them in town halls and coffee shops. montanans don't run their businesses like this and our government should not run like this. especially -- especially after i hear promises to draining the swamp. this is exactly the opposite. bringing this garbage bill to the floor is a dereliction of duty. it is incompetent and mostly it is a failure of leadership. it is a failure of vision. in any other business in this country, if managers acted like the leadership of this body, they'd lose their jobs. it's almost as if the majority had planned this all along. to get us to this point for political purposes. well, guess what? we should not be here for political purposes. we should be here as americans doing our best to give people the certainty that they need. rather than playing with a hot potato saying, you know what? we'll do it next month.

we were sent here to govern. we ought to govern. put politics in the closet. we got nine hours to do a job. we need to do it. if the majority leadership and the white house are going to continue to sit back and twitle their thumbs, let's bringpass them. let's -- bypass them. let's get a deal. we need to sit down and get a deal that works for the rest of this year. that's til the end of september, not the 19th of january. that supports rural hospitals, that fixes daca. now, i know that there are scores and scores of folks on the other side of the aisle that want to do this. nobody should leave our desks in this body until this job is done. we are nearly four months into this fiscal year. at some point in time, the appropriations committee should be starting to work on the 1 19th fiscal year budget but

we're not because we can't get through 18. nobody want as shutdown. that's why we need to stay here and do our jobs. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. gardner: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, madam president. i realized a long time ago something very unique and unfortunate about the way congress can work. it seems sometimes that in washington and only in washington the more people agree on something, the less likely it is to get done. in the real world, back in colorado, in alaska as the presiding officer is from, the more people agree on something, the more likely it is to get

done. the more likely you're able to see progress on an important issue to the people of colorado, to the people of alaska. but here in washington, the more you agree, the more people seem to want to push back to fight and to divide. and so here we are approaching the zero hour of a government shutdown, and i hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, where's the good faith they say. it's been 111 day. these programs haven't been permanently reauthorized. where's the good faith, they say. they say that we just make it worse by passing a four-week continuing resolution. where's the good faith? let me just talk a little bit about where we are right now. i've been a part of a bipartisan working group, very proud of the work that we're doing trying to find a solution on a very important issue dealing with so many thousands of children

around our country and our our state. in colorado, this issue of daca, of dreamers, incredibly important not just to part of the state, not just to denver or the front range. two kids of mine go to school with people who are brought here at a very young age through no fault of their own and we agree, all of us, that there needs to be a solution for those kids. we agree that we should address the opioid crisis that is gripping this nation, that is tearing families apart, that is resulting in the deaths of far too many people. when you have a crisis that's actually resulting in the age and life expectancy of americans declining, like the opioid crisis has, we should address that. we have men and women in uniform around the country defending this nation. hundreds of thousands in korea facing down a threat from north korea. article in "the wall street journal" today talked about the special operators who are now in the philippines directly

intervening in the war on terror in the philippines, fighting radical islamic terrorists. of course we all know about the work that's taking place in the middle east, the conflict in syria, the conflict in iraq, in afghanistan and the progress we have made fighting back on isis, fighting back on terrorists. the fact that we have shrunk the ground a they have taken -- ground that they have taken. one of the great victories that people haven't even really talked about yet because they'd really talk about divisive issues. but to think that we are hours away from a government shutdown that somehow people think it's going to make it better. they're going to shut the government down and somehow that makes it better for the military. they're willing to slut the government down because they -- shut the government down because they can get a continuing resolution. only in washington can a bad solution be fixed by a worse solution but that's exactly what people want to do.

it seems to me that this place ought to get to work and it doesn't get to work by shutting things done, by going to your partisan corners, picking up your sticks and going home. but yet that's what some in this body would like to do. we have a continuing resolution that represents policies that people support. there's not a thing in there that people disagree with that they vote against. at least that's what we've been told. chip reauthorization, hundreds of thousands, in fact, let's look at the chip reauthorization. i heard from my colleague from montana say that this is a garbage bill. a garbage bill that reauthorizes chip for six years, a garbage bill that will provide health care for hundreds of thousands -- 8.9 million women and children with schip coverage. this is a garbage bill that provides the longest extension of women and children's health care since it was created.

i hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they didn't talk about it. they didn't care. i've been a cosponsor of that bill for months because i believe it's important. it's important to the people of my state. the fact is, people across this country are tired of the finger pointing. they're tired of the blame game and they're tired of the shutdown politics that we're just hours away from seeing played out because people would take this country, this government hostage to the politics of their choice. i'm old enough to remember back in 2013 when president obama thought a government shutdown was a bad idea. when the democratic leader believed that a government shutdown could result in governmental chaos when you shut the government down over the politics of your choice. and yet here we are hours away from people wishing to do just that. we can find solutions to our nation's biggest challenges. i'm part, again, a bipartisan

working group to work on these solutions but it makes it more difficult, not less difficult to find solutions when people shut the government down. not only that, the collateral damage that occurs as a result, the collateral damage on men and women across this country who are hurt because of what this government then cannot do to help them. we're in one of the most severe flu seasons this country has seen. c.d.c. has a lot of work for do. shut the government down, the c.d.c. can no longer get the information from the states about where that epidemic is heading. that makes a difference on where they send vaccines to. don't vote for this government? don't vote for this bill to keep the government open? 8.9 million women and children could be affected. because of the risk it puts to chip, schip. let me just talk about a story from my hometown. five military bases in the city of colorado springs. here's a headline from a local newspaper. a potential shutdown would hit hardest at colorado springs military base. there are men and women at fort

carson, colorado, and across colorado springs, overseas deployed in our war on terror protecting us at home so that we can come to work each and every day, so we can have debates on the senate floor. 6,000 civilians are going to be furloughed if this government shutdown occurs. now, these are civilians who support the war on terror, who support our men and women in uniform around the globe and yet somehow shutting the government down, furloughing 6,000 civilians is deemed to be better than a four-week c.r.? only in washington can people claim that a bad bill should be replaced by a worse bill. only in washington can people decide that bad policy should be -- shouldn't be preferred over something that's worse. and that's exactly what the argument seems to be. they don't like it so make it worse. that's not fair to the american people. it's not fair that collateral damage hurt men, women, and

children across this country when we can do the right thing and we can bring a solution to our immigration crisis. we can bring a solution to the challenge our military faces. we can bring a solution to the opioid crisis. let me tell you about a business in fort collins. they have made a breakthrough in the way that a treatment is delivered for people who are addicted to opioids. it's a medication that is liquid and when it's injected, it solidifies. it's time released over a month. so it doesn't rely on day-to-day medication. it doesn't rely on a person to faithfully take their medication because if they have a relapse, it can disrupt their medication and what they're doing in their treatment. this takes away that concern, gives them that treatment for a month. that was approved through an f.d.a. emergency expedited review process. but there's legislation that this body needs to pass in order to make sure that it is available in a way that will help the american people. shut the government down and we can't get that done. committees can't meet.

the work can't proceed. but i guess that's the solution that people want. i guess shutting the government down seems to be the cure all for them. take a hostage. push it off. and somehow that makes it better. the american people just want us to find an answer. they just want us to have good-faith solutions to our problem and men and women of good faith in this body and the house of representatives are trying each and every day to do that. but don't prove to the american people their worst suspicions that washington doesn't care. pass the continuing resolution. continue negotiations. we have time to talk. we have time to communicate. we have time to work. and we have time to solve. stop the temper tantrums. the american people deserve better. madam president, i yield the

floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor where we're facing the prospect of a government shutdown. at midnight tonight, funding runs out. the lights will go dark. and when that happens, everyone suffers. no one wins. everyone suffers. but i know that. madam president, you know that. republicans know that. and we've offered a solution that keeps the government open and extends the children's health insurance program. as a doctor i will tell you how valuable that program is for children all across the country. the house has already passed this legislation. democrats in the senate have promised to block it, to stand in the way. some have actually been bragging that they can shut down the government and that they want to shut down the government.

why would someone want to do that? well, here's what "the new york times" says. the front page this morning, senate shutdown looms as spending bill advances. house approves a stopgap measure while democrats dig in on immigration. that's the reason the democrats want to shut down the government and this entire country over the issue of immigration. that's "the new york times." here's "the washington post" this morning. shutdown looms despite house action. democrats tie dreamers to passage of budget deal. there it is. "new york times," "washington post." the minority leader is forcing a shutdown over the issue of illegal immigration. democrats are ready to set aside all other issues. all other deadlines, all other priorities. republicans have written in past

legislation that funds the government. that means funding for our military, funding for our veterans. it means funding for opioid treatment. it means funding for everything that our federal government does now. and it funds the children's health insurance program, and not just for a week or a month. it funds it for the next six years. madam president, this is a program that helped provide medical care for almost nine million children and needy families across this country. there are more than 7,300 people in my home state of wyoming who benefit from this program. the money for this program is going to start running out in some places very soon. the funding has been in limbo since last fall. some states are getting ready to send out letters to families, letters that tell those families that their coverage is going to be discontinued because this

senate didn't act. states have been asking for certainty. that's what we're doing with this legislation. we're providing that certainty. we're taking care of this program so vital to families across every state in this country for the next six years. democrats are blocking it. it does seem to be that what they really want to do is make a political point at the expense of everything else and everyone else. they're willing to hold nine million children and their families hostage to do it. they're willing to hold hostage more than 300 million americans who could be harmed by a prolonged government shutdown. and it's all over the immigration issue as they talk about in "the washington post," in "the new yor "the new york tn issue known as daca. it stands for deferred action for childhood arrivals. now, it was intended as a

temporary program, temporary program to deal with the problem of people who were brought to this country illegally when they were just young children. the program was set up by an executive action by president obama. it wasn't done by a law. it wasn't a bipartisan program. twapt a democrat president -- it was a democrat president acting on his own to kick the can down the road on this issue. the issues related to immigration and specifically illegal immigration are very tough, and we need to keep working toward a solution. there are discussions going on every day within the senate, republican and democrat, between the house, between the senate. why do people want to risk blowing up these discussions? well, it seems that whatever we agree to needs to include important matters of border security because, to me, border security is national security, and that has to be included in

that discussion and deliberation. any solution is going to have to include real fixes to our broken immigration system so that we're not just having the same argument over again in a couple more years. coming up with a solution like this does continue to take time. not certainly something we can get done by midnight tonight, madam president. it's not even a good reason why we need to rush to shovel this problem in a few -- to solve this problem in a few hours. the fact is no current daca recipients are going to lose their benefit for another six months. democrats are setting an arbitrary deadline of midnight tonight and they're threatening to shut down the government if their deadline is not met. the legislation republicans have offered takes care of one emergency and it gives negotiators time to reach consensus on this separate and unrelated subject. the continuing resolution already passed by the house

provides certainty to the children's health insurance program, and it allows us a chance to work out some certainty on the daca issue. some democrats are saying they refuse to do that. why? well, it's interesting, madam president, because in 2013 the minority leader, senator schumer, thought that a government shutdown, at that time he said was a terrible idea. he said no matter how strongly one feels about an issue, he said you shouldn't hold millions of people hostage. these are his words. he said that's wrong and we can't give into that. he even spelled out the exact situation we're facing today, and he did it not just on the senate floor, he did it on television in 2013. abc's "this week." october 6, 19 19 -- he said we believe strongly in immigration

reform. we're not going to raise the debt ceiling until you pass immigration reform. he said it would be government chaos. that's what senator schumer said in 2013, and now he's trying to create exactly that same government chaos that he described back then. and it's for the exact same reason that he talked about in 2013, the exact same reason that "the washington post" cites as the reason, today's front page, democrats tie dreamers to passage of budget deal. the same reason as outlined on the front of the "new york times" today. democrats dig in on immigration. what's different now is that democrats have decided to stake all of their political hopes on this one issue. they're holding america hostage to do it. madam president, nobody benefits from the democrats shutting down the government. nobody benefits from the game that democrats are playing with

the security and the safety of american families. to me, it's irresponsible for them to seek this shutdown over their agenda on this issue of immigration. we should pass the resolution that we have before us today. it's time for democrats to stop back from the damage this shutdown will cause to children, to our veterans, to our economy, and return to the table to discuss the issues on which they are focused. i recommend to my colleagues, madam president, across the aisle, that they follow the advice from senator schumer in 2013. don't play politics with people's lives and create governmental chaos. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i rise to talk about why we're here but i'll begin with a definitive statement. there is not one of the 49 democrats in this chamber who wants the government to shut down. i'll conclude with this but i'll state if the government of the united states shuts down it's for one reason and one reason only, and that is the majority leadership does not want to work weekends. i'll come back to that in a minute. why are we here? we're here debating upon a house continuing resolution drafted without democratic support or consultation at the 11th hour and sent over to us on the last day of a spending authorization period. most folks in the chamber know, but those watching on television may not. we were supposed to have a budget and appropriations bill by october 1. that did not happen. so the leadership suggested that we agree to work and find an

appropriations bill and a budget by december 8, and that didn't happen. and then there was the suggestion that we delay until december 22, and that didn't happen. and then there was a vote on december 22 to delay until january 19, today, and apparently that's not going to happen. the request today is that we would pass a continuing resolution that would put this matter into the 16th of february, and we would then be in the fifth month of the fiscal year without a budget deal. why would we want to do that? what we should want to do is not budget by continuing resolution but actually do a budget deal. for folks who aren't schooled in the insider phrases we use, a continuing resolution is like driving your car looking in the rear view mirror. we ought to be driving our car looking in the windshield. look forward with a budget that looks forward. but a continuing resolution is, well, we're unwilling or unable to make a decision, so let's just do what we did yesterday.

that is no way to operate the government of the greatest country on earth. and so what we need to be about is finding a final budget deal. what's wrong with continuing resolutions? i think a pivotal moment in this discussion, as we're sort of looking at how it's developed, occurred about eight days ago. i'm on the armed services committee. i am the father of a united states marine. the secretary of defense, secretary mattis, came to talk to both the democratic caucus and the republican caucus lunches. i don't know what he said to the republican hrufrpbl but i know -- lunch but i know what he said to us. the secretary looked us in the eye, this was on the 8th of january, and said do not give me another continuing resolution. the pattern of continuing resolutions has hurt the nation's defense. do not give me another continuing resolution. when the secretary of defense

looks at us and tells us that, i take that seriously. yesterday we had an armed service the hearing, and four trump administration nominees for key positions dealing with research, acquisitions, installations, energy were before us. and i asked each of them, because they each have experience working with the d.o.d. or other federal agencies, what do you think a -- of continuing resolutions, and to a person these men and women said they're horrible. we shouldn't live under continuing resolutions. don't do them. do a budget. when they were done testifying i said the interesting thing is you're actually here on the day when the house is going to be voting on a continuing resolution that is directly contrary to what secretary mattis asked of us and what you are testifying to today. last night as we were on the floor awaiting the house message to come over with the continuing resolution, the pentagon chief spokesperson tweeted out, continuing resolutions are

wasteful and they hurt the military. don't do another continuing resolution. we need a full budget for 2018. this morning secretary mattis spoke, giving a national security speech, and he was asked about this budgetary debate. and he said the value of the american military is grossly enhanced by the sense that the american model of government of the people, by the people, for the people can function and carry out its governmental responsibilities. he continues to say that the right thing for our troops is to do a full budget, not a continuing resolution. so to hear my colleagues stand up and say that the dems want to shut government down, no we don't. we want to do what the secretary of defense said we should do. we want to do what a veteran told me yesterday in arlington. i had a veterans roundtable and i was listening to their concerns about v.a. and mental health issues we care about. but one veteran said actually, i'm a veteran, but i really want to talk to you about being a

federal employee. i'm a federal employee in civilian service now. i work in quantico. don't make us live under continuing resolutions. the uncertainty of it is just too great. find a final budget deal. and so that is the task that really is before us right now on january 19. can we find a final budget deal? what should we do? it's not that hard. the deadline tonight is completely artificial. there's nothing magic about january 19. what we should do is commit as senators and house members to stay here and get a final budget deal done. there are a series of discreet items. there's the actual budgetary numbers for defense and other important priorities: health care, transportation, mental health. there's emergency relief packages for the hurricanes and wildfires of the last few months. those are important. there's a number of health care priorities like the chip program. that's important. and i would argue that a resolution of the issue with dreamers is important. why do i say it's important?

because president trump told us to do it. in september, he said i'm going to end the dreamer program in six months. i'll end daca in six months. and i disagreed with that, but what i did agree with was when he said this is for congress to fix. he put a burden on our shoulders to fix it in september and now we're five months later and there is a bipartisan proposal on the table. president trump said send me a proposal, and i'm going to sign it. you guys work it out, and i'm going to sign it. and we now have a proposal that i believe is ready to be voted on and i believe would pass in both bodies. so what we should do is avoid the short term, avoid the continuing resolutions that the secretary of defense has told us not to pass, follow his advice, and stay here at the table over the weekend and into next week and find a final budget deal. that is how we can best serve our constituents. i think there's only one person that has talked about shutdown

with glee and with interest that it happened, and that is the president. this is a tweet of his in may. our country needs a good shutdown. i remember this tweet well because i'm on the budget committee and we were having budget hearings then. we had a trump administration nominee before us for a key position in o.m.b., i believe, and i asked him do you think there's such a thing as a good shutdown of the u.s. government? and i've been asking that question to many witnesses before the committee, and most say no, there's never such a thing as a good shutdown of the united states government. that's what we believe and i think that's what our republican colleagues believe. there is no such thing as a good shutdown of the united states government. we all believe that. and in this instance, we don't even need to entertain the thought, we don't even need to entertain the thought. if we're willing to stay over the course of the next few days to try to do what secretary mattis asked and find a final budget deal, i believe we can find one, especially if the

president were to say congress, stay at your job, find a final budget deal. it's got to be bipartisan, and i will support it. if the president were to say those things, we could find a deal. and that would be the best thing for all concerned. and we might have to, instead of kicking it down the road for a month, say we're going to kick it down for three days or four days or five days while we negotiate. but let's put the pressure on to negotiate and not do this month-long extension we've done since october 1 that's gotten us nowhere. that's what i mean when i said the only reason this government would shut down over this is if the leadership decides they don't want to work on weekends. federal employees work on weekends. go out to dulles and look at t.s.a. doing their job as people are traveling around. a whole lot of folks who are my constituents in virginia, neighbors in richmond work on weekends. i know my senate colleagues who work so hard in their districts,

we work on weekends. we can work on weekends here. we can scrap some plans for the weekend. we can commit to finding a final budget deal that would meet what secretary mattis asked us to do. and we should do that. no one wants to shut this government down. there's only one person who has been talking about it with glee. but i think even today when president trump asked senator schumer to come up and have a dialogue, i think that was a tacit admission that he now realizes it would be a bad idea. if it's a bad idea, let's just stay here and get a budget deal done. that's what the folks sent us here to do and i know we can do it. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: madam president, i rise today to discuss two important issues: keeping our

government running and protecting -- and i know how strong you are on this as well -- an important tool in the fight against the -l opioid epidemic. today we face a -l deadline to fund the government. it's the most basic duty of congress to keep our government running. i was elected by the people of indiana to work every day on behalf of hoosiers to do my job as a united states senator. keeping the government running is our job, and i will vote to keep the government open. i hope that republicans and democrats will join together to reach an agreement and avoid a shutdown. we still have that opportunity to prevent a shutdown. i stand ready to work with anyone. i share the frustration of many whose hooz -- many hoosiers and americans. we've been down this road before but congress does not need to follow that path again. as a potential shutdown looms, the president's opioid public health emergency declaration is

on the verge of expiring. and according to reports today, the administration is planning to cut the office of national drug control policy by 95%. let me say that again. the president's opioid public health emergency declaration is on the verge of expiring and according to reports today, the administration is planning to cut the office of national drug control policy by 95%. ondcp coordinates federal efforts to combat opioid abuse and heroin use as well as drug trafficking in indiana and across the country. in addition, ondcp administers the high intensity drug trafficking area or hidta program which supports and enhances cooperation between federal, state, and local law

enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking. it's a program that effectively brings together critical law enforcement partners in indiana and the reported cuts to ondcp could upend the good progress that's being made. as we work to confront the opioid crisis, we should be investing in critical tools for hoosier law enforcement and communities to combat drug abuse and trafficking. this is a crisis. it's not a time for the federal government to take critical tools for hoosier communities off of the table. we should be doubling down on effective efforts. we must confront the opioid epidemic with all possible tools available and everyone working together to address this public health emergency. i yield back.

mr. tillis: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent -- i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to enter a colloquy with the gentleman from oklahoma. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: thank you, madam president. madam president, we're here to talk a little bit about immigration reform and maybe a little bit about the looming government shutdown. i want to start with the government shutdown because it's intrinsically linked with at least some of the arguments being made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. and what we're trying to do -- it's fairly simple. year trying to fund our service members, we're trying to fund our veterans. we want to get a long-term

authorization for the chip program. the chip program actually expired last year but there were sufficient funds on account to continue funding, but they're running out. in states like north carolina and other states, this program is going to start being shut down if we don't get much-needed resources. we're talking about a multiyear reauthorization for the plan. and of course continuing to fund national institutes of health, which is a critically important part of us combating diseases, finding treatments and cures. that's all we're trying to do with this spending bill. the other thing we're trying to do is create a bridge for the month so we can get our colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking and hopefully get some certainty in terms of funding going out into next year and if it was up to me and senator lankford for several years. but it would be good to get some long-term certainty in the fun funding process because right now these continuing resolutions are killing us. we're living paycheck to paycheck. it creates all kinds of inefficient processes.

it's wasting taxpayer dollars. but we've at least got to start with you understand ifing the government tonight. at midnight tonight if we don't act on a continuing resolution, then we will be shutting down the government. i for one am going to vote for the continuing resolution, like i have for every resolution for the last three years i've been here because i believe we need to pay our bills, fund our service members, know that the civilian employees can come back to work on monday and we need to do a better job of actually getting together and coming up with centered solutions that gaining enough support on both sides of the aisle to do that. now i want to talk about why we're at the shutdown. we're mainly at the shutdown because some members actually -- actually, hold up just a minute -- some members want to put all of our government funding at risk, all of the funding i was talking about here at risk, because we have not yet reached

an agreement on immigration reform. now, senator lankford and i have spent a lot of time on this. in august of last year we introduced through september the succeed act, which was an honest effort to get into the discussion on how we could come up with a long-term solution for the daca population. and we got with senator durbin, we got with senator graham, a number of other members, to try to negotiate out our concerns -- differences. we made some progress. now i'll bring you forward to a couple of weeks ago. we met with the president two weeks ago on a thursday, republican members that included myself, senator lankford, and other mergers and we told the president that we thought we were making progress. senator graham was in the meeting as well -- that we were making progress, but we thought to really get the deal done, we needed a bicameral, bipartisan meeting. the president thought it was a good idea, and he hosted the first meet that following tuesday.

the majority of the meeting was televised. people could see the discussion going on, people saw a little of good interchange. there were clearly gaps but we thought we were making progress. and what we agreed in that meeting it is what there were four main pillars. the idea of comprehensive immigration reform sounds good except it's failed every time they've attempted it. we decided that we should start with a more -- i think more focused effort to address some of the border security concerns and certainty for the daca population. sounded like a good idea, so we decided that we would have the number-two leaders in the house and the senate, the democrats and republicans, four people, get together the following day and develop a schedule so that a subset of that group of a couple of dozen people that met with the president could get together and work ought our differences. and we knew going into it -- senator lankford and i knew going into it that in order to compromise, we were going to have to accept positions that

were, well, short of what we wanted but that's the whole purpose of compromising. nobody gets everything that they want. so we're looking forward to what we had hoped was going to be a schedule coming out of the whips -- the democrats and the republicans, the four that were in the meeting -- and that never happened. what we instead found out is on thursday a subset of the group, without talking with any of us, decided to have a meeting with the president and see if they could offer their solution. and that's what a lot of them have been talking about on the floor. they said our solution is ready to go. we've got bipartisan support. we can let it go. well, last night i finally got the full text of their solution. i want to share it with you all here. there it is. it is a title. it is nothing. there are no specific provisions. there is enot a bill filed. there's no evidence that they've spoken with people to try to bridge the gaps. it's completely counter to what

we agreed to do that tuesday a week or so ago. so i'm asking my colleagues to recognize that people like me and senator lankford care about the daca population. we want to provide them with certainty. we also want to make sure that we put balance into the proposal so that we're not here again ten years from now, so that we can make sure that we have something of enduring value. we don't want to do something quick where maybe you play gotcha, you put some pressure on someone an get a bill passed because they're always at risk of being reversed. we've already taken hits back in our states. there are people that think we should have never even had this discussion but we care about the daca population. we care about border security. we care with homeland security and a number of things that have to go together so that we provide a solution but then we also make sure it's highly unlikely that senators 10, 12,

15 years from now are in the same place. before i turn it over to senator lankford, i want to go back and talk little bit about why border security should be argued on compassionate grounds. i was down in texas back in february. i spent a week down there with senator cornyn and some of the other members. i was all along the border. i met with border patrol agents, some of them had been shot had, we had stories of some of their colleagues who had been killed. i was in laredo where they showed me the door of a helicopter that had just been shot through a couple of weeks earlier from someone just cross the rio grande in what they called luwuebe, la ray lowe dough. there is a compassionate basis for trying to keep our border security and c.i.s. agents safe. there is also a compassionate case for knowing who's crossing the border and where they are. why? because 10,000 people have died -- 10,000 people have died

crossing that border the last 20 years, almost 1,000 of them kids or miners. that doesn't include the number that get killed. the way it works down there is they have these human traffickers or smugglers who charge thousands of dollars to get somebody across the border. sometimes they get across. oftentimes they don't. the cartels that run the different plazas, the geographies across the southern border -- if you go through this plaza, you bettering paying a toll or you're going to die. men, women and children were killed. to send a message, they kill these people. if we've 10,000 die here, they die because we didn't know they were there. we didn't have the situational awareness that we're trying to get done with the border security provisions that are in a compromise bill that we've

offered. i can also talk about the millions of doses of drugs that cross our border every week -- week. every week millions of doses of poison cross our border. now, we talk about the opioid epidemic. , and we know a vast majority of the opioids, the heroin, the fentanyl, the different variants of opioids that are coming across the border, are coming from south of the border. either by water or over land. so if that's not a compelling case of compassion nat, a compassionate case for marrying border security with what we're trying to do with immigration reform, i don't know what is. we're not talking about a wall. we're not talking about a 2,300-mile wall. i've been chris sited for years because i sit on the judiciary committee. we've had a umin of hearings that would -- we've had a number of hearings that would never make sense. people, technology, infrastructure is what border security called it.

we're asking for the baseline funding and build it out over time. walls where it makes sense, fences, and reconnaissance in some places. that's all we're asking for. there is a deal to be struck here very cuckly. but you don't do it by going around a process that two days before you agreed to participate in. i -- i want to thank senator lankford because he has done an trod ordinary job -- an extraordinary job -- and i want to thank our staff because they have done an amazing amount of work -- to do something that was embased by senator durbin, but then things broke down because they wanted to talk about the daca program and they didn't want to talk about the impactful, compassionate solution that i think we would get 60 votes for.

senator lankford, i would like to get your thoughts and comments and yield the floor to you. mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: senator tillis and i have come to the floor today because we have some incredible frustration and want to bring some facts out to the conversation. i absolutely agree for the federal -- grieve for the federal workers in my state and there are some phenomenal people that do an amazing job that most people won't know about where they get up every day to serve the people. there are folks in the military who every day serve the american people. there are civilians around them, though not listed as federal employees, are connected to what we're doing with the federal task for people. they are trying to figure out this afternoon what will happen to them this weekend and next

week. they are frantically getting together in offices all over oklahoma and all over america trying to piece together the now what's of a government shut down distracting them from doing the things that need to be done that they were backlogged on, for what? this focus on let's do a government shut down over not having to have real discussions about daca and immigration is not only not accurate, but it's also something that is already in process that somehow is being short circuited. all of these federal workers and all of these civilian employees going through this turmoil trying to figure out why daca is not resolved and that it is at the beginning of march, is confusing everyone. let me walk everyone backwards for a few months here. in september the nation was surprised when president trump announced he is not going to

renew daca. he wants a legislative long-term fix for daca. that very day that he made that announcement, i released out a statement saying, in america we do not hold children accountable for the actions of their parents. we don't do that in american law. just a couple of days after that, the president called me late one night and he said, hey, i saw your statement in a report about that and we talked about 20 minutes late that evening talking about this policy and getting a long-term solution for daca for the kids that have to renew every two or three years, he wanted some permanence for them and have solutions for border security that weren't controversial a couple of years ago. to say we need to deal with border security and with daca. can we put this together?

the president -- at the time i told the president that senator tillis and i are working to get something put together. because for the last 15 years the dream act has come up before the house and senate and for 15 years it has failed every single time. the dream act failed when there was a democrat senate, a democrat president, and a democrat house of representatives. that bill is not going to pass. we knew that so we went to work saying, what is a better solution that will provide some semblance of performance on this? our conversation was a lot of the pushback of why the dream act has not passed in the past is that a lot of americans feel like i understand this group of individuals have grown-up in our country, pledged allegiance to our flag, speak english, this feels like home to them, but it's not home, they wanted them to have that opportunity but they didn't want them to, quote, unquote, cut in line. so we put in a process to say,

here is a way that those individuals could be naturalized citizens of the united states, but they have to go throw a process just -- go through a process, but the exception would be that they are already here and wouldn't have what daca provided. daca provided two years of we won't arrest you, but no legal status. this would provide immediate legal status and an opportunity after ten years to earn naturalization. that had never been offered like that before. we worked through all the details of that and laid out a proposal and said, this is a section of a larger bill. we feel like this is a way to get past what has blocked the dream act year after year after year and what has been a major frustration for those concerned about the dream act. we want to be able to resolve this but it has to be resolved with border security attached to it. i didn't think it was an

unreasonable request. i was surprised to hear about it because in the previous gang of eight version there was a large section in it about border security. so i assumed this would be a nonissue to be a part of had those issues together. it seems irresponsible toll deal with the daca issue and to not address how did that happen in the first place, to say that we have a secure border and say we don't need to address anything would be to ignore 12 million examples in our country of that rule being violated, either through visa or through coming across the borders who came to our country illegally. we have a very receiving country. half a million people cross our southern border every day. a million people a day legally become citizens of the united states many we are not a country that is anti-immigration, we

just want it done the right way. we think the law should apply to everyone equally all the time and don't like anything circumventing the law. september 5, the president makes the announcement, within days we have conversations with the president about it. he agrees there should be something sha a long-term -- that is a long-term solution. within two weeks senator tillis and i release out our bill. thankfully in our conference senator cornyn is also working through border security to be able to partner with this, at the same time senator cotton and senator perdue are also working on other areas dealing with chain migration, knowing this could be partnered together for a final bill. they are individual titles of a larger proposal. we were bringing those out. in october the president of the united states released a long report that said what he would like to have in the bill with

great detail in it saying this is what he expects the bill should look like when it is resolved. now it is october. he said, we have to get this resolved, we have three different bills, the president has released out something, and we want to start negotiation. in november we are in negotiations with a p bipartisan group and -- with a bipartisan group and every day in the bipartisan group the democrats only want to talk about daca. our staffs meet every day, we meet every other day, as members going through it every day and every day it's daca and we say there are other aspects, and every day they say, let's work on daca some more. so in september i asked when are we going to get to talk about border security? we have to talk about that. guess what happened, the next meeting i wasn't invited to attend. neither was i invited to the

next one and neither was senator tillis. our staff finds out they are meeting and we say we want to get to a bipartisan agreement. they won't tell us when or where they are meeting. we didn't tuck away from negotiations. -- walk away from negotiations. we were kicked out of negotiations because we believed this needed border security and daca. for a group that said basically we don't want to deal with border security, they were no longer interested in us, which brings us to a stalemate of getting this resolved. which brings us to two weeks ago. the president invites us over in a bipartisan, bicameral conversation and said that we have to get something. and with 26 members from both parties we made an agreement, there will be four areas of this final agreement and these are the negotiators to put it -- to

pull it together, the whip from the republican and democrat from the house and senate. they were supposed to get it done. that was on tuesday. the group went back to the president and said we have to -- let's try this. i know on tuesday we agreed to do the other process, but we have another idea to kind of end run the whole process. clearly, that said a lot of us to say we're trying to do a bipartisan deal. we're trying to work this through the process. we're trying to be good faith in this and so far there have not been good-faith negotiations on border security at all. we cannot deal with the issue of individuals that are in our country illegally, even if we as americans see them as neighbors, friends, and future citizens of

our country and ignore what happened in the first place. that would not be responsible of us. now, there are some that want to say this is because you are simply a racist, which is infuriating and inaccurate and belittles the conversation. to stand up and say the only reason you think this is because you are a racist is trying to shut down the conversation, not engage in it. these are my friends and neighbors as well. we're legislators and we have a responsibility to solve issues, not belittle each other and not make false accusations. there are millions of people that have crossed our border to be able to work or connect with family. i fully understand that. many of them live around my place, go to church with me. i get that completely.

but there are also many people that cross our borders because of crime, and we would be foolish to ignore that reality as well. there are people that cross that border to be able to traffic drugs, to be able to traffic in terrorism, to be able to move people, human trafficking, labor trafficking. we should have a secure border setup for that. again, this used to not be a partisan issue. in 2006 senator schumer, and at that time senator obama, voted for the secure fences act which put in 650 miles of fencing on the southern border. let me say that again. senator schumer and senator obama, and a lot of other democratic senators that are still here, voted for the secure fences act in 2006 to put in 65r

southern border because this didn't used to be a partisan issue, and it shouldn't be today. border security is not partisan, it's national security. the proposals that have come out at times amaze me. let's actually get serious about trying to resolve these issues. basic border security issues should involve not just fencing in some areas, or walls in some areas or technology in some areas, adding additional manpower in other areas, those are reasonable things along the border that every country in the world is organizing, but it also involves dealing with some of the gaps in our law that if someone crosses into the united states, things need to be addressed. for instance, the removal of multiple fell anymore criminal aliens. why is this controversial? this shouldn't be a controversial issue at all but

for some reason it is. ending the practice with greater fines and penalties of people who smuggle in people for profit. why would that be controversial? but for some reason it is. dealing with additional judges because we have 600,000 people in a backlog in our immigration courts, 600,000 people in our immigration courts in a backlog, why would it be controversial not to have to deal with a backlog? why would it be controversial to say we're behind on family members that have petitioned to be a part of this country but we're, get this, 20 years in a backlog. why would that be controversial to say we need to divert some of our attention to catching up on the backlog? there are a lot of issues that we need to deal with and this is a complicated issue, but for other members, can i just say, we're very close to negotiating this and people -- if people

will do good-faith negotiating, but to say we're going to shut the government down and do it our way and do an end run seems absurd to me and it seems absurd to the federal workers in my state who are now going through chaos this afternoon because some people wanted to end run around the process that was already in place. let's finish the process, not try to create some artificial cliff and chaos to try to say, do it my way or i'll shut the government down. let's finish the process. there are willing partners on both sides, and there are reasonable proposals to be able to finish out what we've already started and worked months on to be able to get to this process. i thank senator tillis for the engagement he has on this, because he and his team have worked exceptionally hard. his team and the my team have worked exceptionally hard. we want to get them right. senator cornyn and his team have

worked exceptionally hard on these issues. let's do it an get it right. but let's not shut the government down while we're in the middle of negotiations because wikimedia pant $want -- because people want to be able to have it their way. with a that, i would yield back. mr. tillis: i'll close. i see senator cornyn here who has done an extraordinary job. it was senator cornyn who hosted the trip that i made down to the border that gave me an incredibly important perspective for the case on border security. i just want to leave maybe a final comment for the daca population. some people say, what's the crisis? we've got until march 5. i understand that every single did a that you wake up and that date seems like today. i know that we need to move more quickly. quite honestly, we could have gotten this done a couple of months ago, if people had engaged, recognized their differences, accepted a compromise. we're doing everything that we can to get it done much sooner than march 5 because we

understand that there are teachers, there are e.m.t.'s, there are some 00 -- some 900 serving in the military, there are hardworking people, kids in schools. there's hundreds of thousands of good people in and a proposal that we've put together -- over a million -- that we want to welcome into this nation because they're great citizens, they love this country. they're productive citizens, and i want them know that we know that. i want them to nona there are dozen of republicans -- i want them to know that there are dozens of republicans prepared to vote on a compromise bill that's balanced, that brings border security and provides certainty to the daca population, and we're going to do everything we can, every day that we're here, to make sure that we deliver on that promise. madam secretary -- or madam president, thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: let me say publi publicly what i've said privately to senator tillis and

senator lankford. thank you for your leadership. they've done an extraordinary job trying to come up with a solution to the issue, the problem, the challenge that they've already described. you'd like to put a little -- add a little color to some of that, but a they've done extraordinary work -- but they've done extraordinary work to try to come up with a compassionate but yet legal framework by which we can resolve this issue. you know, to me i've been in the senate since 2002, and i've been through the immigration wars more times than i care to count. and we keep working very hard on this issue, and we always seem to come up short. but i come from a state that is one of the most diverse states ethnically in the country, and that's because we've been a big job creator and a lot of people have been moving there, looking for opportunities. and we have a large hispanic population.

it makes sense, we're texas, after all. used to be part of mexico. but about 38% of my constituents are hispanic, and i know that's a large part of the population we're looking at what it comes to the dreamers. about 124,000 dreamers in my state. and others who are eligible who, frankly, are in a little bit of a box not knowing how to deal with their situation. but when i think about immigration i think about the two great pillars that have made our country great. one, we're a nation of immigrants. we have benefited from the fact that people have fled religious persecution. they have fled poverty. they have come to the united states to experience a sort of freedom that our country that is guaranteed to each and every one of us. and the opportunity to pursue the american dream. that, to me, is one of the great

things that has made our country the envy of the world. but the other part and the part that i think sometimes people tend to overlook and forget is, what makes america great? we are a nation of laws. we are a nation of immigrants, and we're a nation of laws. and when we forget either one of those, i think we risk damaging this wonderful inheritance that we've gotten from our parents and our grandparents and people that have gone before us. so i view this responsibility that we all share together here in the congress as a sacred trust. we are the stewards of that inheritance and shame on us if we don't do everything in our power to pass that on to the next generation and beyond. now, i think by way of a little bit of background, i think sometimes people get -- with

it's just natural, i guess. we become familiar with these terms like daca. people may be listening on tv. they think, what the heck is daca? it's easy. it's deferred action for childhood arrives. they go, what? what is that? or you may say we're talking about the dreamers. that's what senator durbin and others talk about. because there is a something called the dream act that's been introduced and advocated for. basically what we are talking about are children, now young adults, who were brought into the united states by their parents, and their parents came into the country illegally. that is, they didn't comply with the normal process of plying for -- applying for citizenship. and they came into the country, and we all understand why, what motivates a lot of people. a lot of people just -- they think, well, i'm just going to

shortcircuit the process, jump to the head of the lining. but the fact of the matter is -- and i think senator lankford said this -- in the united states we don't hold children responsible for the mistakes of their parents. and so these children -- now young adults -- who maybe are able to pursue an education, many of whom have become very accomplished, simply are in a box and i think we have a moral obligation, we have an obligation to ourselves and to our great country, to try to take advantage of the talent that they have to offer and to help them become full-fledged participants in this great country of ours. but i remember being over at the white house in 2012 after the november election. speaker boehner was there,

congressman mccarthy, the majority leader, was there. senator mcconnell, the senate majority leader, was there and i was there. president obama was there. along with his staff. and the president had for some time threatened to try to deal with this population, this sympathetic population that we're talking about here that we want to try to provide some assistance to, that he was frustrated by the law pace of congress and so he was just going to do it by himself. that's what we mean when we talked about deferred action for childhood arrivals. president obama decided to take and he run around congress -- congress that has the primary responsibility on immigration matters under the constitution -- and to do it by himself. well, you know, haste makes waste sometimes. and what happened is these

690,000 -- i think at one point it was at many as 700,000 -- who signed up for this daca, which allowed them some security by also gave them access to a work permit, can you imagine what their reaction was when the federal courts held that what president obama did was not legal, it was illegal? so when president trump came into office, he did, i believe, the right thing and said, you know what? the courts have spoken. this is not something the president can do by him or herself. this is something that congress needs to get involved in. so he kicked it over to congre congress. thankfully, he gave us some time to act. and now i believe the date is march 5, after which daca

beneficiaries or recipients can no longer apply for a two-year period of deferred action. and that's exactly the right thing to do because it has precipitated this debate, it's precipitated the negotiations, and it's precipitated a reality check for many of our democratic end froms that, you know, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. and one reason i believe this president was elected is because people were enormously frustrated with the lack of border security, with the failure to enforce our immigration lurks and with -- immigration lurks and with -- to enforce our immigration laws, and with president obama end-run. senator tillis and senator lankford have been leaders in the effort, again put an incredible effort to come up

with a lawful but compassionate solution and one that respects both of the pillars of our leg circumstance a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. and that's why it's so offensive to me for the democratic leader to decide he's going to ignore the needs of all of the children -- i think it's roughly 9 million children -- that benefit from the children's health insurance program. he's going to give our military the back of his hand and military families by holding our needed support for them hostage so that they can somehow force us to deal with this daca situation today -- or last night. and if we don't do it, they're going shut down the u.s. government. now, these 690,000 young men and

women are truly should be the subject of our compassion, but why would we hold 320 million people hostage to try to get a solution for these 690,000 when we're already hard at work to try to negotiate in good faith an outcome? it just makes no sense at all to me. now, i appreciate the meetings that we had, that senator tillis alluded. the one at the white house, i think it was on tuesday -- was that last week? seems likes a year ago. but president trump invited the press into this bipartisan, bicameral meeting, and ordinarily what happens after the press comes in and takes pictures and asks a few questions, they're ushered out. the president -- but president trump let them stay in the room, in the cabinet room for about 45-50 minutes. it was the most incredible

experience i've ever had, certainly in that sort of context, dealing with sensitive issues like immigration. and i think it was a very positive meeting because it provoked the instruction by the president for majority leader mccarthy, the democratic whip, senator durbin, the majority whip, senator cornyn, and steny hoyer, the minority leader in the house, we were instructed to do what senator tillis described earlier -- come up with a solution to this problem that addresses the daca population, how do we show some compassion, how do we get these young adults out of a quandary not of their making, but also to deal with border security? i happen to come from a state that has 1,200 miles of common border with mexico. senator tillis described his

experience there with senator heller. i was happy to host them because i think seeing it is worth 1,000 words. and hopefully they enjoyed the experience and learned something from it as well. but the u.s.-texas -- i mean, the texas-mexico border is about 2,000 miles long. what the border patrol has told she they need various tools to be able to secure the border. they need infrastructure like the secure fence act that vietnamed on in 2006 -- that we voted on in 2006. then who have senator obama voted in favor of this secure fence act. some people called it a wall. some people call it a fence. some people call it tactical infrastructure. whatever you call it, a barrier, it is an essential component of border security at some parts of the border. but it's only part of the syem