? Because
Texas has 1,200 miles of the 2,000-mile border. Yet they only have 100
miles of barriers.
The new fencing that the administration has requested, as we
understand it, is particularly necessary in the most populated parts of
the Rio Grande Valley on the Texas-Mexico border. By the way, that is
where 40 percent of the crossings occur. You would think it makes sense
to have more barriers there.
Again, it is not all about barriers. It has to be an all-of-the-above
strategy. The $5.7 billion in barriers, which is about $4 billion more
than the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security appropriations bill, is
what they are proposing. It is about $4 billion more--$4.1 billion, I
think, to be exact--than what is in the bill that has already been
agreed to on a bipartisan basis.
In December, Democrats proposed $1.3 billion for the same purpose,
which is actually a reduction in the amount they initially proposed in
November, the month before, of $1.6 billion.
Folks, there is a way to find common ground here, especially if you
include, with this 234 miles of additional barriers to be determined by
the experts as to what kind of barrier and where it goes, other
immigration policies that many on the other side of the aisle strongly
support--and some of us do too--like dealing with DACA. This has been
talked about, and it has become a political football. Let's resolve it.
These are young people who came here as children through no fault of
their own. Their families brought them here as kids. They were minors.
They are not responsible for breaking immigration laws.
Now they are young people. Some of them are working, some of them are
in school, and some of them are in the military. They are looking for
some certainty.
I think the Congress can provide that. As part of an overall package
here, it makes sense to include something on DACA. A lot of Democrats
who talked about this over the years strongly agree with that.
The President has also asked, in addition to looking at DACA, that in
the context of overall immigration reform, we would look at this issue
of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. This is something that many
Democrats feel very strongly about. TPS allows the government to
provide protection for individuals who come from particularly trouble-
stricken countries. There are now 10 countries on that list. The
Secretary of Homeland Security has the ability to provide harbor for
those individuals from those 10 countries. Sometimes it is because of a
natural disaster. Sometimes it is because of a war. Sometimes it is
because of violence in those countries. They simply have to present
themselves at ports of entry and begin the application process and go
through a legal process to apply. Some of these temporary visas that
these individuals under TPS currently have are expiring.
Again, there are a lot of Senators, particularly on the other side of
the aisle, who feel strongly about this. Senator Kaine has been a
champion for these individuals. There are tens of thousands of them in
his State of Virginia. Senators would like to see immediate relief
there. I think that could be part of a mix here.
The President has also requested $675 million to help stop drug
smuggling at our ports of entry; $211 million to hire another 750
Border Patrol agents; $800 million for humanitarian needs to fund
enhanced medical support, transportation, and temporary facilities for
those who are detained at our border. The Homeland Security
appropriations bill already includes funding for all of those purposes,
but the President has requested additional funds to help deal with this
influx we talked about--more families, more unaccompanied children, in
particular. He has also requested $563 million for 75 additional
immigration judges and support staff so that we can help reduce the
case backlog of nearly 800,000 pending immigration cases.
Again, a lot of Democrats and Republicans, including me, have talked
about the need for this. This backlog is part of our problem because
people are typically in the communities, and many of them don't show up
for their court cases. Part of the problem is the backlog, the amount
of time it takes--months. That can be reduced.
Finally, the President has requested an additional $631 million for
counternarcotics and weapons technology. Again, this is one I feel
strongly about. I know a lot of my colleagues do. Senator Schumer has
talked eloquently in the past about needing better screening at ports
of entry to try to stop some of these drugs from coming in. I believe
these are reasonable requests.
Where there is disagreement, let's have a debate over it, and let's
come to a compromise. But we have to have a real adult conversation for
that to occur.
The irony for me, for those of us who support a stronger presence on
the southern border, is that this shutdown is hurting our efforts to
secure the border and to make our immigration system work better.
First, U.S. Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection
officers are continuing to work without pay. We want to increase the
morale of those brave officers along the border. It is hard to increase
morale when they are working without pay.
More than 40,000 immigration hearings have been canceled. Think about
that. There are 40,000 immigration hearings that have already been
canceled, contributing to this backlog that already totals 800,000
cases.
E-verify, the government system used to verify the immigration status
of workers to determine whether they are illegal, to allow employers to
reject people who are not legally in this country--that e-verify system
is incredibly important because, ultimately, those jobs are the magnet.
Right? That is what is pulling people across the border more than
anything else. Now that system is shut down because the government is
shut down--that part of government--meaning employers across the United
States are unable to effectively know who is legal or not. That doesn't
help us with regard to the border.
For all of these reasons, we need to come together and negotiate a
solution. We are not that far apart.
Last week, out of frustration that no progress was being made, my
colleague Jerry Moran of Kansas and I introduced legislation that would
establish a $25 billion border trust fund over the next 5 years to
enhance border security across the board--all the things we have talked
about.
The legislation would also codify protections for the DACA population
we talked about. Again, it is very important to so many in this
Chamber, particularly on the other side of the aisle.
In my view, this is a fair and reasonable solution for all sides, and
I believe we could get the necessary votes if it were brought to the
floor.
Others have better ideas, I am sure. Let's hear them. Let's have a
negotiation on all of these issues, but let's get to a resolution.
It has been reported in the media that I have been working with
Senator Graham, Senator Collins, Senator Alexander, Senator Murkowski,
Senator Gardner, along with Senator Coons, Senator Kaine, Senator
Cardin, Senator Manchin, and others. This has been in the press. I am
not reporting anything to you today that is not already known. It has
been said that we are trying to figure out a way forward, and we are.
Democrats have insisted that there can't be a negotiation until the
government shutdown has ended. So a bunch of us have said: Well, what
if we do this? One, let's get a commitment from Democrats that they
will seriously negotiate based on the President's request. I think it
is a reasonable request.
Having received that commitment, then let's have a short-term
cessation here of the shutdown--maybe for a few
[[Page S305]]
weeks, maybe for a couple of weeks--to give us the space and the time
to be able to work out an agreement.
There are a substantial number of Members from our side and the other
side who have agreed to sign a letter along those lines. I am hopeful
that can provide at least one opportunity to move forward. It is the
only one I see right now.
If there is a better idea, I am eager to hear it, and I know my
colleagues are too. More importantly, I know the people I represent
are, both those who are directly impacted and those who are watching
and saying: Why can't Washington get its act together? This makes no
sense.
Yes, we should provide additional security for our southern border.
Why can't we agree to that?
We are not that far apart.
Why can't we end the government shutdown in the process and allow the
normal operations to go back into place so that families, government
workers are not put in this position where, working paycheck to
paycheck, they now don't have a paycheck and where taxpayers can get
the services they have paid for and not end up paying more money after
the fact, which is what typically happens in these shutdowns.
By the way, I do hope we can stop using government shutdowns
altogether. I don't like them, as I said, and last week, I introduced
legislation, along with eight of my Republican colleagues, that is
called the End Government Shutdowns Act. It is pretty straightforward.
I have introduced it every single Congress since I was elected in 2010.
What it says is, if you get to the end of the process and the
appropriations bill is not funded by Congress--and our fiscal yearend
is September 30, so we have been living since then on these continuing
resolutions. But if you end up with not getting an appropriations bill
done or if you get to the end of a continuing resolution and there is
no resolution--you have this impasse--instead of having the government
shut down, what you do is just continue the spending from the previous
year. Then, after 120 days, you reduce it by 1 percent, and then, after
another 90 days, you reduce it by another 1 percent.
Why? To give Congress the incentive to get their act together and to
actually fund the government appropriately, to pass these
appropriations bills, which should provide not just funding but reforms
to government programs. That is the idea. We should every year be
looking at all of the government and saying: What is working? What is
not working? What are we going to fund more? What are we going to fund
less? What are we going to eliminate? What are we going to create?
Something new and good for our country and our constituents. So that is
what we want to incentivize by the End Government Shutdowns Act.
I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle can support this and
that, looking forward, we will not have government shutdowns. We
wouldn't be in this mess today if that legislation were law.
The bottom line is, we have the opportunity before us to reach a fair
agreement. Both sides are going to have to move some. The President is
going to have to negotiate, and he says that he will.
The Speaker of the House is going to have to move some. According to
news reports, Speaker Pelosi flat-out told the press she would not
support $1 dollar for any new barriers, even if the government were
reopened and everything that she asked for was granted. That is not
serious. That is not the way to have a successful negotiation,
especially when Democrats, as I laid out earlier, have long supported
more barriers and fencing along the southern border.
So let's act in good faith. Let's move forward to a responsible
resolution. That means, yes, we reopen government, but we also secure
the southern border. We are not that far apart. We just need to have
the will to get it done.
I yield the floor.
____________________