[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 23, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S483-S497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

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

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


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

[[Page S484]]

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

[[Page S485]]

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

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

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

[[Page S486]]

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

[[Page S487]]

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


                     Tribute to Alfred Redman, Sr.

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

[[Page S488]]

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


                           Government Funding

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

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

[[Page S489]]

will support or oppose this measure, which is essentially one they 
wrote. I hope they will take yes for an answer and vote with all of us 
to reopen the government and to begin serious, thoughtful, and 
principled discussions on ways we can improve borders and many other 
topics.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, tomorrow the Senate will vote on the 
plan put forward by President Trump to reopen the closed portions of 
the Federal Government right away, increase security on our southern 
border, deliver disaster recovery funding, and address some outstanding 
immigration issues.
  By way of reminder, this is a compromise measure that was carefully 
designed to include the kinds of ideas Democrats have been eager to 
support, including very recently. First and foremost, the legislation 
would end this partial shutdown and bring all parts of the Federal 
Government back online for the American people. Normal operations would 
resume. Federal workers would receive backpay and continue to be paid. 
This could happen quickly.
  The bill also takes a compromise approach to the underlying 
disagreement that brought us to this point. It would fully fund the 
border security priorities identified by the men and women actually 
working on the ground: investments in surveillance and security 
technologies, in recruiting and training new Border Patrol agents, and, 
yes, additional funding for physical barriers like the walls and fences 
which Democratic Senators used to boast about voting for and which 
President Obama's administration bragged about building.
  Of course, the reality of a divided government is that negotiations 
do not leave either side with their perfect plan. So the President went 
out of his way to include additional items that have been priority 
areas for Democrats. For example, the proposal would grant 3-year 
lawful status for certain currently enrolled DACA recipients and 
individuals under TPS. Finally, the White House proposal also includes 
all seven of our regular order appropriations bills, the product of 
bipartisan work in this body and in the House throughout last year.
  So the President's compromise offer should command serious 
consideration in both Houses of Congress. On day 33 of this partial 
government shutdown, we have before us a bill to immediately reopen the 
Federal Government, deliver all remaining full-year appropriations 
measures, support disaster recovery efforts, fully fund comprehensive 
border security priorities, and address some outstanding immigration 
issues. It is hard to think of a good reason to oppose this, but my 
Democratic friends are trying to come up with something--anything--to 
justify prolonging the stalemate. I have a great deal of respect for my 
friends across the aisle, but honestly this is getting downright 
silly--downright silly.
  Yesterday the Democratic leader announced that he was denouncing 
President Trump's proposal because ``there were no serious negotiations 
with any Democrat.'' It would appear my friend is offended that he 
wasn't consulted while this compromise was under construction. So let's 
stop and think about that for a minute.
  For days--weeks now--the American people have seen the Democratic 
leader and the Speaker of the House make a public strategy out of 
refusing to negotiate. That has been their position; that we will not 
negotiate.
  They have said it publicly. They have announced they are not 
interested in a negotiated solution to this impasse, not interested in 
meeting the President halfway on immigration policy or anything else, 
happy to keep the government closed unless and until everyone agrees to 
move forward in their preferred manner with no concessions and nothing 
for border security.
  Now, that has been the Democrats' public stance. Our friends across 
the aisle have said repeatedly that they have no intention to negotiate 
out of the stalemate. The Speaker of the House joked that she would 
allow $1--$1--for physical barriers like wall fencing. That is why they 
have turned away from multiple opportunities to negotiate at the White 
House in recent weeks.
  So my friend across the aisle is attempting quite the two-step here. 
First, the Democratic leader repeatedly said he wasn't interested in 
any talks at this point, but then when President Trump puts forward a 
proposal to move us forward, my colleague complains he wasn't 
consulted.
  Well, the President and the American people are picking up on the 
strangeness of the Democratic leader's strategy of refusing to even 
negotiate. Here is one headline from a newspaper editorial that echoes 
this growing national sentiment. Here is what he said: ``Trump made an 
offer--it's time for Democrats to start negotiating.''
  This is from the Washington Post--the Washington Post:

       [T]o refuse even to talk until the government reopens does 
     no favors to sidelined federal workers.
       [A] measure of statesmanship for a member of Congress now 
     is the ability to accept some disappointments, and shrug off 
     the inevitable attacks from the purists.

  There are signs that Democratic Members in both Chambers are starting 
to come to the same conclusion, starting to reject their leaders' 
refusal to even negotiate.
  Here is what a few of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate have 
said in the last few days:

       I personally don't think a border wall is in and of itself 
     immoral.

  Here is another:

       Everybody is for border security. . . . There are places a 
     wall makes sense.

  Here are a few of our Democratic colleagues over in the House:

       If we don't compromise, the American people are the ones 
     who get hurt.

  Another said:

       If I had the opportunity to vote for some sort of deal, I 
     would.

  Another said:

       There is common ground. . . . We do have to figure out how 
     to secure our borders.

  Even Speaker Pelosi's own House majority leader broke completely with 
her extreme position in a television interview just yesterday. When 
asked if he would personally be open to wall funding, Congressman Hoyer 
replied:

       Look, I think physical barriers are part of the solution.

  That is the majority leader of the House of Representatives.
  When the news anchor pressed him on Speaker Pelosi's statement that a 
wall is immoral, Majority Leader Hoyer replied:

       It depends on what a wall is used for, whether it's moral 
     or immoral. If it is protecting people, it is moral. That is 
     not the issue.

  He went on:

       We want to make sure that people who come into the United 
     States are authorized to do so. . . . We are for border 
     security and I think we can get there.

  So more and more Democrats seem to be coming to the same collusion as 
the rest of us. It is time to make a deal--time to make a deal.
  Fortunately, a deal is on the table. It is a deal for everyone who 
would rather reopen the government, invest in border security, and 
secure more certainty for DACA recipients than sacrifice all that for 
the sake of this radical new position that physical barriers, like 
walls or fencing, are inherently immoral. So the President has produced 
a fair compromise that pairs full-year government funding with 
immigration policy priorities from both sides.
  Enough political spite--enough. Enough showboating for ``the 
Resistance.'' Enough refusing to join in talks and then complaining you 
weren't consulted. Our Federal workforce and the American people 
deserve a whole lot better than this.
  I can't believe the bulk of our Democratic colleagues really see 
opposing the President as more important--more important--to their 
constituents than restoring full government function, paying our 
Federal employees, securing the border, and more certainty for the DACA 
population.
  When we vote on the President's plan tomorrow, we will see what each 
Senator decides to prioritize.


                     Covington Catholic High School

  Madam President, on one final and totally different matter, I need to 
say a few words about something that took place this past weekend.
  Last week, Kentuckians of all ages traveled to our Nation's Capital 
to exercise our fundamental American rights to peacefully assemble and 
petition the government.

[[Page S490]]

  Unfortunately for the students of Covington Catholic High School, 
their participation has resulted in threats on their lives.
  Far-left activists and members of the national and State media 
isolated a very few seconds of video footage from any shred of context, 
and many decided it was time to attack and denigrate these young 
people.
  Because of what some highly partisan observers thought--thought--they 
saw in a few seconds of confusing video, these kids, their school, and 
their families were met with a deluge--a virtual deluge--of partisan 
vitriol and hatred from people who never met them and had no idea what 
had taken place. Some prominent figures even used this pile-on to 
propose curtailing the First Amendment for groups with whom they 
disagree, even targeting the students' hats.
  How quickly some seem to forget why the Framers insisted on these 
protections in the first place.
  In a matter of hours, these students were tried, convicted, and 
sentenced by the media, where accuracy is irrelevant and the 
presumption of innocence does not exist. To their credit, some 
apologized for their commentary upon learning more, but by that point 
too much damage had already been done.
  Because of the startling death threats against these students and 
their families, Covington Catholic--which, by the way, is in Kentucky--
was closed yesterday. The school's administration is working closely 
with law enforcement, but it is unclear when any sense of normalcy 
might return.

  This time, it is families in my home State who are paying the price 
for exercising their freedoms. Sadly, this kind of fact-free rush to 
judgment is becoming an all-too-often occurrence.
  If we can learn anything from this weekend, here is what I hope it 
is: When the rush for headlines takes precedence over the facts, 
mistakes are made, and our rights as Americans are put at risk. This 
trend is particularly troubling when young people are involved.


                           Signing Authority

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senior Senator from 
Alaska be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 21

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


                           Government Funding

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

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

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

[[Page S491]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page S492]]

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

[[Page S493]]

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

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

[[Page S494]]

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

[[Page S495]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S496]]

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

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

[[Page S497]]

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

                          ____________________